I present report No. 6 of the Selection Committee, relating to consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 13 February 2017. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's deliberations 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 7 February 2017.
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, 13 February 2017, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to the recovery of debts from payments made under the social security and family assistance law, and for related purposes. (Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Debt Recovery) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 7 February 2017.)
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 SHORTEN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to improve donation transparency and accountability, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Donation Reform and Transparency) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 7 February 2017.)
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 MCGOWAN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, and for related purposes. (Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Social Sustainability) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 7 February 2017.)
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 KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law in order to prevent non-First Australians and foreigners from arrogating for their personal benefit First Australian culture, and to stop the sale of art, souvenir items and any other cultural affirmations that exploit and thereby deprive First Australians of the rightful benefits from their culture, and for related purposes. (Competition and Consumer Amendment (Exploitation of Indigenous Culture) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 7 February 2017.)
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 MR LEESER: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the Order of Australia is the highest national honour awarded to Australian citizens for outstanding contributions to our country or humanity at large;
(2) notes that since being established by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 1975, there have been more than 30,000 recipients of awards in the Order of Australia;
(3) recognises the almost one thousand recipients of awards in the General Division of the Order announced in the Australia Day 2017 Honours List who come from an array of fields including science, education, governance, business, community service and sport; and
(4) congratulates all the recipients of awards in the 2017 Australia Day Honours List.
(Notice given 7 February 2017.)
Time allotted — 70 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Leeser — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 14 x 5 mins]
Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR WALLACE: To move:
That this House:
(1) congratulates the Government for pursing an extensive technology reform agenda that will change the way Australians interact with Government services for the better;
(2) recognises the:
(a) actions the Government is taking to renew Centrelink's aging information technology system through the Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation program, which will improve the user experience for the many Australians who access these services each week, and ensure the long term sustainability of our welfare system;
(b) actions the Government is taking to upgrade and modernise the health and aged care payment system, and improve the services offered by Medicare to all Australians; and
(c) investment the Government is making in digital services such as myGov, to further improve this service which is now used by more than ten million Australians; and
(3) congratulates the Government on pursuing a courageous reform agenda which is sorely needed to correct six successive years of under-investment by Labor.
(Notice given 21 November 2016. Notice will be removed from the Notice Paper unless called on any of the next 7 sitting Mondays including 13 February 2017.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Wallace — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration
of this matter should continue on a future day.
2 MR B. K. MITCHELL: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that;
(a) it has been 41 days since the opposition formally requested that the robo-debt system be suspended while it was fixed;
(b) the Minister for Human Services says that the system is working well despite reports of innocent people being targeted, Centrelink staff at breaking point and widespread concern outside this place;
(c) the robo-debt system has seen hundreds of people issued with debt notices which are either false or grossly inflated; and
(d) the robo-debt system is due to target Age Pension and Disability Support Pension recipients this year;
(2) condemns the Minister for Human Services for his failure to respond to growing community concern and calls from welfare groups to act; and
(3) calls on the Prime Minister to intervene to halt the system and fix it before age pensioners and those with disabilities are terrorised for debt they may not owe.
(Notice given 7 February 2017.)
Time allotted — 50 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr B. K. Mitchell — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration
of this matter should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day
MR LEESER: Debate to be resumed on the motion of Mr Leeser—
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the Order of Australia is the highest national honour awarded to Australian citizens for outstanding contributions to our country or humanity at large;
(2) notes that since being established by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 1975, there have been more than 30,000 recipients of awards in the Order of Australia;
(3) recognises the almost one thousand recipients of awards in the General Division of the Order announced in the Australia Day 2017 Honours List who come from an array of fields including science, education, governance, business, community service and sport; and
(4) congratulates all the recipients of awards in the 2017 Australia Day Honours List.
(Notice given 7 February 2017.)
Time allotted — 50 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration
of this matter should continue on a future day.
Notices—continued
4 MS MCGOWAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) for more than eight years, regional communities in northeast Victoria have been frustrated by significant engineering failings on the Wodonga-Melbourne rail line;
(b) in 2016 the trains were on time 79.7 per cent of the time, with the rate dropping to 55.2 per cent in November, the train now takes half an hour longer to get form Southern Cross to Albury than 10 years ago;
(c) the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) maintains that it is meeting performance obligations under the terms of the 44 year lease agreement with the Victorian Government and under its charter;
(d) the ARTC has spent $134 million on remediation works that have not improved passenger rail services, with trains regularly slowed or replaced by buses; and
(e) the current arrangements are not meeting the need for reliable passenger rail services, instead regional communities are viewed as freight corridors; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government:
(a) as the sole shareholder of the ARTC, to update the ARTC Statement of Corporate Intent to ensure that passenger services and the transport needs of regional communities are considered core business;
(b) to direct the ARTC to release and review the current agreement between the ARTC and the Victorian Government for the Wodonga-Melbourne rail line, giving due consideration to the passenger rail services and the transport needs of regional communities; and
(c) to develop a long-term plan for passenger rail services that meets the economic, social and environmental needs of regional Australia.
(Notice given 7 February 2017.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits —
Ms McGowan — 10 minutes.
Other Members — 10 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration
of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices – continued
5 MS M. L. LANDRY: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the Government has committed $700 million to improve roads in Northern Australia including $100 million through the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program (BRP) to improve roads essential to cattle transportation and to help producers to transport cattle to market more safely and efficiently;
(2) upgrades under the BRP will be delivered to many areas including the:
(a) City of Rockhampton (upgrading between Gracemere saleyards and the Rockhampton abattoirs to provide access for Type 1 Road Trains), as well as upgrades to the Hann Highway, Barkly Highway, Flinders Highway, Capricorn Highway and Clermont to Alpha Road in Queensland;
(b) Great Northern Highway and Marble Bar Road in Western Australia; and
(c) Outback Way, Arnhem Highway and Keep River Road in the Northern Territory;
(3) under the BRP the Government recently committed to further upgrades including to the:
(a) Peak Downs Highway (Clermont-Nebo, Logan Creek to Nine Mile Creek), Port Alma Access Road near Rockhampton, Bowen Developmental Road and Landsborough Highway (Longreach-Winton) in Queensland;
(b) Tablelands Highway, Barkly Stock Route and Buntine Highway in the Northern Territory; and
(c) Cape Leveque Road and Great Northern Highway in Western Australia; and
(4) commends the Government for recognising the potential of Northern Australia and investing in these key transport links.
(Notice given 22 November 2016. Notice will be removed from the Notice Paper unless called on any of the next 7 sitting Mondays including 13 February 2017.)
Time allotted — 35 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms M. L. Landry — 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 matter should continue on a future day.
6 MR THISTLETHWAITE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that Australians live by the water. Being in and around water is part of our nation's culture and our identity, but this regular exposure to water brings risks that can be fatal;
(b) that so far this summer in Australia 69 people have drowned on our coastline, in our pools and waterways, and paramedics report responding to 225 drownings or near drownings in November and December 2016;
(c) that in 2015-16, 280 people drowned in Australia; a 5 per cent increase in drownings from 2014-15;
(d) with concern that there is no national approach to swimming and water safety education in Australia, and that:
(i) the water safety education Australian children receive depends on where they live and in some cases on their parents income level;
(ii) not every Australian child is receiving the necessary instruction in swimming and water safety; and
(iii) in some states and territories there is no swimming and water safety program at schools; and
(e) studies have consistently shown a concerning trend in children starting secondary school without the ability to swim. Research shows that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are less likely to achieve identified benchmarks for water safety competence compared to non-indigenous students and this is also the case for children not born in Australia; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) implement the National Swimming and Water Safety Framework (the Framework) and ensure every child has access to water safety and swimming education by the time they complete primary school. Every child should be given access to instruction in swimming and water safety in accordance with the Framework;
(b) conduct a parliamentary inquiry to investigate why many Australian children are not receiving adequate swimming and water safety education consistent with the Australian Water Safety Strategy and what measures it can adopt to improve access to swimming and water safety education;
(c) establish a national water safety education fund to provide support to the states and territories, water safety organisations and communities to ensure access to swimming pools, accredited trainers and water safety education for schools in communities which lack such facilities and services; and
(d) provide water and surf safety messages in foreign languages via tourism operators, flights, hotels, tours across Australia highlighting the importance of swimming and water safety on beaches, rivers, lakes and swimming pools.
(Notice given 7 February 2017.)
Time allotted — 40 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Thistlethwaite — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration
of this matter should continue on a future day.
7 MR GEE: To move:
That this House:
(1) congratulates the Government on the success of the National Stronger Regions Fund (NSRF);
(2) acknowledges the significant and positive impact that the NSRF is having in rural, remote and disadvantaged regions around Australia; and
(3) notes that the:
(a) Government is investing $205,622,942 million in 70 projects around New South Wales (NSW) under 3 rounds of the NSRF; and
(b) NSRF is delivering infrastructure projects to create jobs in regional areas, improve community facilities and support stronger and more sustainable communities across NSW.
(Notice given 21 November 2016. Notice will be removed from the Notice Paper unless called on any of the next 7 sitting Mondays including 13 February 2017.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Gee — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration
of this matter should continue on a future day.
8 MS PLIBERSEK: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes the Government's failure in school education policy, including:
(a) a cut of $30 billion from schools (Budget 2014-15 Overview, 13 May 2014, page 7), breaking an election promise to match Labor's funding plan dollar for dollar;
(b) a proposal to cut all federal funding from public schools; and
(c) tearing up agreements negotiated by the previous Labor Government, that required states and territories to:
(i) maintain and grow their funding for schools, in return for increased Commonwealth funding; and
(ii) improve teaching quality, literacy and numeracy; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) urgently share a detailed plan for future funding of our schools, including the funding each state, system and school will receive from 2018 onwards;
(b) reverse the cut of $30 billion from schools;
(c) explain why they tore up agreements that required states and territories to increase funding for schools as Commonwealth contributions increased, and improve teaching, literacy and numeracy; and
(d) prioritise funding for disadvantaged schools and introduce a proper students with disabilities loading, so all schools and students have the resources they need for a great education.
(Notice given 7 February 2017.)
Time allotted — 40 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Plibersek — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration
of this matter should continue on a future day.
9 MR HAYES: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) children in conflict zones around the world are in danger and live in fear within their schooling environments as schools are being attacked or occupied by military forces;
(b) classrooms are being used to house munitions and sports fields are becoming battlefields, denying children their right to education;
(c) 57 countries have already endorsed the Safe Schools Declaration to protect education in armed conflict situations; and
(d) the Safe Schools Declaration aims to build an international community committed to respecting the civilian nature of schools and to develop the best practices for protecting schools from attack and military use; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) work with governments internationally to discourage the military use of schools, and promote security force policies and practices that better protect schools;
(b) consider Australia's participation at the Safe Schools Conference to be held in Buenos Aires on 28 and 29 March 2017; and
(c) condemn attacks on schools and education, particularly the recent incidents in Nigeria, Syria and Yemen.
(Notice given 7 February 2017.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits —
Mr Hayes — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration
of this matter should continue on a future day.
THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
8 February 2017
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017.
The building and construction industry is a vital sector of the Australian economy. Ensuring an efficient, safe and law-abiding building and construction industry is crucial to promoting jobs, driving economic growth and managing the transition to a more diversified economy.
This is why the government last year re-established the Australian Building and Construction Commission to ensure building work is carried out fairly, efficiently, lawfully and safely for the benefit of all Australians.
A crucial factor to drive reform and boost productivity is the content requirements for enterprise agreements contained in the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016.
This is achieved by prohibiting restrictive clauses in enterprise agreements that limit the ability of a contractor to manage its business or improve productivity, as well as those that give unions disproportionate power on building sites.
This bill amends the expiry of the transitional 'grace period' from 28 November 2018 to 31 August 2017, for enterprise agreements made before the Building Code commenced on 2 December 2016. While new enterprise agreements made after 2 December 2016 must comply with the code, building industry participants covered by existing enterprise agreements will have until 31 August 2017 to ensure their agreements are code-compliant.
The bill also limits the exemption to building industry participants submitting expressions of interest and tendering for Commonwealth-funded building work. This means enterprise agreements will need to comply with the Building Code before contracts are awarded and work gets underway.
Finally, the bill makes appropriate transitional arrangements for those who have submitted an expression of interest or tendered for relevant building work from 2 December 2016 until the bill's commencement to ensure they remain eligible to be awarded that building work until 28 November 2018. For the avoidance of doubt, if a building industry participant submitted an expression of interest or tendered for building work on or after 2 December 2016 and was awarded that work before the commencement of schedule 1 of the bill, the building industry participant is entitled to undertake, or continue to undertake, that work after the commencement of schedule 1.
The bill does not introduce any new requirements.
These amendments will ensure key provisions of the Building Code that seek to improve productivity and reduce costs will be achieved in a more timely fashion.
In turn, this will create the conditions needed to fund the construction of more schools, hospitals and other important social infrastructure, at a price we can afford.
On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill reintroduces the Jobs for Families Child Care Package, from the Education and Training portfolio, and a range of new and previously introduced social services measures to improve the fairness and sustainability of government payments. Together, the measures in this bill will help us:
The government wants a welfare system that supports the most vulnerable, encourages those capable of work or study to do so, reduces intergenerational welfare dependency, and is sustainable for the future.
While the Australian welfare system is highly targeted, sensible changes that contribute to longer-term sustainability should be pursued given the budget context. Otherwise, the next generation of Australians will be left with more debt to repay and higher taxes.
Workforce participation and self-reliance are central to improving long-term wellbeing. This is why the government is committed to making changes that will encourage and support greater workforce participation for those who have the capacity to work.
Jobs for Families and f amily p ayments s tructural r eform and p articipation m easures
The government remains committed to investing in child care to provide parents with more choice and opportunity to work, and to provide children with high-quality early education. But the significant investment in child care must be fiscally sustainable. Combining fair and reasonable changes to the family tax benefit system and childcare reforms into a single bill enables the government to reduce spending and increase workforce participation through an affordable childcare system.
The Jobs for Families Child Care Package delivers genuine, much-needed reform for a simpler, more affordable, more accessible and more flexible early education and childcare system. In supporting almost one million Australian families to balance work and parenting responsibilities, this package of measures is fundamentally fair—it will provide the greatest hours of support in child care to the families who work the longest hours, and the greatest financial support to the families who earn the least. Families on incomes of around $65,000 or less will receive the highest 85 per cent rate of subsidy, which is an increase on the current rate of about 72 per cent. It is estimated that our reforms will encourage more than 230,000 families to increase their involvement in paid employment.
The reforms will place downward pressure on what have been incessant childcare fee increases through an hourly rate cap; abolish the current child care rebate cap for most families and increase it from $7,500 to $10,000 for those on higher incomes; introduce new compliance powers to further strengthen the government's efforts to clamp down on fraud; provide a childcare safety net for the most vulnerable children and slash red tape so that services can offer more flexible hours.
The Jobs for FamiliesChild Care Package also includes a number of other important measures that are not formally part of the bill being introduced today. This includes the Community Child Care Fund which will help new and existing services, particularly in rural, regional or vulnerable communities, increase the supply of places in areas of high, unmet demand.
This package was originally introduced into the House in its own bill in 2015, and again in 2016 and was referred to a Senate inquiry on both occasions. I thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee and all those individuals and organisations who contributed to these inquiries. The government welcomes and accepts the recommendation from the committee's majority reports that the childcare bills be passed. I also note the government's ongoing engagement with both the childcare sector and with the Senate cross-bench on a range of policy settings under the Jobs for FamiliesChild Care Package, many of which were raised through the inquiry processes.
The government is absolutely committed to the Jobs for Families Child Care Package, however the additional expenditure on child care must be paid for, and the family tax benefit measures in this bill are to offset this expense. A key component of reducing this expense is to phase-out both the family tax benefit part A and part B end-of-year supplements.
The family tax benefit supplements were announced in 2004 in response to high levels of reconciliation debt experienced by family tax benefit participants. This debt was often due to families not being able to accurately predict changes in income or changes in circumstances such as a return to work. The phasing out of the family tax benefit supplements recognises that the government's investment in service delivery reform improves the accuracy of income reporting and significantly reduces the need for supplements to off-set this type of debt.
While the changes to family payments in this bill will pay for the Jobs for Families Child Care Package, they will also simplify the family tax benefit system and enable us to provide more money on a fortnightly basis to those families who need it the most.
The government will increase the maximum fortnightly payment rates of family tax benefit part A by $20.02 for each child in a family aged up to 19. This represents a doubling of the government's previous proposal to increase family tax benefit part A fortnightly rates by $10.08. What this means in practice is that around 1.2 million lower-income families (including income support families) who receive family tax benefit part A for around 2.2 million children will now receive higher fortnightly payments from 1 July 2018. The increase in fortnightly payments will help families better manage their day-to-day and week-to-week budgets by providing them with timely, regularised assistance at the times when they need it the most.
We will also provide an additional $19.37 per fortnight for under 18-year-old youth allowance recipients who are living at home, bringing the payments to the same standard rate as a family tax benefit part A child aged between 13 and 19.
Aligning these two rates of payment is in itself a much-needed part of the reform process to simplify payment systems where possible. Just as workforce participation is the key to growing wealth for families, educational attainment is the key to getting a job. The government understands this and increasing the fortnightly rates of these payments will encourage secondary students to stay in school. This is fundamental to giving children the best start in life so that they become productive, contributing members of the Australian society. Importantly this reform will also have affect on people who are on a disability support under the age of 18, special benefit and ABSTUDY.
To encourage greater workforce participation, single parent families with older children will only be able to receive family tax benefit part B until the end of the calendar year when their youngest child turns 16 years old. These families will still receive family tax benefit part A for each eligible child. The government, by this bill, will not proceed with a previous proposal to introduce a reduced standard rate for family tax benefit part B for single parent families with a youngest child between 13 and 16.
Single parents aged at least 60 years of age and grandparents and great-grandparents will continue to access family tax benefit part B at the current rate until the end of the calendar year their youngest child turns 18. This recognises that grandparent carers and single parents who are 60 and over perhaps take on a large responsibility when caring for children but also are somewhat less likely to be working and are more likely to be retired.
Budget r epair m easures
This omnibus bill reintroduces measures previously included in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2016.
I thank the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for its report on the measures that were contained in the budget repair bill and its recommendations. The report was published on 10 October 2016 and I note that the committee recommended that the bill be passed. The committee acknowledged that concerns were raised about the potential impacts on low-income groups as a result of some of the measures in the bill, however was satisfied that the bill struck the right balance and provided appropriate safeguards for vulnerable groups.
The measures in that bill will help to ensure Australia has a targeted income support system that provides financial assistance to those most in need, while encouraging self-provision. For this reason, and the reasons to follow on each measure, the government supports the measures previously introduced in that budget repair bill.
Tightening proportionality requirements
Under the current arrangements, age pension, wife pension, some widow B pension recipients, and disability support pension recipients with unlimited portability and whose continued inability to work occurred overseas rather than in Australia, have their rate of pension adjusted after 26 weeks overseas. This adjustment is based on their period of working-life residence in Australia.
The proposed measure would reduce from 26 to six weeks the length of time the age pension, and a small number of these other payments with unlimited portability, are paid at their normal means-tested rate of payment overseas before they are adjusted based on the person's working-life residence.
This change only affects pensioners who have spent less than 35 years of their working life in Australia. A pensioner who has resided in Australia for less than 35 years of their working life would have their pension rate adjusted at six weeks after being overseas. For example, a pensioner who has resided in Australia for 25 years of their working life would receive 25/35ths of the normal means-tested pension they would receive if they had stayed in Australia; after six weeks overseas.
It is not considered reasonable by the government, or indeed—we would suggest—by the community, for taxpayers to pay pensions indefinitely to people outside Australia, without regard to their period of residence in Australia, for anything other than relatively short absences. This measure will therefore reinforce and strengthen the residence-based nature of the Australian social security system.
I will outline further pension changes announced in the 2016-17 MYEFO later in this second reading speech.
Cessation of the Pensioner Education Supplement and the Education Entry Payment
With the cessation of the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment, when the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment were originally implemented, they aimed to give some assistance to long-term income support recipients who had been out of the workforce for a long period of time by helping them improve or rebuild skills to be more competitive in the labour market. However, since the introduction of these payments, individuals wishing to undertake study have access to more targeted support and financial assistance. For example, the HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP and VET student loans tuition loan programs all assist people to access education and training.
The removal of these supplements will assist with simplification of the income support system, help ensure its long-term sustainability, and assist with bringing the budget back to balance.
Pause the indexation of income - free areas for working age payments, parenting payments, and student payments.
With respect to pausing the indexation of income-free areas for working age payments, parenting payments and student payments, this bill also reintroduces two elements of the 2014-15 budget measure, maintaining eligibility thresholds for Australian government payments for three years.
The first element is to maintain at level for three years the income-free areas for all working age allowances, other than student payments, and for parenting payment single from the first 1 July after the bill receives royal assent.
A further proposal is to maintain at level for three years the income-free areas and other means-test thresholds for student payments, including the student income bank limits, from the first 1 January after the bill receives royal assent.
Pausing indexation is a lever that has been used by successive governments to realise budget savings by slowing the growth in social security expenditure in a reasonable and fair way.
Youth Employment Measures
With respect to youth employment measures, this bill will reintroduce four measures previously introduced in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 2016. With youth unemployment more than twice as high as the general unemployment rate at 13.3 per cent compared to 5.8 per cent as at December 2016, it is imperative that the income support system provide the greatest incentives for young people to find work and be self-sufficient where they are able to, or to undertake further education or training to increase their employability. The reintroduction of the measures in this bill is designed to achieve that end.
One - week Ordinary Waiting Period
With respect to the one-week ordinary waiting period, this bill will make a number of changes to the existing one-week ordinary waiting period to ensure more consistent, targeted and effective operation of this waiting period. Waiting periods, including the one-week ordinary waiting period, are applied to ensure that people support themselves in the first instance, where they are able to, before receiving income support payments. This one-week waiting period is a longstanding feature of the income support payment system but currently applies only to new claimants of Newstart Allowance and sickness allowance.
Under this measure, the one-week ordinary waiting period would be extended to new claimants of youth allowance (other) and parenting payment.
This measure will also modify the current severe financial hardship exemption from the ordinary waiting period to better target this exemption to those who are most vulnerable and in need of immediate assistance, including those who have experienced domestic violence. It will also provide that the ordinary waiting period is served after any other waiting periods to ensure that it operates consistently and effectively in conjunction with all other waiting periods.
Increasing the age of eligibility for Newstart allowance and sickness allowance from 22 to 25 years
This bill contains a key measure designed to encourage more young people to pursue further education or training as a pathway to long-term, sustainable employment. It does this by increasing the minimum qualifying age for Newstart allowance and sickness allowance from the present 22 years to a proposed 25 years of age. Future young people aged between 22 to 24 years will be able to apply for and receive youth allowance (other) instead of Newstart.
This will align the age qualification requirements for youth allowance (other) with youth allowance (student) and will ensure that young people receive the same rates of payment, irrespective of whether they are studying full time or looking for work.
This will remove any perception that there is financial advantage in continuing to receiving unemployment payments rather than pursuing study or training.
Youth allowance also provides broader financial incentives for young people to take up paid work where they can. Youth allowance (other) has a more generous income free area than Newstart or sickness allowance which allows young people to retain more of their payment if they are working casually or part time while they look for full-time work
Those aged 22 to 24 and already receiving Newstart allowance or sickness allowance when the changes commence will be grandfathered and will not have their current payments reduced or otherwise affected.
Four- week waiting period for youth income support and rapid activation of jobseekers
This bill will introduce a new four-week waiting period for job ready young people aged under 25 years who are claiming youth allowance (other) or special benefit.
This measure is intended to set clear expectations that young people who are job ready should make every effort to look for work and maximise their chances of finding work before receiving income support. Critically, young people will have access to tailored support from their jobactive provider during the waiting period to assist them to look for, prepare for, find and transition into work. This measure is complemented by a fourth measure, called RapidConnect Plus, which will require job ready young people to complete pre-benefit activities during their four-week waiting period.
The four-week waiting period and RapidConnect Plus will only be served by those who have been assessed as being job ready, assessed as having no significant barriers to work and assessed as being in stream A of jobactive. An extensive range of exemptions will apply, including for jobseekers who are not job ready, who face additional barriers to work or who are in particularly vulnerable circumstances, including those young people placed in streams B or C of jobactive, those in disability employment services, those who are principal carer parents, and those with any form of temporary exemption from mutual obligations, for example, due to temporary incapacity or a major personal crisis.
The government is contributing to additional relief funding through the government's network of emergency relief providers to support any young people who may find themselves disadvantaged.
Close the energy supplement
Another important measure in this bill seeks to close the energy supplement to new welfare recipients, particularly new income support recipients from 20 September 2017. The energy supplement, or carbon tax compensation as it is commonly known, was introduced on 20 March 2013 as part of the household assistance package to compensate people for the introduction of the carbon tax—a tax which no longer exists.
The carbon tax was repealed from 1 July 2014. The government does not consider that it is reasonable to continue to compensate people in the form of a carbon tax compensation for a tax that no longer exists, particularly people who only started receiving income support after the carbon tax was abolished.
Fairer paid parental leave
Last year the government introduced a suite of measures designed to enhance and better target the Paid Parental Leave scheme—referred to here as the PPL scheme.
The government considers that all working parents should be entitled to paid leave to spend important bonding time with their newborn or newly adopted child in those important early months after birth. The government's commitment to supporting parents in caring for their children must of course be balanced with the responsibility to ensure that family assistance and social security payments are well targeted and sustainable for future generations.
Presently, mothers can access both 18 weeks of paid parental leave as well as any employer-provided parental leave pay. They can also choose to access parental leave pay at the same time as other paid leave if they wish, an approach that does not necessarily extend the time taken off after birth.
In addition, this bill amends the work test for PPL eligibility to help employees such as casual teachers and mothers in physical professions such as building, horse racing and mining to join the system for the first time. In 2011, there were 1.23 million female employees in casual jobs, 30,798 women working in mining and 109,705 women working in construction that could potentially benefit from the government's proposed changes to the work test. To ease administrative burdens on business, we are also removing the requirement for employers to act as paymasters for the government's PPL payments. This is estimated to save Australian businesses $44 million a year in compliance costs.
New measures
In addition to consolidating measures previously introduced into the parliament, this bill will also introduce a small number of new measures aimed at strengthening and simplifying the government payment system.
Seasonal workers
As part of the 2016-17 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the government announced a two-year trial of incentives aimed at increasing the number of eligible jobseekers who undertake horticultural seasonal work, such as fruit picking.
The measure responds to concerns about the ability of the Australian horticulture industry to attract sufficient numbers of seasonal workers by introducing three incentives aimed at increasing the number of jobseekers who undertake horticultural seasonal work.
The incentives will commence as a trial from 1 July 2017 for two years and will be capped at 7,600 participants. There are three incentives:
Newstart and youth allowance (other) recipients who have been receiving those payments continuously for at least three months will have access to a seasonal horticultural work income exemption under which they will be able to earn up to $5,000 each year without it being assessed under the social security income test. Qualification rules will be relaxed for this group so that they continue to qualify for Newstart and youth allowance (other) while undertaking eligible horticultural seasonal work. The amendments in this bill mainly relate to this incentive;
Newstart and youth allowance (other) recipients who have been receiving those payments continuously for at least three months would be eligible for a seasonal work living away and travel allowance of up to $300 each year, if they undertake horticultural seasonal work more than 120 kilometres from their home. This would not be assessed as income for income support purposes;
Employment providers, including jobactive, transition to work and disability employment services, would receive a provider seasonal work incentive payment of $100 a week for up to six weeks a year for each eligible jobseeker that they place with eligible farmers.
Ceasing the payment of the pension supplement after six weeks overseas
This bill will stop the payment of the pension supplement after six weeks overseas, as was announced in the 2016-17 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The measure being introduced will stop the payment of the basic amount of the pension supplement outside of Australia after six weeks temporary absence from Australia or immediately if the recipient has permanently departed Australia.
As part of the pension reform package in September 2009, the pension supplement combined into a single payment the value of telephone allowance, utilities allowance, pharmaceutical allowance and the goods and services tax supplement.
Currently, the pension supplement does not cease but is reduced to the basic amount after six weeks temporary absence from Australia, or immediately for permanent departures.
Recipients of the basic amount of the pension supplement currently overseas permanently will no longer receive the pension supplement after the commencement date. Recipients who are currently overseas temporarily will be subject to the six-week rule from date of departure.
The basic amount of the pension supplement was designed to assist with the cost of living in Australia. There is no economic reason to continue to compensate recipients for the impact of the GST while they are overseas, for anytime longer than a short-term absence.
Income stream—automated reviews
This bill will also amend section 195 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to allow the Department of Human Services to automate the collection of information to support income stream review processes for income support recipients with income streams.
From 1 January 2018, there will be a staged introduction of a six-monthly electronic data collection process for income stream information from the income stream providers directly.
An income stream is a product that pays a regular income over a number of years. It can either be purchased with accumulated superannuation monies—for example, an account-based income stream or a lifetime annuity—or derived from a superannuation interest such as a defined benefit income stream.
The proposed system will replace the Department of Human Services' current administrative arrangements, whereby the department uses a dual system to collect information. This is inefficient and costly, and the proposed measure will reduce regulatory burdens for recipients and the industry and improve payment accuracy thereby reducing future recipient debts.
Conclusion
By way of conclusion, this bill provides a cohesive, singular statement on the government's intention to provide effective and sustainable supports for hardworking Australians and jobseekers.
The bill delivers on a core commitment of this government to deliver a simpler, more affordable, more flexible and more accessible child-care system.
Most of the measures in this bill have been before the parliament several times, and are being reintroduced today as an example of this government's commitment to improve the efficiency of our payments system and bring the budget back to balance. The majority of these measures formed part of the government's election costings which were supported by the Australian people. In the best interests of Australians' finances and future generations of taxpayers, I would encourage the parliament to support these proposals to encourage workforce participation and ensure the long-term sustainability of our welfare system. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I am very pleased to speak on the government's Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016, because this is a very important part of the venture capital industry in Australia, and at the moment it is a missing piece in venture capital and is holding back thousands of Australian companies that are seeking to raise capital, so it is important to provide some background on this issue and where it fits in in the economy.
Venture capital, of course, is about early-stage companies being able to raise money through equity financing where people risk their money by investing in a company in the hope that, in the future, that investment will be successful. Australia has historically a very weak position in venture capital relative to other nations, and there are a whole range of reasons for that. Our small market size is one of them, and there are others as well. Australia, relative to other economies, has had a very small venture capital industry over the years. I have worked in and around venture capital for close to 15 years before entering parliament, so I have had some experience in this area, and the industry has generally been very small indeed—so small, in fact, that the Australian Venture Capital Association estimates that venture capital investment in Australia is about 0.01 per cent of GDP. You do not get numbers much smaller than that—0.01 per cent. Proportionally, that is about one-twentieth the size of venture capital investment in the United States.
So there is a real need to boost venture capital investment in Australia, because more venture capital means more start-up companies, which means more employment. As we know, it is those start-up companies, often in the technology sector, which create the industries of tomorrow and which create so much employment—and generally high-wage jobs, which are so important in an era of relatively low wage growth. So it is very important that the government does everything it can to improve the environment so that small businesses can go out there and raise capital.
In 2014 the corporations and markets advisory committee presented a report to government in which they said that the existing rules related to crowdsourced equity funding were impractical and effectively were stopping companies from raising money. What is meant by 'crowdsourced equity funding'? Basically, what it means is raising small amounts of money from large numbers of people. That is very difficult at the moment because the requirements under the Corporations Act in terms of issuing prospectuses and various minimums for how much can be invested, and a whole range of other things, make it extremely difficult in practice to raise small investments. As a consequence, when companies are trying to raise money they generally go to large, sophisticated investors and larger venture capital funds.
But there is this whole community of investors out there who are investing in other assets at the moment—they might be property, listed shares or a whole range of things. But there is a whole asset base out there that is not really being tapped into by the venture capital sector. What this bill does is basically make it much easier for start-up companies to raise relatively small amounts of money from large amounts of people through changing the crowdsourced equity rules to make them simpler. Effectively, the bill will do this in a number of ways.
Firstly, companies in the future will be able to raise money through an online platform, without the need to go through the typical onerous processes involved in fundraising. There will be fewer of those onerous disclosure requirements and fewer requirements for issuing of documentation and so on.
There are some limitations in how much companies will be able to raise under these provisions. That is appropriate because there is a lower standard of disclosure. It is obviously appropriate to put some limits on how much can be raised in this way, so companies will be able to raise up to $5 million under the government's proposed legislation, with a $10,000 cap per year for retail investors. A retail investor could go onto the website of a company that was seeking to raise capital through crowdsourced equity. They could decide to invest up to $10,000 in that company. If the investor wanted to invest more than $10,000, then they would need to go through a more traditional process which has greater disclosure rules and so on.
It is also important that this is something for smaller companies. This is not something that the government envisages listed companies or larger companies should be able to avail themselves of. This is about helping start-up businesses to access more capital. With that in mind, companies with turnover of more than $25 million or assets of more than $25 million will not be eligible to make use of these provisions.
Also in order to protect investors, the government bill proposes that this be limited to public companies. The government is continuing to consult on extending this system to private proprietary companies, but there is significant complexity involved in doing that and so at the present moment this will be limited to public companies. If a newly-registered public company undertakes crowdsourced equity funding within 12 months of registering, it will be eligible for exemptions from some of those more onerous provisions for public companies, such as holding an AGM, having annual reports audited and mailing out annual reports, if it has raised less than $1 million from crowdsourced equity funding.
So this is very good legislation as proposed by the government. Historically, we have a weak venture capital sector in Australia. We need to improve that. We are improving that—and I will come to that in a moment—but this is a very important part of that puzzle.
In fairness, there are members opposite who have in the past sought to support the venture capital sector—people like the members for Chifley and Griffith, who both do have some understanding in this space. They should be calling on their colleagues to fully support this bill as proposed by the government, because this is a bill which is good for the venture capital sector in Australia. It is good for Australian start-ups and it is something that should be supported as proposed.
But those opposite have a very poor record when it comes to taxation and its impact on Australian business. There are a couple of examples that I wanted to touch on in these remarks. Under the previous Labor government, the Australian start-up sector was given an absolutely disastrous piece of legislation related to employee share ownership schemes. Mr Deputy Speaker, you of course are familiar with how these schemes work. Basically, the way that employee share ownership schemes work is that somebody joins a company, often on a salary which is less than they would get if they were working for a larger company, and the company says to that employee, 'If you work with us for that relatively lower salary we will give you the potential to earn more in the future through access to share options. These share options, which might have very little practical value today, could be worth a lot in the future and, if they are worth a lot in the future, you could potentially do very well by selling those sell options when they vest and become shares.'
That is a very common practice in the start-up sector—or at least it was until those opposite introduced horrendous legislation which basically said, 'If today you as an employee are issued with share options which, in a practical sense, are meaningless today because you cannot sell them usually for several years and, in a practical sense they are not worth anything to you until some point significantly down the track, you must pay tax on them today.' So people would get issued share options which had no practical value, with no capacity for those shares to actually be sold, but then be presented with a tax bill for $20,000, $30,000 or whatever it was to account for the perceived value of these share options. That was absolute madness.
That meant that companies then started saying, 'We won't offer share options because it is a disincentive for employees, because they have to pay this out-of-pocket tax now on something that actually has no value now.' Those same small companies were still in a position where they could not compete with big companies on salary. So someone may have been offered, say, $150,000 from a big company and the small company could only offer, say, $80,000 or $100,000. Previously, the small company would say, 'It is true that we cannot offer you the same salary, but we will offer you these share options which could be valuable in the future.' But, under Labor's previous ESOP legislation, that basically dried up because, when you got issued with those share options, you effectively had to pay a penalty tax, which meant that most employees would say, 'I just don't want them, because I don't want that burden.' That was incredibly bad legislation, but it is a really interesting example because it shows how little those opposite understand how the economy works. It shows the very theoretically way that they think about the economy, but they do not have that practical understanding of how business actually works—how people get stuff done—and how incentives are provided.
That is an earlier example, but we have a fresh example today—and this is quite extraordinary. At the moment, those opposite are proposing as part of their suite of tax proposals to increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent in all areas in which capital gains tax is currently paid. Let's take the example of somebody who has a farm in regional Australia. Maybe that farm is not doing so well and maybe they need to take on some investors to invest in equipment and capital to make that farm do better. Those opposite are saying, with their current policy—and this is something that we really need to reflect on—that if the investors in that farm are successful, when they sell their investment, they should pay 50 per cent more capital gains tax. So if you are that farmer and you are going to try to raise money, that is not going to make your task easy at all; it is going to make it very difficult.
Similarly, let us say you have a situation in suburban Australia where manufacturing is under pressure and a factory closes. Sometimes management and workers might try to get together and keep a facility running by buying that factory and keeping that business going. Under Labor's policy, if they did that and said, 'Actually, we are going to put some money together and keep this factory going,' they would pay 50 per cent more tax on their investment in that factory. That is just an extraordinarily bad idea.
This proposal from Labor applies in every single industry in Australia and every single region. Not just in cities but in every country town and every regional centre, Labor say that capital gains tax should be 50 per cent more—every industry, every town, every state, every suburb. I think it would be very useful for the Labor Party to articulate more clearly to the Australian people why they think it is a good idea to increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent on absolutely everyone in Australia across all industry sectors. It is an extraordinarily bad idea.
This government, by contrast, through the National Innovation and Science Agenda, has reduced tax. There is no capital gains tax on investments in start-ups under the angel investment reforms; taxes have been reduced for those who invest in early stage venture capital limited partnerships; and, of course, there is a 20 per cent income tax deduction for investors in early stage start-ups. Those things have been very well received. We are seeing a boom in Australian venture capital at the moment. It is on the most solid ground it has ever been on. The innovation and science agenda and the tax measures contained in it have been instrumental in creating an environment of confidence in which, increasingly, Australians are coming forward to start businesses and invest in start-up businesses. It is a fantastic thing.
The crowd-sourced equity bill as proposed by the government should be supported by those opposite and, indeed, by every member of this House. I commend the bill to the House.
It was Robert Menzies who said:
We took the name ‘Liberal’ because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his rights and his enterprise …
Free enterprise has been at the heart of the Liberal tradition since the party's inception. Even today, half a century after Menzies first spoke those words, free enterprise remains the answer to many of the social and economic challenges our nation faces. One such challenge, a challenge that is both social and economic, is youth unemployment. Young Australians right across the country, and especially in rural and regional areas, are struggling to find work. Approximately 300,000 young Australians from 15 to 24 years of age are officially unemployed. This one relatively narrow age bracket equates to nearly a third of all Australians who are currently unemployed.
This problem is not uniquely Australian, by the way; it is a global phenomenon—almost an epidemic, some would argue. While our youth unemployment rate, at 13.3 per cent, is a very serious issue, in France it is 26.2 per cent; in Spain, 42.9 per cent; and in South Africa, a catastrophic 54.2 per cent. Whose responsibility is it to solve this problem, and what sorts of solutions are out there? With the erosion of civil society over recent decades, responsibility for addressing social ills has shifted more and more to the state, to the government. As a society, we have become overly reliant on government to address social ills, and youth unemployment is as much a social ill as it is an economic one.
In lamenting the ever-growing reliance on government, I am not suggesting we back away for a moment from providing a safety net for those in need, although more can be done—and, indeed, is being done—to embed the principle of mutual obligation in our social security system. I am, nevertheless, suggesting that we need to be more creative in finding solutions to address the scourge of unemployment, and youth unemployment in particular. As a parliament, we need to rise to the challenge Menzies set and embrace free enterprise by empowering individuals to help themselves; to make it easier for people to not just find jobs, but to create their own; to encourage people to use their own enterprise to establish their own small businesses. In other words, I am one who believes entrepreneurship is a solution to unemployment. Not a silver bullet by any means, but a solution nonetheless, and one that offers great potential and warrants further exploration. And it is in this context, that I rise today to support the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-Sourced Funding) Bill 2016.
Turning an idea into a commercial reality is not easy. Like many of us here on this side of the House, I come from a business background and I know from firsthand experience the taste of success and the distaste, if you like, of failure. I know what it is like to put my own money and reputation at risk to employ others, and to make a business work. Starting a business is not easy, and it is especially tough for young people. Young Australians who wish to start their own business face three unique challenges: (1) they lack money; (2) they lack business experience; and (3) they lack a personal network across the real market economy. We need to find new ways to help young people address these three challenges, and I believe this bill will go some way to help address at least that first challenge—accessing money, accessing the capital required to get a business off the ground.
I am confident in making this claim because I have seen crowdfunding work for this very purpose in my own electorate of Fairfax on Queensland's Sunshine Coast. I founded a not-for-profit organisation a few years ago called Generation Innovation, which creates heroes out of everyday locals between the ages of 15 and 25 by helping them take ideas and turning them into commercial realities. In the first year, 2015, three start-ups emerged and the people's favourite, elected by the local community, was a grade 12 student from Mountain Creek State High School, Harry Thompson, who started a smoothie business called Swift Smoothies. In the second year, 2016, we had four start-ups emerge, and the people's favourite was Aaron Ehrlich, a tradie from Maroochy River, who started a business called Mates with Boats. I am looking forward to the 2017 program that will start soon, but my point is this: when it came to raising seed capital for Harry, for Aaron and for the other young budding entrepreneurs of those five other businesses, we helped them crowdfund locally. Each of those businesses reached their targets because locals contributed as little as $10. They went to the crowd and the locals supported them.
The contributions made by this type of crowdfunding were effectively donations, and such a model would not fall under the system being established by this bill, which relates to equity funding. However, I mention it here because from my own firsthand experience in helping young people go all the way from idea to the market I have seen that microfunding through crowdsourcing works. That is why I speak today with such tremendous confidence in this bill and its potential to unleash the ideas of everyday Australians that can be taken to the market that would otherwise never see the light of day. In speaking to this bill, I wanted to make that point—that it will encourage free enterprise, assist young people in particular and make it ever more possible for everyday Australians to start their own businesses. Beyond being a major catalyst for getting new businesses started here in Australia, crowdfunding also offers opportunities for existing small and medium-sized companies that already play such a vital, significant role in the Australian economy.
This is just the sort of bill that gives substance to the Prime Minister's call for agility and diversification as we expand our economy to reflect a rapidly changing world and economic landscape. The internet provides new opportunities for economic growth, opportunities for hardworking Australians and their families and opportunities for entrepreneurs and business owners to raise capital from the crowd, to create jobs and to go for growth. That is what this bill does.
As the Treasurer said when he introduced it in November last year, it opens up new and innovative sources of funding for Australian small businesses and start-ups, and this is critical because, as things currently stand, the system is inadequate and overly cumbersome. We heard that from the previous speaker, the member for Banks. Compliance costs for companies that wish to access crowdfunding are high, and it is the start-ups and the small businesses that feel it most. Larger companies will continue to have access to conventional means of attracting capital for equity, but, for the smaller players, crowdfunding opens up a much-needed funding channel, and we therefore need to keep the cost of compliance down for those smaller players wishing to participate.
Regulators will of course still need to have full confidence that accountability measures are fit for purpose, but these mechanisms cannot be so onerous as to impose further compliance costs that end up discouraging businesses from taking part. A compromise position that has been put forward in this bill is that companies will have to be registered public companies in order to crowdsource equity under this system, but there are important and substantial concessions over a five-year period. They will not have to go to the considerable expense of having annual reports audited if their crowdfunding is less than $1 million, they will not have to provide an annual report to investors other than by posting it on the web and they will not have to hold an annual general meeting. Disclosure will still be required but not at the level of a full disclosure statement, which can be expensive to develop, obviously.
The regulators that will govern this new disclosure regime will still ensure that investors have adequate information to make reasoned decisions and will continue to have the ability to make direct contact with companies to satisfy themselves before committing their cash for equity. Investors will be protected by a limit of $10,000 per investment, and they will have a 48-hour cooling-off period. There will, however, be no limit to the number of crowdfunding investments an investor might make.
The other extremely important element of this bill is the requirement for crowdfunding intermediaries, the organisations that have developed to provide crowdfunding services to companies, to hold an Australian financial services licence. This is a quality control measure, a reassurance for both the investor and the company seeking support from the crowd via the services of an intermediary that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, will have their backs. If the parliament supports this legislation it will take effect six months after it receives royal assent.
There are, obviously and maybe inevitably, contentious points in this bill. There is a view that the requirements on companies wishing to engage the crowd to raise equity remain onerous, but others say it is going to be too easy. Some say that the cooling-off period for investors is too short; others say it is too long and that the limit on investments is too low or too high, or some say there should be no limit at all. This is uncharted territory for this parliament, no doubt. It is unchartered territory for many jurisdictions, only some of which have undertaken the work to establish a framework that seeks to take advantage of this new web based 21st-century funding format as a means of promoting economic opportunity, growth and increased employment.
As the information revolution continues to unfold, new technologies emerge and industries move accordingly. There will, inevitably, be further amendments, over time, to bills such as this. For now, though, this bill before us deserves to be supported, and we need to get on with it. It is a genuine and valid effort to maximise the benefits of crowd sourced equity funding for small businesses and start-ups while protecting the integrity of our financial system and the safety of the crowd. In opening an avenue for new and existing businesses to better engage the crowd, what we are witnessing is the further democratisation of capital. We are seeing the free enterprise vision of Menzies, from half a century ago, continue its relevance in this modern age. I commend the bill to the House.
First of all, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate, including the excellent contributions from the member for Fairfax and the member for Banks. I also commend the member for Banks for the outstanding work he has been doing on these issues more broadly, particularly now in his responsibilities as the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, on this and related manners in the banking and financial services sector.
This Corporations Amendment (Crowd-Sourced Funding) Bill 2016 gives effect to the government's ongoing commitment to help transition the Australian economy from the mining investment boom to a more diversified and resilient economy. The bill will facilitate crowd sourced equity funding in Australia by introducing a framework which will reduce the regulatory impediments for small business, particularly early-stage businesses seeking to obtain equity finance.
The government consulted widely on the provisions contained in this bill, and this process began in late 2014 following the release of a discussion paper that sought to canvass stakeholder views on possible models for a crowd sourced equity-funding framework. These models included the framework adopted in New Zealand and the model recommended by the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee in its review of Australia's equity crowdfunding landscape. The government acknowledges the efforts of stakeholders to provide feedback and to help guide development of the framework in this bill.
Our proposed framework for Australia was outlined in a separate consultation paper in August 2015, and targeted consultation was undertaken on the draft legislation. Overall, there was broad support for developing a framework that incorporates elements of the model recommended by the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee and a model adopted by New Zealand. The framework that the government has introduced into parliament reflects improvements suggested by stakeholders during consultations. It seeks to ensure the balance between supporting investment and reducing compliance costs for the issuers of crowd sourced equity funding that it offers while maintaining an appropriate level of investor protection.
For equity crowdfunding to be a viable funding source it is important that the framework can operate effectively to benefit businesses and investors. Like in New Zealand, intermediaries will play an important role in the operation of Australia's equity crowdfunding market with the framework setting out certain obligations that are necessary for facilitating crowd sourced equity-funding offers. Intermediaries must be licensed and will have gatekeeping obligations, ensuring that certain disclosure and other requirements are met by issuers before their offer is listed on the platform. The crowd sourced equity-funding framework proposed in this bill allows eligible, unlisted, public companies to fundraise up to $5 million per year from retail investors with reduced disclosure obligations compared to traditional public equity fundraising. We are also streamlining public company corporate governance and reporting obligations for companies that become established as a public company in order to access crowdfunding.
The government has also continued to work on extending the regime to propriety companies, which are generally prohibited from offering shares to the general public. The government has asked Treasury to develop a framework for proprietary companies as a key priority, and I would expect that extension of the framework will be introduced through subsequent legislation in the near future. I am very pleased to be bringing the opposition up-to-date with the developments in that area to ensure that they also have a good understanding of the time line for introducing those additional measures, which I know they have expressed interest in.
The framework being introduced now will provide a number of protections, including offer documents providing basic information about the offer and an investment cap for retail investors of $10,000 per issuer, per 12 month period, to ensure investors can make informed decisions without being subject to excessive levels of risk. The government has also listened to stakeholder views on how to balance the fundraising needs of businesses while ensuring investors remain adequately protected. As part of this bill, the government has increased the eligibility threshold to $25 million in assets and annual turnover. This will help a broader range of companies make use of crowd sourced equity funding and provide investors with a broader range of investment opportunities. This bill also provides regulation-making powers that will allow these thresholds to be reviewed over time as the market develops.
To accommodate market developments, the bill also provides the minister with powers to exempt certain market operators from specific obligations, under the Australian market licensing and clearing and settlement facilities licensing regimes. This will enable the government to more readily tailor these regimes to particular market operators, including intermediaries operating in the crowdfunding market. These exemption powers will apply from the date this bill receives royal assent.
The crowd sourced funding framework in this bill will take effect six months after it receives royal assent. Over this period the Australian Securities and Investments Commission will put in place systems, processes and guidelines to effectively administer the framework and provide additional certainty to this industry. The government provided $7.8 million to ASIC in the 2015-16 budget to facilitate this.
This bill fulfils the government's commitment, our response to the financial systems inquiry and our National Innovation and Science Agenda, to introduce an equity crowdfunding framework. Its introduction will enable entrepreneurs of innovative early-stage businesses in Australia to obtain the capital they need to turn good ideas into commercial successes. It will also open a new form of investment class to provide an additional investment option for investors.
Together, this package delivers on the government's commitment to support small and start-up businesses, which are critical to building a modern and diversified economy and providing jobs for all Australians. This is an important bill in the progression of this agenda, but it will not be the last. There will be further bills that move into additional areas in this space which will provide further opportunities. There has been extensive and lengthy consultation in getting to this point, and it is now important that we take this step and then take the steps that must follow in subsequent legislation. With that in mind, I commend this bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Chifley has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Chifley be agreed to.
We passed a critical milestone yesterday. In the amendment that we put forward, we had said to the government: 'Drop this half-baked bill; bring in one proper bit of legislation, and do it by the first sitting day of the parliament.' That did not happen. On one level, I can appreciate why—the coalition had a lot on their hands yesterday, and they were probably not in a position to be able to introduce new legislation that would fix this the first time. But the problem is this: we now have a situation where we are going to wait for another bill to come along—another bill to correct, effectively, the shortcomings of this bill. It has always been the case with this reform, particularly in terms of equity crowdfunding, that there has been delay, stumble, and delay.
It is worth remembering that this reform in relation to equity crowdfunding was first flagged when Labor—when in government—referred this to the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee back in 2013. CAMAC brought down their report in May 2014. We were told that this would be subject to consultation, which was good. There were a lot of contentious elements to what CAMAC put forward, and they needed to be sorted out. We had flagged back in December 2014 that, while we were broadly supportive of what CAMAC was doing, and while we thought it was an important first step, there were a lot of things that were very heavy-handed in what they were putting forward. The government put through their discussion paper on equity crowdfunding as well; they then said that they were going to do all this consultation, and that they would do whatever they could to bring this legislation in with as much speed as possible. When they did bring in the legislation, it ended up here in December 2015. So we went from May 2013 to December 2015, and when they brought the legislation in it was widely criticised because it was too restrictive and the caps in place were too onerous in terms of assets and turnover. It has also been indicated that a big stumbling block is the compulsion by the coalition that a company has to turn itself into an unlisted public company to avail itself of this legislation. It is remarkable that the coalition believe that government should force a commercial decision on a private sector player merely to gain access to capital. We said this was not workable and it was not right.
We then had a situation where the bill did not proceed and we got to a point where this new bill was brought forward. This new bill does take on board Labor's recommendations to lift the asset and turnover caps. That is a good thing. We support that. But it fails on one hand to deal with the biggest stumbling block that exists in terms of forcing the creation of an unlisted public company, with no explanation, and it also changes the cooling-off period for investors. It reduces the amount of time that retail investors have to change their mind on whether they will proceed with what will potentially be a big investment in these companies. These are things that are of great concern. There is no explanation as to why, for example, we are still forced to have this unlisted public company regime in place.
We were told another bill is coming. We were told today by the Treasurer that it will be occurring in the near future. But they will make their media drops, they will talk to their favourite outlets, they will get the coverage on suggesting that this new bill will come forward, that everything will be fixed and start-ups will have a much easier pathway to capital, but it will take ages. In fact, I am so confident that the Treasurer is going to take so long to get that bill in place that I will bet him an iTunes card that he will not get it in place by the end of the year. If he thinks that his bill will come to this House and will allow for start-ups to be able to access capital and that, as a result of this bill, all these start-ups will be out there creating their own pathways to consumers or other businesses and they will have their services out there, I would be interested to see that. The problem the whole time has been that Treasury has resisted and has been exceptionally conservative and risk averse in making changes to the Corporations Act to allow for a carve-out, for a safe harbour, in relation to this aspect of capital raising. They cannot get past their minds the notion that disruption is not a concept that just occurs within the private sector and that it also forces government to think differently about the way regulation occurs. We said to the government that we were prepared to work with them on a bipartisan basis on this. I have spoken with other ministers in relation to this matter.
I understand that the Treasurer will allow me to speak for a little bit longer. I want to put some questions to him. We certainly did raise with the government our preparedness to work with them on it because we know this is contentious and sensitive. Anything to do with the Corporations Act is not easy to do, but we wanted to give a green light to exploring how this could all be done. (Extension of time granted) I respectfully say that, while representatives of the Treasurer's office did meet with us, they met with us to say, 'This is the bill that's coming forward to the parliament,' but it still contained some of the objections that people have. They cite support from the sector. I would have to say that support is riding off the wave of resignation. There are people in the sector who support this bill merely because, after waiting for so long, they finally want to get something in place. This bill is half baked. It is a resignation from those opposite, those in government, that they are unable to come up with something that works and they just want to put this in place.
There are some people brave enough within the sector to call out this legislation for what it is. The quote that really stuck out in my mind last year was from Andy Giles, the co-founder of Veromo.com. He said:
Currently, the thought of switching to a public company to avail ourselves of a potential wider investor base is unthinkable ...
In the inquiry that was launched into this that is being done by the other place, the University of New South Wales said:
Currently the Bill excludes over 99.7% of companies from accessing CSF.
That is what they are saying. This bill restricts access to equity crowdfunding through the way it provides this restriction. It is just not acceptable. It is unfathomable that they could not fix this properly with an opposition that are saying they are willing to work with the government. They still cannot find a way to bring it forward and they still make a promise that somehow they will be able to flick a switch and have that eureka moment where they are able to sort this out.
There are a number of questions that I have of the Treasurer. I am grateful for his presence today. Why are you forcing this bill through now? Why are we doing this in a two-step way instead of just doing this all at once and allowing for this to happen, knowing that it will take time for the systems to come into place anyway, the systems that are used by platforms externally will then have to be amended again and there will be red tape or extra work forced on smaller companies and platforms to accommodate a new or updated regime? Why are you still insisting on the unlisted public company regime? What protections do you believe are offered as a result of having an unlisted public company regime? You talk about a regulatory sandbox in the ASIC realm and you have talked quite often about that. Why can't you create a cordoned-off area within the Corporations Act that still requires reporting to investors along the lines of what would be required of a venture capital firm if they were providing support for a small, early-stage innovation company, and put those types of reporting and protection measures in place? Why are you changing the cooling-off period? Why are you reducing the cooling-off period and limiting the amount of time that new investors—retail investors, mum-and-dad investors—have to consider whether or not they will go ahead with a considerable investment? Why are you reducing that?
Why aren't you offering, for example, an alternative? ASIC, as the Treasurer has acknowledged, has been given additional funding to regulate this sector, giving them the teeth to bite down on those companies that are deliberately gaming the system to thwart the fundraising campaigns of others. The reason the cooling-off period reduction has been advocated is that it is a way of sidestepping other companies gaming the system and ruining things for these early-stage innovators. Why are you reducing the cooling-off period and making investors wear that burden instead of the regulator making sure that is in place?
The other question, Treasurer, is: can you give a guarantee that, by the end of this autumn sitting, you will have legislation that you can put forward to the House to allow for a viable equity crowdfunding platform to work in this country? Those are the questions I would like to ask of the Treasurer.
I thank the member opposite for his questions and his contribution. There are a couple of points that I would simply make in response: the subsequent bill that will deal with the proprietary company issues will add to, not detract from, this legislation that is before the House today. It will see an extension to proprietary companies and will add to this bill, not take away from this bill.
The changes that we have made to this Corporations Amendment (Crowd-Sourced Funding) Bill 2016 from that which was available previously are the product of extensive consultation and, in particular, with the very informed members of my FinTech Advisory Committee—though there were many others—who have a keen understanding of the issues that are relevant to these types of funding arrangements and how they can be most effective. We have made a number of amendments to these provisions that improve the bill from where it was previously. We have listened to that advice from the sector and responded accordingly.
In relation to the issues of why now, why the two-step process and the protections and those sorts of issues that the member opposite raises: it has already been too long, in my view, to get to the point we are at today. The opposition themselves played a significant role in frustrating the passage of these measures last year. This is something we see a lot of from the opposition—they go out and call for things that they never did when they were in government, then when we seek to introduce them they seek to delay their introduction. The Leader of the Opposition is like that bloke on the side of the road where the construction is going on. Most of those guys just have a 'stop' and 'go' sign, but Bill Shorten only has a 'stop' sign. That is all he has—it is just stop, stop, stop, stop. That is what we get from the opposition so, even when we bring in measures such as this—which they did not even contemplate when they were in government—their proposition to us is to delay it longer, put it off for even longer, to not do it now. No, we need to do it now, and there will be other measures that will follow that this government will introduce, just like it is this government that is introducing these measures—measures that those opposite, when they were in government, did not even contemplate let alone seek to bring forward legislation into this place that would enable them to come into being.
The member is right to refer to the industry feedback when it comes to issues of cooling-off periods. We think it is better to design the regulation and the system in a way that will avoid gaming of the system, rather than to chew up endless resources in enforcement. Enforcement is not a big strong suit from those opposite, whether it is anything on financial regulation or border protection, or whichever area you choose to nominate. Even the implementation and enforcement of foreign investment regulation was not a strong suit for those opposite. We think it is better to design the regulation in such a way that does prevent that gaming of the system. That was the clear advice we got, and that is what we are acting on.
This government believes that we need to get on with it. Those opposite want to delay again, and they are aware of the frustration in the sector about their delaying tactics. We think it is important that they put that aside. As I said in my closing remarks on the second reading, we are very happy to keep the opposition informed of our progress in bringing in the subsequent bills that deal with the extension to proprietary companies but, frankly, they just have to get on with it. They have to stop the delay, they have to stop the point-scoring and the grandstanding and they just have to get on with it. The government is getting on with it, and I now call on the parliament to get on with it and ensure that we can bring these measures into place. As Treasurer, I will be bringing subsequent measures that build on this bill, but I can tell you that when we started this process we were building on nothing at all—left to us from the now opposition when they were in government—to build on when it came to putting these arrangements in place.
The Treasurer, frankly, just misled the House. The reason we are here is that we were the ones who initiated this reform process. We were the ones who referred this to CAMAC. It was because of the work at CAMAC that we got here. And what happened?
What did you actually do?
I will take the interjection from the assistant minister. I do not know why he is here, frankly, as he has enough of a tech-wreck going on, on his side. His DTA is unable to fix the census, the ATO, Centrelink and now child support, but he now wants to interject while he is not out there fixing that tech-wreck. The fact of the matter is that Labor referred this to CAMAC. Labor wanted the framework to be established that would allow this to happen back in 2013. One year after that, in 2014, you had the ability to do it and now—two years later—we are here. The reason this bill has had to change is that we highlighted that after they had done all this great consultation they brought in a bill that is still stuffed and flawed, and we had to fix it up. We had to fix up the assets and turnover capital. We had to press them on that. We had to press them on the fact that that bill was still going to constrict small businesses from actually accessing the regime. You have still got today people saying that this bill in its current form will prevent 99.7 per cent of small businesses from accessing this regime that that Treasurer there wants to bring in.
So the reality is: they have constantly stuffed it up and what they are bringing in is a half-baked effort that they know they will have to fix. They are going to have two regimes in place: they will have this one that does not allow anyone to use it and another one that will, and then they are going to allow that regime to be in place. Everybody knows that the second regime, the one they should be bringing in right now, is what they should be doing. But why don't you have the ability to get it right the first time? Because they are coming back. They know they have to fix this bill up. They know it and they cannot tell you when they are actually going to do it.
The other thing I flagged yesterday is in the context of the Treasury laws amendment that is dealing with changes to employee share schemes. You have got one regime that will prevent disclosure documents from being in the public domain, if an employee share scheme is extended by a firm. If that firm decides to use equity crowdfunding as a platform for extra capital, then they will have to have a public disclosure document. So you are going to have to have two different regimes on reporting for investors in measures that are being put forward in this House. They clearly have not even thought comprehensively about the type of things they are putting forward and they just want to rush this through.
What you are trying, Treasurer, to do now is to push this through and bringing in this regime you know is fundamentally flawed. At its heart, it is weak. At its heart, it is unable to deliver the capital that is required for these start-ups. I have already quoted the start-ups as saying, 'It is nuts, effectively, for us even to contemplate turning ourselves into a public company to do this.' And the ones that are telling us, Treasurer, to do that are the ones that are resigned. They know they are not going to get anywhere with you and they just want this through, because they just know you are not going to deliver. That is the reality.
So when are you going to bring the regime in—the proper one, the one that should be debated by this parliament? How are you going to deal with the conflict on disclosure statements between two different pieces of legislation you have got in this House? When are you going to make that happen? When are you actually going to ensure that when this is in place that people can have the systems developed and not have to be modified, because of something subsequent that is being brought in? It would be interesting to get actual detail as to when you are going to do that, because at this stage it is missing.
I will make it brief for the benefit of the Treasurer. This is a bill, obviously, that is very important to start-ups, and it is very important to start-ups in this country that they have access to the capital that they need to get off the ground.
In my home town of Brisbane, there are a range of firms that are looking to create a situation where they can raise the capital that they need to get off the ground. There is a lot of, I have got to say, optimism in Queensland. The Advance Queensland strategy that the Palaszczuk government has brought in under the shepherdship of Leeanne Enoch, the minister, has inspired a lot of entrepreneurs and start-ups to really kick off their businesses in Queensland. It is incredibly encouraging.
As I said at the outset, access to capital is very important to those firms. It is important to their ability to grow, and to grow early. The crowd source funding equity regime is very important to a lot of start-ups that do want to have this additional arrow in their quiver when they are seeking to raise that capital. Accordingly, it is very disappointing that this model is going to be so useless for so many start-ups, because firms that are just getting off the ground—firms that are getting their ideas together, working out what their minimum viable product is going to be, looking at their marketing, looking at getting their structures in place and recruiting their talent—do not want the extra compliance obligations of becoming public companies. They do not, so they are not going to use this process until that is fixed.
So the question that I have—and, as I said, I will be short—is: what is the point of bringing half-baked, unfinished legislation to this House knowing that it will not be used? Isn't that just window dressing? Isn't that just an attempt to look like you are doing something when you are actually not doing something? Isn't it just another example of this government trying to give the appearance of activity while not actually getting much done? And how will that help those start-up firms in my state, in my town of Brisbane on the south side that I represent, to get access to capital, if the compliance costs just make it uneconomic to use this new regime?
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I appreciate the opportunity to outline Labor's position on the government's Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016. While Labor recognises well-regulated gambling has a place in Australian society and that indeed many Australians enjoy a responsible punt, there is no doubt that we do have concerns about the growth of illegal online gambling. We are concerned of course because times have changed. The growth of digital technology, including smartphones, allows Australians to wager and gamble whenever and wherever they choose. With this change in technology, there has been an influx of illegal online offshore operators, and this in turn has impacted on problem gamblers as well as Australian industries. Labor believes that it is time to do more and to amend this act, to prohibit these operators and stop the growth of illegal online gambling.
Labor agrees that the government's interactive gambling bill picks up on some of the concerns around the growth of illegal online gambling. It will also go some way to improving the protections for those who choose to wager within an online environment. The majority of people who bet enjoy it and gamble in a responsible manner. However, Labor also knows that gambling in our community can, in some cases, have devastating consequences: social, financial and emotional ones. That is why we have always maintained a strong stance on ensuring appropriate harm minimisation measures are in place to protect and assist our community. It is why Labor, when we were last in office, commissioned the Productivity Commission to update its previous report on gambling industries in Australia. We also rejected, until harm minimisation strategies were adopted, recommendations to water down Australia's online gaming laws. While Labor broadly support the intent of this bill, we do have some issues and reservations. I think it is fair to say that Labor have been very consistent in our approach on gambling reform. What we want is evidence based policy. We therefore welcome the views from stakeholders, consumers and the public that have contributed to the evidence that has helped shape this bill.
I understand from the government that this bill is just the first of three tranches of review in the area of gambling and in implementing the recommendations of what is known as the O'Farrell review. In relation to this first tranche, Labor agrees that reform to the Interactive Gambling Act needs to occur. From the evidence that we have heard from stakeholders and the information we have examined to date, we will support this bill. The reason we support this bill is that we know the Interactive Gambling Act in its current form has been ineffective in preventing the growth of illegal online gambling services. Evidence to support this is that there have never been any prosecutions under the current Interactive Gambling Act.
Labor broadly supports the bill's main focus, which sets out to bolster the enforcement of the Interactive Gambling Act. What Labor wants to ensure is that these new reforms will be about protecting people and mitigating the effects of problem gambling. Currently, illegal offshore providers can target Australian gamblers, even though they operate outside of this country. Labor recognises that that has to stop. We know that this bill will go some way to stopping these operators in the responsible jurisdictions from trading in Australia illegally. But we are not naive; illegal offshore gambling operators will still try and operate in Australia, and we should continue to look at innovative ways and means to stop this from happening.
As mentioned previously, this bill is focused on implementing the recommendations included in the 2015 Review of Illegal Offshore Wagering, referred to as the O'Farrell review. The O'Farrell review revealed that Australians are among the biggest gamblers in the world, spending $1,245 per person in 2014. Figures suggest that Australians lose about $1.4 billion a year gambling online and a quarter of that money now goes overseas. The growth of interactive gambling in Australia has grown since 2004, with many consumers moving away from traditional gambling products to betting online using their smart phones, tablets and other digital services. The O'Farrell review also found that the number of online active wagering accounts in Australia has grown from 200,000 accounts in 2004 to 800,000 accounts in 2014, with many people having more than one account. Due to the ever-present nature of mobile phones and changes in consumer behaviour, offshore gambling operators are targeting Australians. It has become clear that the Interactive Gambling Act in its current form has, sadly, passed its use-by date.
The second area of reform in this bill seeks to prohibit 'click to call' in-play betting services. It is important to maintain integrity in sport in Australia and overseas. We have seen in the past years concerns about links to gambling and sporting incidents and to match outcomes. We also know that this type of betting is linked with problem gambling. Placing numerous bets in a short period of time does have the capacity to lead to problem gambling, and evidence to date suggests that young men are particularly vulnerable to this type of wagering and addiction from it. From a perspective of harm minimisation, it is a sensible way forward, and we support the prohibition of 'click to call' in-play betting.
One area that Labor will continue to watch very carefully is in-play betting in licensed venues and how the government continues to tackle this into the future. To be clear, Labor does not support a proliferation of in-play terminals in venues. We do not support a shift from tethered terminals in venues to electronic mobile services. However, as this is the government's bill and we cannot be certain of how the government will deal with this form of on-premise betting into the future, we are concerned about what this means. Within the explanatory memorandum, a new definition of 'place-based betting service' clarifies that electronic betting terminals can continue to be provided in places where the provider is licensed under a law of a state or territory to provide such services. Theoretically, this does seem to be a bit of a contradictory message by the government, and it would be beneficial if the minister could clarify the government's position on a major expansion if it were to occur, given that he supports exempting some venues from this type of betting but, on the other hand, says it is related to problem gambling.
In August of last year the minister actually said, 'I think we have enough sporting integrity issues and problem gambling already without needing to bet on every single moment of every game 24/7.' He went on to say, 'More and more people, particularly young men, are struggling with online gambling and this is an opportunity to tackle it head-on.' So clearly the minister does not want to see more young Australians affected by problem gambling when it comes to in-play betting, no matter where this form of betting takes place. Given there are protections included in the government's explanatory memorandum, this would assume it supports the status quo in relation to in-play betting venues. Therefore, we can only take this as a signal that the government does not have any appetite to expand this form of betting in licensed venues. Labor will be watching very carefully to see if any expansion of these services does occur and what the government's response is if this does happen. We assume that the government will act if proliferation of mobile devices in licensed premises does occur.
We know that the O'Farrell review highlighted that Australia's consumer protection was weak and inconsistent. As I already stated, Labor are supportive of harm minimisation and of strengthening consumer protection when it comes to problem gambling and we think this bill could be improved in some aspects. We have already acknowledged that gambling can, in some cases, have devastating social, financial and emotional consequences. Problem gambling can, and has, ruined lives. We know that improving protections for consumers is a good thing. While we welcome the government's response to the O'Farrell review, which stated it will aim to agree on a consumer protection model within 12 months, and we also welcome the commitment by the Commonwealth, state and territory ministers in November to work together to develop a national consumer protection framework, and we are supportive of the establishment of a national consumer protection framework, what we do not want to do is wait for another three years for this important work to be completed. While we welcome progress, our message today for the government is that they really need to get to work on this without delay.
Labor knows that gambling in our community can have a devastating impact, as I have said, so we are very surprised that in this bill the government has not included any reform around the banning of credit betting, especially when you consider the coalition's policy on problem gambling, where it flagged the prohibition of credit betting back in 2013. For the past three to four years the coalition has had a policy position on the banning of credit betting, and yet, in its first tranche of reform, it does not seem to deal with this very issue. That begs the question of why the government has not dealt with credit betting within the reform of the Interacting Gambling Act, particularly given that the minister has been very keen to ban this type of betting. To strengthen harm minimisation for problem gamblers, I want to indicate that Labor would support that direction.
To continue with the theme of protection, I wish to speak on a matter of significant and widespread public concern that has gone hand in hand with the growth of online betting in Australia. This is the issue of gambling advertising on television during live sporting events. Like so many of you in the chamber today, I grew up watching sport on TV, enjoying the playing and the on-field antics, the barracking for my favourite players and, of course, the progress of my favourite Hawks. For me, as for so many Australians, watching sport on telly was a family affair. Children and adults would enjoy some time together to discuss the rules of the game, listen to commentators and perhaps do a little bit of armchair heckling. But that is not the case today—indeed, far from it. Today we hear reports that our sons and daughters are talking about sports games not through the prism of what is happening on the field but through the prism of the associated betting.
Labor wants to protect children from associated betting and wagering as a normal part of watching sport on television. Labor believes that the time is right for change. We believe it is time for leadership. We want to work towards a genuine solution on how we can best address the growing concerns of parents and families. Many Australians want to see change in this area. Labor believes that it is in their best interests to protect children to ensure that they do not connect sport and gambling. That is why it is time to get the balance right. Ask any parent who watches a sporting event with their children if they are concerned that there are too many gambling advertisements and in most cases the answer is yes. Ask parents if they are worried about their children associating sport and gambling and in most cases the answer is yes. A Deakin University study released in June last year revealed gambling advertising is impacting on teenagers and children as young as eight. The study found that three-quarters of children can recall at least one sports betting branch without being prompted and more than one-quarter of children can identify four or more.
Following the intervention of the Gillard government in 2013, the broadcast television industry responded, addressing public concern and developing rules to restrict gambling advertising in live sports advertising and the spruiking of live odds in particular. However, betting odds and gambling ads do continue to intrude on our television screens and upon our nation's love of sport and continue to cause significant public concern. It is instructive to revisit the comments of our former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the then communications minister, Stephen Conroy, when they issued a joint release on 26 May 2013. In it they stated:
The Gillard Government has demanded that Australia's broadcasters amend their broadcasting codes … to ensure a reduction in the promotion and advertising of gambling during sport …
They also stated:
The public have had enough of odds and betting promotions being shoved down their throats while listening to and watching sport.
In response, the commercial and subscription radio and television sectors of the broadcasting industry provided draft codes of practice to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, for consideration. Satisfied the codes contained appropriate community concern, ACMA registered the new codes on 30 July 2013. In its current form, the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice restricts the times that commercials relating to betting or gambling can be broadcast by prohibiting them in programs classified G or lower at certain times of the day as well as prohibiting them during any program that is broadcast between 5 am and 8.30 pm and is principally directed to children. However, these restrictions do not apply during all programs. Indeed, at present, gambling ads are permitted to be played during news, current affairs and sports programs.
The code also sets out detailed rules that restrict the promotion of odds and commercials relating to betting and gambling which are broadcast during live sporting events in particular. While these rules have served to limit the promotion of live odds and to restrict gambling ads during play, they continue to permit the promotion of live odds and gambling ads during and around play. The rules continue to allow clearly identified gambling representatives to promote odds half an hour before play and in the half an hour after play, and they continue to allow commercials relating to betting or gambling before play has commenced, during scheduled breaks, during unscheduled breaks and after play has concluded. Broadcast television codes have been harmonised, and similar provisions apply to other categories of broadcasting services through their specific codes. These rules have been in place for just over three years now but still Australians—adults and children—continue to be bombarded by advertising for gambling and betting as they watch live sport.
Labor is very conscious of the need to balance community concerns with the economic needs of broadcasters. We acknowledge the competitive pressures that the commercial free-to-air television industry faces and understand that betting and gambling advertising represents a significant revenue stream to industry. We believe that a consultative approach to the development of a transition plan will give stakeholders, including national sporting organisations, the opportunity to address and assess the potential impacts of a phase-out and time to adjust. We also acknowledged that blanket proposals to prohibit betting and gambling advertising overnight do not take into account commercial realities in terms of contracts that are already in place, nor do they take into account the co-regulatory system for broadcasting in Australia and the role of industry in addressing community standards.
Given continuing public concern around gambling advertising during live sports broadcasting and evidence as to the harm of such advertising, particularly with respect to children, today I will move a second reading amendment that the government work and consult with the broadcast industry on a transition plan to phase out the promotion of betting odds and commercials relating to betting or gambling during live sport broadcasts, with a view to their prohibition over time.
We have put the government on notice that we will be watching very carefully that it does not use this bill as a mechanism to allow the expansion of any form of in-play betting. Labor believes the government must as a priority progress work on establishing a consumer protection framework. We believe the government has missed an opportunity to ban credit betting—a move, as I said, that Labor would support as another safety net to ensure harm minimisation measures are bolstered. Labor's second reading amendment acknowledges the growing concerns around the promotion of betting odds and gambling advertising in sports events, as stated, and we call on the government to support our amendment for transitional change. I therefore move:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to work with the broadcasting industry and national sporting organisations on a transition plan to phase out the promotion of betting odds and commercials relating to betting or gambling before and during live sporting broadcasts, with a view to their prohibition".
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Franklin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016. This bill sends a strong message to overseas operators and regulators that Australia is very serious about compliance with its online gambling laws. As we know, international experience shows that a combination of strong regulation and enforcement significantly reduces the size of the problem. Since the introduction of the bill in November last year, already a number of major offshore gambling operators have ceased providing, or indicated that they will withdraw, their prohibited services, as Australia can no longer be seen as perhaps a grey market in relation to gambling laws. The disruptive measures that the government is proposing in this legislation include extending the ambit of enforcement to affiliates and agents. As we know, some illegal offshore operators use an Australian based group of agents and affiliates to recruit new customers in return for a commission paid by the operator relative to the customers' wagering activities. Our amendments to this bill enable enforcement action to be taken against such actors. This is a very important measure contained in this bill.
Depending on who you talk to, online gambling, for some, can be the most convenient form of gambling—or entertainment, as some have said to me—or a greater curse, according to others. In either case, gone are the days when people had to go to somewhere like a racecourse to have a bet, if that is what they wanted to do. In fact, in 2014, $2.4 billion was spent on online gambling by Australians, which is double the amount of 10 years earlier. Australians, as we know, are amongst the highest-spending gamblers in the world, spending $1,245 per capita in 2014, and we know that that includes many who cannot afford the loss. The overall expenditure on gambling in Australia in 2013-14 was $21.1 billion, and wagering made up $3.4 billion of this. As an interesting comparison, according to the government's Private Health Insurance Administration Council, private health insurance premium revenue for that industry for 2013-14, the same period, totalled $19.3 billion, with $16.9 billion, or around 85 per cent, paid as benefits to policyholders. From that comparison, we can see that in Australia we spend more on gambling than we spend on insuring our health. That indicates pretty well how a lot of Australians see gambling in this country.
Historically, gambling was something like a game of poker around the table with a group of friends. It does not look anything like that anymore. We now see gambling with online overseas service providers, often illegal offshore gambling providers. In Australia, we see all sorts of gambling, including poker machines and national lotteries, and some of these make very good contributions to good and worthy causes. For that reason, those forms of gambling are often supported in homes that would not be involved in other forms of gambling—because the profits are spent for the community good.
I look at horseracing and the changes and disruption that have occurred through the use of the internet and online gambling. The punter, as they are called, knows that odds are calculated to minimise the risk to the gambling host, be it a bookie at the track, if the punter is at the track, a TAB or an online betting company. Historically, it was not unknown for the humble track-side bookie, particularly in rural and regional areas, to go broke if he or she did not calculate their odds well or failed to spread the risk evenly. But today we see, especially with some of the internationally owned operators in the online space, the very extraordinary power of computing and computer programs, which make sure their profits are maintained. For those who are spending the money and having a punt or a gamble, a judgement for the punter to make is how likely they are to be successful in this space. What are the real odds for that gambler? Have they thought about that side of it or is it simply wealth transference, in a sense?
We have seen it made easier and easier to gamble online. That has been the conversion: from traditional products to any device, anywhere, at any time. And many Australians are accessing this service from what could be described as, at best, questionable overseas service providers.
I have seen the impact of this—and we have talked about the disruption of the internet in many fields—when I have looked, in rural and regional Australia, at some of the smaller physical racetracks. They are run, often, by community volunteers. I have seen the challenge they face in trying to compete, in running an event for local people and the community more broadly and for the industry that frequently is a major employer in rural and regional Australia. We have seen numbers of local bookmakers and bookmakers disappear. In fact, there are some great challenges for small racetracks and the volunteer groups.
With the overseas operators, there is greater risk for consumers because the legal protections are not in place and the standard consumer protections are not there. There is the potential, we see, for greater sports integrity problems, as relevant betting and transaction information is actually not available. There is less tax revenue for governments, and less product and other fees for the racing and sports industries. There are fewer jobs for Australians—and I have touched on that in talking about rural and regional Australia—and lower numbers of people actually employed in these industries. And some illegal offshore gambling sites are actually connected, as we know, to crime syndicates. So it is very, very important that there are strong and enforceable regulatory frameworks to protect Australians from the adverse effects of illegal online gambling services.
When, on 7 September, the government commissioned the review to examine the impacts of illegal offshore wagering on Australia, there came up a number of options to mitigate the effects. We also looked at the efficacy of consumer protection measures. We know from that review that the number of online wagering accounts in Australia has grown fourfold during the period from 2004 to 2014, from 200,000 to 800,000, with many people actually operating multiple accounts.
In April this year, the government announced it would implement 18 of the 19 recommendations in the government's response to the recommendations of the review of illegal offshore wagering. This review investigated the impacts of illegal offshore wagering on Australia, measures to mitigate its effects and the efficacy of consumer protection controls. It was led by the Hon. Barry O'Farrell and consisted of consultations with a wide range of industries, academia, those in responsible gambling and government stakeholders, problem gamblers and consumers. The review was told the existing approach to enforcement of the IGA was insufficient to actually deter offshore operators from providing what are prohibited interactive gambling services to Australian consumers and that the amount of money being spent on illegal wagering and its services could be as high as $400 million annually, just on the illegal gambling side. So the money spent on illegal and prohibited gambling services could be $400 million a year. Previous estimates found the total amount of money spent on all illegal interactive gambling services was close to a billion dollars annually. The review concluded that the aim of governments should be to reduce the scope of illegal offshore gambling activity and control the associated harms, through a range of disruptive and deterrent measures, and through strong enforcement of regulation, which we see in this bill.
In addition, the review showed that the rate of problem gambling is higher amongst interactive gamblers compared to gamblers more generally. Offshore gambling has a detrimental effect on the Australian wagering, racing and sporting industries, and on problem and at-risk gamblers, and on consumers and governments. I have touched on the impact that it has in rural and regional Australia, and I am sure that there are other members in this chamber who would have seen a similar impact on their small local racetracks, on their groups of volunteers who provide some great entertainment and also on the industry itself. There are so many people who are employed in the equine sector, and I think the sector is not always recognised for the significant employer it is, and for the economic multiplier that it provides in many rural and regional communities.
Australians are protected against illegal online gambling services through the Commonwealth's Interactive Gambling Act, and that actually prohibits the provision and advertising of prohibited interactive gambling services to people in Australia unless they hold a licence under the law of an Australian state or territory. It is the intent of the government to strengthen those protections—in the first instance, by clarifying the requirements to actually obtain such a licence.
The bill before us today will also introduce a civil penalty regime, to be enforced by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which will allow the ACMA to be responsible for the entire complaint-handling process, from receipt to enforcement—a seamless process which I think, in this instance, is a critical part of the enforcement process and the civil penalty process. It will empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority with new civil penalties, and they will add to and complement the existing criminal penalty powers held by the Australian Federal Police. This demonstrates how serious this government is in this space. The government will also build relationships with international regulators and raise awareness of Australian gambling laws and the risks associated with illegal gambling services.
Online gambling has been linked with cybercrime and money laundering, and it really is imperative that this connection is broken. So I think that, with the AFP involvement, and as we see through this bill and the measures contained in this bill, the government is taking a proactive approach in dealing not only with the illegal operators but also the cybercrime and money laundering that goes with it.
The Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 contains proposed amendments to the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 and the regulations made under the Interactive Gambling Act. The proposed amendments are designed to clarify the law regarding illegal offshore gambling and strengthen the enforcement mechanisms under the Interactive Gambling Act. They represent the first stage of the Australian government's process to implement the recommendations of the 2015 Review of Illegal Offshore Wagering.
I reiterate that Labor acknowledges and shares the concerns that many people have around the growth of online betting, and I affirm that Labor broadly supports the bill's main focus, which is to bolster the enforcement of the Interactive Gambling Act. Labor recognises that well-regulated gambling has a place in Australian society and believes that it is in the interests of industry and consumers that appropriate harm minimisation measures are in place.
As acting shadow minister for communications, I wish to speak to the second reading amendment to the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill, moved by my colleague the member for Franklin, calling on the Turnbull government to work with the broadcast television industry and national sporting organisations on a transition plan to phase-out the promotion of betting odds and commercials relating to betting or gambling during live sporting broadcasts, with a view to their prohibition. Labor's second reading amendment responds to the legitimate concerns of many Australians about the significant growth in betting odds promotion and gambling advertising, especially during live sporting broadcasts. It is designed to protect Australians, including Australian children, by acting to ensure that live sporting broadcasts are free from intrusive gambling advertising and betting odds promotion.
Like many people in this chamber, I have been watching sport on television for a long time. When I first started watching, things were far from ideal. For example, tobacco advertising used to be permitted on television—indeed, tobacco companies were the major sponsors of sport until tobacco advertising and promotion was prohibited in the early 1990s—but at least Australians were not subject to a barrage of advertisements promoting betting and gambling. That is not the case today; far from it. Today, gambling advertising is so prevalent it is changing the way our children think and talk about sport. To quote a recent report from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, published in May 2016, entitled Child and parent recall of gambling sponsorship in Australian sport:
Sports betting companies saturate audiences with advertising across a range of platforms that include television advertisements, during sporting events and, more recently, through social media and sport sponsorship.
Further, 'The majority of children aged 8-16 years were able to recall the names of sports betting brands,' with three in four children able to correctly recall the name of at least one sports betting brand and one in four children able to identify four or more sports betting brands.
Referring to this research in an August 2016 ABC news article, Tom Nightingale reported that children consider gambling ads as a normal part of sport. I quote from that article:
Deakin University researchers said children as young as eight are recalling brand names and even promotional offers.
'Children are very easily able to tell you that if you bet on a certain outcome of a game, if your team kicks the first goal but then go on to lose, that they now expect to get money back on those offers,' study co-author Associate Professor Samantha Thomas said.
The article went on to say that in 2015:
… the gambling industry spent $145 million on promotion, making it the fourth biggest spender in Australian advertising.
A 14-year-old boy told the researchers it was because 'everywhere, the ads make you want to bet.'
A 10-year-old said: 'Every time there is sport on, I'm like, I'm going to bet $5 for the Socceroos to win.'
The article continued:
The researchers said a loophole in advertising rules risks creating a generation of sports fans for whom gambling is normal.
… … …
The researchers said a loophole in advertising rules risks creating a generation of sports fans for whom gambling is normal.
… … …
… we not only have children who can name gambling companies, but also can tell us things like bonus bets, cash back refunds, and the very specific creative factors within the advertisements they see,' Associate Professor Thomas said.
A number of reports have noted an increase in gambling advertising in recent years, despite restrictions on live odds and gambling advertising introduced about 3½ years ago, in 2013.
In 2014, in a piece entitled 'Gambling ads soar following ACMA 2013 live odds ban', Alana Schetzer of The Age noted:
Gambling advertising has soared more than 250 per cent since Australia's broadcasting authority banned the promotion of live betting odds during sports coverage.
She noted that promotion of betting odds is allowed half an hour before and half an hour after the game by persons clearly identified as bookies, and that gambling advertising is still allowed and had increased since the live odds restrictions were brought in. To quote Ms Schetzer:
According to advertising monitoring firm Ebiquity, gambling advertising has increased 251 per cent. Between January and October, 2013, there were 19,953 gambling ads. During the same period in 2014, the number had jumped to 50,037.
More recently, in October 2016, the ABC's Media Watch program presented data from Standard Media Index showing that advertising spending on betting ads is on the rise. It said:
Betting ads are also growing like crazy.
From $91 million worth in 2011 to $236 million in 2015.
And that’s far faster than any other sector of advertising …
It is instructive to revisit the context in which the current broadcasting television codes were amended to restrict betting odds and gambling advertising in live sports broadcasts. Following the leadership and intervention of the Labor government in 2013, the broadcast industry responded to address public concerns and develop rules to restrict gambling advertising in live sports broadcasting, and the promoting of betting odds, in particular. Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy issued a joint media release on these issues on 26 May 2013. They stated:
The Gillard Government has demanded that Australia's broadcasters amend their broadcasting codes … to ensure a reduction in the promotion and advertising of gambling during sport.
They noted that all generic gambling broadcast advertisements would be banned during play and that advertisements of this sort would only be allowed before or after a game or during a scheduled break in play, such as quarter-time and half-time. Most importantly for our purposes today, they stated:
The Government will monitor the intensity of generic gambling advertisements within the allowed periods. If it is found to go beyond reasonable levels, the Government will impose a total advertising ban.
In response, the commercial and subscription radio and television sectors of the broadcasting industry provided draft codes of practice to the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Subsequently, in July 2013, the ACMA registered the new codes, satisfied they contained appropriate community safeguards. While the provisions in these new codes of practice served to limit the promotion of live odds, in particular, and to restrict gambling ads during play, they continued to allow: promotion of betting odds half an hour before play and in the half-hour after play by clearly identified gambling representatives; and commercials relating to betting or gambling before play has commenced, during scheduled breaks, during unscheduled breaks and after play has concluded. That is to say, the codes of practice allow significant windows of opportunity for gambling advertising around live sports broadcasts.
It is notable that, in the backgrounder to its media release announcing the code registration, the ACMA stated as follows:
… the codes do not cover the field of community concerns around gambling advertising and general sports programming. For example, ACMA research also indicates just over 60 per cent of the community find unacceptable the presentation of odds and general gambling advertisements during sports-related programs.
The ACMA will consider if there is a need to review the effectiveness of the new codes following the Australian summer sports season and will continue to examine community attitudes in order to inform its decision-making on any future regulatory initiatives.
The point is that, back in 2013, both the Labor government and the ACMA noted that further action in this area might be necessary in future, once the effectiveness of measures to address community concerns at the time could be examined.
Labor is committed to evidence-informed policy, and it is instructive to consider the evidence of Australian community attitudes to gambling advertising during sports broadcasts. According to community research commissioned by the ACMA, Australians are highly interested in sport—no surprises there! In the July 2013 report entitled Betting odds and advertising for betting agencies during sports broadcasts, the ACMA reported that, at least once a month, 62 per cent of respondents watched live sport on television, 35 per cent watched sport related television programs and 29 per cent listened to live sport on the radio.
Given the popularity of live sports broadcasts among Australians of all ages, it is little surprise that the research found clear evidence that the community finds betting odds advertising, and advertising for betting agencies, to be unacceptable. The research found that two-thirds of respondents indicated that they found promotion of betting odds during live sports broadcasts unacceptable, and more than six in 10 respondents found advertising for betting agencies during live sports broadcasts unacceptable. The research is very clear in reflecting Australians' opposition, by a substantial majority, to this form of advertising.
Thanks to the leadership of the Labor government in 2013, the broadcast industry responded to address public concerns and developed rules to restrict gambling advertising. Now, and with the benefit of three years of the operation of these safeguards, it is apparent that they do not go far enough to address very clear community concerns. It is clear that Australians want to keep the broadcast of live sport and gambling separate. It is in everyone's interest to ensure that children do not associate betting and gambling as a normal part of watching sport on television, yet these commercials continue to intrude upon our nation's love of sport and to cause significant public concern. The rules need to go further.
The time has come for government, the broadcast industry and the sporting codes to accept that gambling advertising before and during live sporting broadcasts is contrary to community standards and to amend the broadcasting codes of practice accordingly. Current restrictions should be extended to ensure there is no promotion of betting odds or gambling advertising at all in the 30 minutes before play and to ensure there is no gambling advertising at all during scheduled breaks, such as half-time, or during unscheduled breaks, such as weather delays. This approach builds on and extends the safeguards introduced into broadcast industry codes of practice in 2013, following the leadership of the Gillard government in calling for the promotion of odds and gambling advertisements to be reduced.
Again today, Labor has shown leadership on the issue of gambling advertising. Our second reading amendment to the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill, moved today in the House of Representatives, responds to the legitimate concerns many Australian parents and families have around the significant growth of betting odds and gambling advertising, especially during live sporting broadcasts. Labor calls on the government to work with the broadcast television industry and national sporting organisations on a transition plan to phase out the promotion of betting odds and commercials relating to betting or gambling during live sports broadcasts, with a view to their prohibition. In doing so, Labor adopts a pragmatic approach. Labor is conscious of the need to address the public interest considerations in a way that does not impose unnecessary financial and administrative burdens on providers of broadcasting services.
Labor's approach demonstrates an understanding of, and confidence in, the co-regulatory system of broadcast regulation, prescribed in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Under this system, industry has the opportunity to develop codes of practice to address matters of concern to the community and, where a broadcast industry code of practice is not operating to provide appropriate community safeguards, the government regulator may step in and regulate by way of a program standard.
Given continuing public concern around gambling advertising during live sports broadcasting, and evidence as to the harm of such advertising, particularly with respect to children, it is imperative that the government work with the broadcast television industry and national sporting organisations on a transition plan to phase out commercials relating to betting or gambling during live sports programs, with a view to their prohibition over time. I urge the government to address this issue as a matter of priority, in the national interest.
The Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 deals with online gambling and, in particular, international online gambling, which is deemed as illegal. Gambling is a great Australian pastime, and although I am not a big gambler myself, I do not mind a flutter. Normally I need to be at the races; I do not tend to gamble online or even at local TABs, but I do gamble at the local races and carnivals, places like Quorn, Hawker, Roxby Downs, Ceduna and the Kimba Cup, to name but a few of those fantastic racing events that happen across the electorate of Grey.
Gambling underwrites the thoroughbred industry; it underwrites the Melbourne Cup; it underwrites the Golden Slipper and it underwrites the Port Augusta and Port Lincoln cups, so it is very important that any adjustment we make in this area protects those interests as much as possible. It is also important that we make sure we are addressing those things that are happening in a fast-moving space which affects their viability, as is the case with this legislation and online gambling—I will get to those reasons in a little while.
My electorate of Grey—to keep with the racing industry for a little while—has generated some of the great venerated sporting heroes of Australia. There are, for example, Makybe Diva—a horse that never actually set foot in Port Lincoln but has its emotional home in Port Lincoln as that is where the name Makybe Diva came from and that is where its owner came from—right through to Kerrin McEvoy, who comes from that hotbed of thoroughbred racing, Streaky Bay, which is on, what we call, the west coast of South Australia. His family have been involved for generations as horse trainers, riders and owners, as have a number of other people from that area.
Thoroughbred racing is a great Australian passion and tradition, as is the action of putting a wager on the outcome of the race. In fact, thoroughbred racing alone, in Australia, employs about 250,000 people, full- and part-time, or about 77,000 FTE. It presents $427 million of prize money a year, and it comes as no surprise to note that most of this money comes from a regulated gambling industry.
Yes, there are benefits in a regulated gambling industry. There are safeguards to protect people. Some would argue there should be more safeguards. And yes, it is taxed. It is currently estimated that the illegal offshore gambling industry is siphoning about $400 million a year from Australia annually. That is presenting a significant tax revenue loss to Australia and those industries that those gambling dollars support.
The digital world has unlocked new opportunities for gambling—for instance, in-play gambling. This is presenting a great challenge to sporting regulators. Corruption and match fixing go hand in hand with drug cheats. If you look at some of the more famous cases in this area, like the Fine Cotton ring-in scandal here in Australia, the conviction and life ban of now deceased South African cricket captain Hansie Cronje—there are quite a number of international cricketers who have had lifetime bans imposed on them. Although some of them have been overturned since, there is no doubt of the view that the sport takes of this kind of behaviour. The former head of security for the United European Football Associations, Chris Eaton, says that match fixing is at a point of crisis. As I said, the link between drug cheating and the incentives to win, and undetected gambling, is strong. In the cycling world, perhaps the most famous drug cheat of all time is Lance Armstrong, and that industry has had a very chequered past with race fixing as well. So we would be fools not to think that this was not happening in other sports.
Match fixing is an anathema to the true sports fan, and Australia is full of true sports fans. Match fixing can occur with or without online international gambling, but any gambling that is hidden from the regulated system provides an avenue for people to harvest the gains of match fixing. That is one of the reasons this legislation is very important. It is important to shore-up the viability of the very good industry of thoroughbred racing in Australia and those others that benefit from the gambling dollar. It is also very important that we do our best to ensure the integrity of these sports so that people who do place a legitimate wager have a legitimate chance of trying to predict the outcome of that particular event without being influenced by things that have happened outside—in this case, match fixing.
The internet is challenging many of the things we take for the norm in our modern society with both good and bad results. There are some very good things we can do on the internet. One of the ones that, I guess, creates a little bit of tension in our economic make-up is the retail industry—I will come to that in a moment. Apart from the retail industry, there are the changes in news services, which we could describe as the opportunity to view both true and false news. This has been in the real news a little bit lately. The internet is also a platform for child and revenge porn. It is a place where people can impersonate an identity for the purposes of grooming children. It is a place where cyberbullying can happen. And it is a place where gambling takes place.
As a guiding rule in my life, I think that, if an individual's actions do not impact in a detrimental way on others, we should be very careful about what actions we take to curtail those actions or to regulate them. So, when you look at the various things that are happening on the internet, I think you need to take them on a case-by-case basis and examine who they are affecting. If you take the first example I used of the retail industry: yes, lost sales are impacting on our local retailers here in Australia, but it is difficult to make a very strong case that individuals should not have the right to buy from wherever they choose as long as they abide by Australian taxation requirements.
In news services, there is a great effect there, too. The slow demise of our traditional news-gathering services in Australia and the Western world, with the loss of advertising and newspaper sales, is going to present a very really challenge—in fact, for our democracy. But it is difficult to argue that people should not have the opportunity to view their news from wherever they wish, and I think it would be extremely unlikely for any government in Australia to try to curtail those activities. But, when it comes to identity impersonation, grooming, child and revenge porn, child abuse and cyberbullying, a very real case can be made that the effects of those activities on others are hugely detrimental. Governments have a responsibility to do what they can to curtail that damage and shut it down wherever possible.
That brings me to gambling. People could ask, 'Why can't you gamble wherever you wish? Why isn’t it a free choice?' Largely, it should be, except in this case, where international gambling organisations that are not registered in Australia are totally circumventing our regulations and tax laws. In that case, they are having a very real effect on the industries that those gambling products fund. So I think the case is quite solid for the reforms that the government is bringing forward at the moment. I thank Barry O'Farrell, the former Premier of New South Wales, for a very well-considered report. The government is adopting 18 of the 19 recommendations he made.
It is worth noting that the proportion of problem gambling in the online world is three times higher than in other forms of gambling. Yes, there is a personal choice issue here, but there is no doubt that this form of gambling is more damaging on the individual than other forms of gambling. Online gambling is the fastest-growing gambling sector, growing at 15 per cent per annum, with over $1.4 billion gambled online each year—which only underlines the urgency that the government move in this area. It is not something that we can put off to tomorrow. That kind of growth means that this is an issue of today that needs to be addressed today.
All those things considered, I commend this legislation that has been brought to the House. I think this is a very realistic move by the government. We need to keep order as much as we possibly can. As I said in my opening remarks, it supports a fantastic industry in Australia that we should guard jealously. Our thoroughbred industry is highly regarded around the world, and long may that continue.
I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 and to support the amendment moved by the member for Franklin. I would also like to say that I thoroughly agree with the comments that the member for Grey made towards the end of his speech. We have a wonderful thoroughbred industry in this country and a history of thoroughbred racing that is part of an iconic industry that employs a lot of people in my electorate. I represent the seat of Hindmarsh and smack bang in the middle of it is the SAJC Morphettville race track, and I know that there are a large number of people who are involved in that industry who work as trainers, strappers, jockeys and a whole range of things. At last count—the last time we managed to get some figures together—we found that we had over 600 people directly involved through the SAJC at Morphettville in South Australia, in my electorate alone.
I feel very strongly about our responsibility to ensure that, as a society, we do everything in our power to stop gambling from becoming a problem for people. I am no prim when it comes to gambling, but there are people in our society who, for some reason, fall into the trap and it becomes a big problem for them. None of us want to demonise gambling. I enjoy a flutter occasionally at the races. I attend the races with my wife Wendy a few times a year, and we thoroughly enjoy it. But we know that there are people who have different issues and become entrenched in gambling and it becomes a real problem not only for them but also for their families. The majority of people who bet do so in a responsible manner, but we also know that, when gambling becomes a problem, it can have devastating social, financial and emotional consequences for the gambler and people who are around them—family, spouses, children et cetera.
There is no denying that gambling is a big problem in Australia. According to data from H2 Gambling Capital, a London based industry researcher, and as reported in The Sydney Morning Herald on 2 September 2015, Australians lose more money per adult on gambling than every other developed country. Back in 2010, the Productivity Commission estimated that the average loss for each Australian that gambled was $1,500. In addition, research indicates that the actions of one problem gambler can negatively affect the lives of between five and 10 others. This means that there are up to five million Australians that could be affected by problem gambling each and every year, including friends, family, employers and people with a gambling problem. Unfortunately, only around 15 per cent of problem gamblers seek help. This figure is likely to be even lower amongst the most vulnerable in our communities, including migrant communities with the language, cultural barriers and stigmas related to gambling in those communities.
There are many good organisations in my electorate of Hindmarsh, such as the Salvation Army, St Andrew's by the Sea at Glenelg Uniting Church, UnitingCare Australia, and Bower Cottages Community Centre—all of which deal with and try to assist problem gamblers. Recently I had the pleasure of launching Relationships Australia's fantastic PEACE Community Ambassadors Project. Relationships Australia do amazing work in this space of gambling. In this particular initiative, they have trained 19 ambassadors from different countries and backgrounds with different language skills, to help address the stigmatised issue of gambling in different communities, and to advise how best to work with individual communities. Initiatives such as this should be supported, and Relationships Australia deserve our support for the great work that they do. All of these people work tirelessly to help families and communities cope with the problems caused by betting and gambling. I have spoken to all of them, on many occasions, and they have all told me firsthand some of the compelling stories of the devastation that has been caused to families by gambling. This is why we need a very well-regulated gambling industry, and why we need to seriously address the growth of illegal online gambling; something that all of the speakers before me have spoken about. So I support the intent of this bill, because it will go some way to assuring that the appropriate harm minimisation measures are put in place.
For example, the bill will clarify the law regarding illegal offshore gambling. This is an area that needs urgent attention. Interactive gambling in Australia has grown rapidly since 2004. We have seen that traditional forms of gambling are in decline, because betting online is using IT technology; things like smartphones, tablets and other digital devices where it has become so easy and so accessible that you have access at the click of your finger. For example, as we have heard, the O'Farrell report found that the number of active online wagering accounts in Australia grew from 200,000 to 800,000 between 2004 and 2014—in 10 years. That is an enormous jump, and that enormous jump coincides with the new technologies that we have. Online gambling at the touch of a button, anytime, anywhere, makes it extremely difficult for those that are vulnerable. It also makes it difficult for susceptible people to protect themselves from this particular temptation. Even more worrying is the fact that this technology has led to the exceptional growth of illegal offshore operators online. This, in turn, is something that we should be concerned about. It has impacted on problem gamblers as well as on Australian industries such as the thoroughbred industry, hotels et cetera. In an article published in The Advertiser on 28 November, it was reported that poker-machine spending in South Australia has 'hit its lowest level since 2003, amid warnings that punters are moving to online games where there is less oversight'. We have industries that are regulated: our thoroughbred industries and venues such as casinos which provide gambling activity are highly regulated; the danger is that people are moving away onto online interactive gambling, where perhaps there is much less oversight. This is worrying because, while all forms of gambling can pose a danger for problem gamblers, regardless of what form of gambling they engage in, we know that it is very easy to put very large sums of money on online bets with the simple click of a mouse. This is very worrying trend, because it is also putting local businesses and jobs at risk.
The second area of reform in this bill is that it seeks to prohibit the click-to-call in-play betting services—that is, placing numerous bets in a short period of time, which has the capacity to lead to gambling problems. Evidence to date suggests that young men are particularly vulnerable to this type of wagering and to addiction from this particular form of betting. If we look at the example of online gambling, it is at the click of a finger: you can just repeatedly click, click, click, click, and lose a massive amount of money. Looking at other forms of gambling, for example, in the traditional form of racing, there is a race every few minutes, or locally maybe every 30 minutes. You place a bet with a bookmaker, you then go out, you watch that particular race—you may win, you may lose—and then you have a bit of time to think about the next bet: what has taken place, and whether you can afford it or not. With interactive gambling, it is immediate. There is no time to think. It is a very, very dangerous form of gambling, and that is what is called click-to-call in-play betting services. It is placing numerous bets in a short period of time, and it has the capacity to lead to massive problems and, as I have said, all the evidence suggests that young men are the most vulnerable to this form of gambling.
In a report published by Financial Counselling Australia into the impact of uncontrolled sports betting, it was found that some unscrupulous sports-betting companies actively encourage customers to bet by offering them credit. If you have a poker machine venue in South Australia, you are not allowed to offer credit—and there is a good reason why not—whereas the report found that: 'In some cases, the lure is initial "free bets" which familiarise consumers with the game, before inducing them to take further credit.' This is very dangerous. The report also found that some of these companies 'swap customer account data, contrary to privacy legislation.' If this is true, it means that a company can swap their list with another company, who can potentially entice that person to resume gambling when perhaps they have ceased, or backed off, or slowed down a bit. For example, a person can receive a fully functioning account, populated with their private financial data, plus some 'free money' or credit to welcome them. This bill will hopefully help address these concerns by, amongst other things: introducing a civil penalty regime; prohibiting click-to-call in-play betting services; amending the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 to enable ACMA to notify international regulators of information relating to prohibited or regulated interactive gambling services; simplifying and streamlining the complaints and investigations; establishing a register of certain legitimate regulated interactive gambling services to raise awareness amongst consumers of services which should be avoided; and amending the ACMA Act to enable ACMA to notify the Department of Immigration and Border Protection of information relating to prohibited or regulated interactive gambling services.
As I said, I support the amendment moved earlier by my colleague the member for Franklin. Labor has taken a clear stance on this. We believe that Australia's children should be protected. We are calling on the government to work with the broadcast television industry and national sporting organisations on a transition plan to phase out commercials in relation to betting or gambling during live sports programs with a view to their eventual prohibition. I feel very strongly about stopping the growing prevalence of gambling advertising on television during live sporting events. It is in the public interest to protect children and those who are vulnerable from associating betting and wagering as a normal part of watching sport on television. That is why it is time to show some real leadership on this issue. It is time to get the balance right. We are not proposing a blanket ban on gambling advertising, but we do want the government to put in place a transitional approach that will lead to genuine solutions.
Australians overwhelmingly want to keep the broadcast of live sport and gambling separate. We want parents and families to feel safe while watching television and we need to protect those who are vulnerable and ensure that kids do not grow up desensitised to gambling. I know first-hand that this is an area of great concern to many Australians. Many people have spoken to me about it. All of us enjoy watching footy or cricket on TV. It is a great pastime. I remember watching football games regularly with my kids. I want to be able to watch sporting events on TV with my grandchildren without being bombarded with betting ads. It is slowly becoming part of the game itself and the commentary. Families should not have to choose between watching a sports event and protecting their children from exposure to gambling. Children should be talking about their favourite teams, the skills on the field and their favourite players, not who they should put money on or what the odds are. We are seeing a trend towards that, especially in commentating on sports programs.
We have heard about many studies that have been done. One by Deakin University found that gambling advertising is impacting on teenagers and children as young as eight years of age and that more than one quarter of children can identify four or more betting companies. So kids as young as eight can identify four or more betting companies, and that is frightening. It is high time that we got the balance right because, despite all efforts, live odds and gambling ads continue to appear on our TVs. I understand that we need to balance the concerns that I am hearing in my community with the economic needs of broadcasters who face competitive pressures. At present, gambling ads are permitted to be played during news, current affairs and live sports events. We should work with the broadcast industries on a transition plan to phase out betting odds and betting commercials. I welcome the call to ban the promotion of betting odds, or gambling ads, in the 30 minutes before the commencement of play, during half time and during delays. What we are proposing is a transitional approach that encompasses a sensible and responsible way forward. I support the amendment. I feel very strongly about it.
It is my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016. I want to commend those opposite who have joined with the government in supporting this very important bill before the House today.
On 7 September 2015, the government commissioned a review to examine the impacts of illegal offshore wagering in Australia. The bill implements key parts of the government response to the review. It was led by the Honourable Barry O'Farrell. I have to say that he has done a superb job. I commend Barry O'Farrell for the very comprehensive work he has done in this space. While we have bipartisanship on this particular bill before the parliament, it should be noted that we did not see this sort of action from members opposite when they were last in power. As with many other issues, we are very proud to lead the way on this important social reform.
On 28 April 2016, the government released its response to the review and agreed to 18 of the 19 recommendations, including measures to clarify the legality of services and strengthen the enforcement provisions under the Interactive Gambling Act. In responding to the review, the Australian government said it would do four things: crack down on illegal offshore gambling providers, which, as we know, is becoming more and more an issue with their insidious activities which are largely unregulated; clarify the law by prohibiting click-to-call in-play wagering services to respect the original intent of the Interactive Gambling Act; not expand the online betting market in Australia by legalising in-play betting; and establish a strong national consumer protection framework. The bill is the first stage of implementing the government's response to the review, addressing the first two parts that I mentioned. Part 3 does not require any further action, of course. Very proudly, we have announced that a national consumer protection framework was agreed to by state and territory gambling ministers on 20 November last year, led by the Minister for Human Services.
Looking at some of the headlines from my local papers—this is from The Geelong Advertiser on 1 August 2016—you can see that $2.2 billion was gambled in Geelong. Pokies take $50 billion in Victoria, and my wonderful region—the City of Greater Geelong—was fourth on the list of municipalities, losing the most behind Monash, Brimbank and Greater Dandenong. This is a considerable issue in my electorate of Corangamite where, even in Colac, poker machine losses have swollen to $7.7 million in the last year. We understand and we know that gambling is an addiction which affects so many families. Gambling is a social curse for many families where it runs rampant and causes enormous issues with family breakdown and with financial hardship. We have all heard so many stories about families losing their homes, losing their livelihoods, getting caught up in illegal activity trying to repay their gambling debts and, of course, causing enormous damage to the family unit.
While online wagering is only a small part of the overall gambling market, it is Australia's fastest-growing segment. The review found that the number of active online wagering accounts in Australia has grown four-fold from 200,000 to 800,000 during the period 2004 to 2014; many people have more than one account. Legal online wagering is growing due to increases in mobile devices and changes in consumer behaviour, and we heard from the previous speaker the concern about television advertising, which I do think is a legitimate point. With mobile devices in our lap while watching TV and the prevalence of more and more television advertising, it is all too easy for a person to click or to push on a particular app and to make a decision that may end in trauma or absolute hardship for them and for their family.
The market is highly competitive. It largely consists of internationally-owned companies licensed and operating in Australia. The review found that estimated gambling expenditure by Australians on illegal offshore sites is between $64 million and $400 million per annum. Today I am very proud that the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill will crack down on illegal offshore gambling. It will amend the Interactive Gambling Act to introduce a range of measures, including amending the law to make it clear that it is illegal for overseas gambling companies to offer gambling products to Australians unless the person or company holds a licence under the law of an Australian state or territory. It empowers the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, with new civil penalties, complementing the existing criminal penalties powers held by the Australian Federal Police, and it allows ACMA to be responsible for the entire complaint-handling process from receipt through to enforcement.
It introduces other disruption measures to curb illegal offshore gambling activity, such as placing company directors or principals of offending gambling companies on the movement alert list so that any travel to Australia can be disrupted. It empowers ACMA to notify international regulators of operators providing illegal or unlicensed interactive gambling services. It creates a register of eligible regulated interactive gambling services in order to raise awareness among Australian customers of interactive gambling services that should be avoided, as evidenced by their non-inclusion on the register. Currently the Interactive Gambling Act prohibits online in-play betting on a sporting event, such as Aussie Rules—and let's not forget to mention the wonderful Geelong footy team—football, rugby league, cricket or tennis, but it allows in-play betting wholly by way of voice calls made using a standard telephone service. Some gambling providers have contravened the original intention of the act by using click-to-call technology, allowing individuals to place in-play bets by selecting their bet online either through an app or the website and confirming the bet by placing a call through to the gambling provider.
The bill before the House today clarifies the law by prohibiting click-to-call in-play betting services, to respect the original intent of the Interactive Gambling Act. The government does not intend to further expand the online betting market in Australia by legalising online in-play betting. As I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution, we are also moving very, very strongly towards putting stronger consumer protections in place. This is not dealt with in relation to this bill, but it is a key element of the government's response. I do commend the Minister for Human Services, Minister Tudge, for his work in leading the way to make sure that consumers of gambling products are properly protected—that gambling providers are put on notice to ensure they are giving the appropriate warnings. We know how much of an issue this is for our children.
Following on from the bill, the government's next step is to implement the recommendations in the review to work with the states and territories to establish a strong national consumer protection framework, which was reached in principle on 25 November 2016. This is yet another example of how the Turnbull government is supporting families. The reaction to the bill has been extremely positive. As I have mentioned, we have seen very strong bipartisanship across the chamber today on this important measure, but it is disappointing that it took a Liberal-National government to implement these important reforms. In so many respects we have seen in this parliament that we are fixing up Labor's mess, and it is regrettable that this has not been dealt with earlier. But let's not dwell on Labor's failures in this respect; let's be positive and reflect on the fact that we are seeing strong bipartisanship.
We take our responsibilities in this space very, very seriously. Our work on e-safety for children on the internet is incredibly important. Our eSafety commissioner commenced on 1 July 2015. We have a very effective complaints system backed by legislation to get harmful material targeted at Australian children down as fast as possible from large social media sites.
Again, when it comes to the safety of our children—who, more and more at a younger and younger age, are using the internet, going on websites, accessing apps through their phones, their tablets—we take it extremely seriously. They are more and more vulnerable to being exploited online, and we are very proud of the work that we have done in relation to the work of the eSafety Commissioner and the legislation that surrounds that.
It is well known that the Interactive Gambling Act to date has been a key reason why many illegal offshore operators have been providing services into Australia. This bill sends a clear message to overseas operators and to regulators that Australia is serious about compliance with its online gambling laws. It is serious about ensuring that we will not let international companies come into Australia and to exploit children and families illegally and, as you can see, from the breadth of this bill and what is encompassed in it, there are many ways in which we are tackling the seriousness with which we take these particular amendments.
Australia has, unfortunately, been a grey market when it comes to gambling laws. A number of major offshore gambling operators have made the most of this but, when I reflect on the sorts of amendments that we are putting to the House today, such a putting some of these directors of companies on the movement alert list, they now know that they are not able to come into this country when they are operating illegally. So we are now seeing a number of major offshore gambling operators who have indicated that they will cease their services. Some have stopped already providing those services and some will withdraw their services once this bill has passed the House.
I urge members on the other side to, obviously, move as quickly as possible to pass this bill in the House of Representatives and then of course in the Senate so we can get on with providing good government and ensuring that, when it comes to it, families and children are properly protected and that the laws in our great country are complied with. I commend this bill to the House.
I would like to make some observations on what I would like to characterise as a well-meaning but ineffective bill. I would like to make a few comments first about how the original bill works. The bill is a bill to amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. It arises from recommendations of the O'Farrell review. The O'Farrell review is just the latest in a series of reviews which have inquired into this piece of legislation and the surrounding area of problem gambling in this country. I have been involved in some of them but not all of them.
The bill, like the act that it seeks to amend, is a well-meaning attempt to prohibit the provision of certain online gambling services in Australia. I say well-meaning but ineffective for several reasons. By definition, the provision of online gaming services are transnational and notoriously difficult to ban. Even if you thought it was a good idea to ban them, it is very, very difficult to ban something that operates in international space across jurisdictions. There are prohibited gambling services that are offered to people in Australia. They operate from other countries. Sometimes those businesses are regulated in the jurisdictions where they operate; sometimes they are not.
I have had a look just before coming down here just to prove the points that I am about to make. I seek leave to table this document, which is one I have just recently downloaded from the internet, headed: 'Best online casinos for Australians.' I seek to table it to make the point.
Is leave granted?
Leave is not granted.
The document that I will quote from includes a series of top recommended Australian casinos. It gives you a list of the top 10, including the betting limits in Australian dollars and how they rate out of 10 according to this online organisation. It gives you an example of the games that are able to be played if you go online and play on one of these online casinos that are specifically marketed to Australians. You can play live dealer games, pokies, blackjack, roulette, baccarat, craps, keno, bingo, Let It Ride, three card poker and a range of other games. What is interesting about this is that these are specifically the online gaming services that are banned by the 2001 bill. They are banned by the 2001 bill but proudly promoted online by this specific site.
The curious reader can scroll down a little further and go to the heading: 'Is it legal to play online?' And you get the legal advice from this organisations as well. It says: 'Yes. Laws currently in effect are based around Australian gambling companies and licensing. It is illegal to operate a web based casino in Australia but it is not illegal to play one. The casinos we recommend are based offshore and, while they may be infringing on Australia's Interactive Gambling Act regulations, it is not illegal for players to utilise the services they offer.'
There you go, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, I am not surprised that the minister opposite was attempting to prevent me from tabling this document, because it demonstrates in a nutshell that, while however well-meaning this legislation may be, it is ineffective.
I could give other examples how the substantive act attempts to ban the advertising of these illegal gaming activities. That is sensible enough: if a service is banned in Australia, it follows that the advertising of that service should also be banned in Australia. Dutifully, our free-to-air broadcasters, our pay TV operators, our newspapers—in fact everyone regulated by the Broadcasting Services Act—and all the proprietors of newspapers in this country abide by the prohibition. But it does not stop the many online services that are broadcasting over the top—Twitter, Google, Facebook and the like—from advertising those prohibited services. This is why I make the point that it might be well meaning but it is not very effective.
Quite contrary to the comments made by the ill-informed but passionate member for Corangamite earlier , I think we should be looking to more effective means of regulating and dealing with these activities that many Australians, quite rightly, have concerns about. The second reason I say the act and the bill are ineffective is the willingness and capacity of law-enforcement bodies to police the law. It is understandably limited. There have been no prosecutions under this act. I hasten to add that this is not a criticism of our law-enforcement bodies. They have limited resources and, as I said at the outset, policing transnational operations is notoriously difficult. If they have to make a choice between spending their precious resources and chasing down would-be terrorists or paedophile rings operating across national and state borders, I know where I would be saying they should be focusing their precious resources—of course it does not have to be a zero-sum game. These are not reasons to oppose the bill—but let us not be as dishonest as the member for Corangamite was just now, and others have been, about what the bill actually does—these are reasons to take a very clear, hard look at other, more effective means of regulation which will achieve the stated aims of the bill and this substantive act.
The O'Farrell report cites the Global Betting and Gaming Consultants findings that the offshore wagering market in Australia in 2014 was worth around $64 million. This is down 70 per cent since 2004. The steep decline, according to the consultancy, in offshore wagering expenditure from Australia coincides with the ability of onshore sites to legally advertise nationally since late 2008—that is, the closing down of legally advertising these gaming activities since 2008. It has had material effect on offshore online gaming and industry consolidation, which has resulted in large numbers of significant offshore operators obtaining Australian wagering licences in recent years. These findings should be instructive to lawmakers and regulators about the best way to go about dealing with the problems I think most Australians would agree are associated with problem gambling in this country.
I am not against gambling. I am not a mad punter. I will have a bet every now and then. Like most Australians, I will do my dough at the Melbourne Cup and a couple of times in between and, if somebody tells me something is a sure thing, I will sometimes mistakenly rely on their advice and, more often than not, I will do my dough—I am definitely one of those. As I tell many people, 'I am an Irish Catholic. There are a few things we do.' It is almost culturally ingrained within us to have a punt every now and then.
However, for some Australians, gambling is a serious problem that has destroyed families and lives. Since coming into this place in 2010, I have spent much time considering the laws and regulations we have in place regulating gambling. I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform in the 43rd Parliament. I had the opportunity of dealing with a lot of the evidence and a lot of the experts in this area, which has informed a lot of the views underlying my comments in this chamber today.
I was an advocate in 2013, which led to what I like to refer to as the 'Tom Waterhouse reforms', which are now enshrined within the code of practice made under the Broadcasting Services Act in this country. I call them the 'Tom Waterhouse reforms' because back in 2013 you could not go to a football match, a cricket match or a tennis game or watch them on television without this particular bookmaker or many of his competitors thrust down your throat. In every break, in-between and during the play, we were seeing advertising for gambling. It got to the point where young kids could quote the odds before they knew the rules of the game. Something is very, very wrong when that is allowed to occur.
I was pleased—and the member for Corangamite obviously did not catch up with this—that the Gillard government did move to force broadcasters to come to the table and ensure that a new code was put in place that regulated the broadcasting of gambling services during sporting fixtures. I thought this was a first step in the process and an opportunity for the industry to show that it could responsibly self-regulate.
In 2013, the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the then communications minister, Stephen Conroy, issued a joint media release on 26 May stating:
The Gillard Government has demanded that Australia's broadcasters amend their broadcasting codes … to ensure a reduction in the promotion and advertising of gambling during sport:
At that time, all generic gambling broadcast advertisements were banned during play, and advertisements of this sort would only be allowed before or after the game or during scheduled breaks in play such as quarter-time and half-time. This was a significant improvement to where we were before that new code of practice was put in place. In July 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority registered the new codes, satisfied they contained appropriate community safeguards. It is notable that, in the backgrounder to its media release announcing the code registration, the ACMA stated:
… the codes do not cover the field of community concerns around gambling advertising and general sports programming. For example, ACMA research also indicates just over 60 per cent of the community find unacceptable the presentation of odds and general gambling advertisements during sports-related programs … The ACMA will consider if there is a need to review the effectiveness of the new codes following the Australian summer sports season and will continue to examine community attitudes in order to inform its decision-making on any future regulatory initiatives.
In my previous comments, I have already demonstrated why the bill as it currently stands is ineffective in its stated objective of prohibiting the provision of interactive gambling services delivered online to Australians. We see the operators providing quite accurate legal advice to their would-be customers on websites that are available here in Australia. I say the most effective means needs to have us looking at the way we are promoting and meshing gaming, including online gambling services, with our sporting fixtures, and this goes to the heart of the second reading amendment which the member for Franklin has moved in this House.
It is worth making this point: we understand the circumstances that the commercial broadcasters find themselves in, with a challenge from online providers which is creating a leakage of revenue that would otherwise flow to them through advertising, at the same time as we are seeing the sporting codes themselves acting in a perfectly commercial way and continually asking more and more and more for the broadcasting rights to very popular sporting fixtures. I understand that the Big Bash League—and I am a big fan of the Big Bash—are looking at receiving fees in excess of $60 million for broadcasting rights, and there is a battle going on beyond Channel Nine and Channel Ten to win those exclusive broadcasting rights. The Australian Open is receiving over $40 million a year through its exclusive broadcasting rights with Channel Seven. The NRL receives $185 million per annum from Channel Nine—extraordinary sums of money. I am not against the sporting codes asking as much as they possibly can for the rights, but the broadcasters and the sporting codes themselves cannot expect, if they continually up and up and up the bidding, that that money is going to be backfilled by gaming advertising during those fixtures. The Australian public will not stand for it, and if this government does not do something about it I am quite certain the next government will.
Honourable members of this House will know the position of the Nick Xenophon Team when it comes to gambling and our continued push for legislative reform in this area. It is no secret that Australians love to gamble, and there is certainly nothing wrong with the occasional punt. However, Australia wagers more than any other country in the world. Some estimates put the amount that Australians spend on gambling at around $20 billion a year.
In the Nick Xenophon Team, we are committed to Australian communities. As long as predatory gambling companies continue to prey on Australians, we will continue to push for reform. Our position includes the banning of in-play betting Australia wide, ending ball-by-ball microbetting, and outlawing the broadcasting of sporting betting ads during games, especially during G-rated periods when children are watching sport. I echo the honourable member for Hindmarsh's comments in relation to watching sporting games with his children and how sports betting is becoming the norm on television and children are constantly seeing this. I do not want my children or other children to be thinking about the odds of each game; I want them to be enjoying the game.
I recently watched the Australian Open with great interest, but I was dismayed at being constantly bombarded with gambling advertisements and live odds updates. The federal government needs to get serious on predatory gambling and this predatory behaviour. Make no mistake: gambling hurts Australian families every single day in this country. These are the facts: according to the Department of Social Services, 500,000 Australians—that is half a million Australians—are at risk of becoming, or already are, problem gamblers, and these people lose around $20,000 each per year. That is close to one-third of the average Australian salary. Between 2015 and 2016, Australians spent $16 billion having a punt, and $13 billion of that was on pokies. This statistic is even more worrying given that young people spend more on pokies than any other age group.
Predatory gambling is a scourge on our society, and this is money that is coming out of our communities, and particularly our regional communities. It touches families everywhere. It does not discriminate based on race, age or gender. We in the Nick Xenophon Team have heard the stories of those families ruined by gambling, from mothers who hide their gambling addiction from their families until they wind up having to steal to pay the bills, to fathers whose gambling addiction has meant they have lost the family home. Yes, there are material assets that are lost, but it also pulls families apart, and people go from the pokie room to the family courtroom.
There is no doubt that the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 is a step in the right direction, and I commend the government for this measure. For too long the Interactive Gambling Act has been impotent when it came to dealing with overseas online gambling organisations operating within Australia. These organisations operated freely within our borders and caused immeasurable harm to Australian citizens. I have questions regarding how the government will be able to enforce penalties against those companies who may continue to disregard the measures in this bill. I would like to see a requirement on internet service providers to block access to websites operated by those who continue to operate within Australian borders without permission to do so.
While I welcome the measure within this bill and I am glad to see the government is recognising that gambling reform is much needed, I do, however, still harbour some concerns about this legislation. For example, some provisions will provide further opportunities for licensed betting venues to offer electronic betting devices. This bill will allow the expansion of the use of electronic devices, including tablets and smartphones, with an in-play betting function within licensed venues. If the aim is to reduce in-play betting, I fail to see how this helps. In-play betting is only supposed to be performed in person or over the phone. These measures will allow gambling operators to potentially expand their operations within licensed venues. Surely that is against the intention of this draft legislation.
I would like to see in-play betting limited to electronic betting terminals to ensure that gambling operators do not seek to expand their operations by allowing people to place in-play bets using tablets or smartphones at a bar. These terminals are permanent installations located in a specific area set aside for gambling and are unable to connect to the internet. That is the sort of protective measure we need.
In my opinion, the bill as it is currently written will increase the opportunities for in-play betting without addressing the very serious concern that this could increase opportunities for gambling. In-play betting is especially dangerous, as it gives a person an immediate opportunity to win their money back, which also heightens the potential for bigger losses. These are spur-of-the-moment decisions people make when they are swayed by emotions and possibly under the influence of alcohol.
I think it is pertinent that, if a government is going to introduce legislation on gambling reform, they consider the issue of harm minimisation. I fear that the current harm minimisation tactics used within bars and gambling venues are inadequate. During the Senate inquiry into this bill, my colleague Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore questioned the department as to whether they thought the current harm minimisation strategies were working. Their response was that harm minimisation was a matter for the states. But this affects all Australians, and I want to see our federal government take more responsibility for this area and work more closely with the states to improve harm minimisation.
Given that this bill will see an increase in betting devices within licensed venues, it cannot be argued that the expansion of the gambling market would not result in harm minimisation. I and the rest of the Nick Xenophon Team will continue to hold the government to account and keep the pressure on to ensure that harm minimisation strategies are considered and implemented as we continue to fight against predatory gambling.
One of these strategies is to continually train gambling service employees to recognise the early warning signs of problem gambling and be able to intervene. The evidence at the moment shows that gambling service employees rarely intervene when they believe a customer is struggling to control their gambling. I would like to see it become an offence for gambling organisations to fail to train their employees to recognise the warning signs and to empower them to act.
This bill does not address some of the issues that contribute to gambling addictions and the devastating impact on families. In August 2015, Financial Counselling Australia released a report called Duds, mugs and the A-list: the impact of uncontrolled sports betting. In that report, a number of industry practices were identified as contributing to problem gambling, and this bill does not address some of those key concerns—for example, the ability to gamble online using credit, which was identified as one of the biggest contributors to the spiral towards problem gambling. I would like to see online gambling operators restricted from offering credit to customers, just like they are in the pokie room. This would be of immeasurable benefit to families across Australia.
In conclusion, this bill is a good first step in curtailing the influence of overseas gambling organisations, but I would like to see it go further to protect Australian families from predatory gambling organisation and I will be moving amendments to that effect.
I have no interest in being a member of the 'fun police'. I believe responsible Australian adults have a right to spend their money as they see fit. But there is a reason why we as a society determine that we turn into adults at 18 years of age. We could argue all day about whether adulthood should start earlier—say, at 16—or revert to 21, but we had to draw a line somewhere, and that line right now is 18. It is at 18 that we as a society have determined that people are responsible enough to decide to consume alcohol and commence gambling. Both of them are potentially addictive behaviours. As a society we have determined that people younger than 18 are not deemed responsible enough to gamble. Gambling is an adult endeavour. It is not for children.
It is for this reason that Labor is speaking on the government's Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill. We believe children should be protected. We do not want them, from a young age, making an automatic association between gambling and sport. We are asking the government to work on a transition plan with the broadcast television industry and national sporting organisations to phase out gambling commercials during live sports programs, with a view to their eventual prohibition.
Those of us with young children know how much they enjoy looking at a screen, whether it is a TV, an iPad or a smartphone, and they suck in what they see like a thirsty man in a desert sucks water from a dirty puddle. Kids are impressionable, and, when they are bombarded with fast-moving graphics and high-volume sales pitches about betting, their young synapses fire up like it is New Year's Eve. When kids hear respected commentators spruiking odds, they listen. When kids see their sports idols advertising for betting companies, urging them to sign up now for the best odds, they get hooked.
The association between sports and betting gets hot-wired into kids' brains. Our kids are effectively trained by the time they are 18 to irrevocably link sports with gambling. They are never really given the chance to make their own decision as adults. They are preprogrammed. A study conducted by Deakin University and released earlier this year found that three-quarters of children can recall at least one sports betting brand. More than one-quarter can identify four or more without prompting. Young teenagers have told researchers disturbing things such as, 'The ads—they make you want to bet.' When young children can recite odds with more certainty than they can recite their times tables we know we have a problem. We need to give our kids a chance to enjoy sport for its own sake. When they are older and when they are adults they can make the decision to take a punt or not.
Labor is asking the government to respond to the legitimate concerns of many parents and families about the significant growth of gambling advertising during G-rated times and sporting events. The figures the gambling industry spends on promotion are staggering: $140 million a year. With that saturation level of advertising our kids do not stand a chance. We are asking the government to protect Australian children. It is time to show leadership. Despite the intervention of the Gillard Labor government in 2013 and the industry response to address public concern about gambling advertising in live sports broadcasting and the spruiking of live odds in particular, gambling ads continue to intrude on our television screens, commercialising our nation's love of sport. They continue to cause significant public concern. At present, gambling ads are permitted to be played during news, current affairs and live sporting events.
Labor is conscious of the need to balance these community concerns with the economic needs of broadcasters, particularly in these parlous days of fractured audiences and the inexorable rise of the internet as a competing broadcaster. We acknowledge the competitive pressures that the commercial free-to-air television industry faces, and we understand that betting and gambling advertising represent a significant revenue stream to industry. But we have been here before. Tobacco advertisers used to be major sponsors and advertisers on our television screens. They have long gone, and our codes and our national health are better for it. Change is possible, and should never be shirked when it is in the community interest. Labor acknowledges that blanket proposals to prohibit betting and gambling advertising overnight would not take account of commercial realities in terms of contracts already in place, nor take account of the co-regulatory system for broadcasting in Australia and the role of industry in addressing community standards. By no means is Labor proposing a blanket ban on gambling advertising. What we are proposing is a transitional approach in relation to advertising that affects children and that encompasses a sensible and responsible way forward.
Labor recognises that well-regulated gambling has a place in Australian society and Australian culture. Australians love a punt. We are amongst the biggest gamblers in the world. The 2015 Review of the impact of illegal offshore wagering report found that in 2014 each of us spent $1,245 a year—around $24 a week—on gambling. We are increasingly betting online. Active online betting accounts in Australia exploded in the 10 years between 2004 and 2014, growing from 200,000 to 800,000. In 2014 the total amount spent in Australia on all forms of interactive gambling was $2.4 billion. This includes both onshore and illegal offshore gambling activities.
There is no doubt that Labor has concerns about the growth of illegal online gambling. Many consumers have moved away from traditional gambling products to betting online using smartphones, tablets and other digital devices. The changes in technology and the way that people access it means Australians can access gambling via the internet whenever and wherever they want, including with illegal offshore operators. The ease of access is a headache for regulators and law enforcement agencies and it is a nightmare for those seeking to combat addictive behaviour. Offshore gambling operators are increasingly targeting Australians, and that is a problem. Offshore companies do not pay any tax, they do not cooperate with our law enforcement agencies, they do not pay fees to local sporting organisations and they have no obligation to consumer protection. When gambling dollars go overseas the positive dividends are lost to our community. It is hard enough for this government to winkle tax dollars from big businesses that operate openly in Australia without having to work out how to hunt down corporations operating illegally offshore.
There is also the risk to the integrity of Australian sport. Unlike licensed counterparts, illegal offshore operators do not share information with law enforcement agencies when it comes to suspicious betting activities. Nor are they required to share any of this information. We do not want to encourage a sports culture in this country of taking a dive or of fixing a race or a match. It will be crushing to not just the individuals and teams involved, but to our sense of self as a proud sporting nation. Where there is organised match fixing you will often find organised crime syndicates. We should do all we can to ensure our sports keep their integrity.
Then there are the serious social implications from illegal offshore gambling. Offshore gambling providers to do not have the same legal or moral obligations around consumer protection and harm minimisation that we impose on our local providers. We have an understanding in Australia that many dividends of domestic gambling are folded back into the community via sports and charities. We task our domestic providers with the requirement to be mindful of problem gambling and to be active participants in minimising social harm. I do not want to overstate the level of what I will loosely call problem gambling, but neither do I want to ignore it. In 2014 the Psychology of Addictive Behaviours journal estimated that 80 per cent of punters were at no risk, 12 per cent were at low risk and six per cent were at moderate risk. Less than one per cent of Australian gamblers are deemed to be problem gamblers, which equates to 0.6 per cent of the Australian adult population. It is not a high percentage, but it is still around 90,000 Australians. And of course, the impacts extend to their families, their workmates and their friends.
There is not enough evidence to suggest a causal link between an increase in problem gambling and online gambling. It could well be the case that online gambling does not create problem gamblers but, because of the ease with which online gambling sites can be accessed, at-risk gamblers are simply more susceptible to its temptations.
Labor does not propose we sit on our hands. It is time to show leadership. Labor believes it is time to act and prohibit these operators and stop the growth of illegal online gambling. Labor does agree that this bill picks up on some of our concerns around the growth of illegal online operators. It will also go some way to improving the protections for those who choose to wager within an online environment.
The majority of people who bet enjoy it and gamble in a responsible manner, whether they try their luck weekly with lotto as I do—I did not win last night, I am very sad to report—or whether they have an occasional flutter on Cup Day. However, Labor knows that gambling in our community can in some cases have devastating social, financial and emotional consequences. That is why we have maintained a strong stance to ensure appropriate harm minimisation measures are in place that protect and assist our community.
It is also why Labor commissioned the Productivity Commission report to update its previous report on gambling industries in Australia when we were last in office. We also rejected recommendations to water down Australia's online gaming laws until harm minimisation strategies were adopted.
Labor acknowledges the concerns that many people have around the growth of online betting. We share the concerns. Even though there is an act in place, it has not been an effective instrument that has stemmed the tide of online illegal gambling services.
Labor accepts that Australians love a punt. We have no interest in being the fun police for responsible Australian adults. But gambling is an adult endeavour, and we should do all we can as legislators to ensure that we allow children to grow up without believing there is an inextricable link between gambling and sport. We must do all we can to stamp out the insidious impacts of illegal online betting.
I also see merit in the government's bill and I will support it. I think the government is to be applauded, at least as far as this bill goes, for finally moving on the reform of online gambling and, with this bill in particular, for starting to address the problems caused by offshore online gambling sites.
We have already heard from a number of speakers about a number of the issues that are relevant to this debate and to this bill—for example, the prevalence of offshore sites, measured in the thousands, and the way they offer games or forms of gambling which are illegal in Australia. In other words, they are not allowed to be offered by Australian gambling service providers. We have heard about the way these offshore sites rig games or make it difficult or impossible for people to collect their winnings and so on. It is beyond time for this reform. I applaud the government for moving with this particular reform.
There is, however, one significant deficiency in the bill and it is a deficiency which I understand the member for Mayo will seek to address—I will have my own amendment as well that seeks to address it—and that is the way this bill would, in fact, allow the liberalisation of in-venue in-play gambling, because of the way it would allow venues like casinos and TABs to depart from the current practice of hardwired kiosks and start to offer wireless technologies within those venues.
My concern here is that it would be the start of a very slippery slope. If people could, for example, go into a casino and pick up an iPad or some other mobile device, or perhaps download an app to put on their own mobile device, it would be a slippery slope. Before we know it people would be saying, 'If we can do that inside the casino or the TAB, why can't we do it at the front door when we go outside for a cigarette?' And if we can do it outside the front door of the casino or the TAB or whatever, why don't we just let people engage in in-play sports betting from home?
My concern here is the way the bill, by being silent on the definition of what sort of devices can in future be allowed for in-play betting while in venue—by failing to define the type of technology that will continue to be allowed for in-play betting—it effectively puts in place a foundation stone for the liberalisation of that sort of gambling. I will be moving am amendment, in the third reading, seeking to bring clarity to what sort of technology would be allowed within venues.
There is also the much bigger issue. I have to give credit again to the government and to the minister, Minister Tudge. He has foreshadowed there will be another government bill, I assume this year, which will seek to put in place some protection for gamblers, and that is good. But we are always talking about that next bill. I think it is a missed opportunity today that today we are not debating a more comprehensive bill and one that addresses a number of other very important issues.
I was listening to the member for Lyons talking about the problem with gambling advertising, and he is quite right. In fact, if you were to go out into the community and ask people, 'What is the single most annoying and problematic aspect about online gambling?' I think the majority would say, 'It's the advertising.' So, while there is merit in all these other reforms and protections, we are ignoring the biggest single problem. The member for Lyons is quite right: there is an abundance of research showing that children are being bombarded with gambling advertising and it is affecting their behaviour. That, quite simply, is because gambling advertising is actually forbidden in all and any G-rated television times, but there is an exemption for sporting events. Why on earth do we allow an exemption during that time of the day when in fact many, if not most, children are watching the telly? I do not think they are watching the telly; they are enthralled by a game of sport and are watching their sporting heroes. So when they are at their most vulnerable government regulation allows gambling advertising to occur. I lament the fact that we are missing this opportunity in this place this week to address that issue. I applaud the opposition for moving their own amendment, which I will support, seeking at least to start to address the issue of gambling advertising.
There are also a number of other issues, some of which I understand the member for Mayo is tackling. Again, they are a missed opportunity that we could be addressing today. For example, the way that some Australian service providers do have somewhat effective self-exclusion arrangements is good and commendable, but the problem is that if someone who has an app for one gambling house and has excluded themselves is desperate for a punt they can swipe to another app and start gambling with another service provider. What is needed, and what I am told by the industry is technically achievable, is a national self-exclusion database for online gambling—in other words, for all gambling service providers effectively to be talking to each other electronically. So when someone reaches a self-imposed limit with one service provider or if someone has excluded themselves from one service provider that information would be shared in real time with other service providers so people could be confident that the limits they had placed on themselves would in fact be in place with all Australian online gambling companies. I think that would be a really effective harm minimisation measure. Yes, there will be another bill which will look at protection of gamblers, but we have to stop talking about this. We could have done it all in one go at this point in time.
Another issue which I am very mindful of and which the government—or, I think, the opposition either—have not shown any interest in is a genuine crackdown on the provision of credit for gambling, in particular the provision of credit for online gambling. Yes, we are talking about service providers not being allowed to offer credit, but of course people are gambling using their credit card. In other words, just about every person who is engaged in online gambling is enjoying the use of credit. I will not mention any particular service provider, but what is the point of saying to a service provider: 'You can't offer a couple of hundred dollars or $500 or $1,000 of credit,' but we will allow the gambler to use their credit card, perhaps with a $50,000 line of credit? I am quite influenced in what I am saying here by people who work in the financial services and banking industries, who tell me that it is actually technically quite achievable and that, in fact, there is already at least one Australian bank that prohibits the use of their credit cards for online gambling. So it would be possible. It would be quite easily achieved to insist that in future people could only use some sort of debit facility when engaging in online gambling. They are things for the future and things for us to keep focusing on and to look for areas of reform.
What the interactive gambling act completely ignores, what this debate today completely ignores, what all of our applauding each other for making some reform possible ignores—what it all ignores—is the other half of the problem. Yes, online gambling is a big industry. It is growing rapidly and it is reasonable to assume that with that growth will come an increasing number of gambling addicts. But what about the other half of the equation? What about the 200,000 poker machines in this country, on which some 100,000 or so Australian gambling addicts are losing each year $4,000 million or $5,000 million? We know that over $10 billion is lost on the pokies each year, and that 40 per cent of that is lost by gambling addicts. So we know that $4 billion or $5 billion a year is being lost by people who cannot afford to lose it. Yet the government remains completely unwilling to introduce further reform in that area. The opposition is silent on the matter. I lament the fact that although the Gillard federal government did introduce some modest poker machine reform the Abbott government overturned those reforms and in fact overturned them with the support of the Labor Party in the Senate.
It is more than a shame—it is a tragedy, actually—that the current Prime Minister before he became Prime Minister put on the record his concern about poker machine gambling addiction. He said things suggesting that he would be a reformist should he ever have the opportunity in the future. But like any number of other things—like marriage equality, climate change—here is a case where the Prime Minister has let us down terribly. We had a wonderful opportunity in this parliament with an apparently reformist minded Prime Minister to finally do something about poker machine gambling addiction. Imagine if this parliament, the 45th Parliament, was the parliament that not only introduced effective reform of online gambling but was also the parliament that finally introduced effective reform on poker machines and introduced effective harm minimisation measures for people who gamble on poker machines. Unfortunately, I do not hold out any hope that this parliament will be the parliament to move on poker machines. That is a shame.
I am pleased to say, though, that some in the industry are trying. I was delighted to see that Wesfarmers and Coles is hoping to introduce $1 maximum bets on the 3,000 or so machines that it owns and operates through its string of hotels. I was appalled that they could not find a single Australian poker machine manufacturer who will retrofit or manufacture new machines for the implementation of that policy. What does that say about the industry? So when it comes to pokies, not only does the Liberal Party not care and not only does the Labor Party not care, but the industry does not care. All the while, there are some hundred thousand or so Australians out there who are suffering at the hands of gambling addiction from poker machines. They are mums and dads, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, work colleagues, friends, people who often lose their job or their house, people who cannot afford to buy their kids breakfast. We need to keep moving on that.
I will end my speech now, because I can see we are almost out of time, even though I am a couple of minutes short of my allocated time. I will support the bill. I will also support the amendments of the Labor Party and of the member for Mayo.
Order! I thank the member for his contribution. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Like all members of this House—if they are honest—over the break my office was deluged with complaints from ordinary citizens—families, pensioners, disability pensioners—
Single mums.
single mums and the unemployed—distraught at the government's flawed Centrelink robo-debt notice program. It is a flawed program, as we learned: 40 per cent of notices are incorrect. I would like to share with the House the story of Michelle, a single mother from the suburb of Dandenong. She received a notice saying she owed $700 from five years ago. She provided what paperwork she could find and Centrelink said, 'Oh well, you owe $281,' but could not, and would not, explain why. She appealed it but started repaying $5 per week, which is still a lot of money for her.
But that was not why Michelle came to my office. She came because she had no money to buy schoolbooks for her son to start school. Quite rightly, she had gone to Centrelink and said, 'Can I have an advance on my own money?' The answer was: 'No, because you owe a debt, which we won't explain and which you are appealing. You have started to repay it, but no.' So I advised her to go to the Herald Sun after writing a letter to the minister. Of course, one phone call from the Herald Sun and the minister's office waived the debt. We do not know why. No-one can explain. It is an unfair mess that feeds the government's cruel narrative. Perhaps they may see it as a success that Lifeline now has a dedicated section for call takers on these issues, yet the minister says, 'Call the 1800 number.'
Most parents would know and enjoy that connection with fellow parents at their kids' school sports. It is that common bond: you are standing in the rain, the cold or the heat together, cheering on your child's team. Whilst many of these connections are more acquaintances than friends, you are still grateful for their friendship and company. One of these acquaintances, a mum at my child's school, had enduring fatigue and a persistent headache for days, which she passed off as a virus. However, her GP ordered a CAT scan, which showed a brain tumour: secondary cancer. The primary cancer was ovarian cancer. When she passed away in her mid-40s, the school community was rocked with grief and, albeit I did not know her well, I cried and cried.
Each day in Australia, four women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and three of them will die from the disease. Ovarian cancer has the lowest survival rate of any women's cancer and there has been very little improvement in the survival rate in the past 20 years. The symptoms of ovarian cancer are pervasive and silent. Some symptoms include excessive fatigue, appetite loss, indigestion and persistent bloating. Some key risk factors include family history of ovarian, breast or bowel cancer, or being aged over 50. Awareness in this regard is critical, so spread the word to stop the spread of ovarian cancer.
The need for mental health services in the Adelaide Hills has never been greater. Our population is growing, and rapidly, and we need specialist services such as headspace close to hand. The Mount Barker district population is approximately 30,000 and is expected to reach 50,000 in just two decades time. Twenty-six per cent of the population is aged younger than 18, compared with 21 per cent in Adelaide.
In my electorate I run community youth forums called Young Mayo. The forums are incredibly valuable for me, as I hear directly from young people what issues are important to them. One issue that is important to them is getting a headspace centre in our community. They have instigated a petition, which is getting widespread community support.
Recent statistics show that 15 out of every 100 people in the Mount Barker region suffer from mental health related issues. Even more concerning, between 2008 and 2012 the suicide rate in Mount Barker was the highest in South Australia. Given our rapidly expanding population, we are long overdue to get a headspace centre.
I urge the government to recognise the vital need for mental health services in our region, particularly for young people. I look forward to sharing with the government the results of the petition and will continue to call for this vital service.
Today I have written to the Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, to outline my support for government funding of 15 hours of early childhood education. There is something I have to commend former Prime Minister Gillard for, which is implementing Commonwealth funding for five hours—matching the states' 10 hours—of early childhood funding. The government that I am a part of continued that, and it has been very successful across the electorate of Mallee. The nine local government areas in the electorate of Mallee have built facilities, but their facilities only remain viable when funded for 15 hours.
I represent an area that has some of the lowest socio-economic classes and some of the challenges that go with that. One thing we can do to invest in children's education is to ensure that children have that little bit of extra time in kindergarten. I have seen this myself with my own foster daughter, and I have to say that those 15 hours are very worthwhile. I have outlined that this is something the government should fund for 2018. I hope and trust that the minister will give my letter the consideration it deserves: I know that there is a strong place in his heart for early childhood studies and I look forward to a positive result for funding in 2018.
There is a battle going on in rural parts of the Hawkesbury in my electorate over a string of NBN wireless towers. We have seen the same problem at Cattai, Maraylya, Yarramundi, Sackville, and now Wilberforce. The 45-metre towers are deemed by NBN Co to be the most appropriate technology for these parts of the Hawkesbury. There is no doubt that people want an NBN service, but this has been one of the worst pieces of community consultation that I have seen since the nineties.
Over the last 12 months or so, the organisation which has been contracted to install the towers basically writes to landowners in the areas they are interested in, offering ever-increasing amounts of money until someone finally says yes. Only at that point do they bother telling neighbours and members of the wider community about their plans. As one of the participants suggested at a round table I held with shadow regional services minister Stephen Jones: why aren't they up-front with the community in the first place? Then it would be a more transparent process, and the chances of people feeling that they were being treated with respect would increase.
I think the worst of it is—the saddest part of it is—that, as part of this shocking process, you are pitting neighbour against neighbour and dividing our communities. That hurts everybody. We are a community that needs to pitch in together when there is flood or there is fire. We need to be building community, not destroying it.
There is a battle going on in McMillan for good health services, including for a new hospital for West Gippsland. In particular, I have a petition here from West Gippsland residents.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:
This petition of certain citizens of East Victoria especially the West Gippsland District draws to the attention of the House: The lack of a MRI medicare license in our community. Baw Baw Radiology purchased a state of the art MRI scanner in May 2016 which services a patient pool of approximately 200,000 people which are currently forced to pay exorbitant fees or travel to Melbourne for a bulk-billed MRI scan.
We therefore ask the House to grant Baw Baw Radiology a full MRI license, or at least a partial license, to enable them to bring a genuine bulk-billing service to the 200,000 citizens in their catchment area of Gippsland.
from 1 citizen
Petition received.
Truneah Jackson is the principal petitioner. This petition obviously comes with significant support material including letters, emails and many hundreds of signatures. It is not a lot to ask for regional communities to have the best health services government can provide, and as many of these MRIs are owned by very large international companies it is good to give the locals a go now and again.
Here in the nation's capital, just 15 minutes from this very Parliament House, Canberrans are experiencing some of the worst internet speeds in the world. This is having a significant impact on their ability to take part in educational opportunities, on their ability to take part in active citizenry and also on their ability to set up small businesses and to work from home. It is because of the Turnbull government's complete and utter contempt for Canberra that they are not even on the NBN rollout map. Go to the NBN site, search for when the NBN is going to be rolled out here in Canberra and for most of it you just get one big blank space. This from a government that said every Australian would have NBN by last year.
I have petitioned the Turnbull government for Canberra to be prioritised, I have written to the Turnbull government, I have spoken about our parlous situation countless times, and the response has been absolutely nothing. So I have asked Canberrans to send me their speeds to highlight their appalling internet connections. From Bruce in Theodore: line speed 0.52 megabits per second; download 0.07 megabits per second. From Pamela in Calwell, here in the nation's capital: download 0.16 megabits per second; upload 0.77 megabits per second. And from Marcus in Fadden: download 5.62 megabits; upload 0.88 megabits. If this government will not listen, then we have got to show them these appalling speeds in Canberra. (Time expired)
I bring good news to this parliament. Good news by way of a rising sports and athletics star: young Riley Day. Riley, who is in year 12 at Beaudesert high school, ran for Australia recently at the Nitro Athletics series in Melbourne on Saturday. She came second in the women's 150-metre sprint, just behind an Olympic semifinalist, which was the calibre of the athletes that were at the Nitro Athletics series. Riley also had the pleasure of running against Usain Bolt's All-Stars team and got to run the second leg in the lane next to Bolt himself, a memorable occasion for her.
It has been the talk of the town in Beaudesert. Everyone sat around their televisions on Saturday to cheer the local girl on. Riley gave it her all and, as a community, we are all extremely proud of her. She will run for Australia again in the second round of the series tomorrow, and I am sure the cheers will be just as loud for our little local hero.
The finals, which are already sold out, are on Saturday, and I know that at least a few of our Beaudesert local residents have managed to nab tickets and have taken the opportunity to fly down to watch her live. She will back up next week as well, flying down here to Canberra to take on the nation's best at the ACT state championships. Once the excitement of the Nitro series and the ACT state championships are over, Riley will run full throttle at her next goal, which will be to represent the country at the Commonwealth Youth Games in the Bahamas in July. What an incredible experience for a 16-year-old girl from Beaudesert! As a community, we could not be more proud of the little champion, and we wish her the best.
A few weeks ago Heidi, Will and Woody, the breakfast hosts on Perth's Hit 92.9, spoke about a juvenile appearing in the Armadale Magistrates Court in my electorate who had spat at a police officer. This is behaviour that must be condemned. But this incident was not being discussed as a news story. Instead, the hosts took to bagging out Armadale, calling Armadale the 'deep south' and implying that this was just typical behaviour from young people from Armadale.
This was brought to my attention by the fantastic team at the Youth Partnership Project, a coalition of local services in Perth's south-east, led by Save the Children, which strives to address the problems faced by at-risk youth in our region. This group does fantastic work in an area with some of the state's worst incidents of youth crime, family violence and child neglect. Now the Youth Partnership Project is calling on all Western Australians to 'change the story' about Armadale youth because there is another story that needs to be told. Some young people in my electorate were born into lives that have been tougher than those experienced by most. But they have faced their challenges with resilience and strength, and they do our community proud. Unfortunately, too many still get left behind.
Armadale is, of course, much more than the negative stories. It is a growing, vibrant, beautiful part of the world—home to a talented and diverse people. Participants in the Youth Partnership Project even won the local youth citizen of the year award in Armadale this year. So this is my message to the media in WA, and to all Western Australians: stop the sniggering treatment of Armadale and change the story to one of hope.
February is ovarian cancer awareness month, and I was joined at Ovarian Cancer Australia's teal ribbon breakfast this morning by women from my electorate. There were some fantastic women, including Trudy Crowley, who is living with ovarian cancer—she gave a speech there—and survivor, Maree Westman, along with their friends and supporters, Jodie Euler and Patrice Jamieson.
Ovarian cancer affects many families, including the friends and family of Mackay's Dakota Rose, who was nine years old when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer last May. With a five-year survival rate of just 43 per cent, ovarian cancer has the lowest survival rates of any women's cancer, so there is a lot of support needed for the women—and children—diagnosed and for their families. Ovarian Cancer Australia is seeking more funding to continue support and to reach a wider group of women with ovarian cancer. More emphasis also needs to be placed on priority driven research, with a focus on better treatment options.
I agree, and I want people like Trudy and Maree and their families, and all of those who are battling ovarian cancer, to get the support they need. I will be advocating on their behalf for the funding that can improve quality of life and help to extend life. I will also be facilitating meetings with the Primary Health Network and the Mackay Hospital and Health Service to see what local funding might be available for a support network in Mackay and maybe throughout all of North Queensland.
I rise, like many other MPs, to inform the House about the frustration being felt in my electorate by people who have been sent Centrelink debt recovery notices. Francis from Moorooka emailed my electorate office recently after he received such a Centrelink debt recovery notice. Francis was very concerned that his debt had been incorrectly calculated. He submitted an application for review by a Centrelink authorised review officer but was particularly worried about the Centrelink appeals process. Francis was under significant financial stress due to the debt notice. Centrelink have since contacted him to say, 'The software says you owe us this money,' with no other detail or explanation.
The flawed data-matching program being used by Centrelink is resulting in wrong outcomes, we hear, around 20 per cent of the time. That means around 4,000 honest Australians every week are being accused of fraud, and this is causing hardship and distress and all sorts of anxiety. This is no way to treat tax-paying, respectable Australians. The Turnbull government's flawed debt recovery program should be suspended immediately so that the frustration being felt by people like Francis of Moorooka is not experienced by others. Whilst I do live in Moorooka, I should stress I do not know Francis. He is just one of the many people who have contacted my office to complain about these debt recovery notices and the heartache that they are causing.
On 25 January, I attended the Resourceful Australian Indian Network's annual general meeting and Pongal celebrations. Pongal, of course, is a thanksgiving celebration of a successful harvest and is one of the biggest festivals in South India. It is a time that many Australian families of Indian background come together to celebrate the beginning of the new year. It was good to celebrate this occasion with the members of RAIN.
RAIN is one of the most remarkable and active community organisations anywhere in the Banks electorate. It is to be commended for all of its activities. The group coordinates programs for seniors groups, disability groups and older people in our community of an Indian background and helps them to stay active and involved in the community. It also provides support services, home visits, information sessions for carers, language classes and a whole range of other activities at the centre in Penshurst, which the group purchased a number of years ago. In 2015, the government, through the Stronger Communities fund, was able to assist RAIN in purchasing some training equipment and technology that will continue to assist the group in its very important services. I would like to thank Dr Sudha Natarajan, the CEO of RAIN, who is a charismatic and great leader of real integrity in the group, for everything she does and for everything that RAIN contributes to our community.
I rise to congratulate and to commend the 10 local community members from Lindsay who were recognised with Australia Day awards this year. 'Rossco' Hutchison is Penrith Citizen of the Year for his work supporting our local performing arts scene. Twenty-four-year-old Mitchell Beggs-Mowczan—apologies for the pronunciation—was named Penrith's Young Citizen of the Year for his important work in local Indigenous health and mentoring and the volunteering that he does outside of his actual job. Leonie Moore was awarded Sportsperson of the Year, following more than 30 years of incredible service to basketball in our community—proving that basketball is life! The Local Hero gong went to Ray Debono, who has donated blood more than 225 times to save the lives of others and has raised more than $100,000 for charity.
Four people were also honoured with local appreciation awards, including Kevin Finlayson and Denise Roberts for their work campaigning for local disability services, awareness and access; Robert Baines for his extensive volunteer work in our community and with the Lions Club; and Christine Erskine for her incredible work helping keep children safe as the executive officer of Kidsafe New South Wales. Two local gentlemen, Jim Tiberi, who heads up the University of the Third Age, and Paul Crofts, were mentioned in the Australia Day honour roll and received Order of Australia medals.
I congratulate and commend each of these people. Each of these proud locals has had their important contributions to our community honoured in these awards. I congratulate them and thank them immensely for their tireless work for our community.
Australia is often cited as being one of the most successful multicultural societies in the world. Within my electorate of Murray, I am proud that the community of Shepparton reflects this success, particularly with an organisation called Future Voices. Future Voices is a group building a new generation of leaders from diverse cultural backgrounds from around the globe and our local Indigenous community, building confidence, breaking down barriers between cultures and upskilling the students to become true leaders in their own communities. Future Voices' main goal is to build the capacity of young people who face multiple barriers, focusing on humanitarian refugees and migrants aged between 15 and 25, to develop relationships across communities and build social cohesion to overcome poverty, long-term unemployment, low education outcomes, disconnection and social isolation.
The Shepparton region has been multicultural for as long as I can remember—long before the term became common and popular. These programs take place after school, on weekends and during school holidays, and they have certainly had some amazing results, with many of the students engaging with over 70 community, business, government and political organisations. Certainly these participants are achieving outstanding results, with continued education, employment opportunities that are being taken and opportunities to engage in the community in a much more wholesome manner.
On Saturday, I was pleased to host the third annual Kingsford Smith Lunar New Year festival at Dacey Gardens in Kingsford. Thousands of locals came together on the fringe of one of Sydney and Australia's best Asian food precincts to usher in the Year of the Rooster and to celebrate the diversity and multiculturalism of our community.
On the evening, there was something for everyone, with Asian food stalls; music, singing, dance and cultural performances; kids' activities, including Chinese calligraphy, paper cut and origami; and, of course, the very, very popular lion dance. It was great to see our community unite under the banner of multiculturalism, to celebrate our community's greatest asset—our diversity.
The event brings together a number of organisations that host it. I wish to congratulate and thank those organisations—in particular, Bayside Council, the University of New South Wales, the Kingsford Chamber of Commerce and the Confucius Institute at the University of New South Wales, as well as many local businesses and organisations.
This is now an annual event, and it is a highlight on the local calendar. To all those who celebrate Lunar New Year, I wish you and your families a very happy, safe and prosperous New Year. Xinnian kuaile! Jinian kuaile!
Thank you very much indeed! I cannot outdo that one!
I was certainly taken aback today in reading in today's media of the salary package of Australia Post's CEO Ahmed Fahour. Earning $5.6 million in 2016, he was Australia's highest paid public servant. Five other executives in Australia Post received salaries ranging from $1.3 million to $1.8 million.
This is not the first time there has been public outrage over this. Here we have a situation where Australia Post is constantly complaining about being under financial pressure in a changing world. They use this to continually justify their increases in prices, such as in the cost of stamps, and their reductions in service, including dropping the frequency of mail services.
I appreciate that, if you want to attract the best people to the public service, you need to offer remuneration that is attractive to them. And I am not disputing that Mr Fahour has turned around Australia Post's failing letters business. But, looking at these salaries, they just beggar belief. Should a CEO of an Australian business enterprise that is accountable to the parliament be paid 10 times more than the Australian Prime Minister?
Reviewing these packages, I believe, would be a great way for Australia Post to start looking at being far more cost-effective. I will certainly be letting the Minister for Communications know of my view. We really need a reality check. Australia Post is not a private enterprise; it is in fact a public utility.
As the Turnbull government stumbles from disaster to catastrophe, there is one particular incident that should remain front of mind. Numerous Batman families and pensioners have been contacting me over recent weeks concerning the disastrous Centrelink debt notices that they have received because of this government's mismanagement and incompetence.
The error-prone robo-debt system has resulted in the wrong outcome over 20 per cent of the time—some speculate, up to 40 per cent. At least 20,000 people are affected every single week.
We saw this government's census fail. We saw, in more recent days, the ATO go offline. We know that this government struggles to manage any communication system of any kind. But this is completely unacceptable, when so many innocent people have been so detrimentally affected. As if that were not enough, the program also reverses the onus of proof, so people who have no debt, and do not respond to the letter, automatically have their debt raised.
Enough is enough. Too many people in my community are being accused of fraud. This is causing an incredible amount of stress and anxiety for people who have done nothing wrong. On the weekend, I had one constituent describe to me how she was contacted by the debt collector before she was even contacted by Centrelink. Even Eric Abetz—that notorious champion for freedom!—has agreed that this accident-prone robo-debt system has made too many mistakes and is hurting innocent Australians. (Time expired)
I rise today to lend a strong voice in support of those living with cystic fibrosis. Late last year I met with the team at Cystic Fibrosis Queensland to learn more about their vital work. All members should be interested to hear that, for the first time, here in Australia, there are more adults than children living with CF, due to our improving ability to manage the effects of this incurable disease. Many of them are in Queensland, I should add, because of the weather. Yet the current life expectancy is still only 38 years.
I hope members know about the rally here at Parliament House this week raising awareness of the needs of those living with CF. It is with pride that I report that this government has now expanded access to the life-saving drug Kalydeco by listing it on the PBS for those aged two to five. Thirty young children will now have the help they need to stave off the lung disease that ultimately determines their life expectancy. The CF community now wants the focus on drugs like Orkambi.
Achieving quality of life and longer life expectancies are paramount to the cystic fibrosis community, and I want to congratulate CFQ and new CEO Petrina Fraccaro on their work and advocacy. Keep it up, and I look forward to working with you into the future.
I rise today to discuss some issues that have been raised with me in my electorate, and one of them is that this government is hurtling towards the development of a budget for 2017 while still living in the shadows of the disastrous 2014 budget. The Centrelink debacle sits with this, because people in my electorate are raising this with me. They are saying: 'So, Jo, the government couldn't do what they wanted to do in the 2014 budget, so they are coming at us via regulation. They're going to try and do the 2014 budget, but they're going to not get it through the House. They're not going to bring it to the parliament. They're going to bring it through the back door.' And what can I say to them, other than: 'That is what the evidence seems to be, when we look at: "We want to bring in a GP tax; it gets knocked back; bring it in through a freeze;" and: "We want to cut Centrelink; bring it in through the back door."'
Today, we see Minister Porter is being brave. He is bringing something through the front door. He wants to stop young people getting support for four weeks when they lose their job. That is what this minister wants to do. And not just that; he also wants to cut 22-year-olds off Newstart, take 50 bucks a week off them, and put them back onto youth allowance. This is an absolute outrage. This government is a disaster. (Time expired)
Just before New Year, my electorate of Capricornia lost a well-known old war veteran and Sarina identity. Former returned serviceman Ernest 'Ernie' Schneider passed away on 30 December 2016, aged 96.
When he was 20, in June 1940, Ernie enlisted in the Army during World War II, serving a total of five and a half years. Ernie's unit fought the Japanese on the Malay Peninsula to Singapore, where he was taken prisoner with thousands of other troops of the 18th Australian Division. Ernie endured three and a half years as a prisoner of war in Changi prison. He endured inhumane conditions working on the infamous Thai-Burma railway, where thousands of lives were lost from starvation, beatings and sickness. He was listed as missing in action on 16 February 1942, and was not confirmed as a POW until 14 October 1943.
Ernie returned home after the war ended, emaciated and in poor health. He married his wife Greta, raised three children and lived in Brooks Road, Sarina, all of his life. He was married to Greta for over 70 years.
Ernie was also a member of the Sarina RSL for over 70 years. Our sincere condolences go to Ernie's family on this occasion.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That further statements in relation to the Queen's Sapphire Jubilee be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
In so doing I would like to make the point that the behaviour of the members for Griffith and Bendigo has been particularly disgraceful but the whole Labor Party has lacked decorum and lacked respect for the Queen's Sapphire Jubilee. I am a republican, but your behaviour has been absolutely abominable.
Does the Manager of Opposition Business wish to speak to the motion?
I do wish to speak to the motion.
The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
Leave is granted during question time for motions to be moved and not for speeches of that nature to be given. The government should think carefully if they want leave to be granted in future.
Government members interjecting—
Those on my right will cease interjecting when I am seeking to speak to the House. I have listened to the Manager of Opposition Business. I have already had to caution the member for Griffith for interrupting proceedings before question time. I made that very clear while I was waiting to give the Leader of the Opposition the call. I am going to put the motion moved by the Leader of the House. Since the point has been raised, I am not happy with the behaviour in the House before question time. I think it reflects poorly on the House and it is not what people have come to question time to see.
Question agreed to.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Exactly how many Australian families will be worse off because of the Prime Minister's cuts to family payments introduced into the parliament today?
The very clear distinction, the difference between our side of politics and theirs, is we stand for the security and the opportunity that Australian families deserve. We have come to the parliament today with a child-care package that will make child care more affordable and more available to Australian families. It will ensure that the greatest beneficiaries of this reform are Australian families on lower incomes. It will make child care more available. As the mothers said to me at the Crace child-care centre this morning, 'It will enable us to stay in full-time work.' One mother said, 'This will enable me to work another day.' She said to me as I walked out of the child-care centre, 'When is it going to start?
I said, 'That will depend on the Senate and the Labor Party,' and she said, 'I hope they support it.' Well, Australian families right across Australia are saying to us they want more affordable and more available child care, and the members opposite stand in the way.
Mr Speaker—
Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?
I have.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on steps the government is taking to support household budgets of hardworking Australians and reduce cost-of-living pressures, including in my electorate of Swan?
I thank the honourable member for his question, because he knows, as we all do, that Australian families are struggling under the weight of constantly increasing power bills, which more than doubled in some parts of the country under the Labor government. They know that the greatest threat to household power bills, the greatest threat to affordable and reliable energy, electricity and gas, is the reckless energy policies of the Labor Party, whether in this chamber or in state governments around the country. Everything we are doing is focused on improving the opportunities of Australian families and the businesses that employ them, and the Labor Party stands in the way of affordable energy, reliable energy, with its unrealistic, reckless, uncosted emissions reduction targets, double what we have already contracted to in Paris, and renewable energy targets double what has been contracted under the renewable energy target.
The absurdity of the Labor Party's position is this: the very workers they claim to represent have their jobs threatened by Labor Party energy policies. If the honourable member opposite still has a few contacts from the AWU in his smart phone, he could call up the workers at Portland and ask them what they think about the Labor Party's renewable energy targets. We are focused on the concerns and needs of every Australian family and every business.
With child care, the security of child care—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is warned.
is also a platform on which the opportunity to work and get ahead depends. Energy security provides the platform for households to manage their budgets; for businesses to invest, to employ; for people and their businesses to get ahead. And child care security and availability—that too is a platform for opportunity. We are listening to Australian families and Australian businesses. We know that they need reliable, affordable energy; they need affordable and available child care. We are offering both. The Labor Party stands in the way, driven by ideology, unwilling to recognise that it is its policies that are putting the livelihoods and the jobs of so many Australians at risk.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's failure to answer my previous question about family payments. When will the Prime Minister admit that over one million Australian families will have their family payments cut because of the legislation the government introduced today? How can the Prime Minister stand there and pat himself on the back for attacking the living standards of over a million Australian families?
I know the honourable member is not a master of detail, but let us be quite clear about this: our childcare reform will benefit directly almost one million Australian families. The greatest beneficiaries will be families on low and middle incomes. It delivers the highest rate of subsidy—85 per cent—to those who need it most, those earning around $65,000 or less. It would mean a working family on an income of $60,000 a year would pay around $15 a day for child care. This is enabling more Australian parents, more Australian mothers and fathers, to stay in work, to stay connected to the workforce, to be able to balance the obligations of family and the need—both economic and professional and in every other way—to stay engaged in the workforce.
The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Relevance. This is the second question in a row to the Prime Minister where I have asked about family payments. Why won't you talk about the cuts to family payments? What—
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
The honourable member talks about relevance. The only things that he regards as especially irrelevant are the needs, the jobs, the budgets, of Australian families. If he thought they were relevant, he would not have a set of reckless policies the only object of which is to put businesses out of business, to send families to the wall. He has no concern for the economic consequences of the reckless ideological policies he pursues. The Labor Party has pursued them nationally and at state level, and, if you want to see what Labor's ideological, reckless approach to energy delivers, then visit South Australia, and there you will see it: the most expensive and the least reliable energy in the country. We are defending, supporting and securing the opportunities of hardworking Australian families. The opposition has lost touch with them, just as the Leader of the Opposition lost touch with his own members. He sold the members of the AWU out when he was a union leader, and now he is selling them out as an opposition leader.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government will ensure appropriate and sustainable support is provided for hardworking Australian families when they need it most? Is the minister aware of any other approaches that would lead to an increase in the cost of living?
I thank the member for her question. Supporting hardworking Australians was the subject of an announcement by the Prime Minister, the education minister and me today. How families fare depends, of course, on their ability in the long run to engage in the workforce and employment. The reforms we have announced today absolutely maximise the opportunities for individuals to engage in the workforce and to improve their and their family's circumstances. For instance, a single-parent family with an income of $50,000 and two children in long day care for two days, which costs $100 a day, will be $1,400 better off under the reforms that we announced. That same family, if they were using family day care for three days, will be $2½ thousand better off.
The reforms we have announced today, as the Prime Minister has noted, will benefit one million hardworking Australians—the biggest reforms to child care in a generation. The greatest benefit will go to hardworking families with the lowest incomes. Families under $65,000 will see childcare costs at only $15 a day, representing an 85 per cent subsidy to child care. Ninety thousand families will benefit from the abolition of the rebate cap, and 40,000 families will benefit from an increase in the rebate cap to $10,000. Reforms will put downward pressure on the cost of child care, which was inflated under members opposite.
Reforms are estimated to increase the involvement of 230,000 Australians in the workforce. At the same time, there is a $20 increase to all families receiving, per fortnight, FTBA. Ninety-six thousand families will benefit from two extra weeks paid paternity leave and up to an extra $1,300 after the birth of their child. All of this is achieved by closing down end-of-year supplements—the greatest reforms to child care in a generation achieved by closing down end-of-year supplements, a $20 increase a fortnight by ending supplements and more paid parental leave for the lowest income earners in Australia because we are able to reform the family tax benefit system.
I was asked whether or not there were any alternative policies. This is the biggest reform to child care in a generation, child care whose prices were inflated, under members opposite, over six years. Yes, there is an alternative option. After four years in opposition to think about this and devise an alternative plan, the member for Adelaide announced the alternative plan for child care: a national consultation. Well, you can hear the sighs of relief from parents at the doors of child care as we sit here today. A national consultation with child development experts and academics—(Time expired)
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Urban Infrastructure is warned.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's failure to answer my previous two questions about his cuts to family payments and ask: how can the Prime Minister justify ripping family payments out of the pockets of over one million Australian families and, at the same time, propose $50 billion in a tax giveaway to big business?
The honourable member has failed to recognise that it is our duty to ensure that our social welfare spending is targeted to deliver the greatest support for Australian families, and that is precisely what we are doing and precisely what the minister has just described. We are providing greater security for Australian families in child care so that they have greater opportunities to work, to get out, to stay in the workforce and to stay connected with the workforce.
You would think, given that these reforms will benefit lower- and middle-income families the most, and you would think, given the way they are targeted so equitably and so fairly, that the opposition would support it. But, of course, they do not. They are an opposition without any integrity and without any concern for the livelihoods, for the businesses, that support Australian families. Their recklessness on energy and their negativity on child care stand in the way of getting a better and a fairer deal for Australian families. We will always stand up for hardworking Australian families, providing them with the security that they need, whether it is security of energy or of available and affordable child care, because from that security—and only from that security—springs the opportunity to work, to get ahead, to invest and to realise their Australian dream. That is what we stand for: hardworking Australian families.
The opposition should support us because they know that without that security we will continue to see hardworking Australian families and hardworking Australian businesses put under increasing pressure. We want Australians to get ahead, and we are acting to support them as they do.
I would like to inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Stuart Henry, the former member for Hasluck. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister about Centrelink and access for dairy farmers. Minister, on 10 November I asked you a question about delays for families in accessing farm and household support. The House will recall that you delegated Senator McKenzie to host a series of roundtables. These took place where the senator and others heard repeated examples of problems getting access to Centrelink. My question today is: when will you release the report by Senator McKenzie about these meetings, and what action will the government take about extra resources to Centrelink, in terms of clearing the backlog? In asking this question, I understand that the government plans to introduce legislation to the House tomorrow about waiting periods and the water access, which we acknowledge and say, 'That's great,' but this will not clear the backlog. (Time expired)
I thank the honourable member for her question. She is correct: tomorrow we will be introducing legislation to further streamline the farm household allowance so that more people can get access to this program that has been provided by the coalition government. To date, an extra 129 Victorian farmers are on the farm household allowance—that brings the number to 495 in total, as of 3 February 2017—and 100 Victorian farmers have been approved $53.2 million in concessional loans.
Through this program, we have had a series of meetings—through Tangambalanga, Congupna, Morwell and Camperdown—to make sure that we go through the process of further streamlining the farm household allowance. As well as the member for Indi, other members of this House attended these meetings. Minister Chester, Minister Tehan and Damien Drum were also in attendance at the meetings. A report is being prepared, and I am looking forward to releasing that report in due course—within the next week, if I can get hold of it. I have no reason to hold it back.
A range of areas within the dairy industry have been brought to our attention. Currently, the dairy price has undergone a step up. At the peak of the crisis, milk solids were $4.31. They have now gone up for Murray Goulburn to $4.95. We have reports from those who have access to water that is cheap and also grain, that people are making money now, which is good. As they have stated to me, they will actually be paying tax this year. What is surprising—and I am sure that the member for Indi will be surprised about this—is that, when the price was $4.31, we instigated a rescue package; whereas, back in 2009, under the Labor Party, the price went down to $3.60 and they did not do a single thing. So, at $4.31, we instigated a rescue package; at $3.60, the Labor Party did not give a toss about the dairy farmers of Victoria.
It is the same as we speak at the moment, because one of the largest inputs for dairy farmers is the price of electricity. Of course, with the price of electricity, we on this side have the courage to make the affirmative statement that we look forward to being part of the process of building new coal-fired power stations to get cheaper, more affordable electricity to people. But, of course, the Labor Party do not believe in that. They do not believe in the working men and women—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question is about social security and dairy farmers.
I have listened very carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I judge that he has certainly dealt with each aspect of the questions that he was asked within the 45 seconds and he is entitled to compare and contrast on the policy topic you raise. He is in order and he has seven more seconds.
The question we ask is: when are you going to come up with a policy to make power cheaper, or don't you have one?
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on what the government is doing to support the incomes of hardworking Australians and relieve the cost pressures on the family budget? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternate policies that will reduce the cost-of-living pressures for Australian families?
I thank the member for Hughes—my partner from the shire in Sydney—for his question. The way to protect the incomes of hardworking Australian families is to ensure that the businesses that employ them, and create the extra hours and earnings to support their wages, can be successful in a highly competitive global environment—to support the investment that supports the businesses and our economy to drive the growth that those hardworking Australians are looking for, so their wages and their earnings can increase. That is what every element of the government's national economic plan is designed to achieve.
The way to take pressure off the household budgets of hardworking Australian families is to ensure that you have policies that can deal with rising prices of energy, which would only be exacerbated by the reckless ideological promises and policies of those who sit opposite. It is by taking the pressure off child care and making it affordable—through the bill that we brought into the House today to deliver that for Australian families—and by ensuring that you do not put an increasing tax bill burden on Australian families by refusing to take the measures that are necessary to get the budget back into balance, which is what we are doing.
I am asked about alternative ways to do this. I am not aware of any alternatives put forward by those opposite when it comes to this. All we hear from those opposite is higher taxes, higher debt, higher deficits, higher electricity prices, higher childcare prices and higher house prices—from the supply policies that have been run in their counterparts in state governments all around the country for many years. But if I look today at what the co-author of the shadow Assistant Treasurer said about our tax policy, I see that he says in support of our tax policy that our corporate tax regime presents a 'massive long-term problem'. I am talking about Dr Richard Holden. The article is called 'High company tax is a slow death'. He says:
… eventually we are left with an out-of-date economy and a much lower tax base overall.
The co-author of Dr Holden, who authored these comments today, must have had—as the member for Deakin has remarked today—an economic policy lobotomy, because those opposite have now walked away from reducing company taxes as a way of boosting employee wages in those country.
But he is not the only one; there must have been a special on economic policy lobotomies for those opposite, because the shadow Treasurer, when he was castigating the Greens for advocating higher company taxes, said that it would wreck the economic model which has led to 21 years of unparalleled economic grow. Those opposite have no answers when it comes to the needs of Australian families who want to earn more and want to take pressure off their bills. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Kelly Manning is a mum with four children who lives in Melbourne and has just completed six months of chemotherapy. Kelly will be more than $1,000 a year worse off because of the Prime Minister's cuts to family tax benefits which were introduced in the parliament today. Is the Prime Minister so out of touch that he is congratulating himself on a policy that will hurt vulnerable families like Kelly's?
The best possible way that the government can help families is to help families engage in the workforce to help families improve their circumstances. The government has made no secret of the fact that we consider the end-of-year supplements in family tax benefit should be saved and repurposed and reinvested in a plan to ensure better utilisation of child care. One thing that can be said is that members opposite have made a secret of that fact. And their memories are so unbelievably short that they do not recall that, not that long ago, in the first omnibus savings bill, they agreed with the government to close down the end-of-year supplements and family tax benefits for 374,000 families—and before the election they told those families they would not do that. But they agreed with the government that that end-of-year supplement should be closed down for those families so that it could be repurposed in a way—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance: this is a specific case of a family with four children that is going to lose $1,000.
The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat. I listened carefully to the question; the member for Jagajaga's question certainly had an individual preamble but that was not the question. So the minister has the call and is in order.
A government member: Why not give the details?
Indeed. There are families for whom—you have agreed with the government—the end-of-year supplement should be closed. Indeed, you told those families you would not reach that agreement, as you led into an election. The government went into a full general election proposing to the Australian people that supplements invented during the Howard and Costello years for a purpose that no longer is relevant—a purpose of reconciling debts that now arise very seldom with respect to family tax benefits—should be repurposed and spent in a way that produces an ability for Australian parents to engage further and better in child care—374,000 families were the subject of that policy that you agreed with the government on. There are 230,000 Australian families—
Mr Burke interjecting—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat; the minister still has the call—unless you have finished, Minister.
Not yet, Mr Speaker! There are 230,000 Australian families who, it is estimated, want to engage, and engage more, in the Australian workforce but cannot do that because there is underinvestment and a lack of reform in child care. And for four years, you have offered them as an alternative absolutely nothing.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Would the minister outline what measures the government is taking to support the ongoing success of Australia's $60 billion agriculture sector? And is the minister aware of any threats that stifle opportunities for hardworking Australian businesses and households, especially in my electorate of Page?
I thank the honourable member for his question, and I know that he is very aware of the success that we are having in the agricultural sector, heading towards the first year of over $60 billion worth of agricultural production. This is on the back of record cattle prices, record meat sheep prices, record pork prices; we have got near-record sugar prices and a turnaround in the wool market—the fine wool market and the broad wool market. We have new exports into new markets—tropical fruits, and the wine contracts have turned around. All in all, it is a sign of a very successful government standing beside a very successful industry, as we deliver real returns. The best returns back through the farm gate in Australia's history have happened under this government.
We are very proud of the work we are doing because it is real and tangible—with real and tangible economic benefits, not only to the people on the land but also to the people in the towns that are supported by that land. And we see that in places such as in the member for Page's electorate The Big River Group wrote to me and said one of the biggest concerns, of course, is energy costs. Energy costs are very important, because they employ over 300 people—300 people, I think, in Grafton and also in the member for Riverina's electorate in Wagga. It is incredibly important that we come up with a policy to make sure that we keep control of electricity prices—because I have seen the opposition's position and the ridiculous, untenable position they have for power prices is they have one policy: they have a policy to make people poorer. The Labor Party have a policy to put working men and women out of a job. The Labor Party have no policy that supports manufacturing by keeping one of the fundamentals of manufacturing under control—and that is the price of power. So you have a choice: you can have cheap power or cheap wages, and we know that the Labor Party have lined up for dear power, so what we have is either no wages or cheaper wages. They are doing everything in their power to put working men and women out of a job. That is where they reside. We can see this in no better form as when the Premier for South Australia—that doyen of power policy—went to the riverlands to try and stir up problems with the irrigators, and what did they come back with? 'Don't worry about the water, because we can't afford to lift it! We can't afford to lift it because the power price is too high.' And what did they come back with? The Labor Party power policy is unreliable, and they doing this to the Australian people.
The Deputy Prime Minister knows the rules on props.
The Labor Party have to determine whose side they are on. Are you on the side of working men and women, or are you on the side of Annandale? Is the member for Maribyrnong going to be the Angel for Annandale, or stand up for working men and women? Because we have not heard one policy from you that is going to deal with the escalating power prices. But we on this side have the bravery to actually grasp the mettle to deal with this issue to make sure that we are the ones that deal with— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Human Services. Yesterday during question time, both the Prime Minister and the minister promised that the minister would investigate the case of Anne Foley, a 67-year-old pensioner who had her pension cut off after receiving a Centrelink debt notice for around $36,000 when in fact she owed nothing. Now that he has had a chance to investigate, will the minister acknowledge any fault—any fault at all—in causing Anne such stress and anxiety?
Can I thank the member for that question and also for providing the details of Mrs Foley to my office late this morning. I have had an opportunity to investigate Mrs Foley's case, as I said I would if I were provided those details. Mrs Foley was sent a letter initially because there was a discrepancy between the income information which she had provided to Centrelink and that which was held on the Australian Taxation Office record, and that letter, as is the case with all the initial letters, asks if that person can explain that discrepancy and if they would like to update their record.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is warned! The minister will resume his seat for a second. As I have said numerous times, when a specific question is asked members on my left want me to listen to the answer but prevent me from doing so with a wall of interjections. The member for Isaacs is warned! The minister has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mrs Foley was sent a letter and she engaged with Centrelink, and her case was actually referred for manual processing. That is when a Centrelink officer takes full control of her case and manually engages with her. This is the process which has been occurring since 1990 and it is also the process which the member for Barton says they would revert back to if they were going back to government. Unfortunately, this Centrelink official did make an error. The Centrelink official who was on the telephone to Mrs Foley and who was entering the information into the computer system made two errors: the Centrelink official put in the correct income information and she also put in information about her income into the wrong time period. Unfortunately, that error occurs and unfortunately human errors do occur from time to time. I point out that the Labor Party's main critique—
Honourable members interjecting—
I again say to members predominantly on my left but not only on my left: I am seeking to listen to the answer. This is an example where the member for Barton has asked a very specific question and the minister is answering it point by point. You cannot simultaneously expect me to seek to listen to the answer to be able to rule on it, as the Manager of Opposition Business would like me to at certain points, while preventing me from hearing it. I am not going to keep stopping the minister. I am going to listen to the minister for the rest of his answer. If there are any interjections, have no doubt you will be out under 94(a)—have absolutely no doubt. We have a minute to go. The minister has the call.
As I said, the Centrelink official did make an error in how that official entered the income information into Mrs Foley's file and consequently an incorrect assessment was made. It had nothing to do with the computer system. That has been the key critique of the Labor Party over the last month—that the computer system has been in error. This was a human error. Mrs Foley, as was her right, as is everybody's right, sought a review of her assessment and that review corrected the record and consequently her pension was reinstated on 9 November. But, just in the time remaining, can I make a suggestion to the member for Barton: if you are genuinely concerned about your constituents, instead of putting up cases to the parliament or to the media which have nothing to do with the online compliance system, raise them with me and we can properly investigate them. If an error occurs, that can be fixed.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister update the House on the rebuilding of infrastructure at the Osborne ship and submarine yards? How will the federal government ensure power supply is guaranteed to the Osborne facility?
I thank the member for Boothby for her question. I can report to the House that the infrastructure redevelopment at the Osborne ship and submarine yards is very much on schedule. The government appointed at the end of last year Odense Maritime Technology to do a plan for the shipyard which will be handed to us in draft form in March and in final form in June, and the infrastructure at the Osborne submarine and shipyards will begin in July, in the second half of this year. The government's policies in terms of the continuous naval ship build—the first continuous naval ship build since Federation—is very much on track for the 12 submarines, the nine Future Frigates and the 12 offshore patrol vessels. The 21 Pacific patrol vessels have already begun. It will be creating a busy shipyard in Henderson, one of the busiest and most modern shipyards in Osborne South and one of the busiest and most modern submarine yards in Osborne North, creating jobs, investment and growth in our economy.
Extraordinarily, because of the breathtaking failure of policy in South Australia over energy and electricity supply, the supply in South Australia of energy is so unreliable that the Department of Defence is having to advise me that we will need to build our own supplementary power generation at the Osborne ship and submarine yards, plus the fuel storage required to run those generators, because we cannot rely on the power supply in South Australia not to go out, putting at risk that major project that will eventually be employing 5,000 workers in South Australia alone, and there are the myriad businesses across Australia and in South Australia. So the massive obsession that the Labor Party has had with renewable energy rather than a common-sense, all-of-the-above approach to supplying energy in Australia has meant that Australian taxpayers are going to have to spend millions of dollars more on the infrastructure at Osborne South and North in order to guarantee the power supply so that, in the event that the power goes out again in South Australia, we will be able to continue working for five days in the hope that within those five days the South Australian Labor government might have got the power back on again in my state. Power in South Australia is more akin to what you would expect in a backpackers hostel in a Third World country than you would expect in a First World state like South Australia. This is only because ideology has trumped common sense, and we are seeing a real life example of the cost to consumers, the cost to businesses and, in this case, the cost to the Australian taxpayer.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Athol Heynatz lives in my electorate. He is a father, an Army veteran and the full-time carer of his son who, as a baby, lost his legs to meningococcal. Mr Heynatz was being chased by Centrelink's robo-debt system for about $930 that he did not owe. He was paying $15 a fortnight out of his carer payment while his case was being reviewed. Athol will lose hundreds of dollars because of the government's unfair cuts to family payments. Why is the Prime Minister hurting vulnerable Australians, like Athol, but sticking up for big business and the banks?
Mr Hill interjecting—
The Member for Bruce will leave under 94(a).
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
I would be grateful if the honourable member would provide me with the details of his constituent's situation, and we will examine that in the same way the Minister for Human Services has examined the instance that was raised yesterday. I want to say to the honourable member, and to all honourable members, that our focus is on defending hardworking Australian families as they seek to get ahead. What we are presenting in our childcare package is affordable and available child care that will benefit a million Australians directly—Australians on lower and lower-middle incomes.
What we are doing with Centrelink, as the honourable member knows, is seeking to ensure that, for those who owe money to Centrelink through error or whatever, we are able to recover it. We do not seek to attribute any blame; we are simply raising discrepancies and asking people to respond to them. The minister dealt with, in good faith, the matter that the member for Barton raised with the House yesterday, and what was abundantly clear was that those circumstances were the result of human error, not the result of any computerised process. Human error always occurs, and the matter has been corrected. We are determined to ensure that the social welfare system is, above all, fair, and that we get the best outcomes for our social welfare investment.
Mr Gosling interjecting—
The member for Solomon is warned!
That is what we are doing, and that is why our childcare reforms will deliver more affordable and more available child care to Australian families, with the greatest benefits accruing to those on lower and lower-middle incomes. That is providing the security that enables those Australian families—
Mr Gosling interjecting—
The member for Solomon will leave under 94(a).
The member for Solomon then left the chamber.
to seize the opportunity of remaining in the workforce.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on what the government is doing to ensure that hardworking Australian families have an affordable and reliable energy supply? How does this compare with alternative approaches that would hurt household budgets?
I thank the member for La Trobe for his question and acknowledge that, in his electorate, he has some of Australia's largest potato and apple processors who need reliable energy and affordable energy. They are some of the 63,000 employees in Victoria who are working in the food manufacturing sector and whose jobs are now under threat as a result of rising electricity prices. Recently I met with a delegation of vegetable and dairy manufacturers from Echuca, Shepparton, regional Victoria, some of whom have seen their electricity prices go up more than 50 per cent in the last year alone. That is why we on this side of the House want to have an 'all of the above' approach—a non-ideological approach—which will see coal and gas continue to play a major role in providing baseload power in Australia as well as we transition to a lower emissions future.
Yesterday we heard from those opposite that they have a range of policies which will only drive electricity prices higher and destabilise the system. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate thinks one of their main policies is a mongrel—a mongrel and a smokescreen—that is what she thinks of one of their own policies. But we know they have a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, which Bloomberg New Energy Finance has said will require $48 billion of investment, which will inevitably flow on to higher prices for consumers. They also have a policy of wanting the forced closure of coal-fired power stations. The Leader of the Opposition is very excited about putting on a high-viz vest and going and having a photo taken on a worksite, but will the Leader of the Opposition have the courage to go to the member for Shortland's electorate, to Vales Point, and tell the 300 workers there at the coal-fired power station that your policy wants to put them out of work? Will the Leader of the Opposition have the guts to—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Shortland will cease interjecting.
go to the Latrobe Valley after the closure of Hazelwood and say to the 500 workers at Yallourn that you have a policy that will put them out of work? The Leader of the Opposition should heed the words of his former union, the AWU. Ben Davis, the current Victorian secretary, said—
Mr Joyce interjecting—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The minister will resume his seat. The member for Shortland and the Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting. The minister has the call.
This is what the head of the AWU in Victoria has said:
You cannot run heavy industry without reliable, plentiful and cheap electricity.
… … …
… the rush away from coal and gas-fired electricity power stations to renewables is … crucifying hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers.
We say to the Leader of the Opposition: you do not have the guts to drop your policy; you do not have the courage to defend your policy; but do not sacrifice manufacturing workers on the altar of ideology.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How can anyone have confidence in a government which is hopelessly divided, which punishes pensioners, which punishes families and is only interested in talking about itself and giving a $50 billion tax cut to large business?
It was only a week ago that the opposition leader said he was not going to be talking about politics; he would be talking about people and he would be listening to Australian families and their concerns. This new non-political Leader of the Opposition was about to burst like a refreshing ray of sunshine into the House of Representatives. But that was a very short-lived hope, we have the same old political bill, the same old 'Electricity Bill', the same denial of economic reality, the same approach where Labor threatens jobs and households—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Joyce interjecting—
The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Maribyrnong from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House:
(1)notes the Prime Minister:
(a)has today introduced cuts to family payments which will mean over a million families will be worse off;
(b)is hurting Australian families with his cuts to family payments and paid parental leave to give a $50 billion handout to big businesses, including the big banks;
(c)is punishing some of the most vulnerable people in Australia, including pensioners and carers, with his robo-debt mess; and
(2)therefore, condemns the Prime Minister for being:
(a)so out of touch that his hopelessly divided Government punishes families, pensioners, carers and new mums while giving a $50 billion handout to big businesses;
(b)unable to explain how cutting $2.7 billion in family payments leaves families better off; and
(c)so distracted by the chaos within his Government that he's only focused on looking after himself and not Australian families.
Leave is not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Maribyrnong from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House:
(1)notes the Prime Minister:
(a)has today introduced cuts to family payments which will mean over a million families will be worse off;
(b)is hurting Australian families with his cuts to family payments and paid parental leave to give a $50 billion handout to big businesses, including the big banks;
(c)is punishing some of the most vulnerable people in Australia, including pensioners and carers, with his robo-debt mess; and
(2)therefore, condemns the Prime Minister for being:
(a)so out of touch that his hopelessly divided Government punishes families, pensioners, carers and new mums while giving a $50 billion handout to big businesses;
(b)unable to explain how cutting $2.7 billion in family payments leaves families better off; and
(c)so distracted by the chaos within his Government that he's only focused on looking after himself and not Australian families.
Mr 'Harbourside Mansion' is attacking the standard of living of over a million Australian families. The story of these cuts today is that the Prime Minister is taking $2.7 billion from Australian families and yet he proposes giving $7.4 billion to big banks in tax giveaways. This Prime Minister is seriously the most out-of-touch personality to ever hold this great office of Prime Minister: tough on pensioners, soft on banks; tax cuts for millionaires and payment cuts for Australian families. This is another version of the Liberal-National version of robbing Peter to pay Paul—
Mr Joyce interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
We asked the Prime Minister not once but several times today: would he spell out exactly how many Australian families will see a reduction in their family payment? How many Australian families? And this slippery fellow, currently in the position of Prime Minister spoke, about the childcare changes. He deliberately understands and chose to ignore and mistreat question time and not tell the Australian people the truth. He knows our question is that, on one hand, in order to pay for some childcare changes, he is reducing the payments to over one million Australian families.
Mr Porter interjecting—
We hear the Minister for Social Services interjecting. If you were doing your day job properly, Sunshine, we would not be seeing these cuts to family payments.
The key to the dishonesty of this government—and including all of the members of it—of today's legislation is they want to stand there and pat themselves on the back. They want a bunch of flowers, probably give themselves the afternoon off, because they say, 'Look at us. We're proposing some legislative change in child care.' But the proof is in the numbers. They are reducing what they pay to Australian families by $2.7 billion over the next four years. It is in black and white in their explanatory memorandum.
Here we have the Prime Minister saying, 'Look over here at what we're doing at child care.' But what they seem to forget is that after kids go to child care, they go to school. When they go to school, there are costs and family payments. Then we had the Minister for Social Services get up and say, 'Because Labor has previously supported some means testing, therefore they have got a blank cheque to rob a million Australian families.' No, you don't. And I thought: where have I heard this proposal from the government before? The 2014 budget. You rolled the poor old member for Warringah but now you are actually in a new camouflage and a new suit selling the same rotten changes for the Australian people.
At least the member for Warringah said it for what it was. This fellow here will say and do anything to keep his job—a $50 billion tax giveaway for multinationals and large companies. You can tell a government not just by the personality but by the priorities of their policies. And the Australian people are onto you: $50 billion principally going, a tax ram raid on the budget to large companies. That is their great economic plan. They do not talk about the old Trans-Pacific Partnership anymore—that lasted less time than your proposal to increase the GST. Their economic plan is a $50 billion corporate tax cut and your other plan is to make that be paid for by going after Australian families. We draw a line in the sand on this $2.7 billion cut to family payments. We are not buying it, and the Australian people are not buying it.
This is a government who did not have a great summer—they lost their health minister, they did the robocalls on the Centrelink recipients. We heard about Mr Heynatz up in the seat of Rankin. We heard about the question from our shadow minister for social security. These are real people. This Prime Minister says the opposition is not asking questions about important issues. We are focusing on the people. We are focusing on the pensioners. We are focusing on standing up for those on Centrelink. In Labor, we do not think that every Centrelink recipient is automatically, default a cheat. We do not treat our fellow Australians as someone deserving of having a clumsy system mail-out.
Then today we see the legislation on family payments. This government have proposed, in their legislation today, cuts not just to families of school-age children but to pensioners. Of course over the summer some bright spark in the government thought up the idea that they should spy on our veterans to see if they really have PTSD by monitoring their social media. I thought those opposite had had a bad summer—and we will not even go near the donations debacle of the biggest donation in history—but do you know what? It has been looking like a summer of joy in the last 48 hours. Not only have we given up on the government; their South Australian senator has given up on the government.
We will keep fighting to defend family payments. We will keep fighting to expose the charade of this government's position. At the heart of this government's position is the following proposition: they say on one hand, 'Look at us; aren't we good? We are doing some things in child care,' but on the other hand, all through this question time, they have not answered the question: 'How many Australian families are having a reduction in their payments?' I tell you what, my respect for you might go up an inch or two, Mr Prime Minister, if you would come to the dispatch box and spell out how many Australian families of school-age children are losing or seeing reductions in their family payments? You have ducked and you have weaved over that question all through question time, but no matter how often you duck and weave, no matter how often you hide from it, we will get that number out of you. We will speak up for Australian families.
This is a very divided government. Their only plan for the Australian economy is to kill the confidence of Australian families. They treat people on the pension as somehow second class. They treat people on Centrelink as somehow second class. I actually thought, in the first three question times of this week, the beleaguered Minister for Human Services would have enough self-respect when asked a question about Centrelink to get up and say, 'I'm sorry; we got it wrong.' Just a bit of humility would go a very long way, but that is not the trademark of this government.
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
The member for Deakin is warned!
We will fight for family payments. This Prime Minister is not just out of touch. With today's legislation he shows he is out of ideas and he is rapidly running out of time, and his own party knows it.
The difference is: every time this Prime Minister sees an issue, he turns it into politics about Labor. We say to the Prime Minister today: if you want to take a step forward in terms of Australian politics, if you want to take a step forward in terms of your own approval and what Australians think of your government, focus on what matters. The Labor Party is focused on what matters to Australians. We will stand up for Australian jobs. We will do something about reforming the visa system. We will stand up for Australian apprenticeships. We will make sure that we have proper, needs based funding in our schools. If you want to find some money in the budget, what we think you should do, rather than reaching down into the pockets of over one million Australian families of school-age children, is reform negative gearing, reform the capital gains tax deduction system. Do not pass on $50 billion in corporate tax cuts. If you want to find some money, go after some of the top end of town rather than going after everyone else.
The Prime Minister does not have a plan for Medicare. His only plan for Medicare is to change the salesman. That does not fill people with confidence. He also does not have a plan for housing affordability, does he? This fellow is so out of touch that his only advice to Australians is: 'Get rich parents.' That is not a housing affordability policy. We stand for Australian families. We do not support the cuts. We will back Medicare. We will make sure that housing affordability is a reality in this country.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
We have just heard from that great sycophant of billionaires, the Leader of the Opposition. All the lectures he is trying to run are politics of envy. When he was a regular dinner guest at Raheen—always there with Dick Pratt, sucking up to Dick Pratt—did he knock back the Cristal? I do not think so. There was never a union leader in Melbourne that tucked his knees under more billionaires' tables than the Leader of the Opposition. He lapped it up—oh yes, he lapped it up! He was a social-climbing sycophant if ever there was one. There has never been a more sycophantic leader of the Labor Party than this one, and he comes here and poses as a tribune of the people. Harbourside mansions—he is yearning for one. He is yearning to get into Kirribilli House. Do you know why? Because somebody else pays for it: just like he loved knocking back Dick Pratt's Cristal; just as he looked forward to living in luxury at the expense of the taxpayer.
This man is a parasite. He has no respect for the taxpayer. He has no more respect for the taxpayer than he has respect for the members of the Australian Workers Union he betrayed again and again. He sold them out. Some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, cleaners working at Cleanevent—he sold out their penalty rates. And what did they get? They got nothing. But what did the union get? Cash, money, payments. He sold them out in return for a payment to the union. That is what he did when he was their representative. What does he do now as Leader of the Opposition? He is selling out the jobs of Australian workers every day he perseveres with his ludicrous policies on energy, which will have the result of further unsustainable increases in the cost of electricity.
I think I have seen more members of the AWU lately than he has—I saw them at Portland Aluminium—and they know that their jobs depend on affordable electricity. They know, with the closure of Hazelwood and the crazy policies of the Victorian Labor government, supported by the policies of the Leader of the Opposition, that their livelihoods are at risk.
And where is the champion of the AWU now? He is here in Canberra selling them out, just like he sold out the workers at Clean Event. He has no interest in standing up for those workers. I was also at Viridian glass. There are also members of the Australian Workers' Union there. Viridian's biggest and most volatile cost element is the cost of energy, the cost of gas. It is becoming unaffordable. They moved their plant from New South Wales to Victoria and closed their plant in New South Wales because energy was too expensive. They consolidated in Victoria, and now, thanks to the Labor Party's ideologically driven energy policies, that too is put at risk.
That is the reality. That is the front line where members of the Australian Workers' Union and many other unions find themselves today. The Labor Party cannot keep living in a parallel universe where you can preach ideological energy policies without any regard to how you are going to deliver reliable, affordable energy and, yes, meet your emission reduction targets—but meet the responsible ones we entered into in Paris, not just doubling them for no return from any other country. This is ideology. They call themselves the Labor Party. Well, 'manual labour' is a Mexican bandit as far as they are concerned. Most of them have never done a day's work in their lives. I am old enough to remember when the Labor Party's benches were filled with union officials who had actually worked. Nowadays, look at the serried ranks of apparatchiks and political hacks who are totally out of touch with the men and women they claim to represent.
This social-climbing sycophant, this would-be tribune of the people, complains about cuts to company tax. Well, let me tell you, it is pretty straightforward: if you want more investment—and we do—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton is warned.
then you want to increase your return on investment; you want to lower company tax. That has been the consistent policy of governments of both political persuasions for many years. In terms of consistency, let's have a look at what the Leader of the Opposition used to say about it. In 2012, he said right here:
As Australia is buffeted by economic events overseas, we understand that lowering corporate tax assists the creation of jobs.
And the social climber, warming to the occasion, went on to say:
What can be more important in this country than the creation of jobs?
I reckon he probably talked about that with Dick Pratt and Solly Lew and Lindsay Fox and all the other billionaires he likes to suck up to in Melbourne on their corporate jets. Or did he give them a blast, the good attack on the rich: down with anyone who has got a quid? Did he give them that? I do not think so. No, I think he just sucked up to them. I think he says one thing here and another thing in the comfortable lounge rooms of Melbourne. I think we all know that.
Then, the year before, on company tax—he is quite an authority on it—he said:
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
When he said that, I reckon Dick probably broke out in an extra bottle of Cristal, wouldn't you say? They all would have been very pleased to hear that. They would have said, 'You know, he's not like some of those other Labor people. He's really one of us. He's really on side.' But now, of course, he is a wholly-owned subsidiary of some very left-wing unions. He has shifted, and he will say whatever suits his purpose from day to day. There is no consistency, no integrity.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton has been warned.
He is a simpering sycophant, blowing hard in the House of Representatives, sucking hard in the living rooms of Melbourne. What a hypocrite!
Going on with company tax, in 2012 he said: 'Any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-eighties'—so that would include Dr Leigh, I reckon—'knows part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate.' That is what did it! The billionaires of Melbourne would lap that up. They would love that. 'We need to be able to make life easier for Australian business, which employs two in three Australians.' It is actually more than that. More like four out of every five Australians are employed in the private sector, and they are the businesses, large and small, that need to invest, and the more they invest the more they employ. It is pretty simple. He was right then. He was right in 2011 and 2012, but now the sycophant, this sucker-up in Melbourne, is wrong. He was the billionaire's friend then, but now he is the great radical tribune, the great radical advocate of the people. Give me a break!
This bloke has no consistency, no integrity. He cannot be believed. He says he is against 457 visas. He knows more about 457 visas than anyone. He is the Olympic champion. He expanded the categories dramatically. He opened wide the door, following on from his triumph of selling out the workers at Clean Event and selling out the members of his own union in return for a backhander paid to the union. He then opened the doors as wide as he could. He also wants to talk about political donations. Let me say this: just remember it took seven years in a royal commission for him to disclose a $40,000 political donation. The Labor Party cannot be trusted with economic management. It cannot be trusted with jobs. It cannot be trusted to deliver the opportunity and the security Australian families deserve. (Time expired)
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right! The member for Reid is warned. I am trying to address the House. The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
What an extraordinarily angry rant from someone who is supposed to be a Prime Minister standing up for Australian families. Let's look at what this Prime Minister did not say in the whole 10 minutes that he had to speak about Australian families. This Prime Minister was supposed to get up and actually defend what this government is doing to Australian families. One million Australian families are going to see their family tax benefits cut as a result of the legislation that was introduced to the parliament by this government today. One million Australian families are going to see their payments cut.
Mr Joyce interjecting—
The Deputy Prime Minister is now warned.
Let's look at what that means for real families—for people like Kelly, who I spoke about in question time today and who, of course, the Prime Minister completely ignored, and all the other families who were writing to and ringing our offices this morning, saying to us, 'Please do everything you possibly can.' These cuts to a family like Kelly's are going to mean that she will be $1,000 worse off. That is what Kelly said to me this morning. That is what is going to happen to Kelly's family. But this Prime Minister—this very, very angry Prime Minister, who is so worried about the fellow up the back—is auditioning for the challenge that is going to come from the bloke up the back, when what he should be doing is standing up for the needs of Australian families. What Australian families know is that this Prime Minister is going to leave families like Kelly's $1,000 worse off each and every year. And each and every one of you are just going to be like little sheep, following this Prime Minister and voting for these cuts to benefits for families in your electorates, and those families are going to make sure you know about it.
Of course, this legislation is not just about families. This legislation that was introduced to the parliament this morning is also going to cut the energy supplement—in fact, it will abolish the energy supplement. This will mean that pensioners, carers, people with disability and people on Newstart—all of those people—will lose hundreds of dollars because of the cuts of this government to all of those people. That is exactly what this government is going to do.
What do the government want these cuts for? Why are they cutting family payments? Why are they abolishing the clean energy supplement? Because they want to give $50 billion to the richest companies in Australia. So pensioners, people with disability, carers, unemployed people, young people, new mums and families—all of those people—are going to face cuts, or, as the Minister for Social Services likes to call it, repurposing. They are going to see all of this money repurposed, which is actually a cut to family tax benefits that will see thousands and thousands of people worse off. I say to this Prime Minister after his extraordinarily angry rant today: I would take the Leader of the Opposition's defence of working people ahead of yours any day.
The time allotted for this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Barton proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government hurting Australians with its Centrelink robo debt mess.
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—
The Minister for Human Services' robo-debt program is hurting honest Australians. The government cannot keep ignoring this matter. Rather than focusing on their jobs, they are focused on their own internal division.
It has been 40 days since I first wrote to the Minister for Human Services, alerting him to increasing public concern about the robo-debt system and asking him to suspend the program until it could be fixed. I am not alone. The leader of the Labor Party and many Labor Party members have called for this action, as have the crossbenchers in the other place, the independents in this place and a range of community organisations like ACOSS and People With Disability. I waited well over 21 days for a response to that call. That is the amount of time the Turnbull government gives current and former Centrelink clients to respond to false debt notices. The minister did not ask for an extension. I am glad he had a relaxing break over Christmas, because thousands of Australians did not. They were busy trying to find six years of old pay slips. They were worried and they were distressed and they lost Christmas.
When the minister finally did respond to my letter, he continued to claim that there was nothing wrong with the system, despite the concerns everyone in this chamber will have received from their constituents—including those on that side of the House. If you want to know whether the system is working, check your electorate office emails but do not bother taking up the talking points sent out to you last week. They will not help and they will not fool the Australian public.
This program is hurting our communities. It is causing distress and anxiety, but at every turn this minister has denied any issue at all. The stories are numerous. I have heard many firsthand—in the seat of Herbert with Cathy O'Toole; in the seat of Franklin with Julie Collins, Brian Mitchell and Carol Brown. Some of those stories are severe, and the state of Tasmania has been particularly targeted. When Michael Griffin was told he owed over $3,000—which he knew was not true—the minister said the system was working 'as intended'. Mr Griffin's debt was later revised down to $50. The minister said there were no issues at all. When Leslie Roxborough was issued with a debt notice for over $6,000, she assumed it was legitimate and she started to pay. She was devastated that she may have mistakenly claimed such a large sum that she was not entitled to receive. When she appealed, Leslie found that her debt had been inflated. She has now been told that her debt has been reduced to just $4,000, but she is still waiting for some written confirmation. Had this issue never been raised in the media, she would have just paid the full sum. How are you going to pay those people back, Minister?
The minister still said the program was working 'as well as could be expected'. Yesterday I asked the minister about Anne Foley, who had her pension cut after Centrelink wrongly accused her of owing thousands, and we had the minister stand up today and blame Centrelink staff, taking no responsibility himself—blame the bureaucrats and take no responsibility himself. His response yesterday was: 'Call the 1800 number.' Has anyone tried that recently? I do not have a few hours to spare! That is the best those opposite can do and it is not nearly good enough.
There are too many stories like this. Every member of this place will have received similar emails or calls to their electorate offices. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame for not speaking up for the people who have put their trust in them. Innocent people are being asked to go through a laborious appeals process, to find pay slips that are over six years, to contact employers that might not exist, or to prove that they were seriously ill. We now know that they might not even owe a debt. In fact, we know that the minister and his department knew long before this system started sending out 20,000 letters a week that thousands would be wrongly be accused—at least 4,000 letters a week to innocent people. Until recently, the minister was still sending those letters to addresses that were six years old. He could not even guarantee that the people still lived there. Those who never received a first letter from Centrelink automatically had debts raised against them. Some of them did not even know about this issue until a debt collector turned up on their doorstep.
These are not signs of a system working well. The Minister for Social Services himself, Minister Tudge's senior, at first told us that the false-positive rate for this program was one in five. That is 20 per cent. The government has now changed its mind. It is now saying that this is not true, but it will not tell us what the real number is. We do know that 40 per cent of those who raised their issues with the minister, or publicly, were later found to owe nothing at all. Even more, people like Leslie Roxborough owe far less than they were originally accused of. The minister will not tell us how many people have had their debts reduced or how many are disputing the debt or having it reviewed. Those opposite have no answers; all they have is smear and personal attack.
People in Barton and our electorates do not think harassing age pensioners is fair. I bet they do not think so in Aston, Wentworth or New England either. Those opposite do nothing to make sure multinational companies pay their fair share of taxes but devote their energy to harassing those on age or disability support pension for debts that they may not owe. Many of those accused of owing a debt are now teachers or working in our emergency departments across the country.
If people make mistakes declaring their income, of course that should be corrected. That is obvious. When people do the wrong thing, they should be punished. Nobody in this place disagrees with that principle, but that is not what is at hand here. But that does not mean we should assume that everyone is guilty, as this government is doing.
At every turn, those opposite have insisted that this program is working well. When hundreds of people come forward to tell their stories, the Turnbull government says they are all liars and frauds. When Paul Shetler, the Prime Minister's former IT guru, says the system is self-evidently flawed, so bad that if it were a private company it would be out of business, those opposite say he does not know what he is talking about. When Senator Abetz in the other place and the Liberal Premier of Tasmania both say the system is failing, those opposite are silent. All of you on the other side, who are no doubt about to read from notes prepared by the minister, should bear this in mind. People are watching and listening. Many of the people this system targets are those who received a payment as students, when they were sick or when they were briefly unemployed. Many are now working, they are paying taxes and they vote.
Let me be clear: Labor does not hold the people who work at Centrelink responsible for this mess. I hold you, Minister, and this government responsible for this mess, for your intransigence in not admitting there is a problem, for your intransigence for not saying, 'We've made a mistake.' I have spoken to some of the workers who are distressed across this country. They have been instructed not to assist even when mistakes have been made. You can ignore them while you stand in this place but you will not be able to ignore them when the upcoming Senate inquiry visits your state or your electorate. Let us be honest: you thought Australians would not care about Centrelink recipients. You are wrong. Australians care about what is fair. The robo-debt debacle does not just prove that those opposite are poor administrators who will not take advice from their public servants; they are now blaming the bureaucrats. It does not simply prove that those opposite have their priorities all wrong and it does not only prove that the minister is failing; it proves that those opposite are completely out of touch with the community.
The Turnbull government cannot understand why people are upset when they see those of us in this place being given the benefit of the doubt, while those in the community do not get that same benefit of the doubt and are being treated as guilty until proven innocent. In the eyes of those opposite, we are all either 'lifters' or 'leaners', and anyone who has received a Centrelink payment in the last six years is a leaner. Age pensioners are not leaners. Those caring for relatives are not leaners. Former students who received Austudy are not leaners. Those with disability who receive the DSP are not leaners. That is callous, it is a massive failure and it speaks to the complete lack of empathy on the minister's part. Accusing people of committing fraud for collecting payments they do not deserve is a serious accusation. The minister must be confident of that before smearing the name of honest people. It is time for those opposite to pull their heads out of the sand and suspend this system. Labor does not want to see individuals being overpaid or getting away with fraud, but that will never be an excuse for treating our most vulnerable like criminals. Good governments listen when they are told about problems. Brave governments admit mistakes. Empathy is the lifeblood of politics. That is all the opposition is asking for.
In my remarks on this matter of public importance, about Centrelink, I will address some of the points which the member for Barton has made, but in doing that I would like to explain exactly how the system works, because, if you were listening to the member for Barton today, you would think that certain things occur which in fact do not occur. So let me at least take you through how the system works and the history of this system, which very much originates within the Labor Party.
How the system works is that, when a person is in receipt of Centrelink payments, they have to provide their income on a fortnightly basis in order to determine what sort of payment they receive. We look back at those Centrelink records and we compare them to the Australian Taxation Office records of the income that a person has received. So we compare the self-reported income that a person has given to Centrelink to what the employer has said that person earned, and that information is held at the Australian Taxation Office.
Where there is a discrepancy between those two sets of data, a notice is sent to the recipient, and they are asked if they can explain that discrepancy. In some cases, the person can explain the discrepancy, because in some cases the employer, for example, has given incorrect dates of when that person was employed. They may have said the person was employed from June to December when in fact it was from June to September, and the person is able to clarify that and consequently the issue goes away. But on many occasions the individual is unable to clarify the situation. If they are unable to do so or do not do so, then a debt may be issued against that person. At any particular time along the way, if they have got concerns, they can call a dedicated 1800 number and talk to a Centrelink officer in relation to that.
Can't get through!
The member screeches at me that they cannot get through on that dedicated 1800 number. Actually I myself have been calling it very regularly, as have my staff, and on all occasions we have been able to get through quite quickly. I would encourage the member to test that dedicated number herself.
How did this system come about? This is important. What are the origins of this system? This data-matching between Centrelink information and Australian Taxation Office information actually originated back in 1990, when Graham Richardson introduced what is called the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act. That is when the process started. Since that time, essentially the same methodology has been used, where that information is compared and, where there is a discrepancy, a request is made of the recipient to explain that discrepancy. If they can, that is the end of the story. If they cannot, a debt may be raised against that person.
In 2011 it was actually the Labor Party, again, who introduced some sort of automation into the system. Indeed, the now Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were the two people in charge of introducing some form of automation into the system. Then in the 2015-16 budget we decided that we would expand the system to cover more people, and consequently my department has been implementing that system since. But I stress that the methodology which is being used to compare the Centrelink information with the Australian Taxation Office information is essentially the same that has always been the case.
'Why do we have to do such checks?' is a question that is frequently asked. Unfortunately, we have to do such checks because, despite the fact that the vast majority of people do the right thing, it is the case that some people do the wrong thing and deliberately defraud the system, while many people inadvertently do not update their income information correctly while they are on Centrelink benefits and, consequently, receive an overpayment. Even in some of the very high-profile examples, which the member for Barton has put up to the media, that is exactly the case. The member for Barton has admitted that many of those cases that have been in the media over summer she put up to the media, but she also admitted to the media that she did not know whether they were innocent or not.
When you look through some of those cases it is quite clear that, in fact, those people do owe money, despite the member for Barton putting up their cases as being so-called victims of the system. For example, here is one of a Victorian woman—who has been in the media—who was on an income support payment for the entire year of 2015-16. That person declared income of less than $9,000, but the Australian Taxation Office record showed that she actually had a business of her own and that her business earned more than $48,000 during that time.
Is that the best you've got?
The member for Barton interjects and says, 'That's the best you've got.' Well, I can continue going through example after example, if the member would like, of cases she has put up to the media as being so-called victims of the system but where they have declared less than—
You're destroying lives!
Here is another one: they have declared less than $4,000 in employment income while on payments the entire time, while the Australian Taxation Office suggests they earned $26,000 for that time. We think it is quite right and proper that when there is such a discrepancy that person is, at least, inquired about that discrepancy and that they are given the opportunity to explain the discrepancy if they are able to do. An inquiry is worthy of being made in order to determine whether or not there has, in fact, been an overpayment.
I should point out that the member for Barton put up more than 52 cases to the media over the summer period, but a full third of those cases had nothing to do with the new online compliance system. Even in her remarks this afternoon she mentioned a Miss Roxborough—another case that she had given to TheCanberra Times—but it had nothing to do with the online compliance system. She said that case was done through the system the Labor Party would revert to if they were back in office.
It is worth asking, if Labor were back in office, what exactly they would do to some of these very egregious cases where there is such a stark discrepancy. We have looked at many cases and I have spoken to this chamber about a case, for example, back in the Labor years where the person earned $5,000 but where the employer reported to the Australian Taxation Office that they had, in fact, earned more than $100,000 during that same period. That occurred during the Labor years. It occurred when the member for Sydney was the Minister for Human Services, the member for McMahon was the Minister of Human Services, and the member for Gorton was the Minister for Human Services.
They did not catch that particular case. They did not catch the case of $5,000 versus $100,000. They did not catch it then and now when they are asked what they would do if they were back in government today—and the member for Barton answered that question on ABC News Breakfast on 18 January. She was asked directly, 'What would you actually do to recover that money when there are genuine overpayments?' And she said, 'Well, Labor would do exactly what we've done in the past.'
I will just talk about the implications of that. In the past there were cases where people self-reported $5,000 but their employers said they earned $100,000. And Labor did nothing. Now they are saying that if they were back in government they would again do that same system, where they do not pick up cases like that. We do not agree with that. We think there should be a fair and reasonable system of compliance that is fair to the welfare recipient. We have already made refinements to the system, and we will continue to make refinements to the system, to make it reasonable. But it also has to be fair to the taxpayer, and that means we will continue to do this important work of data matching to identify cases where there are discrepancies and we will recoup taxpayers money when it is overpaid.
Sticks and stones!
I will remind the member for Barton that the MPI works where speakers take turns to speak, and once you have taken your turn it is respectful to listen to the next speaker.
I too rise to speak on the issue of the Centrelink robo-debt mess. This is another great example of where this government of today is punishing families, pensioners, carers and low-income earners—people who, perhaps, rely on welfare to buy their food, to pay for their children's school and to ensure that they can get by, because this government cannot provide jobs. We saw the lowest job creation in the history of Australia in these last figures. At the same time, this is a government that wants to hand out $50 billion in tax cuts to the PM's wealthiest mates in big business. This is an important issue for people who come to see me in my electorate. Many have visited my electorate and have phoned me to talk about how they have received Centrelink letters stating that they have a debt when, in the true account, they have absolutely no debt.
Since December 2016, this government has sent out 20,000 letters a week. These letters are causing distress, anxiety and numerous problems for people who are honest Australians who have perhaps worked for the majority of their lives and have paid taxes and then they are being accused of being fraudulent. You can imagine the distress it would cause someone who is absolutely honest, has paid their taxes and is doing everything by the book to receive a letter saying, 'You have fraudulently received this money from Centrelink and we want you to pay it back.'
We heard the minister say that, in the first instance, they receive a letter saying, 'Please call us to talk about it.' I spoke to constituents who showed me letter that actually said, 'You have been overpaid.' Imagine the distress getting a letter that says, 'You have been overpaid through Centrelink,' causes someone who has been an honest person their entire life. This is not working. We heard the minister talk about the theory of how it should work—and it is all very nice, it is beautiful and it looks wonderful—but the reality is that it is not working, and we know it.
All of us on this side of the House have been following up constituent letters, constituent queries and constituent phone calls from people who are in distress because of these letters. Constituents who have contacted me after receiving such letters all tell me—without exception—that they specifically asked Centrelink for advice regarding how to declare their income beforehand. That is why so many are so surprised to receive a letter a year, two years and maybe three years in some cases after they have been doing everything by the book and giving Centrelink every bit of information that they have asked for. According to the Minister for Human Services, 40 per cent of those who raise their issues publicly are actually found to owe no debt and an even greater number have their debt reduced. Yet the minister still refuses to tell us how many of these debt notices that have been sent out are false or are being reviewed, challenged or repealed. So you have to wonder about how high this number may actually be.
This reform is distressing people. It is causing them stress and financial hardship—often having debt collectors knock on their door. These are often people who are in a precarious financial position to start off. It is certainly hurting people in my electorate. For example, I was contacted by a constituent who received a letter claiming that she had a $6,000 debt with Centrelink. She was told that this was incurred during a period of unemployment in 2014. My constituent was very surprised, because she keeps meticulous records and was in constant contact with Centrelink throughout this transition from being unemployed to working. When she challenged the fee, it was reduced to $330. This was clearly a mistake by the system that is meant to be working like clockwork—as we heard from the minister. You have to agree that that is a pretty big discrepancy. This constituent contacted me not only because she feels that the remaining debt is incorrect but also because she is enraged that this could happen in the first place. And that is what we have to consider here—this is actually happening.
Another constituent heard me speaking on the Leon Byner show on 5AA in South Australia—a radio program. I must commend Leon Byner from 5AA who has been advocating so strongly for people who have been sent incorrect debt letters. This constituent was sent a letter claiming that she owed even more than she had ever received from Centrelink. (Time expired)
I too am delighted to have the opportunity to rise to talk about this data-matching program, where this government has proven with its tenacity that it is in this game to govern for all Australians. We are not in this game to try to victimise people who are doing it tough. We do not take any great pleasure in going through the financials of some of our people who are doing it tough and are out of work. But, for the Labor Party to be trying to milk this issue for more than what it is worth again shows that they are becoming the ambulance chasers of the parliament, particularly when putting people up in front of the media without actually checking their details to see whether they do in fact have debts that need to be repaid to the Australian taxpayer.
This $170 million welfare system that we have is the envy of the world. When any of us travel to places like America and we see people in their hundreds living on the streets, it makes us all understand how lucky we are to be in a country where we have a welfare system that is fair and just and gives people an opportunity in times when they cannot find work. We have a safety net that we should be so proud of to make sure that support is available if you are not able to get work and, if you are not able to work, there is the disability support pension, a carer's allowance or whatever your support mechanism may be. This is the country that you want to be in if you are doing it tough.
However, there is an enormous responsibility that comes with that privilege, and that responsibility is that we should be honest, open and fair. We have just spent a summer talking about how careful politicians should be with taxpayers' money. This is a slightly different way of spending it, but this is another example of where we have to be incredibly careful with taxpayers' money. Given that the Labor Party instituted this data-matching process, we should, with the new technologies available, be able to take it to another level. If the data being received from the tax office gives us one story and it is at conflict with the data being received from Centrelink and you do not do anything about it, you are not worthy to be in this place, because you are not doing the right thing by the Australian people.
It is just a matter of how much courage you have to pursue what is right. How cheap do you want to be if you want to go after the mistakes that are in this system? Yes, obviously there have been mistakes in this system, but what we need to be looking at now is the way forward. As the minister said, when these contradictions arise and people receive a letter, it is not a letter saying that you owe us this much money and get a debt repaying plan. The letter is about notifying that a discrepancy has been identified and basically says, 'Here's the opportunity for you to explain why your income level, as per the ATO data, is different than what you have said.' It could be a date discrepancy or it could be a discrepancy in the amount. Therefore, I think what we have seen here—again, consistent with the Prime Minister's message in his address to the Press Club only last week—is that every policy and every decision of this government is giving more Australians the opportunity for them to be their best.
As we continue to govern for all Australians, we are trying to have a progressive tax system that is going to be fairer and give us a more equal society as a result. I think this is the leadership that we have been yearning for from Prime Minister Turnbull: that when we have to make these tough decisions we have Minister Porter and Minister Tudge prepared to make these calls. And yes, things have gone astray. However, now we find that they are able to say: 'Here is the way forward; this is why we are doing this.' All of us have to take responsibility for living in such a great country with such a great welfare system. (Time expired)
Whilst the member for Murray is delighted to speak on this matter, it gives me no pleasure—because this government is failing to protect vulnerable Australians. Whether it is freezing the Medicare rebate, cutting pensions, or targeting the wrong people for false debts through the government's robo-debt mess, this is a government with no heart. Whilst the minister cannot even be bothered to sit here and listen to this, I tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker: I have got some doozies for him. If he was to listen to some of these stories, he might actually sit back and think—finally—'I should do something about this.'
My community are not leaners—as a former Liberal treasurer would describe them—but are strong, resilient people, who will work hard if given the opportunity. But you can imagine the disgust from so many in my community when this government issued notices of debt to them; notices we now know contained so many errors. People in my electorate are now questioning the legitimacy of these notices, and the amounts, but I tell you what: they are starting to feel like it is David versus Goliath, and so many of them are just giving in and paying up, because they do not have either the time or the willpower to take on what is an arduous process to get these debts removed. So far, my office has assisted three people to have their debts reversed, totalling $16,581.
One such person was Heather. Heather is a single mother who is on Newstart and works part-time. In December, right before Christmas, she received a letter from Centrelink stating she owed $7,200. She went to Centrelink and asked why. She finally got through and they said: 'If you do not enter into a payment plan, we will start deducting between $80 and $120 a week anyway.' So, being so close to Christmas, she had no choice but to enter into a payment plan of $15 a week. She went to Centrelink—on another piece of advice—to view her file. It was very clear on that file that she had one employer. But the debt notice said that she did not report her earnings for two employers—she only had the one! The officer could see it was a mistake but would do nothing about it. She went through the appeal process. She even went to a Liberal senator's office—who told her: 'It is $15 a week, don't worry about it. You have now entered into that payment plan, so you have admitted liability.' Then there is Geoff. Geoff contacted my office because he was quite distressed about getting a debt notice for $6,800. He also received an additional charge of $619.20 in debt recovery. He was so stressed that he had to go and see his GP. He did not want to try and reduce the payment plan that he had entered into, because he felt he had no other option; in fact, it only left him with $461 per fortnight. But my office received a call yesterday from Geoff to say his debt has been reduced from over $6,800 to $286. My office has been working on behalf of 10 constituents to resolve their alleged debts, totalling around $40,000. One such person is Erica, whose husband has been sent a debt letter. She acknowledges that they may have made an error in their reporting, but the debt letter alleges that he received income from an employer who he was not even working for at that time.
It would be great if members opposite could stand up in this place and defend their constituents—I am sure you have had people come to your office: actually stand up for them here, today—this is your opportunity to tell their stories. That is what we are doing; surely you can do the same. But it makes me question, is this government fraudulently and dishonestly obtaining funds from vulnerable Australians—$16,000 of debt that is not owed by the people in my electorate, so far? How much is being paid back because people feel helpless in taking on the fight, when in fact they owe nothing? The system is flawed. I call on Tasmanian Liberal senators today to support Labor's move to establish a Senate inquiry into this absolute debacle. Honest people in my electorate are being attacked, through no fault of their own, and the minister should spend his time trying to fix the mess he has created.
We as a nation believe that Australians should have a go and, where they need to, lend a hand. We have always believed in helping people who may have fallen on hard times to get back on their feet. As a representation of our community, this government believes that as well. But we must also accept that our welfare system is fundamentally broken. If you are on welfare and stay there, you will be subject to higher crime rates, lower income, higher health risks, lower lifespan, higher rates of family break-up and lower educational outcomes. Everything that should be up in our welfare system is down, and everything that should be down is up. And the chances of passing these outcomes on to your children are so improbably high that all of us should hang our heads in shame that we allow it to continue.
The Turnbull government, is determined to break the cycle of poverty that has been part of the welfare system for decades. I know those opposite would never, ever chase down a personal debt. I know that their generosity is renowned throughout the land. For example, there is the party of Mark Latham—a man who came into this parliament and said that it is appalling that politicians should enjoy such generous superannuation, but the minute he left he did not have one problem claiming his taxpayer funded, CPI adjusted, ongoing superannuation payments that allow him to be a perpetual commentator on Sky News. Or Eddie Obeid. Indeed, the member for Barton comes from that part of the Labor Party. Who can forget the generosity of Eddie, with coalmines being handed out wherever they need to be. Or Ian Macdonald. There was not a friend in the union movement that Ian could not find a coalmine for.
The problem is that at the back of this endless welfare system are hardworking Australian families who just want to get ahead. There is no coalmine, there is no Eddie and there is no Macca. No, it is hardworking Australians. When they have debt, they have to pay that debt, and they wonder what we are doing by spending $170 billion a year making things worse for the people on welfare. This is probably why the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when they held positions of responsibility, introduced data-matching and the online system, because they knew that this was the right thing to do. No wonder the member for Barton is hedging her bets, telling The Australian that she cannot guarantee that in every case of the people she has put forward they are innocent. The member for Barton's generosity with other people's money is inexhaustible. Let us be clear: many of the people who the member for Barton has highlighted as being disadvantaged by this data-matching system owe over $10,000 to Australian taxpayers—that is, hardworking families. These are resources that could be directed to helping those who need help, helping the people who have genuinely fallen on hard times or paying back Labor's debt that now stands at $430 billion. But that is what you get from Labor: higher taxes, higher spending and higher debt—a war on hardworking Australian families who just want to get ahead. That is why they betrayed them in government and will do so again if ever given the opportunity.
Let's face it: Labor says one thing but does the opposite. Who will ever forget their concern about superannuants with $1.6 billion in their accounts having to pay tax? Who can forget? Members of my community were coming to me saying, 'But Labor's going to stand up for us.' They could not believe it after the election. They came and saw me and they said, 'Who can believe it? They've let us down. I was so surprised.' You have never had any credibility on these sorts of issues. I reckon that if the member for Barton owed Eddie Obeid $1 she would have paid him back $2 already.
I call the member for Chifley.
I would like the member for Mackellar to withdraw the insinuation or the association he made during his speech. I know the member for Barton is a person of high integrity and should not be smeared in the way that the member for Mackellar did during his contribution. I ask him to withdraw.
Mr Deputy Speaker, he did not make any accusation of that nature. He used a metaphor and he has nothing to withdraw.
I did listen to that and I do not believe that there was a need to withdraw at that time. I will remind members that, while this is a free-ranging debate, the member for Mackellar did range fairly widely and I would encourage people to stick to the topic at hand. I call the member for Mackellar.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if any insinuation or offence were taken by the member for Barton, I of course withdraw.
I thank the member for Mackellar.
The Centrelink robo-debt collection system demonises people and it is a blight on the Australian government. It does not follow our judicial requirements of being innocent before proven guilty. It is the reflection of the coalition's longstanding ideological issues with people who interact with Centrelink. The whole saga is an attack on students, pensioners, people with disabilities and those who rely on child support. It is stereotyping people who receive Centrelink benefits as criminals. My office has been contacted by many people who have been incorrectly accused of having Centrelink debts. I have seen pensioners who, after receiving the call and debt notice, have paid the incorrect amount because they were too scared about what would happen if they did not. No-one should be forced to do this.
One of my constituents, Jeanette Suffield, was sent an incorrect Centrelink debt claim for several thousand dollars. Jeanette's story started when she was forced to undergo surgery to reconstruct her wrist because of an injury suffered while she was working as a registered nurse. She had no leave built up, but, because the surgery required prolonged recovery, she was forced to take unpaid leave and take the sickness benefits for a short period of time. After being alerted to this debt, Jeanette was asked to report her income for the year and question it multiple times, both over the phone and online, which she did. Despite lodging an official appeal over the phone and on paper at a Centrelink office, she was unable to get on to anyone who could help her resolve this issue. She was told that she had to set up a payment plan to repay her debt or it would go to collections. Only after my office made contact with the office of the Minister for Social Services was Jeanette contacted to say her debt had been waived because the assessment was wrong.
This whole process has become such a mess that Centrelink is now referring any inquiries for my constituents directly to my office so that we can write a representation on their behalf. Centrelink staff are overwhelmed and the upcoming strike is a symptom of that. Whilst many people have contacted me, including many with disabilities and some with mental health issues and in severe distress, my major concern is the process and the complete disregard of what we should expect of our government.
The government has, of course, been suffering from something of a pandemic of IT-related issues over the last 12 to 18 months, but the whole system is broken. According to the Australian National Audit Office, nearly a quarter of the 57 million phone calls made to Centrelink in 2015 went unanswered, and the auditors calculated that Australians spent 143 years waiting in vain to speak to Centrelink in 2013-2014 before simply hanging up. How much of this is directly its own doing and how much is related to a general mindset, both public and private, is a matter for consideration.
Much of this can be ascribed to the mad-scientist syndrome amongst certain ministers who are relying just on IT solutions; some of them appear to be the spawn of what Paul Keating described as the 'feral abacus' some years back. Much of this is down to many years of ill-considered efficiency dividends and untargeted cuts to service delivery areas in the Australian Public Service. It is hard to believe that poor management or sheer arrogance have not played a part, and I think we have seen that today. I know that the government ministers involved are not bad people on a personal level, but the fact that they deny there is a problem despite incontrovertible evidence and that they continue to deny the extreme difficulty in contacting Centrelink—the waiting for hours on the phone and computer-illiterate pensioners being told to sort it out online—to me, is just a failure of government.
We do not live in sub-Sahara in Africa, or in Zambia or in a Baltic state before the lifting of the Iron Curtain. Many people who have contacted me have been greatly distressed, and I feel ashamed that we treat some of the most disadvantaged people in our society in this way. Labor has repeatedly asked for this system to be suspended until there is a review and until there is some human oversight. I call on the ministers to act now, before more decent people are put through this inhuman system that is reminiscent of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. A culture has been developed by this government of ill-considered efficiency dividends that damage the public and have no human input. We live in Australia, and we expect our government to care about its people. This is shameful, and we need to return to basic principles of government that support all of our population, not just the privileged few. I believe a Prime Ministerial apology should be given to all those damaged by this fiasco.
I have listened with interest to the members who have contributed to this debate. At a time when public overhead costs in developed societies are increasing at a disproportionate rate to taxation revenue, leading to budget deficits and ever-increasing national debt, not many developed and advanced First World nations are in surplus. If we want to fund essential services in health, education, law and order and defence whilst maintaining income and company tax at affordable rates, we have to create a more disciplined society with less waste and more social responsibility.
The government has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of our $170 billion welfare system, which represents almost a third of the federal budget. The Australian public expects the highest standards of integrity, efficiency and effectiveness in our welfare system, with a proactive approach to compliance and audit. The government believes that it is appropriate to reconcile the income declared to Centrelink with that recorded by the Australian Taxation Office and, where there is a discrepancy in the sum that the person concerned has declared, they should be queried. This practice of checking Centrelink records with Australian Taxation Office records has been in place since the introduction by Labor of the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990. In fact, it was the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—as Assistant Treasurer and human services minister respectively—who first introduced the online automation of data checking in 2011. As I understand it, the online compliance intervention does not automate debt recovery—it is a system which automates only a part of the existing standard compliance review process.
The Department of Human Services always provides assistance when people request it, and this has not changed. If a discrepancy is identified in the process, it requires people to confirm or amend their information online. However, a person can call the dedicated 1800 number for assistance at any time. It is important to note that people with vulnerability indicators on their record are not included in the online process of review but are, instead, screened via the manual process. Initial letters are not debt collection letters; rather, they are a request for people to explain discrepancies between the self-reported income data collected by Centrelink and the information the Australian Taxation Office holds. No determination that a debt exists has been made at this point. It is not simply a recovery exercise; rather, the initial letter is sent to individuals inviting them to engage with the Department of Human Services to explain the discrepancy. No decision to raise a debt or otherwise is undertaken until the person has been provided an opportunity to confirm or update their information.
Centrelink currently has five million clients and, unfortunately, there are some who deliberately defraud the system, while others inadvertently fail to correctly update their income information. When this occurs they receive an overpayment, and must repay it. The government's welfare compliance system is checking the data going back to the Labor years and has discovered cases where people were overpaid. It is helping to raise $4.5 million in debt owed to the Commonwealth each day. I understand that we are dealing with real people, with real personal circumstances, but this does not displace the need to maintain integrity in our welfare system.
When welfare recipients have received thousands of dollars in payments from the taxpayer, in general, it is not unreasonable to ask them to consider and explain any discrepancy in reported income. To balance the budget the government must implement a wide range of measures which seek to incrementally achieve savings and efficiencies over time and give the public the chance to adapt to the changes and modify their behaviour. These measures include programs to increase workforce participation, to clamp down on law and order issues and to ensure that health costs are sustainable and education funding is administered more prudently.
If there was ever an example of this government losing touch with the community, the robo-debt debacle is it. If there was ever an example of this government losing faith with community, the robo-debt debacle is it. And if there was ever a way for a government to hurt the community, just as this government has done, the robo-debt debacle is it.
This government is in denial about the pain that they have caused the community. Every single one of the speakers today—and I do note they are in ultrasafe Liberal-held seats; they did not put up any marginal seat holders to debate this one today, did they, Mr Deputy Speaker?
I'm next.
Doesn't that say it all, member for Gilmore? Take the message perhaps about what they think of you. What I am saying today is: this minister and every single one of the speakers, you have got one shot—member for Gilmore, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—to say one word, sorry, to apologise to the thousands of people that have been caused pain and stress. It is all very well for you to get up and lecture—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—the member for Moore, talking about the history of Centrelink and what the 1800 number is that no-one can ring or no-one answers. What we want is an apology from this government for the pain and unnecessary harm that they have caused.
Every day that I walk through that chamber into this parliament, I am reminded of the duty that I have to speak for those people who do not have a voice, and thousands of those members of my community, just in the other 150 electorates right around Australia, were caused a summer of pain. What an outrage from the member for Mackellar, lecturing people about taxpayers' money while this Centrelink debacle was going on, with members of the government being exposed for some of the largest rorting that we have seen in travel expenses. What an absolute shame. I say: we, on this side, through the member for Barton and the Leader of the Opposition, have taken the fight up for those people who need a voice. Just today we have seen the Senate take action for an inquiry into this debacle.
I want to spend some time—and don't you love the buzzwords from the government: 'miscalculation', 'oversight'. It is a stuff-up; that is what they have done—'repurposing'. In the debate today we had the member for Murray: 'Oh, we've had some contradictions.' 'We've had some people go astray.' No, you haven't. You stuffed the system up and you have caused pain when people did not need that.
Let's talk about what is happening in the real world, as we are lectured by those opposite. I am going to read into the transcript a correspondence from a mother in my electorate. In October her son 'received notification of these alleged debts by text message from Centrelink. He contacted them to clarify their queries, explained he'd provided them with all the information they required at the time, including the letter of separation needed when his job had finished, which they had 'lost' in their data, and was assured that it was all fine and he owed nothing and to check the Centrelink account in 14 days. He did this. It didn't show zero dollars owing. He called again to sort it out and was told that for some reason the system hadn't changed it. They'd do it again and he could go in and reset it. He tried. It didn't work. He contacted them again. They tried while he was online. It didn't work. They said they would have to go to someone higher and check it in 14 days. It would then show zero dollars. It didn't, so he waited another week just in case. He then contacted Centrelink. Yet again he'd spent over five hours on the phone taking a day off work to do this'—this is someone who owes zero dollars—'all to go through it all over again. He was assured again that it would now be okay. In late November he received a text from Centrelink collection agency Dun & and Bradstreet demanding payment by 8 pm that evening or face legal action and possibly jail. He rang Centrelink and was told his review was not yet completed on the system. He owed zero, but it was out of their hands. Now it was with the collection agencies. He was then told to pay $200 for initial payment and then $20 per month, the lowest amount as advised. Just before Christmas, he received three letters from Centrelink on the same day. Two of the letters were statements on two different amounts in which he was informed he owed due to overpayment.'
On it goes and on it goes. For those opposite to lecture anyone about competence or arrogance is breathtaking. I do not know what is more shocking to me: the arrogance of those opposite or the sheer and utter incompetence that they have delivered onto the Australian people. We, on this side, will not be silent. We will continue to speak out against the cuts, the removal of the safety net that all of those opposite are trying to do, because Australians deserve much better than this government. (Time expired)
Our nation has an amazing system of welfare support, representing almost a third of the federal government budget. Things that have happened in recent times are not a generation of efficiency dividends. Sometimes I think that running a country is a bit like running a business, and I can say that after 17 years of making fudge, sending it out and collecting money for the stuff I sent out. If I sent too much or a customer owed me money, we would negotiate a payment and work out a schedule. I made a mistake. They might have made a mistake. We fixed it. I am not saying that the system is pure, but this is exactly the same as recovering overpayments from the taxpayer funded welfare support system. And it is only being done when there is an apparent difference between the self-declared income of a welfare recipient and the records held by the Australian tax office.
The system is going through some teething problems. We all know that. However, I have had a little look at the statistics that have been quoted this afternoon, and each member has stood up and said, I've had 10' in one case. Some people have said, 'I've had up to 100 constituents who have needed assistance.' I do not know about you but I have got 114,000 constituents. I have had about 14 people who have needed my help. I am sure there will be more, because I have just said to people: 'Come and ask me to help you, if this is causing you grief.'
This is my job. We are there to help these people get through a system that may not have worked for them. This is your job—the opposition—but that is not a lot in the scale of things in this system. Instead of putting their lives on the public record—I hope you got their permission to do so, because it is a complete breach of privacy, if you did not–you should have gone straight to the minister, as all of us did, and said: 'A constituent's got a problem. Can we help them?' That is our job as members of parliament. We are there to help our constituents and not throw their lives into the newspaper. Get real. Get it fixed and help sort these problems out for the people.
Opposition members interjecting—
That is exactly what I am doing.
It's a computing mess.
It is a computing mess which could have and should have been fixed up during the Rudd-Gillard years. It has been there for a long time—
You're in government.
Yes, we are in government. Guess what? We are fixing it, and this is part of the process. There needs to be a drop of reality on the other side. Running a country is like running a business. We need to be completely focused on helping our constituents at all times instead of making a public debacle of their lives. What you have done is very, very wrong. I am not happy with the way things were done, and I am sure I know how to calculate. If you have a hundred constituents that you need to help, that is less than one in 1,000 people in your electorate, and it is our job to assist them. If there is a problem, you go to the minister and you help fix it. That is our job in every aspect of what we do.
I am sure that, for every person you have represented in parliament today—through the Acting Deputy Speaker—you have permission for that particular public thing. Even though there is privilege in here, you have actually exposed their life to public criticism, particularly when that person still owes money. I personally would not like any of my constituents to be exposed that way.
I really think we need a concerted effort to work together on this situation. We are running a country. There is a debt to be paid back. There is a system in place. I want all of those in my electorate who are entitled to government income support to be able to earn that government income support and to be able to exist on it. What do I say to this person here who should be getting income support when they have a neighbour who they know should not be getting that income support? This is all part of the process of balancing the payments, making sure people feel safe and secure in their income support and that this government is doing the right thing by those who are absolutely entitled to be getting support. (Time expired)
I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Kakoschke-Moore has been appointed a member of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.
I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016. This is an important issue for many of us in the parliament, particularly those who have worked closely with community outreach groups who are dealing with the addiction of gambling. I pay tribute to many of the frontline workers, who do an outstanding job day and night dealing with this insidious problem in our community. Every year, two in every three adult Australians will place a bet in one form or another. I am one of them and I enjoy the occasional bet on the Melbourne Cup. It might be that you are interested in scratching numbers at a newsagency or taking office sweeps, but it also might be acknowledging the fact that in Australia as Australians we spent nearly $2 billion in 2013 and $2.2 billion in 2014, and, of more concern, these figures included illegal offshore interactive gambling, with up to 20 per cent of expenditure going to offshore providers. That is just over $1,200 per adult. What is concerning most about that statistic is that the amount of money we spend on gambling is rising year on year even as the number of people who gamble is falling at the same time. So it is not that more people are gambling; it is that fewer people are gambling much, much more. It is concerning because the average hides the actual reality for many people who are caught in a hole they cannot gamble their way out of.
We have always agreed and Labor has always agreed the gambling industry has a place in Australian society. I know that in my own community we have fantastic community clubs, RSLs and hubs. In particular, I work closely with the Goodna RSL and Inala Blue Fin Fishing Club, one of the largest fishing clubs in Australia—incidentally, it is nowhere near water, but there is another story to that that I will tell another time. Both of these clubs are great social areas where people come, join and share fellowship, and the other great thing about these service organisations and service clubs is that they provide a lot of community benefit. They provide support through grants through community organisations. I pay tribute to the volunteers and the workers in those organisations.
But we should not be so naive as to pretend that gambling is like any other industry. It is an industry predicated on risk and reward. It is risky to gamble. It is risky because you do not often get that $5, $10 or $100 back. It is risky because it is pretty easy to try. And it is risky because there is nothing harder to chase than a loss. But, so long as participants are mindful of the risk and the reward and can balance those two interests against each other, there is no reason why gambling cannot remain an ongoing part of the Aussie way of life.
The problem for many Australians is that the ability to strike that balance may have gone and an addiction is inherently irrational. It is why it is not enough to tell smokers that maybe they should not smoke because of cancer, because you know it is hurting them or you know it is hurting their close family and friends. You know all of this but you do not want to stop and you cannot stop.
I do not believe that the government should be in the business of telling people how they can and cannot have fun, so before I get any lectures about the nanny state I want to be very clear that I do not want to see fun becoming an addition that you cannot break free from. That is when we need to think in this place about how we can help We must act to minimise the potential for harm for this vulnerable group of Australians.
The Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 amends the Interactive Gambling Act and the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act. The purpose of the act is to protect Australians against illegal online gambling services and it regulates against the provision and advertising of prohibited interactive gambling services to persons in Australia. The second act this amendment seeks to amend is to empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to better serve as the Interactive Gambling Act's enforcement mechanism.
These amendments, I acknowledge, have been a long time coming. We on this side of the House are acutely aware of the shortcomings of the Interactive Gambling Act in its current form. I acknowledge the shadow minister, the member for Franklin, the work that she has done in this space and her contribution—and those of all other speakers—earlier today. That is why Labor conducted a review of this legislation when we were last in government. The final report, which I was able to have a look at, was damning in its assessment. To speak plainly, the Interactive Gambling Act is not doing what it is supposed to do. It is not fulfilling its role of keeping Australians protected from the risks of illegal online gambling services. As a result, I know that both sides of this House find themselves in agreement on this issue, and I believe that we do so because this bill goes some way to dealing with this issue. That is why it has bipartisan support.
Critically, as we have heard in the debate earlier today, this bill will prohibit 'click to call' in-play betting services. As we are aware, these services allowed consumers to place high volumes of bets in a short space of time. There is no cooling off period and no opportunity to pause and consider risk and reward, yet they were available through a loophole in the act. The fact that these in-play betting services can remain available, despite their clear capacity to present a risk to problem gamblers and despite its inconsistency with the aim and purpose of the Interactive Gambling Act, presents a clear regulatory issue that we in this place must confront.
Also important to this amendment are its measures to increase enforcement of Australian law and to tackle online illegal gambling. It will do so by clarifying the laws around online gambling. It will strengthen a number of enforcement measures around noncompliance and will better serve to regulate what for too long has been an under-regulated sector of a highly regulated industry. As the O'Farrell Review has demonstrated, there have been no prosecutions under the IGA since it was introduced in 2001—not a single prosecution, not because there have been no complaints but because the act is no longer fit for purpose.
However, while this bill demonstrates some way forward, it does not tackle the issue of gambling advertising, especially during live games. I acknowledge this issue was not included in the terms of reference of the O'Farrell review commissioned by the government, and I want to quote from the report:
While not referred to in the Terms of Reference … Advertising, while providing operators with the opportunity to inform potential customers about their services, has also been identified as a potential driver of at-risk gambling behaviour. In addition, there is concern that advertising risks normalising gambling within sport, particularly amongst children.
The report noted further:
Therefore I will be supporting the amendment, and I want to thank the member for Franklin for moving it. On this side of the House, we believe that the government must work with the broadcast television industry and national sporting organisations. We know that there has to be a transition plan. We know that it has to be done in a thoughtful and constructive way to phase out commercials that encourage betting or gambling during live sports programs, with a view to their eventual prohibition.
Back in 2013, the Australian Psychological Society's submission to the review by the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform noted that viewers watching a live sport game were exposed to an average of 341 minutes of gambling advertising. The Sunday Age reported last month that during the tennis William Hill had 114 advertising spots in New South Wales, 77 in Victoria and 90 in my home state of Queensland. Also, research by Associate Professor Samantha Thomas found that up to 75 per cent of kids in research conducted thought gambling was normal or just a part of sport. ACMA's community research paper entitled Betting odds and advertising for betting agencies during sports broadcasts, published in 2013, indicates:
Up to 80 per cent of respondents support restrictions on gambling advertising during live sporting broadcasts, the strongest respondent groups being parents with children.
I am not certainly not arguing for a blanket ban on all gambling advertising. The approach we want to see is holistic reform, and I hope that the government will show leadership on this issue. This will build, open and extend some of the safeguards introduced into broadcast industry codes of practice by the former Labor government. I support the view that broadcasting of live sport and gambling should be separate. The rules need to go further for this bill to represent a genuine and holistic approach to reform in this space.
Labor supports this bill because Labor believes that, for the gambling industry to survive in a modern Australia, we need to modernise the way it is regulated. We know that we are a country of early adopters, of technological first movers. We are innovative and we are at the cutting edge of a whole range of technological advances, and I believe our regulations need to be the same. Right now, offshore gambling operators are illegal in name only, and it is about time this changed. We have protections in place that offshore operators simply do not honour, because to them harm minimisation is an optional extra. I know from talking to a number of parents in my own community that they are lovers of sport but are sick and tired of watching sport and seeing advertising, time and time again, that says, 'Make sure you gamble; make sure you have a bet.' It is becoming the norm. As I said in my earlier remarks, I have no problems with people having a bet. I have no problems with people coming together, sharing a beer and perhaps having a laugh and placing a bet together. But we need to ensure that kids are protected. We need to make sure that the excesses that we have seen in some areas do not continue.
I am really pleased that this bill has been put forward and I am particularly pleased that the shadow minister, the member for Franklin, has moved this amendment. I wholeheartedly support it. We want to make sure, and I certainly want to make sure, that the gambling industry's long-term plan is sustainable, but also that we have a long-term plan to end problem gambling in Australia. I support this amendment and I look forward to further reforms in this area.
I speak in support of the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016, subject to the passage of the amendment that has been moved by the member for Franklin. It is a very sensible amendment to this piece of legislation. It calls on the government 'to work with the broadcasting industry and national sporting organisations on a transition plan to phase out the promotion of betting odds and commercials relating to betting or gambling during live sporting broadcasts, with a view to their prohibition'.
As I said, this is a very sensible amendment, and it deals with an issue that I regularly receive representations and complaints about from constituents—that is, gambling advertising during sporting broadcasts, particularly at G-rated television time. Many parents in the community of Kingsford Smith have contacted me about this important issue. To be frank, they are sick and tired of watching the footy or the cricket with their kids and having a gambling company pop up during half-time or an ad break, spruiking odds to their kids. I had a father tell me that his eight-year-old son, who he regularly watches the football with on a Friday night, can now quote the odds. He says things like, 'Dad, look, the Tigers are up to $1.10—good time to get on.' When an eight-year-old kid can quote odds like that and say that to their parent, as the member for Franklin said, it is frightening, because that kid is on the fast track to gambling when they are able to, when they turn 18—or even earlier, unfortunately—and they are in many respects on the fast track to becoming addicted to gambling, because that advertising is normalising that behaviour. It is normalising that activity to children when they are watching sport. They associate gambling with sport if they grow up seeing it on television all the time.
It is an issue that we as legislators can no longer ignore. There is deep concern in the community about this, and it is about time that the government and this parliament took action on the issue. I congratulate the member for Franklin for moving this very sensible amendment.
In recent years, there has been an explosion in the number of gambling companies and websites, and in the ways we bet. You no longer just go to the TAB on a weekend or go to a licensed venue; you can now bet over the phone, over the internet, over the internet on your phone, or in any licensed venue. The other thing is you can bet on anything. You have been able to bet on just about anything in recent years. You can even bet on how long this Prime Minister is going to last in the job and who is going to take over from him in the years to come. You can bet on everything at the moment.
What we need is appropriate regulation to encourage responsible gambling. I am certainly not arguing that gambling or all betting should be phased out, but we need to ensure that we have a mix of regulation and appropriate advertising so that these companies can advertise in appropriate ways to adults; that we are doing our utmost to protect the vulnerable; and, importantly, that we identify problem gambling when it does arise and provide appropriate assistance to ensure that those people are not blowing their whole pay cheque on online gambling or gambling in licensed values.
This is particularly important when it comes to offshore gambling that is illegal. Again, the number of offshore operators has been increasing, and access to them is available to Australians, particularly online through certain sources and Dark Web sites. Offshore operators pay no Australian taxes. They pay no racing or sporting fees. In recent years, there was the race fields case, whereby the racing industry sought recompense from some of the gambling operators and those that use the intellectual property produced by racing—namely, the ability to gamble and to use the fields to do that.
We have seen legislation passed in recent years to ensure that the value of that copyright and that intellectual property comes back to the industry and goes into things like supporting the welfare of jockeys. The Australia Jockeys Association have done a wonderful job in setting up a trust, the National Jockeys Trust, in Australia to provide assistance to jockeys who are injured or who have fallen on hard times, or to their families on the sad occurrence of a jockey passing away while undertaking their trade. We have been able to use that race fields legislation and that intellectual property return to ensure that it goes back into the industry and does foster the welfare of the participants in that industry.
Offshore operators do not share information with law enforcement or sporting bodies regarding suspicious betting activities. There have been some celebrated cases of corruption and of individuals undertaking suspicious betting activities, where betting has had to be suspended on NRL games, on soccer games and on tennis matches because of suspicious activities. It is often gambling agencies that alert the authorities when they detect suspicious activities over their platforms, but that cannot be done by offline and offshore operators. They offer gambling services that are prohibited under the IGA and they provide minimal harm minimisation and consumer protection control. So there is a need to regulate this aspect of the industry.
This bill is the first of three legislative tranches and will introduce a civil penalty regime to be enforced by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the ACMA. It will prohibit click-to-call in-play betting services by tightening the definition of a telephone betting service. It will amend the ACMA Act to enable ACMA to notify international regulators of information relating to prohibited or regulated interactive gambling services. It will simplify and streamline the complaints handling and investigation process to remove mandatory requirements to refer matters to the police and enable ACMA to handle the entire process. It will enable the minister to determine by legislative instrument that a specific thing is or is not a sporting event for the purposes of interactive gambling. It will establish a register of certain legitimate regulated interactive gambling services to raise awareness amongst consumers of services which should be avoided. It will amend the ACMA Act to enable ACMA to notify the Department of Immigration and Border Protection of information relating to prohibited or regulated interactive gambling services.
These are all sensible amendments to the gambling architecture and the legislation relating to the IGA but, as I mentioned earlier, there is more to be done in this industry. The amendment that is moved by the member for Franklin foreshadows that work that must be done by this parliament in the future. That is, to ensure that we are doing all we can to protect the vulnerable—particularly our kids—from exploitation and from setting them on a path towards problem gambling in Australia. I commend the member for Franklin for this amendment. I urge others to support that amendment to this bill.
I rise to sum up. In doing so, can I thank all of the members who have spoken on this bill. Many have given very impassioned speeches about their concerns, about the issues to do with problem gambling, to do with illegal offshore providers and also, as we have just heard from the member for Kingsford Smith, some of the concerns around gambling advertising.
This bill originates out of the Barry O'Farrell review into illegal offshore wagering. That review was a comprehensive review looking predominantly at how we can prevent some of the dollars going offshore to illegal offshore gambling companies. In making his recommendations he also covered a number of areas and gave us strong recommendations as to how to make the overall gambling environment a safer one as well. In essence, his recommendations fell into three groups: firstly, how we can do more to crack down on those illegal offshore gambling providers; secondly, to fix up, if you like, the click-to-call issue by clarifying the law to ensure the original intent of the Interactive Gambling Act is adhered to; and thirdly, to introduce stronger consumer protections.
This bill squarely deals with those first two. It deals with cracking down on the illegal offshore gambling providers and it does clarify the law to ensure the original intent is adhered to as far as the click-to-call issue goes. In relation to this third issue of stronger national consumer protections, we are absolutely committed to implementing those recommendations and in some places going further than the recommendations. We are working very cooperatively with the states and territories as we consult appropriately, as we should, before introducing such measures.
I will just quickly outline a quick summation as to the major measures contained in the bill and particularly those measures which deal with those illegal offshore gambling providers. I should also just recap why they are a problem for Australia. They are a problem for many reasons. Obviously, money goes offshore when it would be otherwise better spent in Australia. It also creates greater consumer protection risks because when you bet on an illegal offshore gambling provider, clearly you do not have the same sort of legal and consumer protections that you would if you were betting on an Australian licensed provider. Of course, we know that some of those illegal offshore gambling providers are actually connected to large crime syndicates. So we have a very strong interest to ensure that we are not inadvertently supporting those crime syndicates through bets which Australians may be placing, not knowing where those gambling providers are domiciled and who they are connected with.
Consequently, Mr O'Farrell made a number of recommendations which we are implementing in this bill. First of all, it amends the law to make it very clear that it is unlawful for an unlicensed offshore provider to be providing bets to Australians. We think that alone will make quite a big difference, as it has done in other jurisdictions. It particularly makes a difference for those gambling companies who are domiciled in what I would call responsible jurisdictions, because they will ensure that Australian law is adhered to.
Secondly, the bill empowers the Australian Communications and Media Authority—ACMA—with new civil penalties to ensure that the rules are enforced. Currently, the Interactive Gambling Act only provides criminal offences for most of the provisions of the act. Consequently with criminal offences there is a much higher burden of proof and we have in fact had no prosecutions under that, despite the fact that there have been 140 complaints made to the Australian Federal Police. Civil penalties, we think, will be more effective.
Thirdly, we are introducing what we call other disruptive mechanisms to deal with these illegal offshore gambling providers. The most important one which is contained in this bill is that it will enable the company directors of what you might call recalcitrant illegal companies to be placed on our movements alert list. That means if they try to come into Australia they will be picked up at the border. So that is another important disruptive mechanism.
Finally, we will be creating a register for the benefit of Australian citizens so that they know exactly which ones are Australian licensed providers and which ones are not.
We think these measures will have a very significant impact on reducing the amount of money which is flowing to those illegal offshore providers. It will not stop it all. The experience internationally is that nothing can stop all of the money going to illegal offshore gambling providers but in most cases it does have a demonstrable difference, and we think it will in this particular example. I should mention we are also exploring some other disruptive mechanisms with the ISP providers and the banks.
The second major thing that this bill does, as I mentioned, is clarify the law in relation to what is known as click-to-call in-play betting. We have made it crystal clear that we have no intention of expanding the amount of gambling products in the Australian marketplace. We think there are enough already. But with one of those, the click-to-call in-play betting, we think some of the gambling providers have in essence been either flouting the law or, certainly, flouting the intention of the law in how they have gone about their business. So this bill clarifies the law to make it crystal clear what the original intent of the Interactive Gambling Act was, and I think that will be welcomed.
As I said, the next tranche of reforms, which we will be introducing, will be stronger consumer protections. Mr O'Farrell outlined for us a number of those which he believes we should introduce. We have said that we will be very determined to introduce those as part of a national consumer protection framework. I am pleased to report to the House that I have been having very good discussions with state and territory gambling ministers in relation to this. We have in-principle agreement across all of the 11 measures which we have said that we will do.
These will include, for example, prohibiting gambling companies offering lines of credit to their customers to continue to bet with even if they are out of money in their savings accounts. It will include a national self-exclusion register, which we think will be of great benefit to gamblers who want to self-exclude from a particular betting provider, and in doing so they will be able to self-exclude from all betting providers as a way of managing their own gambling expenditure. It includes the provision of greater information back to the gambler as well, so they know exactly how much money they are spending and how much money they may be losing.
I think that this national consumer protection framework will be very important and, indeed, will be the most significant set of measures that this federal parliament has ever introduced in order to deal with problem gambling. We are working very cooperatively with the state and territory ministers on that as well as having ongoing consultation with the sector.
I will deal with the Labor amendments which have been put up by the member for Franklin. The amendment, which is being proposed by the member for Franklin on behalf of the Labor Party, in essence concerns gambling advertising and promotion during sporting events. We certainly acknowledge the concerns which many Australians have in relation to that.
I should point out, however, that different jurisdictions already have different rules in relation to broadcasting. While in some respects we acknowledge the concerns which the member for Franklin has raised in this amendment, we cannot support the particular amendment, because we do not think it has been thought through properly—which I am sorry to say is quite typical of the Labor Party. If we pass this amendment, in effect it would mean that on Melbourne Cup Day you would not be able even to show what the odds were for the most famous race in Australia. For the race that stops the nation you would not be able to say who the favourite is and who the long shots are. We do not think that this motion has been thought through. Consequently, while we acknowledge some of the concerns out in the community, we cannot support this amendment. I do point out, though, that we have ongoing discussions with the broadcasters in relation to advertising issues.
I will conclude by thanking again all the members who have spoken on this bill. I thank the Labor Party for their cooperation throughout the process of developing this bill. We had good consultations with several members of the Labor Party in relation to this bill in order to keep them informed and hear what their concerns might be. We also had good consultations with some of the independents both here as well as in the Senate.
I also thank the sector, who have engaged with us very constructively. I would like to think that we have been upfront in relation to our intentions, that we have listened to what they have had to say and that this bill does incorporate the concerns that they have raised and what they hope to achieve. Of course you cannot please everybody, but I think that we have been genuine in the way that we have gone about consulting in relation to this bill. We do think it will be very significant in dealing with those illegal offshore gambling providers. We do think that it clarifies, introduces and makes stronger the laws to ensure the intent of the Interactive Gambling Act, as it was originally enacted, is there.
Finally, once we have all the measures from the national consumer protection framework in place, it will have a very strong impact in providing a safer environment for people to gamble while still allowing them, if they want to punt, to be able to have a punt.
I again thank the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Franklin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Franklin be agreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 7), omit the definition of place-based betting service in section 4.
(2) Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (lines 6 to 8), omit the item.
(3) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (lines 11 to 35), omit section 8BA.
(4) Schedule 1, item 28, page 13 (line 24), omit paragraph 8E(1)(d).
I have already spoken at some length about the bill in its entirety and I will speak only briefly about these amendments. I would like to take the opportunity to say to the minister again: I applaud the government for moving on reform of online gambling. It is way over time—it should have been done before this by previous governments—but the main thing is that it is being done now, so that is good.
I find this bill broadly appealing. There is one deficiency in it, which is the substantive nature of the amendments and which I will speak to. I am sure the minister is already aware of it. I have already, in my speech earlier today, acknowledged the fact that the government—again, to be commended—is intending to move another bill later in the year to provide consumer protection measures. I just hope that that is not very far away and I hope it covers all of the things that we are not covering today.
I agree with the Labor opposition that really, by today, we should be talking about a permanent ban on the advertising of gambling during any G-rated television time—including sports broadcasts, when so many children are watching a great clash, watching their sporting heroes do battle on the field. It is a time when children are very, very vulnerable to watching and learning from this sort of advertising, so it is a missed opportunity not to do that.
Mr Speaker, through you, I say to the minister: when you do get to the next bill, please take every opportunity to address a whole range of things. I know the member for Mayo, in moving her amendments, shortly will talk about the need for a national exclusion database. The minister and I have already spoken about the need to go much further on giving credit during gambling. It is one thing to say that service providers should not provide credit to gamblers, yet we still allow the use of credit cards for online gambling, which means effectively that everyone is enjoying credit when they are gambling online.
I am very impressed by the initiative from some in the finance and banking sector that debit cards only be allowed for online gambling, and I note that at least one Australian bank has already introduced a prohibition on the use of their credit cards for online gambling. So there is a long way to go, but I do not want that to detract from the fact that the government is to be applauded for taking this step.
To the substantive nature of the amendments: the minister would already be aware that I am concerned, and many people are concerned, that there is a possibility of the bill, unamended, liberalising in-house in-play betting. Currently places like TABs or casinos can have hardwired devices on which people can gamble in-play during a sporting event. I am concerned that the current wording of the bill would allow such places of gambling to introduce wireless devices such as iPads, and I am worried that that would be a slippery slope; that it would be only a matter of time before Crown Casino, for example, might say, 'If you are going to come into our casino and gamble in-play in-house then it may be easier if you just download our Crown app.' Then, after a little bit longer, they might say, 'Well, if you want to go outside onto the footpath and have a cigarette, it might be more convenient if you were allowed to at least go outside the door onto the footpath.' Then—a slippery slope—a little bit further on, 'Well, if you're going out onto the footpath and having a cigarette while you have in-play betting on your own device, maybe you can just do it at home.' Before we know it we will have completely liberalised in-house in-play betting, which, at the moment, is pretty tightly held by those places.
That is my amendment, which I hope the government will embrace. I note the government has not had any appetite for this change so far, but I see great merit in this. I am sure it would be a very popular amendment in the community.
The government will not be supporting this amendment, but let me just make a couple of brief comments. Firstly, I thank the member for Denison for the constructive way in which he has engaged with me and the government in relation to this bill as a whole. I hope that he thinks that we, likewise, have been open, up-front and constructive in the way that we have engaged with him.
I understand his concerns in relation to in-play betting at place-based locations, and I say to the member for Denison—and I have said this to him privately—that our intent in this bill is to ensure that the original intent of the Interactive Gambling Act remains in place and is adhered to. Consequently, we are making those amendments to the click-to-call issue, because we felt that people were getting around the original intent of the act to be able to do click-to-call in-play betting. But, in relation to this, our intent is to keep in place what currently exists, which is that you can do an in-play bet at a terminal in a licensed venue, and we are not proposing to go any further than that.
In relation to his concerns about the slippery slope, I make a commitment to the member for Denison and to the House that we will keep an eye on this in order to monitor it. We do not believe that those things that he has raised will eventuate. You cannot, under the act, download an app onto your own device. It does need to be a venue's device on which you do the in-play betting. That is what the current law is and we are not proposing to change the current law.
In my speech in the second reading debate on this bill I did talk about Labor's concerns in relation to these terminals in licensed venues. We also had some concerns in that we wanted to make sure that there was no proliferation of mobile devices, and I am glad that the government has also made the commitment that they will act if there is a proliferation, because I do not think that that is the intent of the way it is worded at the moment. Certainly, from the wording of the explanatory memorandum, it appears that the government wants to maintain the status quo, and that is what Labor would expect. So, at this time, we are not supporting the amendment, but I just wanted to put on record that we have raised our concerns, because we share the concerns about the proliferation of mobile devices.
I thank the member for Franklin for that contribution. Through you, Mr Speaker, to the minister: I do not doubt the government's intention here and I do not doubt that they intend that there be no liberalisation. But I just offer one final comment: I do believe that when we make a law in this place it cannot rest on the goodwill of a particular minister or on the intentions of a particular government. I think we should write laws that almost assume some minister or government in the future will have a completely different point of view and perhaps no sense of the public interest. So I do find the current wording too loose. I do think that my very simple amendment would tighten that up and ensure that any future minister or any future government would be very tightly required in law to follow the intention of this minister and this government.
We need to be ever so careful to not rely on the goodwill of any one person. We might have a good minister now but, who knows, while the next minister might be the member for Franklin, we have no idea what the position of the minister after that might be or whether he or she might have an equally admirable understanding of this issue, and we do not in any way want to allow for the liberalisation of in-play betting. There is an abundance of evidence to say that it is problematic, an abundance of evidence from other countries to say it can allow for the corruption of sport. We must be very careful about ensuring we do not create the environment for that in the future. I will leave it at that.
The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Denison be agreed to.
The question now is that the bill be agreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (19) and (21) together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 8), at the end of section 3, add:
• This Act also regulates the conduct of restricted wagering services by imposing restrictions on these sports betting services in relation to various practices such as offering micro-betting, credit or inducements.
• The Interactive Gambling Regulator has a variety of functions in relation to enforcing compliance of this conduct, as well as providing advice and information.
• A person may also regulate their own interactions with restricted wagering services by applying to be included on the National Self-exclusion Register which is kept under this Act. Restricted wagering services must check the Register, which is kept and administered by the Regulator, before creating accounts for individuals to place bets using their services.
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 12), after the definition of ACMA official, insert:
betting limit, in relation to a period, means the total maximum amount nominated by an individual that he or she may bet using a restricted wagering service during the period.
(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 14), after the definition of carriage service, insert:
category A document, in relation to an individual, means any of the following:
(a) a licence or permit issued in the name of the individual;
(b) a passport issued in the name of the individual;
(c) a birth certificate in the name of the individual;
(d) any other document in relation to the individual that is recognised as proof of identity under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
category B document, in relation to an individual, means any of the following:
(a) a credit card, debit card or other automatic teller machine card that has the name and signature of the individual;
(b) a Medicare card issued in the name of the individual;
(c) a passbook issued in the name of the individual by an ADI (within the meaning of the Banking Act 1959);
(d) a statement of account issued for a utilities or rates account that:
(i) was issued in the previous 12 months; and
(ii) includes the name and address given by the individual.
(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 18), after the definition of civil penalty provision, insert:
credit has the meaning given by section 11A.
(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 22), omit the definition of electronic equipment, substitute:
electronic betting terminals means electronic equipment that is:
(a) installed on a permanent or fixed basis at a place where gambling services are provided; and
(b) located in an area that is set aside for gambling services and under the continual supervision of the provider; and
(c) unable to connect to the internet; and
(d) available for use only by customers using cash or a card issued by the provider.
(6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 24), before the definition of Federal Circuit Court, insert:
G classified, in relation to a television program, means classified G in accordance with whichever of the following industry codes of practice included in the register under section 123 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is relevant:
(a) the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice;
(b) the Subscription Broadcast Television Codes of Practice;
(c) the Subscription Narrowcast Television Codes of Practice.
(7) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (after line 4), before the definition of personal information, insert:
micro betting means betting that relates to a horse race, a harness race, a greyhound race or a sporting event and either:
(a) the bet is:
(i) on the outcome of the race or event; and
(ii) placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of the race or event; or
(b) the bet is on a contingency that may or may not happen in the course of the race or event.
personal details, in relation to an individual, means:
(a) the individual's name, residential address, telephone number, email address, date of birth and gender; and
(b) any other information of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition that identifies the individual.
(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 21), before the definition of regulated interactive gambling service, insert:
protected information means personal details or other personal information to the extent that this information:
(a) is obtained under, or in accordance with, this Act; or
(b) is derived from a record of information that was made under, or in accordance with, this Act; or
(c) is derived from a disclosure or use of information that was made under, or in accordance with, this Act.
Register means the National Self-exclusion Register kept under section 61HA.
(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 23), after the definition of regulated interactive gambling service, insert:
Regulator means the Interactive Gambling Regulator established under section 61JA.
(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 25), after the definition of Regulatory Powers Act, insert:
restricted wagering service means a gambling service that:
(a) is provided to customers using any of the following:
(i) an internet carriage service;
(ii) any other listed carriage service;
(iii) a broadcasting service;
(iv) any other content service;
(v) a datacasting service; and
(b) relates to the placing, making, receiving or acceptance of bets on, or on a series of, any or all of the following:
(i) a horse race;
(ii) a harness race;
(iii) a greyhound race;
(iv) a sporting event.
(11) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (after line 15), after the definition of unlicensed regulated interactive gambling service, insert:
verified has the meaning given by section 11B.
(12) Schedule 1, item 27, page 11 (lines 32 and 33), omit "electronic equipment", substitute "electronic betting terminals".
(13) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (line 1), omit "electronic equipment", substitute "electronic betting terminals".
(14) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (lines 19 and 20), omit "electronic equipment", substitute "electronic betting terminals".
(15) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (line 22), omit "electronic equipment", substitute "electronic betting terminals".
(16) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (line 24), omit "electronic equipment", substitute "electronic betting terminals".
(17) Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 12), after item 32, insert:
32A After section 11
Insert:
11A Meaning of credit
For the purposes of this Act, credit is provided by a restricted wagering service if under a contract or other arrangement:
(a) payment of a debt owed by one person to another is deferred; or
(b) one person incurs a deferred debt to another.
11B Meaning of verified
For the purposes of this Act, an individual's identity is verified for the purposes of creating an account, or otherwise facilitating the placing of bets, with a restricted wagering service, if:
(a) the service is given the originals or certified copies of either:
(i) 2 category A documents, each of a different kind, identifying the individual; or
(ii) one category A document and 2 category B documents, each of a different kind, identifying the individual; and
(b) the personal details contained in those documents correspond to the personal details provided by the individual for the purposes of creating the account, or otherwise facilitating the placing of bets.
32B After Part 1
Insert:
Part 1A—Offence of failing to train gambling service employees
14A Offence of failing to train gambling service employees
(1) If:
(a) a person provides a gambling service; and
(b) either:
(i) the person is a corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies; or
(ii) the service is provided to customers using an internet carriage service; and
(c) the person has employees who have direct contact in the course of their employment with individuals who use the service;
the person must ensure that each such employee is provided with the information, training or instruction prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person is subject to a requirement under subsection (1); and
(b) the person fails to comply with the requirement.
Penalty: 120 penalty units.
Regulations
(3) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may include:
(a) information, training or instruction relating to the following:
(i) recognising problem gambling behaviour;
(ii) assisting individuals to access information regarding the Register and other services or programs to deal with problem gambling;
(iii) dealing with individuals who have identified themselves as having a gambling problem; and
(b) when such information, training or instruction must be provided.
(18) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 24), after item 66, insert:
66A At the end of Part 3
Add:
Division 4—Injunctions
31A Injunctions
(1) The Federal Circuit Court of Australia may, on application by the Regulator, grant an injunction referred to in subsection (2) if the Court is satisfied that:
(a) an ADI (within the meaning of the Banking Act 1959) facilitates transactions in relation to a gambling service; and
(b) the gambling service is a prohibited internet gambling service.
(2) The injunction is to require the ADI to take reasonable steps to prohibit transactions in relation to the prohibited internet gambling service.
Parties
(3) The parties to an action under subsection (1) are:
(a) the Regulator; and
(b) the ADI; and
(c) the prohibited internet gambling service.
Service
(4) The Regulator must notify the:
(a) the ADI; and
(b) the prohibited internet gambling service;
of the making of an application under subsection (1).
Matters to be taken into account
(5) In determining whether to grant the injunction, the Court may take into account the following matters:
(a) whether prohibiting transactions in relation to the prohibited internet gambling service is a proportionate response in the circumstances;
(b) whether it is in the public interest to prohibit transactions in relation to the prohibited internet gambling service;
(c) whether access to, or transactions in relation to, the prohibited internet gambling service has been disabled or prohibited by orders from any court of another country or territory;
(d) any other matter prescribed by the regulations;
(e) any other relevant matter.
Rescinding and varying injunctions
(6) The Court may:
(a) limit the duration of; or
(b) upon application, rescind or vary;
an injunction granted under this section.
(7) An application under subsection (6) may be made by:
(a) any of the persons referred to in subsection (3); or
(b) any other person prescribed by the regulations.
Costs
(8) The ADI is not liable for any costs in relation to the proceedings unless the ADI enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings.
(19) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 19), after item 138, insert:
138A After Part 7A
Insert:
Part 7B—Restricted wagering services
Division 1—Simplified outline of this Part
61G Simplified outline of this Part
This Part sets out a number of restrictions on the conduct of restricted wagering services in relation to sports betting. These restrictions aim to ensure that such services do not engage in certain predatory practices, particularly in relation to problem gamblers, and that sports betting services are provided in a responsible manner.
These restrictions include bans on offering micro-betting, credit or inducements, as well as requirements for the restricted wagering service to check that individuals are not included on the National Self-exclusion Register before creating new accounts.
Restricted wagering services that contravene these restrictions may commit an offence or a contravention of a civil penalty provision.
Division 2—Offences and civil penalty provisions
61GA Restricted wagering service must not offer credit
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and
(b) the service provides, or offers to provide, credit to individuals to use the service.
Fault -based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 500penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 500 penalty units.
Continuing offences or contraventions
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.
61GB Restricted wagering service must not induce a person to use the service
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service; and
(b) the person:
(i) induces, or attempts to induce, another individual to use the service; or
(ii) causes another person to induce, or attempt to induce, another individual to use the service.
Fault -based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 500penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 500 penalty units.
Continuing offences or contraventions
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.
61GC Restricted wagering service must not offer or accept micro betting
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and
(b) the service offers or accepts micro betting.
Fault -based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 2,000penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 2,000 penalty units.
Continuing offences or contraventions
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.
61GD Restricted wagering service must require certain details be provided to establish account
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and
(b) the person creates an account, or otherwise facilitates the placing of bets, for an individual; and
(c) the individual has not provided his or her personal details.
Fault -based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 120 penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 120 penalty units.
61GE Restricted wagering service must verify identity of account -holder before creating account etc.
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and
(b) the service creates an account, or otherwise facilitates the placing of bets, for an individual; and
(c) the person has not verified the individual's identity.
Fault -based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 300 penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 300 penalty units.
61GF Restricted wagering service must check the National Self -exclusion Register before creating account
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and
(b) the service creates an account, or otherwise facilitates the placing of bets, for an individual; and
(c) the person has not submitted the individual's personal details to the National Self-exclusion Register to check whether the individual's personal details are included on the Register.
Fault -based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 300penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 300 penalty units.
Continuing offences or contraventions
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.
61GG Restricted wagering service must include pre -commitment options when creating account
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service; and
(b) the person does not require each individual who creates an account with the service to register and set annual and monthly maximum betting limits.
Note: The service must not permit these limits to be exceeded (see section 61GK, and may only increase the limits if notice is provided (see section 61GI).
Fault -based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 200 penalty units.
Continuing offences or contraventions
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.
61GH Restricted wagering service must not create accounts etc. for individuals on the National Self -exclusion Register
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and
(b) the service creates an account, or otherwise facilitates the placing of bets, for an individual whose personal details are included on the National Self-exclusion Register; and
(c) the person either:
(i) knew that the individual's personal details were included on the National Self-exclusion Register; or
(ii) was reckless as to whether the individual's personal details were included on the National Self-exclusion Register.
Fault -based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 500penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 500 penalty units.
Continuing offences or contraventions
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.
61GI Restricted wagering service must not increase individual ' s betting limit
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and
(b) the person increases, or causes to be increased, the monthly or annual betting limit set by the individual.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the individual has:
(a) requested that the person increase the monthly or annual betting limit; and
(b) either:
(i) in relation to the monthly betting limit—the individual requested the increase at least 7 days before the limit was increased; or
(ii) in relation to the annual betting limit—the individual requested the increase at least 14 days before the limit was increased; and
(c) the individual has not made more than one other such request in the previous 12-month period.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2).
Fault -based offence
(3) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 300 penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 300 penalty units.
Continuing offences or contraventions
(5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.
61GJ Restricted wagering service must not induce a person to increase betting limit
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service; and
(b) the person:
(i) induces, or attempts to induce, an individual to increase his or her monthly or annual betting limit; or
(ii) causes another person to induce, or attempt to induce, an individual to increase his or her monthly or annual betting limit.
Fault -based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 300penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 300 penalty units.
61GK Restricted wagering service must not permit account -holder to exceed betting limit
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and
(b) the service accepts a bet from an individual that exceeds the monthly or annual betting limit nominated by the individual for the service.
Fault -based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 200 penalty units.
Continuing offences or contraventions
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.
61GL Restricted wagering service must provide statement
(1) A person who provides a restricted wagering service must provide each individual who uses the service with a statement of the individual's transaction history that complies with regulations made for the purposes of this subsection.
Fault -based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person is required to provide a statement under subsection (1); and
(b) the person fails to provide the statement as required.
Penalty: 120 penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if:
(a) the person is required to provide a statement under subsection (1); and
(b) the person fails to provide the statement as required.
Penalty: 120 penalty units.
Continuing offences or contraventions
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.
Regulations
(5) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) must prescribe:
(a) the period which the statement must cover; and
(b) how frequently the statement must be provided (which must not be less than once a month); and
(c) the manner and form in which the statement is to be provided.
61GM Restricted wagering service must not disclose information for marketing purposes
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person provides a restricted wagering service; and
(b) the person discloses personal information of an individual who uses the service to another person or entity; and
(c) the information is disclosed for use by the other person or entity in relation to marketing of a good or service.
Fault -based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 300 penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 300 penalty units.
61GN Restricted wagering service must include link to National Self -exclusion Register website
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person provides a restricted wagering service; and
(b) the service includes a website; and
(c) the website does not include a clear and prominent link to the National Self-exclusion Register website that complies with regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph on each page.
Fault -based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 120 penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 120 penalty units.
Continuing offences or contraventions
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.
Regulations
(5) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c) may include requirements in relation to the following:
(a) the position of the link;
(b) the size of the link;
(c) logos that must be included with the link;
(d) any other information that may be required to be included with the link.
Division 3—Prohibition of advertising of restricted wagering services
61GO Restricted wagering service advertisements not to be broadcast during certain programs
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person broadcasts a restricted wagering service advertisement in Australia; and
(b) the broadcast is during:
(i) a G classified television program; or
(ii) a television program that consists of coverage of a sporting event.
Penalty: 120 penalty units.
(2) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person authorises or causes a restricted wagering service advertisement to be broadcast in Australia; and
(b) the broadcast is during a G classified television program or a television program that consists of coverage of a sporting event.
Penalty: 120 penalty units.
Fault -based offence
(3) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1) or (2).
Penalty: 120 penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1) or (2).
Civil penalty: 120 penalty units.
Definitions
(5) In this section:
broadcast means transmit by means of a broadcasting service.
broadcasting service means a service that delivers television programs or radio programs to persons having equipment appropriate for receiving that service, whether the delivery uses the radiofrequency spectrum, cable, optical fibre, satellite or any other means or a combination of those means, but does not include:
(a) a datacasting service; or
(b) a service that delivers programs using the internet, where the delivery does not use the broadcasting services bands.
program has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
restricted wagering service advertisement means writing, still or moving picture, sign, symbol or other visual image, or any audible message, or any combination of 2 or more of those things, that gives publicity to, or otherwise promotes or is intended to promote:
(a) a restricted wagering service; or
(b) restricted wagering services in general; or
(c) the whole or part of a trade mark in respect of a restricted wagering service; or
(d) a domain name or URL that relates to a restricted wagering service; or
(e) any words that are closely associated with a restricted wagering service (whether also closely associated with other kinds of services or products).
Division 4—Compliance and enforcement
61GP Civil penalty provision
Enforceable civil penalty provision
(1) A civil penalty provision in Division 2 or 3 of this Part is enforceable under Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers Act.
Note: Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers Act allows a civil penalty provision to be enforced by obtaining an order for a person to pay a pecuniary penalty for the contravention of the provision.
Authorised applicant
(2) For the purposes of Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers Act, the Regulator is an authorised applicant in relation to a civil penalty provision in Division 2 or 3 of this Part.
Relevant court
(3) For the purposes of Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers Act, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia is a relevant court in relation to a civil penalty provision in Division 2 or 3 of this Part.
Extension to external Territories etc.
(4) Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers Act, as it applies in relation to a civil penalty provision in Division 2 or 3 of this Part, extends to:
(a) every external Territory; and
(b) acts, omissions, matters and things outside Australia.
61GQ Infringement notices
Enforceable provisions
(1) A civil penalty provision in Division 2 or 3 of this Part is enforceable under Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act.
Infringement officer
(2) For the purposes of Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act, a person appointed under subsection (3) is an infringement officer in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) The Regulator may, in writing, appoint a person who holds, or performs the duties of, an APS 6 position, or an equivalent or higher position, within the Department.
Relevant chief executive
(4) For the purposes of Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act, the Regulator is the relevant chief executive in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1).
Amount payable
(5) The amount to be stated in an infringement notice for the purposes of paragraph 104(1)(f) of the Regulatory Powers Act for the alleged contravention of a civil penalty provision mentioned in subsection (1) of this section must be one-fifth of the maximum penalty that a court could impose on the person for that contravention.
Extension to external Territories etc.
(6) Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act, as it applies in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1), extends to:
(a) every external Territory; and
(b) acts, omissions, matters and things outside Australia.
61GR Enforceable undertakings
Enforceable provisions
(1) The provisions of Division 2 and 3 of this Part are enforceable under Part 6 of the Regulatory Powers Act.
Authorised person
(2) The Regulator is an authorised person in relation to the provisions of Division 2 and 3 of this Part for the purposes of Part 6 of the Regulatory Powers Act.
Relevant court
(3) The Federal Circuit Court of Australia is a relevant court in relation to the provisions of Division 2 and 3 of this Part for the purposes of Part 6 of the Regulatory Powers Act.
Extension to external Territories etc.
(4) Part 6 of the Regulatory Powers Act, as it applies in relation to the provisions of Division 2 and 3 of this Part, extends to:
(a) every external Territory; and
(b) acts, omissions, matters and things outside Australia.
61GS Injunctions
Enforceable provisions
(1) The provisions of Division 2 and 3 of this Part are enforceable under Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act.
Authorised person
(2) The Regulator is an authorised person in relation to the provisions of Division 2 and 3 of this Part for the purposes of Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act.
Relevant court
(3) The Federal Circuit Court of Australia is a relevant court in relation to the provisions of Divisions 2 and 3 of this Part for the purposes of Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act.
Extension to external Territories etc.
(4) Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act, as it applies in relation to the provisions of Divisions 2 and 3 of this Part, extends to:
(a) every external Territory; and
(b) acts, omissions, matters and things outside Australia.
Part 7C—National Self -exclusion Register
Division 1—National Self -exclusion Register
61HA National Self -exclusion Register
(1) The Regulator must keep a register of individuals who wish to self-exclude from restricted wagering services.
(2) The register is to be known as the National Self-exclusion Register.
(3) The register is to be kept in electronic form.
(4) The register is not a legislative instrument.
(5) The Regulator must begin to comply with subsection (1) as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section.
(6) For the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988, the primary purpose of the register is to facilitate:
(a) self-exclusion from restricted wagering services; and
(b) the prohibition, under section 61GH, of restricted wagering services creating accounts, or otherwise facilitating the placing of bets, for individuals who have self-excluded.
61HB Regulator may correct or update information in Register
The Regulator may correct or update information in the Register.
61HC Applications for registration
(1) An individual may apply to the Regulator for the individual's personal details to be entered on the Register.
(2) The application must:
(a) include the individual's personal details; and
(b) be in the form specified by the Regulator under section 61HG; and
(c) be made in the manner specified by the Regulator under section 61HG.
61HD Registration
If:
(a) an application is made for an individual's personal details to be entered on the Register; and
(b) the applicant satisfies the Regulator that the details provided under paragraph 61HC(2)(a) are the applicant's personal details;
the applicant's personal details must be entered on the Register.
61HE Duration of registration
(1) The registration of a person's name and personal details:
(a) takes effect when the name and details are entered on the Register; and
(b) unless sooner removed from the Register in accordance with section 61HF or 61HG, remains in force indefinitely.
(2) If a person's name and personal details are removed from the Register, this Act does not prevent the person from being re-registered on the Register.
61HF Removal from Register
(1) The Regulator must, by legislative instrument, make a determination that makes provision for a person to apply for his or her name to be removed from the Register.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the determination must include:
(a) the form of application for individual's personal details to be removed from the Register; and
(b) the information which must accompany the application; and
(c) the documentation that must be provided in support of the individual's application.
61HG Administration of the Register—determinations
The Regulator may, by legislative instrument, make a determination that makes provision for and in relation to any or all of the following:
(a) the form of application for individual's personal details to be entered on the Register;
(b) the manner in which such applications are to be made;
(c) the manner in which entries are to be made on the Register;
(d) the correction of entries in the Register;
(e) the removal of entries from the Register on the Regulator's own initiative;
(f) any other matter relating to the administration or operation of the Register.
Division 2—Dealing with protected information in the Register
61HH Authorised dealings with protected information
Uploading personal information to the Register
(1) A person may collect, make a record of, disclose or otherwise use:
(a) personal information; or
(b) relevant personal details;
if the person does so for the purposes of including the information in the Register.
Note: This subsection is an authorisation for the purposes of other laws, including the Australian Privacy Principles.
Using or disclosing protected information in the Register
(2) A person may make a record of, disclose or otherwise use protected information if:
(a) the person does so for the purposes of the Register, and the person is:
(i) an officer or employee of the Commonwealth or of an authority of the Commonwealth; or
(ii) engaged by the Commonwealth, or by an authority of the Commonwealth, to perform work relating to the purposes of the Register; or
(iii) an officer or employee of, or is engaged by, a person referred to in subparagraph (ii) to perform work relating to the purposes of the Register; or
(b) the person does so for the purposes of performing the person's functions, or exercising the person's powers, under this Act.
Note: This subsection is an authorisation for the purposes of other laws, including the Australian Privacy Principles.
61HI Offence relating to protected information
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person obtains information; and
(b) the information is protected information; and
(c) the person makes a record of, discloses or otherwise uses the information; and
(d) the making of the record, or the disclosure or use, is not authorised by section 61HH.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.
Part 7D—Interactive Gambling Regulator
61JA Establishment of the Interactive Gambling Regulator
There is to be an Interactive Gambling Regulator.
Note: In this Act, Regulator means the Interactive Gambling Regulator (see section 4).
61JB Functions of the Regulator
The Regulator has the following functions:
(a) to advise and assist persons in relation to their obligations under Parts 7B and 7C;
(b) to monitor, promote, investigate and enforce compliance with Parts 7B and 7C;
(c) to develop, in consultation with industry (including restricted wagering services, gambling counselling services and financial counselling services), a code of practice relating to responsible gambling that is to be applicable to restricted wagering services;
(d) to collect, analyse, interpret and disseminate:
(i) aggregated and de-identified data on gambling expenditure and trends in gambling patterns or behaviours; and
(ii) information relating to the operation of Parts 7B and 7C;
(e) to monitor and evaluate the operation of Parts 7B and 7C;
(f) to provide information and advice to the Minister about the operation of Parts 7B and 7C;
(g) to undertake or commission research in relation to gambling matters and the operation of Parts 7B and 7C;
(h) such other functions as are conferred on the Regulator by this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth;
(i) to do anything incidental to or conducive to the performance of any of the above functions.
61JC Powers of the Regulator
The Regulator has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done in connection with the performance of the Regulator's functions.
61JD Appointment of the Regulator
(1) The Regulator is to be appointed by the Minister by legislative instrument.
Note: For reappointment, see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
(2) A person is not eligible for appointment as the Regulator unless the Minister is satisfied that the person has substantial knowledge, qualifications or experience in at least one of the following fields:
(a) public administration;
(b) consumer protection;
(c) mental health.
(3) The Regulator holds office on a full-time basis.
(4) The Regulator holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 5 years.
61JE Acting Regulator
(1) The Minister may, by written instrument, appoint a person to act as the Regulator:
(a) during a vacancy in the office of the Regulator (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or
(b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Regulator:
(i) is absent from duty or from Australia; or
(ii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.
Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see sections 33AB and 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
(2) A person is not eligible for appointment to act as the Regulator unless the person is eligible for appointment as the Regulator.
61JF Remuneration and allowances
(1) The Regulator is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the Regulator is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed by the regulations.
(2) The Regulator is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed by the regulations.
(3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.
61JG Leave of absence
(1) The Regulator has the recreation leave entitlements that are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.
(2) The Minister may grant the Regulator leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on the terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise that the Minister determines.
61JH Outside employment
The Regulator must not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his or her office without the Minister's approval.
61JI Disclosure of interests to the Minister
The Regulator must give written notice to the Minister of all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the Regulator has or acquires and that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the Regulator's functions.
61JJ Resignation
(1) The Regulator may resign his or her appointment by giving the Minister a written resignation.
(2) The resignation takes effect 2 weeks after it is received by the Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day.
61JK Termination of appointment
(1) The Minister may terminate the appointment of the Regulator:
(a) for misbehaviour; or
(b) if the Regulator is unable to perform the duties of his or her office because of physical or mental incapacity.
(2) The Minister may terminate the appointment of the Regulator if:
(a) the Regulator:
(i) becomes bankrupt; or
(ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or
(iii) compounds with his or her creditors; or
(iv) makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of his or her creditors; or
(b) the Regulator is absent, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; or
(c) the Regulator engages, except with the Minister's approval, in paid employment outside the duties of his or her office (see section 61JH); or
(d) the Regulator fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 61JI.
61JL Other terms and conditions
The Regulator holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Minister.
61JM Delegation by Regulator
(1) The Regulator may, by writing, delegate any or all of the Regulator's functions or powers to:
(a) the Secretary of the Department; or
(b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department.
(2) A delegate must comply with any written directions of the Regulator.
61JN Staff assisting the Regulator
The staff assisting the Regulator are to be persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 and made available for the purpose by the Secretary of the Department.
61JO Consultants
(1) The Regulator may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, engage persons having suitable qualifications and experience as consultants to the Regulator.
(2) The consultants are to be engaged on the terms and conditions that the Regulator determines in writing.
61JP Annual report
The Regulator must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, a report on the operations of the Regulator during that year.
Note: See also section 34C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which contains extra rules about annual reports.
61JQ Minister may give directions to the Regulator
(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, give written directions to the Regulator about the performance of the Regulator's functions and the exercise of the Regulator's powers.
Note 1: For variation and revocation, see the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
Note 2: Section 42 (disallowance) and Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the Legislation Act 2003 do not apply to the directions (see regulations made for the purposes of paragraphs 44(2)(b) and 54(2)(b) of that Act).
(2) A direction under subsection (1) must be of a general nature only.
(3) The Regulator must comply with a direction given under subsection (1).
(21) Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 29), after item 146, insert:
Privacy Act 1988
146A After paragraph 7.8(a)
Insert:
(aa) Part 7B of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001;
These amendments address several concerns that I and the rest of the Nick Xenophon Team have with the bill, particularly in relation to sports betting, and I will take a few minutes of the House's time to explain.
The popularity of sports betting has soared over recent years. It is the only form of gambling that has seen an increase in participation over the last decade. Without a doubt, this is due to the increased ease with which individuals can now place bets online, and, more than any other cohort, it is young people who are participating in sports betting. An increased availability of sports betting carries with it the increased risk of people developing gambling addictions.
These amendments implement harm minimisation measures to help those who regularly partake in online betting to better control their gambling habits. These amendments establish an interactive gambling regulator who will monitor and enforce restricted wagering services' compliance with the act. They will also establish a national self-exclusion register for those who wish to bar themselves from accessing online sports betting. This is a valuable tool in assisting problem gamblers. Another tool that will assist problem gamblers is a measure to prevent restricted wagering services from intentionally increasing an individual's betting limits. These are all measures designed to support and assist those who are struggling with gambling, so I echo many of the comments from my colleague the member for Denison.
The bill currently before the House exempts placed-based betting services from exclusion for in-play betting. These amendments limit the definition of a place-based betting service to an electronic betting terminal, rather than electronic equipment as currently defined. My concern, and those echoed by many, is that the current definition could feasibly include a tablet or similar device. I understand the minister has given assurances on this, but really what could stop this being handed around at the bar? I ask the minister: why do we have to wait and see if harm happens instead of preventing harm?
The amendments I am putting forward would limit devices on which in-play bets can be made in a licensed venue. Under the new definition, devices will be limited to electronic equipment that is a fixed installation within a licensed venue. These terminals must be in an area that is set aside for gambling services and unable to connect to the internet. The terminals must also be available for use only by customers using cash or a card issued by the gambling provider. These are sensible amendments that will limit the possible expansion of gambling operations within a licensed venue. One of my greatest concerns with this bill is that although it seeks to become much tougher on dodgy main operators it also allows the possible broadening of services within physical venues. These amendments will speak to the true intent of the legislation.
As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, the ability to gamble using credit is one of the biggest contributors to unsafe gambling habits. These amendments seek to prevent those websites that offer sports betting from providing credit. A civil penalty will be enforced on those who continue to offer credit to customers. Under these amendments, each day a company contravenes the prohibition they will be committing a separate offence. The availability of credit gives gamblers the ability to chase their losses and, in many cases, results in them being in higher debt. This measure would prevent that.
These amendments strengthen Australia's interactive gambling laws. They will do a great deal to help those Australians who are struggling with gambling addiction and they will also assist in preventing future problem gamblers—these are the children who are currently watching a game and constantly getting in their face how they can bet on that game. These measures will have minimal impact on Australians who are infrequent, recreational gamblers but significant and positive impacts in our communities—on fathers, mothers, grandparents, daughters and sons. I urge the House to be courageous and support these measures.
I thank the member for Mayo for her contribution to this debate. As she knows, we had a considerable number of consultations with members of the Nick Xenophon Team in putting together this bill. I said to the Nick Xenophon Team that we are very serious about the National Consumer Protection Framework, some of the elements of which are contained within their amendments. For example, one of the key things in their amendments is prohibiting gambling companies from offering lines of credit to their customers. We fully support that. It is in fact one of the key elements of our National Consumer Protection Framework, and we made the commitment that we would work with the states and territories on the best way of introducing that particular measure. I have been on the record since my first year in parliament as arguing against lines of credit being offered to consumers. I think it is wrong. People should bet with the money which they have, not with the money which they do not have.
The other key thing is the national self-exclusion register which is contained within this series of amendments. Again, that is one of the central things of our National Consumer Protection Framework. Again, we made the commitment that we would properly consult with the states and territories in relation to this, but with a very firm commitment that we want to introduce it—and we will introduce it. There are some complexities in relation to a national self-exclusion register which we need to work through with the sector, and we are doing just that.
We will not be supporting these amendments, despite the fact that we support the intent of them. I did ask the leader of the Nick Xenophon Team, Nick Xenophon, to give us time to properly introduce the National Consumer Protection Framework and to properly go through a consultation process. We think that is what a responsible government should do. We have got good in-principle support from the state and territory ministers, and we are very confident that we will be introducing all of those measures in the near future.
I want to indicate that Labor agrees with the intent of some of these amendments, as I have indicated to the member for Mayo. In my speech in the second reading debate I indicated that Labor does support a ban on credit betting—or lines of credit, as the minister referred to them. I have indicated that if the Nick Xenophon Team were to move that part of these amendments in the other place then we would look to supporting them.
Labor is certainly concerned about the intentions around some of the other amendments. We did say that we want to see the consumer protection framework sooner rather than later, and I appreciate that the minister has said it is his intention to get that happening as quickly as possible. Labor want to see the full consumer protection framework before we make a decision to support the types of amendments that are contained with those other amendments.
Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a question for the minister: are you able to give us a time line for the subsequent bill? I think the community will be very interested to have some sense of that.
We had our initial gambling ministers meeting late last year, and at that meeting there was in-principle support provided for the 11 points of the National Consumer Protection Framework, of which the prohibition of lines of credit as well as the national self-exclusion register are the two central features. We have another meeting scheduled in early March—if my memory serves me correctly; it may even be later this month—where we will be moving forward again on that. One of the questions which we are discussing cooperatively amongst the ministers is: what is the best way of implementing the National Consumer Protection Framework? At the moment, most of these measures are contained within state and territory based legislation, so one way that it could be done is that we all agree that these have to be introduced, and states and territories will be responsible for implementing those measures. Another way that it could be done is that the federal parliament could introduce such measures in national legislation as well, at least setting a strong minimum benchmark, and then the states and territories would still have those regulatory powers. A further option would be for there to be a national regulator. All those three things have been discussed. It has not been settled upon yet, but there is an absolutely firm determination from this government that we will be introducing those measures and that we will do so as quickly as possible but going through a proper consultation process. We think that is the responsible course of action.
I thank the minister for his answer. An interesting part of that answer was an acknowledgement that some of these measures which will be in the consumer protection bill, the forthcoming bill, are state and territory responsibilities, and consequently we see that the Commonwealth is prepared to work in that space. That is good. I am happy with that. The contradiction that drops out of that is that, when I asked the Prime Minister last year—the current Prime Minister—whether or not he was prepared to act on poker machine reform, his answer was: 'No, because that is entirely a matter for the states and territories.' So we seem to have a contradiction here—that the government is prepared to work in the states and territories space on some gambling issues but use it as an excuse not to act on other issues. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to challenge the minister now to make some sort of commitment to be more open about poker machine problem gambling, which, as the minister would well know, accounts for about 100,000 gambling addicts in this country, who between them—this is just the gambling addicts—are losing between $4,000 million and $5,000 million a year. How about it, Minister? Why are you saying it is okay in one gambling case but not in the other gambling case?
I have had this discussion with the member for Denison in private, but, since he has asked me in this parliament, let me articulate why we see a key difference here between the online environment and the pokies environment. You get problems in both of those, and we are addressing the online gambling problems through the National Consumer Protection Framework. Indeed there are problems in relation to problem gamblers in the pokies area. The difference is that the online environment, by definition, cuts across jurisdictional boundaries. A provider can be licensed in the Northern Territory, for example—as indeed many of the providers are—but their services go throughout Australia. So the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory licences those providers, and Northern Territory residents might gamble with those providers, but so do New South Wales residents, Victorian residents, South Australian residents et cetera. By definition this cuts across jurisdictional boundaries, and consequently you need more of a national approach. I think most states and territories recognise that, because they do not have full control over what occurs in their own jurisdiction. Compare that with poker machines. Poker machines are contained within the one jurisdiction. The licences are issued by the single state government, the revenue is collected by that same state government and the problems which arise also occur within that same jurisdiction. Consequently you do not have those cross-jurisdictional issues.
The view of the federal government therefore is that, because they are licensed at the state level, the revenue is collected at the state level and the problems arise at the state level—all within the single jurisdiction—it makes sense that that state or territory government deal with the issues associated with the poker machines, whereas, as I said, the online environment, by definition, crosses jurisdictional boundaries, and consequently you do need more of a national approach, which is why we have taken such a great interest in this. There is also an international dimension with the online environment, which is where the Interactive Gambling Act comes into play, because that deals with those international illegal providers. Indeed most of this act is trying to crack down on them.
Within that answer another problem arises. Because the state and territory governments are entirely responsible, at the moment, for the regulation of poker machines and poker machine venues, they are also the sole beneficiary of the taxation that is collected, which gives them a fundamental conflict of interest. That goes to the point that my colleague Senator Xenophon and I have made—and I am sure the member for Mayo has made it repeatedly as well—that state and territory governments have shown that they cannot be trusted, because there is a fundamental conflict of interest there because they are the regulator of something from which they are a financial beneficiary, even though the research shows that that apparent windfall for them is actually a false windfall. I recall there was some very good research commissioned by the Tasmanian government that showed that the cost to the community of problem gambling is between two and three times the value of the revenue that is raised. So I make the point—through you, Deputy Speaker—to the minister that, because it is entirely their business, dropping out of that is one of the good reasons why we here should address the issue and why this government, this minister, should address this issue.
Australia is a federation. The Federation came about in 1901 and the Constitution outlines powers for the Commonwealth; all other powers reside with the state and territory governments. Some people do not believe we should have a federal structure anymore, but we do have a federal structure. The states and territories have very significant responsibilities, and they need to be accountable for those responsibilities, one of which is the regulation of poker-machine venues. They are responsible for the licensing of poker machines and the collection of revenues that come from those poker machines—and they are largely responsible for the problems that emanate from those poker machines. It is completely contained within their jurisdictional boundaries.
We might disagree with the policy approach a state or territory government takes, and frequently we do. I am a proud Victorian, but I have great issue with the Andrews government, at the moment, in how they are conducting their business. We will fight tooth and nail against some of the things they are doing, particularly the way that they approach or do not approach the issue of crime in Victoria. Many people are greatly concerned about the weakness of the bail laws, the way the Victorian government has not strengthened the police forces—to give them sufficient powers—and some of the other issues that Matthew Guy has been referring to. But, at the end of the day, they are a sovereign jurisdiction, and they are responsible for those things.
If you want the Tasmanian government, for example, to change the way they go about their regulation of the poker machines then I encourage you to lobby the Tasmanian government, just as, in relation to the crime issues in Victoria, we are lobbying and making a case to the Victorian government.
I suggest the minister is grossly oversimplifying this. The fact is that there are any number of ways in which the operation of poker-machine venues is a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. For example, in Tasmania, there are dozens of poker-machine venues operated by ALH, Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group, which is a company owned by the Woolworths corporation—Australia's biggest operator of poker machines. The conduct of the companies that own the dozens of hotels where poker machines are is the responsibility of the federal government through the Corporations Act. So I think it is oversimplifying things, and the Commonwealth is discarding a moralresponsibility to act to right a wrong wherever it sees there is a wrong and wherever it has the power to somehow right that wrong. Taxation is another way in which the federal government has the power to right a wrong.
If the minister is so concerned about the behaviour of the Victorian state government and if the minister feels that they are acting improperly or unethically, this government has, at least through its tax powers and corporation powers, ways to intervene and remedy the situation. Yes, we are a federation of states and territories, but all of us, at all levels of government, have a moral responsibility to try to right a wrong whenever we see it and whenever we have the ability to remedy it.
The question is that amendments (1) to (19) and (21), moved by the member for Mayo, be agreed to.
I move amendment (20), as circulated in my name:
(20) Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 19), after item 143, insert:
143A After section 69A
Insert:
69B Minister must mandate blocking illegal overseas gambling websites
The Minister must, within 6 months after the commencement of this section, make a legislative instrument requiring internet service providers to block access to illegal overseas gambling websites.
This amendment goes to recognising the difficulty of enforcing penalties against international gambling operations and also recognises the harm they do to everyday Australians. This final amendment of mine will compel the minister to make a legislative instrument within six months of the bill's assent, requiring internet service providers to block illegal overseas gambling websites. This will protect Australians from being solicited by these sites.
As the member for Mayo probably knows, the intent of this recommendation came up in the O'Farrell review. We have adopted the recommendation of the O'Farrell review, which was to consult with the internet service providers in relation to the feasibility of blocking illegal offshore gambling websites. We are undertaking that; we are in the process of that. I think the recommendation from Mr O'Farrell was to consult and test, in part because the jury is out a little bit in terms of what the feasibility actually is of doing such internet blocking. But we are committed to doing that, committed to taking that consultation and to determining whether or not it is indeed feasible to do, as another disruptive mechanism to try and prevent the money going to those illegal offshore gambling sites. We are determined to do whatever we can to disrupt and to crack down on those illegal offshore gambling providers. Most of this bill is aimed at exactly that purpose, along with some of the other disruptive mechanisms. But one of those additional disruptive mechanisms is to engage with internet service providers, and we will be undertaking that.
I want to indicate to the member for Mayo that we support the intent of her amendment; we do want to make sure that it is workable. We are concerned about who would make the decision about what sites are blocked, and when and how that would actually work. I look forward to seeing some detail from the government but at this time we are not supporting the amendment.
Question negatived.
I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:
(1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 12), after item 23A, insert:
23B At the end of section 5
Add:
(4) Despite subsection (3), a gambling service covered by subsection (1) is a prohibited interactive gambling service if the service is provided by a person who is:
(a) an individual not resident in Australia; or
(b) a corporation that is majority foreign-owned.
My unfortunate fate is to be able to have seen how a country should be run—I go back to a period of great prosperity and great growth, a period in which we had a current account surplus in this country, with two per cent unemployment. In fact, Mr McMahon lost the election because he allowed unemployment to grow over two per cent. The real, comparable figures today are about 18 per cent; one in five people in this country cannot find a job, and one in four cannot find a full-time job—not a very happy state of affairs. And if people in this place want to know why Australians are voting for us Independents over here, it is because we do not want to continue running Australia the way it is being run.
I am going to be very specific on this bill; very specific on what I am proposing here in this amendment. At the present moment, if you look at the graphs, most of the money from gambling in Australia will go overseas. Most of the profits from gambling will actually go overseas. I lived in an era where every single dollar—except if you went to a racecourse and bet with the bookmakers—every single cent, went into health services for the people—and now most of it is going overseas! And yet I am regarded as a minority group. If the proposition was put to the people in this country: 'Do you want the money to go overseas, or do you want it to go into health services for Australians? Or to help our struggling retirees, or our single mothers trying to make ends meet with three children? Where do you want the money to go?'—I would think that something like 80 or 90 per cent of Australians would vote with me. But when I come into this place, I am a minority. Today it appears I am a minority of one. I wrote a moderately successful history book, and it is rather interesting that history does not ask you who was successful in elections. A lot of our greatest heroes were not successful in elections. There are the great examples of Theodore, Chifley and Curtin, who all lost their seats trying to fight for some sort of logic in money supply.
I take great pleasure in moving this amendment today, an amendment that will see all the money at least being circulated in the Australian economy instead of being taken out of Australia. If I could use an example—which is a very good example—our candidate in the recent federal election in Leichhardt said: 'What does Australian ownership mean?' I said, 'The taxis in Cairns bring in $40 million a year to the economy of Cairns. When Uber takes over, they will bring in $30 million and $10 million will go overseas. That is what it means.' Well, we keep voting for that outcome. We keep voting again and again in this place for that outcome—until there is no money going in. Yesterday I had the pleasure of having dinner with some of the leading business figures in this country—in one of those exclusive clubs which they would never let me into in normal circumstances! One of them raised the issue of the coal-seam gas industry, which is bringing in $25 billion a year to Australia. Gambling brings into the economy—I do not know; it is transfer money, it is not made money. But this is made money. We make $25 billion a year out of it, but it is all foreign-owned—there is no employment. So the 25 billion comes in to pay for the resource that we Australians are supposed to own, and then it just boomerangs back out again. Is it any wonder that in the last three years the debt of this country has gone up by 30 per cent? How much longer do you think that that is going to go on for?
I take great pleasure being in a minority of one and moving this amendment.
Just very briefly, the government will not be supporting this amendment. We understand the intent of the member for Kennedy in pushing this amendment. Obviously, most of his discussion is in relation to the merits or otherwise of foreign investments in this country. Foreign investment is something that we do welcome, but this bill is predominantly about cracking down on illegal offshore gambling companies. That is what the bill is about and we will not be supporting the amendment.
Have a look at the minister's proposition. His proposition is that we need foreign investment in this country, so we need more foreign investment in gambling in this country. Does he seriously reflect upon what he has just said: 'We want more gambling'? The whole issue is to restrain gambling and control it and regulate it, and now he wants a free-fire zone so that they can develop more gambling in this country. Minister, think about what you just said.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole and agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Visa Revalidation and Other Measures) Bill 2016. The bill before us today introduces a new revalidation check framework for visas. It clarifies when a visa ceases to be in effect under the Migration Act and enables the use of contactless SmartGate technology during immigration clearance.
Labor always takes a constructive, bipartisan approach to these matters. That is how it should be. That is what Australians expect with respect to issues of migration and national security. The security of our nation and the safety of our people are and should be above politics. In this parliament and the last, we have consistently worked to improve and amend legislation because, where there are flaws in the system or errors in the legislation, they should be fixed before they cause problems, not after. That is the job of a strong opposition: improving and strengthening the system, delivering better processes and better outcomes. That is the approach that Labor has taken with the bill before the House today. Labor supports the pilot of a 10-year Chinese visitor visa and the expansion of SmartGate in Australia, but, really, this bill is about what is contained in schedule 1 and the visa revalidation issue. Concerns about parts of this bill have been raised by various stakeholders, including the Law Council of Australia, the Migration Institute of Australia, the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, and the ANU College of Law migration program. Three parliamentary committees have examined the bill and released reports, including the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
I say from the outset there are aspects of this bill that are concerning to Labor, particularly in schedule 1 and how visa revalidation checks will work within the current non-discriminatory immigration framework, which has had broad bipartisan support for decades. A revalidation check is defined in the new section 96A, which says:
revalidation check means a check as to whether there is any adverse information relating to a person who holds a visa.
Labor is concerned about the broad powers of a revalidation check as provided for in this bill and the limited parliamentary oversight of ministerial powers it allows within the ministerial framework. The revalidation measures outlined in schedule 1 of the bill will give the minister unfettered power to target whole groups of people for extra scrutiny and visa suspension through the revalidation process. Revalidation can apply to all visas, not just the pilot ten-year visitor visa, subclass 600, for Chinese nationals—a point which drew criticism from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which noted the broad ministerial discretion to require any visa holder to complete a revalidation check. This engages, of course, the right to equality and non-discrimination in our community. The committee also suggested these measures may not be proportionate to achieving the minister's stated objective of managing risks and sought advice from the minister about whether safeguards could be included in the legislation. The bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote:
As the power to prescribe the type of visa is unlimited, it appears that it could enable the minister to prescribe any type of visa, including a protection visa, spousal or other family visa or permanent visa as subject to the revalidation check. This measure therefore has the potential to engage a number of human rights, including Australia's non-refoulement obligations, the right to an effective remedy, the right to liberty and the right to protection of the family.
It was troubling that the explanatory memorandum for this bill refers to visa revalidation only in the context of applying to the 10-year visa pilot program for Chinese nationals. This led to confusion about which visa holders will need to take part in the revalidation process.
In their submission to the Senate inquiry, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law said the revalidation framework 'has the potential to adversely impact on all visa holders'.
The Law Council questioned whether the bill was necessary, given it:
… has a substantially broader application than was intended or expressed in the Explanatory Memorandum or the Minister's Second Reading Speech.
I note the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills also raised concerns about the explanatory memorandum's silence on this matter:
The discussion in the explanatory memorandum is limited to this new type of visa, as stating that the revalidation checks for visas introduced by the bill will only apply to this new visitor visa.
However, the bill does not limit the application of the revalidation checks to the visitor visa. The power in the bill is to require persons to complete a revalidation check in relation to any visa ‘of a prescribed kind’. This gives a broad power which could result in the revalidation check being applied to any category of visa (including spouse or family visas or protection visas). The explanatory memorandum does not explain why it is necessary to include such a broad power in the bill.
It is disingenuous of the immigration minister to seek support from the parliament when he has not been upfront about the scope and application of his grab for unfettered powers within the bill's supporting documents. A visa ceases to be in effect if a person fails to complete a revalidation or if they fail to pass the revalidation check. Visas will cease to be in effect if the visa holder does not pass the revalidation. A visa holder will not pass the revalidation check if it is found there is adverse information; however, 'adverse information' is undefined and does not need to be directly about the person—it is enough if it relates to the person.
In their submission to the Senate inquiry, the Law Council submitted:
As drafted, the Law Council is concerned that 'adverse information' is too broad to meet its intended purpose to protect the Australian community due to the risks associated with longer validity visitor visas.
In their submission, Kaldor said it was particularly concerned at how visa revalidations could impact on refugee visa holders. In general terms, their concerns went further, saying the broad definition of adverse information would:
… enable the government to impose surveillance measures on temporary, and possibly, permanent visa holders. It undermines the long-standing rationale and stability of Australia's migration system, which is premised on the notion that once a person has been issued a visa, he or she is entitled to have that visa be in effect until the visa period expires (subject to any grounds for visa cancellation).
Labor's concerns were also shared by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which reported:
... it is not clear why information relating to the person would be included in a revalidation check and what this means, over and above information directly about the person.
The committee sought the minister's advice and, despite the minister making his case, the committee's response is outlined in the bill's digest:
… the power to prescribe any type of visa is ‘inappropriately broad in scope’. The committee also notes that the Minister’s power to require a revalidation check in the public interest is not limited to circumstances where the Minister identifies a risk to the Australian community.
Of specific concern to Labor is the minister having a non-compellable power to determine by legislative instrument that a specified class of people holding a visa of a prescribed kind must complete a revalidation check. The explanatory memorandum to this bill states that targeting of these visa holders for revalidation can apply to visa holders who: hold a particular passport, live in a particular country, live in a particular state or province within a country, may have travelled through a particular area during a particular time, or applied for the visa during particular dates. This measure has no genuine parliamentary oversight. It is extraordinary.
All the minister has to do is cause to be laid before each House of Parliament—that is, the Senate and the House of Representatives—a statement which states his determination, and it can be up to six months after he makes that determination. Labor is concerned at the possible unintended consequences of this measure and the real possibility that people could be targeted for revalidation based on their nationality, their region of origin or their religion.
Our immigration framework already has in place measures to manage imminent threats on our borders and our people, manage the risk of issuing visas and stop people being granted a visa, if they are unsuitable in the first place. The minister has the power to cancel visas based on character grounds, if a person provides incorrect application information in their application or on their passenger card; where, for example, the minister is satisfied the decision to grant the visa was based on a fact or circumstance which no longer exists, emergency cancellation can take place of a visa on security grounds such as an adverse ASIO assessment; and, if a visa is cancelled under certain sections, a visa held by a family member may be cancelled. The powers already exist and they can be done in the first place before a person gets a visa.
The immigration minister has not explained why he needs the new powers outlined in schedule 1 or has been unable to satisfy the concerns of stakeholders and parliamentary committees who have examined the bill. Under schedule 1, the minister can invoke these revalidation powers, if he considers it to be in the public interest. The public interest test is undefined, open to broad interpretation and could be abused to pursue a political agenda in the guise of public interest. It could lead to scenarios where people are asked to revalidate purely on the basis they hold a passport from certain nations, from regions—for example, where particular religions may be dominant or practised. These measures, and targeting of people, should be of concern to everyone in Australia.
In the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report, the committee wrote:
2.60 The committee encourages government to consider that public interest revalidation checks made by the Minister be subject to disallowance by the Senate.
This is particularly concerning in light of recent statements made by the immigration minister. In the last six months, the immigration minister's comments about immigration have only grown more concerning. This particular minister cannot be trusted with wide-ranging, unfettered powers over the visas of whole groups of people.
Recently, the immigration minister flagged an overhaul of the pathway to Australian citizenship, because he believed some migrants 'come to Australia with little respect for our values (but much for our generous welfare)…' and whether migrants 'had a long period of time on welfare' should be a factor into whether they are able to take up citizenship. This isn't the first time this minster has tried to play the welfare card, having 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.
Despite this, the minister often makes hurtful, unjustifiable and ignorant comments about migration, including when he argued Australia had 'made mistakes in bringing some people in' and suggested people who are of 'second- and third-generation Lebanese-Muslim background' were a mistake. Putting this much power in a good minister's hands would be a concern, but this immigration minister is not a good minister.
Ultimately, Labor cannot give Trump-like powers to a man that has such a high desire to see a divided Australia. Labor will not support a bill that could see whole groups of people targeted on the basis of their place of birth, passport or religion.
In November last year, after reviewing this bill, Labor reached out to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and requested amendments to the legislation in good faith. The minister basically ignored our request until Monday when his office confirmed the coalition would not support parliamentary oversight of the minister's non-compellable power to determine specified classes of people to revalidate their visa.
While some of Labor's concerns about schedule 1 of the bill were outlined in the Senate inquiry, those concerns are just the tip of the iceberg to Labor's broader issues with handing this particular minister—and any minister in general—unfettered power over the revalidation of visas by a targeted subset of people.
Labor shares the concerns of those stakeholders who put in submissions to the Senate inquiry, including the Law Council of Australia who recommended against the passage of schedule 1 on the grounds that the:
Bill appears to be neither necessary nor proportionate to its intended objective, in that it has the potential to apply to all classes of visas, not just the proposed longer validity visitor visa;
Bill grants a broad range of powers to the Minister, with limited or no explanation as to their intended purpose;
Bill provides capacity for the Executive to make legislative instruments that are not subject to disallowance by the Senate, potentially impacting upon all persons residing in Australia as temporary or permanent residents;
presence of powers in the existing structure of the Migration Act and Regulations, which already provide adequate powers to address the concerns raised in the Explanatory Memorandum and the Minster’s second reading speech; and
insufficient information on the establishment of the proposed longer validity visa.
It was similar concerns that led Labor to refer this bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
We will speak out against legislation that seeks to target people from certain regions, because Labor has never and will never agree to discriminate against people on the basis of their race, religion and country of origin. Australia's non-discriminatory immigration framework has been in place for the last four decades and has resulted in the multicultural society which we are proud of and in which we live in today—a place that has welcomed 7.5 million migrants since World War II.
Labor is prepared to work with the government to get a proper revalidation process in place, relevant to this subclass of visa. In its current form, Labor cannot support schedule 1 and we will move amendments in the Senate to remove the schedule 1 from the bill.
We call on the government to work constructively with Labor to remove schedule 1 and split this bill to allow passage of the other measures, which we support, such as SmartGate and visa ceasing events. Labor will work with the government in a bipartisan way to create a revalidation framework that is fair, in line with Australia's non-discriminatory immigration policy and subject to appropriate parliamentary oversight.
Labor supports Chinese tourism–that is Labor's policy; we have supported it since the days of Whitlam going to China. Labor recognises the wonderful contribution made by the Chinese community to Australia's economic and social development and we support the 10-year visa pilot in relation to Chinese nationals, and we call on the government to allow these measures to pass by removing schedule 1 from the current bill. We cannot support the bill in its current form.
This ought to be a non-controversial bill. That it has become a matter of controversy between the parties really bears witness to the character of this government and, in particular, the responsible minister. The conduct of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, as outlined very effectively by the shadow minister in his contribution, has been disingenuous at best. At worst, he has been cavalier in respect of how Australians should see themselves and their role in the world; in particular, how all of us in this place manage our responsibilities as lawmakers who are conscious of the proper relationship between the legislature and the executive.
It is for those reasons that I rise to join my Labor colleagues in opposing one aspect of the legislation which is before us—a troubling aspect that does not appear to be, in the breadth within which it is set out, at all appropriate within the scheme of the bill. I think it is important that this parliament—this House and the other place—adopt the course foreshadowed by the shadow minister, the member for Blair, and seek to remove schedule 1 from this bill. That way we can proceed with the other important measures as expeditiously as possible. We can serve those purposes while we look, if it is appropriate, at the imposition of a revalidation regime that is appropriately targeted and provides appropriate safeguards for affected individuals and, indeed, a harmonious community and a decent society.
It was a particular pleasure to be in the chamber for the contribution of the shadow minister, who very effectively set out Labor's concerns with this legislation. His contribution made clear that the provisions in schedule 1 raise very serious questions of rights and the relationship between the legislature and the executive. These are matters which must be of concern to all of us who have a say in the making of laws.
At a more practical level, the regime that is proposed in schedule 1 raises some pretty significant questions that we should be interrogating. We have not had the opportunity to interrogate properly questions of scope and purpose, which you would think would come from a considered minister and a considered government before parliament was presented with a regime such as this to debate. We do not have any sense of the purpose of such a wide-ranging regime which interferes with the categories of rights of many people without any form of effective safeguard. This is despite the fact that these concerns, in various terms, have been raised by very significant stakeholders and in a series of inquiries into this bill.
There are very significant consequences which attach to the provisions in schedule 1. The regime which is proposed, in my view, does some violence to the whole scheme of the act and how visa holders are to be treated—that is, as individuals and not by reason of some class they are said to be a part of by a minister at a particular point in time and for no particular reason. Obviously, this also does violence to other regimes that are cornerstones not just of Australian law but of how we see ourselves as Australians. I think most particularly of the Racial Discrimination Act. These are very significant matters which go beyond the impact of directly impacted individuals. So the course of action proposed by the shadow minister is critically important in a wider sense. It goes to how we treat people and how we think people ought to be treated.
Of course, this debate today does not take place in a vacuum. All of us who sit here do so with an understanding of the impact of executive decisions elsewhere, in the United States, on people—not by reason of their circumstance or entitlement but by reason of where they are from or the faith they profess. We cannot ignore that. It is of course shameful that Australia formally has not been clearer in articulating its opposition to the decision-making of the President of the United States in that regard.
The bill that is before us should not be about affecting a radical change to how we manage the rights of visa holders generally. If the minister were serious about the wider objects of the bill then he would take the entreaties of the shadow minister and the opposition seriously and enter into a conversation about purpose and, beyond that, about safeguards. That he has not done so is disappointing to say the very least. It is particularly disappointing—and I mentioned earlier that his contribution was disingenuous at best—when you have regard to his second reading speech and, indeed, the explanatory memorandum. Neither averts to the prospect that this revalidation regime might extend beyond the visa category that is ostensibly the subject of the bill before us. What Labor is saying today is that all of us in this place should do our jobs properly. We should do our duty as lawmakers to get this right. That requires a proper look at schedule 1 informed by purpose.
In the remainder of the time I will touch first upon the elements of the bill that Labor is strongly supportive of. Indeed, some elements have been Labor policy for quite some time. I will then touch briefly on some process issues which are significant, having regard to the passage of this piece of legislation, and then echo and hopefully reinforce the comments of the shadow minister in terms of the substantive concerns that arise should schedule 1 be enacted into law.
The second reading does set out some important objectives in this legislation. These are shared objectives: promoting Australia as an attractive destination for visitors; recognising—as all of us in this place do—the critical contribution of tourism to the Australian economy and all of our aspirations that it can make a greater contribution to our economy in the future; and facilitating ever more effective use of technology in managing the experience of visitors entering Australia, having regard to having appropriate safeguards in place. I am firmly of the view—as are my colleagues, I am sure—that the 10-year visitor visa is a good idea. I note that such visas have been issued for some months now. I am convinced that this regime will deliver efficiencies and, with that, significant economic benefits. Similarly, through the provisions in the bill, the streamlining that will be facilitated through improvements in the form of contactless smart gates will enable more effective use of technology to get that balance right between the convenience of visitors and our clear interest in questions of national safety and wider issues around how people come and go into Australia. I urge the government to take up the proposal of the shadow minister to enable the swift passage of these elements of the bill, the elements which are said to be the driving force behind the introduction of this legislation.
Questions of process do need to be considered here because, while consideration by committees has, at face value, supported the passage of the legislation, there are a number of very significant caveats which do need to be raised. Firstly, the three committees have all pointed to the need for safeguards to be improved. In my view, the committees which have considered the legislation have not had an appropriate time to canvass the very significant issues in schedule 1. I note the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee had a very short inquiry time and, as I understand it, no formal hearings. Only six submissions were received, and a number of organisations have advised me that they would have liked to have made submissions to the inquiry recognising the significance of the issues in schedule 1. Nonetheless, very significant concerns were raised, in particular the question of the absence of a disallowance mechanism or other meaningful oversight or safeguard. These concerns have not been addressed.
Similarly, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee of the Senate raised concerns, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights raised very serious concerns, as articulated by the shadow minister, and in particular squarely raised the issue of why there is no limit in the legislation to clarify the revalidation process for the 10-year visas or other appropriate visa categories. No meaningful response has been received to this or to any other questions going to purpose or to safeguards. These are very significant matters that require proper investigation.
On the substance of the bill, I note—and the very helpful Bills Digest has directed my attention thus—that a regime of the type which is proposed in schedule 1 is very unusual. It suggests that the United States is the only jurisdiction which presently has or is moving towards such a regime. But, even there, the regime is qualified and informed by a sense of the purpose to which such a regime ought to be directed—which is, of course, the principal failing in the piece of legislation before us here. Having regard, in particular, to the uncomfortable way in which a class-based regime sits with the Migration Act as it stands today and, I would also submit, to the Australian values of being open to non-discriminatory migration, this novelty, of itself, warrants very careful consideration and very careful scrutiny being applied to this sort of provision.
I urge members to consider the contribution of the Kaldor Centre in their submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. They point out that 'the definition of a revalidation check is extremely wide' and that the issue around the provision of adverse information raises particular concerns, given the failure to define that term. The examples set out in the explanatory memorandum offer very little comfort in this regard. The Kaldor Centre say:
In effect, the proposed provisions enable the government to impose surveillance measures on temporary, and possibly, permanent visa holders. It undermines the long-standing rationale and stability of Australia's migration system, which is premised on the notion that once a person has been issued a visa, he or she is entitled to have that visa be in effect until the visa period expires—
subject to proper grounds for cancellation on the merits of the individual case, not a discriminatory approach based on a class to which that person is said to belong. They go on to note:
The revalidation framework has the potential to adversely affect refugees.
This, of course, goes to the international obligations we have entered into. These are issues which are avoided by the government but require proper consideration in this place before any regime of this type is to be considered.
The questions that go to the wider powers of the minister, similarly, are deeply troubling—they are deeply troubling in any case but particularly for this minister at this point in time. The notion of such a broad executive power to characterise classes of people by reason of where they are from or their faith is deeply offensive to me. It is also fundamentally unnecessary to the purposes which are said to be achieved by this legislation. This parliament should remove schedule 1 from the bill, get on with those things which are great for the Australian economy and take a very hard look at how we characterise people, reaffirming our support for a genuinely non-discriminatory immigration policy which has served Australia so well. (Time expired)
Building on the comments of the shadow minister and the member for Scullin, the Migration Amendment (Visa Revalidation and Other Measures) Bill 2016 should be straightforward. Schedules 2 and 3 have bipartisan support, as has been outlined, but unfortunately it is not straightforward. Schedule 1 raises substantive and serious concerns as currently drafted.
The stated policy objective of these amendments is to introduce a new revalidation check framework for visas, and that is said to be required for 10-year Chinese tourist visas. The Chinese tourist visa commenced on 12 December last year and is a bipartisan commitment. Indeed, it was part of Labor's election policy to support the growth in Chinese tourist numbers. It would be easier to take the government's objective to grow tourism more seriously if they actually had a tourism plan. Tourism has now overtaken coal to become one of Australia's biggest exports, according to research out only this week, but the coalition still has no plan for tourism, which employs one million Australians. Nevertheless, we can accept the logic that, during the course of a long-term, 10-year visa, we may want to ensure that certain details or aspects are up to date—passport numbers, criminal history, health checks and so on. The Law Council of Australia has questioned whether this schedule or these powers are even needed and has pointed to existing laws or regulations available to manage these requirements. It is worth noting that, of the other countries around the world that issue these long-term, 10-year type visas, there is no other jurisdiction that has these kinds of powers. The USA is moving in that direction, as the member for Scullin outlined, although with a much more focused and purposeful regime.
Despite these doubts, let us just accept at face value that there is a need for this legislation and that a clearer head of legislative power is warranted. Our concern is that the breadth of the proposed provision massively exceeds what is needed. It provides extreme powers to this minister and to any minister in the future to pick on any group of people, including permanent residents of this country. They are the kinds of powers that authoritarian leaders worldwide would salivate for. As legislators, I firmly believe that we should not support schedule 1 as drafted because it provides powers well in excess of what is needed and reasonable and necessary to the executive.
There are two new clauses of concern in particular. Clause 96B applies to where a person holds a visa of a prescribed kind. The argument is that this provides for the future should other visas be introduced. I am concerned, though, that it is not limited or specific to long-term visitor visas, as has been suggested by Senate inquiries. In fact, this could be applied to family or spousal visas, skilled visas and visas with long-term resident rights, including permanent residents. The instrument here is at least made subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
This brings me to the cause of greatest concern in this bill, clause 96E, which provides the minister an outrageously broad power to issue a non-disallowable legislative instrument requiring 'a class of persons' to undertake a visa revalidation check 'in the public interest'. This is extraordinary. It must be a matter of enormous concern to any responsible legislator in this parliament—if there are indeed any Liberals left in the Liberal Party—and, indeed, to citizens. The key reasons I say this are, firstly, there is no guidance or restriction whatsoever provided in the legislation as to what the class of persons may be. The minister could decide on a whim to identify people of any race or any religion or any eye colour or hair colour and so on. That may sound fanciful; it may sound exaggerated; you may be shocked; but it is true. There is no guidance, secondly, as to what is in the public interest. There is waffle in the explanatory memorandum of examples but no definition, and this power is not limited to circumstances where the minister identifies a risk to the Australian community. Thirdly, the minister's extraordinary power here is not reviewable or disallowable by the parliament. There is no parliamentary scrutiny and it is unclear as to why. There is scrutiny available for the visa classes but not for the class of persons. So a single minister, now or in coming years, if we pass this could decide to pick on any group of people in Australia. The shadow minister was kind when he talked about inadvertent consequences, but it smells fishy or suss to many of us. It is an extreme order or an extreme vetting power, but this is not even about filtering who comes into our country, as is the debate in the United States. There is no restriction on this power being used to threaten long-term permanent residents. Frankly, every permanent resident of Australia should be deeply worried by the power that this gives to a minister of the Crown. It is unclear also as to how or to what extent federal antidiscrimination laws such as the Racial Discrimination Act even apply and it is unclear as to whether merits reviews of these decisions are available.
The shadow minister and the member for Scullin have remarked upon the appalling record of this minister—the shameful record of race baiting in public and in this chamber—but that, to my mind, is a distraction. There is good news for the House: Peter Dutton will not be the minister for immigration forever. I am confident of that. So let's try not to think of him. Let's put him out of our minds. It is a happier place.
There is a deeper principle here for legislators, which is: should any minister of any persuasion from any party have such a power that is so broad? At a minimum, parliamentary oversight is warranted. But I do not believe the policy case for this kind of power has been made, and this parliament should not provide it to any minister, whether it be my party or any other party fronting up. Our job is to ensure that powers granted to ministers are proportionate to a clear, objective requirement and are properly oversighted. My view is that we grant the required powers, and no more.
In relation to the current construct of the act, this is no little fiddle. It is true that the minister has extremely broad powers under the Migration Act, and it is one of those acts, as we know, where the minister is a god, in a legislative sense, and has incredibly broad powers over individuals and cases, and I accept that. But this goes much further. The advice that I have received is that no Australian immigration minister has ever had the power to issue a non-disallowable legislative instrument which imposes obligations on a specified class of persons which can have consequences for that person's visa. Primarily the act is constructed so the minister has these broad powers to deal with specified classes of visas or individual visa holders.
For the sake of completeness, there are a few minor procedural abilities in relation to classes of persons in relation to the issuing of visas, or so I am advised; things like evidentiary requirements, fees, health checks and so on—and that is fair enough—when people are applying; but nothing approaching this. And, given the purported reasons for this legislation in the second reading speech, it is fair to say that this is an unwarranted, sneaky grab for power, and it is deeply troubling, to my mind, in this era of growing populism.
True democracy hands power to those who the majority choose. But implicit in—indeed, core to—our democratic compact is an understanding that the rights of minorities are protected and respected and that individuals and groups are protected from government overreach by checks and balances. If we let that slide, then we drift very quickly from populism to authoritarianism and fascism. It may sound extreme, but we forget these lessons of history at our peril.
Our role as legislators is to fully scrutinise, to reflect on and to review powers granted to the executive, to give what is required and no more. It is important to rebuilding trust in this great institution of parliament and our vocation, here in this people's house, that we take that seriously. We should oppose schedule 1, as drafted, in the strongest possible terms, because the policy case has not been made out.
The Senate inquiries, as has been mentioned, raised multiple concerns. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee raised concerns regarding the lack of parliamentary oversight. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee raised concerns about the breadth of the power. They noted that it is unclear why legislative limits to the type of visas cannot be set, and described it as inappropriately broad in scope. They noted that 'adverse information' for a revalidation check is not defined in the bill. There is no clarity as to what information a visa holder may be required to provide. There is circular waffle in the explanatory memorandum, verging on being evasive. The Law Council raised concerns about this. And the shadow minister, the member for Blair, outlined very eloquently serious concerns about these adverse information provisions and some of the concerning scenarios. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted that this breadth: 'has the potential to engage a number of human rights, including Australia's non-refoulement obligations, the right to an effective remedy, the right to liberty and the right to protection of the family.' I sought advice, and they sought advice, as to the safeguards that can be included in the legislation, such as limiting this to long-term visas—the problem we are trying to solve, or so we thought; making clear the basis on which a revalidation check can be provided; and the requirement that this be based on an objective assessment of an increased risk to the Australian community, not a ministerial whim. To my knowledge—and I am happy to be corrected—the minister has provided no substantive response to those points.
So I appeal, as do my colleagues, to the decent, moderate legislators opposite to force a rethink, however that happens in your party. This needs to be rethought. I would encourage you to imagine your reaction, as decent Australians—there are some there—if we introduced this kind of provision. What would your response be?
It is clear that this is not just bad legislation. It is not just sloppily drafted. It is dangerous and it is wrong. It is a classic example of executive overreach.
The white Australia policy is long gone. Australia's discriminatory immigration policy is gone. There are some fringe voices—some opposite, but many in the other place and elsewhere—trying to bring it back. I am not suggesting that the majority of the government or the government's formal position is to do that. But this legislation provides a wedge, a head of power, which we should not let through, that could allow a minister—this minister or a future minister—to bring back discrimination in our migration program. This is not who we are or who we want to be. It is not necessary—unfortunately, in my view—to prove that someone has an intent to do that. The fact that a minister could is more than sufficient basis for us to oppose this schedule, and it needs to be rethought. So let us not do this. Let us split this bill. People on this side want to work together.
I think I have made my point about schedule 1, so I turn now, briefly, to schedule 2. As to the cessation of visas not in effect, I have no particular comments to make, given that no substantive issues were raised by the Senate committees, and the provisions clarify the circumstances in which a visa can cease to be in effect under the Migration Act.
In relation to schedule 3, contactless immigration clearance: it is to enable the lawful introduction of the next generation of SmartGates. It is fair to say that I, like most Australians I am guessing, love coming home, and I love SmartGates. Melbourne Airport is where I usually arrive home—generally; occasionally, I get that horrible transfer through Sydney—though not always. And it is a great place. It is quick and efficient. Most countries give their own citizens preferential treatment when returning home, but—and maybe it is a sign of my age—SmartGates still seem like a form of magic! So I am pleased to know that things are progressing to the next generation of technology—contactless SmartGates.
Labor, at the election, outlined policies which support the introduction of new technologies to modernise current systems and further reduce processing time for greater numbers of people, giving a more efficient arrival experience. And obviously it is critical to ensure that technology provides ongoing security and properly identifies people. So no substantive issues were raised.
In summary, I say to those opposite: I urge you, I plead with you, to reflect on schedule 1, do the right thing and take it out of this bill. Let us sit down and find a sensible, moderate way which does not provide an inappropriate and appalling head of power to any minister in the future.
Like my colleagues before me, I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Visa Revalidation and Other Measures) Bill 2016 in its second reading. The bill is, in the words of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, designed to support initiatives 'which seek to promote Australia as an attractive destination'—which indeed it is—and 'facilitate the use of enhanced technology' to improve and streamline the traveller experience. I support the purpose of the bill with regard to the introduction of a revalidation framework for the 10-year visa for Chinese nationals. It makes sense to me—and my colleagues before me have also said—that if we are going to be issuing extended visas then we should also put in place checks and balances to ensure that those visas can be reassessed and revalidated in a manner that upholds our expectations of visa holders, particularly with regard to their identity, health, character and other such criteria. It is also prudent to ensure that provisions are included for this visa so that we are responsive to national security threats or other matters that could have adverse impacts on Australians. These are matters that are in the public interest.
However, this bill in its current form goes beyond that. In its current iteration, the bill specifies little in the way of detail about the nature, conditions and implementation of the visa itself and of the proposed validation checks. More concerning, though, is the fact that the bill includes within it, in schedule 1, under proposed subsection 96E, conferral of power to the minister to subject a 'specified class of persons holding a visa of a prescribed kind' to revalidation checks. In other words, the bill gives the minister the power to require revalidation checks of whole groups of people under a certain visa class beyond and broader than the 10-year visa for which it was originally drafted. Hence it goes beyond the design of the bill that I mentioned earlier.
There is no guarantee within the bill that the revalidation scheme will be limited to holders of the 10-year visa, which means that the checks could be extended to other classes of visa holders in the future based on insufficiently defined 'adverse information', determined by the minister and with no provision for disallowance in the parliament. As my colleague the member for Bruce mentioned, these are extraordinary and unprecedented measures here in Australia.
The issues with this bill, and particularly schedule 1, are quite clear. Firstly, the breadth of the power conferred by schedule 1 of the bill cannot be fully determined. While the bill is designed to apply only to the 10-year visa for Chinese visitors, the powers within the bill could well extend beyond that visa class to any visa class or, indeed, any group of people. Secondly, the definition of 'adverse information' that can be used by the minister to determine revalidation checks is insufficient in the bill. It is actually very broad. Thirdly, the ministerial powers to determine public interest in order to require revalidation checks on entire groups of visa holders are not subject to the kind of scrutiny and accountability that Australians deserve and are used to.
In my previous role—in a life long before this life—as a professor specialising in counterterrorism, radicalisation and national security, I often made the point, whenever I taught courses or gave talks, about the reasoned negotiation of risk. In times of uncertainty and times when we are gripped by fear, policies and strategies that once seemed impossible or irrational can be constructed as quite rational and even prudent. That is why we need to think long and hard and carefully about introducing provisions that could be used in ways for which they were not intended, and why we need to safeguard against that.
To quote from a submission to the inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee into the bill being debated:
The Bill appears to be neither necessary nor proportionate to its intended objective, in that it has the potential to apply to all classes of visas, not just the proposed longer validity visitor visa.
I do not think it is too much to ask this government—or indeed any government—to ensure that bills that are introduced for intended purposes are drafted in ways which would ensure that they are effective for that intended purpose, for that express design. I might add that I also do not think it unreasonable for the government to read and pay heed to the concerns expressed by reputable individuals and groups through submissions to the Senate committee—and I have outlined concerns earlier. I also note that our own committees have raised concerns about elements of the bill.
As I have said, the expressed purposes of promoting Australia as an attractive destination and facilitating the use of enhanced technology to improve and streamline the traveller experience are welcomed; indeed, we support them. The expressed purpose of ensuring a revalidation measure to ensure that those with 10-year visitor visas—Chinese nationals—continue to be eligible recipients of such visas is welcome; indeed, we support it; we recognise the need for it. But the bill does more than that—it goes beyond that—and that is not welcome. It is not smart, nor is it prudent, nor is it effective, to include a section—namely, section 96E—that grants the minister disproportionate powers to execute what would effectively be travel bans to entirely different groups of visa holders, with no provision for disallowance by the Senate. The minister already has the discretionary power to cancel visas and has extensive cancellation powers in relation to refugee and humanitarian visas under sections 5H(2), 36(1C), 36(2C) and 501 of the Migration Act. Surely these existing powers negate the need for any further discretionary powers, particularly if they are proposed without the protections, limits and oversights that are incorporated in the Migration Act and that are vital to upholding our democratic principles.
This is the crux of it right here: that we should not become a country where the introduction of laws and policies that have the potential to be misused in ways that have some very far-reaching impacts goes unchecked; that we should not become a country where the advice and concerns of reputable agencies with regard to judiciary processes go unheeded; that we should not become a country where the scope of powers under a bill such as this would not be subject to reasonable limits; that we should not become a country that introduces a mechanism where we could foreseeably go back to a time where our immigration policy was based on discriminating against certain groups of people and favouring others—a time we rightly left behind several decades ago.
May I provide a possible scenario where this bill—specifically section 96E—could be used. Given that the specifics around what is considered adverse information are missing, the definition of this phrase includes a wide range of activity, not just committed by the person themselves but also by a person associated with that person. It is quite conceivable that, under this bill, revalidation checks could be required of someone that are not even related to the criteria for the visa in the first place. They could be required on the basis of criteria like a parking fine or a minor traffic infringement. Mr Deputy Speaker, I don't know about you but I am quite okay admitting that I have had parking fines in the past and I am probably likely to get some in the future, though I try to avoid them as much as I can. Would a parking fine make me, or you, should we be holders of permanent residency or temporary visas, unable to stay in this country? In the case of a refugee, would it invalidate his or her claims to protection? Would it make an international student any less likely to finish their studies successfully? I am not saying definitively that this bill would mean that anyone on a temporary visa who gets a parking fine will have to revalidate their visa and may have it cancelled—frankly, that would be quite ridiculous. What I am saying is that this bill gives the potential for such extreme examples to become a reality.
But there is something even more worrying about this bill, and that is the provisions contained in section 96E specifically in relation to the powers for the minister to require revalidation checks of a specified class of persons holding a visa of a prescribed kind. I am going to speak quite frankly here. My parents came to this country in 1969, in the years before the White Australia policy was finally and completely dismantled by the Whitlam government. Back then we were called aliens. Changes in the act meant that my parents could come here on merit, not based on their ethnicity or their country of origin. They arrived in an Australia that was still governed by people who very much believed in many of the discriminatory aspects of Australia's immigration policy and its inherent substantive inequalities. In 1972 the Whitlam government passed the Citizenship Act, which allowed all immigrants, regardless of origin, to quality for citizenship on an equal footing, and for the past 44 years this country has proudly had a bipartisan approach that rejects discrimination in our immigration program. We have embraced our multicultural identity and we stand proud as a nation that does not discriminate.
But sadly these values and ideals are fragile, as we have seen with some past issues and global trends that are happening now. In the face of growing discontent around the world and populist politics that exploits grievances and directs them at entire groups of people, in the face of immigration bans and the exclusion of groups based on race or ethnicity, sadly we have to be ever more vigilant of our commitment. We have to be ever more vigilant of our longstanding bipartisan commitment to an immigration program that does not discriminate. This is why the bill in its current form, and particularly section 96E, is so concerning—because it could potentially be used to do just that: to exclude entire groups of people and visa holders on the basis of ethnicity or country of origin or some other tenuous characteristic, without scrutiny and without accountability. So, yes, we do need a way to revalidate visas that are proposed to be long term—to ensure that visa holders continue to be genuine and to mitigate any risks posed to Australians—but we have to get better, smarter, at ensuring that, in our efforts to mitigate risks, we do not undermine the very values that make us a great nation. (Time expired)
Tonight, I want to take this opportunity to welcome back all students and staff in my electorate to the 2017 school year, and I want to wish them all a very productive and successful year ahead. In my electorate of Calwell I have about 60 schools—primary and secondary. They are a fair mix of government and non-government schools, and they are doing a great job in meeting the educational and welfare needs of our students and providing a diversity of choice for students and their families.
Schools in Calwell cater to a culturally and socio-economically diverse community, and I am very proud of each and every one of them and the work that they do for our local communities. I am particularly proud of my local school communities who are facing significant issues and additional challenges associated with the influx of refugees settling in Calwell at the moment. The Good Samaritan Catholic Primary School in Roxburgh Park and Meadows Primary School in Broadmeadows, in particular, have a high number of enrolments of refugee children.
These schools go above and beyond their call of duty to create a safe learning environment for the children who have come to Australia directly from war zones in Syria and Iraq. These children are severely traumatized. Their young eyes have seen things that other children in the same classroom cannot possibly ever imagine and nor should they. I am always amazed by the compassion shown by the teachers and the school community as a whole in nurturing and guiding these vulnerable students through the emotional trauma and the difficulties posed by language barriers that affect their literacy and numeracy skills and overall learning.
Roxburgh College is a fantastic government secondary school with a high migrant and refugee student population. The challenges faced by students there have instilled in its principal, Mr Fernando Ianni, a passion and a determination to support and empower every student to successfully complete their education journey. Under the school's vision statement—'With mutual respect, we learn and achieve'—Principal Ianni has developed and fostered a sense of collective responsibility for achieving success in the Roxburgh College community. His dedication led to him being nominated for a 2016 education award by the Victorian state government in the category of Outstanding Secondary Principal. Described by his peers as a visionary, Fernando has inspired and implemented numerous initiatives to overcome disadvantage in Melbourne's outer north. From refugee support groups to vocational programs for disengaged youths, Fernando Ianni has an absolute commitment to equity and inclusion. I want to congratulate Fernando on his nomination and his school community for continually striving for better solutions and outcomes for our local young people.
The admirable efforts of my teachers and their commitment are reflected in my schools' achievements, especially in our VCE results. I want to congratulate Sirius College in Broadmeadows, a school that is a continuous success story at VCE level, and 2016 was no exception. Fourteen students achieved an ATAR score of above 95, with student Ertugrul Erciyas topping the list with an ATAR of 99.5. In addition, students Rami Dennaoui and Harun Ergi received perfect study scores of 50 for further maths and computing in informatics. At St Mary's Coptic Orthodox College in Coolaroo, Shady Elyas was named dux with an ATAR score of 99.6, which is a phenomenal achievement. At Gladstone Park Secondary College, 17 students received ATARs above 90, with twin brothers Okan and Volkan Ozer topping the list. Okan was dux with an ATAR score of 98.7 and his brother Volkan received an ATAR of 94.5.
Probably the most high-profile VCE student of 2016 was 19-year-old Saad Al-Kassab, a student at Catholic Regional College in Sydenham, who was the 2016 dux with an ATAR score of 96.6. Saad is a Syrian refugee who arrived in Australia just two years ago, and at that time he could not speak English. He told me himself when I met him just before Christmas he learnt English by watching question time. Saad attributes his success at VCE to the compassionate community of Catholic Regional College, Sydenham, and their investment in their students, especially his specialist maths teacher, Adrian Rajapakse, and his English teacher, Libby Krepp.
Education is a priority for me as the federal member for Calwell and, of course, it is a priority for Labor because we believe that getting a great education is the ticket to a lifetime of opportunity. I want to congratulate all my schools and wish them all the best in this year.
Sometimes, as members of parliament, we have local issues, stories of service and places of significance that deserve national recognition. It is important for me to speak about one of these today that combines all three factors: local issues I am fighting for, humbling stories of service and sacrifice, and a place not just of local importance but national significance.
In the middle of the 130 square kilometres of my electorate of Boothby lies a sports ground called the Women's Memorial Playing Fields. This eight-hectare site was established by Liberal Premier Sir Thomas Playford in 1953 to encourage women's sport and, as the name suggests, to remember those women who gave their lives for our nation during war. In fact, it is one of the few war memorials in Australia dedicated to our servicewomen.
Personally, I cannot think of a more fitting way to remember service women and nurses who paid the ultimate sacrifice for Australia than through this site. It was established not just as a war memorial where people gather to pay their respects to the women who gave their lives for our freedom but as a living memorial to these brave women. Each week, over the past seven decades, at the Women's Memorial Playing Fields, tens of thousands of women have played sports like tennis, hockey, soccer, lacrosse and cricket. Today, hundreds if not thousands of young women play on the ovals each week, which are home to the Blackwood Hockey Club, Cumberland United Women's Soccer Club and the Stud Lacrosse Club. I know first-hand that these clubs understand the importance of the site.
Late last year I attended the Cumberland United Women's Soccer Club presentation, which included an acknowledgment of the wartime atrocity that formed the reason the fields were dedicated to our servicewomen. The reason will be commemorated by hundreds of people from around Australia this Sunday, 12 February, in my electorate, at the Bangka Day Memorial Service. This year is a particularly special year as it recognises the 75th anniversary of the massacre of 21 Australian nurses by Japanese troops on Radji Beach, Bangka Island, Indonesia. There are few wartime stories I know that match the sheer tragedy and atrocity involved in the massacre of these nurses. Next week, closer to the anniversary of the event, I will describe the circumstances these brave Australian women faced, but, for now, I wish to note that the Bangka Day Memorial Service has been held at the Women's Memorial Playing Fields each year for the past 60 years.
The memorial service and memorial itself is administered by a small and dedicated group of volunteers, no more so than President of the Trust, Mr Bruce Parker OAM, who received his Australian honour for the tireless service he has given to keep alive the memory of these 21 nurses and other servicewomen killed in war. Each year volunteers from the trust and sports clubs cater for hundreds of people at the service and each year they make the case for assistance to fund the desperately needed upgrades for the modest memorial and the playing grounds themselves.
I was disappointed to learn that, like so many local community groups before them, the trust's attempts to gain tax deductible gift status were refused. I intend to pursue this issue as a matter of policy reform, so that our local volunteers and community groups and projects can attract the funding they deserve. I thank the many ministers who have so far assisted me with this issue, including Minister O'Dwyer, and acknowledge those who have visited the site with me, including my state parliamentary colleague Sam Duluk MP, the member for Canning, Andrew Hastie, and the Minister for Veterans Affairs, the Hon. Dan Tehan.
I cannot thank Dr Madi Turner—who happens to be the sister of the member for Canning—enough for sharing her Honours Thesis 'Unsung Heroes: The Australian Service Nurses' National Memorial and the Politics of Recognition' with me, as it is one of the very few publications that explains the significance of having war memorials that recognise our Australian servicewomen and nurses and their sacrifice and courage. Finally, I thank Dr Brendan Nelson, the director of the Australian War Memorial, who will address the Bangka Day Memorial Service this Sunday, for his support, encouragement and advice.
As the member for Boothby, and the first woman to have held the seat since it was established in 1903, I believe it is my very serious responsibility to fight for the upgrade of the Women's Memorial Playing Fields and one of our few national war memorials dedicated to Australian servicewomen.
The Moreton Australia Day Awards have become a proud feature of the south side of Brisbane's community calendar for nearly a decade. We had a wonderful ceremony on Australia Day, held for the first time at the Sunnybank Performing Arts Centre. These awards are all about celebrating the spirit of volunteerism in our community—sadly, something that we do not see as much of as we would like and as much as Australia needs.
Each year we have a number of Moreton Australia Day Award recipients—and I will talk about them for as long as I can, but I do have limited time—and, importantly, we also announced the Sir James Killen Award for the volunteer of the year. We were fortunate to have Lady Benise Killen attending again to present the award named in honour of her late husband and former defence minister, Sir James Killen. This year the very worthy recipient of the Sir James Killen Award was Mrs Janeth Deen. Janeth, a former teacher, has been volunteering for over 40 years and shares her time among a vast number of community organisations, including the Muslim Charitable Foundation and the Mt Gravatt Historical Society. Janeth also works with refugees and migrants and each week provides meals to the homeless. I am so privileged to have Janeth in our community. She is a very deserving recipient of this award and was so acknowledged by Lady Killen.
The other many Moreton Australia Day Award recipients this year were: Trevor Armstrong, from the Pennywort Bushcare and Oxley Creek Catchment Association; Sergeant Jim Bellos—who almost does not need a special recognition—from the Queensland Police, who does incredible work, particularly with young Australians and the migrant community; Genise Benz, from the Archerfield Airport's Friends of God's Acre; Elijah Buol, from the Queensland African Communities Council, a local guy and dedicated member of the Queensland African Communities Council, who has done so much to help promote multiculturalism, with a particularly strong focus on African youth—and I am very proud to call Elijah a friend; Collette Crossley, from the Acacia Ridge Community Centre Foodbank; Pamela Dale, from the Probus Club of Sherwood; Hema Dissanayake, from the Acacia Ridge Community Centre Foodbank, who does great volunteer work with people who are undergoing stress; Lucian Goonetilleke, from the Brisbane Ekibin Lions Club; Barry Harding, from the Stephens RSL Sub Branch; Annette Harper, from the Oxley Girl Guides; Rebecca Hughes, from St David's Neighbourhood Centre; Helen Hynd, who does some garden rescue work; Hajira Kelly, from the Friendship Group of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church; Chien Hao Lei—better known as Eddie Lei—chair of the World Arts & Multi-Culture group who do great work; Colin James Lelay and Pamela Ann Lelay, from Brisbane Ekibin Lions Club; Maggie Lu, from World Arts & Multi-Culture, who do great work in terms of citizenship ceremonies and beyond, bringing culture to the south side; Wayne Lucas, from Stephens RSL Sub Branch; Anieka McDonagh, from Rackley South Swimming Club; Vicki Mitchell, from Relay for Life, Cancer Council; Protais Muhirwa, from Active Refugee and Migrant Integration in Australia; Dr Greg Nelson, most well known as the principal of Sherwood State School but who also does great work with the Sherwood Neighbourhood Centre; Helga Parl, from Fairfield Writer's Group—always have a soft spot in my heart for writers' Mili Qicatabua, from Omega International Church; Sera Roqica, also from Omega International Church; Kelli Scott, from the Lions Club of Kuraby; Robyn Solomon, who also does great work at St David's Neighbourhood Centre as vice-chair of the management committee; Denise Skelton, from the Red Cross and Probus Club; Craig Tobin, from Craig Tobin Aquatics—who I say a special hello to for his great service to the community not just during the times of the 2011 floods but on and on, and I wish Craig and his family all the best in the future endeavours; Jessica Walker, from Yeronga State High School, who consistently demonstrated outstanding community leadership in spearheading the campaign to have Mojgan Shamsilipoar released from dentition, which was a huge effort and an amazing win for our community—well done, Jessica, and all of your team that you represent; Audrey Wise, from Yeronga Meals on Wheels—who would not like to be recognised in parliament but should be for her great role; and Danny Yeo, from the Lions Club of Brisbane Chinese and many other volunteer groups that I do not have time not mention.
Unfortunately, time prevents me from mentioning all the others. But to Reverend Heather Griffin, Loni Mills, Yani Mills, Ruth Ross-Peer and so many others volunteers in Moreton: thank you for the great work that you do. And thank you again to Lady Benise Killen for the work that you do in recognising the work of our volunteers.
Australia Day saw many community members, both past and present, recognised for outstanding dedication and commitment to their local communities. Calare boasts some truly outstanding Australians, and it was a great privilege to participate in Australia Day celebrations across the electorate, including at Eglinton, Oberon and Yeoval. Around Calare, a total of six Medals of the Order of Australia and one Member of the Order of Australia were awarded.
Mrs Jan Richards of Orange was presented with the Member (AM) in the General Division, for her dedication and service to library and information management across not only the Central West but also New South Wales. Mrs Stephanie Camplin of Bathurst was the recipient of a Medal (OAM) of the Order of Australia for her service to the broadcasting industry. Stephanie is also a founder of the Macquarie Philharmonia, a travelling orchestra of 70 professional musicians who perform right across the Central West each year, and was also named a Living Legend of Bathurst in 2015. Both Stephanie and her husband, Ron, are in the House tonight. We congratulate Stephanie and Ron, and of course 2BS Gold. We are honoured to have you in our presence. Mr Garry Connelly of Mudgee was also awarded an OAM for his service to the local community, primarily as a member of the NSW Rural Fire Service since 1978. Mr Leonard Graff received an OAM for his dedication to the Western Region Academy of Sport and service to the community of Bathurst in general. Bruce and Gloria Adams both received an OAM for their extensive involvement and leadership in the mighty Cabonne communities, and Rosemary Harris received an OAM for her dedication to improving health services in Oberon as chair of the Health Council and president of the Oberon United Hospital Auxiliary for over 12 years.
Around the electorate, a number of constituents were awarded Citizen of the Year and Young Citizen of the Year, and I pay tribute to those individuals tonight. Orange City Council awarded Barbara Bloomfield Citizen of the Year for her service to aged care, while James Cashen received Young Citizen of the Year in recognition of his work in performing arts at Orange High School. Mid-Western's Citizen of the Year was Craig Parsons, a local paramedic involved in the rugby league club who voluntarily teaches first aid and is a member of the Rural Fire Service. The Young Citizen of the Year award went to Reece Oldfield. The Deputy Mayor of Bathurst, Graeme Hanger, was awarded Citizen of the Year for the Bathurst region, while Stephen Chapman received Young Citizen of the Year for his community work, including raising money for a school in the Solomon Islands. In Lithgow, Tim Le Fevre was announced as Citizen of the Year in recognition of his work towards social justice, while Isaac Trounce and Christopher Seymour were jointly awarded Young Citizen of the Year for their contribution to music in the Lithgow community. Over in Wellington, Citizen of the Year went to Marion Pool, a volunteer, nurse and chaplain who is deeply involved with her local community, while Junior Citizen of the Year was awarded to Rachael Melhuish. Wellington also awarded The Reverend Ross Murray Godfrey OAM as Senior Citizen of the Year.
Oberon's Citizen of the Year went to Keith Sutcliffe, and Young Citizen of the Year was Angus Fittler: well done to them both! In Borenore/Nashdale, Citizen of the Year was Toni McCauley: well done, Toni. Canowindra's Citizen of the Year was Darryl Fliedner and Young Citizen of the Year was Brooke Kinsela. Cargo honoured Robyn Price for her dedication to the local school P&C committee, and Rhys Maere as the Young Citizen. In Cudal, Warren Upton was the Citizen of the Year, due to his many voluntary engagements with the community, and Sarah Cohen was the Young Citizen of the Year for her efforts in volunteering. The Cumnock Citizen of the Year was Shirley Downey and Young Citizen was awarded to Skye Weston—I know Skye's mum and dad, David and Christine, are very proud of Skye. Tony Toohey and Trent Tulloch were Citizen and Young Citizen of the Year, respectively, in Eugowra. The Manildra Citizen of the Year went to Ethelwyn Townsend, while James Troth was Citizen of the Year in Molong. Mullion Creek's Citizen of the Year was Lisa Brisbane. I attended the Yeoval Australia Day ceremony which, fittingly, was held at the Yeoval public pool—you can't get more Aussie than that, Mr Speaker!—where Rex Morris was awarded the Citizen of the Year, and Young Citizen of the Year went to Madaline Harvey. The community group of the year was awarded to The Yeoval Satellite Weekly, a fine community publication.
I would like to congratulate all of the community members of Calare who were recognised during Australian Day ceremonies this year for their wonderful contributions to building our fine country communities. This House congratulates you and honours you, and we are very proud of you all.
I join the member for Calare in welcoming Stephanie and Ron to the gallery tonight. You have obviously travelled a long distance and I want to acknowledge that. I thank the member for Calare for pointing that out.
It has been a pretty bad day for the Turnbull government's latest health minister. At his first parliamentary hurdle, the health minister has had a stumble; at his first test of whether he has the capability to negotiate things through the Senate—to get this government's agenda through the parliamentary processes—this minister has fallen at his first hurdle. Today was the first test of this new minister: to see whether he could negotiate with the Senate to convince them that this government's cuts to children's dental benefits were somehow justified and defensible, and were good policy—as we were being told over and over again by the Turnbull government. And the result of the health minister's first Senate challenge? Apparently, it has been an absolute failure—a backflip. Today we learnt that that the government has had to back down—embarrassingly—on its $300 cut per child to the Child Dental Benefit Schedule, and restore it to the funding level that Labor had when we established the scheme, as it should have been. Make no mistake: the government did not do this because it was the right thing to do, or because they wanted to do it, or because they suddenly realised that they had got it wrong and that this was not good policy—to pursue cuts to what has been a very important preventative health program for child dental health across the country—and they did not come to it because they felt that this was a really good idea; they came to it because they were forced to.
Let us remember that the cuts have only been in place since 1 January this year—just over a month. So you might be asking, Mr Speaker: what has happened in the last month to convince the latest health minister of this government that they need to change their tack? What has happened to make them change their minds in such a short time? Why the sudden backflip? The answer is that Labor, with the support of the other parties, had a motion in the Senate to disallow the cuts, and the government knew they did not have the numbers. They did not have the numbers in the Senate to disallow it, so they did not have a choice. They have not done this because they think it is a good idea to restore the funding to the level it should be or that they want to support the kids dental program; they have done it because they do not have the numbers in the Senate. They were backed into a corner and they have desperately scrambled to try to fix what was going to be—and is, frankly—a highly embarrassing political problem for the latest minister for health. There is a simple reason why the government could not convince the Senate on these cuts: they were unfair and bad policy. While the government might have changed who is at the helm of health, they have not actually changed any of their lousy policies of cutting basic health support from the Australians who need it most.
Labor introduced the Child Dental Benefits Schedule scheme because of disturbing evidence that the oral health of children has been declining since the mid-1990s. The scheme was introduced as a tightly targeted program to ensure that children and families who need help accessing dental services the most are the ones who get it. It was working. In fact, a review by the government's own health department said that the scheme's only failing was the failure of the Abbott-Turnbull government to promote it and put any money into telling parents that the scheme existed.
The Liberals have been determined to axe the scheme ever since they came to government. First, they announced their plan to abolish the entire scheme. Parents, dentists and experts were outraged, and Labor was proud to stand with them in the fight to save the scheme. When the government could not pass their plan to abolish the scheme when it became clear that they would not get it through the Senate, they instead applied a cut across the board, cutting the entitlement to every child who was eligible under the program. On New Year's Day, the government cut the cap on CDBS benefits from $1,000 over two years to $700. That is a cut of up to $300 per child, or $600 for a family with two kids. Late last year, the former health minister admitted that the new cap would hurt more than one in four children who use the scheme. These are predominantly children in some of our poorest suburbs and communities across the country. Over a quarter of a million kids would have been worse off under the government's proposal. That is why today's back-down is a positive victory for children's dental health. It is a positive victory for good public policy. But make no mistake: this is an embarrassment for the new health minister. This was his first test and he has failed, unable to get the numbers in the Senate on the third day of our parliamentary sitting week and unable to get his policy through the Senate. He has stumbled at his very first hurdle.
I rise to speak on the federal government's strategy to promote economic development within our region and our state by investing in the necessary infrastructure to improve connectivity with Perth Airport, Fremantle Port and other key industrial areas. The efficient movement of people and freight is essential in promoting the growth of industry and productivity within our region. For the local economy to develop efficient supply chains, it must be implemented through efficient transport, materials handling and logistics. Exporters require a means of dispatching goods, including perishable products, by road, air and sea freight. Conversely, importers require the channels to bring in bulky goods, construction materials and supplies. I am proud to be part of a visionary federal government which has partnered with the West Australian state Liberal government to provide federal funding for three important infrastructure projects which will directly benefit not only the residents of Moore but the whole state—namely, the NorthLink WA, the Gateway WA, and the Perth Freight Link projects.
Presently, the Reid Highway connects the southern part of the Moore electorate with the Tonkin, Leach and Roe Highways further south. Residents will notice that there have been significant roadworks, with new bridges, ramps and lanes being constructed. This is all part of a well-considered strategy to connect our area with transport infrastructure and industry—all part of the 'bigger picture'. It is necessary to reach beyond the boundaries of the electorate to deliver an integrated transport solution. A total of $4 billion is being invested in these projects designed to help our region develop economically. The $1.9 billion Perth Freight Link project will link with the $1 billion Gateway WA project and the $1.12 billion NorthLink WA project to provide a free-flowing 85-kilometre route extending from Muchea to Fremantle Port, linking in with many of Perth's industrial and trade centres. It will reduce travel times and congestion and will provide significant productivity benefits to the economy, industry, motorists and local communities by servicing regional traffic movements to commercial and industrial areas such as Malaga, Kewdale and Welshpool.
Between now and 2031, there will be an expected doubling of freight and passenger air travel. The long-term vision is to cater for the traffic volumes associated with a future projected Perth population of 3.5 million residents to accommodate commuters, tourists, freight and other road users. Infrastructure Australia identified the Gateway WA project as a nationally significant project under its competitive international gateways goal to improve Australia's trade performance. The project improves access to Perth Airport to complement the current airport redevelopment. It will provide sufficient capacity to handle the expected growth in transport demand and will improve the operational efficiency of freight vehicles servicing the nationally significant intermodal freight terminals based at Kewdale and Forrestfield.
This area of Perth is arguably WA's most important transport interchange, where road, rail and air services meet to facilitate the movement of people and goods that are essential to the economy of both the state and the nation. The project was jointly funded, with the federal government contributing up to $686.4 million and the state government contributing $317.5 million. The project was completed in March 2016, ahead of schedule and under budget.
To the south, the $1.6 billion Perth Freight Link project, was officially launched as part of the 2014 federal budget, with Prime Minister Turnbull announcing in April 2016 an additional federal funding contribution of $260 million towards the development of the Fremantle tunnel route, bringing the total project budget to $1.9 billion. It will complete the missing link in Perth's urban transport corridor through a dedicated, high-productivity, east-west freight connection to Fremantle Port. The government has taken a strategic approach to state economic development which goes beyond individual electoral boundaries, and this will benefit not only the electors of Moore but also all Western Australians.
House adjourned at 20:00
Once again it is an honour for me to participate in the Lunar New Year celebrations throughout my community. Lunar New Year, or Tet as the Vietnamese refer to it, is a time to celebrate with family and friends, and this year is the year of the rooster. The rooster is traditionally associated with people who are courageous, trustworthy, hardworking and with a healthy outlook on life. As Bernadette, my wife, indicates she was born in the year of the rooster, I am hardly likely to argue with those qualities.
My celebration started at midnight at the Phuoc Hue Temple in Wetherill Park, welcoming the new year with thousands of Vietnamese families in what was a remarkable experience. I then visited the Mingyue Lay temple at Bonnyrigg with the Australian Chinese Buddhist Association and witnessed the Chinese Australian celebrations. I thank James Chan and Vincent Kong not only for their organisation of this fabulous event and inviting me to be part of it again but for what they do throughout our community. I also take the time to congratulate Vincent Kong for being recognised in this year's Australia Day honours and awarded an Order of Australia.
I then visited the Thien Vien Minh Quang in Canley Vale, the Phap Bao Temple in St Johns Park, the Vinh Nghiem Temple in Cabramatta and the Ni Vien Thien Hoa, also in Cabramatta. I thank Andrew Nguyen for organising the temple visits for me. I thank the venerables there for assisting my visit and making the Lunar New Year experience with the local families very memorable.
Last but not least, I attended the Vietnamese Tet Festival at Fairfield Showground. It is one of the most popular festivals in the local calendar and is attended by over 10,000 people. I congratulate the Vietnamese Community in Australia for once again organising a fabulous event. The lion dancing, the enjoyable Vietnamese cuisine, the carnival and the games—all highlights for local families—celebrate our multicultural community. I thank the President of the VCA, Dr Thang Ha, and all of his executive committee for once again organising an amazing event.
Tet, or Lunar New Year, is a time for all Australians to reflect on the success of our multicultural society, to celebrate the exceptional contributions our Chinese and Vietnamese communities as well as other Asian communities have made to our great nation. I feel privileged to be part of this colourful, vibrant, diverse community and wish all my constituents of Vietnamese and Chinese backgrounds a very happy Lunar New Year.
Today I would like to acknowledge Ms Bella Joseland, a young girl from Yaraka, the small town with a big heart, in my electorate. Bella is one of 41 regional Australians between the ages of 16 and 22 to be honoured as a winner of ABC's 2016 Heywire competition. It is quite an admirable feat. Bella's story was one of the 41 selected out of almost 700 entries. The Heywire competition is an opportunity for young storytellers to tell their story of the challenges and opportunities in their part of the world, a place for real honesty where good intentions bring about great opportunities for understanding change and benefiting us all.
Bella tells a momentous, heartbreaking and hopeful story of living on the land and waiting for the precious rain she and many others had not seen in a long time. I encourage all my colleagues to go and listen to this great insight Bella gives us into life on the land. Bella is here today participating in the Heywire regional youth summit to enlighten me, other members of parliament and community leaders on the issues associated with drought and living in small, regional, rural communities like Yaraka.
I would also like to congratulate this year's Australia Day awardees and those in my electorate who received Order of Australia medals. Ms Roberts 'Bobbie' Brazil, of Brookstead in my electorate, was an extremely deserving AO awardee this year. Bobbie has dedicated her life to the pursuit of tertiary education, agricultural and environmental resource management and has been a pillar of strength and inspiration to not only regional and rural women but also all of us in rural Australia. Bobbie and her husband Lyn have spent many years working with and contributing to philanthropic community organisations including Anglicare's women's refuge, the Salvation Army and the AEIOU Foundation, which supports children living with autism. Bobbie's compassion and dedication are traits I wholeheartedly admire.
I would also like to congratulate William 'Bill' McCutcheon on also receiving an OAM for his service to his local community on the Western Downs as a councillor, deputy mayor and mayor from 1985 to 2012, and the countless community groups he has contributed to. I have known Bill and his wife Barb all my life, and I know Bill is a great man with a strong sense of community. He has worked tirelessly to progress the best interests of the people in my home town of Chinchilla.
I would also like to mention: Mr Angus Emmott, of Noonbah Station, Longreach, who received an OAM for his service to conservation and the environment; and Ms Emilee Cherry formerly of Roma, who received an OAM for her service to sport, in particular women's rugby, which ultimately led her to win a gold medal at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.
I rise to speak on the shambolic automated Centrelink debt recovery system that this government refuses to shut down, against all advice and any common sense. I have been contacted by far too many locals in my electorate of Lindsay who are being chased for thousands of dollars they simply do not owe. It seems that no matter what advice or admissions are made, this government simply does not care—the government of not caring. Sure, if there is a legitimate debt or someone has done wrong, they should repay the money. But what we know at the moment is that thousands and thousands of innocent Australians are being accused of welfare fraud, when, in fact, no fraud exists. We know that when these innocent people receive debt notices of thousands of dollars, they are finding it painfully difficult to speak with someone from Centrelink to even sort the matter out. When they do reach someone on the 1800 phone, that staff member is usually unable to provide very basic information about the debt, unable to correct errors and unable to defer payments, and has been told to threaten the person with debt collectors. This kind of government dysfunction is simply unacceptable.
At one point, we were hearing the failure rate was 20 per cent. In other words, one in five accusations of welfare fraud were completely wrong, meaning upwards of 30,000 fellow Australians receive these debt notices incorrectly. On hearing these facts, how did the government respond? It completely ignored the concerns of those affected people and said that the system is working as it should. In relation to the people being sent debt notices, even though they do not owe a debt, and forcing them to spend days on the phone arguing back and forward with Centrelink, the Minister for Human Services, Mr Tudge, said:
This is not an 'error rate'. This is the system as it was designed to work.
To add insult to injury, yesterday the minister said that those affected should ring a 1800 number. Well, so many people are flooding that 1800 number, that it is a two-hour wait just to speak with someone. How out of touch can you be?
One single mother in Lindsay received a $38,000 debt notice just prior to Christmas, two days before Christmas. She manages severe anxiety and depression, and spent weeks dealing with Centrelink to have the debt removed. This failed program has a significant impact on people's health, and supposedly this was how the system was designed to work. Another constituent of mine was given a $2,800 debt notice early in January. After calling Centrelink to refute the claim, she was sent a new $38,000 bill. She was in tears, as you could imagine, and shaking when she called Centrelink again, but they could not help her explain the reasoning behind the $38,000 bill. Weeks later and many phone calls later, Centrelink have now admitted the bill is around just $200.
Government members interjecting—
And they sit on the other side and they mock.
There is a 40 per cent fail rate.
And this is how the system is 'designed to work'. As my colleague rightly points out, now we hear the error rate is at 40 per cent. That is almost one in every two claims that go forward. Just because someone received an income support and spent some time on it in their lives does not mean they should be subjected to blatantly incorrect and false accusation by the government. (Time expired)
In the middle of the night, 75 years ago, members of the 25th Infantry Battalion were awoken from their bunks at the Cabarlah Barracks just north of Toowoomba, called and marched down through the thick scrub and steep slopes of the Toowoomba Range to Spring Bluff Railway Station. They had no idea where they were going. They boarded a train to Brisbane and travelled to New Guinea where they would go on to win one of the most significant battles of World War II—the Battle of Milne Bay.
Until recently, Bertie Miles of Toowoomba was one of the last men left from that 1,000-strong battalion. Bertie was just 23 and in the mortar platoon, which is credited with destroying the Japanese forces during one of the major conflicts on a cleared area known as 'No. 3 Strip'. The Battle of Milne Bay was the first time in the war that Japanese ground forces were defeated. In Bertie's words:
We didn't win the war in the battle of Milne Bay, but we stopped the Japanese.
In torrential rain, Private Miles trudged backwards and forwards through deep mud to keep the mortars supplied with ammunition. On each trip he carried 19 kilograms of shells. Later, the battalion moved on to Port Moresby but, in a five-day pass at the beginning of 1944, Private Miles raced home to Toowoomba to marry his sweetheart, Avon. Nine months later, his war was over. He had been called home to manage a family property west of Toowoomba. Later, after the war, he trained as a plumber and worked for the railways for most of his career, during which time he and Avon raised their daughters, Susanne and June.
Just nine days ago, on Monday, 30 January 2017, Bertie's family and friends, clergy, Defence Force representatives, veterans, community leaders and many of us from the Toowoomba community farewelled Bertie at a solemn funeral service at St James Anglican Church, Toowoomba. He was 97 years old. In 2014, Bertie was quoted as saying, 'I'll never lose sight of the battlefields,' and never should we. Lest we forget. Vale, Bertie Miles.
There was a time a while ago when Donald Trump seemed like a bad joke, but that time is over. Last Sunday, together with Greens state MP Ellen Sandell and community leaders, I hosted an emergency meeting to talk about what Donald Trump's immigration ban on seven Muslim-majority countries means. People in my community are directly affected by this. Melburnians with family in the US or affected countries or Australian permanent residents who are not able to travel on Australian passports face uncertainty about when and whether they will be able to see loved ones overseas.
What is happening in the United States is horrifying, as is the silence of our government when they should be standing up to Donald Trump. But you do not have to look just to the United States to see the impacts of the rise of the racist right. People like Senator Pauline Hanson are picking on a group of people and seeking to sow fear and then take political advantage. Twenty years ago she said it was Asians that were the problem, and now she says it is Muslims. Pauline Hanson and Donald Trump do not care which group of people they pick on and whose lives they put at threat, but the impacts of this cynical politics are real. It is making a difference to people's lives here in Australia right now.
I have never felt more welcome than I do when spending time with Muslim communities in Melbourne, but right now many people in Muslim communities are feeling under attack. I have heard from Muslim constituents who say that life is getting more difficult now and that men and particularly women, because they wear a hijab and are visible, in the Muslim community are experiencing more racism. One woman at Sunday's public meeting told us that a few days ago she had a tomato thrown at her while she was in the supermarket doing her shopping because she was identifiable wearing a headscarf. I heard from schoolchildren—schoolchildren!—in my electorate, who were born here and who have grown up here, who have personally experienced racism or been called names by strangers simply because they are Muslim. One schoolgirl wrote to me and said she could not finish the 800-metre race because while she was wearing a headscarf someone called out to her: 'You're a terrorist! Go home!' She could not finish her race at school. That should not be happening here in Australia.
I have heard from constituents that many people in our community are facing hatred and attacks but are hearing only silence from our leaders of government. They are now questioning their safety or even being forced to reconsider their long-term future and security in Australia. To those people in Melbourne and in Australia who are right now feeling under attack, I say: we will stand with you. And to my colleagues here in parliament I say: we all have a responsibility to stand up to racism and attacks on our communities, especially the Prime Minister, who has the biggest megaphone in the country. He should be standing up to Donald Trump and saying that this is unacceptable and standing up on behalf of people here in Australia.
I have been overwhelmed by the number of Melburnians who have come together to say, 'Racism is unacceptable.' We have to say it loudly from the highest level of governments as well.
Today I want to talk about Roe 8 and Roe 9—an important part of the Perth Freight Link. I want to tell you about the jobs these road projects will create and the efficiencies that will be delivered for industry. I want to talk about the 7,000 trucks and the 74,000 light vehicles Roe 8 and Roe 9 will remove from local roads each day—roads like Leach Highway, Farrington Road, South Street, Stock Road, North Lake Road and Beeliar Drive—and about how these projects will make our community safer.
Roe 8 and Roe 9 are part of the Perth Freight Link—the 85-kilometre strategic freight route between Fremantle Port and Muchea. They are so essential, in fact, that they are recognised by Infrastructure Australia as being one of the highest transport priorities in the nation. Roe 8 and Roe 9 will create work for up to 10,000 people in WA; improve access to Fremantle Port; and will give drivers freeway access, east and west, across our city to places like Perth Airport, Fiona Stanley Hospital and Murdoch University. The majority of traffic on Roe 8 and Roe 9 will be cars. It will save 12.5 minutes travel time between the Kwinana Freeway and Fremantle. It will bypass 14 sets of traffic lights on Leach Highway and Stock Road, and people will have no reason to rat-run past homes, local parks and schools. It will enable better and safer cycling—something I am very fond of, as someone who has discovered over Christmas a love of cycling, in lycra.
The facts tell us that we must build Roe 8 and Roe 9, but these projects have become the focus of a very small and very vocal minority in the southern suburbs of Perth. Protests at Roe 8 sites have not been peaceful. Protesters have locked themselves to machinery, they have destroyed fences and they have protested naked in trees. They have been arrested for offences including trespassing, obstructing police and assault. Trip-wires were set to injure a police horse and police are on-site to protect workers, who are just doing their jobs.
What do we know about the environmental impacts of this project? We know that Roe 8 impacts only 0.49 per cent of the Beeliar Wetlands, that Roe 8 and Roe 9 will save 450,000 tonnes of CO2 by 2031, that over 1,000 hectares of high-quality conservation land has been acquired as an offset and that more than $45 million has been invested to specifically accommodate environmental sensitivities and to provide better recreational access. As confirmed in our local newspapers, Roe 8 and Roe 9 are leading the way in environmental design and construction.
The facts about Roe 8 and Roe 9 and the Perth Freight Link are indisputable. The benefits for Western Australia and my local region from building these important projects are indisputable. It is time for the protesters to keep their clothes on , stay out of the trees, help rebuild the fences they have crashed down and let the workers build Roe 8. (Time expired).
I rise today to add my voice, again this week, to debate about the Centrelink debacle that this government has wrought upon the Australian public across the break period. It is cruel, and the system that they are using is inaccurate. It is inaccurate because they have removed the human oversight to the data matching system. It is a system that is now purported to have a 40 per cent failure rate. That is, it is identifying 40 per cent of people and telling them that they owe the government money.
I want those opposite to really think about this: imagine you are at home and you receive a letter or an email that says that you are being accused of the defrauding the Commonwealth. Let's get this in perspective: if you have not defrauded the Commonwealth you should not be accused of doing so, particularly when the evidence is so plainly available to the government.
I will take this case in point: a person in my electorate, who I sat with over the summer period while Minister Tudge was on leave and not available to come back and address the issue. Most of us in our electoral offices were dealing with the human face of this planned failure—a 40 per cent failure. I sat with a resident who had been told they had a $5,000-plus debt. Their letters had not gone to her address—it is amazing how we can match data but we cannot find someone on the electric electoral roll and their accurate address—but they sent it to a relative's address. So there was time before this person saw the letter. They then saw this letter that said they owed $5,000.
This person is working full time. This person had Centrelink support six years ago while they sought work as a teacher after re-educating themselves and getting new qualifications. So they got Centrelink support through that year while they applied for positions. At the end of that year, they celebrated long and hard because they secured themselves a full-time position for the following year. They rang Centrelink in January and said: 'I no longer need support. I have secured full-time employment.' This is a person this government should be celebrating—someone who has re-educated themselves, someone who has then sought and found full-time employment in our school system. But, no, she was spending her half-hour lunchbreak on the phone to Centrelink to tell them of their error.
This person has been proved to be absolutely innocent in this case. There is no waiving of a debt; there is no debt. This is just one story, of which there are many. This morning on Facebook, one of my locals quipped to me that it was time to rename Centrelink 'the missing link'. That is how people in my community feel about Centrelink and this government at the moment. (Time expired)
The Wide Bay region has long struggled with high unemployment. It is a battle that I have faced myself. I remember in my late teens and early 20s going door to door, desperate to get any job I could find to support my young family, so I understand the power of employment and the dignity that employment brings. Many people also find themselves in the same situation today, particularly young people who are sometimes forced to leave their homes and families in Wide Bay just so they can find a job. The coalition government's new $20 million Wide Bay Burnett regional jobs and investment package is designed to create jobs in our region. It will be matched by funds from other sources, creating $40 million of new investment, and puts the power back into the local area with a committee of leaders who understand the challenges and opportunities of their communities.
I thank committee members Bill Trevor, Nancy Bates, Stephen Cooper, Kathy Duff, Eric Law, Kerren Smith, Don Waugh, Leone Aslett and Glen Winney. They bring a variety of skills and experience ranging from education to development, media, local government and business. All are committed to capturing new opportunities to improve Wide Bay. Local people know their region better than anyone, and their knowledge will be vital in creating a community-driven partnership between the coalition government, business and the region. With their input, the jobs package will enable local businesses to expand, diversify, create jobs, grow skills, pursue export opportunities and invest in infrastructure and training.
High unemployment has dogged our region, especially in the time since the election of the Rudd Labor government. When the coalition left office in 2007, the Wide Bay regional unemployment rate was 3.5 per cent below the national average, but under the Labor government the unemployment rate rose in the Wide Bay region, skyrocketing to 12 per cent by 2011.
Business is the key driver for Wide Bay's economy, and there is a huge potential for growth in this region. The jobs package will support growth with a specific targeted and tailored investment pool. The package will make the Wide Bay Burnett more attractive to investors, increase productivity, boost competitiveness and create economic growth. It will help our unemployed to find hope and opportunity in their own region. I am pleased that the coalition government is delivering on my election commitment to grow jobs in Wide Bay and Burnett through this $20 million jobs boost.
Today I rise to talk about the remarkable Kobe Bennett, who was last month awarded the title of Young Citizen of the Year in the city of Brighton, in my electorate. Kobe has a real commitment to his community and to creating positive social change. Last year, he was awarded the Human Rights Youth Award in Tasmania, and two years ago he became an author. This is remarkable because Kobe is 12 years old.
Sitting in the audience at the Brighton civic centre's citizenship awards listening to the list of Kobe's achievements, I was in awe. This young man is yet to enter his teens but he has already achieved more than many can claim in a lifetime. He is overcoming adversity and stands as an example not just to his peers but to adults. Kobe's advice to all of us in this place is, 'Make sure kids have a voice, particularly around the issues of child protection and legislation'. Kobe, his mum Maree and his brothers have lived with years of family violence. But Kobe has not let this defeat him nor turn him inwards and angry. He has, instead, used the experience to strengthen his spirit. Kobe tells his story bravely and he talks about how the abuse against his mother affected him the most, 'When my dad hurt my mum, my heart felt like popping. Family violence messed me up,' he is quoted as saying. This abuse made it difficult for him to know what is right and wrong. Two years ago at the age of 10, Kobe wrote a book as part of his journey in recovery, now that his mother has left his father and they are healing together. The book is titled The only house in the desert and is a tool to give a voice to kids like Kobe, kids who are survivors of abusive upbringings in abusive homes. This is a remarkable young man and I wish him all the best as he moves onwards in life.
As a young life starts, another one ends. In finishing today's comments, I want to mark the passing of Deirdre Flint, the former mayor of the central highlands municipality in my electorate. Deirdre Flint died on 31 January. She was a long-serving mayor and she was a long-serving life member of the Liberal Party—so certainly no political bedfellow of mine. She was a great member of the community. She lived for her community and I do wish her family and her friends all the best. She is being buried today in a private funeral. I wish the Flint family and the central highlands community my very best wishes.
Some of this country's greatest pastimes are water-related activities. Many Australians and tourists this summer would have been beating the heat by taking part in water sports and recreational activities. These are an integral part of our Australian way of life and the government have always been committed to supporting Australians as they head to the beach and local waterways by ensuring their safety is our priority. According to the Royal Life Saving National Drowning Report, 280 people drowned in Australian waterways in 2016 and 57 drowned between 1 December 2016 and 15 January 2017. While these numbers are terrible, it would be a lot worse without the efforts of organisations such as the Laurie Lawrence Swim School, the Royal Life Saving Society Australia, Surf Life Saving Australia and AUSTSWIM, who keep Australians and visitors safe at our beaches, pools, lakes, rivers and dams.
The government provides approximately $11 million a year to these organisations and, as identified by the 2016 drowning report, there was a 30 per cent decrease in drownings of children under the age of five. We need to promote education for children and parents on safe swimming habits. With this, the government is pleased to contribute an additional $1 million to Mr Laurie Lawrence through our saving lives in the water program. The saving lives in the water program targets children under five years old and encompasses Mr Lawrence's Kids Alive: Do The Five initiative. The government assists Mr Lawrence to produce, develop and distribute water safety messages, DVDs and educational material designed to keep young children safe in and around the water. Over 55,000 curriculum packs have been provided to early learning centres, kindergartens, preschools, family day care centres, playgroups, water safety organisations and remote education service providers. The 2016 drowning report reveals that in the past year drownings in children under five years old saw a 30 per cent reduction below the 10-year average, demonstrating the great work being undertaken by Mr Lawrence. Enjoying our beaches and waterways is a luxury all Australians and international visitors should take advantage of. We must ensure it is safe and continue to support organisations who do so.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
Young people are getting screwed and the government does not seem to care. That is especially the case when you look at one of the most basic of human rights, the right to have shelter and a roof over your head. We now have the situation where many young people cannot even afford to rent a place near where they work or study let alone to buy one. When so many people are being locked out of the housing market because of tax rules that privilege the people who are buying their second, third or fourth home and who get a government handout, while people buying their first get nothing except a kick in the teeth and higher prices, and with so many young people across the country screaming and their parents looking at them and thinking, 'It was not like that when I bought my first house,' you would think they might do something about it. The government conducted an inquiry and said, 'Let's hear from the best and brightest about a number of matters facing the economy; let's have people come up to us and tell us about Australia's economic situation and what the problems are, and what we might need to do to fix things.' The government says, 'There is nothing that needs to be done'—no recommendations, not one recommendation to fix the problem.
It is not just anecdotal or that people are feeling something is different. If you look at the numbers, something is actually happening. Back in 1990, an average house was six times a young person's income. By 2013, it had risen to 12 times their annual income. Something is going on in Australia. In 1994, young households had nearly 10 per cent of the country's wealth. By 2014, this had halved, to just over five per cent. Young people are getting screwed. They have less of a share of the national pie, and house prices are further and further out of reach.
Why is this? Well, we have this incredible lurk in Australia—that pretty much exists nowhere else around the world—that means that, if you are a young person going to an auction, trying to buy a house, someone else can come along who has already broken into the property market, or has a bit more money than you, and they can bid the price up and up and up and up, knowing that if they buy that house for more than it might be worth, they can rent it out and write it off as tax loss. So they do not even want to live in the house; they just want to write it off as a tax loss.
Then the sting in the tail comes because, in a few years, they can flip that house and sell it, and get a tax break on that as well. In other words, if you are one of the lucky few in this country who already has wealth and you hold it in the form of assets—as opposed to the rest of us who earn money from working, wage earners—if you hold it in shares or property, when you sell it, you get 50 per cent of your tax back; you get a 50 per cent tax break. For someone who works just as pay-as-you-go income, you get tax taken out; you have no say in it. You have to pay your tax. But if you are at the top and you have a pile of shares or houses and you sell those, you get a tax break from the government. What does that do? It does a couple of things. One is it makes it nigh on impossible for young people, who have done the right thing, finished their degrees or gone to TAFE—who end up with a mountain of debt to show for it—but they do that. They go and look for jobs, many of which just are not there in the way that they used to be. They get a job and they might only be on a short-term contract. We now have the ridiculous situation where people who graduate as teachers get put on one-year contracts, as if we were potentially going to sell off the school tomorrow and there might be a downturn in business. What rubbish! So you have people who have done the right thing and are graduating or leaving school and now finding themselves faced with insecure work, jobs that are not there and then massively high housing prices that are out of reach and, in Australian terms, well out of whack.
It is not just impacting on young people and making their lives incredibly difficult in a way that we have not seen before in this country. We are not just at a tipping point where those people who are in power and those who have wealth are about to leave a world that is worse off for the young people who come after them than the one that they inherited; this is a broader problem as well that threatens the economy.
It is astounding that this report, apart from our standing report that we put in, turns a blind eye to some pretty fundamental facts. Back in 1997 household liability—that is, the debt that households have—in Australia was about the same as their disposable income. Fast forward to 2015 and household debt was about twice a household's disposable income. The government talks about getting rid of debt. You can talk all you like about government debt, but what about the debt that individuals and households have? It is now twice as big as it was in 1996. That is what is happening under this government. We can talk about getting rid of the debt burden, but it is being shoved onto families and young people.
Now, if you as a young person are lucky enough to outbid one of those investors at an auction and get a house, you will end up with a mortgage that is so many times bigger than it would have been 20 or 30 years ago and you will find yourself struggling under a mountain of debt. You can add to that the debt you might have because you have graduated from university or TAFE or done a training course. Perhaps you have been unlucky enough to be suckered into one of those training courses from a private provider that cost you money but which you do not get any qualifications out of. Whatever the situation, people are now finding themselves facing an economic reality they never had to face before in this society. People are increasingly at breaking point. People are at breaking point and saying, 'What is the point? I've done the right thing and now I cannot find a place to rent near where I work or study, and home ownership is something that I think is never even going to happen for me.'
You would think, faced with this, the government might want to take it seriously. You would think that this mountain of household debt that is now much, much bigger in Australia than disposable income would be cause for concern. You would think that the committee that is charged with inquiring into the economy and looking at the banks might have something to say about it. But what we have learnt is that the banks are enjoying record-high profits in this country and, in part, it is because mortgages are getting bigger and bigger. So the banks make a massive amount of money out of the fact that housing is unaffordable for people. Everyone from the government to the banks to the people who already have a lot of money seem to benefit out of this, but the people who lose out are predominantly young people or people who might not have ongoing work but are forced to go from a month contract to a year contract. They are the ones who front up to a bank manager and say, 'I'd like to buy a house,' and the bank manager says to them, 'I'm sorry, but it says here that you have been on a series of short-term contracts for the last few years. I don't think that is secure enough. I'm not going to write you a loan.' That is who is losing out. We have a choice here.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:39 to 10:53
There is an answer to this, which is to get rid of the tax breaks that cost the budget money, money that could otherwise go into schools, hospitals and building renewable energy. Get rid of those tax breaks that at the moment are going overwhelmingly to people who already have houses and who already have a lot of money and a lot of wealth. Get rid of those, and you do two things. You increase the amount of money that is available for government to spend on the services that people expect, so it means you do not have to try to cut people's paid parental leave to try to balance the budget; instead, you are taking it from the top end of town. Of course, they are the Liberal Party's base. They are the ones who donate to the Liberal Party's campaigns, so the government do not want to do it. But sometimes in government you have to have the guts to stand up and say, 'These tax breaks—we cannot afford them anymore.'
The second thing it would do is help put housing back within the reach of young people because, instead of the government spending money to help people buy their second, third or fourth home, you would have money available to help people buy their first home.
I was very proud to be part of the committee and issue a dissenting report that called out this report for the charade that it is—an attempt to cover up and ignore one of the biggest problems in Australian society. It is staring everyone in the face. If the government want to know why they are in trouble, perhaps they should look at young people being locked out of the housing market.
It is very hard to find much to agree with in the member for Melbourne's contribution, but I will agree with him that housing affordability is an issue, particularly in our major cities. There are recent numbers from a report at the end of 2016. In New South Wales, in Sydney, we had a median house price of $880,000. By contrast, in Tasmania the median house price is $320,000.
Let us just assume that the member for Melbourne is correct, and it is negative gearing that is the problem. Why isn't negative gearing a problem in Tasmania? Why is it a problem in one city and not a problem in another city? Why is negative gearing not a problem in our regional and country areas? You can buy a three- or four-bedroom house in many of the regional towns in New South Wales for $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000. Why is negative gearing not a problem there, but it is a problem in Sydney?
It is simple: negative gearing is not the problem. The problem is a simple basis of supply and demand. The member for Melbourne talked about how, back in 1994, housing affordability was not a problem and how, back in 1997, it was so much less costly. If you look at the numbers, it is easy to see why. It is because back in 1994 and 1997 we actually had a surplus of houses in this country, but since then we have had a deficit in the number of houses. We simply have not had constructed the number of houses needed to keep up with demand.
What has actually been driving demand? The member for Melbourne talked about 1994 and 1997. In those years—in fact, from the 1980s up to 2005—we had a net migration rate in this country of a little over 100,000 people. So, if we were having 100,000 new migrants come into this country—and I welcome every single one of them—we had to make sure that we had the housing supply to match that net migration rate, and we were able to do that throughout the 1990s. But when we got to 2006, without going into the reasons, we in this country decided that we would increase our net migration intake. We increased it from an average of a little over 100,000 to, in the last decade, an average of 250,000 people as a net migration rate. If we have a 250,000 net migration rate in this country but we do not have that supply matching up, what does one think will happen, especially when that migration increase is mainly in the cities of Sydney and Melbourne? It is like a game of reverse musical chairs, where you do not have enough chairs out to start with, you have people standing up, you bring more people in to play the game and you only put a few more chairs out. That is what has been happening and that is what has been forcing prices up year after year after year in our major capital cities. The member for Melbourne is so wrong in his analysis. He is putting the cart before the horse. If we are going to address the issue of housing affordability in this country, we must address those issues of demand and supply. If we are going to have net migration rates of a quarter of a million people settling in this country and have our population increasing above our natural increase, we have to make sure that we have the housing supply that not only catches up with the past deficit but actually meets that increase. That is the only way we are going to get housing affordability under control.
As far as the member for Melbourne's misguided attack on negative gearing, I am not even sure he actually understands the principles of what it is. If you are investing in any income-producing asset, the cost of your interest is an expense that you leverage off against the income from that asset to work out what your taxable income is. This is not surprising. This is a fundamental, basic business principle of investing. To suggest that we should wipe out negative gearing in this way will cause many distortions throughout the economy. Investors can invest in commercial property; they can invest in shares; they come invest in residential housing; they can invest in industrial property—there are so many areas that they can invest in—and the cost of the interest must be a deductible expense.
This is not some tax rort, as the member for Melbourne talked about. I would hope that the members of the opposition and also the Greens would understand the fundamental drivers of what is causing our problem with housing affordability in this nation. It has nothing to do with negative gearing. It is all about supply and demand factors. So we need to look at our migration rates, and, whatever those migration rates are, we need to make sure that our housing supply stocks are increasing by the same proportional rate. According to the ANZ analysis, we still have a shortage of over 200,000 dwellings in this country. We are 200,000 dwellings short that we need to catch up on. We are planning to have an net migration intake next year of a quarter of a million people. We must increase the supply—and that comes back to what our state governments and our local councils do.
But there are also some things that we can do federally. We need to have another look at what we can do in this country about decentralisation. In the state of New South Wales, which has about 7½ million people, it is ridiculous to try to cram five million people into Sydney. We need an active program to make it viable for young people to relocate to country areas. One place that can start is with government. There are very few reasons why many government departments should be located in the Sydney CBD. We should go through every single government department and ask them what the basis is for them needing to be in the Sydney CBD. If there is no good reason for that, the federal government should lead the way and relocate those government departments to our regional areas and country areas.
I am sure that someone who lives in the Sydney suburbs may have an hour's trip in and out of the Sydney CBD every day. They could spend over two hours commuting. They could still have an average house in the suburbs that is worth $1.2 million. If those people were given the option to relocate somewhere like Nowra, Ulladulla or Batemans Bay, where they could buy a house with a tennis court and a swimming pool five minutes from their office and five minutes from the beach, and put half a million dollars in their pocket, I think there would be a stampede. So that is one of the main things that we can do in the federal government.
I would call on Labor and the Greens to get off this ridiculous hobbyhorse that they have of attacking the fundamental principle that an interest cost of an income-bearing investment is somehow a tax rort. It is not. If that policy is enacted, we have seen it before; we have seen exactly what happened before. We know exactly what happened when Paul Keating thought it was a wonderful idea to get rid of negative gearing. It caused distortions. It caused a disaster. It caused rents to go through the roof. And what happened? Paul Keating then realised he had made a mistake, and he reversed it. And yet we have people on the other side, ignorant of history, unable to understand the fundamental problem, who want to repeat the same mistake without actually doing anything to tackle the fundamental problem. Talking like that and rabbiting about negative gearing takes our eye off the fundamental problem, and that is fixing the imbalances between supply and demand. (Time expired)
It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak on the Report on the inquiry into home ownership, by the Standing Committee on Economics, albeit that it is somewhat challenging to listen to some arguments from members opposite. I think this is an important opportunity for me and indeed many of my colleagues to correct the record, because, if ever there was a report that proves just how desperately out of touch this government is, it is the one before us today. This is the report of a committee that looked into one of the most pressing social problems and issues facing our country: the declining rate of home ownership. It came up with precisely no recommendations to redress that situation. What a complete waste of government time, resources, committee members and indeed those people who took time and acted in good faith to make submissions and appear before the committee with well-considered arguments and proposals for a way forward but were completely dismissed. It would be comic if it were not so tragic.
The committee heard, for example, that the median house price in Sydney now is well over $1 million. Of course, that is no surprise to anybody living within the Sydney CBD and the surrounding Greater Sydney region. The committee also heard, of course, that the home ownership rates for people under 55 years of age now and for Australians on low incomes are dropping dramatically. These figures are on a trajectory that should be deeply worrying to this government. Indeed, the committee was told time and time again that a generation of young Australians is now facing a life of renting after being effectively locked out of the market entirely. And yet the committee found no reason to propose a single recommendation on how to redress this situation.
I have seen firsthand the impacts of these skyrocketing prices in my home city of Newcastle. In the past year, house prices in the inner city areas of Newcastle have climbed 7.7 per cent to nearly $700,000. That is not the median price of $1 million of Sydney but is rapidly climbing in an area that was always a much more affordable option than Sydney. To see those prices ramping up quickly over time is a really worrying trend. This means that prospective home buyers in Newcastle have to cobble together now an extra $40,000 just to get a foot in the market. And there is no sign of respite for 2017. In fact, the NAB predicts that Newcastle property prices will again outperform the broader market as vast numbers of people get priced out and indeed pushed out of Sydney and Melbourne. Many Novocastrians have watched in dismay as month by month, year by year, the long-held dream of home ownership slips away, further out of their grasp.
Too often, young Novocastrians tell me about the anxiety and, indeed, deep sense of hopelessness that they feel as they try desperately to compete with investors to secure a home. And they are not alone. The situation is being replicated in capital cities and large towns right across the country. The complete lack of recommendations in this report is not just shoddy work; it is a slap in the face to many thousands of Australians who are resigning themselves to the possibility that they will never own their own home. As it is so often the case, the Liberals will prefer to blame the victim instead. Joe Hockey's advice to young people desperately wanting to own their own home was that they needed to get a good job. Never mind that those jobs simply are not there for many young people, and even the high-income earners are struggling to pay off the average mortgage in many cities these days. Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce told would-be home buyers that they do not deserve or, indeed, should not really expect to be living in capital cities. They should just give up on that notion of living in a capital city and instead move to regional Australia with little regard, of course, to people whose families, work and lives are based there in Sydney or Melbourne. But it was perhaps the advice of the Prime Minister himself that really showed just how out of touch those opposite are when he suggested that young people just needed to get themselves some rich parents to subsidise their purchase. Unbelievable!
And it would not be overstating the situation to say that we have indeed reached crisis point. Both state and federal Liberal leaders have finally conceded that we now have an issue. This has only happened, somewhat belatedly, indeed the last month for the Prime Minister, but it is a welcome revelation. Yet, sadly, the Prime Minister is still belligerently refusing to admit that the problem is, in part, due to the excessive federal government tax concessions for property investors and understanding that that is driving the problem in the first place. The federal government spends as much as $10 billion a year on negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions for property investors. Jaw-droppingly, that is more than it spends on child care and higher education combined. It is an astonishing fact and I think most Australians would be horrified to understand the size of these tax concessions. Less than 10 per cent of Australians are benefitting from those tax concessions—I might add—and the 90 per cent that do not get the benefit are being forced to pay through ballooning property prices and to withstand insecure housing and mounting federal debt.
These expensive tax breaks create a perverse incentive for property investors to drive up house prices by chasing loss-making deals, safe in the knowledge that they will be underwritten by the Commonwealth. Not only is this unfair and a phenomenal waste of public money, but it goes nowhere near achieving its stated aim of increasing the housing supply. In fact, only seven per cent of negative gearing goes toward new properties—a stark example of a policy that has gone terribly wrong and is no longer fit for purpose. While those with the vested interest in retaining those taxpayer-funded rivers of gold like to talk about the mum and dad investors that will be hurt if the tax concessions are removed, the reality, of course, is that half the benefits of these excessive tax breaks go to the richest 10 per cent of the population. And people on taxable incomes of over $100,000 a year account for 80 per cent of the total debt for investor housing.
Another myth that gets rolled out to justify retaining negative gearing is that removing it will drive rents up. We heard that from the member just preceding me. In fact, after accounting for inflation we know that rents actually fell or flatlined in a number of cities when it was removed for a short period of time in the 1980s. As is often the case, the Turnbull government has chosen to dedicate precious taxpayers' money to those who do not need it at the expense of those who cannot afford it. They have chosen to back the landlords to buy their fifth or sixth investment property at the expense of would-be home owners desperate to secure their first home. Last week, the Commonwealth Bank warned that investors will continue to be a significant influence on house prices in 2017 and onwards until federal tax laws favouring leveraged housing investment are reformed.
It is a welcome sign that the government have admitted there is a problem, but we desperately need them to get on board and reform these outrageous tax concessions that are rendering many Australians into insecure, unaffordable housing for the rest of their lives.
Firstly, I would like to say that I agree with much of what my friend the member for Newcastle has said—not all, but much. As Chair of the Standing Committee on Economics when this inquiry began, I know that it was called out of concern for two issues: the volatility in the housing market, which is our biggest asset class; and opportunities for home owners to get into the market. There was much evidence put forward and certain conclusions have been drawn. I, like the member for Newcastle, regret that there was not a stronger set of recommendations, but maybe the recommendations will come in the form of policy.
Home ownership is now one of the most pressing issues facing communities today and, potentially, future generations. In the last 40 years, Australia has been moving from a country that celebrated the highest rate of home ownership to a country of lords: landlords. While both investors and home owners fill vital niches in this market, investors currently have an unfair advantage when buying a property, and that advantage is maintained throughout their period of ownership. If this trend is allowed to continue, fewer people will own more property, funded by those who with every year will become less able ever to have a stake in Australia. This group of aspirational home owners and their parents are rightly becoming more disenchanted at the inequity of the current tax system that so advantages the investor over those forced to rent. We need to develop a strategy of transition that transfers some of the advantages of the investor to the first home buyer.
As the chair of this committee when this inquiry was instated, I was very pleased that the Treasurer of the day agreed that these were pressing issues and set out an inquiry with such wide parameters, which allowed us to look at every nook and cranny of this complex policy area. There were many insights that this inquiry uncovered. Most telling of all is the intricate nature of Australian housing policy. We know there are no easy answers to the questions that this inquiry produced. Anybody who says it is simply a matter of cutting a tax break or building more homes does not fully grasp the details of the area. Of great concern is the level of volatility that has developed. Imprudent action could burst the bubble, with disastrous results. The transition to sounder policy must be managed so as to protect government revenues both during the period of transition and post-transition.
I took the following eight points from the inquiry: (1) that record low interest rates had a profound impact on the housing market; (2) that there is a dominance of investors over owner-occupiers; (3) opportunistic speculative investment is driving prices and volatility; (4) new, low-wage investors are entering the market with little capacity to fund interest rate rises or survive a weakening rental market; (5) there are investors with highly geared multiple properties also vulnerable to the same market factors; (6) supply is not the only factor in providing housing opportunities for first home buyers; (7) APRA's recommendation to restrict investor borrowing to 80 per cent had an immediate effect on the market; and (8) the RBA's justification for the previous interest rate was out of concern for an overcorrection and to assist homebuyers.
Much has been made about the final report presented by this committee. Many people are disappointed that no recommendations came from the large amounts of evidence that was provided to the inquiry. However, this evidence can now provide a perfect platform for all parties to go away and develop a suite of policies to even the playing field between home buyers and investors. Certainly listening in to the evidence presented has formulated a suite of policies in my mind and how we can fix this market. Firstly, we heard evidence from APRA during this inquiry that they shared concerns about the volatility of the market. The inquiry heard that when APRA pressured the banks in 2015 to reduce their loan to value ratio requirements and cap lending growth for investment loans—a measure to manage lender risk in an overheated market—investor appetite immediately cooled. This measure should be investigated for further development and refinement. As the RBA's charter obligates a responsibility to maintain the economic prosperity for the Australian people, it now appears a logical step would be for these two regulators to work cooperatively to stabilise the market. Through consultation with RBA and APRA, there could be a pre-emptive calibration to the levels of lending to investors that could add a powerful control mechanism to housing inflation. Regulators should be mandated to maintain housing inflation within a prescribed range. This would allow for predictable and timely moderation of the housing sector through macro prudential tools.
There is a lot of discussion about supply in this market. While I would contest that it is not the panacea to the problem, it will certainly have an impact on house prices. It is critical that owner-occupiers are given advantages before the new supply goes on to the market. As the system stands at the moment, new dwellings will simply be snapped up by the investor as they have in recent years. As I have said before, it is a little like, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were to play Roger Federer you would lose and if you were to play him 1,000 times, you would lose 1,000 times. That is what it is like for the home buyer when he or she is forced to play against an investor with these rules.
Following this debate, this chamber will host the debate on the inquiry that I chaired after leaving the Economics Committee. I would recommend anyone interested in the supply question to observe it or read my speech from yesterday. On the surface, it discusses the value capture funding model and the great opportunities that this has for funding high-speed rail on the eastern seaboard. However, the key purpose of this is the opening up of regions and the potential for housing supply presented by a strategic decentralisation. New cities on a fast line, 30 minutes or so out of a Sydney or a Melbourne could provide homes for millions of people. Contrary to popular belief, high-speed rail's prime purpose is not an alternate mode of transport between capitals; rather it is a tool to effect dynamic regional growth, to rebalance our settlement as land near regional stations will then compete with the most expensive land in the world—Sydney, the second most expensive city and Melbourne, the sixth most expensive city in the world. High-speed rail has the capability to provide an abundant supply of affordable housing for many generations to come. It will open up our regions and provide the space for this housing stock with the interconnections with other towns and economic hubs that is currently lacking in our suburbs.
Finally, here is a novel proposal to help people into the property ladder and save our superannuation system. If we extended superannuation to be used for purchase of an owner-occupier home rather than the existing limitation to the purchase of investment properties through self-managed funds, we would enable first-home buyers greater access into the marketplace. The proportion of the house purchased through superannuation must remain the property of the superannuation fund. In this way, using superannuation to purchase a home changes the components of the superannuation fund without reducing its net balance. Individuals should have the ability to borrow as much from the superannuation fund as possible, conditional on the home being retained as part of the superannuation fund. Selling the superannuation funded home before the superannuation fund matures will require proceeds from that sale to pay off the original super borrower. This policy is in place to ensure the superannuation fund is preserved as much as possible for retirement and does not become another source of credit. This policy does not compromise the superannuation's sole objective of providing a reasonable standard of living in retirement, as the value of the property is retained as part of the fund. This will enable first home buyers significant assistance in accessing the property market without compromising retirement savings.
These are my thoughts on how to remedy the housing affordability crisis, but I would welcome a thoughtful, nuanced discussion in this country to form a broad policy to help people get into the market, a policy that gives— (Time expired)
I want to compliment the member for Bennelong for his passion on this issue. The member for Bennelong was the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics while this committee was being undertaken, and I was a member, and I thought that it was a great pity that the government chose not to continue with the member for Bennelong's chairmanship of that committee. He did a great job and, while I do not agree with all his solutions, I admire his passion and his commitment to solving what is one of the greatest challenges in our society. Thank you, Member for Bennelong.
There can be no doubt that there is a massively increasing level of unaffordability in our housing market. The ratio of housing prices to average household disposable income has moved from around three in the 1990s to over five. This shift has coincided with a very significant change to our taxation system that I will canvass a bit later in the speech.
The increase in unaffordability of housing has been much higher in the large capital cities. I regret to say that Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth are now in the top 20 most unaffordable housing markets in the world, with Sydney the second most unaffordable and Melbourne the fifth. We have seen in the same period a big shift to an investor share in the housing market. In 1985, just nine per cent of home loans by total value were held by investors. It is now 43 per cent. At the same time, we have seen a big decline in first home ownership. In the second half of the 1990s, the average share of first home buyers in the share of total home buyers was 22 per cent. Now it is under 14 per cent. And we have seen a significant fall in those aged under 34 being able to buy a home. So we have seen declining first home ownership and younger people being shut out of the market.
At the same time, we have seen low- and middle-income earners also being shut out. Between 2002 and 2012, we saw the share of middle-income earners able to buy their home decline by 19 per cent, and for low-income earners there has been a 15 per cent fall. This has been associated with increasing inequality in our society and the rise of insecure work making it much harder for low- and middle-income Australians to buy their first home. At the same time, we have seen a very significant fall in the share of housing loans going to new housing stock. In 1992, 18 per cent of home loans were for new housing. It is now around six per cent. This is despite a very big increase in the investor share of home loans, as I alluded to before.
So we have seen increasing housing unaffordability and young people, poor people and first home buyers being shut out of the market at the same time as we have seen a very big increase in investor home loans. These trends, which are very worrying, principally have been driven by two factors. The first is the normalisation of low inflation and hence low interest rates and the decision of Peter Costello and John Howard, some of the laziest economic managers we have ever seen in this country, to introduce a massive 50 per cent discount on the capital gains tax.
The interaction of negative gearing and the 1999 capital gains tax discount has driven the rise in housing unaffordability and has shut generations out of the housing market. Before 1999, on average rental income in this country was positive—that is, housing investors paid tax because they made a profit on their rental properties. In 1999-2000, there was about $150 million of rental income that was positive and paid tax.
Since that change in capital gains tax, we have seen a massive collapse in net rental income. Each year recently, rental losses have run between $5 billion and $8 billion—that is, landlords in this country have claimed, in net terms, between $5 billion and $8 billion of rental losses that then reduce their taxable income against other income. Expenses claimed as a percentage of gross rental yield have increased from 98 per cent in 1999 to 123 per cent. Each landlord, on average, is claiming $5 in expenses for every $4 of gross rental income they are receiving, and that is a very worrying trend.
And why is this occurring? It is because of the negative gearing for taxation treatment interacting with the capital gains. So what we see now is a very large number of landlords happy to lose money on their annual returns from their rental property; they are speculating that they will get a significant capital gain that they will then receive a 50 per cent discount on when they sell that property. The Reserve Bank, in its testimony at our hearings in Sydney, has said that there is no doubt this is a factor in the massive price explosion post-1999 and that there was a case for reviewing the treatment of negative gearing and interaction with capital gains tax. Most experts in this sector not in the pay of the property sector agree with this analysis. You just have to look at the fact that rental yields, on average, are well below share yields. If a rational investor saw a gap between how much they would make off their rental property and how much off investing in shares, they would flow to shares as the better asset class. They are not doing that because of the capital gains tax discount and their long-term speculation.
There is no economic justification to privilege capital gains over other income streams. There is no economic justification. They are all forms of income. They should all be treated equally. It demonstrates the in-built class bias of the conservatives in this country. This is the real class war, where they reward the owners of capital over workers who receive income, in general, for their labour, rather than as a capital gain. And who benefits from this? The discount on capital gains tax costs taxpayers $4 billion a year, and 75 per cent of that benefit goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners—75 per cent to the top 10 per cent of income earners. Negative gearing costs $3.7 billion a year, and 50 per cent of that goes to the top 20 per cent of income earners. This is clearly unaffordable and massively inequitable.
By contrast, Labor has developed a sensible policy to tackle housing unaffordability, principally by limiting negative gearing to new housing stock. Investors should be welcome to negatively gear if it increases the housing supply by investing in new housing. And we will reduce the capital gains tax discount to 25 per cent, which effectively deals with real capital gains, rather than nominal capital gains through inflation. Importantly, we will grandfather existing investments so we do not change the tax treatment for people who have made decisions already. This is a sensible policy directed at tackling housing unaffordability, unlike the view of the Liberal coalition government.
I would like to deal with a few myths that have been perpetuated in this debate—firstly, that the negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions are driving new housing supply. This is patently wrong. As we have seen, new housing has fallen from 18 per cent of home loans to six per cent. Secondly, the myth that the experience of the mid-1980s, when negative gearing was abolished, somehow lead to massive rent rises is absolutely wrong. Treasury, in their evidence to our committee, confirmed that there was no case for someone to make that conclusion. Rents went up in Sydney and Perth because of the finance and mining boom; rents fell in Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide. Rental price increases roughly tracked the general price increase. Thirdly, the myth that the benefits of negatively gearing disproportionately go to low-income earners is patently wrong. I have already outlined the distributional benefit, and the RBA testified in our hearings that most of the people, if not all of the people, with very low taxable income who claim negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts are actually wealthy retirees who have most of their income exempt due to another decision from Peter Costello.
The Liberals' response to housing unaffordability has been a joke. Except for some voices in the wilderness, like the member for Bennelong, they have been silent or have come up with ridiculous propositions. We saw the Treasurer highlight excesses in negative gearing but then get rolled in cabinet by the Prime Minister, in a vain attempt to gain a petty political advantage from this. Their solutions have ranged from telling workers to get a good job to having wealthy parents, or the most ridiculous of all, the Deputy Prime Minister saying people should move to Tamworth to own a new home. This is wrong. It demonstrates how economically illiterate the coalition is on this matter. Just imagine saying to a nurse or a police person in the outer suburbs of our capital cities, 'The only way you can own a new home is either by a stroke of luck of having rich parents, by giving up your job providing a vital service to our community or by moving to Tamworth.' I am sure Tamworth deserves a few more policemen and nurses but not at the expense of Sydney or Brisbane.
This is a deeply important issue. It goes to what sort of society we have: whether it is a just society that is equitable that gives average workers a chance of having the economic security of owning their own homes. It is a serious debate. Labor is taking it seriously by putting forward concrete solutions that have strong support in the general community. I only wish the government would come on board, take the politics out of this and try and help achieve a solution to this vital economic issue.
This report was timely and important in 2015; it is now critical. The report we have before us today is a history almost as colourful as one of those fabled, colourful Sydney racing identities of yesteryear. It is a textbook or comic book study in what happens when a government feels the urge to do the right thing by the community at large but cannot quite find the perfect moment to break the bad news to those who might not see things quite its way so prefers to do nothing.
This saga begins on 24 April 2015 with the former Treasurer Joe Hockey handing the House Economics Committee a fairly broad reference on home ownership. The inquiry chaired by the excellent member for Bennelong, Mr John Alexander, began work in May 2015 with public hearings starting on 26 June. Treasurer Hockey resigned from parliament in October 2015, observing in his last speech to the House of Representatives that negative gearing should be skewed towards new housing so that there is an incentive to add to the housing stock rather than an incentive to speculate on existing property. It soon becomes clear that the member for Bennelong and other members of the Economics Committee are thinking along similar lines to the former Treasurer. The member for Bennelong is even reported as saying that Australia was turning from a Commonwealth with huge home ownership into a kingdom made up of landlords and serfs. Those comments notwithstanding, the member for Bennelong remains a proponent of incremental reform. For his troubles, the member for Bennelong finds himself no longer chair of the housing inquiry in September 2015 and the relevant committee fails to report for the prorogation of the parliament for the July 2016 election.
For four months after that election, inexplicably, the inquiry remains incomplete because the Treasurer will not renew the committee's reference. Whether it was to appease the member for Bennelong or simply blunt almost universal criticism of the shelving of the inquiry, the Treasurer belatedly reactivated the inquiry on 22 November under a new chair with a short reporting time of 16 December. In the interim, the Labor Party in February 2016 has announced the core elements of a policy in terms of former Treasurer Hockey to skew negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions so that they promote the construction of new dwellings instead of further amping up speculative and investor demand for existing housing.
Post election, the Turnbull gamble, an increasingly prescient title, reveals that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and, presumably, their departmental advisers were once in favour of winding back the excesses of negative gearing and had taken a proposal to cabinet before the 2016 election but could not get it adopted. A re-elected Turnbull government mostly continues to duck and weave on the issue. The government's rhetoric veers from the sublime to the completely absurd, sometimes constructive and hopeful but mostly evasive. When all else fails, others, including Liberal states, get the blame. Some have had enough obfuscation—for example, the comments by Minister Rob Stokes, the former New South Wales Minister for Planning, regarding negative gearing: 'Exotic supply-side solutions are floated as the best way forward, even though the RBA is on record in evidence to the committee as pointing to their limitations. The latest variant on such contradictory themes accuses those for pressing for stronger action of favouring silver bullet solutions.' This does not, though, prevent the Deputy Prime Minister telling the nation to stop pining for an affordable house in Sydney with water views and go bush—go way bush, even to Charleville. This in turn provokes a certain amount of uncharitable eye-rolling amongst anyone who has recently scanned situations vacant columns in rural Australia. Many soon conclude that this is the Mad Hatter's variant on instant solutions to affordable housing.
The dust has barely settled and yet another fresh start was promised by the PM in his Press Club address on 1 February. Even so, the government, publicly at least, has not changed course but continues to leak some rather bizarre solutions. They continue to favour incremental measures to increase housing supply. These are universally recognised as having a role, but few believe they can readily plug an $11 billion hole in the federal budget or instantly put first-home buyers on a level playing field with highly geared investors. A fresh burst of incrementalism now would only be truly useful if we could turn the clock back to 1999 and tell the Howard government not to link negative gearing with a 50 per cent capital gains tax concession. Those measures changed a nation of 1.3 million tax-paying landlords, who made a collective profit of almost $700 million in 1998-99, into a country of 1.8 million landlords making, astoundingly, a $7.8 billion tax loss in 2010-11. That is shameful.
I have spoken previously about the ills and weaknesses of the housing market, the misallocation of resources, the drain on the federal budget, the inequity in excluding ever increasing numbers of the under-45s and the over-65s from the housing market and the lack of affordable and suitable rental accommodation. These are all major public policy failures, but this government's manipulation of the Standing Committee on Economics' inquiry into housing ownership can only be described as shameful and negligent, as is its treatment of the committee's former chair. It is insulting too to all those who put a lot of effort into preparing and making detailed submissions to the committee. Much of that work is really extremely valuable.
In the late 1960s, Senator Lionel Murphy and others encountered massive scepticism when trying to establish the Senate's extensive system of standing and investigative committees. It is my belief that one reason people are very sceptical and dismissive of politicians is parliament's inability to respond to committee findings in a meaningful way. Could the parliament rise above itself and conduct fair-minded inquiries into complex matters and report on them in a clear-headed and sensible way? Would partisan politics render the whole exercise as an expensive farce? That is what the housing inquiry is.
The majority of the report we are noting today, and its lamentable backstory, raises too many questions about House of Representatives committees. How can House committees ever do good work or be taken seriously when they are subject to such overt and ham-fisted levels of executive government control? Any government members who report on one of the great issues of the day and make no recommendations to speak of should get a fail any day. Who would really seriously sign off on a report on the complex and difficult issues associated with home ownership and affordability without some reference to the budgetary impact of negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions? You have to wonder too how much time the committee's majority members were really given to weigh up what was put before them, and there are several examples in the report of this. Paragraph 2.55 of the majority report, in what has to be one of the great understatements of all time, observes:
There are clearly some pockets of the market, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, where prices may be inflated. However, this is not a reflection of the Australian housing market as a whole and does not therefore affect the majority of Australians.
What a joke! Large swathes of Sydney and Melbourne are 'pockets'? Forty per cent of our population is being ignored by this inquiry—such small beer that they can be ignored! If the highly leveraged Sydney market ever suffered a bust, that would not affect the national economy. I really do not believe it.
There are several other things that are really very unusual about this report. The government members of the committee also seem inclined to believe that even tailored cuts to existing tax concessions would produce either a landlord strike or a sharp rise in rents. That is notwithstanding strong contradictory arguments from some of the experts, such as independent people like Saul Eslake. Lastly, there is a claim in paragraph 2.58 that says:
… rates of home ownership … have remained broadly steady for many decades …
That is not true. What has happened is that home ownership peaked in the sixties and there has been gentle decline since then, which has been more rapid recently. Where we were once a world leader, we are now closer to the middle range of developed countries in terms of homeownership, and we are slipping further behind. That ignores also the changes in the composition of home ownership, where there has been a steady decline in home ownership for those aged 25 to 45.
What was Honest Joe's parting attempt to set things right has become a saga of false starts and damage control from a government that are desperately hoping that younger and disadvantaged voters will not get any angrier with them than they already are. People that I saw as a paediatrician, hardworking families, now tell me they will no longer ever be able to afford a home. That is shameful in Australia. If you want a case study about why the public has just about given up on politicians, you would not have to look further than this inquiry. We need to act now to bring first-home buyers back into the market and reduce the huge financial advantage that investors have over the first-home buyers, who are mostly young families. It is time.
I rise to talk on the Report on the inquiry into homeownership, by the Standing Committee on Economics, as well. It is disappointing that there were no recommendations that came from that committee. I would like to put on the record for those in the parliament and for those people in my electorate that Australians love property. Australians love investing in property. I think you would find that, regardless of some of the concessions for investors that are currently in place, Australians invest in property because they understand it. They know that bricks and mortar are generally a safe investment, because in this country over the years property investment has continued to go up and up and up. Not as many people understand the share market or have had experience in the share market, so naturally property investment is a safe investment.
I do not think it is just investors who are causing property prices to go up. If you look at self-managed super funds and so forth, more people are investing in property, not because they get a tax deduction—because they do not in that case—and not because they can negatively gear it, because they cannot that case. It is because it is a safe investment. It is because they understand that bricks and mortar are something that continues to go up, and they are confident in investing in that area.
My concern is that those opposite make out that scrapping negative gearing and tax concessions will all of a sudden make it so much more affordable for people trying to enter the market. I want to say to people in my electorate: if only it were that simple. If only I could stand here and say, 'Yes, let's do what they want to do and scrap negative gearing, scrap those incentives for investors, and all of a sudden you'll be able to own your own house.' They make it sound so simple, but the fact is that some of the comments from my senior coalition colleagues are very true and are also open to young people in my electorate.
I bought my first home when I was about 23. It cost me $93,000, I think, at the time, and I was earning about $27,000 a year working full time in retail. That was quite a lot of money, and it was hard for me to buy it back then. But my father obviously taught me. He said: 'Luke, this is a good thing to do. Invest younger'—
An opposition member interjecting—
Sorry, what was that?
An opposition member: Why did you leave retail?
That was off topic, but thanks for your interruption! Please listen. He said, 'Look, it's a good thing to invest in and get involved in,' so I took the plunge. He encouraged me to save from a young age.
To say to young people that there is some sort of easier path than saving for a deposit, working hard and trying to put away money to invest is simply going to leave people disappointed. In years to come, if this policy or incentive that is currently in place is abolished, I think you will find a decade later that those opposite advocating for this might just look silly, because it is not as simple as, 'Let's scrap those procedures, and then all of a sudden young people will be able to invest.'
Let us not forget, as well, that the state governments also have massive increases in state stamp duty for investors, so to say that there is no barrier for investors is not altogether true. In most cases stamp duty is double the cost for investors compared to owner-occupiers. It certainly is in Queensland. So to say that there are no disincentives is not true.
For those opposite to say, 'If we get rid of negative gearing and we get rid of incentives for investors, rents will not go up,' I think is also not true. If investors cannot negatively gear then of course they will need to positively gear. Of course they will need to make more in rent than what interest payments to hold that property are going to cost them. It is just common sense. I know that the Labor Party scrapped this policy before, years ago. Then it was quickly reimplemented.
The other thing you have to look at, too, is some of the comments by the Deputy Prime Minister on first home buyers. I think one was, 'Go bush. Move out to Tamworth or to the electorate of New England.' Right now in my electorate you can buy a house for $300,000 in some suburbs. Part of my electorate is in Brisbane. Thirty per cent of my electorate is in Brisbane. Seventy per cent is in Moreton Bay. In the suburbs in Moreton Bay you can pick up a house for $300,000. There is a rail line into the heart of Brisbane city. It takes about an hour. So there are places you can buy for around that in my electorate. Other places in the southern end of my electorate, closer to Brisbane city, are much more expensive. They are probably up around the $600,000 or $700,000 mark. That is not like Sydney, though, which is well over the top. In Brisbane City Council in Bald Hills you can also buy houses in my electorate for around $400,000. So to say that capital cities everywhere are unaffordable is not true.
I will say for the benefit of those opposite and other people in my party that I am finding that there are younger people now who are becoming a bit more savvy. I will just pick up the Deputy Prime Minister's comment again that, 'You can move bush and have a bit of a lifestyle change.' Sure. But also more and more young people now want to live in the city in units. They want to live where the entertainment is. They want to live where the shopping centre is. They want to live where the night-life is. Often they will buy a property for $300,000 or $400,000 and live in that property for six to 12 months. They might get a couple of their mates to move in with them. Then sometimes they will rent it out after that and go rent themselves at a unit in the city. So they are also able to take advantage of the incentives that are in place for investors. Not everyone wants to nest and live in their own home. Some are quite happy to buy a property in a different area, rent somewhere else, pay that off, use those investments and then make a bit of a capital gain so they can buy a bit closer in.
I raise these issues in particular because I do not want people to think that it is all so simple. We need to be educating young people about money. We need to be encouraging young people to save, just like my dad did with me. He encouraged me to save. He encouraged me to invest. My dad left school when he was 10. He only went to year 5. He has done very well for himself. Something I try to do when I talk to the young people in Petrie is encourage them to set goals. I ask, 'What is it that you want to achieve in 2017?' If they listen to those opposite they will tell them that home ownership is never going to happen and that young people are incapable of it. I say, 'That is not true.' I say, 'Set yourself some goals.'
One of the things that the former Treasurer said is, 'Get a better paying job.' Perhaps he could have used a bit more tact and not said it so bluntly, I agree, but there is truth in what he said, isn't there? There is truth in the fact that we all want to work our way up and get a better paying job. That happens over time. The older you get the more experienced you get, the more education you get and the more opportunities you get. We are finding now that fewer people are in the same job for 20, 30 or 40 years. We are finding that more people have three or four careers in their lifetime.
The Prime Minister mentioned that parents may help out with loans. In some cases they are able to do that—that is true—but it is not in all cases. Not in all cases in my electorate are parents in a position to help out. But in some cases that may be true. That is a good thing. But we should not discount all of that advice as though it is crazy. Let's look at this thing in context and let's not promise the world to people as though one little change that we make in this place around investment is all of a sudden going to make it so that they are able to own their own home. Everyone has that opportunity. I say to every young person in my electorate: you can do what you want to do. It does not matter if you are uneducated and you left school in year 10. You are able to go back and get an education and do what you are able to do. So let's not limit ourselves and, to those opposite, let's not make promises that this one little change will all of a sudden make a difference where everyone will be able to achieve home ownership and that the way things are now no-one will. In my experience there are some places in the electorate that are still affordable. Yes, house prices have gone up, but that is not such a bad thing. We would not want prices to come down and for people to be left with mortgages and a lot of outstanding debt.
I rise to speak on the report of the Standing Committee on Economics on the inquiry into home ownership. I note that the dissenting report from Labor MPs describes this report as a remarkable document in that it offers no recommendations to government—none, zip, zero. There has been an inquiry and a 55-page report, and the committee has no recommendations, no suggestions on how this government can improve home ownership and make it easier for young people, particularly, to own their own home.
I note with interest the contribution of the member for Bennelong, who was formerly the chair of this committee before being removed from that position. He made some good points. But he said that he wanted a sophisticated and nuanced debate and a suite of policies. I am here to say that Labor has those policies. We have thought about the nuances revolving around homeownership.
As noted in the Labor MPs' dissenting report, the difficulty for first home buyers entering the market is of prime concern to the Labor members of the committee. As Labor has publicly stated time and time again, home ownership rates for young people aged between 25 and 34 have fallen from 60 to 48 per cent. These are big numbers in anyone's terms. Young people are being forced to take on levels of debt unimaginable just a few decades ago.
With all respect to the member for Petrie's father, who taught him to save and to be sensible with money, that is a thing that all parents hope to hand on to their children. But I have to say to you, sir, that, while we are having this debate, most of us are here in this parliament have clearly no clue what some people are going through and the angst that they are having in that desperate plight to scrape together a huge deposit for even a modest home. We have seen the increases, and it is no longer just a case of, 'Work hard and save your money and you'll be okay.' That is clearly not the reality anymore.
Herein lies the important policy recommendations made to the government by Labor. Negative gearing has increased the number of investors and levels of investment in housing, and this has meant housing has become more expensive. I note there is talk about us wanting to scrap negative gearing carte blanche. That is just not the case. We are grandfathering. We are saying to investors: if you currently have a property that is negatively geared, it will not change. We are not silly. We realise that there are people out there who have made investments. We respect those investment choices, and that needs to be more clearly stated. If you have a property that is currently negatively geared, it will remain negatively geared. So, contrary to what the government is pedalling, we are not talking about scrapping all negative gearing. Of course we are not.
Negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount have driven record numbers of investors into the property market. As my colleague the member for Shortland mentioned just a few moments ago, it is the interaction between these two taxes that is driving people to invest in residential property in record numbers. Loans for rental properties have been rapidly increasing. They have grown from 16 per cent of loans to 40 per cent of loans in the last 23 years. It is that direct interplay between capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing that has caused that increase—it is basic economics, really—and the influx of investors into the market has increased demand for and put upward pressure on house prices. There is no mention made of this in the report and there is no mention made of homelessness. I just want to touch on that because that is also a direct impact of this.
Homelessness still remains unacceptably high in our developed Australia. According to the 2011 census—and who would know, based on the current one—105,000 people, or one in 200 Australians, are experiencing homelessness on any given night, and this is a direct reason for it. Little is made in this report of housing stress, as well, and that is a disgrace. ABS data reports that there were 657,000 low-income households across Australia living in rental stress, and 318,000 low-income households in mortgage stress in 2013-14. That stress is unbearable and the amount of pressure it places on families is—until you have lived in that stress you do not know. For young families in Australia, the dream of purchasing and owning their own home is almost completely out of reach.
Our plan—that is, Labor's plan—will ensure first home buyers are not forced to compete with property speculators, who may be buying their seventh, eighth or ninth property to negatively gear it. The Labor members from the committee recommended reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts to ensure that our tax system is fair, sustainable and that it targets jobs and growth. The government should limit negative gearing to new housing from 1 July this year. All investments made before this date, as I mentioned earlier, will not be affected and the change will be grandfathered, and that is such an important point. This will mean that taxpayers will continue to be able to deduct net rental losses against their income, providing the losses come from newly constructed housing. This policy will see a boost in new housing and will provide young families with the chance to find a home, and that is what most young families want to do. Not every young family; some young families are happy to rent, but everyone wants a home. It will take pressure off inner-city housing markets that are predominantly made up of existing dwellings. This will also lead to new jobs for construction industry people, with independent analysis from the McKell Institute estimating that these policy settings would result in an additional 25,000 jobs. The independent Parliamentary Budget Office has indicated Labor's policy will also raise an additional $565 million over the forward estimates and $32.1 billion over the decade.
What the government needs to do is listen to Labor's recommendations. Recommendation 1: the government limit negative gearing to new housing from 1 July this year. All investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered. Recommendation 2: the government halve the capital gains discount for all assets purchased after 1 July this year. This will reduce the capital gains discount for assets that are held for longer than 12 months from the current 50 per cent to 25 per cent. All investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered. We have the nuance. This is a sophisticated recommendation. The committee supports the maintenance of existing negative gearing arrangements, incidentally, but if this inquiry is really about uncovering policy settings that will give Australians a fair chance of becoming home owners, the government must listen. Home ownership rates in Australia are amongst the highest in developed nations. They have been declining, though, across age groups other than the oldest cohort for over a decade.
With regard to home ownership rates, the Australian Bureau of Statistics informed the committee that their survey of income and housing has indicated a decline from 71 per cent to 67 per cent between 1994 and the 2011-12 survey. The Reserve Bank has said that, although the tax system does not discriminate against asset classes in terms of the ability of an investor to negatively gear them, there is a far higher capacity to leverage property than any other type of asset. The Reserve Bank has also said that negative gearing has increased the number of investors and levels of investment in housing, and thereby made house prices higher than they would otherwise have been. And it has said that negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts have driven record numbers of investors into the property markets.
The interaction between these two treatments is driving people to invest in residential property in record numbers. This has put upward pressure on housing prices, making it unaffordable for an increasing number of Australians. That is the Reserve Bank saying that; that is not anyone with a political bias. Although negative gearing is more commonly used by modest-income earners than other mechanisms to reduce tax, such as superannuation tax concessions or family trusts, the claims for benefits of negative gearing are five times as prevalent among people in the top tax bracket. As my fellow colleagues have said, with capital gains, 75 per cent of the benefits are going to the top 10 per cent. The greatest housing stress is currently faced by the very low income renters. Particularly vulnerable are older people, those relying on government benefits and others with a fixed income.
The member for Petrie said before that we cannot stand here and make a simple change. I think that we must make these changes. Some of our fellow Australians do not have a place to call home at all and others, desperate to own their own home, are being priced out of the market. How dare any of us be in this place and take up a seat without doing something about it? It is a great shame.
I rise to speak and make some comments on the Report on the inquiry into home ownership. I was not planning to do so—I was here on chamber duty—but I have actually had a cathartic moment. I have listened to the debate—and there have been some sensible points made—and was inspired to add a few words. I want to record my thanks, in particular, for the sensible and very measured contribution and tone of the member for Bennelong and, indeed, also some of the comments from the member for Petrie—I say 'some'.
I shared a meal last night, by accident, with the member for Bennelong. I think that, with problems like this that are complex, we would do a better job if we spent some time actually talking around where we can agree and find common solutions. It is a critical issue, and there are different ways you can measure or think about making public policy. Unfortunately, the member for Petrie seems to rely more on anecdotes than data. It is lovely, I am sure, that there are a few affordable houses still left in his electorate, as he recounted to us, but, as has been said, we have to look at the data. On any reasonable measure, whether it is average prices to incomes, median prices to median incomes or repayment ability, housing affordability in this country is stuffed.
The point that the member for Petrie made, in one sense, is fine: of course we want rising prices in housing—but modestly rising prices. I cannot understand how anyone could say that the price rises that we have seen on the average or the median in the last 10 to 20 years are in any way desirable or sustainable. No society would want house prices to continue to outstrip the growth in incomes in the way we have seen. If you were drawing it as a curve—I am not sure how the Hansard records finger gestures; I do not think it does—the steepness of the curve is completely unsustainable.
Another way that we as elected representatives gauge sentiment and where we need to put our efforts and thinking is, of course, through community feedback. I, like others, have been bombarded in the last few months. The despair at their sense that they would never be able to afford their own home was certainly one of those barbecue stoppers over the summer break amongst young people—my daughter, who is 20, and her friends. But it is not just young people, of course; it is parents and grandparents worried about their children's and grandchildren's ability to have what they have taken for granted.
Sledging will not help. I will make a few critical remarks, but I will try to do them in a way which echoes and follows the tone of the member for Bennelong, and perhaps we may get somewhere. I do agree with the member for Petrie: there is no simple solution. Equally, I think he was profoundly wrong to suggest or assert that we on this side would claim that negative-gearing and capital gains tax reform was going to solve the problem. Manifestly, that is not the case. We would never claim that that will suddenly make housing affordable for everyone, but we do, with a lot of evidence behind us, put forward the proposition that this is absolutely essential as one part of the puzzle to, at the very least, stop the problem continuing to get vastly worse.
I had a hallelujah moment. I just record that the member for Bennelong's point 6 in his propositions sounded a lot to me, frankly, like the recommendations that he thought of before he was sacked by the government as chair of the committee—the kinds of recommendations that he would like to make—and they are a sensible set of propositions. Point 6 was a recognition that supply is not the only factor. Who knew! We have demand as well! I thought those who were the greatest proponents of free markets might remember that there is demand and supply, but apparently it is all the state and local governments' fault—head in the sand!
Of course, we have seen with the election of this government that we have no minister for housing, no national housing plan, stalling on the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and, indeed, moves to abolish one of the few Commonwealth mechanisms to keep an eye on supply, which was the National Housing Supply Council.
It is true to say that the majority of supply issues are within the province of state and local governments. As someone who, almost 20 years ago, was the mayor of a major inner metropolitan council and then served as executive director of metropolitan planning in the public service for Melbourne and Victoria, I know quite a lot about the difficulties and the challenges. But I do know that critical evidence—updated, market-based information about supply—is absolutely essential for governments to make good policy and release supply.
If you look across Australia, not all of the states have that data in the right form. I think there is a legitimate Commonwealth role, if you like, to shine the mirror back at the states and to have a basic, common set of data as to how we are going and which cities need to improve. Melbourne, of course, is leading the pack in that regard, I think—and not just because some very wise people helped to establish the program many years ago.
With regard to demand, I do have to make a couple of comments on negative gearing and capital gains tax, and they have to be bundled together. There is a political objective, I understand, by those opposite, through the heat of an election campaign, to send out the myth—the untruth—that Labor is trying to abolish negative gearing. That is completely untrue—completely untrue. What we have said is for an evidence based, sensible proposition to refocus negative gearing and to put it to work to add to supply: there is a supply initiative that the Commonwealth could think about. I think now that only in the order of seven per cent of negatively geared properties are new properties. That was never the intention when that tax concession was introduced. It was not intended to be the vehicle by which if you were someone with a few spare dollars—let's say, people in this room; we are well paid so let's say we had a few spare dollars—then the most rational thing to do now is perverse. It is to go to an auction and bid up the cost of an existing house. That is nonsensical. We cannot maintain and seriously defend the situation where the most rational thing to do and which the tax system rewards is to keep pushing up the cost of housing.
I might note also that we hear a lot in the House of Reps in a sort of automated and repetitive fashion about the importance of growing investment. Despite the lack of evidence, apparently if we give tax cuts to multinationals to take offshore somehow that is going to grow domestic investment. But anyway, putting aside magic pudding economics for a moment: we could have a veritable golden shower of investment, we might argue, if we rebalanced the current tax arrangements to encourage people that rather than putting their spare money into an unproductive use in the economy—to bid up the cost of existing housing and therefore have to force up of the cost of rents to recoup repayments for unsustainably rising prices—we could encourage them to put their spare capital into the real economy, to invest in businesses and to grow jobs. There is an idea for you! I think that other people like the World Bank, the IMF, the Reserve Bank and respected economic commentators have already passed that little gem onto the government.
Fundamentally, I think we have both a political and a policy problem. We do have—notwithstanding the member for Hughes, who tends to know more than the experts, be it on energy policy or anything else—a broad consensus amongst the experts. Respected economic commentators and independent economic agencies all say that we should refocus negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. This is one, but by no means a sufficient, solution to start to deal with the problem of housing affordability. As has been well recorded, the government's Treasurer, Treasurer Hockey, when he was leaving the parliament, pointed this out in no uncertain terms. Unfortunately, the current Prime Minister and Treasurer got rolled in cabinet.
But in the spirit of responding to the member for Bennelong and some of his ideas, the tax reforms do stop the problem getting worse. But there are other ideas to add. He outlined some which I had not thought about in relation to superannuation and some of the changes there. Perhaps they are things that we could consider. There was a 2015 report by the Senate Economics Committee, I think, which I am part-way through reading, actually. It is still a pretty good report. It is only a couple of years old and it has a very comprehensive look. It has a couple of hundred pages about all of the supply-and-demand factors, and the member for Bennelong and others interested in this would be well advised to have a look at that as opposed to the ridiculous report we are considering now, which has no recommendations. I also commend the work of AHURI, particularly in relation to looking at how we can increase the supply of affordable rental accommodation for those not in a position to or not interested in seeking home ownership.
The other thing I would say in the time remaining is that we do seem to have lost our way in this debate, with the overfocus on tax arrangements. Housing is for living. This is a truism; I could write this in a fortune cookie, you might think. Housing is for people to live in. That has to be the public policy purpose of us thinking and talking about housing. It should not be a conversation solely about how we get investments and investment arrangements right. In that regard, the inquiry's scope was, I think, too narrow. It was just focused on home ownership. When we are thinking about how to deal with the housing affordability problem—do people have somewhere affordable, reliable and secure to live and call home?—we have to pay the same amount of regard to the whole spectrum of issues, which includes rental ownership.
I for one think Labor's policy is worth pursuing and it is a platform on which we can build, but no-one has ever said it is sufficient, and we can propose more. There are things like co-ownership models, of which Western Australia has some experience and there is international experience, and how we get rental accommodation at scale. If the Treasurer ever returns from England with some ideas, we should listen to them; perhaps they will be good.
In closing, I commend the member for Bennelong and those opposite prepared to engage in some sensible, moderate debate, because we cannot do this with one party or one level of government alone. It is a problem that can only be addressed through cooperation amongst levels of government.
Debate adjourned.
I rise today to speak on this most recent report from the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, entitled Harnessing value, delivering infrastructure: inquiry into the role of transport connectivity on stimulating development and economic activity. Probably one of the great challenges and indeed opportunities that lie before this parliament, this government and our nation is to look at ways of improving transport connectivity across this vast continent. I certainly welcome this report and strongly support its recommendation that Australia needs to start planning our high-speed-rail network in earnest. I sincerely hope in fact that the release of this report and perhaps today's debate in this chamber help drive some action from this government, which has been so lacking to date.
There is no doubt that we desperately need to develop long-term plans for the future of our cities and our towns. Clearly, transport infrastructure is a critical component of town and city planning, and it is critical for the servicing of future generations. That is possibly one of the most pressing issues for our capital cities in particular at the moment. So we clearly have a need to look forward and to engage in strategic planning about what those cities—and, beyond the cities, the regional centres—should look like into the future. It is that forward planning that allows us not only to really start responding to today's problems as they arise but start to prepare and capitalise for the opportunities of tomorrow.
The report provides a considered analysis of these issues confronting us now. Those of us on this side of the House, anyway, have long argued that Australia needs to get moving on high-speed rail. I know that my colleague and friend the member for Grayndler will be speaking to this report soon. He has been a champion of the high-speed-rail project here in this parliament for a very long time, a matter which I will come to later in speaking on this report. Labor have been a strong advocate of high-speed rail because we understand that this is a massive game changer for the nation. It would open up the entire east coast and turbocharge regional economies in cities like Newcastle, the one I represent. The interconnectivity between those capital cities via our regional centres would become completely enlivened and engaged by a whole lot of new opportunities that present as a result of high-speed rail.
High-speed rail was certainly a transformational force in our country, decentralising the population. I heard members in the last debate, in fact, refer to the need to decentralise services, agencies and populations in the nation. Well, you cannot do that unless you have genuine connectivity back to cities and indeed other regional centres. High-speed rail is very much that element that would enable you to embark on decentralisation of the population and bring growth and greater prosperity into the regional centres. Deputy Speaker Wicks, I know you represent a regional centre not far from my own and that you know just what that could mean for the towns and suburbs that we represent.
It would indeed deliver new markets, create business opportunities, drive investment and, of course, create much needed jobs. It would help to relieve some of the ever-increasing population pressures that face our large capital cities. As I said, in my home town of Newcastle we stand to benefit enormously from an east coast high-speed rail network, as do many other regional centres and towns along the route.
The report before us today found that the high-speed rail link could carry around 84 million passengers a year when fully operational. Even if only a fraction of that passenger movement were to come in and out of cities like Newcastle, we would see a massive boost to our entire region. With an estimated 39-minute trip from Newcastle to Sydney, it would be entirely possible for you to live in Newcastle and commute to Sydney for work or indeed vice versa. Not only would this deliver growth and drive prosperity in my home city; it would help to reduce the burden on Sydney's resources and services.
One of the key recommendations from this report is that, if we are to harness the economic and social benefits of a high-speed rail network, all levels of government need to start planning for it now. We on this side of the chamber have long understood this. In fact, when we were in government we commissioned a feasibility study into the matter. That study found that, for every dollar spent on high-speed rail in the first section between Sydney and Melbourne, the project would return $2.15 in economic benefit to surrounding communities, making this an absolutely viable project.
As a result of that feasibility study, the former Labor government then appointed an expert panel comprising of the former Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, the Business Council of Australia Chief Executive, Jennifer Westacott and the late Bryan Nye of the Australasian Railway Association. They were tasked with the job of recommending what sort of practical steps would need to be taken to advance this project. The panel recommended the creation of an authority that would with the governments of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and ACT work cooperatively together across the four different jurisdictions on detailed planning and corridor acquisition. The former Labor government had allocated $52 million to that planning authority to ensure that vital work could be done so that we could identify and protect that transport corridor. We know that without that planning authority the 1,748 kilometres that is required is absolutely in jeopardy. Not only will the project never get started if we do not preserve that corridor now; it will forever endanger the project if we do not do it now because no-one can control urban sprawl across four states and territories without a coordinator authority to do so.
Regretfully, when the Abbott government took office in 2013 it chose to axe the $52 million that was allocated to the planning authority for a high-speed rail network—very short-sighted thinking at the time. Indeed, to my great regret, and to the Labor Party's great regret, to date that money has not been reallocated into the budget so that we might in fact embark on a genuine exercise of identifying and then protecting a transport corridor so that the most important infrastructure project that this government could possibly embark on—the high-speed rail network—could in fact happen.
I would strongly urge this government to take this opportunity now to, in fact, come in and support the member for Grayndler's private member's bill that is again before this parliament. It was reintroduced into the new parliament. It was a bill that helped establish that planning authority. It is exactly what is required to kickstart this project and bring it back on track. That bill not only sets out a means of creating that authority but it also requires it to move the project forward to the expressions of interest phase—again, such an important part. Today I again call on the government to support the member for Grayndler's private member's bill before this House. This is an opportunity too good to miss, and it is really time for this government to get this project back on track. (Time expired)
It is not often that I rise in the House to speak on the outcome of a committee inquiry, so let me just say this one has captured my imagination and passion for regional development well before it became a topic for a committee inquiry. Early in 2016 our backbench committee, chaired by John Alexander, the member for Bennelong, was briefed by a number of groups presenting some very forward-thinking concepts for delivering much needed infrastructure and regional development at little or no cost to the government. We were asked: what if 26 to 28 per cent of residents in Melbourne and Sydney who love the city life but really hate the daily drag of driving to the city, paying tolls, finding parking, looking for long day care for their children were given an opportunity to live in a city environment without the hassles of city life? What if a digital, environmentally sustainable city could be built with a range of housing models, most of which would resolve the affordable housing issues, and enable employment? What if that could happen?
This is a visionary possibility and it relates to the core of the inquiry. That information was presented by the consortia with development and very fast travel front and centre of the concept. It is a forward-thinking change of planning and yet it is an achievable goal. The initial briefings were prosecuted by the committee to raise these to inquiry level, and the result is that the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities initiated this inquiry, entitled Inquiry into the role of transport connectivityon stimulating development and economic activity.
In Gilmore, my residents, businesses and entrepreneurs know and are concerned with the lack of transport connectivity. We know this is hampering business growth, employment and potential development, but the concepts of value capture for land zoning and consequent development go well beyond the local regional level. The first paragraph in the committee report says:
Transport connectivity is one of the pressing issues of the 21st Century. Australia is facing challenges of growing populations, urban congestion, changing patterns of settlement and the need for enhanced accessibility to employment and markets. These challenges need new and innovative solutions to the development of transport infrastructure. Solutions must also be found for integrating transport and land-use planning, financing transport infrastructure, and putting in place effective governance structures.
One of the primary motives included the potential for high-speed rail to act as a catalyst for economic and social transformation in regional development. You actually cannot have regional development unless you address the transport issue. The inquiry also investigated the economic benefits, the wealth creation that comes from improved transport connectivity.
There were significant factors to consider, and these included the benefits gained from 'value creation' and 'uplift'—terms we will talk about later—the role of the government in coordinating improved transport connectivity, the role of value capture and other economic instruments, and delivering infrastructure. We need to improve this transport connectivity to get better employment, to get product to markets. There have got to be cost savings in terms of reduced transit times, less traffic in the cities and reduced transport costs. Just imagine a string of cities between Sydney and Melbourne connected by very fast rail, with these cities being as big as Canberra and you being able to travel from one of these regional cities in less than half an hour. It is absolutely inspiring.
The committee found that the key benefit in improved transport connectivity is its transformational effects, making the regions more accessible, more liveable and providing opportunities for regional development which at this time we can only dream of. Carefully planned, multifaceted housing, transport systems that work and sustainability promise to make cities more efficient and liveable.
Improved transport connectivity is also critical to regional development. It provides opportunities for decentralisation and ultimately, instead of having these heavily weighted cities in our nation, we will have settlement outside of that where people can actually have a really good quality of life. Greater connectivity will promote the development of regional areas, making relocation to them more attractive and reducing the growth pressure in major cities—not to mention the cost of housing when everybody is trying to live in the city and there are not enough cities to live in. The key to this, especially in regional areas, is the development of high-speed rail, particularly from Sydney to Melbourne, where the population growth is enormous.
We have to allow the creation of these new centres. We need to seek expressions of interest for the development of high-speed rail in eastern Australia. Let me tell you that that expression of interest is already there. They wish to have that. They need to have the connectivity. They know they can do it if these new cities are built. We recognise that there needs to be ongoing investigation.
Good planning for this value creation—because that is what it is about: the more you develop the land, the higher its value. The basis for improved transport connectivity will improve the overall gain from the development strategy. We believe value capture has the potential to make a considerable contribution to the cost of the new transport infrastructure. In fact, they have modelled it to do exactly that. With very little input from the government, they believe that their economics stacks up in building these brand new, digital cities. It is just amazing. The owner of the land that is re-zoned will, of course, be the beneficiary, and that is how they are going to fund it. That is how they are going to build these new cities. Then there is another part of this equation where another group will come in and build the very fast rail, because, if you have got eight cities between Sydney and Melbourne all about the same size as Canberra, there is enough population there to sustain, support and make a profit from a very fast rail system.
We have to highlight the integration of transport and land use planning to make it viable to these potential developers who want to come into our country and make a massive difference. This is not pie in the sky. These guys have developed cities in other parts of the world. They are demonstrable, they are successful and they are working. We need some of that here. We need to have overlay zoning initially so that we have got short-term land use with long-term land use planning, and we need to make sure we get this happening very quickly.
The role of the Australian government in providing bipartisan leadership on this issue is particularly important, as its ability to leverage outcomes through control of funding is also important. With the idea of setting up a master fund, you have the creation of a single bucket of money you can draw down for a whole range of different projects. You have planning, development and benefit in there. It all has got to have an overarching picture.
Labor, the Liberals and whomever else wants to join in this party of a visionary future for regional Australia need to have this on board and need to follow it through with a 20-year plan—although, if we can get the zoning changes done in a fairly quick way, we are assured that one of these brand-new cities can actually be built within three years. It is amazing.
A broad range of value-capture mechanisms could be applied in an Australian context, although the different mechanisms are best applied by different levels of government and a high degree of coordination is needed. If you have land that is owned by the state government, they are going to want to be part of that uplift. If it is a private landowner, they are going to want to be part of that uplift. But we need an overarching policy that pulls it all together so that there is not one single factor that jumps in and pulls this apart. We need it to happen.
There is also a potential for the Australian government to develop a toolkit for the potential value-capture mechanisms, and I suspect that we should actually be developing that now. This inquiry was an exercise to investigate a decentralisation process where there could be private-public sector investment rather than a massive hit on the taxpayer. Governments, as a rule, are not very good at getting big infrastructure projects going unless it is roads, because nobody else wants to do that, because there is very little commercial return. There will be commercial return on the uplift value for this, and that is why it will work, so trying to get investment coming in from the government is going to be self-defeating possibility. This private-public sector possibility has got so much merit.
A really important part of this visionary process is that the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, in conjunction with state and territory governments and councils, develops a toolkit of value-capture mechanisms that can be applied by all levels of government, taking into account the different conditions in the various states, territories and local council areas because they all have their own little differences. The use of mechanisms in that toolkit should be a requirement in cases where the federal government is going to contribute funding towards major infrastructure projects, some of which are already in the pipeline. We must have a regional master plan perspective rather than a project-by-project approach. We need to have priorities so that, if there are better values, we put them as a priority project. We need to draw on the proposed value-capture toolkit to find the value-capture mechanisms and determine the amount of uplift that can be captured, because the three tiers of government can get financial leverage from doing that. In doing so, the Australian government should be prepared to act as a single point for the collection of value-capture revenues and the allocation of the project money. I suggest we start doing this now. Thank you.
This 230-page report is a significant piece of work by the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, and the 13 recommendations contained in it are generally sound. They cover a range of areas, including value capture, high-speed rail, smart infrastructure, joint procurement and city deals. However, the upbeat tone of the report also highlights a gap that is there between what the members of the committee think should happen and what is actually happening under this government.
On value capture, you would think, frankly, that this was something new. That is nonsense. That is how the underground was built in London in the 19th century. That is how road and rail projects have functioned for such a long period of time, and it has become an excuse for the government to not fund projects. The Melbourne metro project and Cross River Rail both have value capture in them—that was a part of the Infrastructure Australia deliberations way back in 2012 when they were included on the priority list. That is why they were funded in the 2013 budget by the former Labor government. Funding was to come from the federal government, the state government and the private sector on the basis of, in the Cross River Rail's case, the uplift value around Woolloongabba Station in Brisbane, and, in Melbourne metro's case, the uplift value around the key points there. That would allow for higher densities around those rail stations.
There is nothing new in this at all. Nothing. But what you have is a whole lot of rhetoric from the government at the same time that we are actually seeing cuts to infrastructure investment. One figure above all is very stark in demonstrating that: for each of the 12 quarters that the Abbott and Turnbull governments have been in office—for every single one of them—public sector infrastructure investment, as demonstrated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, is less than every single quarter of the 21 between June 2008—that is after the first Labor government budget in May 2008—right through to September 2013. Those are 12 quarters with less investment than any single one of the 21 quarters when Labor was in office. There is a stark contrast between the attitudes of an actual nation-building government and a government that comes up with excuses and, frankly, policy proposals in value capture that have been around for 200 years and pretends that somehow it is something new and a panacea for these issues.
The last speaker, the member for Gilmore, was saying that the federal government should be the government that captures the value and coordinates everything. Well, the truth is that, under our system of Federation, state governments have responsibility for planning—that is the way it works—and local governments exist as entities only under the auspices of state governments. This is perhaps well meaning but not in terms of actual outcomes we are seeing on the ground.
The government again, yesterday in question time, was speaking about the so-called $50 billion infrastructure plan that was announced in the 2014 budget. It is a nonsense! The answers to the Senate committee by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development show that the infrastructure program is worth $34 billion, not $50 billion, between 2014-15 and 2018-19. So there is one year left at the end there—2019-20. Perhaps they might argue that that is where the catch-up is going to occur, except the $8 billion has been allocated onwards—that is, from 2019-20 right through to the never-never. In some cases, it literally is the never-never. Take projects like the Bruce Highway, for example. It was a 10-year plan, so the figures that are included there are for right up until 2024-25.
Since the mining boom has moved from the investment to the production phase and there has been a drop-off in that private sector infrastructure investment associated with the resources sector, this should have been a time when public sector investment was stepping up to fill that gap to create employment and to provide a skilled workforce to keep the economy going. But what we have seen is the opposite. It is not surprising, because what we have seen is public transport projects stopped and new road projects announced in their place. There have not been very many; there have been only four or five road projects. As an example of this, the East West Link has not happened in Melbourne. They took money away from the Melbourne Metro and the M80 Ring Road project in Melbourne to fund the East West Link that never happened. Therefore, the investment has dropped off.
In Brisbane they took money away from the Cross River Rail and have not put it back into anything. In Perth they have the Perth Freight Link project, for which they have allocated over a billion dollars of Commonwealth money, but they have not dug a hole yet. That was announced in the 2014 budget. It is a road that will go through wetlands and destroy them. It is a road that has been rejected time and time again by environmental assessments in Western Australia. It has required special intervention from the government to overturn all those proper processes. It is a road that allegedly is supposed to fix the freight problems in Western Australia, but it will not actually go to the port of Fremantle. It will stop three kilometres short of the port. What is more, that is a port that the government reports all indicate will be at full capacity by 2022. Therefore, planning has to happen now for the outer harbour and for how freight will get to and from the outer harbour.
We have had from this government a series of attempts to capture projects that were already underway and pretend that they had something to do with them, as well as a slowdown in projects on the Pacific Highway and Bruce Highway. In the case of the Swan Valley bypass in Western Australia the name was changed to NorthLink and in Sydney the F3 to M2 connection's name was changed to NorthConnex. A new name does not make it a new project. They were projects that were already funded in the budget, so what we have seen is simply less.
What we have also seen is proper processes break down: Infrastructure Australia being sidelined, the Major Cities Unit being abolished, the national freight strategy being ignored, the National Ports Strategy being ignored and the priorities that are there for urban public transport being ignored. With Badgerys Creek airport, the government knows, and common sense tells you, to build in rail from day one when the airport opens. The government says, 'Yes, that is a good idea.' It is just not funding it and not progressing it.
On high-speed rail, one of the report's recommendations, recommendation 2, says:
The Committee recommends that state and federal governments consider appropriate coordination arrangements, including if and when a planning authority is required to progress high speed rail.
I will give you a big tip: there is a private member's bill before the parliament in my name right now to establish a high-speed rail authority, as recommended by the proper processes that were established prior to 2013. They should get on and do that. High-speed rail is a game changer. It is a game changer for regional Australia and a game changer for the national economy. It is something that would really change the dynamics. It should be given support and it should be progressed. It cannot happen short term, but you need to get the planning right to make sure that it is progressed. This government is not doing that, and it should progress the recommendations in this report. (Time expired).
Today I would like to put on the record my support for this report; I would like to acknowledge the work that has gone into the report and many of the people involved; I would like to talk about the role of planning and particularly planning for infrastructure for the future of Australia; and I would like to call on the government to act now to tell us when the high speed rail planning authority will be brought into existence and what action the government is going to take on this particular report.
I have been a member of this committee and I am absolutely delighted to say to my colleagues in the House that it is a bipartisan report. For those people who worry about government getting together and doing things, in this case we have. The unanimous agreement of that committee says: we have got the report, we have got the agreement and now we need to act. My belief is that the future of Australia lies in quality infrastructure. As the report says, quality infrastructure—in this case high-speed rail—solves problems for the cities and it solves problems for the regions.
Deputy Speaker, as you would know, our trains have laid the foundation for Australian development, beginning in the late 1800s. I acknowledge the role and the vision of those great British engineers and entrepreneurs who came to Australia and went to Canada and India and built railway lines. These railway lines provided the absolute foundation we needed to grow and develop. It enabled our freight from the country to be moved to the ports and our status as a trading nation to get underway. It enabled our people to move. I, for example—and, I know, many people from rural and regional Australia—got on the train, went to Melbourne and went to uni. We did all our socialising on the trains as well. It is not just to go to university to study; it is to go to the cities for meetings, for medicines and for all the things that we need. Our train is the preferred form of transport. In regional Victoria our trains are our lifeblood, and there is another whole conversation we need to have about effective train delivery.
Today I would like to speak particularly about high-speed rail as the key for our future and how important this report is, and in doing so I would really like to acknowledge some of the people who have done an enormous amount of work behind it. I particularly want to congratulate and thank John Alexander, the MP for Bennelong. He has been our inner-city champion, our visionary. John, you have done a fantastic job. You have put hours and hours of work into this, and I think you should be congratulated on getting to this stage.
I would also like to acknowledge the previous speaker, the member for Grayndler, Anthony Albanese. He is also our inner-city city champion. As he said, he knows this topic backwards. He introduced the private member's bill, which is before the parliament now, to set up an authority that could fund what we need to do. The member for Grayndler has been a huge champion, and I would like to acknowledge and thank him for his work. I hope that he can work with the member for Bennelong in these two wonderful Sydney electorates to be of service to us regional people.
Then, in my electorate, there are the members of the Wodonga Council. I would like to put on the record my thanks to Patience Harrington and your staff, Michael Gobel and the full team. You have been working on this topic forever. You have been really strong regional champions. To all the staff and to the councillors over the years: you have provided visionary leadership, written reports, responded to inquiries, organised conferences and put Albury—and, in my case, Wodonga—firmly on the map as being one of the key places where this high-speed rail needs to go. To Patience and your team, this report is for you.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of another individual. There have been many, but the one I would, in particular, like to acknowledge today is Tim Fischer AC, former Deputy Prime Minister and ex-member for Farrer, who is a wise elder statesman and generally known as a good bloke. He loves trains. It was Tim who first introduced me to this concept of what a high-speed train could do for our community. Tim, I would just like to take a moment in this House to honour and acknowledge and thank you for everything you have done for us all, particularly in the area of trains and transport. You have been a real champion. You have carried the flag, the heart and the fire for a really long time. I just want to take this opportunity to thank you. Dare I say how much we love you and how much we appreciate your fascination and support for trains. You really are a leading light for us in our work. Thanks, Tim.
Finally, in an interesting way I would like to acknowledge Kevin Rudd, an unlikely champion. In 2008 I was a participant at the 2020 summit. At the 2020 summit in this place there was a working group on infrastructure. I had come from my community as a community worker to talk about the future. That infrastructure team brainstormed and workshopped on what were the drivers for the future of Australia. The report that we came up with, which has really influenced my thinking, was the need for regional hubs and the infrastructure to link us. If we could put that into place, we would have a country that was really well positioned for the next century—just like the English did for us in the last century. I want to acknowledge the importance of gatherings like the summit that bring people together across disciplines and across regions to ask, 'How can we make this happen?' But that summit was a long, long time ago. Since then we have had lots of reports, lots of discussions, lots of conferences, and we are still not there.
This report is particularly important to me because it is unanimous. It has clear recommendations. It says what needs to be done. I would like to remind the parliament, and particularly the government, that we can do this. We can come together around local, state and federal governments and we can do nation-building on a really grand scale. We all know about Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority. In my case it was the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. What an amazing thing it was in the 1970s and eighties to be part of the visionary Australia that brought the tax office out of Melbourne and Sydney and invested in Albury-Wodonga. We brought manufacturing in. We built a city. I was a beneficiary of that. I know we can do visionary stuff. We can have a plan. We can have a vision. Most importantly, we can bring people with us. Bringing people with us from the city and the regions makes this country whole.
I am talking to the Prime Minister. I am talking to the government. I am talking to the minister for infrastructure. I am talking about: 'Let's do this.' We have the report. We have the recommendations. All we need now is the political will. We need the plan, as the member for Grayndler said, to get the corridor working. But what we really need is some indication from the government that they have a commitment to nation-building in rural and regional Australia, that they are prepared to do the planning, that they have the vision and that they do have the political will to do it. That is my call out of today: we have to have the political will.
In bringing my presentation and support for this particular report to a close, I would like to make a comment to three of my constituents, who are in the House today, and to acknowledge them for coming to Canberra, being part of it and learning how the process works. I would particularly like to say to the young people that, when people ask you about Canberra and how it works, you can say that in this report you have seen collaboration, you have seen people come and work together and you have seen a nation-building project at the heart of really good planning. You can say it is a report on an inquiry that has happened with the committee working well together. I am hoping in your lifetime, certainly before you are as old as I am, that you will live in Yackandandah or Wodonga or Wangaratta and you will be able to hop on this high-speed rail that has got internet and that works on time; that you can go to Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Western Australia or wherever you have to go and you can still live in the country and live the lives that you need. I say to the Prime Minister: 'For these young people who live in rural and regional Australia, can you do this? Can you find the political will to build us a high-speed rail now?' I have been around a long time, and I do not want to be an old woman in a nursing home in Yackandandah and still not have it built. So my closing words are, 'Where's the plan?'
Sitting suspended from 12:56 to 16:00
It is a pleasure to be able to speak on the report before the chamber by the Infrastructure, Transport and Cities Committee, Harnessing value, delivering infrastructure: inquiry into the role of transport connectivity in stimulating development and economic activity. I would like to start by indicating that I came onto the committee as the deputy chair for this report in this parliament, and so I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of the previous committee and all of those who contributed through submissions and attendance at inquiry hearings, as well as the secretariat. This report makes some very important recommendations, and I want to deal specifically with three of them in my contribution today.
First of all, the first recommendation is a very general but particularly important one. It says:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government examines ways to promote a better balance of settlement through decentralisation to the regions linked by faster transport connectivity and particularly through high speed rail.
For the purposes of this inquiry, the committee was very clearly looking at the significance enabling infrastructure has for the development of regions. Coming from a regional area, the greater Illawarra and South Coast, this is something that has been a critical issue for my local community for my whole time in parliament. In particular, I just want to indicate that we continue to pursue a very important rail link in the Maldon-Dombarton Rail Link. It is an opportunity to create connections between Port Kembla and the rest of New South Wales, which is very significant to the economic development of our region. So it was a great pleasure to be part of this committee and the formulation of the report before the chamber.
It is very true that as a nation we see increasing pressure on our cities and increasing pressure on the capacity of those cities, not only to deal with growth but also to provide the opportunity for their workforces to live in a way that enables them to access their work without ending up with 13- or 14-hour days through long periods of commuting. So the issues that the committee was addressing were significant and they also, of course, sit alongside other enabling infrastructure such as broadband access.
As a result of that, the committee's second recommendation goes specifically to the issue of high-speed rail. It recommends that we, as a nation:
… develop a framework for the specification and evaluation of proposals for the development of a high speed rail network in eastern Australia, …
The report specifically says:
… it is time to progress the planning work that must be done by all levels of government to facilitate high speed rail. The Committee recommends that state and federal governments consider appropriate coordination arrangements, including if and when a planning authority is required to progress high speed rail.
This is a matter that has, very clearly, had its time come. In fact, you could argue that its time had well and truly come in the years that have preceded us to the point where this report is before us.
It is the case in government that Labor was progressing the planning authority for the commencement of a high-speed rail on the eastern seaboard, and it is the case that the shadow minister currently has before the House a private member's bill to establish such a planning authority in order for this to be progressed. It was good to see that the committee feels the need for some sort of progression—there was a bipartisan agreement on the report. But it would be true to say that for Labor, we believe that there is not the requirement to spend more time talking about it; the model is there, the shadow minister has put forward a bill and it would take very little effort by the government to get behind that bill and to progress creating a high-speed rail authority to do all the detailed planning work that that line needs done. I would encourage members who are supportive of this report of the standing committee to look at what the shadow minister, the member for Grayndler, has put forward in this bill and to work with this side of the parliament to get that progressed.
There is no doubt that high-speed rail is a major enabling piece of infrastructure for the regions on our eastern seaboard. And for an area like mine in the Illawarra, we have been very strong supporters of a high-speed rail proposition in this country. The proposal that we were looking at went through the Southern Highlands, linking the Illawarra and South Coast with the Southern Highlands' stop, which would enable us to connect very quickly to Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney. The potential of that to expand, in particular, areas of economic development opportunity in our region, such as tourism, would be very significant.
So I commend the committee's findings on the importance of the high-speed rail. I think it took some extensive and very powerful evidence about the difference that infrastructure would make. I would suggest that a good outcome from the tabling of the report would be bipartisan support for the shadow minister's proposition currently before the parliament.
Recommendation nine of the report addressed the issue of procurement. I thought it was particularly effective in its proposal that there should be a coordinated approach to procurement which would:
… ensure, when practicable, that Australian materials and products, skills and services are maximised in project delivery.
It is a really important statement by the committee, that when governments are looking at progressing these sorts of infrastructure proposals, we maximise the opportunity for our chain-of-supply businesses to have part of the business opportunity. I have to say that it was very timely, given that only in the second half of last year the New South Wales government contracted 500 new train carriages for New South Wales and the jobs are all going to South Korea, where the winning bidder was.
The disappointing thing about this for my region is that there were other bidders who had indicated that if they were given the contract, they were looking at creating opportunities for the manufacturing and outfitting of those carriages in my own area in Unanderra. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, Mr Foley, said, at the time:
The Baird government is completely disinterested in supporting local manufacturing and local jobs. Here in the Illawarra we had a tenderer, Stadler, prepared to deliver 600 jobs here at Unanderra. We could have had 600 people working here assembling new train carriages and maintaining them, with hundreds of apprenticeships for local kids.
I think it is important to note that I very much welcome that last point, the continued commitment by the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, to federal-government-funded major infrastructure projects having a requirement also that one in 10 of the positions be apprenticeship opportunities, as we know how important that is for young people and for developing the skills base of this country.
In the short time left to me I just want to make the point that a large focus of this report was around creating viable home affordability options and ensuring that the infrastructure is in place that allows for new housing and development opportunities to open up. Just prior to considering this report, this chamber heard people making contributions on the report of the economics committee on housing affordability. I want to make the point that there are links between these two reports, and not only the fact that the chair of this particular report, the member for Bennelong, was also very closely involved before the election with the economics committee in looking at the housing affordability issue. Infrastructure is important to housing affordability and supply is important, but it is also important that you get the incentive system right. I just want to commend the member for Bennelong for continuing to put the issue of changes to the capital gains tax and the way in which we provide incentives, in order to better target them to homeowners and not just to housing investors. I am glad to see these reports presented together.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few very brief comments in respect of this very significant report. I am very pleased to have been here in this chamber to hear the comments of the deputy chair, the member for Cunningham, who has given, I think, a very effective contribution, not just on the work of the committee and the report it has delivered to the parliament but on its context and its consequences.
I might very briefly touch on those aspects, but before doing so it is appropriate that I acknowledge also the work of the chair, the member for Bennelong, who has a deep interest in all of these issues and an evident passion for them. His chairing of the committee enabled us to have a very effective exploration of a range of critical issues, going to some of the great challenges all of us in this parliament face around productivity, environmental sustainability and liveability for all Australians. I also acknowledge the work of all my colleagues on the committee—it delivered consensus recommendations—and of course the professional and effective work of the committee secretariat, without whose work, I am very confident, the quality of the report would have been much the poorer.
The bulk of the 13 recommendations contained in the report go to questions around value-capture models and issues around high-speed rail. These are important issues, but we should not allow the sense to be generated that they are novel. This report delivers bold and new ground in respect of these issues. They have been at the heart of the provision of infrastructure, when it comes to value capture, for probably more than 100 years, but certainly going back to issues like the financing of Melbourne's City Loop—and I am sure there many other examples around the country when it comes to value capture. In looking at the opportunities to make sure that the costs and benefits of the infrastructure provision are adequately spread and in looking at excellent and important modern examples, including overseas ones, we should not allow this to excuse the critical role of government in delivering the infrastructure that is so vital to enable Australian businesses to thrive, particularly in our major cities, and for Australians to live balanced, good lives.
One of the key questions that occur to me as I consider the recommendations contained in this report is the ongoing gap between the rhetoric of this government and the reality of its record. I think we just need to pause for a moment and consider the performance of the Labor government between 2007 and 2013 in respect of infrastructure, when we led the OECD rankings, and our sad decline since then. This was most obvious, of course, under the prime ministership of the member for Warringah when he walked away from investment in urban public transport as well as when he walked away from the High Speed Rail Authority by cutting funds which were allocated for that.
In looking at the exciting possibilities around technology and around value capture that point ways forward for high-speed rail in Australia to link our major cities and offer great opportunities to 'rebalance settlement', as the chair would say, let us not forget that we have gone backwards in terms of enabling Australians access to the benefits of high-speed rail. I join the member for Cunningham, the member for Grayndler and others in urging members opposite to at least enable this parliament to debate the private member's bill that has been before us since 2013. Let us have that conversation if we are serious about looking at the possibilities of high-speed rail in Australia. Let us also look seriously at these recommendations in this wider context.
I said I would be brief, so I will try and wrap up. I represent an outer-suburban community—a community which feels the costs of congestion more than most. It is absolutely critical, if people can access good employment opportunities and access all the amenities that make Melbourne the world's most liveable city, that we look seriously at the role of transport connectivity. This report takes us some steps further. It must be matched by action on the part of government and a deep commitment to build an institutional framework that not only looks at transport connectivity as a good in itself but also links it to related development issues such as home ownership and wider questions of sustainability and, perhaps most importantly, livability for millions of Australians who struggle to access the opportunities they should be able to access more readily.
I thank the honourable member for Scullin for that contribution, particularly his brevity in advising the chair.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That consideration of committee and delegation business order of the day No. 3, Report 167: Nuclear Cooperation—Ukraine; Extradition—China, be postponed until a later hour.
Question agreed to.
When I first rose in November last year to begin this speech on the report on the Trans-Pacific Partnership the world was a different place. Donald Trump had just been elected President, but there was a view that perhaps the TPP would survive. However, even then, many of us believed the TPP was already finished, and I quoted a colleague who said that it was as dead as a dodo. I think it is important as I speak on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report on the TPP to highlight the issues that I think we should be very careful with as we negotiate trade agreements going forward. In fact, I believe we may well have had a lucky escape from some of the provisions of the TPP. Of course, for some agriculture and service sectors the agreement had the potential to boost their trade, but not without cost to the wider economy. I want to ensure that some of the concerns I and other Labor MPs had are on the record.
There is no doubt that the TPP was an ambitious project. It was a proposed deal between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, the United States, Singapore and Vietnam. The pact was aimed at deepening economic ties between those nations. While the aim was to boost investment flows between the countries and further boost their economic growth, I cannot describe it as a free trade agreement. It actually puts in place complex rules that govern the relationships between these countries, and I have concerns in five areas: the lack of independent analysis, the so-called ISDS provisions, the impact on workers' rights, the safe harbour copyright provisions and the secrecy with which the deal was negotiated.
To the first one, the lack of independent analysis: there is a total absence of independent economic analysis around the benefits and concessions contained in the TPP. This was identified time and time again in public hearings. The best data we had was that there would have been a 0.7 per cent increase in GDP by 2030, based on a World Bank analysis. I had to look twice at that figure. It is not a lot, given what we are giving up. While the committee can hear a lot of expert witnesses, it is not the same as independent analysis, and most people recommended someone like the Productivity Commission. I think those sorts of reports should be made available to parliament not just before this committee considers the agreements but before they are signed and certainly before the legislation is endorsed. As the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry told the committee:
There is little academic study of the technical components of what is being negotiated, nor study of the outcomes of past negotiations to ensure their intended goals were achieved.
So I am pleased to see that recommendation in the final report.
Along with this, I would urge for greater transparency on the negotiation of these treaties. This is reflected in recommendation 1, where we call on the government to consider changing its approach so that security-cleared representatives from business and other organisations can see the positions that Australia is putting. There is no doubt that negotiations are done in a much less inclusive way here than in, for instance, Europe.
Where the committee did not agree and therefore we have a dissenting report is on the investor-state dispute settlement provisions. These are designed to give some protections for investors and provide a mechanism for resolving disputes. To bring an ISDS case, a foreign investor must believe that an arbitrary or capricious action of the government has caused them to lose their investment. However, effectively what ISDS does is allow private, non-Australian-based companies to take legal action against the Australian government, action that Australian businesses do not get to take. So it tilts the playing field away from Australian businesses. It also exposes the Australian government to potentially large, unfunded liabilities, depending on the decisions that an international tribunal makes about laws that have been passed in Australia. You have to wonder why we need ISDS in treaties with countries that have a strong rule of law, like the US. In June 2016 Labor said that a Labor government would not allow ISDS in future agreements, and that position has not changed.
I turn to the issue of workers' rights and safety. The TPP allowed a free flow of workers from countries which are signatories to the treaty. I note that there was vigorous questioning of both union witnesses and departmental officials about the level of skills testing that would be required for, for example, electricians. There were no assurances that satisfied me. While a shortage of certain workers is a legitimate reason for bringing in foreign workers, standards must apply. On that point of market need: the TPP gave access to temporary foreign labour without market testing. These temporary workers, brought in by contracted service providers, could be accredited by overseas processes rather than through mandatory skills assessment here in Australia. I personally would have liked our concerns to have been more firmly articulated in the final report because it has the potential to be yet another undermining of workers' health and safety, of community safety and of the wages system.
They are some of the issues that were heavily talked about during our hearings on the joint standing committee. Another issue that absorbed a lot of time was discussion around safe harbour legislation and provisions. The committee report recommended that the government progress safe harbour amendments in the proposed copyright amendment bill. This is an area where I fear the consequences of an ill-considered set of rules. They could be disastrous for Australian writers and creators.
Safe harbour provisions are designed to protect rights holders and internet service providers by stopping internet service providers from being sued for hosting illegally uploaded copyright content if they remove that content. Until now, our policies in Australia have made a distinction between organisations that provide the facilities for online services and those that actually provide the content itself. I think it is really important to keep this distinction, as content services have a different level of control than those entities that merely act as a conduit. So I worry about the consequences of proceeding with the proposed copyright amendment bill. I am concerned that disrupting an existing commercial environment which today allows content owners and creators to enter into commercial agreements for the use of the content. That is what they do now. Not only will these changes reduce the incentives for content providers to enter into agreements for the licensing of their services; they will also reduce incentives for those who are creating new content. I think a more holistic approach is required in reviewing the safe harbour scheme. We need to be very careful that decisions made in these agreements do not lead to a dimming of Australian voices and cultures.
The TPP is a bit of a moot point. We know the TPP is absolutely dead. We know that it is not going to proceed. But what is a concern is that the findings of our committee may be used as an excuse to proceed with other similar agreements. Some of the agreement was great, and the committee agreed on many things. We know the dairy industry would benefit. We know the cattle industry would benefit. We know the wine industry would benefit. But I think we always have to ask: 'At what cost? Who is the loser?' When you have a GDP improvement of 0.7 per cent over 15 years you have to wonder if maybe there is not a better deal that could be done for Australia. After all, we are in there negotiating. If we allowed Australian businesses, farmers and producers of all types to be more involved in the behind-the-scenes negotiations with the appropriate security clearance as they do in the European Union then we would no doubt get a much better result with far fewer downsides. The one area where there cannot be negotiation is on ISDS. That should not ever be part of any of the deals that we do.
I rise to speak on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was released on 30 November last year. In its report the committee recommends that Australia ratify the TPP. That is a view that is welcomed by the coalition government. There are another five recommendations made in the JSCOT report which are currently being considered by government.
There is no denying that the TPP has been a hot topic over past weeks and months. Whilst it is disappointing that President Trump has withdrawn the US from the TPP at this time, we of course respect the decision of the new US administration. But the TPP is too important as a driver of more Australian jobs not to do all that we can to lock in the benefits of the agreement. The TPP is an agreement of unprecedented scope and ambition. It promises to deliver many benefits for Australian businesses. It will create new market access for Australian exporters and investors, providing preferential access to some of the world's largest economies. It would support the growth of trade in the region additional to Australia's existing FTAs and contribute to economic growth and new jobs. Commonly agreed rules would provide greater certainty for business, reduce costs and red tape, and facilitate participation in regional supply chains. It would also address contemporary trade challenges important to business, such as e-commerce and transparency, in ways that they have not previously been addressed in Australian FTAs.
It is indisputable that trade delivers more opportunities for business and more jobs. I am sure it is the case in many regional electorates throughout Australia just as it is my seat of Hinkler that more trade means more jobs. My colleague the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Steven Ciobo, has been speaking at length with his TPP counterparts on ways to lock in the benefits of the TPP without the United States, if need be. That has included discussions at the World Economic Forum with trade ministers from Japan, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, New Zealand and Malaysia.
Paths for locking in TPP outcomes will be the subject of discussion over coming months. There are a number of options which are open to us, and there is a shared determination to ensure that the benefits of the TPP are not lost, despite the objections of the opposition—even though the former Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, in 2008 actually said:
Our announcement to join negotiations on the trans-Pacific Partnership is perhaps the most important initiative the Rudd government has taken to fulfil that aim.
Australian farmers and business groups support the government's efforts not to abandon the TPP as the opposition has. The National Farmers' Federation chief executive, Tony Mahar, said:
… the benefits of the landmark deal were too significant for Australia's farming sector to give up.
He said:
The opportunities presented by the TPP have the potential to be transformational for our already-strong export industry.
… Commodities across-the-board stand to gain including red meat, dairy, fruit and vegetables, cotton, wool, sugar, grain and seafood.
In a media release dated 20 January, Mr Mahar said that, if the US pulled out of the TPP, it 'was not necessarily dead in the water'. Mr Mahar said:
There's more than one way to skin a cat. While it would be preferable to have the US remain a party the most significant gains for Australia lie with the deals struck with Japan, Mexico, Argentina and Canada.
He said:
To this end we were buoyed by discussions between Prime Minister Turnbull and his Japanese counterpart Prime Minister Abe last weekend on how to progress negotiations.
… We particularly welcome Prime Minister Turnbull's commitment to ratifying the deal – despite the uncertainty following the result of the US election …
The wine sector said we 'must do everything in our power to ensure the agreement comes into force'. That is a quote from Tony Battaglene, the Chief Executive of the Winemakers' Federation of Australia, in a media release just two weeks ago. It said:
Despite President Trump's decision not to ratify the TPP at this time, the agreement provides such great opportunities for the Australian wine sector, that we must do everything in our power to ensure the agreement comes into force.
Mr Battaglene said:
The TPP offers tremendous opportunities for our sector and the promise of wealth creation in regional Australia as well as to the national economy …
He went on to say:
This is the first agreement to specifically address significant non-tariff trade barriers restricting our export growth as well as promoting significant opportunities within the region. It also provides a template for future agreements.
The media release said:
Ratification of the Agreement will send a strong message on the importance of the TPP and WFA has called on all parties to get behind the Free Trade agenda.
The worst thing for the prosperity of the Australian people will be to embrace protectionism. We need strong export growth and trade liberalisation through Free Trade Agreements is key to our success.
Further support comes from the Export Council of Australia, which said:
Australia … cannot afford to go backwards on trade.
The following lines are from its media release on 24 January:
In Australia, jobs are best created and protected over the long term through an open and competitive economic system.
Further increasing opportunities for Australian companies to trade and invest around the world is crucial to unlocking our economic potential, and to ensuring jobs for Australians today and tomorrow.
Australia simply cannot afford to go backwards on trade.
… … …
In the current international environment, the lack of support for agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership … from the new US administration does not have to mean the end of the agreement. Rather, this can present a new opportunity for Australia and other like-minded nations to take the lead on creating new market openings for our companies, and ensure the jobs and prosperity of tomorrow are as secure as possible.
Australia must therefore continue to pursue new liberalising trade deals, as well as other international agreements that prioritise the interests of prosperity-creating SMEs.
On behalf of all SMEs, the ECA stands behind the Australian government's focus to pursue an alternate agreement under the TPP framework.
Finally, the peak sugarcane farming group CANEGROWERS said:
… growers were disappointed that US President Donald Trump had chosen to formally withdraw from the 12-nation trade agreement process.
They said:
The big prize that we have lost is an improved framework for selling sugar in the Asia-Pacific for the foreseeable future and the opportunity of moving towards selling up to 500,000 tonnes to the US in the future.
They said:
CANEGROWERS is urging the Australian Government to continue to work to close the TPP deal with the 11 other Pacific nations involved.
… We have been encouraged by the discussions between Australia and Japan recently and the Prime Minister's talk of a revised TPP…
… This US decision puts greater importance on the other avenues Australia is negotiating for improved trade access – a stronger deal with China, the Asia-focused Regional Cooperative Economic Partnership and free trade agreements with the European Union and United Kingdom.
It is important to remember that uncertainty around the TPP has not stopped the government taking forward its trade agenda.
The Indonesian and Australian governments have agreed to conclude the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement by the end of this year. Australia is pushing for an ambitious Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership—the RCEP. Like the TPP, RCEP is a megaregional trade agreement involving 16 countries, including China, Korea, Japan, India and ASEAN countries. It includes nine of Australia's 13-largest trading partners. The RCEP countries account for around half the world's population and a third of the global GDP. A successful RCEP has the potential to boost regional economic confidence and integration. ASEAN, which celebrates its 50th anniversary next year, is at the centre of the RCEP negotiation. Australia wants to reach a successful conclusion with ASEAN and the other major regional economies of the RCEP agreement: China, Japan, Korea, India and New Zealand. Concluding a comprehensive, forward-looking RCEP agreement will send a strong signal about the economic future of the region.
Considerable progress has been made on the trade and services agreement between 50 economies, with 23 parties, including the EU, and 28 WTO members. The government have also made clear our intention to broaden and deepen our trade and investment relationships with both the EU and the UK. We are continuing to work on a free trade agreement with India. The government will also seek to make the most of the valuable agreements already in place, including the trade agreements with Korea, China and Japan.
I have seen and heard firsthand many of the success stories due to the free trade agreements which we have already signed. In Western Australia, I visited the world's biggest exporter of rock lobsters: the Geraldton Fishermen's Co-operative. Australia's free trade agreement with China saw the tariff on fresh or chilled rock lobster cut to nine per cent in 2016, and it fell to six per cent on 1 January this year. For the first nine months of 2016, direct Chinese imports of live, fresh and chilled Australian rock lobsters almost trebled compared to the same period last year, reaching $28 million. On 1 January this year, further tariff cuts on more than 7,000 Australian products came into effect, creating more export opportunities for Australian businesses.
These wide-ranging tariff cuts are continuing to deliver a competitive advantage for businesses, including those in my electorate of Hinkler. Bundaberg, in the northern part of my electorate, is now the largest macadamia-growing region in this country. The tariff on shelled macadamias was 30 per cent before KAFTA. It was cut to 12 per cent, and it is now being cut further to six per cent. Almost $10 million worth of macadamias were exported to Korea between January and September in 2016, with Australian exports now triple those of two years earlier. These are just a few of the many benefits Australian businesses are seeing from FTAs. The coalition government will continue to advocate for what is in the national interest; the benefits of the TPP are no different.
I stand to discuss the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. I want to clear up a couple of the previous speaker's misconceptions. I congratulate him on his promotion, but you can be in favour of free trade and oppose a dud deal. You can be in favour of trade liberalisation and say that a deal has to deliver for all Australians, not just narrow sectarian interests. Unfortunately, this TPP does not do either. It is a dud deal that delivers for certain sectors at the expense of the whole nation. I will get to the substance of the deal in a minute.
I find it ridiculous that we are debating this report and engaging in this discussion about whether we will legislate in support of the TPP. The TPP is dead. It is deader than the parrot in the Monty Python sketch. It is deader than the Black Knight that the Prime Minister seems to do a great impersonation of. It is dead because the US have very clearly said they will not support it. This is not just a blow in terms of removing a major player. The way the TPP is constructed around ratification by member nations means that, without the US ratifying this treaty, this treaty cannot come into force. Other countries like Japan have said that very clearly. It was interesting that the previous speaker applauded the efforts of the Prime Minister in trying to get Japan to continue this deal. He was well and truly leading with his chin because Japan has said that, without the US, there is no TPP. It is a gross waste of Commonwealth time and it is a gross waste of parliamentary time to even be discussing ratifying this agreement because it is dead.
Even if the US had supported this agreement, I think that we should be opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement because it is not in the interests of Australia as a whole. It is in the interests of certain sectors; I do not pretend otherwise. It will benefit the agricultural industry, and that is great—good luck to those farmers who can export more under that agreement. But it is at a much greater cost for the Australian nation as a whole.
And it is at a much greater cost because of five key areas. First off: selling out Australian sovereignty through the investor-state dispute settlement clauses: clauses which give foreign multinationals, foreign companies, the right to sue the Australian government when we make laws in this country that affect their profitability. It has been called out by the Productivity Commission and it has been called out by the Chief Justice of the High Court—neither of those are renowned left-wing radicals! It is a fundamental attack on the sovereignty of our nation, and we have seen that already with the Hong Kong arm of Philip Morris challenging our plain-packaging tobacco laws, laws that are cutting smoking rates right now and laws which are reducing the cancer rates in this country. We are being sued by the Hong Kong arm of Philip Morris because the Australian arm could not take the action.
The safeguards that are supposedly in the TPP are very weak. We have seen similar safeguards completely undermined in court actions. We have seen an ISDS system where tribunal judges one day are then lawyers for the corporations the next day. It is a system without transparency and it is a system which needs massive reform. I am proud that Labor has said it that when in government we will not agree to treaties that include ISDS.
The TPP also does not guarantee ILO convention labour rights. All it provides are weak commitments to enforce existing national labour laws. That means that if the labour laws are weak there is no protection for workers under this agreement. In terms of labour movement, this agreement removes labour market testing for temporary skilled visas from five nations. Let me repeat that, Mr Deputy Speaker: if the TPP came into force there would be five additional nations where the Australian government could not apply labour market testing to guarantee that Australians would get the jobs first. That is really worrying.
In terms of the environmental conventions, there is a failure to guarantee that environmental conventions would be enforceable. And perhaps the biggest concern of this agreement is an extension of protection for biologics within the pharmaceutical industry. Currently, there is a five-year protection for patents pertaining to biologics in our pharmaceuticals. This agreement guarantees an equivalent of another three years of protection. To give some context to this, the 10 most expensive biologics cost the PBS around $1.2 billion per annum. So a three-year extension by definition will increase the cost to the PBS by a very considerable amount.
These are all reasons why the TPP is very flawed. And what is the supposed benefit of it? The government's own, very dodgy, modelling says that there will be a 0.1 per cent benefit to GDP per annum. Now a 0.1 per cent benefit within modelling is near imperceptible. It is almost certainly overstated and it is potentially overwhelmed by the biologics and the change to intellectual property. That is why, if this agreement ever reaches the legislation stage—if this legislation is ever presented to the Labor caucus—I will proudly vote against it, because it is not in the interests of Australians.
I am pro-trade liberalisation, but it must be done in a way that supports the Australian economy and which does not undermine the Australian economy to advance the narrow interests of one particular sector. Unfortunately, at the moment that is what the TPP is, and it continues the appalling trade record of the coalition government.
They brag about the Japanese and South Korean FTAs. Well, they could only do these deals because they killed the Australian automotive industry. They killed the Australian automotive industry, which destroyed 50,000 direct jobs and imperilled another 200,000 indirect jobs. The automotive industry was the main stumbling block to getting these free trade agreements up when Labor was in power. That, in conjunction with the ISDS clause in the South Korean agreement, was why Labor did not sign these agreements while in government.
The coalition government took care of this by destroying the automotive industry. When they were last in government, in the Howard era, they had a similar appalling record on trade agreements. The Thai FTA was supposed to be the saviour of the Australian automotive industry. It was going to lead to exports of tens of thousands of Australian cars to Thailand—particularly the Ford Territory. What happened was that the agreement was signed, reducing tariffs on Australian car exports to Thailand to zero over a period of time. Immediately, the Thai government put up the registration fees for large vehicles, basically ruling out any chance of the Ford Territory being competitive in the Thai market, a behind-the-border move that meant that this agreement was completely ineffective for supporting Australian automotive exports.
The US FTA agreement—something the other side of politics is incredibly proud of—has been in operation for over 10 years now, and what does the evidence show? A recent ANU study—ANU, a bastion of free trade economic theory—has found that the agreement was trade diversionary. Australian and United States trade with the rest of the world fell. What is even more interesting, and probably more worrying, is that trade also fell between the United States and Australia. Let me repeat that: since the beginning of the operation of the US free trade agreement with Australia, trade between Australia and the United States actually fell. It is less now than when the trade agreement came into operation.
This government has an appalling record on trade liberalisation. Government members like to wave pieces of paper in the air. They are almost like Neville Chamberlain, in that they sign an agreement for having an agreement's sake while they sell out the future prospects of the Australian economy and the workers that depend upon it. As I said before, trade should be in the interests of all Australians, not just one sector that employs around 300,000 people. Trade is about all of us and not just farmers—as important as that industry is. I have to applaud the National Party, because they truly are writing the economic policy of this government. If it is good for farmers, it generally gets through this government. But, if it is good for farmers at the expense of the rest of the Australian economy, it should not be supported. Unfortunately, that is what we have got under this government, which has all the hallmarks of 'Black Jack' McEwen.
I have no doubt that I will be accused of being anti free trade, of being an economic dinosaur. Nothing could be further from the truth. I recognise and support the powerful impact trade liberalisation has in our economy and that it does generally, when done right, improve the allocative efficiency of this country: getting resources where they can do most good. But a spaghetti framework of preferential trade agreements—because that is what these agreements are—does not do that. It distorts trade, it distorts the allocative efficiency of our economy and in the end it distorts the economic structure of our country while giving up massive rights around sovereignty, ISDS, intellectual property and the PBS, and that is why I oppose this agreement.
Debate adjourned.
The 20th of January will be marked as a very tragic day for the people of Victoria and Melbourne. I, like many people, was shocked to see and hear of the terrible carnage that occurred in one of our most iconic locations in our iconic, great city. My family and I—my husband and my little boy, Ryan—were in Melbourne that day. We were juggling work and family commitments on the last week of school holidays. We had driven up to Melbourne to go and see a performance of Operation Ouch!, a great kids program that was on at the arts centre. We parked at the arts centre. We had had my father-in-law staying overnight, so we walked up to Flinders Street Station to see him onto the train back to his suburban house in Blackburn. As we stood and said farewell to him at the Flinders Street Station, Mark and I turned to each other and thought, 'What are we going to do for lunch?' We talked about going and walking up Swanston Street and heading to the mall. But we then thought, 'Well, we've got an hour and a half; perhaps we'd better head back the other way and head to the arts centre.' And that is what we did. Had we made the decision to go to Swanston Street, we would have been right at the site of where this terrible tragedy occurred right at that time.
And that is what happened for many families and many people: it was an accident, in the wrong place at the wrong time with someone who had decided to commit a terrible act. People just making ordinary decisions: whether they would walk down one side of the street or go on the other side; if they had not brought their lunch into work that day, whether they needed to whip out to go and buy lunch; coming into town and thinking about what they would do in their last week of school holidays, 'Let's head into Myers, let's head into DJs, into the Bourke Street Mall and do some shopping.' All of those are decisions that ordinary people make every single day. You expect you would be able to go and get your lunch during your lunch hour, go and visit the city, go into the Bourke Street Mall and be safe. And normally you are, except for these terrible, terrible circumstances that happened on this day.
I cannot imagine what the families of the people we have lost are going through, and my heart goes out to every single one of them. I cannot imagine the trauma that was inflicted on our city on that day. As we sat having lunch at the Arts Centre, my husband, as he is wont to do, was checking the Twitter account. He looked up and said, 'You know, there's something happening in the mall.' I said, 'What's going on?' He said, 'A car's driven down there.' 'What do you mean a car's driven down the mall? What's going on?' As we started to hear the reports coming through and the terror that gripped the city, it was a frightening experience to be part of. I can only imagine what it was like to be there.
As the shadow minister for health, I think it is particularly incumbent upon me to reflect on and to thank deeply the incredible health professionals who came to the fore in Melbourne. I will do that in a minute. I first want to reflect on the incredible bravery and courage of the many people in that mall that day, who would have been absolutely terrified. It is not normal to experience that level of fear when you go on your lunch break, to have to actually deal with something so frightening and so traumatic, and so to actually run into danger to help your fellow citizens—to comfort, to care—and to then go back to work the very next day and to have to revisit that site is an extraordinary thing, and I want to reflect on this and thank them.
But as I said, as shadow minister for health I particularly want to say thank you to our health workforce. You were extraordinary. I have talked to a number of emergency department workers, people who were around on that day, and I know many of them still carry with them today what happened on that day. We had an off-duty doctor named Michael who was on the scene and who assisted paramedics. We have heard about an orthopaedic surgeon who was on the scene and who provided support and comfort to victims, helping them until ambulances could get to the scene. There was the off-duty orthopaedic surgeon using brochures to strap someone's leg, while workers at a nearby pharmacy got equipment to people as well. We have heard stories of incredible, well-functioning emergency departments across our major city hospitals dealing with this crisis in such an incredibly professional way. There were 37 people hospitalised that afternoon. The injured were taken to five hospitals across our city—the Royal Children's Hospital, the Royal Melbourne Hospital, St Vincent's Hospital, the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, and the Alfred. Their emergency departments did us proud, every single one of them, and we thank them for that: the specialist doctors, the surgeons, the nurses, the theatre workers, the many who fought incredibly hard to save lives. Tragically, we lost six people—five Melburnians and an overseas visitor—but many, many lives were saved on that day, and we do recognise there are many people who are still injured and who are recovering from those injuries. We had more than 40 ambulances turn out, dispatched to the scene. Again, it was such a small space and a chaotic scene; they would have been facing incredibly difficult circumstances.
In the weeks afterwards we have had Red Cross workers remaining in the mall to give psychological support to members of the public. Again, it would have been impossible to actually deal with and help people on the day itself, because there were so many injured and so many people who needed assistance that many people would have left the scene—gone back to their offices and only when they got home that night would they have really started to process what had actually happened to them—and then had to go back onto the scene the next day to work.
Of course, every single emergency responder on the day—the paramedics, police officers and emergency service workers did an extraordinary job. Ambulance Victoria has put out a beautiful video, thanking members of the public. If people have not seen it, I really encourage them to have a look at it. I am pretty tough. I do not often cry a lot but I have to admit that it moved me to tears when I looked at it. We often hear stories of our ambulance workers working in pretty awful circumstances where sometimes they are not always looked after by members of the public, and here were some of our toughest ambos thanking the members of the public just for their incredible support on the day.
We also had, as I said, members of the public rushing to comfort people. These events show the worst of our community but they also give us the opportunity to see the best of our community, and I do not think you could have seen any braver group of people than were in the Bourke Street Mall on the twentieth. As I said at the start, it was an accident of fate as to who was there and why they were there at that particular time. It could have happened to anybody who was in the city making a decision on that day. I want to say to the families of the six people who died, 'You will always be in our hearts. We mourn with you. We thank the people who supported you and who hopefully will continue to support you in the many years ahead.'
This was a terrible tragedy that we will learn from but I also think has bravely shown some of the best of our nature—where we saw people running into danger to help their fellow Australians, sheltering them from the burning sun. It was an incredibly hot day that day. They were comforting and welcoming the many tourists who were in our region as well, making sure that they felt safe and that the fear subsided as quickly as it could. Again, I do particularly want to thank our incredible health workforce. That was an extraordinarily difficult day and remains so. One of the nurses I have spoken to said that normally when you are treating people in emergencies you do not know a lot about them—you do not know their family history; you do not know about their background—but what is happening in this circumstance is that their stories are being told in the newspapers so they are becoming much more than just a patient. They are becoming very real, and that, of course, leaves its own challenges and traumas for our nurses and our hospital staff. Again, in recognising the great work that they do we say, 'Thank you.' We pay tribute to them and we mourn with the Victorian community.
I thank the honourable member for that heartfelt contribution. It was an absolute tragedy.
I join with those in this chamber who have combined to try and put into words some of the feelings that we all have about what occurred on 20 January 2017. What we know of that day is that it was a very typical Friday afternoon. Melbourne city streets were buzzing with people. City workers were grabbing a bite to eat. Tourists were exploring the beautiful Melbourne neighbourhood. Families were in town to do a bit of shopping. My brother was just returning to work from lunch and he had left just 10 minutes before this shocking crime.
Just before 2 pm, a mystery car was used as a weapon as it hurtled through Bourke Street along the pedestrian walkway. Frantic pedestrians were seen desperately trying to get out of the way, running into nearby shops to avoid being hit. Many were lucky but unfortunately many were not. There were six victims who lost their lives, all tragically young: 33-year-old father Matthew Si; 33-year-old Bhavita Patel; a 25-year-old Japanese national; 22-year-old Jess Mudie, 10-year-old Thalia Hakin; and little Zachary Bryant, who was just three months old. And there were many more who were injured, some of whom remain in hospital.
The devastating attack that occurred in Melbourne's Bourke Street was a random, callous and shocking attack, and it has left enduring scars on the Victorian community. There are few words that can truly express the horrors of that day because it all happened so quickly, but the grief experienced by the families of these victims is truly unimaginable. We as a country grieve with them.
But we are also thankful that Australians are overwhelmingly good and kind people. We are thankful for the Samaritans who stopped to help and comfort the injured and distressed. We are thankful for the countless emergency service workers who turned up in force to assist. We thank our incredible health workers who dealt with those who were injured. And we are thankful for all of those who are still providing a shoulder to lean on for the people whose lives will be forever changed.
What we saw and still see today is a credit to these people and a true testament to the spirit of the Victorian people. Our local community and all levels of government worked together in the immediate aftermath of the event. The Victorian government set up the Bourke Street Fund and contributed $100,000 towards it, and we as a federal government have also contributed $100,000 to this fund and have made a commitment that the Bourke Street Fund has deductible gift recipient status and that the contributions to the fund will be tax deductible. As the responsible minister, I will introduce this legislation into the parliament tomorrow. The City of Melbourne is also considering the idea of a plaque to commemorate those who lost their lives.
But we must also take the opportunity to learn from this terrible crime. The 26-year-old man responsible for this senseless act was on bail at the time of the incident after a long history of violence. Our police need strengthened powers to directly intervene before harm occurs, and the bail system needs to be changed to better protect our community.
The 20th of January 2017 is a date that will be forever ingrained into the hearts of all Australians. We remember the victims, their families, those who were witnesses to this horror and the first responders. But we also remember this day as a day when we saw the true strength and compassion of our Victorian and Australian people.
I thank the honourable member for her heartfelt remarks.
I rise to make some very brief remarks on this very important issue, and I am pleased to have been here for those remarks just made by the member for Higgins and also those from the member for Ballarat. The way in which they conveyed their thoughts I think stands as testament to how the Victorian community has responded to the awful events of last month. As I am a Melburnian and someone who has spent almost all of my working life in the Melbourne CBD in and around the area where the tragedy occurred, these events feel very close to home. As the member for Ballarat said so effectively, it is so easy to put ourselves in the shoes of those who found themselves in unimaginable circumstances. It is so easy to put ourselves in their shoes, so it should be easy for us to reach out from this place to those who will no doubt need support well beyond today.
It is important to acknowledge the six people who lost their lives, to mourn for them and to recognise that there are many others who will be in mourning for some time. It is important again that we ensure that every support is given to them and to the 37 people hospitalised that day. As we mourn, we must also recognise the manner in which others responded. People have spoken about the first responders, and I am in awe of the work that they did under the most trying of circumstances. I am in awe of the first responders and—again as the member for Ballarat set out—those in hospitals who gave treatment, recognising the extraordinary circumstances under which they were treating those people. It is simply inspiring, though, to appreciate the bystanders—the ordinary people working, shopping and otherwise enjoying what should have been a typical summer day in Melbourne—who put themselves in harm's way to look after others—others they did not know. That was the best of Victoria.
In the days that followed, it was heartening to see the way in which the community, at every level, responded and the remarks of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier of Victoria—who made the point, 'We are stronger than what happened,' and that is a point that has already been proven correct—and the Lord Mayor of Melbourne. The way in which Melburnians and others have come to show publicly their tribute and their thoughts is something that I have been struck by and that I am sure we will continue to be struck by.
In this place, Australia's parliament, it is so important that we make a stand here—a stand in memory and in tribute to those who lost their lives, those close to them, everyone who was directly affected and those many hundreds of people who will continue to be directly affected. It is also important, as other speakers have said, that we reflect on what happened. I think it is important that we do so in a measured way and that we do not react for the sake of reacting in response to such unimaginable and grotesque awfulness. I think the tribute that we can and should pay to all those directly affected is to continue to recognise—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 17:07 to 17:20
In conclusion, it is important that those of us in this place have an opportunity to pay tribute with words to all those affected by the tragic events of 20 January. It is more important, of course, that in our deeds those of us with the capacity to act do so and do so appropriately, that we take the time to learn what can be learned from that terrible day, that we continue to pay tribute to all of those who lost their lives and all of those affected by the loss of loved ones, that we continue to take every step to ensure that all those in need of support receive the support that they need and that as Melburnians we continue to go about our lives and to support one another and to show the fantastic spirit that was demonstrated by our first responders and ordinary citizens on that day.
I want to continue on this motion on the Bourke Street tragedy and particularly a statement on indulgence regarding the tragedy that occurred. Kaitlyn Offer from the Australian Associated Press recently wrote and started an article by saying:
It was six minutes of mayhem. A rampage that has cast a giant, lingering shadow over Melbourne.
She is correct. This time and this tragic event has rightly focused the minds of Victorians on the importance and primacy of safety wherever you are in Melbourne and a concern about their ongoing lives and making sure that they live lives free from crime.
This tragic event has particularly hit our Goldstein community hard and in a deeply personal way for one family. I recently spoke in a 90-second statement about Thalia Hakin. Our community is grieving for the tragic loss of her life all too young as a victim of the Bourke Street carnage that shocked Melbourne on 20 January. She was only 10 years old. We continue to stand with the Hakin family and send our heartfelt best wishes to Thalia's mother, Nathalie, and her sister, Maggie, who remain critically injured from the event.
As I previously said in this place, it has been deeply moving to see the Bentleigh community and the Goldstein community generally stand shoulder to shoulder with Thalia's father, Tony, and particularly the support that Tony and his family have enjoyed from Melbourne's Jewish community within the Goldstein community and also the neighbouring electorate of Melbourne Ports. They have come together in moments of remembrance and at services as well as at Thalia's funeral to share the loss together and help support each other in an incredibly difficult and heartbreaking time. But the strength of our community bonds and efforts to rally and support this family reflect the absolute best of the Australian spirit, particularly in difficult times.
However, this lingering shadow has shown cracks in the Victorian people after such horrific tragedy as people are rightly coming together, trying to understand this event, the cause of it and then how they should properly respond. Quite rightly, many people are mourning, and that mourning has progressively turned to anger. The question that is being asked is: how does something like this occur? Hindsight gives Victorians answers. The accused driver—I will not mention his name because I do not believe, in any way, in acknowledging horrific crimes and giving them any sort of recognition—has been charged with five counts of murder and is expected to be charged with a sixth. He was out on bail. The anger in the community over the past two years has progressively shifted to a concern about whether there is enough focus on making sure that those people who have committed crimes remain incarcerated in a way that they cannot commit these sorts of ugly crimes into the future.
At the heart of this event is the fact that innocent people were mowed down in a street like any other in Melbourne. I think that, for a lot of us, this tragic event draws a terrible parallel with our own lives because it was one of those genuine occasions of: 'There but for the grace of God go I.' That is why it has hit the Victorian community so strongly and why the Victorian community has also taken the opportunity to come together, to band together, to share the pain and the experience and to try and improve the sense of community that we all share in difficult times. It is at these times that it is important to acknowledge not only the commitment of everybody who has come together and supported the Hakin family, who have lived in Goldstein and continue to live in Goldstein, but also the enduring strength of the Victorian community, so that we can all move forward together.
On Friday, 20 January I was on one of the last days of my holiday. I was with my three-month-old and 1½-year-old daughters outside of Melbourne in the forest at Toolangi. It is an amazing place. As you walk through the forest and look up, you see some of the tallest flowering trees in the world, and you understand what it means to be alive and to connect with this amazing world around us. It is also a place that is out of range for mobile devices—certainly the part that we were walking in. We came back from Toolangi into the city, and the closer you get to the city the more you start to check in to find out what is happening in the world around you. At that point things were coming in in dribs and drabs, but what became crystal clear was that in the heart of my electorate, in the middle of Melbourne, there was a horrific act of violence that was unimaginable to many people and that also had everyone, as the previous member said, thinking, 'There but for the grace of God go I.' As the information started to come in over—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 17:28 to 17:46
I was saying before the break that, on Friday, 20 January I was heading back into town with my three-month-old and my 1½-year-old in the back of the car together with my wife after having spent the day walking through the forest in Toolangi. Never do you feel more connected to your family and other people in the world around you and understand what it means to be alive than when you are doing that. As we came back to town we learnt, bit-by-bit, of the chaos and the enormous act of violence that was unfolding right in the middle of my electorate in Bourke Street. We did what I think pretty much everyone in Melbourne did at that stage in the evening, and that was put the pieces of information together as they came out and began to understand the true horror and enormity of what had happened.
I did what I think probably pretty much everyone in Melbourne did, and that is piece together the route that that car took on that day. You could not help but remember the last time that you were there. We have heard people, including in this chamber today, say that it was just an act of luck that saw them not standing there. As you see pictures of upturned prams and as you read of cries of mothers saying, 'Where is my baby? Have you seen my baby?' you remember that you can count the days since the last time you stood on one of those corners with your kids. You understand why this struck at Melbourne's heart. It was not just, 'It could have been me.' It was everyone acknowledging that it could have been any one of us.
The more that we learnt about the tragedy of that day the more we also learnt about Melbourne. A couple of days after I was on the corner of Bourke Street and Elizabeth Street, joining with many others standing in front of a sea of flowers, cards and stuffed toys. What was perhaps just as remarkable as the depth and breadth of the outpouring from Melburnians was that the people who were there to deliver their tributes were not just turning up, laying them and leaving; people were standing and reflecting. They were standing there, not necessarily to take photos on their phone but to pause in genuine honour and respect and to try to understand what had just happened and how we would deal with it. I do want to pay tribute to the services, particularly the volunteers from the Red Cross, who were there to support all of the people who had come along to pay their tributes.
Later that day I went to the service that was held in my electorate. They had the lord mayor speaking at it and paying appropriate tribute to the Premier, Daniel Andrews. The member for Higgins was there, the Leader of the Opposition was there and a number of members of parliament from Victoria were there too. There, we learnt more not just about the incident but also about Melbourne. One of the things that has stuck with me, and I think many other people in Melbourne, was a statement that was read out by Henry Dow, who was nearby when the car was running over people. He did what we would all like to think we would do—he ran towards what was happening rather than run away. At the service he read a post that he wrote on Facebook, and I would like to just read a part of it, because he spoke not about himself but about someone else. He said:
Administering first aid with me, under that skinny little tree, is a man named Lou: he is everything great and courageous you have seen, heard or read, rolled into one authentically humble bloke.
Having seen the car fly past, my legs carried me across the street almost on auto-pilot, swearing under my breath repeatedly as it sunk in what had just happened. Some basic Surf Life Saving training got me through the first stages of helping this poor woman: role her on her side, support her neck, we talked kindly and as calmly as we could to her.
Then the gunshots.
Holding her head, my hand was, for want of a better word, shaking. It was more like bouncing, moving several inches up and down as the fear and thoughts of what had happened, what could happen, raced through my head.
Lou grabbed my hand and firmly told me to keep it together, that I was ok and that we needed to keep strong for this woman.
In a level and loud voice, Lou barked orders at other pedestrians standing by, having not fled, but still too stunned to think or move.
He directed assistance to several of the victims laying on the pavement around us, all whilst keeping me calm and speaking lovingly to this woman: "I am Lou, you are going to be ok, we are looking after you".
It kept going through my head, "thank f**k I lucked out and have an emergency services veteran here with me". Surely Lou was Ambulance, Police or SAS. Lou was not.
Lou, in his white shirt and neat dark tie, was a taxi driver.
In our small story, of this much bigger tragedy, Lou took command and was a genuine hero.
Henry Dow, when he read those words out to the thousands of people gathered in Federation Square, had us hanging on every word. I think, in a world where the word 'hero' is used very often, a taxi driver who chooses to charge into the scene of an accident and stay there, while shots are being fired, to provide support to not only people who have been injured but also those who have come to help is a genuine hero.
We have learnt, over the last weeks, about more and more people like that. I want to pay tribute not only to them but also to the emergency services workers who were the first responders. I do not think anyone ever wants to attend a scene like that, and I know why: I have spoken to a number of other people who have said that those kind of scenes make you question whether you want to continue in the emergency services profession, and I can understand that. What I have also heard is that, that afternoon, the number of counsellors available to the emergency services personnel was exhausted—that is, so many members of the emergency services profession were reaching out for help that it took them a while to find enough people who could help. That is not a criticism; I think that is a very good thing. I think it is a very, very good thing that that is happening in Melbourne, and I want to pay tribute to all of those counsellors and all those people who stood by and supported.
I have seen many things happen in Melbourne that are talked about in terms of people coming together across the spectrum and uniting, but I have never seen something happen that so deliberately brings home that there is a common humanity and that, when a devastating act of violence occurs in the middle of a society, the answer is to come together, and it is the only answer.
I do want to pay tribute to the way in which relevant governments, especially the state government, have looked at how to deal with questions arising out of this. I do hope that in the coming months and years this never becomes something that is politicised but that, instead, we ask ourselves, 'What have we got to learn from this horrific act of violence and how do we prevent this coming together again?' But, most importantly, I hope that we remember that acts like this, especially if they ever happen again, will never divide us.
It is a little sad to think that it is only moments of great tragedy or great celebration that bring us together in this place. But I am pleased to join my colleagues from around Australia, particularly my colleagues from Victoria, to say a few words about the Bourke Street tragedy and to honour the victims of that tragedy.
A few weeks ago, the nation stood still as we heard reports of a man driving down a busy city street. That city street was Bourke Street. For Victorians, it was our Bourke Street. The incident resonated with many of us because of how surreal it was. It was shocking that people going about their business could be killed and injured by a man in an act of pure evil in what we consider to be our safe streets. Six people were murdered, and a bright summer's day was shattered by the actions of an uncaring individual. I have struggled with that adjective because it is only through the courts that we will find the adjectives for this person. To say that the act was selfish is, I think, fair in the circumstances. The footage will be remembered by all who watched in their lounge rooms and will be imprinted in the mind's eye of all who watched it unfold in real time at the scene because it was Bourke Street. It was our street—a street that all Victorians have roamed around aimlessly or busily. It is a street that I have spent my life walking along, first as a young person, a child, on my first trip to the city in my school uniform—we would get off at Spencer Street and walk up to Bourke Street—and then as a teenager on my first trip to the city with friends. I think I was 13 when I was first allowed to go to Bourke Street. On that day a few weeks ago, I thought of all the parents making the decision about their child going to the movies in the city for the first time or going shopping with friends.
I would like to offer my condolences to the families of the victims. I also wish to sincerely thank, as have many here, the first responders for their skill and bravery. Those responders were, of course, both paid and unpaid. They were members of the public reacting instinctively and members of services who are trained in these areas. They all went towards danger to help others, unthinkingly, reacting in their humanity. I spare a thought for the police officers who attended that day. Those who worked across the day will always feel connected to that event. In particular, I think of the police officers who made the decision to draw their weapons and all that that means for those officers—not just on that day but permanently. I say that because I have good friends and relatives who are in the Victoria Police and who have shared what that moment means for any police officer.
On that day, ordinary Victorians and Australians rushed to the aid of others, even in a moment of unimaginable darkness. They reminded us all of what is good in our society. Their actions were an affirmation of all of our humanity in response to what was such an inhumane and incredibly evil act. It is difficult to understand why people decide to perpetrate such evil. However, perhaps this incident offers an insight into the character traits that suggest an ability to carry out acts of evil like this. We all know hindsight is a great thing, but we need to look for patterns in behaviour so that we can predict behaviours. If you can predict it, you may have a chance to prevent it. It seems to me that a clear pattern is emerging, which we can see in this and in other circumstances, that domestic violence might be a precursor or a predictor of repeated and escalating violence, as it was tragically in this and other cases.
I hope that we can take the hindsight of this and other events. I hope that we can systematically act from the perspective of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence. I hope that we can come together to grow new knowledge and new learning about what it is in our humanity that can suddenly become so inhumane repeatedly in these cases. I hope that, in Victoria and across Australia, our parliaments can come together—our members of parliament in this place and our senators in the other place, and those in our state parliaments—and work together. In our courts we look at case law. I hope that from this event we might pull together police, magistrates, academics, lawyers, psychologists, politicians, welfare workers and experts in this field to look at case studies to see if we can use that hindsight to create a new system. I hope that in our parliaments we can work together to study what that presents and that we can grow that knowledge to make evidence based decisions to find the appropriate balance between the presumption of innocence and the protection of the innocents.
On 20 January a violent person took the lives of Matthew Si; Jess Mudie; Bhavita Patel; a 25-year-old Japanese national; Thalia Hakin, aged 10; and Zachary Bryant, who was only three months old. I am pleased to hear that in response to this tragedy Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria, has announced bail law reform, so that perhaps we can prevent another tragedy, and has established a fund to assist affected families. I would urge anyone who wants to make a donation to do so through the Victorian government's website or by calling 1800 226 226.
The impact of this day will live with many Victorians for a long time. The impact on the families who lost loved ones on that day will be extraordinary. The impact on anyone who was in the city on that day, which will be forever linked to that event, will be extraordinary. It is awful to think that what played out so quickly on our television screens will have a permanent impact on so many people. It is in the interests of those that we lost that day, and the interests of those who will live with the vision, live with their reaction, live with the memory and live with the 'what if' and the 'if only'. It is for them that we need to continue to work in this space and come up with some real answers.
I thank the honourable member for her remarks. As a mark of respect, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the chamber.
I rise to contribute a statement on indulgence on the passing of former member for Greenway—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 18 : 03 to 18:19
I rise to contribute a statement on indulgence for the former member for Greenway, Russell Gorman, or Russ as he was regularly known, who passed away on 3 January this year, aged 90. Ordinarily, my friend and colleague the member for Greenway, Michelle Rowland, would lead this contribution, but she has just welcomed a new member of her family and is obviously unable to attend the sitting of parliament. She was particularly keen to record her condolences, as well, for Russ.
Both the member for Greenway and I remember Russ well, having both grown up in Blacktown. Russ was one of the first federal MPs we had ever gotten to know when we first joined the Labor Party back in the early nineties. The member for Greenway has often remarked that Russ had worked hard for the Labor Party and for the Blacktown City area before he moved to federal parliament in 1984, and she noted that Russ was very active in the local community and a great support to many people in the Greenway electorate, covering community groups and many local organisations. I certainly remember attending my very first Young Labor event in Russ's office back in 1989, when it was located in Westpoint Blacktown, and I have known him over that course of time.
He was truly a member for Western Sydney. He used to say: 'I come from the school of hard knocks and I studied at the university of experience. I came from the gutter and could return there, but I will be taking a few with me.' He certainly had a lot of earthy sayings and anecdotes and he would always share them with whoever was in earshot. When in parliament, Russ chose to sit in the back row of the chamber, under the Speaker's gallery, next to the chamber entrance from the executive wing. There was some method behind that decision: he figured he could buttonhole the Prime Minister or any other minister on their way in or out of the chamber and make his constituent representations directly to them. He campaigned, as has been said to me, on the smell of an oily rag. In fact, he became a self-taught offset printer and then applied those skills to print his own election material at his home garage, even in the early hours of the morning, sometimes to the annoyance of his neighbours. When he would get any grief from them he would say, 'Well, if I am awake, they may as well be.'
Steve Frost, who worked in Russ's office when he was in federal parliament, remarked to me, 'As a staffer, Russ treated me like a son whilst I was working with him, opening up experiences and opportunities that few other staffers had the opportunity to enjoy.' Russ was very generous with the constituents who visited Canberra, always taking time to entertain them in the members' guests dining room. He was a very old-school politician, in the full breadth of that expression. He was not afraid of getting people offside trying to achieve what he believed was right, fair and just. He also loved to tell a joke and would have a crowd in stitches.
As a young Labor Party member myself back in that time, I remember his reports to the Blacktown branch of the ALP. He was always direct, avuncular and straightforward. If he did not know an answer to a tricky question, he would be blunt in acknowledging very quickly that he did not know the answer, but he would always follow up with branch members. That is one of the reasons why he was so well regarded among the branches within the Greenway electorate—bearing in mind that he was first elected in 1983 into the seat of Chifley but, through a redistribution, he then became the member for Greenway in 1984. Russ never professed to be a perfect person; he was very frank about himself, his place and his approach to things. What you saw was what you got with him, and people held him in very high regard for that.
I know he is going to be missed by family and fondly remembered by others, and I extend my condolences to those family and friends. I know that there will be a lot of people in the ALP in Western Sydney who would want those condolences recorded in parliament. May he rest in peace.
I too rise to make some comments about Russ Gorman. I am grateful to the House magazine of 4 October 1989, which records a piece about Russ, and it reminds me that he was born a long time ago—on 20 July 1926. So he passed away at the age of 90. I recall reading comments he made at his retirement from the parliament in 1996. One of the reasons he gave for moving on was that he was a bit crook. Well, if he was a bit crook then, I am suspecting he must have had a really good retirement. He was not an ordinary man in any sense. I served with Russ from 1987 to 1996. He was of a type, and in that period of the parliament there were a number of people who served who, in the history of the Labor Party, will be known for the way in which they approached their work and for, sometimes, doing some fairly outlandish things, and Russ was among them. Looking through the list of people who stood for the election in 1987 who served in the parliament with Russ from New South Wales, they sort of fit this mould—hard men, and they were men, who did not mind telling it how it was and, in fact, did tell it how it was more often than not. There were people like Ted Grace, whom some of you will remember; and of course an old mate of mine and a bit of a notorious character around here for some of his behaviour, Eric Fitzgibbon—the member for Hunter's father. He was a character, as was Russ. But there were others and there were some magnificent people who served this parliament during that period, and Russ had a role in that place.
He did not see himself as a quintessential parliamentarian. Indeed, on his retirement he gave a speech which was noteworthy because he said: 'I must say that I will hold a record in this place for having made the least number of speeches in the 13 years that I have been here. I think that will be a record that will stand for some considerable time. This is my second major speech; you could say my maiden speech was the other one. Apart from a few remarks about reports, this is the only other speech that I have made.' So he had a view about this place and he expressed his view quite strongly. At the time, Bill Mandle wrote an article about Russ in The Canberra Times: 'The honourable member for Greenway got up and said he has only ever made two speeches … and he said, "I will give $1,000 to any member here who has made a speech which has influenced the course of legislation. It just does not work. The Prime Minister has his riding orders as a result of cabinet decision; speeches are worth zilch. There is not much point in making speeches here. I find this place a huge, colossal bore—I honestly do. When I think of question time, I think of little kids fighting in the playground. If the good fairy came along and said to me that you can have one wish, I would come down here in the dark of night and slash, down would go the House of Representatives and slash, down would go the Senate."'
So he did not have a great belief in the oratory that we often think we can partake of when we are in the parliament. Nevertheless, he was a very effective member for his constituents. He did sit where sat in the parliament so he could nobble the ministers and the Prime Minister as they came into the place, and he was not short of a word when it was required. He did not stand back when he thought he needed to make sure his view was understood.
While born such a long time ago, Russ was—as were a number of people who served during that period—a veteran of the Second World War. He contributed to our great country as a serviceman. He was not an educated person in the same sense that you or I might be—those of us in this place now. Sadly in a way, if you do not have a degree you are not really accountable; you are not seen as being with it. We do not have many blue-collar workers in this place. During that parliament we had them, and Russ was one of them. He epitomised the attitude of the many blue-collar workers around the country at the time.
He did not have a great deal of love for authority. That was very clear in the way he approached the place. I want to quote from Alan Ramsey's article, from 7 November 1987 in TheSydney Morning Herald, in which he is talking about a private meeting of the Labor Party in which Russ made a few comments. At one point Russ provoked the then Treasurer, Paul Keating, who was minded to make some comments about Russ's intervention. Russ, to provoke the Treasurer, was equally frank. He said, 'If youse blokes', he said at one point in a broad verbal sweep of the cabinet, 'would stop stroking'—forgive me! I really cannot say it.
An honourable member: Go on.
'Stop stroking' blah 'and get out there in the electorate, you will find out what the people really think of you.' And there were other colourful remarks. I am pleased I did not have the gall to actually say what he really said, because I would embarrass myself—which is unusual, I have to say.
An honourable member: I suspect we might all be pleased.
An honourable member: That's unheard of!
Russ was a unique person, and he gave life to the views, views which I think would be held by many today, of those many people we say are not inclined to be attached to the political class. Here was a man who spoke his mind, who saw his job being a working man to represent the people he was elected by in the two electorates that he served, and he did it well. He did it well.
He did not see himself as a potential minister; he saw himself as a member of the parliament doing a job representing the interests of his electors, which is something we all aspire to. He did it in a different way, no doubt, to all of us, but nevertheless he was a unique individual. He displayed traits—he had traits that some of us in this parliament might find difficult to deal with. With social media and all the rest of it, I think we could probably be thinking maybe it was better then, in many ways. You could work in a place like this—Russ could work here and be effective. He did not see himself as the person who had to be down there, doing the doorstops every morning; he saw himself as getting things in his electorate by working through the executive of the government of the time because he had the opportunity to serve in two of the best governments of this country—that is, the Hawke government and the Keating government. He was very much a Keating supporter. He supported Paul Keating in the two leadership ballots that I was involved in. I voted for Bob Hawke both times; he voted for Paul Keating both times. That is the way it was. It was a lively contest in our place then, and the parliament was all the better for it in my view. We did not shrink—there was no shrinking from actually button-holing people and having a discussion about what it was you thought was appropriate. Russ was one of those people.
I say to his family and friends and those who knew him, those members of the great labour movement: with you we grieve. He made a contribution in his own significant way to this place, and we were the better for having him here.
As a mark of respect, I invite the honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
It is an honour to follow the member for Lingiari and also the member for Chifley. I am here to pay tribute to a man who was a scholar and a senator. He was from the other side of politics and from the other chamber. He was a Liberal senator, but he was also, for a very long time, a teacher, an academic, a writer and a thinker. I am so grateful for the opportunity to be able to put on the parliamentary record my admiration for Russell Trood. Russell was a man who cared very deeply for his students, for his colleagues, for his country and for his country's place in the world. There are so many reasons why I admire Russell Trood. Principally I admire Russell because he was, for me, an inspirational teacher at university; he was my lecturer in international relations at Griffith University. His loss—firstly, to the Senate in 2011 and, now, to this world—is something that we should mark, because his contribution was so significant.
I want to speak not necessarily just as a Labor MP but as a student of Russell's in the mid-1990s. Twenty-one years ago, almost to the day, I met Russell Trood for the first time. It was the first week of my first year at Griffith University. I had much longer hair then and my fair share of an 18-year-old's acne. I found myself in an international relations theory lecture, and it dawned on me very soon after the start of the lecture that I had been enrolled in error as a first-year student in a third-year course. As it dawned on me, I got the predictable amount of terror that I was in the wrong place. When I got up the courage afterwards to go and see Russell to explain what had happened and to work out how to extract myself from his course, he said, 'Come and walk me back to my office.' We got talking and we spent quite a bit of time together, and, after a little while, he said: 'You are enrolled in error, but I think you might be okay in the course. Why don't I just keep an eye on you. Why don't I just lend you all these books'—and he started pulling all these books off his shelves from his personal collection to lend to me so that I could catch up. He kept an eye on me throughout that whole course, and he would check in regularly and say: 'If you feel like you're falling behind, or whatever, come and see me; I will spend some time with you. Bring us a cup of tea, and we'll have a chat about the course material.'
I tell that story partly because it goes to the care that Russell had for his students, his considerate nature and the way he was such a thoughtful lecturer but also because I do not think my story was necessarily unique. I do not tell the story because I think it is a unique one; I tell it because I suspect it was a pretty common experience for people who were taught by Russell at Griffith University. He was an inspiring teacher. Griffith University is blessed on that front. There were so many people who were so influential in my time at Griffith University, and Russell was one of those extraordinary teachers whose lectures were something to be enjoyed and not just endured. International relations theory was always about Clausewitz, Morgenthau, Thucydides, Joe Nye and all of these sorts of characters, and Russell always had a way to balance the heft of some of those subjects with a little bit of wry humour as well, which people who know him would be familiar with.
So much of this early period of knowing Russell as a student came back to me first when he left the Senate in 2011, then when he passed away very recently but also, especially, last Friday when Griffith University, to their great credit, put on a memorial service for Russell. The member for Ryan and the member for Wright, who are in the chamber now, were also there, and I am sure they agree that it was such a fitting tribute to a great man.
I want to commend Henry Smerdon, Ian O'Connor, David Grant, Andrew O'Neill and everyone from their teams who was involved last Friday in putting on such a fitting tribute to Russell Trood for his colleagues, his friends and his family at the conservatorium of music in Brisbane. There were so many people there from all parts of Russell's life, including current and former senators that Russell served with. I think they brought great credit on themselves through the tributes that they paid to Russell.
In particular, I wanted to pick up on a point that Senator Brandis made in what was a very moving contribution. What Senator Brandis said was that it was quite easy to mistake Russell's civility for a lack of partisan passion. But I appreciate that Russell was really a passionate Liberal warrior. He was a small 'l' Liberal warrior, but he had been in the Liberal Party since his Young Liberal days in Sydney. He was a warrior for his cause, but he carried himself in such a classy way and in such a civil way that people would easily mistake the sort of way that he carried himself for being something less than a fully-engaged warrior for the things that he and his party—and the member for Ryan's and the member for Wright's party—believed in. I thought that was a good point that Senator Brandis made.
From my point of view, I would quite often be on a plane with Russell, or I would see him at the airport or I would see him at the Griffith Asia Institute. I was reminded of his partisanship when he generally made a version of the same reference to the great horror that he felt that he had taught so many students who went on to join the Labor Party. He consider that to be a great failure on his part—that, in his words, he had churned out so many Labor kids and not a Tory amongst them! He would generally make a joke of that nature when I would run into him around the place from time to time. But there were also words of encouragement, which was a characteristic of Russell's.
His family were at the memorial last Friday—his wife, Dale, his daughter, Phoebe and his brother, Artie. He also had a son, James—I can only imagine how much they miss him. The version that I got to see of Russell was sparing, apart from that initial engagement at Griffith. I am sure they consider themselves very fortunate to have had so much time with such a great person, husband, brother and father. So we send them, of course, our condolences. On behalf of all the students, really, who were taught by Russell, and on behalf of our side of the House of Representatives, I do want to say that he was an accomplished, decent, thoughtful and considerate man—a man who cared so much about his students, his colleagues and his country, and his country's place in the world. May he rest in eternal peace.
It is with great sadness that I rise today to speak on this condolence motion for the former senator, Emeritus Professor Russell Trood.
Russell died shortly after his 68th birthday on 9 January this year—much too young, and with so much more to contribute. His passing came as a shock for so many friends and colleagues. Russell's family held a small, private funeral service at the time, but I was pleased to be able to join with them and other friends, including the former speaker, the member for Rankin, at a memorial service hosted last Friday in Brisbane by Griffith University.
The parliament was well represented, particularly by the moving tributes paid by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. George Brandis; the President of the Senate, Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry; and former senator, the Hon. Michael Ronaldson. Of course, we were joined by many of Russell's colleagues and friends, including the member for Wright, who is going to speak later today.
A few years my senior, Russell grew up, as I did, in Sydney, where he joined the Pymble Young Liberals and I the Bradleys Head branch and the Mosman Young Liberals. However, after completing his law degree at the University of Sydney, Russell went to Canada and the United Kingdom where he undertook further studies and returned as a scholar and lecturer at the Australian National University. Then in 1989 he was recruited by Griffith University and became Director of the Centre for the Study of Australia-Asian Relations from 1990 until shortly before his election to the Senate. Our paths crossed again when he became involved in the Sherwood branch of the Liberal Party in the 1990s.
In 2004 Russell won preselection for the third position on the Liberal Party Senate ticket. Now, in those days the Liberal Party and the National Party ran separate tickets, so the No. 3 candidate was considered very unlikely to win. However, in that election the National Party also had a newcomer on their ticket—a bloke by the name of Barnaby Joyce. So the Liberal ticket comprised Brett Mason, George Brandis and Russell Trood. In his tribute to Russell, Senator Brandis regaled us with a very colourful recollection of that campaign, with three quite different candidates with quite different tastes and habits becoming very close friends and, as history records, Senate colleagues together. That was the election in which the voters of Queensland delivered four coalition senators out of six positions and gave Prime Minister John Howard a majority in the Senate.
Russell's gentle, polite, hardworking and knowledgeable contribution to parliament earned him the respect of his colleagues across all political lines. Former Leader of the Government in the Senate, Chris Evans, said of him at the time of his leaving the Senate:
I think it was good for the Liberal Party and for the Senate that you were elected … You also behave much more like people's image of a traditional senator.
… … …
Rather than being a grubby party politician, he brings free thought, an interest in ideas and a style that reflects that sort of approach. I say that very genuinely. I think the parliament and the Senate have benefited from his academic background and expertise …
I also want to refer again to the thoughtful recollections of Senator George Brandis, who reflected on Russell that:
As a scholar and in particular as a scholar of history, Russell was interested in the long run. He could see the course of events not over hours, days or weeks but over years and decades. He was one of the only voices in the coalition party room to oppose the invasion of Iraq. He said, 'Loathsome as Saddam Hussein is, if we displace the regional strongman, that will destabilise Iraq with unpredictable consequences not only for Iraq but for the rest of the Middle East. In years to come, we will still not know how unstable we will have made that region.'
As Senator Brandis said:
With the learning of history, who can say that he was wrong?'
I will continue to quote from Senator George Brandis:
In 2008 he—
Russell—
was a vigorous opponent of the amalgamation of the Liberal and National parties in Queensland. He said, 'If you fuse the parties, you will create a political space on the right, particularly in regional Queensland, that may well be filled by either the One Nation party or other more right-wing parties.' Who can say that he was wrong? So Russell had a wisdom born both of experience and of deep learning.
In the Senate this week, Senator Penny Wong also spoke about Russell and reflected on Russell's own comments. She said that he noted the importance of education and that he said:
Ideas and education matter, not just for the prosperity they promise but because free and open societies depend on them.
She said:
Professor Trood also acknowledged the role of the Senate as a means of 'ensuring the accountability of the executive arm of government' whilst, in the context of a governing party majority of which he was part, noting that an enduring source of the Senate's political legitimacy is that it was properly elected.
Other tributes also came from many other colleagues and I would like to reflect on those, particularly those from the class of 2004. Barnaby Joyce said:
Russell was a gentle man. Smart, kind and wanting this empathy to be part of the tapestry of the political purpose of our nation. For our nation to advance by being smart, not boorish. Russell was taken long before his time was due, but he left a great legacy far beyond the length of his tenure in politics.
Senator Fiona Nash, also from the class of 2004, said:
Russell Trood was one of life's absolute gentlemen. It was an honour to have known him. He was intelligent, gracious, charming and had a beautiful sense of humour. He understood politics well, and one of his many, many good traits was that he always looked to the positive. There is no one like in the parliament. He will be very much missed, but the enormous contribution he made to the lives of so many Australians will live on.
Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, yet another from the class of 2004, said:
Doctor Trood definitely was the intellect of the class of 2004!
These comments came not just from the conservative side. Senator Rachel Siewert, the longest serving Greens senator and whip said:
I respected his work and depth of understanding of foreign policy and welcomed his contribution to Parliamentary debates.
Senator Helen Polley said:
Russell was an articulate and considered contributor to any debate he participated in.
As I noted previously, Russell was held in high regard by all parts of the political spectrum. When I came to federal parliament in 2010, I considered myself fortunate to be able to sit with Russell and Senator Judith Troeth in the party room, where I benefited from their many years of experience and knowledge. One of the best pieces of advice Russell gave me in those days was to participate in the ADF parliamentary program. I naturally followed his advice and now pass it on to all new MPs. It is indeed one of the best interactions members of parliament can have with our Defence Force men and women and provides an invaluable insight that cannot be gained in other ways.
Even after leaving the Senate and returning to academia, Russell continued to make a significant political contribution. Notably, the Prime Minister of the day, Kevin Rudd, appointed him special envoy for the Prime Minister to Eastern Europe in 2011-12. In doing so, Prime Minister Rudd stated Russell 'will bring his strong background in international relations to help strengthen Australia's relations with countries in Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucuses, and will build on our considerable people-to-people links with these regions.' Of course, as we know, he also went on to make a wonderful contribution to the success of the G20 in Brisbane.
Whilst I was familiar with Russell's political life, unlike the member for Rankin I did not appreciate the extent of his academic contribution until we heard some of the eulogies from his academic colleagues last Friday, and I realised that I had very little knowledge of his extensive academic contribution. However, the high respect and esteem in which he was held by his parliamentary colleagues clearly extended to his academic life as well. Professor Andrew O'Neil commented:
During his distinguished career at Griffith University, Professor Emeritus Russell Trood personified the spirit of collegiality; he was balanced, compassionate, honest, and cosmopolitan in outlook.
But above all, he possessed a basic humanity that inspired his academic peers and the legions of students he taught—
clearly including the member for Rankin. Professor O'Neil also noted that Russell loved quotes, and he told him that the following from John Adams, the second President of the United States, was one of Russell's favourites:
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
I would like to finish with a poem that was actually read at his memorial and which was sent to his family at the time of his death by one of his academic colleagues. It is the 'Epitaph on a Friend', by Robbie Burns:
An honest man here lies at rest,
The friend of man, the friend of truth,
The friend of age, the guide of youth;
Few hearts like his, with virtue warm'd,
Few heads with knowledge so inform'd;
If there's another world, he lives in bliss;
If there is none, he made the best of this.
A very fitting tribute to Russell Trood, and I extend my deepest sympathy to Dale; his son, James; daughter, Phoebe; and his brother, Arty.
I do not often speak on condolence motions, but Senator Trood is a person that I would refer to as a personal friend and, having heard the contributions from both the member for Ryan and the member for Rankin, I want to associate myself with both of their comments. They were both heartfelt speeches, and I would probably not do the good senator justice in my delivery, but nevertheless I will give it my best shot.
Senator Trood was a gifted man in the field of academia before coming to the Senate. He was far from fitting the profile of a Liberal senator; he was amongst the most left-wing-thinking in Griffith University. He contested the seat. He always had an interest. He contested the third seat on the Liberal Senate ticket and, as the member for Ryan alluded to, a little-known-then Barnaby Joyce was contesting the second seat. It was uncommon—I think it was unprecedented—that Queensland returned four conservative senators at that election, with two from Labor. Nevertheless, history has written its pages, and Barnaby has gone on to bigger and better things. Senator Brett Mason is now serving in the diplomatic corps. Senator Brandis needs no introduction as the country's A-G.
What was evident was the number of people in the room at the memorial, not the volume of people but the quality of people who were there. There were past senators who had come back. Senator Boswell was there and spoke to me at length about his relationships with Russell. Senator Brandis spoke at the memorial, as the member for Ryan alluded to. It was an amazing speech, as were all of them.
I want to just draw your attention to one of the speeches there, which was from Senator Ronaldson. Senator Ronaldson and Senator Trood and their wives had been out for a function, and Ronno recalled the story that after the function they were in the car driving home, and Ronno's wife said to him: 'He's far too nice to be a senator. He's far too nice to be a politician.' Ronno said to his wife, 'You've never said that of me,' and her response was, 'You're right.' But Russell Trood was a terribly nice bloke.
I was so privileged to see Senator Russell Trood some time ago, before he got ill. He passed away with thyroid cancer. I saw him at his best in the corridors here. He always had a passion for this place. He stayed connected to it. I saw him at his best, and that is the memory that I will hold of Senator Russell Trood. I was also fortunate to have him as my patron senator. I do not know about the Labor world, but as lower house members we have patron senators; they will look after a group of seats. The electorate of Wright was a new seat brought about by the redistribution, and Senator Trood was my patron senator. He came out in the first week during the campaign, and he suggested that it would be advantageous for me to travel with Senator Russell Trood around the electorate, and we did that.
Just after lunch on one hot day we thought we would pop in at the Helidon pub. Helidon is a beautiful part of my electorate, with an old weatherboard pub. It was hot. It was the middle of the day. I said, 'We should duck into the pub for a quick cleansing ale, Senator.' He said, 'That sounds wonderful, except it's a little early.' I said: 'It's after 12 o'clock. Come on.' So we went into the pub, and I had some of my staff with me. I suggested to him, 'What would you like to drink?' He said, 'Oh, I'll have a white wine,' and I went, 'You're not having a white wine in the Helidon pub; you'll have a beer,' but I said, 'I'll see if I can get you a white wine.' I said to the barman, 'Mate, have you got any wine?' He said, 'Moselle.' I said, 'Just two Golds, thanks, brother.' So he drank a beer.
I do not think he was that comfortable in the regional provinces of the electorate, but he was very, very comfortable on the international stage in and around foreign policy and foreign development. He served on parliamentary delegations to Japan, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ghana and Ethiopia. He also served extensively on committees relating to foreign policy, from foreign affairs, defence and trade to intelligence and security. Our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, described Russell Trood as having one of the finest foreign policy minds. If he were still in the house as a senator—elevation can come in many different ways, but there needs to be some type of formula of talent, service of time, geographical location and mathematics—and if those planets aligned for him, I have no doubt that he would be serving in a higher capacity, a higher office, in and around somewhere in that foreign affairs portfolio space.
Also at the memorial was the member for Rankin, the President of the Senate, Senator O'Sullivan, state members and others. It was a memorial testament to his contributions both to academia and the parliament. But noteworthy of a gathering of that calibre was the number of staff who had served with Senator Trood. He did not have a high turnover of staff. As members of this place, we can let our minds go to members who churn staff through, for whatever reason it may be. Senator Russell Trood had a very stable staff when he was serving in office. I want to acknowledge Fraser Stephen—who is still a linchpin for that group and who brings the staff back together for Russell Trood on a regular basis—Marty Kennedy and Greg Birkbeck. Marty served with me when he finished with Russell in a media capacity and Greg Birkbeck today still serves as my chief of staff, which he has done from the day that I was elected. He has asked me to pass on, for the sake of Hansard, his deepest condolences to the family.
Russell will be missed. It is a salient point, and a reminder to all of us in this place, that when we stand to talk about condolences that we often shower accolade and affirmation on people's contributions to either the parliament or to their communities. I just suggest that, at times like this, it would be so appropriate for us to be a little more generous in our community with the compliments that we pay to people who are alive so that they can hear it themselves. That affirmation could lift them and they could maybe make a greater contribution to communities. It saddens me that someone needs to leave this place—pass from this earth—before we shower them with accolade.
Trood is worth the accolade that I have bestowed upon him this afternoon. He was a good man. He was a man who was well respected both in the political landscape and in the area of academia. I have not gone too much into his academia space because I did not know him then. I knew him when he was here. I also know Dale. I have met her a number of times in passing, such as passings at the airport. I remember the first time I met Dale, his wife. I pulled up and I gave Trood a hug because I had not seen him for a while. As they were walking away I could hear them, and his wife said, 'Who was that?' Trood's response was: 'He's one of the good fellas. He's one of the good guys.' So I will always have a soft spot in my heart for him. My heartfelt prayers and thoughts go to his many friends and his family—Dale, who I just spoke of, his two children, James and Phoebe, and his brother, Arty, who was at the funeral.
Senator Russell Trood, rest in peace knowing that you will live on. You have left a little bit of you with me. I am a better person for having made your acquaintance, I am a better person for having known you, and I know there are many others in this place who share my thoughts.
As a mark of respect, I invite all honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
It is a great privilege to rise and talk on the enormous contribution of Anne Deveson to Australia over a very, very long period of time. I did not know Anne personally, but I knew her daughter, Georgia Blain, who tragically passed away two days before Anne did. Georgia was a very close friend of my family. But my reflections on Anne's contribution really are informed by the honour I had of being Australia's Minister for Mental Health and Ageing over three years. In mental health particularly—the understanding that Australians have of the challenges of mental illness, particularly severe and persistent mental illness—Anne Deveson made an unparalleled contribution to Australia. I think it is important that we recognise her enormous legacy in that sense.
I think her overall contribution to Australia is reflected in the fact that her passing was recognised by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the parliament before question time. As you know, Deputy Speaker, it is a very rare occasion for the passing of a person who has not served as a public official to be recognised in that way. I think that recognition reflected across the parliament a deep sense of Anne's long and very broad contribution to Australian life. As the Leader of the Opposition said, Anne, over 40 years ago, was a member of a landmark royal commission initiated by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam into human relationships that led to quite a signature change in the way in which Australians thought about homosexuality, about a woman's right to choose and about the responsibility that society has to build refuges, particularly for women and children fleeing domestic violence. These things seem a matter of course in 2017, but they were incredibly difficult, highly contested social debates back in the mid 1970s, debates in which Anne played an extraordinarily important part—along with others, but she herself played an extraordinarily important part. Those decades ago, it became clear why Anne was able to play such a significant role in talking about social change: because she was able to combine a deep sense of compassion and a deep sense of social justice with extraordinary communication skills and a very high profile in this country. That, to my mind, is really what Anne was able to do in the area of mental illness.
Our challenges in the area of mental illness and also in relation to Alzheimer's—which I will talk about briefly as well—have been a challenge of bringing these issues into the open. They are not rare. As you know, Deputy Speaker, and as other members of this House know, very few families escape without confronting the challenges of mental illness. Anne has confronted them very deeply indeed. But for far too long in this country it has been an invisible story. It is one talked about within living rooms; it is not talked about in the broader social discourse. Happily, it is talked about more than it was when we were much younger than we are now, Deputy Speaker, and in large part that is due to Anne Deveson. She brought these things into the open, but in bringing them into the open—in having public discussions and public stories that reflected the experience of so many Australian families—she was also able to use that open debate to start to battle stigma. In that sense, we owe Anne an enormous debt for her legacy.
But I do want to say that Anne's challenge was a particularly deep challenge. Her experience, as people know, was with schizophrenia—a low-prevalence but very severe and persistent part of the family of mental disorders that, back then, was not well understood and not particularly well treated. I think it is important that, while we recognise the extraordinary contribution Anne made to lifting our understanding of schizophrenia, there is still a long way for us to go. Over the last two or three decades, we have made enormous strides, I think, as a society, particularly in our understanding and compassion towards the more high-prevalence disorders like anxiety and depression, but we must be honest that our understanding and our compassion as a society for the psychotic disorders, particularly schizophrenia, still leaves a lot to be desired. I remember, while I was Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, being told by a professor that a 21-year-old today diagnosed with schizophrenia has a lower life expectancy than a 21-year-old who is diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. It is not that long ago that that would have been unimaginable. It says two things. It says an enormous amount about the strides that we have made in treating HIV, and it says an enormous amount about the challenges that the many, many Australians living with schizophrenia face in relation to not only their mental illness but also a whole range of comorbidities associated with physical illnesses.
Anne's lasting legacy is not just the extraordinary contribution she made to Australian society by talking about her own story and writing that book about her much-loved elder son, Jonathan; it is also the establishment of a framework to drive that cause of a better understanding of schizophrenia through what we then called the Schizophrenia Australia Foundation and we now know as SANE Australia. This is a wonderful organisation, led for so many years by Barbara Hocking—who, tragically, also died only in the last few months—and now led by the wonderful, incomparable Jack Heath, and is still doing wonderful work in this area.
Late in her life, as both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition mentioned in their very fine remarks yesterday in the House, Anne also discovered that she had Alzheimer's, as her mother, her grandmother and her aunt had had. When I was Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, one of the things that really struck me about our experience as a community with the family of dementia illnesses, particularly Alzheimer's, is our inability to talk openly about our experiences with them. I remember talking to Alzheimer's Australia very early on in my time as the minister and trying to think of people other than Hazel Hawke and her family, who had really taken the country on a journey, in a public way, with their experience of Alzheimer's.
Like the family of mental illnesses, it is still a condition that is kept inside the family home, that is not talked about sufficiently in the public space, in the public arena, because we know that this is a condition that affects so many families. The number of diagnoses of dementia is climbing very, very quickly, partly because we are getting better at diagnosing it, obviously, and because of the ageing of the population. Anne, after learning of her diagnosis, again took the community into her confidence and spoke openly about her experience with Alzheimer's, which was again a wonderful contribution to the community from someone who had already contributed so much.
I pay tribute to the public contribution that Anne Deveson made over decades, particularly over the last couple of decades. In my small experience as the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, her contribution to a vastly overdue challenge that our country had to better understand and better support people experiencing mental illness, and their families, was really quite unparalleled. It is not alone, but it was an extraordinary contribution that she made.
Having some personal connection to her family, through Georgia, I understand the depth of grief being felt by that family at the moment. It is a grief that is reflected at the public level, because that family was so well known to all of us over so many decades—really, from the time that Jonathan, Georgia and Josh were very little children.
On behalf of so many people who have benefited from Anne's work in the area of mental health and, very recently, in the area of dementia, I thank Anne for her contribution and send our commiserations to her remaining son, Joshua; and to Georgia's partner, Andrew, and their daughter, who I understand is phenomenally talented, Odessa.
It is an absolute privilege to be in this place and to have an opportunity to pay my respects to Anne Deveson by putting on the record the impact that she had on not just me but also my family and all the students I taught who studied the text Tell Me I'm Here. That is where my life intersected, if you like, with Anne's, as did the lives of all the students across Victoria over several years who had the privilege of studying this text in year 12 English. It was an extraordinary text, and I think I am going to limit my comments today to the power of that text—to what Anne Deveson managed to do at the height of her powers as a writer and a communicator, in making the very brave decision to take perfect strangers on a journey with her family, recounting the highs and the lows in the extraordinary events of their life from Jonathan's diagnosis through to his death. It was an honour to be able to read that story. I know that, for me and for many families, reading that firsthand account from Anne opened our eyes and assisted us to reflect on the way we interact in our own families, the way we interact with society and the way that society thought about mental illness.
I vividly remember reading passages in classrooms of 25 young adult children who could do nothing but connect with Anne's children through that text. They could connect so closely to Jonathan's experience, thinking about themselves and their friends. Schizophrenia is an incredibly cruel disease that tends to come on young men in particular, or in larger numbers, at a time when they are developing their notions of themselves and are entering a world that is no longer so black and white as they go into adulthood but is filled with shades of grey. It makes the onset of schizophrenia so much harder on the individual when their own identity is being shaped and then there are those layers and layers of confusion.
I remember distinctly the first time I read that book in class, when Anne had used the word 'mad' to describe Jonathan, and how confronting it was to think in those terms. As a teacher and as someone who strove to write, I remember thinking how incredibly brave it was but, most importantly, how incredibly effective it was. Anne did not write Tell Me I'm Here, in my interpretation of the book, to shy away from the words that scared people. She did not come across in the text as wanting to say that the story of her family and the illness was different to other families. She wanted the world to understand that this was the illness and that this was the impact of the illness. I had the privilege of watching young people interact with the text and open their eyes to a new understanding of mental illness, with empathy for sufferers and for the families.
The writing that Anne did in this text was also extraordinary, and often what Anne was doing, or what it appeared to me that Anne was doing as I read it with young people, was that they heard Jonathan's voice. The young people in my classroom heard that young man's voice as he struggled with a diabolical illness. One of the most compelling lines in the book for me and for the classes that I taught—the one that the young people I taught came back to more and more often—was the single line where Jonathan recounted that it would be better to be a junkie than a psycho. The power that that had on young people thinking about mental illness was extraordinary—the notion that a disease was the worst thing that could happen to you and that belonging was so important to every individual that Jonathan was relaying to his mother that somehow he had found a place where he felt like he could belong.
There was the heartbreak, I know, for mothers around the country when they read that line—the heartbreak they felt for Anne and for mothers around the country at the time who were struggling with this. As the member for Port Adelaide said, they were alone in their lounge rooms or were with a close group of friends, whispering about the pain, whispering about the anxiety and whispering about the nights they lay awake and wondered where their child was, if their child were coming home and, if they were, what state they would be in. It was that one line and the devastation of that one line—that belonging was so important that you would rather be a junkie than be perceived to be mad or psychotic in our society. It was the pain for a mother who had fought so hard to have a welcoming home for Johnathan on his return—to know that he no longer saw home to be a place to belong. It is in that one line, in the retelling of Jonathan's saying that, that I think Anne Deveson captured the pain that was happening across the country and which still happens across the country, as families battle with themselves and with their own perceptions and understanding of mental illness.
For me, Anne Deveson opened a door in my classroom that went wider, of course, than that classroom. It reverberated around the suburbs of the children we were teaching. It started conversations that had not been had before: young people going home and coming back into class, telling me that they had relayed our classroom conversation about this text to families. The copies of that book were sometimes not in our classrooms because they had been lent to a mother, to a brother, to a cousin or to a friend down the road. It was an extraordinary thing to see.
So for that, I wanted to take this time to put on the record my appreciation for the courage that it would have taken to be that mother who put pen to paper after the extraordinary loss of losing her son not once but losing her son daily in moments when the illness took over his life. Thank you.
Thank you. As a mark of respect I invite honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the chamber.
Today I rise to commemorate the 1967 Black Tuesday fires in Tasmania—the lives lost, the homes wrecked, the livestock killed and the businesses burned to the ground. But this is not just a story of catastrophe; it is also one of resilience and strength, of mateship in adversity, of heroism and of a determination to rebuild.
In the late spring and early summer of 1967, Tasmania experienced wet weather followed by hot, dry conditions that turned the lush, green growth into crisp brown-and-gold kindling. Now, Tasmania's winds are legendary, and on 7 February 50 years ago they ruthlessly drove fires across the state's southern regions, across 110 fire fronts and scorching more than 2,500 kilometres of land. Within five hours, 900 people were injured, 1,400 buildings were destroyed and 64 people were dead.
Tasmania went into lockdown: phone lines were down, with poles on fire and people moved as fast as they could from the fires, including into whatever water they find, whether it was in water tanks, lakes, rivers or the sea. This was an era long before satellite or mobile phones, or the internet. No-one could get through to find out what was going on. The island was cut off from the mainland communications, and even within Tasmania mothers were cut off from kids who were at school when the fires were on. It must have been a terrible time. Roads were blocked by trees and burning foliage, their embers spreading high and fast on the wind and setting more bush and buildings alight. Farmers threw water tanks onto trucks, transforming them into makeshift fire engines. Of the 110 fires, 88 were found to be deliberately lit. Some were ill-thought-out burn-offs, but for others the reasoning is unclear.
My friend and colleague, the member for Franklin, who will speak next, attended the official commemorations in Tasmania yesterday, representing the Leader of the Opposition. The township of Snug is in her electorate, and it was almost totally destroyed by the flames. It has been rebuilt, with plaques to honour the 64 fallen, and it was in Snug where the main commemorations were held.
The member for Franklin told me this morning that for many she spoke to yesterday, Black Tuesday was not 50 years ago; it was yesterday. It is seared that clearly in their minds and memories. Tasmanian Fire Service district Officer Gerald Crawford has been with the Tasmanian Fire Service for 46 years. This is what he told the ABC:
It was very hot, very smoky. The smoke was extremely thick to see from one side of the street to the other you were looking through smoke.
He was 14 years old.
The power was down, telephone lines were down, there were no communications. The only information people were getting was via the radio.
It was a very scary time.
Mr Crawford's story is just one of many that are being retold this week. The Tasmanian media is doing an exceptional job with commemorative features, particularly The Mercury. I thank the media for the sensitivity and the generosity that they have shown in covering this event to date.
Yesterday, Tasmania and Australia stopped to remember Black Tuesday, including in this parliament. Today, I am thankful to be able to use this short time to acknowledge those who were lost, those who were there and those who have enjoyed and rebuilt. Thank you.
Can I thank my colleague the member for Lyons, who I know did want to say a lot more but cut his speech short to allow me to speak. Tuesday, 7 February 1967 is etched on the memories of so many Tasmanians. There are so many personal stories because it impacted so many people. It was a hot and windy day, full of drama, full of tragedy; but, as we heard after that day, also full of heroism and resilience. Black Tuesday, sadly, remains one of the Australia's worst bushfire tragedies—half a century after the event. That loss of 64 lives with injuries to 900 more, the loss of homes to more than 7,000 people and the loss of stock and livelihoods is still impacting on Tasmanians. The cost of the destruction on that fateful day in today's dollars is half a billion dollars. Most of south-east Tasmania was alight—110 fires, some of which joined together. They burnt around Hobart city, the suburbs and the regional towns, including mostly in my own electorate, sadly: the towns of Kingston, Blackmans Bay and down in the channel in Middleton, Snug and Electrona and down in the Huon in Huonville, Signet and Geeveston—so many towns.
As my colleague the member for Lyons said, the townships of Snug, Middleton and others were virtually wiped out, including the home of my father's family at Snug. My father's family lost their home in Snug and, sadly, I lost my father just four years after that bushfire. There are very few remaining photographs of my father to this day because of that bushfire. Mine is just one of many stories. As the member for Lyons did indicate, I was privileged to be able to attend the memorial services in Snug yesterday. I heard so many stories from people telling me of that dash to save lives, as they bundled their children up. Mothers, who are now old ladies, told me that they had to make such quick decisions about what to take. A woman said to me yesterday that she took just three things: her husband's best suit because he would need that because obviously he would need to go to work; her son's favourite toy because he would need something; and she took a tablecloth that was particularly special to her. She told me that, to this day, that favourite toy is still special to her son and that tablecloth is still special to her because that is all they have remaining from that time. There are so many stories of strangers picking up children and families and people in distress in the street; so many stories of orchard owners sharing their water because many of these towns did not have reticulated water. They could not fight these fires. There were no communications. The telephones poles were down. The power poles were down. Tasmania was cut off.
The south-east corner suffered so badly on that day and people remember it still, like it was yesterday. As you talk to them, you feel their resilience. They have rebuilt. They have rebuilt their lives. They have rebuilt their buildings. They have rebuilt their community. But, still, there is an impact from that day. Their lives were changed on that day because of that tragedy. They are more resilient and they have built a wonderful community in those areas that were affected. But we should never forget what these tragedies do to communities. As we know, yesterday was also the same day, ironically, of the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria, where there was also that very significant loss of 173 lives. I express my sympathies and condolences to those families. That was eight years ago and I can imagine how they were also remembering yesterday.
I particularly want to put on record my thanks to all the people, the volunteers and the emergency services, who fought then and still fight now to save people and to save property at these times. They have the most difficult job. We do not make it easy. We do not listen to the advice that we are given about clearing around our homes. We still do not listen to the advice that is given out. We are getting better, I would like to say, but it is really important that we learn from these tragedies, that the losses that we have borne as a community are not forgotten and they are not in vain. I put on record my thanks to all of those who assist, including the non-government organisations and the charities that do important work. I hope that never again does Australian have to deal with one of these days. Sadly, I am told, there will be more.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:31