I present report No. 12 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 19 June and Wednesday, 21 June. The report will be printed in the Hansard for the day, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 13 June 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, 19 June 2017 as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training:
Inquiry into Innovation and creativity: workforce for the new economy
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am
Speech time limits—
Mr Laming—5 minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MS SHARKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and for related purposes. (Competition and Consumer Amendment (Safeguarding the Reputation of Australian Beef) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 13 June 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 WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and for related purposes. (Competition and Consumer Amendment (Paper Bills and Statements) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 13 June 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 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to require the equal treatment of the religious certification of products, and for related purposes. (Religious Certification (Non-Discrimination) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 28 March 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 CHRISTENSEN : To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to workplace relations, and for related purposes. (Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay of All Workers) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 30 May 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 RAMSEY : To move:
That this House:
(1) expresses its support of Adani's decision to purchase $74 million worth of steel rail from Arrium's Whyalla steel works;
(2) recognises that the:
(a) order will help sustain jobs in South Australia and particularly in Whyalla;
(b) extra work comes at a vital time in the process of selling the Arrium business; and
(c) Arrium business in Whyalla is vital to the city's future and loss of this order would have a material impact on its future;
(3) rejects any further:
(a) attempts to delay the Adani project which was taken by both the Queensland and Commonwealth governments to their respective constituencies prior to their last elections; and
(b) delays which threaten the jobs of workers in Whyalla; and
(4) condemns actions that threaten Australian manufacturing jobs.
(Notice given 23 May 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Ramsey—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day
1 Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017: Second reading—Resumption of debate (from29May2017) on the motion of Mr Shorten—That the Bill be now read a second time—And on the amendment moved thereto by Mr Christensen.
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR C. KELLY: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) illicit drugs can cause untold harm in our communities and on our streets; and
(b) the Government:
(i) is committed to targeting the supply, demand, and harm caused to our communities by the scourge of illicit drugs; and
(ii) has made significant investments in our law enforcement agencies to do all they can to keep drugs off our streets;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) in the last two years alone, our agencies have detected and intercepted more than 12.5 tonnes of narcotics that have been attempted to be imported into Australia; and
(b) Australian law enforcement officers continue to confront Australia's drug market and combat the criminal syndicates that peddle illicit drugs; and
(3) calls on all members of the House to promote greater awareness of the harmful effects of illicit drugs on individuals and communities across Australia and support our law enforcement agencies in keeping drugs off our streets.
( Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Time allotted—50 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr C. Kelly—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MR BURKE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) music fans are missing out on tickets because bots have bought up tickets in bulk and these tickets are being on-sold at inflated prices;
(b) music fans are also having to endure the disappointment and the loss of missing out on seeing live music through no fault of their own but because websites like Viagogo allow the selling of fake tickets and tickets that have been sold multiple times over;
(c) major search engines are profiting from advertising these websites and the tickets sold on these websites at the top of search results; and
(d) the loss felt by many people is not simply the loss of an experience but a substantial loss of money for what can be one of their biggest discretionary purchases of the year; and
(2) calls on the Government to explain the action being taken to ensure that if someone buys a ticket to live music, they know they can turn up and get entry to the music they love.
( Notice given 29 May 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Burke—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MR ENTSCH : To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that the Australian Government grants free access and unrestricted travel to officials, journalists and citizens from the People's Republic of China, and the same level of access and freedom to travel to Tibet is not afforded to Australian officials, journalists and citizens by the Government of the People's Republic of China;
(b) Australian officials, journalists and travellers wanting to visit China's Tibetan Autonomous Region and Tibetan autonomous prefectures in China's Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces are routinely denied access and if access is granted, are subjected to close monitoring, compelled to join government-organised tours, and/or face other restrictions;
(c) repeated requests since mid-2014, for the Chinese Government to respond positively to members of the relevant Australian All-Party Parliamentary Group seeking approval for a delegation to visit China's Tibetan areas, and that over the same period, delegations representing China's Tibetan Autonomous Region, Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces have received approval to enter Australia and travel freely within the country; and
(d) reciprocity is a fundamental principle of diplomatic practice that promotes mutual exchanges, mutual benefit and the development of friendly relations between countries;
(2) expresses concern that:
(a) China has regularly closed the Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas in China to any entry by foreign tourists; and
(b) Australian officials, journalists and citizens regularly face refusals and restrictions when applying to visit Tibetan areas in China;
(3) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) renew efforts to ensure reciprocal access to China for Australian officials, journalists and citizens and for travel within China—as Chinese officials, journalists and citizens have to Australia for travel within Australia; and
(b) ensure that visits to China by Australian officials and journalists, to a similar extent as visits to Australia by Chinese officials and journalists, are unrestricted and allow open interaction with the local population, freedom to move about and observe unhindered, and promote genuine understanding between the peoples of the two countries; and
(4) calls on the Chinese Government to lift restrictions on access to China's Tibetan Autonomous Region and Tibetan autonomous prefectures in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces for officials, journalists and citizens from Australia and respond positively to the pending request by Australian parliamentarians to visit Tibetan areas in China.
( Notice given 20 March 2017.)
Time allotted—50 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Entsch—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MS RISHWORTH : To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the Australian Medical Association's survey highlights that the freeze of the Repatriation Medical Fee Schedule (RMFS) is leading to some healthcare professionals no longer accepting Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) clients;
(2) recognises the negative impact that the DVA RMFS freeze has had on veterans accessing specialist medical care;
(3) notes that the Australian Institute for Suicide Research Prevention, the Australian Psychological Society and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists have raised the negative impact that the freeze is having on veterans accessing skilled clinicians;
(4) expresses concern that some mental health and allied health services are not accepting veterans into their service as a result of the indexation freeze; and
(5) calls on the Government to immediately drop the RMFS indexation freeze, which is significantly impacting on veterans' access to mental health and specialist medical services.
( Notice given 29 May 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Ms Rishworth—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
It ems for Federation Chamber (4.00 pm to 6 .30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices—continued
5 MR WOOD : To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that on Friday 28 April 2017 four individuals faced court charged with terrorism offences in relation to a 2016 Christmas Day terror plot to attack Melbourne landmarks;
(2) acknowledges the:
(a) excellent work being undertaken by Australia's law enforcement and security agencies to keep the community safe, including:
(i) 61 people charged as a result of 26 counter-terrorism operations around Australia;
(ii) 38 people convicted of terrorism related offences;
(iii) 41 people before the courts for terrorism related offences; and
(iv) 12 major counter terrorism disruption operations in response to potential attack planning in Australia; and
(b) importance of providing law enforcement agencies with the appropriate powers and resources to disrupt terrorist activity and protect Australians; and
(3) congratulates the Government for its world leading counter-terrorism strategy, including:
(a) eight successful tranches of counter-terrorism and national security legislation;
(b) significant investment of $1.3 billion to support law enforcement and intelligence agencies to combat terrorism;
(c) tripling investment in initiatives to counter violent extremism to $45 million; and
(d) investment in our law enforcement and security agencies to ensure they have the appropriate powers, skills and resources to fight terrorism.
( Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Time allotted—55 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Wood—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 9 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
6 MR ALBANESE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes the growth of the craft brewing sector in recent years as a generator of employment, tourism and exports in capital cities and regional communities;
(2) further notes:
(a) there is an inequity between how Commonwealth excise is calculated for small and large scale brewers which disadvantages the craft brewing sector;
(b) that excise currently accounts for a disproportionate amount of the costs of production for small brewers and the calculation of excise imposes a significant burden on them; and
(c) this small business sector provides local employment and is an emerging tourism attraction; and
(3) urges:
(a) the Australian Government to ensure policy settings which encourage the realisation of the potential of the craft brewing sector; and
(b) state and local governments to update their planning controls and development approval to facilitate the growth of the craft brewing sector.
( Notice given 20 March 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Albanese—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
7 MR T. R. WILSON : To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there has been a significant increase in crime in Victoria;
(b) the latest figures from Victoria's Crime Statistics Agency show that the total number of offences reached 535,826 during the past financial year, an increase of 13.4 per cent, with assaults increasing by 11 per cent, robberies by 14 per cent, and aggravated burglaries by 7 per cent;
(c) Victorians increasingly feel unsafe in their homes and on their streets;
(d) the Victorian Government has lost control of the Victorian justice system; and
(e) Victoria has the most lenient bail laws in the country, a contributing factor in the prevalence of crime; and
(2) calls on the Victorian Government to:
(a) start taking crime and community safety seriously;
(b) dramatically strengthen Victoria's bail system;
(c) fix the crisis in the youth prison network, which has seen unprecedented riots and breakouts; and
(d) dedicate more resources to community safety and Victoria Police.
( Notice given 27 February 2017.
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr T. R. Wilson—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
8 MS CLAYDON: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) one in three Australian women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15; and
(b) two thirds of women who experience violence are in paid employment;
(2) recognises that:
(a) family violence isolates and excludes its victims and disconnects people from community, work, education, friends and family;
(b) the trauma experienced by an employee facing family violence will be lessened if they have the support of an understanding and accommodating employer that offers domestic and family violence leave; and
(c) access to a leave specifically allocated for situations of domestic and family violence protects employees from discrimination and allows them to maintain stable employment which increases their likelihood of leaving violent relationships;
(3) commends the many private companies that already provide domestic and family violence leave, including Telstra, Virgin, Qantas, National Australia Bank, to more than one million Australian workers;
(4) condemns the Government for its public service bargaining policy which has resulted in the removal of domestic and family violence leave provisions in some public service enterprise agreements; and
(5) calls on the Government to amend the National Employment Standards to include domestic and family violence leave as a universal workplace right.
( Notice given 24 November 2016.
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Ms Claydon—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3. Pursuant to the resolution of the House of 23 May 2017, the committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 as follows:
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR HUSIC: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that 2017 marks 70 years since the Philippines established its first diplomatic office in Australia;
(2) celebrates the strength of the bilateral diplomatic relations between Australia and the Philippines over those 70 years; and
(3) acknowledges the importance of effective diplomatic relations with the Philippines, which are underpinned by our shared history and deep and enduring relationship.
( Notice given 23 March 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Husic—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MS MARINO : To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the work of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) through the ThinkUKnow program, a free, evidence-based cyber safety program, to provide educational presentations to parents, carers and teachers, and students across Australia;
(2) further recognises that ThinkUKnow is Australia's first and only nationally delivered crime prevention program that is delivered in partnership with law enforcement and industry;
(3) thanks the dedicated volunteers and federal, state and territory police forces that have delivered ThinkUKnow presentations to more than 150,000 school students from year three through to year 12; and
(4) congratulates the Government and the AFP for leading the way by partnering with state and territory police forces, and the private sector, to develop new measures to keep our children safe in the online environment.
( Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Marino—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MS KEAY: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that Tasmania has the defence knowledge, capabilities and capacities to participate in the defence industries sector;
(2) notes that:
(a) the University of Tasmania, through its world leading marine research, engineering and training facility the Australian Maritime College (AMC), is the acknowledged Australian leader in maritime education in both technical skills and research;
(b) the AMC has developed a range of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) which are suited for defence purposes and provide the opportunity for:
(i) increased consolidation of research and innovation at the University of Tasmania Inveresk site;
(ii) the redevelopment of the University of Tasmania, AMC Newnham site; and
(iii) associated local advanced manufacturing, particularly in North and North West Tasmania;
(c) the state-of-the-art AUV's enable a broad range of scientific, industry and defence related projects by facilitating exploration and data collection in remote and inhospitable locations;
(d) the AMC has the capability to lead or play a key role in any necessary training associated with significant defence projects, such as the Future Submarines Program;
(e) in addition to the defence opportunity that the AUV's represent, Tasmania already has a number of industries with the capability to participate in defence related industries supporting for example combat reconnaissance vehicles, shield and antenna protection and marine survival;
(f) defence industry opportunities for Tasmania will deliver a range of significant social and economic benefits across the state including a growth in industry research and increased employment through advanced manufacturing; and
(g) there is unequivocal and mutual support from both the Labor and Liberal parties at a state and federal level for Tasmania as a key centre for defence research, development and industry; and
(3) calls on the:
(a) Department of Defence to continue to work with industry with the goal of ensuring Tasmania is as integrated as possible in Australia's defence capability, including defence research, associated education, training and manufacturing; and
(b) Government to continue working collaboratively with the Tasmanian Government so Tasmania can play its role in the defence research and manufacturing industries sector.
( Notice given 14 February 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Keay—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MR VAN MANEN: To move:
That this House:
(1) condemns the Queensland Government for failing the people of Queensland;
(2) notes that:
(a) Queensland is leading the nation on job losses;
(b) more than 30,000 jobs have disappeared from Queensland in the last year and almost 40,000 people have given up looking;
(c) Queensland's participation rate is at a more than 20-year low and more people are giving up looking for work; and
(d) Queensland is in a jobs crisis and it is clear that the Premier of Queensland has no plan for the future; and
(3) calls on the Queensland Government to end its empty rhetoric on jobs and actually start delivering for the people of Queensland.
( Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr van Manen—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 MS T. M. BUTLER: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the 2017 budget has ignored Queenslanders' calls for funding of the Cross River Rail (CRR) project;
(2) recognises that the:
(a) CRR project is urgently needed to keep pace with Brisbane's growing population;
(b) existing rail crossing over the Brisbane River in the CBD, the Merivale Bridge, is approaching full capacity; and
(c) CRR was declared ready to go by the independent experts at Infrastructure Australia in 2012; and
(3) acknowledges that the former Government allocated funding to the CRR project in its 2013 budget, only to have the current Government scrap the investment in its 2014 budget.
( Notice given 11 May 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Ms T. M. Butler—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices—continued
6 MR GEORGANAS : To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the important and vital role played by professional interpreters and translators in Australia;
(2) notes that:
(a) Australia has been at the forefront of the provision of language services since the late 1970s, becoming one of the first countries in the world to mandate and subsidise the use of interpreters and translators for all people whose first language is not English when accessing public services; and
(b) the provision of regulated and accredited language services is fundamental to enabling people whose first language is not English to fully participate in society and Australia;
(3) notes and commends the professionalism and ethical behaviour of National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters accredited interpreters and translators, and the important contribution of their work to our country's social cohesion; and
(4) acknowledges the importance of supporting the interpreting and translating industry and practitioners through appropriate training, professional development, regulation, recognition and remuneration.
( Notice given 25 May 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Georganas—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
7 MR TED O'BRIEN : To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that electricity prices affect every Australian, whether it be the price of electricity at home or the cost to businesses that will flow on to threaten jobs and business competitiveness;
(2) acknowledges that since 2009, in Queensland the average price of electricity has risen from $35 MW/H to $95.27 MW/H which is a 180 per cent increase;
(3) further acknowledges that there has been a 59 per cent increase in the last year in electricity prices;
(4) notes that electricity prices have reached record levels in Queensland, including $14,000 MW/H in January 2017;
(5) notes with concern the allegations of Rio Tinto that the Queensland Government is manipulating the electricity grid to keep prices high and increase revenue for its state owned assets; and
(6) calls for a full and transparent inquiry to be conducted into the cost of electricity in Queensland with recommendations for solutions to fix the problem.
( Notice given 23 May 2017.)
Time allotted—70 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Ted O'Brien—10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
8 MS HUSAR: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) reducing penalty rates will have a disproportionate effect on women;
(b) women make up 54 per cent of workers on the Fast Food Industry Award, 55 per cent on the General Retail Industry Award and 77 per cent on the Pharmacy Industry Award;
(c) in hospitality women are disproportionately part time and award reliant;
(d) the Government has refused to rule out cuts to the Hair and Beauty Industry Award, an award for an industry comprised of 87 per cent women; and
(e) thousands more women will be affected by these penalty rates cuts than men;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) women are more likely to rely on penalty rates to meet household expenses;
(b) the cuts in take home pay of up to $77 a week will make it harder for women to pay rent and feed their families; and
(c) the cuts to penalty rates in these industries will widen the gender pay gap;
(3) condemns the Government's:
(a) failure to protect the take home pay of low paid women workers; and
(b) support for further cuts to the Hair and Beauty Industry Award; and
(4) calls on the Government to:
(a) support Labor's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017 to protect the take home pay of low paid workers;
(b) exercise some leadership and stand up for low paid workers; and
(c) start working to close the gender pay gap.
(Notice given 28 March 2017.)
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Husar—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
9 MR EVANS : To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the ongoing work of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in the Pacific to keep our region safe and support our neighbours;
(2) recognises the Australian Government and the AFP's commitment to supporting our neighbour, Papua New Guinea (PNG), and the capacity building of the Royal PNG Constabulary;
(3) congratulates the Australian Government for announcing in January 2017 the extension of the PNG-Australia Policing Partnership with 73 AFP personnel assisting PNG in planning for the 2018 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum; and
(4) recognises that the:
(a) increasingly transnational nature of crime, including illegal movement of drugs, weapons and people, highlights the importance of cooperation between Australia and PNG; and
(b) Australian and PNG governments share an important and enduring relationship, which will be further strengthened through this investment in law enforcement.
(Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 6.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Evans—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
During the 2016 election campaign, the government announced it would establish a Regional Investment Corporation to be the single delivery agency for the Commonwealth's farm business concessional loans program, the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility, as well as any future programs.
This bill delivers on that commitment, establishing the corporation.
We are establishing the corporation because we recognise the enormous contribution that rural and regional communities make to the nation.
We are committed to helping those communities reach their full potential.
Agriculture has always been a key pillar of our economy and has to deal with so many things, such as the vagary of the weather, as it contributes to our national economy. But, while agriculture is a strong part of the economy, it is a volatile industry.
Our farmers deal with a highly variable climate that impacts on their productivity.
Farmers face severe droughts that can undermine the best farm-business planning.
Farmers can also experience dramatic fluctuations in commodity prices that impact on revenue and profitability.
Farmers live and work with this uncertainty.
Since 2013-14, the Commonwealth has been offering concessional loans to farm businesses to help them through these times of difficulty.
Our efforts have largely focused on managing drought. Concessional loans are an important element of the Commonwealth's drought policy framework introduced by this government to implement our commitments to the intergovernmental agreement on national drought reform.
This drought policy framework encourages on-farm risk management and farm business resilience and provides targeted support when needed to enable businesses to improve their long-term financial position.
The government's drought policy is underpinned by long-term policy commitments around which farmers and associated financial and support industries can plan:
While building industry resilience to drought has been a key focus for use of concessional loans, more recently loans have been offered to dairy farmers affected by the severe industry disruption of retrospective price cuts made by some major dairy processors.
Concessional loans are also being extended from 1 July 2018 to support eligible farmers who have exhausted their 1,095 day eligibility for the farm household allowance.
These concessional loan programs have been delivered through the states.
There is no doubt these loans are successfully providing practical support to the farm businesses that have received them, with over $680 million in loans approved to 1,270 farm businesses as of 30 April 2017.
But the fact is that delivering through the states is unwieldy and there is a lack of consistency in delivery across the country.
Currently, the Commonwealth has to negotiate separately with each state government to change an existing arrangement or roll out a new program to farmers.
Even with the best endeavours, this can involve protracted negotiations over delivery, loan terms and administration costs—delaying the rollout of and farmers' ability to apply for this important government support.
We have also found that loan decisions are not being made consistently across the country.
For example, some states apply a very restrictive approach to assessing loan applications and have a very low rate of loan approvals.
This is unacceptable. The Commonwealth should have more direct control over the delivery of its loans programs. We did not go to so much work to provide access to this facility to see it not rolled out by certain states.
Establishing the corporation will remove the middle man, allowing us to be more responsive in providing loans to farm businesses.
We also will be able to deliver a nationally consistent program focused on the needs of Australian farmers.
Establishing the corporation will be a significant change in the way the Commonwealth works with farmers during times of need.
It is the logical next step in meeting the government's commitment to agriculture, as set out in our landmark Agricultural competitiveness white paper,in excess of $4 billion.
The Regional Investment Corporation will have a client focused culture that is receptive to and understands the unique nature of farming.
The farm business loans offered by the corporation will help viable farm businesses return to normal operating conditions.
They will help those businesses take advantage of emerging opportunities at a time when the agriculture sector is performing so well.
They will also boost farm productivity and cash-flow, and provide positive economic and social flow-on effects for regional Australia.
The loans will not be the same as those currently offered through the states. The program will be broader, with loans drawing on constitutional authority that includes the Commonwealth's trade and commerce and external affairs powers.
Existing loans which have been delivered by the state and Northern Territory governments will continue to be managed by those state delivery agencies for the life of the loan.
As well as administering farm business loans, the corporation will administer the government's National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility.
Water and water infrastructure is critical to our future prosperity, particularly for agricultural industries and regional areas of Australia, especially areas such as Central Queensland, Northern New South Wales and Western Australia. We are already seeing the rollout of dam infrastructure in Tasmania. This government is committed to working with the states and territories to identify and build the water infrastructure of the 21st century to secure Australia's water resources.
Through the facility, announced in May 2016, the government has put $2 billion worth of concessional loans on the table for states and territories to draw on to deliver the water infrastructure needed to help our agricultural sector reach its full potential.
The corporation's administration of the loan facility will provide further incentive for states and territories to fast-track the construction of dams and priority water infrastructure projects.
These projects will stimulate investment, economic growth and increased agricultural productivity in rural and regional economies, helping take the people in those areas ahead and giving them a better economic future.
As outlined in our election commitment, the corporation may also deliver other programs in the future. This bill provides for this by allowing for rules to prescribe additional programs to be administered by the corporation. These rules will be subject to legislative oversight and disallowance.
A key consideration in the design of the corporation was ensuring it had the right governance framework, with appropriate independence from government.
The bill establishes the corporation as a corporate Commonwealth entity. It will have an independent board of three members to oversee the performance of the corporation.
The board will be skills based, covering fields such as agribusiness, banking and finance, financial accounting or auditing, economics, water infrastructure planning and financing, the law and government funding programs or bodies. We are also seeking board members with experience in issues affecting rural industries and communities.
Such expertise will be vital for the corporation's management of financial risk.
It will also allow for the corporation to provide expert advice to the government on water infrastructure projects and issues affecting farm businesses.
There will be two responsible ministers for the entity—the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and the Minister for Finance.
The responsible ministers will appoint the board of the corporation and will issue the corporation with an operating mandate.
The operating mandate will be the key vehicle for the government to set out its expectations for the corporation. The board will then be responsible for implementing the mandate.
The bill sets out what can be included in the mandate, such as:
The initial mandate will be ready by the time the corporation commences its operations. It will be tabled in parliament, but, as a direction to a corporate Commonwealth entity, it will not be disallowable.
The responsible ministers can also direct on the location of the corporation. This will enable the government to give effect to its decision to locate the corporation in Orange, New South Wales.
Importantly, while responsible ministers can direct on matters listed in the bill, they cannot stray into decisions on individual farm business loans. These are matters for the corporation alone.
The arrangements for the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility are somewhat different.
In that case, decisions on whether to provide loans to states and territories will continue to be made by the government.
The role of the corporation will be to provide independent expert advice to the government on water infrastructure projects being considered for financial assistance.
Then, on direction from the responsible ministers, the corporation will enter into and administer loan agreements with states and territories.
Bringing this stream of work together with farm business loan administration consolidates loans expertise in one entity in the agriculture portfolio.
It also incorporates the functions into an entity with a governance structure that balances independent, commercial decision-making with appropriate responsiveness to government.
Establishing this corporation reflects the government's priorities for rural and regional communities in Australia.
We want to see these communities reach their productive and economic potential.
The corporation will make a significant contribution to building a stronger and more prosperous rural and regional Australia.
It will strengthen farm businesses. The corporation's loans will help farm businesses build and maintain diversity in the markets they supply, and take advantage of new and emerging opportunities across Australia.
It will also help fast-track the construction of priority water infrastructure needed to stimulate investment, economic growth and increased agricultural productivity in rural and regional Australia.
It is bills such as these, and the creation of an entity such as the Regional Investment Corporation, which is one of the priorities and one of the great joys of being part of this government—to actually be able to deliver on something that so many other people talked about but we are actually making happen. It shows a real vision for where we are taking regional Australia. It sits on the back of all the work that we have currently done in support of commodity prices. It shows once more that, on this side of the House, we have a real vision for where this nation is going and that we will work with our regional communities. We dearly hope that it collects the support across the parliament, although that is yet to be seen.
Debate adjourned.
On 30 May, the Minister for Justice and I announced that the government would introduce tough new laws to combat the sexual exploitation of vulnerable children overseas by Australian child sex offenders.
Today I am pleased, in the presence of the Minister for Justice, to introduce the Passports Legislation Amendment (Overseas Travel by Child Sex Offenders) Bill 2017 to do just this.
This bill responds to community concern about Australian child sex offenders travelling overseas to sexually abuse vulnerable children in countries where the law enforcement framework is weaker and their activities are not monitored.
This concern is justified. In 2016, more than 770 Australian registered child sex offenders travelled overseas. Half of them were registered by state and territory police as being medium to high risk offenders and a third of them violated an obligation to notify police of their intended travel.
These offenders have a high propensity to re-offend in countries where they are not monitored and where child sexual exploitation is rampant. Registered child sex offenders are subject to reporting obligations in Australia specifically because of their ongoing risk to children.
Existing measures are clearly ineffective.
This bill will address current deficiencies and will prevent Australian registered child sex offenders with reporting obligations from travelling overseas by:
(1) denying offenders a passport; and
(2) making it an offence for offenders to travel overseas without permission from authorities.
The passport measures introduced under this bill will apply to the approximately 20,000 registered child sex offenders with reporting obligations in Australia. It will also apply to future child sex offenders registered annually. If there are good reasons, offenders with reporting obligations will be able to obtain permission from authorities to travel overseas.
Once there reporting obligations have concluded, offenders will be able to apply for a passport in the usual way.
These laws will make Australia a world leader in protecting vulnerable children from child sex tourism.
Passport measures
The bill will amend the Australian Passports Act 2005 and the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005 so that upon request by a 'competent authority', as defined in the Passports Act, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be required to refuse to issue or cancel an Australian passport, or demand the surrender of a foreign travel document when an Australian citizen is on a state or territory child sex offender register with reporting obligations.
The decision to refuse to issue or to cancel a passport will be mandatory and not subject to administrative review following a competent authority request. This is appropriate as the competent authority has the expertise and full details of the circumstances of the offender to make such decisions.
A new offence
This bill will also amend the Criminal Code Act 1995to make it a Commonwealth offence for a registered child sex offender with reporting obligations to travel, or attempt to travel, overseas without permission from a relevant authority.
The new offence is an important complement to the passport measures. This new offence ensures that child sex offenders can be prosecuted should they try to evade the passport measures. It will have a particular role to play in helping to prevent Australian dual nationals from travelling illegally on foreign passports.
Other measures to deal with child sex offenders
This bill is just one of the measures that the government is progressing to address the serious community concerns regarding child sex offenders.
The government is also developing a package of legislative reforms to the Criminal Code 1995 and the Crimes Act 1914 to criminalise emerging forms of child sexual exploitation and strengthen the sentencing and management of Commonwealth child sexual offenders.
This will strengthen the laws we have to protect children in Australia.
I am advised that this will be brought forward in the spring sitting.
Conclusion
This bill reflects the seriousness with which this government is responding to the scourge of child sex tourism.
These tough new measures send a strong message to child sex offenders that they cannot use overseas travel to sexually exploit and abuse children. Such abhorrent crimes will not be tolerated.
I acknowledge the presence in the House today of Senator Derryn Hinch, who has been a powerful advocate for the measures contained in this bill. I thank him for his passionate support for this legislation. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is an administrative technical amendment to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001and the Corporations Act 2001. The bill eliminates potential legal risks that have recently become apparent by validating certain past agreements that were made to employ or engage a small proportion of ASIC staff before the end of 9 March 2017.
From the commencement of this bill, the validation of the agreements means that those affected staff will be taken to have always been valid staff members who were effectively delegated ASIC's functions and powers.
These amendments address various administrative oversights including one that occurred in 1999. At that time, legislative changes shifted the power to employ or engage staff outside of the Public Service Act from ASIC itself to ASIC's chairperson. However, relevant delegation instruments were not updated to reflect this change.
ASIC only recently became aware of this oversight. Successive previous governments have not been aware of it. The irregularities only potentially affect a small proportion of ASIC staff employed outside of the Public Service Act.
The passage of this bill ensures that previous actions taken by those ASIC staff will be effective. In turn this will remove any doubt about the validity of any sanctions that have otherwise been legitimately imposed on people; and any doubt about the effectiveness of the relief that ASIC has provided.
The amendments will have no impact on any current or former ASIC staff members beyond ensuring the validity of their employment and actions. The legislation maintains the status quo, under which the chairperson of ASIC has the ongoing ability to employ or engage staff members and for ASIC to delegate its powers and functions to them.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Australian Embassy Project, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
In respect of the motion there is one particular project that Labor does not support, and that is the border protection—
I ask the member for Makin to resume his seat. For the benefit of members of the House, the minister has a long list of public works that he is moving through. The question before the House now is on the Australian Embassy project, Washington DC.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Main Building Refresh Project, Geoscience Australia Building, Symonston, ACT.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed fit-out of leased premises for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 15 William Street, Melbourne, Victoria.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection Headquarters Project.
As I advised the House when referring this project to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection proposes to undertake a fit-out and refurbishment of new and existing leased premises at 5 and 6 Chan Street and 45 Benjamin Way, Belconnen; and at 3 Molonglo Drive, Canberra Airport precinct, Australian Capital Territory. The project is driven by the expiration of current leases, targeted Commonwealth efficiencies and the need for appropriate accommodation designed to enhance the department's capability across all areas of business.
The new fit-out will give the department a new workplace that is innovative and fit for purpose. The department has a substantial presence in the ACT, and this will continue when the department is consolidated into four buildings, down from 12. The department will substantially reduce the amount of office space it holds in the ACT, by approximately 13,000 square metres. The proposed works include new workstations, offices and meeting areas, specialist operations areas, new security systems, advanced technology and conference rooms, training and videoconferencing facilities and new, multiuse non-denominational rooms and amenity areas.
The committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project that is fit for purpose and expedient to carry out.
On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for once again undertaking a rigorous and timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, the fit-out is expected to begin in August 2017, with completion scheduled for mid-2018. The remainder of the buildings are to be completed by 2021. I commend the motion to the House.
I note the comments of the minister just a moment ago, but, as I made clear when reporting back on behalf of the Labor members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the Labor members did not support this project at the time. Labor wants officers of Border Force to have the resources and facilities that they need to keep Australia's borders strong. But during the inquiry the committee identified issues with the project's proposed costing. The committee disagreed with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection about the incentives and took the view that interest payable on loans should form part of the total cost of the project. We also experienced difficulties with the department throughout the inquiry and were left unimpressed by the way the department provided information to the committee on this project.
Labor is not convinced that this proposal represents value for Australian taxpayers. I can summarise the reasons why. I repeat: we understand and support the need to have strong border protection measures in place, and we also understand the changing nature of Border Force operations in Australia. However, the interest payments on the incentive payments do not appear to be properly accounted for in the figures provided to the committee. Secondly, the cost-benefit analysis savings that were reported to the committee are based on a 30-year projection of the project. The lease period of these premises is for 15 years plus two five-year extension rights. That means a total of 25 years. There is no doubt that unforeseen expenditure will occur between now and the next 30 years, and to try and extrapolate savings over such a long period can only be based on speculative figures at best. Thirdly, the fit-out costs of this project, in comparison to other fit-out costs, also appear to be somewhat high. Lastly, the square-metre lease cost of the airport precinct building also appears to be high, based on other market rates and the availability of other buildings. For those reasons we believe that the project does not represent good value for Australian taxpayers. For those reasons Labor members of the Public Works Committee opposed this expenditure.
The question is that the motion moved by the minister for a proposed fit-out of the new leased premises for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection Headquarters Project approval for work be agreed to.
I am looking for some bipartisan support on this one, and I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation Project, Broadmeadows, Victoria.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Russell Offices buildings 5 and 6, infrastructure upgrade, Russell, ACT.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Seaward Village—Proposed upgrades to housing for Defence families at Seaward Village, Swanbourne, Western Australia.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Stage One of the Garden Island (East), Critical Infrastructure Recovery Program, Sydney, NSW.
Question agreed to.
I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Bushby has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings.
I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating a member to be a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into school to work transition.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Giles be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training for the purpose of the committee’s inquiry into school to work transition.
Question agreed to.
To continue from last night, I was pointing out to the House that both sides of parliament support, in principle, having a threshold of zero apply to the GST for imports, but that the government has botched the implementation of this measure, which needs to be fixed. I will go into a little more detail about the problems with the government's proposed measure. First, and perhaps most important, is compliance and the government's proposed and projected compliance rates. I mentioned last night that we had referred this bill to a Senate inquiry to allow aeration of the concerns we had and to allow questioning of both the Treasury and interested stakeholders, and I thanked, again last night, Senator Chris Ketter in particular for his excellent work in the committee, because it did confirm a lot of our concerns. Most particularly we asked the Treasury what the compliance rate would be—that is, what percentage of people obliged to pay the tax would actually pay it. The Treasury advised that it expected a compliance rate of between 25 and 30 per cent. That might sound reasonable to start with, 25 to 30 per cent. You might say, 'Well, this will take some time to get going.' But that was the expected compliance rate in the third year, not the first year. The Treasury told the Senate committee that the maximum compliance rate we could expect after three years would be around 30 per cent.
We also learned that by 2022-23 the compliance level would hit maturity—peak compliance under the government's model—and that it would be a whopping 54 per cent. So at maturity just over half of those obliged to pay GST on their imports would be complying. That is the best the government can do.
This is a very important matter not only for revenue for the states but, even more importantly, for competitive neutrality for small business. Small business are relying on this measure to give them a level playing field. Small business have been told it will give them a level playing field, yet under the government's proposed model, at peak, only just over half of the parties obliged to pay the tax would be paying the tax. If this is the government's idea of a level playing field, I think they have got it sadly wrong. The measure would be largely reliant on the goodwill of overseas operators to comply with the law of the land.
It is not a workable model. There were submissions to the Senate inquiry, both written submissions and testimony before the Senate inquiry, from electronic distribution platforms, including eBay, Alibaba and others. I completely accept that of many of these people giving evidence have vested interests. In some cases, they would prefer to see the threshold not change to zero. I completely accept that. But I also say it is incumbent on us to accept that, when they say the model is unworkable, simply cannot be implemented and is not one they can comply with, that should be taken very seriously.
The key problem with this legislation is that it is not platform-neutral. In fact, it would be quite disruptive of electronic platforms. The fact of the matter, I think, is that electronic platforms—and not just the ones I have mentioned—in particular have raised genuine concerns. Amazon and others have also raised genuine concerns. This gets to the nub of why we referred the bill to the Senate committee. It is because those concerns are very worrying to the opposition and I think at the very minimum those electronic platforms have made an arguable case that this proposed method of compliance is not workable.
Then we come to the matter of the implementation. With the best will in the world, if this was the perfect model, if the government had got this right, which I submit to the House that they have not, it would still come into force on 1 July this year. Today is 14 June. So we are talking roughly a fortnight away before the tax law changes quite dramatically when it comes to the introduction of the GST on all imports. This government has given Australian businesses and consumers a fortnight to change their models to implement the new regime before the new tax comes into place. This is a very significant issue because it is not just me who says this; it is members opposite. The Liberal senators in the Senate inquiry recommended a year's delay, and the Treasurer has ignored that recommendation from his own party members who said it is not workable for this tax to come into place on 1 July this year. It is not us saying that; it is members opposite saying that. So I would like to see what senators from the government in particular say when this goes to the other place and if they argue against what they argued for in the Senate inquiry and say it is all hunky-dory and fine—'This can be implemented in a fortnight, no problem. It can all be done.' It cannot be done.
As I said last night, this was a measure not from the 2017 budget. So the Treasurer cannot say, 'We only announced it in May, so we have to rush it through.' It was announced in the 2016 budget. He has had a year to get this right. He has had a year to get the implementation right. He has had a year to get the legislation prepared with necessary consultation, and the Treasurer has completely botched it.
Again, we sometimes get a call for more bipartisanship. But, just like with the bank tax, when the opposition try to be bipartisan and give in-principle support to the government, we find more and more that this government and this Treasurer in particular botches the implementation. The Treasurer has nobody to blame. He cannot blame the Labor Party or the Senate because we actually support what he is trying to do. We just are obliged to point out that the way he is trying to do it is fundamentally wrong.
I put to the House that Labor have developed a very sensible position. That position will be reflected in the second reading amendment I will move. But, more importantly, it will be reflected in in-detail amendments that my colleagues will move in the other place. Those in-detail amendments will seek to amend the bill. I think I can predict the result in this House, so I am not going to move those amendments in this House. I will move a second reading amendment to reflect Labor's position and then in the other place we will move detailed amendments and we will be calling on the crossbench to support these detailed amendments because they are sensible.
The detailed amendments will do two things. They will delay the implementation of the change for a year. We do that reluctantly because we want to see this come in, but we have no choice when the government have botched the implementation and, as I said, even their own senators, Liberal and National Party senators, have recognised it is not workable for it to apply from 1 July 2017. It should apply from 1 July 2018. I would have thought that could be a bipartisan position, given that that is the position taken by the government senators in the Senate inquiry. Alas, it appears not.
That is the first arm of what we will do. But it is not good enough. In the absence of any other action, that is simply kicking the can down the road—saying, 'This is a big problem, but at least it is a problem 12 months away.' We can do better than that. We can do better than simply saying we will delay this very problematic implementation by 12 months. The amendments that we will move in the other place would also require the government to commission a Productivity Commission review into the proposed model, the workability of the proposed model and the workability of alternatives.
Let me be clear: because we are delaying it by a year, it will be the law of the land. The law of the land will reflect that the GST needs to be levied from 1 July 2018. But we are giving the government an opportunity to fix the mistakes and to get the advice of the Productivity Commission, which has looked at these issues before. They come at this with some experience. The Productivity Commission will be able to examine and will be required to examine the government's proposed model and other models. I know and expect that those who oppose the government's model as unworkable will need to provide alternative recommendations to the Productivity Commission. It will not be good enough to simply to say that the government's model does not work. They will need to provide workable alternatives. I have confidence in the Productivity Commission to assess the workability of the government's model and to come up with suggested improvements or alternatives. Then it is up to the government as to whether they accept those not. The amendments do not require the government to accept them. That is a matter that government of the day. But I suggest it would be a very brave government, a very foolhardy government which has a Productivity Commission recommendation before it and chooses to reject it.
The amendments that my colleagues will move in the other place will reflect that the Productivity Commission will need to report back to the government in good order—I would suggest October this year. It does not need to be a lengthy review. That will give the government time to consider its position and if necessary to amend the legislation, and if they are sensible amendments they will have bipartisan support. We would not set up this Productivity Commission inquiry then to ignore its recommendations. It could pass the parliament quite quickly.
So what we are doing is really offering the government to meet them halfway and to say that we will support the GST applying from zero dollars. That is a good initiative. As I said in my earlier remarks, it is no criticism of John Howard and Peter Costello to say that they could not predict the rise of e-commerce in 2000. If they could have, they probably would have made it zero them. Nobody predicted that this would be an issue. It was a sensible threshold in the year 2000, but it is not a sensible threshold now. But we also meet the government halfway and give them away out of this imbroglio, this mess of the government's creation. We give them this way out of the imbroglio by suggesting a sensible way forward, which is an independent review by the Productivity Commission. The ability of the Productivity Commission to recommend to the government is one that I think should be respected.
I know it is unusual to have a Productivity Commission inquiry mandated by legislation. It is normally done by the Treasurer or another Treasury minister. But in this case I think it is satisfactory and acceptable that it be done by legislation. I would hope that the government would support this in the other house; but on the basis that they do not support it in the other house and we were successful, I would hope that they would take in good faith the position of the parliament and, therefore, in due course, the position of the Productivity Commission. So I move the second reading amendment which was circulated in my name:
That all 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:
(1) notes:
(a) there is in-principle support in the Parliament for reforming the GST Low Value Threshold, and giving Australian retailers a level playing field with their overseas competitors;
(b) despite being introduced in the 2016 Budget, the Parliament is only debating this bill with less than a month to go before its proposed start date;
(c) the Government has completely mismanaged the implementation of this measure; and
(d) there is wide stakeholder dissatisfaction with the proposed model, with stakeholders saying:
(i) the proposed model will be complex and costly to administer;
(ii) there will be unfavourable impacts on consumers with the costs of implementation being passed on; and
(iii) there will be issues surrounding compliance; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) delay implementation of this measure for one year in order to get the measure right; and
(b) conduct a Productivity Commission review in order to determine the best method to implement this measure, with a report back to the Parliament by the end of 2017”.
I commend the amendment to the House. I commend the principle of the legislation to the House but note the government's very poor attempt at the details of the implementation of what is an important change, which could have sailed through the House in a bipartisan fashion if the government had got the details right.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
I rise to speak strongly in favour of the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017, in the form that the government has proposed, and the scrapping of the GST low-value threshold. When I became the CEO of the National Retail Association, about five years ago now, this reform was one of the big three priorities described to me by the industry, by retailers large and small. This was holding back their international competitiveness, harming their growth, and hindering their ability to employ more Australians. Some small businesses I spoke to, especially in certain categories of products, saw this problem as the number one reason that they would have to close their doors. For some businesses that was undoubtedly and unfortunately their true and lived experience. Yet I do not want to convey a sense that this reform in any way represents a silver bullet for all of the challenges faced by the retail industry. It is one of a number of reforms, improvements and opportunities that need to be managed for the future of that sector.
I see this bill firstly as about closing a growing loophole in the tax system, about the integrity of the tax system, and, secondly, about fairness and a level playing field for Aussie businesses. It speaks volumes for some of the challenges of reform in today's world that in essence this policy debate was effectively had and won and over in less than two years and it then took a further two years for the political cycle and political interests to align sufficiently for the reform to proceed. Changes to the GST obviously do require the unanimous support of all of the states and territories, as well as the Commonwealth. In reality, that means that it requires bipartisan support, and this reform does have that. We should ignore some of the posturing and comments the shadow Treasurer made just then—honestly, a review to tell us what we already know. They are going to support this bill.
If I reflect on some of the conversations that I had with treasurers past in my previous role—and I will not breach any confidences—I will just say that I am well aware of what Labor's position has been on this reform at the highest levels, and it makes a mockery of some of what the shadow Treasurer just said. Not only is this bill long overdue but its passage is actually a positive reflection on the quiet achievements of this government. The Turnbull government has succeeded in achieving collaboration and reform, again and again, in areas where reforms have evaded so many former governments.
On the policy itself, let us be clear about why this reform debate was settled so quickly. The GST, when it was designed, was always supposed to apply to the products that we are talking about. You can like or dislike the rate of the GST or its scope, but the point is that the question of whether we have a GST, and the products that it applies to, was debated in this country almost 20 years ago. That debate is over. It was had and it was won. The GST was always intended to apply when Australians purchased and consumed the goods we are talking about right now.
At the time the GST was established online shopping did actually exist, but it was not the mainstream phenomenon that it is today. As the shadow Treasurer rightly pointed out, the issue of how the GST would be collected on small imports was basically relegated to a second-order issue. There were so many other priorities to consider in the design of the GST, so this $1,000 low-value threshold, I understand, was basically plucked from another place in the border and customs arrangements, without extra thought going into what might change in the future. But in the years since then online shopping has become a mainstream phenomenon and this low-value threshold has increasingly become a loophole, and a growing loophole, that undermines the integrity of our GST by stopping it from covering what was always intended to be covered.
It is worth pointing out at this time that the Commonwealth does not get the GST dollars we are talking about—those tax dollars go directly to the states and territories—but we must accept that it is and always has been a Commonwealth responsibility to ensure the ongoing integrity of the GST system. When loopholes become apparent or when the GST shows signs that it is no longer working as originally designed, it is up to the Commonwealth to lead the charge to mend it.
I go on to the issue of fairness. This is about a level playing field for Aussie businesses. As the phenomenon of internet shopping grew and as the international competition for the dollars of Aussie consumers has grown, the GST low-value threshold has started to operate essentially like a reverse tariff wall. In other words, it is making Aussie businesses less competitive compared to their international competitors, it is giving overseas competitors a financial leg-up compared to Aussie businesses, and the pricing advantage is not necessarily just the 10 per cent of the GST. When the low-value threshold kicks in, not only does the GST but so do tariffs, excise and customs charges. We have to remember that many of the types of goods that we are talking about—clothing, shoes, fabrics, sporting goods; you name it—are subject to a tariff or an excise too. So, depending on those tariffs, excises and customs charges, the differential can be as much as 20 per cent or even higher. So the 10 per cent to 20 per cent or even higher differential is the price disadvantage being placed on local businesses just because the world has changed and our local regulations have not kept up. We cannot allow our tax laws to be used in a way that entrenches competitive disadvantages against our own local businesses. This is about a level playing field for Aussie retailers. It does not give anyone a leg-up. In fact, it puts a stop to the leg-up that we are currently giving offshore competitors. This will ensure that local businesses at least are competing on a level playing field and are facing exactly the same taxes and regulations as their offshore competitors.
The amendments proposed in the bill are actually modest and simple. We are imposing exactly the same requirements to collect and remit GST, which are already being complied with by local Aussie businesses, onto similar companies that are selling exactly the same goods from offshore to Australian consumers. But I want to note—and I pick up on some of the comments of the shadow Treasurer—how the perfect has been the enemy of the good in achieving this reform and the reason for the delays to date. Different complex schemes have been raised by different parties at different times that might forensically examine all of the parcels coming in over the border or might be integrated with our mail system or with the parcel businesses or similar, and those schemes should continue to be explored, but they are not what is being proposed in this bill.
Occasionally I still hear the arguments around the cost of collection of the GST being outweighed by the GST collected, and that is completely incorrect to apply to this bill. That argument does not apply because, firstly, those estimates come from the more complex schemes that have been explored occasionally, but we are not proposing those schemes here. Secondly, the entire point of this reform is not to increase GST revenues; it is to fix the integrity of the tax system and close a loophole. We do not just give up on collecting income taxes because some people only pay a small amount of income tax or are difficult to collect it from. We certainly have not given up on collecting company taxes just because the world has changed and all sorts of new international schemes and corporate structures are possible. In fact, I see this reform sitting very neatly, side by side, with the government's other recent multinational tax avoidance laws which have clawed back almost $3 billion, and counting, this financial year. They are taxes which should always have been paid, consistent with the intention of our existing tax laws.
No tax is perfectly enforced—I will come back to that thought in a moment—yet efforts are made and should always be made to ensure that taxes are applied and enforced equally across the intended scope of taxpayers. Certainly, government should never publicly say that we will not even bother to try to collect tax from some activities or businesses just because the costs of collection are high or difficult. What sort of message does that send to mainstream taxpayers who are left shouldering the remaining tax burden? Under this reform, it will be up to the regulator to best direct their enforcement and compliance efforts to collect the GST from those intended to be within the scope of it, as it is with every other tax and every other regulator. No tax is perfectly enforced, as I said just a moment ago, and that should not stop us from making reforms like this to substantially close loopholes or weaknesses that become apparent over time. We do so clear eyed about the fact that it does not achieve 100 per cent enforcement and we do so clear eyed about the likelihood that these are probably not going to be the last reforms that we have to make on this journey. These reforms are timely—they are overdue, in fact. They are proportionate to the problem, and they are fair. These reforms will not cause the GST to suddenly be perfectly applied or enforced, but they will make it better. More reforms may well be considered. Indeed, the future for all of our major tax structures will continue to be explored.
I note the Senate review of this bill and its recommendation about the start date of this reform: pushing it back to 1 July 2018. I must say that I would have disagreed with that recommendation if I had been sitting on the committee. Again, here the perfect is being the enemy of the good. The Senate committee was responding to claims from mostly offshore large online website operators, which the shadow Treasurer acknowledged. He acknowledged that their interests are being served by ongoing delay. It was a shame to hear the shadow Treasurer just then parroting their lines. Their complaint generally has been that there has been insufficient time to consider and to comply, but that claim flies in the face of the fact that the state and territory treasurers had agreed to the collection model almost two years ago. Yes, the legislation has only been drafted more recently, but, honestly, how many different paths could this really have taken, given what the state and territory treasurers agreed to? This is always where these reforms were likely to land. Are these innovative online platforms capable of responding to the changing world or not? Do they already comply with similar obligations for different sales taxes and consumption taxes all around the world or not? Are their existing online platforms already collecting and remitting taxes for different states and territories in the US and the EU and other places based on the delivery addresses of their customers or not?
Nonetheless, I strongly support this bill and I commend it to the House. It does ensure a level playing field for businesses. It is fair, it is overdue and it upholds the integrity of our tax system by closing a growing loophole. It sits, as I said, very neatly with the government's other initiatives in multinational tax avoidance laws as we try as best we can to keep our tax laws up to date in what is a rapidly changing world. Most importantly, and very dear to my heart, the level playing field that this creates breaks down one of the many challenges and barriers being faced by our small business sector. They are the backbone of our economy as they continue to create the opportunities, the jobs and the prosperity that our country so critically needs. I commend the bill to the House.
As we debate the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017, a significant transition is occurring in retail across advanced countries. In the United States, Macy's is due to close 100 stores and sack 10,000 employees. It will soon have nearly a fifth fewer stores than it did just a year ago and is anticipated to have to cut even further. As one analyst from Morgan Stanley notes, 'this is just the start'—in the future, Macy's expected to shrink even further. This is just one of the many traditional bricks and mortar retailers that is shrinking in the current environment. A principal reason for this is the rapid growth of Amazon, now the world's fifth most valuable listed company, which accounts for about half of e-commerce in the United States. Not only is Amazon large, but it is projected to grow significantly larger. Morgan Stanley expects its revenue to rise from $136 billion last year to more than half a trillion dollars by 2025, which would be the most rapid growth in corporate history. The success of Amazon is based not only on its distribution centres but also on its use of robotics in packaging—the Kiva robots—and on rapid shipping, with Prime now offering two-hour shipping as well as its standard two-day shipping.
Amazon has announced that it is going to enter Australia sometime in the near future, which will again affect the Australian retail environment. Australians already do a significant share of their shopping online. According to a recent report by National Australia Bank, growth in online retail sales accelerated in March at 0.8 per cent, meaning that Australians spent $22 billion over the previous 12 months in online retail—about seven per cent of the traditional bricks and mortar retail spending. Breaking that spending down across online domestic and online international sales, NAB estimates that, of the growth, about nine per cent has been domestic and about nine per cent has been international, and about 80 per cent of total online spending continues to be domestic.
The other challenge facing the Australian retail environment is the fragility that record high household debt levels have created. In a speech last month, Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe noted:
In earlier periods of rising housing prices, the household sector was withdrawing equity from their housing to finance spending. Today, households are much less inclined to do this. Many of us feel that we have enough debt and don't want to increase consumption using borrowed money.
That debt exposure is a challenge for the Australian retail sector. The traditional retail sector is facing tough times, with significantly tougher times yet to come. It is vital that we acknowledge that context as we debate this bill. As others in this debate have noted, if we were starting from scratch today, knowing what we know about e-commerce, the GST would not have been designed with a $1,000 low-value threshold. When Labor were in government, we commissioned work from the Productivity Commission to look at lowering the GST low-value threshold on international imports. We made it clear that, if it raised more revenue than it cost, we would be open to reform.
The government assures us that this reform does that. But, as I will outline, Labor has significant concerns about the way in which the government has bungled the attempted implementation of this attempted reform. We are now debating changes which, if they were to pass the House unamended, would take effect in a matter of weeks. It is extraordinarily unusual to be debating tax changes of any scale which take effect in a matter of weeks, but it is all the more unusual when what Australia is seeking to do is lead the world. There is nothing wrong with leading the world and being the first in the world to make a change, but it ought to give you pause when you are attempting to lead the world by getting large online retailers to change their behaviour with just a couple of weeks notice.
Australian retailers are right to say that they are being placed at a cost disadvantage by the current GST low-value threshold. But it is important that we get the reform right. The model the government has put forward is a vendor registration model. This requires overseas suppliers which have an Australian turnover at a platform level of over $75,000—including the electronic platforms eBay, Amazon, AliExpress and the like—to register and charge GST. The analysis of this which has been done by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee—and I commend Labor Senator Chris Ketter for his work on that committee—has uncovered significant concerns about the workability of this model. The Senate inquiry found that Treasury expects a compliance rate of 25 to 30 per cent in the third year of operation. On the government's current timetable, by mid-2019 there will be around three-quarters of transactions which do not fall within the net. And when the system hits maturity, which is estimated to be in the fiscal year 2022-23, the government anticipates a compliance level of just 54 per cent. In other words, at its best, this current model is estimated by the boffins in Treasury to miss nearly half of the low-value imports.
The Senate inquiry made it clear that getting other countries to enforce this is going to be a challenge—whether it is the United States or China. We are concerned by the submissions made by those who will need to implement the model that it is not workable. Submissions from eBay, Alibaba and Etsy were critical of the government for putting in place a model which effectively requires them to collect tax in a way that they have not done in the past. Amazon has noted that while in the United States they currently collect state sales taxes for products sold by Amazon when they are shipping their own goods, they do not currently collect state sales taxes in the same way for Amazon Marketplace—that is, where they are acting as a platform reseller. That is what the government is intending to do in this change.
There have been concerns from freight carriers and express carriers about a system that requires the collection of business numbers and vendor registration numbers. They have said that would create complexity, unnecessary delays and increased costs. There have been concerns from peak consumer group Choice about the impact on consumers and, as the Senate committee has unanimously acknowledged, the government's timetable is too short. Coalition senators and Labor senators called for a delay in the start date of 12 months, until 1 July 2018, to ensure that the problems in the model could be sorted out. It is not just Labor senators; it is coalition senators as well who want a delay so as to get this right.
Labor's view is that we should not just put in place a delay, but we need a rigorous independent assessment of the model. The government tell us that their model is perfection personified, that the best we can hope for is a model that, when it ripens, will still miss 46 per cent of low-value goods transacted and which they say it is possible for platforms such as Amazon and eBay to implement within a matter of weeks. Let us have a delay, let us put it to the Productivity Commission to carry out an independent review, assessing the current vendor registration model and testing whether or not that model can be improved. It will provide the breathing room that we need in order to get this important reform right. Labor is in principle supportive of bringing down the low-value threshold; we are in principle supportive of boosting GST revenue and providing tax neutrality to Australian retailers. As I noted at the outset, they face a tough environment and it is getting tougher. But it would not be responsible, it would not be in keeping with our status as an alternative government, for us not to take the opportunity to look at whether or not this legislation can be improved, which is why the shadow Treasurer has foreshadowed the amendments that Labor will be moving in the other place.
We note, too, the fact that the Turnbull government, while talking a lot about the importance of getting the red tape burden right, did not put in place a regulatory impact statement for this bill. That is, itself, in breach of Office of Best Practice Regulation guidelines. We note that the call for a delay has come from the Conference of Asia Pacific Express Carriers and the Freight & Trade Alliance. We note, as well, that the government has throughout this process been unable to provide clear answers to the concerns that have been raised by platforms about how implementation will take place.
I suspect the coalition will eventually come around to Labor's way of thinking on this, just as they did with superannuation tax concessions, cigarette excise and funding community legal centres and as perhaps they will do one day even with climate change. Labor sets an evidence based agenda and the Liberals follow. We want to get the details of this right. We want to ensure that we have competitive neutrality, but we also want to ensure that Australians continue to gain the benefits of engagement with online platforms. There is massive consumer surplus to be had from online retail.
Online retail is not just about purchasing final products. Many Australian businesses rely on inputs that they source online. They might be stores that are buying technology that assists in their sale process. They might be factories purchasing machines that they use in order to produce final products. They might be home offices and small businesses purchasing their inputs online.
Access to online retail brings terrific benefits and will continue to do so as we move into a new world of Australia-based Amazon, with many Australians taking advantage of Prime, of the rapid ordering facilities—potentially even the use of drones. This raises important competition challenges down the line. As shadow minister for competition I am acutely aware of the importance of making sure that we have a competitive retail environment as we move to these online platforms, but we need to make sure that we have tax neutrality right and that we do so in a manner that is workable.
Australia is not the only country that is looking at the taxation of online retail. Other countries are exploring this issue. Other countries are watching what Australia does. In that sense, if one is concerned with global tax compliance, it is even more important that Australia gets this right and that we work with the technology companies—not for them, but cooperating with them—to ensure the Australian model is workable. It is important that we set a standard for others to follow to show that it is possible to collect value-added taxes in a way that does not raise a massive compliance burden on Australian consumers, that ensures tax neutrality and that ensures that, while changes in retail are inevitable, those changes are not driven off an unfair playing field because online retail is getting an unfair tax advantage. That is not the way in which competition ought to work.
Everyone has an obligation to pay their fair share of taxes: corporate taxes, income taxes and value-added taxes. Labor wants to see this measure succeed, and that is why we are proposing a 12-month delay and a Productivity Commission inquiry. It is in the government's interests to support Labor's changes, because in the long run that will ensure that we have a model that is workable, that is fair and that ensures that Australian consumers and taxpayers get the right outcome.
The Labor Party yet again, as indicated by the member for Fenner, is paralysed when it comes to taking action in support of small businesses in Australia. It is always the coward's way out to say that in principle we agree, but we do not like the detail. Do we have an alternative proposal? No, we do not. The Labor Party has no alternative other than their usual kick-the-can-down-the-road approach of let's just have analysis and paralysis, and maybe one day we can take action to help small business.
Well, the coalition thinks otherwise, and I rise today in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017. Let's make no mistake: this is indeed a profoundly important change to our tax system. It is a world first, in fact—a change that will level the playing field and deliver competitive neutrality for our more than two million small businesses across Australia. This bill is a commitment to Australia's small businesses, and the retail sector in particular, as outlined in the 2016-17 budget.
Importantly, this significant tax reform is supported by the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, with the unanimous agreement of the states and territories, and represents a rare opportunity to address longstanding challenges to revenue and service delivery. This reform is also supported by the retail and business sectors themselves, including the Australian Retailers Association. I commend the Treasurer for his commitment to amending the GST model to reflect a modern-day global economy and to ensure the viability and future of Australia's small business sector. The goods and services tax is a fundamental function of the Australian economy. It must be fair, equitable and reflect the consumption habits of our country. That is why this bill is so important. It extends the goods and services tax to low-value goods importations under $1,000 by removing this arbitrary threshold. It is no longer relevant today, and it is suppressing small business economic growth and distorting the integrity of our GST base. This change will ensure that goods imported by consumers will face the same tax regime as those which are sourced within Australia. This evens the playing field for our businesses and, particularly, our small business owners.
According to Treasury's 2016 Small business data card, small businesses account for 97 per cent of Australian businesses and employs 4.8 million Australians. In 2015, small businesses accounted for $379 billion of our nation's economic output, an increase of $37.6 billion on 2014 levels. And let us not forget that in that wonderful place the Sunshine Coast in Queensland there are over 37,000 small businesses that are keeping the economy alive. That indicates why the Sunshine Coast is such a booming economy today—due to small businesses. They are truly the engine room of regions and of this country.
What is more, amending the GST laws to better reflect today's retail market is good economic policy. As we all know, retail spending is no longer locally based. In fact, you can purchase anything any time from the comfort of your own lounge room. When the GST was introduced in 2000, we, as consumers, did not generally purchase goods located overseas. In the 17 years that have since evolved, our spending habits and the retail environment have changed dramatically. In the year 2000, only 37 per cent of households had access to the internet. That is 46 per cent of the population. Today, it is 93 per cent. In the year 2000, only four of today's top 20 largest online Australian websites had been established. Based on sales, Australia is ranked as the second biggest e-commerce market in the Asia-Pacific region and the tenth in the world, and is expected to surpass $24 billion in 2018, a rise of 21 per cent. Australians love buying things online. Staggeringly, nearly 70 per cent of these buyers make cross-border purchases from overseas locations, primarily the USA, China and also the UK. This bill ensures that the unfair benefit enjoyed by these international sellers since the year 2000 is stopped. By ensuring the same taxation measures apply to everyone who sells to Australia consumers, we level playing field for our Australian businesses.
This bill forms part of the coalition government's commitment to a fairer tax system and, what is more, it signifies a world first and recognises the need for a multifaceted solution fit for today's modern and globally interconnected economy. The vendor registration model proposed in this bill has been endorsed by the Council on Federal Financial Relations and is supported by a simplified online GST registration system to assist non-resident suppliers to comply. I acknowledge the responsibility placed on vendors and others. This does not come without cost or inconvenience as they redesign processes for their companies, and I thank them from doing their bit to ensure this reform is indeed a success.
This bill allows for review in two years to ensure that the changes are operating as intended, and it takes into account any international developments. This is an important aspect of the reform and recognises the complicated nature of cross-border trade, imports and the ever-changing nature of our global economy. Despite the member for Fenner expressing concerns that Australia is leading the pack and implying that Australia is going alone, in actual fact Australia is not going alone. Others are looking beyond their own borders and recognising a similar issue that needs to be addressed.
In 2015 the OECD delivered an international standard for the collection of taxes and cross-border sales, including low-value goods, to ensure they are paid in the country where they are consumed. Also in 2015 the European Commission announced its strategy for the European Union's EU digital single market. As with the OECD model, this strategy seeks to move the collection of taxes, including for low-value goods, to the location of the final consumer. The EU strategy will see tax charged under the rules of the originating country on sales that are made across the border. In the United Kingdom changes are being proposed which compel overseas entities to appoint a tax representative and hold online marketplaces responsible for unpaid taxes on overseas products sold to UK consumers. What we are proposing here, contrary to the claims made by the member for Fenner, is in fact consistent with strategies adopted elsewhere internationally, and we should not be afraid that Australia is taking the lead.
I close with a simple reminder that this bill, which extends the GST to low-value imports, is a crucial reform, one which supports our small businesses, one which delivers fairness and equity to our tax system, one which restores integrity to our GST regime, one which recognises the global nature of today's retail and consumer markets and one which sees Australia lead unashamedly from the front in establishing a new law that is right for now and even more right for the future. I commend the bill to the House.
Labor supports the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017 in principle, but we do emphasise the need to get the details right—in particular, the execution of this. Like many policies from this government, it appears they have messed up the execution and the procedures associated with the implementation of what is a very necessary and sensible reform.
Small and medium businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy. As such, it is important to ensure that Australian business is given a level playing field when competing against global players. Over recent years, the increase in online businesses has changed the landscape for many. This has allowed businesses to set up basically anywhere in the world and still be able to penetrate markets where they have no physical presence. This month we have seen a feverish discussion about the expectation around the arrival of Amazon into Australia after the company advertised for 100 jobs in Sydney and Melbourne. But it is also a reality that Amazon has been selling products into Australia for quite a while, and this is not unusual. Australians love technology and they love using new technology platforms, particularly to interact around social media but also to buy and sell goods on the internet. Australians have been quick on the uptake of online shopping, gaining the title of some of the world's most prolific cyber consumers. The annual World Internet Project found that the number of online purchases made by Australians between the years 2011 and 2013 grew by more than 46 per cent, whilst the monthly value of online purchases per person grew by nearly six per cent, to $218. During the 2012-13 financial year Australians spent more than $7 billion on shopping at overseas online shops. About 85 to 95 per cent of that was estimated to be for consumer goods.
This bill aims to level the playing field between those overseas sellers and local businesses when it comes to accounting for, and being liable for and paying, the goods and services tax. The amendments make supplies of goods valued at $1,000 or less at the time of the sale connected with Australia if the goods supplied are offshore low-value goods. This ensures that such supplies are subject to GST, consistent with equivalent supplies here in Australia. This model is the vendor registration model, and overseas suppliers—including electronic platforms like eBay, Amazon and the like, and redelivery services—with an Australian turnover of $75,000 or more in a 12-month period will be required to register to charge the GST. This measure follows the application of GST to the importation of digital services, passed in the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Act last year, but also comes into effect from 1 July this year.
Australia's current $1,000 GST low-value exemption on imported goods is significantly higher than that in comparable countries such as the United Kingdom, where it is set at $25; Canada, at $20; Singapore, at $330; and New Zealand, at $320. However, previous Productivity Commission and Low Value Parcel Processing Taskforce reports note the difficulties in lowering the threshold. The commission found that, although the threshold was not the main factor affecting the international competitiveness of Australian retailers, there are strong in-principle grounds for it to be lowered significantly on the basis of tax neutrality.
Labor has been listening to some of the voices of industry and some of the stakeholders that have been involved in the bringing of this bill to the parliament and the consultations associated with that. It is fair to say that there are some concerns about the implementation of this system and the effects that it may have on small- to medium-sized businesses. Those concerns relate not to the principle of charging GST on goods to this value but to the method that the government has chosen to execute it and to ensuring that the liability is passed on to the government through the procedure that I outlined earlier.
Labor is of the view that, if we are going to do this properly, there should be some inquiry into the stakeholder voices and the concerns that some people have. So we are asking that the government consider due diligence to ensure that the measure is cost-effective and that it answer questions on enforcement and oversight, details that are currently quite vague. In particular, we are suggesting that an inquiry should look at the practicality of, and uncertainty about, the short time frame for implementation—it comes into effect in mere days, on 1 July 2017; whether any overflow from overseas suppliers not initially targeted by the legislation will be enforced at the border; whether all sellers, including Australia based sellers otherwise below the revenue threshold which may make them exempt from GST collections, are included in electronic platform provisions; oversight and compliance overseas, particularly for electronic platforms not paying GST; and ATO resourcing.
We are also asking the government to look at any enforcement issues that have arisen in preparation for the similar GST measure for the importation of digital services, which comes into effect on 1 July 2017. And we are asking the government about the alternative postal collection point model—this is something that has been suggested by many in the industry—and the reasons why it was not more thoroughly assessed and progressed by Treasury, particularly given the relative platform neutrality of a model like that. Some are of the view that the current model will be difficult to administer and that many overseas businesses that are not based in Australia but are selling goods into Australia will simply say, 'We're not going to pass on the GST; we're simply not going to do it.' It will be up to Australian government then to spend additional resources in seeking to enforce that GST collection with those businesses. Many of those organisations and many experts within the field have recommended that the alternative postal collection point model is something that should be considered as an alternative.
There is hardly a more important task than ensuring Australian businesses are treated fairly and with compassion to overseas interests, which, in turn, serves to ensure the security of Australian jobs. Once again, we are asking that the government consider some form of short inquiry to ensure that those issues are ironed out, that the integrity of the tax system is protected and, ultimately, that we maximise the revenue that should come from businesses who are liable to pay GST by ensuring not only that they are paying their fair share of tax and that that is delivered to government coffers but also that it is enforceable in the longer run. Once again, Labor offers its in-principle support for this bill, subject to the amendment that has been moved by the shadow Treasurer.
I am very pleased to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill following the member for Kingsford Smith, who so graciously agrees with the government on this bill. I must admit that, at first blush, when we introduce a bill in the parliament and it increases a tax, I am sure many of us are concerned. The last thing we want to do on this side of the House is bring in legislation that increases taxes. But there is a very fundamental, important point that needs to be made on this. We need to ensure that every policy that we legislate in this nation at the very minimum gives Australian businesses a level playing field to compete.
We cannot have legislation that puts Australian businesses at a competitive disadvantage. That is what the current system does. If I am shopping for a good, and I look online or I look in a catalogue—it does not have to be online; it can be in a catalogue—and I can find an Australian retailer selling an equivalent good to what the foreign retailer is selling, at the moment we are forcing the Australian retailer to charge 10 per cent GST and remit that to the government, yet the foreign retailer does not have to pay a cent of GST. So our policies are currently putting Australian businesses at a competitive disadvantage. This is something that none of us can accept.
We need to try and give our businesses at least a competitive advantage. But, when there are things that make it difficult for Australian businesses, especially small Australian businesses, we have to take a stand. That is why our government and the minister sitting at the table, Minister McCormack, should be congratulated for his work on this, because many in the retail sector have been calling out for government to take action on this. We have seen how hard it is to earn a dollar in the Australian retail sector. We have seen many businesses in the retail sector close down over the last several years. So we just want to tell them: we want to give you the opportunity to compete on a level playing field, and that is what we are doing.
Although we have support from the Labor government on this, I would hope that they would support us in some other areas where we can give smaller Australian retailers a competitive level playing field. Of course, the first one we start with is the company tax rate. How can we expect Australian businesses to compete head-on directly against their foreign competitors if they are forced to pay a fee or a 28½ per cent company tax rate, yet their foreign competitor may only be paying 15 or 17 per cent? Again, it is putting our businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
But the most concerning thing about the competitive disadvantage that those on the other side of the chamber want to put on Australian businesses is the cost of energy. We have seen plans from the other side of the chamber that will simply force the cost of energy up even higher than it already is. Already we see small Australian businesses paying some of the highest electricity prices in the world. The Labor opposition says that that is not enough. They say they want to wipe out Australia's coal-fired power stations, drive them out of business—the lowest-cost producer—and bring in intermittent, unreliable, high-cost renewables to drive the price of electricity up and to put Australian businesses at an even greater competitive disadvantage than they already are.
On this side of the House, I for one am not going to stand by and see that happen. So with that, I commend this bill to the House. We must give our Australian businesses, at the very minimum, a level playing field to compete on against their international competitors. I commend this bill to the House.
I have enjoyed listening to the number of coalition MPs who have been talking about world firsts.
I have not!
The member for Wills rightly points that out. Please work with me, Member for Wills—I will get to a valid point at some point. It has been interesting to listen to them beat their chests talking about this world first that they are doing and world's best practice. What they have been able to achieve is world's best practice in stuffing up. They cannot do anything right on that side. This bill is beset with problems. It is not like they were not warned. In 2009 the Productivity Commission said, 'This is a good idea in principle, but you have to work out the way to do it.' Along the way, when they made this announcement, the Treasurer, who says that he is all pro-innovation, was refusing to meet with the companies that have to implement this, having to be dragged to meetings to consult with companies that will have to bring to life the measure we are debating today, and refused to meet with them and work with them on it.
I have heard a lot on that side talking about how they are pro small business and how this is important to small business. I have gone through my own journey on this issue. I have always been concerned, as someone who is pro-consumer, about the fact that online purchasing gave consumers more power. For years we have seen price discrimination in this country work to the detriment of consumers. Consumers can go online and compare products that are being put on offer on retail here in Australia compared to overseas, and they have been ripped off. The internet gave them one mechanism, a small mechanism, to be able to say: 'Do you know what? I deserve to be able to get the product I want at the price I want, instead of seeing all the mark-ups.'
In saying that, let me make the point that I do not for one moment think that it was small businesses leading the charge on this. These were big companies who operate across jurisdictions charging differently for the same product in one jurisdiction from another, and then using geoblocking to stop a consumer from being able to buy from a US website instead of the Australian website. This is when our dollar was as strong as anything. People are going to have their disagreements and concerns about that, and I certainly appreciate the impact that a high dollar has on retailers in Australian business and in agriculture, as the minister rightly points out. But for consumers it strengthened their purchasing power. At that point in time they were trying to work out how it was that the same product cost a different amount in different markets. It was the same thing. The internet has been able to provide that difference.
Obviously, what was also driving some of the differential was the application of taxation on the purchase of those products. While I was certainly pro-consumer, as I said, and wanted to see consumers being able to access products at cheaper prices, and this experience of itself allowed for the injection of competition in the Australian retail market as well, to make them a lot more responsive to consumer demands, the reality is that we cannot have a system where you get a cheaper price simply because the taxation is not being applied on the final sale. It is important that we do harmonise that. I think the Australian public and consumers get that. They obviously want to be able to get their bargain and get a product at a cheaper price, but they also know that they are not going to cut their nose off to spite their face, insofar as if we are not charging the proper tax rate, then obviously we are all losing out as taxpayers. We are not just consumers—we are taxpayers as well.
Making this change is important in that respect. But in making the change, as well as what is being put forward, a lot of those companies that I mentioned earlier had been seeking to have their input early on with the Treasurer, who basically shoved the earplugs into his ears and was refusing to listen to any reason or argument about how implementation would work. So we get to this stage. This is the stage where the opposition has put forward the amendment as advocated by the shadow Treasurer to have a look at the implementation and see how it is done.
Having said that, I understand the concerns of some players within the tech space, who are saying this will be difficult, but I do not necessarily subscribe to them 100 per cent. I am not saying they are saying the wrong thing; I am just saying, 'You can find a solution to the issue of how you factor in taxation within the final sales price on a website that is a marketplace.' From my perspective, they do it at the moment. If you have various state sales taxes that exist in the United States and you have an online marketplace that is already charging, they are already factoring in the tax on the final sale anyway. The tech players in this space that have online marketplaces, with my deepest respect and great admiration for many of them, know this and can factor this in. This is not too hard, but we have to find a way to do it.
These online marketplaces will become the way in which a lot of consumers interact. A lot has been made about the entry of Amazon. A lot of people have been worried about how this player, as big as it is, may impact on business in Australia. Yes, there will be impacts for sure, and obviously we want to make sure that our competition laws are adequately safeguarding competition. In the case of some these online marketplaces like Amazon, where they even provide for rival sellers to sell product on their marketplace, this is a good thing. I am not so much interested in Amazon. They will shake things up, and I think that is good. It is going to be important. The bigger thing for those on the other side, who are going on about how they are pro small business, is: why aren't you helping small business digitise their operations?
It has been recognised time and time again. I do not know how many studies have pointed out that digital transformation within Australian SMEs is going at a slow pace and is short-changing small business. The more they move onto digital platforms, the greater number of customers they can reach and the more efficient their operations can be. It can provide for greater longer-term growth. It is something that they need to do, and the tools now are not as complex as what they once were. A lot of people are extending assistance to small businesses, but government can also play a role in working with small business, digitising their operations and embracing digital platforms. Why do we not see the same level of advocacy?
It is easy to run the line, 'We're small business,' but translate it into something meaningful. This legislation, as we have rightly pointed out, has a stack of holes in it. The detail needs to be worked through, and the Treasurer can take the lion's share of responsibility for the stuff-up in the way this has all been shaped up, but I do note the presence of the Minister for Small Business. From time to time, when planets align, he and I manage to get on, sometimes.
Get to the point.
I do not want to say I get on with you too much, because I know you have to work with your colleagues.
Be kind, be kind.
I am not going to do a group hug over the dispatch boxes, but I would urge the small-business minister, if I could influence your agenda—and I am sure that you take great note of everything I say, Minister—
I do.
We all do.
Thank you very much, colleagues—it would be this: small businesses do not need a degree in IT to embrace digital platforms, involve themselves in digital engagement and change the way they work. As I said, a lot of this stuff already exists, but it will be better and make it much more efficient for them to operate, to reach new customers and to move product. This will be really important.
Watch this space.
I take the observation made by the small-business minister: 'Watch this space.' I will be very supportive, Minister, and very interested to hear what you are doing. This is something that we should do from a bipartisan perspective, because, as everyone rightly observes—and we hear the line often—'Small business is the engine room of the economy.' It absolutely is. The more we can do to make this sector work more efficiently, the better. But, instead of the platitudes, let's have some practical, tangible assistance to help small business in this area, because it is for our long-term interest in terms of the economy, and others are doing it.
You should have supported our tax cuts.
I might add that we have supported tax cuts directed at small and medium enterprises, but we are not just shuffling over $65 billion to the biggest end of town and then sacrificing investment in an area that is required—an area where even big business say they need to see more. How is it that we can have big businesses say, 'We need to see more talented people in this country,' yet we divert funds from the very thing that helps invest in the development of those skills—education. You are willing to argue for a $65 billion corporate tax, and then cut $22 billion out of schools, cut $600 million out of TAFE and cut $4 billion out of universities. Everyone knows that for the development of skills in this nation we need to make that investment and make it now, because it is a longer term game plan.
In particular, what gets me is National Party members who, when you look at the socio-economic breakdown of their electorates, should be arguing for greater investment in schools, not less. They should not be following the Liberal line—the Liberal line that goes, 'You don't chuck money at education,' yet so many of them would be putting their kids through some of the most expensive schools in the country. Of course money does not mean anything when you are doing that. Then they deny money from the very schools that we need to see bringing in new talent, bringing in new skills and making sure that we have a longer term investment in young Australians. The Nationals just accept what the Liberal Party is doing. Those people who will end up potentially running their own enterprises, running their own small businesses and being involved in the future decisions of the nation are being denied. Why? All because, again, the National Party wants to toe the Liberal Party line of, 'Yeah, it is a better move to put $65 billion into a tax cut instead of investing in the regions and investing in the young people within those regions.' It makes no sense.
I come back to the point that, with small business, there are things this government can do. They can certainly take on board the amendment, and I certainly encourage support of the amendment put forward by the shadow Treasurer. Speaker after speaker on this side, including the shadow Assistant Treasurer, have articulated the types of things that need to be done to fix this bill up, but it should not have got to this point. The Treasurer should have taken advice on and should not have been so arrogant as to ignore the views expressed by the people who would have to implement this decision. We are here now because of that arrogance. We are here now because of that pigheadedness that has been exhibited. I have seen it in the laws that he has been putting forward, particularly with respect to the innovation space, where he will not listen to good advice. If we have to go through this process that has been advocated through the amendment put forward by the shadow Treasurer, then so be it. We would rather get this right than rush and stuff it all up, which is, basically, what the government is trying to argue the House accepts today.
It was nice while it lasted to have a little bit of bonding over the fence from the member for Chifley. This government is committed to delivering fairness and opportunity for all Australians. Fairness is about treating everyone the same way under our laws. It is about applying the same standards to a large multinational that you would apply to the man or woman in the street. On this side of the House, we appreciate the contribution made by big business, the one-third of Australian workers they employ and the 73 per cent of them that innovate and take our economy forward.
However, we demand that the big end of town play by the same rules as everyone else, and we are acting to ensure just that. We are making sure that they give Australian workers a fair go and pay them the wages they are entitled to with the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill. We are making sure that they do not strike any dodgy deals with the unions with the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill. And yes, in this Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill and other bills we are making sure that they pay their fair share of tax. We are introducing a levy on the big four banks, because we want to make sure that they do their bit to get the nation's finances back on track. We are ensuring that multinational corporations do not get away with shifting their profits, with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill. We are demanding that the big end of town do the right thing and pay their taxes just like every hardworking Australian. Fairness is about treating everyone the same and making sure that, whoever you are, you operate on the same level playing field. The bill before us today is another example of this government enacting that principle.
In preparing for this speech, I reviewed just one of the hundreds of websites that sell millions of dollars worth of goods into Australia every year—Amazon.com. Most of the kids up in the gallery have probably been on that site. This website has almost 100 separate departments. Handmade furniture, vinyl records, fine art, golf clubs, car tyres and mascara are all among their offerings. For every low-value product on the site, from the beachball to the ball gown, Amazon gets an unjustifiable price advantage over our Australian made products because it does not collect GST. How are Goodyear Autocare in Kawana Waters supposed to compete fairly with American tyre exporters when they start with a 10 per cent disadvantage? How is Corelli Books in Mooloolaba supposed to compete with Amazon? How are Surfware Australia or SPORTFIRST in Caloundra supposed to compete with international sports equipment suppliers in the US, the UK or China? Competition is fierce in low-value consumer goods. A 10 per cent disadvantage is not a margin that can be made up by working a little harder. Who benefits from this imbalance? It is overseas businesses that do not employ Australian workers, invest in Australia's future or pay Australian taxes to support our service delivery. It is them that will receive that imbalanced benefit.
The Turnbull government is committed to supporting Australian small businesses, as I am in my electorate Fisher. After the government passed our tax cut for small businesses last month, I went out into my electorate and walked the main streets of Mooloolaba and Caloundra, meeting with some of our local business owners, as I often do. I note the great efforts that the small business minister has made with my people in Fisher, having recently attended and hosted a small business forum in Fisher, for which I am extremely grateful. When I was out of talking with small business owners, we talked about what these owners intended to do with the additional income for their business that the government is now allowing them to keep.
I spoke to one man, Martin Kralovic, the owner of CK Coffee Bar & Wholefoods in Mooloolaba. Martin operates a fantastic coffee shop just a two-minute walk from the beach which supports our local farmers and encourages healthy eating. When I spoke to Martin what he said encapsulated perfectly what so many business owners in Fisher have told me over the past year. He said: 'There's always something in the business to reinvest in. You are trying to accommodate as many people as possible, and to do that you need as many staff as you can get. Having extra dollars will allow us to put more staff on so that we can provide a better service, and that's the way we look at it.' Martin from CK wholefoods has an extremely busy coffee shop and I know that he is always trying to find new ways of providing services to more and more locals and tourists in Mooloolaba.
When you give Australian small businesses a level playing field, you give them the chance to compete for the extra dollars that they need to reinvest. When you help a small business to succeed, you create local jobs. You help to build coherent communities and you generate more tax revenue for our public services. This bill is yet another critical part of the Turnbull government's march for more fairness and opportunity in our economy, and I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017 and support the amendment moved by the member for McMahon. I wish to make it abundantly clear from the outset that Labor, of course, support the collection of GST on low-value imports in principle. However, obviously, we want to see a model that is workable. Any changes to this process should have a high degree of compliance and not result in significant adverse consumer outcomes. To ensure this occurs, there must be a 12-month delay to the commencement of the legislation. That means moving the start date back from 1 July 2017, only a couple of weeks away, to 1 July 2018. That is our recommendation.
To get this important change right—which I know has not come out of the blue; Labor governments have looked at this—we still need to have a Productivity Commission review of the proposed legislation to consider all alternative models, not just a vendor registration model. We also need to report on the possible compliance mechanisms and provide recommendations for changes to allow parliamentary consideration well ahead of a start-up date of 1 July 2018.
The bill before us amends the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 to ensure that GST is payable on certain supplies of low-value goods that are purchased by consumers and then imported into Australia. This bill defines 'low-value goods' as being $1,000. These products will now be subject to GST collected on behalf of the government by online platforms, just as they would be if they were sold in one of the shops in Sunnybank, in my electorate.
When the GST was first introduced, it was not normal for too many domestic consumers to purchase goods from overseas from online retailers, who have blossomed in recent years. Sadly, it has become increasingly common for Australians to choose to make purchases in this way. That is the market reality we are left with today. People are shopping overseas while they catch the bus home from work. People are shopping overseas while they mute an ad during a TV show. That is how easy it is to shop nowadays with modern telephones. This represents a risk to the integrity of the GST system and has the potential to place Australian suppliers at a competitive disadvantage. Of course, Labor will always support a level playing field for Australian businesses. We will do all that we can to champion Australian businesses. But it is vitally important that we get the details right. The devil is in the detail.
Before I continue to look further at this legislation, I think it is important that we consider it in the context of it being a revenue measure. In doing so, let us have a look at this government's record in the run-up to the start of its fifth year in government—a time for reflection. Shortly after that 2013 federal election, I think it was, I vividly remember that Treasurer Joe Hockey, disgraced former Treasurer Joe Hockey, released his 2013 mid-year economic update. Mr Hockey and the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, declared that gross government debt was set to reach the unthinkable level of $667 billion. They reassured us, saying that this was okay because the Liberals were here and they were ready to fix the 'debt and deficit disaster'. Remember those trucks driving around the place, telling us about that debt and deficit disaster? So let us look at the contrast between that 2013 MYEFO and the Liberal budget delivered last month.
A couple of question times after the budget, the Treasurer admitted that gross debt would actually continue rising, to $725 billion, on the coalition government's watch. In case anyone listening at home is unsure of those numbers, I repeat: yes, gross government debt has skyrocketed on the coalition's watch. The gross debt figure is bad and has blown out under the management of the Liberal Party and their partners, the National party. How about net debt? This is often used as the more reliable indicator of the health of the national balance sheet. Well, the budget papers confirm that net debt will rise to 20 per cent of GDP. Not since World War II has net debt been that high. The last Labor government never had net debt reach 20 per cent of our economy.
The Treasurer's budget shows that new record net debt for the next three years as continuing into the fifth and sixth years—and, hopefully, the final years—of this government; a deficit for the coming 2017-18 year which is 10 times bigger than what was predicted in the Liberal's first budget; and gross debt equivalent to $20,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. This is from the party that claim to be the better economic managers. That is a complete furphy. Those opposite lectured the Labor Party for years while in opposition about how they were going to reach surplus. I think Joe Hockey said that they were going to reach surplus in his first budget. I remember their first budget, that 2014 budget. I think the member for Lilley might remember it as well. How did that go? We now have a government with increased taxes and increased spending. The party of supposedly responsible spending and taxing have shown that they have totally lost control of the economic situation.
It would be remiss of me to reflect on the inability of the government to effectively manage the economy without discussing the 2017 budget. The Treasurer mentioned 'fair', 'fairer' or 'fairness' 10 times during his budget speech, but just because he uses those words does not make the budget fair. It is unfair to cut the tax of high income earners while at the same time increasing the tax for low and middle income earners. It is unfair to make hard working Australians pay for a $65 billion tax giveaway to big business. It is unfair to cut the take-home pay of 700,000 workers by up to $77 a week. But this is what the Turnbull government has either announced or stood by and allowed in its unfair 2017 budget delivered just one month ago.
This government is so out of touch that they do not understand it is fundamentally unfair to give a tax cut to millionaires and a tax hike for everyday Australians. This budget demonstrates that the Turnbull government's priority will always be to look after the top end of town—the big corporations, many of them foreign; the conglomerates; and the millionaires and billionaires—and not the everyday Australians, not the battlers, not the middle class with aspiration. There is no other way to interpret a budget that is so fundamentally unfair to ordinary working Australians, especially at a time when the costs of living are getting out of control and wages are stagnating or dropping. The Turnbull government are so out of touch they just do not understand that real wages of Australian workers have effectively gone backwards. The annual wages growth of hardworking Australians is now at the lowest level since the ABS first published data back in 1997.
Hardworking Australians, whose take home pay shrunk in real terms, are being asked to pay more in tax while millionaires will pay less from 1 July. If you earn $60,000 a year you will have to pay an extra $300 in tax; but if you earn $1 million a year you get to pay $16,400 less. How can that be fair in the Australia of 2017? The reason millionaires will be paying less is that the government is refusing to continue the deficit levy. Remember when the deficit levy was introduced—that was the levy brought in by former Treasurer Hockey to repair the budget. Is the budget repaired? Far from it—it is now 10 times worse. So this is the very worst time to be removing this levy.
So how is that for some revenue measures the government can consider? They could not go ahead with the $65 billion corporate tax giveaway. They could maintain the deficit levy. They could not cut the taxable income of 700,000 Australians who rely on penalty rates and who then spend that money in the economy. Or how about Labor's reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions? There are many other options available from the Labor Party, put forward by the member for McMahon and the opposition leader, Bill Shorten.
In the Labor Party, we are not prepared to be a small target opposition. I say that proudly. We have been prepared to take on budget repair—in fact, we have no choice when faced with gross economic mismanagement from the Liberal government. With the botched economic management we have seen under those opposite, you might forgive me for not having blind faith that the government is best placed to enforce this GST legislation change.
Following the Senate Economics Legislation Committee public hearings and report into the bill, Labor still has significant concerns with the legislation. These are mainly about the implementation design, the lack of consultation by the government and Treasury, the low compliance rate and the lack of a regulatory impact statement. The change to these GST arrangements was announced in the 2016 budget and slated to commence on 1 July 2017. Hearings by the Senate inquiry into the bill unearthed significant concerns amongst stakeholders that a commencement date of 1 July would not enable enough time for preparation. Even if this was the best bill in the history of the parliament being planned for commencement from 1 July, why are we here talking about it on 12 June? There are only a few days until this kicks off. The government is allowing no time for businesses to adjust and to allow the systems to be put in place to see this rather significant change implemented. In fact, the government-dominated Senate Economics Legislation Committee also recommended the bill's implementation date be delayed by one year—I stress, that is the government-dominated Senate Economics Legislation Committee.
So who is there left to convince that the commencement has to be pushed back? If this extra year were agreed to by the government, it would allow the government to better engage with stakeholders to address concerns raised specifically about implementation and other matters of concern with this piece of legislation. While the government often chooses to lecture us about bipartisanship, here is an example of where the Labor Party has offered bipartisan support, agreed to the principle of the legislation and asked for greater consultation about the implementation of this significant change. It looks as though this olive branch has been rejected by the government and the Treasurer, who have both managed to completely bungle the implementation of the GST threshold changes.
This brings me to the next area of policy change, and that is enforcement. In short, in the Senate committee inquiry, eBay claimed that Treasury officials had told them they expected a 25 to 30 per cent compliance rate from the model set out in this legislation. Treasury officials later stated that they expected this compliance rate in the third year of operation and for it to reach maturity in 2022-23 at 54 per cent. I am not familiar with the modelling. However, how can this bill in its current form purport to level the playing field while only having a 54 per cent compliance rate target? The Senate inquiry made it clear that overseas jurisdictions—for example, the United States and China—will not enforce the measure on the tax office's behalf. So compliance with these measures will largely be reliant on the goodwill of overseas operators. Clearly, that is not good enough.
I now want to go to the final area of this legislation that the government has managed to bungle. As everyone is aware, the Treasurer likes to talk about reducing the impact of red tape. Yet in this case he has failed to produce a regulation impact statement. I remember that in the 44th Parliament we had those grand occasions called the red tape repeal days. That was the member for Warringah's great achievement and great gift to the nation! We had a conga line of backbenchers lining up to talk about the red tape they were reducing. Sadly, this Treasurer is cancelling the red tape reduction parties. Instead, he has chosen not even to consider the impacts of this legislation.
They are having a tea party instead!
That is right, member for Lilley; they are having a tea party instead. They are talking about climate change and all those things about the future of the world—sadly, a story we saw play out 10 years ago with the same actors but in different roles. Labor's principle on this issue has been clear from the start. We believe in creating a level playing field for Australian retailers who compete with overseas retailers, while ensuring that we have a workable model that can be easily complied with by overseas retailers and online platforms without any adverse impact on Australian consumers. To achieve this we must delay the commencement of this legislation by one year to ensure greater consultation and analysis of the vendor registration model. Australia needs to get this right. We must conduct a proper review of the proposed changes to ensure that we can get the changes right. Any measure must have a high degree of compliance and not have significant adverse consumer outcomes.
As I made clear at the outset, Labor supports the collection of GST on low-value imports in principle. But I have little faith in this government properly considering all of the moving parts in making this important reform. Unfortunately, that will mean my constituents in Moreton will suffer accordingly.
I think it is fair to say that the government has bungled the management of this bill and this issue from the very start. The policy issue of ensuring overseas retailers are put on a level playing field with Australian retailers when it comes to the GST has been around for a long time. And I do think Australian retailers are 100 per cent right when they say they should not face a GST cost disadvantage to overseas or online retailers. Labor MPs—and, I am sure, government MPs and the Treasurer's office—have experienced a parade of stakeholders criticising this bill from every angle. In fact, it is pretty hard to find anyone who thinks this bill is in its entirety worthwhile, although people do support the objective of the legislation.
We are concerned about issues surrounding the implementation of the measure, particularly as to how the GST should be collected. We want to see a model that is workable and is able to be complied with, one that does not impact adversely on consumers. That, of course, is one of the reasons we are moving in our amendment that the bill should be delayed for a year. But it is true that there is in-principle support for this proposal, I think across the entire parliament. Labor does support a level playing field for Australian businesses, which this measure intends to do. We simply do not have the details right.
I think this bill will pose many dilemmas—dilemmas in terms of implementation and dilemmas in terms of compliance. These will be faced both by the boards of companies and by the tax office. For example, the government expects a compliance rate of only 25 per cent. This is a very significant law and it will place the tax office under a lot more stress when it is at a moment in history where it has bigger fish to fry. Surely, the tax office must have some higher priorities as it grapples with rampant multinational tax avoidance, for example, such as we have seen from companies like BHP, Rio and others. Over the last 18 months, for example, it has become very clear that BHP's management has engaged in activities for over a decade that can only be described as tax evasion. How will this bill relate to their activities in that area? Two weeks ago BHP CEO Andrew Mackenzie was questioned on 7.30 about BHP's tax evasion and why, given the revelations of recent times, the Australian public should take BHP's calls for lower tax seriously. As we have come to expect, Mr Mackenzie did not address the question, instead choosing the excuse that BHP already pays a lot of tax in Australia. Well, Mr Mackenzie, you do not get to choose how much tax you pay. You don't book $5.7 billion in profits through a Singapore tax shield and then get to call yourself a responsible corporate citizen. Quite frankly, paying a lot of tax is not good enough. If you operate businesses here and you benefit from the institutions, human capital and infrastructure provided by and nurtured by the government of Australia then you have an ethical obligation to pay all of your tax, to pay your fair share of tax. When I first called out BHP's activities, in 2015, I did not blame the CEO or the board. Fierce competition and the pressure of the market can drive people to make many poor choices. But, now, almost two years later, BHP remains defiant in its refusal to accept any responsibility or acknowledge any wrongdoing.
This brash, arrogant and self-righteous attitude, which we see too frequently in too many of our boardrooms, is typical I think of a malignant culture that has emerged in corporate Australia. Why should the Australian parliament and the Australian public accept being talked down to by corporate Australia, which, over the past 10 years has not only engaged in rank short-termism and shameless selfishness but in some cases outright corporate negligence and malpractice. Take BHP, which, under the leadership of current CEO Andrew Mackenzie, former CEO Marius Kloppers and board chair Jac Nasser, has undertaken projects that have destroyed capital on an absolutely massive scale. Accordingly to our advisers, in recent years BHP's management has undertaken projects that have reduced shareholder value by US$40 billion: US$23 billion in write-downs in their US petroleum venture; US$8 billion spent on petroleum exploration, with no apparent value created; and US$9 billion spent on share buybacks at inflated prices. Unfortunately, the self-righteous leadership of BHP shows no sign of remorse or contrition and has instead opted for a public relations exercise, spending $10 million of shareholders' money rather than reforming their corporate governance and recognising their corporate responsibility.
If BHP were serious about corporate leadership, about meeting their ethical obligations, they would immediately shut down their Singapore marketing hub. There could be no clearer signal from BHP leadership that they are willing to close this chapter and begin a new one were they to embrace their role as 'the big Australian' and lead by example. I have previously called for BHP to do this, and I was rejected on the grounds that BHP's marketing hub does provide value. However, even an aggressive tax arbitraging hedge fund like Elliott Advisors says that it ascribes 'no value' to this structure and notes that 'the termination of this structure would be in line with efforts to regain the trust of its various stakeholders'.
BHP has once again rejected this assertion. As I see it, this means that there are two scenarios. Either Elliott Advisors is correct, and BHP's Singapore marketing hub creates no value and therefore should be shut down, or BHP's marketing hub does create value through tax evasion and should therefore be shut down. In either scenario the only responsible action from BHP's corporate leadership is to shut down its Singapore marketing hub. But BHP has failed to come clean on the evidence that its boardroom culture is selfish and rank with malpractice. Like other multinationals, it has been involved in a deceptive race to evade tax, to suppress wages and to casualise its workforce.
Now, at some point the directors of BHP have to accept responsibility for the actions of the company. Earlier this year I called on those who had been found guilty of tax evasion to be stripped of their Australian awards. This Queen's Birthday Honours, early in the week, brought the whole issue of corporate ethics and Australian honours into very clear focus. Not every Australian honour is created equal. If you asked the person in the street who is more deserving of an award, would they choose the couple who fostered 380 children over 40 years or a business person who has paid millions and who is recognised for their services to business?
There are many worthwhile people recognised in the awards announced earlier in the week—worthwhile business people who have donated a lot of money to charity and have worked hard to make our community better, and I acknowledge their efforts. But I think it is beyond the pale when the chairman of a company that is in dispute for more than $1 billion to the Australian taxpayer receives the nation's highest honour. BHP has been systemically avoiding tax through the creation of its Singapore marketing hub, depriving the Australian people of their just returns on their taxes and royalties on the minerals they own 100 per cent. This structure sends a signal to every other Australian business that it is okay to create offshore structures to cheat the Australian Taxation Office. It is high time we asked the Honours Committee to check in with the ATO before handing out gongs to business people. Anyone without the cleanest of clean sheets from the ATO should have their awards deferred until they are certified as having a clean bill of health.
So, this whole issue of enforcement, this whole issue of compliance which is raised in the bill before us today is so critically important. If the Australian people are to have faith in the government of Australia and if they are to have faith in the administrative systems and particularly the tax system, then they need to see that everybody is paying their fair share. And when they see people who are worth billions not paying their fair share, they lose trust in the political system, they lose trust in the processes of politics and we see the polarisation of and disillusionment with the political system get worse and worse. Therefore it is very important that on these issues of evasion and compliance the Australian government puts in place the best systems to ensure that everyone is treated equally. Sadly, this bill today, with such a low compliance outcome, is not up to the task either.
It is a pleasure to follow the member for Lilley in this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017. He has dedicated a great deal of his time in this place to dealing with issues of inequality, particularly inequality within the tax system. This is a debate about amending our tax laws as they apply to low-value imports and low-value goods.
It is important to locate that in a context, and the context is: the Commonwealth government needs the revenue to ensure that we can provide the infrastructure and the services that the Australian people have made very, very clear they expect any Australian government to provide, whether it be Medicare, funding for education and our universities, or providing rail, road and bridge projects to ensure that we have the productive infrastructure fit for this century. The Australian people expect us to get on with this job, and we need the revenue to do it.
An important part of any responsible government's job is to ensure that we are removing the inequalities to ensure, as the member for Lilley has just pointed out, that everyone is paying their fair share, so that, whether you are a wage or a salary earner on a very modest income, or the captain of one of our largest national or multinational companies, you are paying the tax that you are required to under Australian law and thereby making a contribution to this great country of ours.
One of the areas that has been under review for many years now is the exemption for low-value imports that currently applies under our GST laws. The current low-value threshold is $1,000. So, if you are customer going to an online site or going directly to a supplier overseas and importing a good that is worth $1,000.50 then you are paying a GST impost on that good on import, but if you are purchasing a good worth $99.99 then you are not paying a GST impost on that good. There are many large and small retailers who are saying that this puts them at a competitive disadvantage—and there is some truth in this. What the bill before the House does is look at all of those importers with an Australian turnover of in excess of $750,000, makes them tax collectors for the Commonwealth and removes the exemption that currently exists on goods worth less than $1,000.
This provision has some history. Labor looked at it when we were in government. In fact we set up a task force under the Productivity Commission to have a look at it, and the Productivity Commission did indeed say that there was merit in us removing the uneven playing field that exists for retailers competing in Australia with imported goods of low value. The overwhelming majority of those low-value imports are not goods, as I described in my opening example, worth $999.99. They are less than $100. People are going online purchasing a CD, a DVD—I am told that people still purchase those things—an item of clothing or some small electronic goods for under $100 and importing them. There are many Australian retailers that complain that they are put at a competitive disadvantage because of that.
When the Productivity Commission looked at this in 2012, amongst its many findings it found two things: firstly, the driver for people to go to an online site and purchase a good, as opposed to going to a bricks and mortar establishment, was not just price; it might have been convenience; it might have been the capacity to browse across a range of different retailers to compare prices and do that from the comfort of their own lounge room, or once the kids had gone to bed at hours when the majority of bricks and mortar retailers simply are not open. So there are many factors, apart from price, that are driving consumers to go online, as opposed to going indoors, to purchase their low-value products—and, in fact, goods of any value.
The Productivity Commission made that important finding, and it said that this alone should not be a reason for us not to act. It did, however, say that the effort—the burden to the Commonwealth—at the taxing point should not be greater than the revenue that was going to be brought in as result of introducing these measures, and there was deep concern at that point in time that the compliance cost was going to far outweigh the cost of bringing that revenue in. That should be a concern to any responsible government. If, in implementing a measure such as this, it is costing taxpayers of Australia more than the reward they are getting in revenue, to enable the Australian government to provide for the goods and services that Australians expect, then we should think long and hard about doing this. One of the important reasons why Labor did not act upon receipt of the report in 2012 was that it was going to cost more than the revenue that we were going to gain.
That does not mean that the issue should not be under constant review. We welcome the fact that the government is looking at this issue and has announced an intention to legislate. But we have deep concerns, which have been outlined in the member for McMahon's second reading amendment, about the time lines and the engagement with stakeholders that the government has committed to as a result of this measure. That is why we have called for a review, and we ask all members of the House to support the amendments that the member for McMahon has moved in this place in this debate to ensure that we can have a thorough look at it. I have engaged with some of the online retailers who are concerned about the time lines. This has a few short weeks before it is supposed to be implemented. Most Australians would not know that, I dare say. Most Australians would not be aware that in a few short weeks time, on 1 July, this measure is set to be implemented.
There are some other issues that need to be looked at, which is why the review of the provision makes militant good sense. There is a concern that has been expressed by some of the stakeholders about the interaction between these new provisions, which are specifically put in place to allow vendors to be a taxing point for low-value goods—that is goods under $1,000—how that interacts with the existing arrangements for goods which are over $1,000. If you are direct importer and you have had any experience in this, as I have, you will know that you will get a phone call from Customs and they will tell you that your goods are here ready to be collected as soon as you pay the GST which is due to the Commonwealth on those goods. There are some who are asking what the interaction is between these two systems. Is it going to be cumbersome? Is it going to force retailers to push the prices up so that we only have one efficient system operating, as opposed to two? Or are retailers going to game the system to ensure that they are operating in one of the regimes as opposed to the other? These are all legitimate concerns that are worthy of being looked at.
I do not accept the threats that some of the large vendors have been making in the context of this debate. It is simply not good enough for a large multinational operator to say that if the government intends to impose a tax on their goods, just as applies to every other retailer in the country, they are going to shut up shop and not operate in this country. No government can allow itself to be bullied and threatened in such a way. That is not a reasonable way to engage with a government of any stripe and not a reasonable way for an operator to propose to respond to a reasonable proposition.
But we are deeply concerned with the time lines and some of the unintended consequences. That is why our second reading amendment calls for a review of these arrangements. None of this should be taken as a message to Australian businesses, and particularly small businesses, that they do not need to get into the online space.
As I said at the outset, there are many reasons why consumers are going to an online retailer as opposed to a bricks-and-mortar retailer which are not going to be changed by the mere imposition of a 10 per cent GST on that competitor. There are many reasons why people are going to an online version of a store as opposed to bricks and mortar version—convenience being one of them and shopping habits being one of them. So that is why Australian businesses, and particularly small businesses, have to have an online presence.
Recently, the member for Cunningham, Labor's shadow spokesperson for small business, Senator Katy Gallagher, and I opened a digital garage event in the Illawarra hosted by the Illawarra Business Chamber. I am very pleased to have Google providing training and information that goes to this very issue to small businesses in our electorates. A point made quite clearly by the providers of that information and training was that, if you are not online, you are not in the game and there is simply not an option for a business not to have a very strong online presence as part of their business strategy.
I also had the benefit this weekend of meeting with the Highlands entrepreneurs for regional development in Bowral in my electorate. They are setting up a new business incubator in the middle of a facility that was once a hardware store for close to a century on Bong Bong Street in Bowral. They are a group of innovators who are keen to ensure that start-up businesses have a facility and the networks necessary to operate in regional Australia. I am very excited about what they are proposing to do. They face some challenges. One of those challenges, as indeed every business in regional Australia is challenged by, is the unreliability of and, in many instances, the costs that they are paying for their broadband services.
The Highlands entrepreneurs for regional development are a group of entrepreneurs who are planning on a technology upgrade to ensure that their facility has broadband available to service the entrepreneurs and the start-ups that want to operate out of that business. The point I made to them quite clearly is that they should not have to do that. Under Labor's plan, this premises would have been connected by fibre to the premises. Under the absolute mess that the Prime Minister has made of the rollout of the National Broadband Network, they are connected by copper from the node, which is simply not going to be able to deliver the download and upload speeds that those businesses and those start-ups need if they are going to operate out of that incubator in Bowral.
That is just one example. There are hundreds and hundreds of other businesses who are suffering because of the absolute mess that this government and, in particular, this Prime Minister has made of the rollout of the National Broadband Network. A man who could not leave well alone and who thinks he is always the smartest man in the room, particularly when it comes to technology, has made an absolute cock-up when it comes to the rollout of the National Broadband Network. It is why, when I talk to businesses small and large and when I talk to households around my electorate and around regional Australia, they say: 'NBN doesn't stand for "National Broadband Network." It stands for "no bloody network."' They say that because they are suffering from service dropouts, unreliability, cancelled appointments and, in many instances, going for weeks and weeks with no phones and no internet services because of the mess that this government has made of the rollout of the National Broadband Network. So fixing the inequalities with GST is a part of the solution, but dealing with the cock-up that the government has made on the NBN is a big part of it as well.
I do not rise to speak on this bill because I am an economist. Heaven knows, I know very little about economics and do not profess to be a specialist in economics by any means. But I do love shopping and I do love the businesses and retailers in my electorate, and I have watched as many of those small businesses and retailers have closed their doors because they simply cannot compete with the volume of online retail that is out there. So that is where I am coming from when I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017, because the bill is fundamental to the policy issue of ensuring that Australian retailers get a fair deal and are on a level playing field with overseas retailers when it comes to GST.
This policy issue is not new. It has been around for quite a while, particularly since the advent of online retailers, who are able to sell their wares to Australian consumers without incurring the same level of tax that our Australian retailers incur, which therefore puts Australian retailers in a disadvantageous position. I am sure that many members of the House could walk around their electorate and see how many Australian retailers have indeed had to close their doors because they are not getting the same level of business coming in; they could see just how much the online retail industry has affected them. So it is only fair—and also timely; perhaps a little over time—that we start looking at this issue and ensuring a fairer deal for Australian retailers if we are to live up to our rhetoric of supporting Australian business.
Labor have always kept an open mind about the government's proposal on this, and we do indeed support it in principle, as my colleagues before me have reiterated. We support a level playing field for all Australian businesses, which this measure arguably is intended to create, but we have concerns about the details. We want to make sure that we get the details right. We want to make sure that, when this is implemented, it is implemented in the right way. We want to see a model that is workable, that can be complied with and that does not impact adversely on consumers in Australia, but we are concerned about some of the issues surrounding the measure's implementation, particularly with regard to how the GST will actually be collected.
When Labor was in office, the Productivity Commission made it clear that such a bill was something very much worth pursuing, because it was clear that the cost of collecting GST from foreign retailers was outweighed by the actual revenue that we would get in GST from those retailers. In other words—to use an economic term, Mr Deputy Speaker!—it was cost-effective. Labor have been saying this for years and we have on several occasions urged the government to come to bipartisan agreement on the implementation of such a bill. After all, we agree—and I think pretty much everyone in this House would agree—that Australian retailers are 100 per cent correct when they ask, 'Why should we face a GST cost disadvantage compared to overseas online retailers?' I ask myself the same question. But let's just stop and pause for a minute, because I think it is always important to stop and pause when we are doing important policy work that is going to impact not just on businesses, not just on Australian retailers but also on Australian consumers. It is really important to get the detail right. So let's just stop and have a look at some of the fundamental flaws that Labor are pushing to have addressed, and what we can do about those.
The proposed bill applies GST to goods with a value of less than a thousand dollars that are imported by consumers into Australia. Let's say I get onto Amazon because I want to buy a copy of a book on, say, terrorism and the internet—because that is pretty much all the stuff that I read—and I purchase it from the British publisher. That would then incur GST because its value was less than a thousand dollars—although invaluable in its content, I must say! Currently, these goods are exempt from GST. The government is seeking to have this GST on low value imports take effect from 1 July this year, which is not very far away.
But here is the thing. The first fundamental flaw with this is that it is a vendor registration model. That means that overseas suppliers, including electronic platforms like eBay and Amazon and also redelivery services, with an Australian turnover of $75,000 or more in a 12-month period will be required to register and charge GST. In other words, it relies on their compliance. The Senate inquiry found that Treasury expects compliance rates of 25 to 30 per cent in the third year of operation. So by July 2019 the compliance rate will be 25 to 30 per cent, and in 2022-23 the compliance level will hit maturity—its highest level—at just 54 per cent. Any reasonable person can see that 54 per cent compliance does not deliver a level playing field. It simply does not.
The Senate inquiry also made it clear that overseas jurisdictions such as the US or China will not enforce the measure on the tax office's behalf. That means compliance is largely reliant on the goodwill of overseas operators. I do not know about you, but I am just not willing to put that into their hands. What that means is that the very purpose of this bill, which is to achieve a more even playing field for Australian retailers—the kinds of people I want to support; I love buying from Australian retailers and I love buying Australian-made—is already compromised by the government's mishandling of this from the very beginning. And I have to say, it bears a striking resemblance to a lot of this government's other fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants policy thought bubbles that have not very much substance to them but a whole lot of rhetoric.
I will take this opportunity to reiterate the point made by my colleague the member for Whitlam with regard to the NBN. Since we are talking about online retailing—good luck, if you are in parts of my electorate, even being able to get online to buy something from an online retailer! I will also take this opportunity to pivot momentarily to the bungling of this bill as well as the bungling of the GST redistribution to my state of Western Australia.
But I will come back to this bill, moving on now to whether or not we have a workable model here. Submissions to the Senate inquiry had several issues with the government's preferred model, which is due to come into effect in July. Electronic distribution platforms like eBay, Alibaba and Etsy, for example—all were critical of being liable for paying tax on goods that they only serve as a platform for. They do not hold these goods and they do not own these goods. It is like asking a shopping centre to be liable for GST on the goods that are sold by their tenants. The key problem with this is that it is not platform neutral. In other words, an overseas manufacturer or holder of goods will pay as much tax—that is, if they comply; remember only 54 per cent of them are complying—as a distributor of goods.
Let me explain eBay, because I love eBay. Basically, eBay is where you can go online and buy things from individuals. I have posted things for sale on eBay before. You can buy things from people who no longer need them, or you can buy things from retailers. Since its inception, eBay has expanded to also accommodate online retailers. To have a policy whereby eBay, the distribution platform that is selling my second-hand goods, for example, pays as much tax as an online retailer that produces and holds goods just does not make any sense. It really does not. The other issues online retailers are concerned about are the complexity of the measure and that the low level of compliance would provide a competitive advantage to less-reputable firms.
We have talked about compliance and about the workable model and the fact that it is not a platform neutral. The third issue, which I think is a really important one, is the impact on consumers. The Senate inquiry found that this measure would basically end up in increased prices. In addition, the cost of implementation would be passed on to consumers. There was a concern that some platforms might also close their operations. I note that my colleague the member for Whitlam also addressed that.
So, once again, we see government policy being developed without any thought given to its impact, particularly on consumers. It is becoming quite tiresome to continually have to remind those on the other side that policy is not something you do in marble offices and towers, that policy actually has real impacts on real people. At a time when wages are at an all-time low and underemployment is at an all-time high, and when 700,000 Australians are facing lower wages in just 17 days' time, due to this government's insistence on cutting penalty rates, is this government really going to sit there and say, 'Oh, well!' to an ill-conceived policy that will force Australian consumers to pay more. I really hope not.
Finally, I want to talk about the implementation of the bill, because the Senate inquiry concluded that there would be significant challenges for some parties when implementing this measure. They were pretty much unanimous on the view that the start date should be delayed to 1 July 2018, a year and a bit from now, to ensure that issues around the model—the complexity of the model and the implementation of the model—could be worked out properly and we would actually have a workable, effective model ready to go in a year's time. Government senators made a recommendation for the government's own legislation to be delayed by 12 months, and they most certainly would support the government amending the legislation before the parliament now, to reflect a 1 July 2018 starting date. In other words, we would support a 12-month delay, just as the Senate inquiry did. This delay will ensure that we get the model right. We want to get it right and I am sure that those on the other side also want to get it right. Labor is prepared to work in a bipartisan manner with the government to ensure that we get it right, to ensure that this works.
But we also feel that a 12-month delay is not enough. It helps, but it does not go far enough in addressing some of those fundamental flaws around compliance, complexity and fairness, in allowing this bill to do what it actually has the potential and purpose to achieve, which is a fair and level playing field for Australian retailers. We have been clear on these issues from the very start: create a level playing field for Australian retailers competing with overseas retailers, and ensuring that you have a workable model that is easily complied with by overseas retailers and online platforms, without any adverse impacts on Australian consumers. That in a nutshell is pretty much what we want: a level playing field; a workable model; compliance; and no adverse impact on Australian consumers. We do not need to be hitting them again.
Alongside a 12-month delay to give the government this breathing room, we will also be pushing for an independent Productivity Commission review, not a Treasury review but a Productivity Commission review, into the current vendor registration model, assessing its impacts alongside other models with a view to recommending legislative amendments for the parliament to consider. This gives the government time and process to get the model right. Once again, we support this in principle but we want to make sure that this is right. We want to make sure that those fundamental flaws are addressed and that we deliver something that is worthwhile to the Australian people.
There is something really wrong here. We are standing here on 14 June discussing a piece of legislation on tax law, the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill, which begins on 1 July 2017, just two weeks away. We are in here talking about a tax law which, in two-weeks time, businesses overseas will have to apply. They will have to change their systems in order to implement it. It has not been to the Senate yet. It has not passed the parliament, and it is still due to start on 1 July in two-weeks time. For any piece of legislation, that is extraordinary. But for tax law and something as complex as this for the businesses that will have to implement it, there is just something really wrong about this. This simply should not be happening.
Let us look at what it is. In principle, what this bill does is try to level the playing field so that Australian businesses that sell goods in Australia do not have a tax disadvantage relative to overseas companies that sell goods into Australia. So it attempts to level the playing field. I will talk later about whether that actually works, but its intention is good. We, on this side of the House, have been aware for some time of the growing size of the market of goods coming into Australia and that, eventually, the low-GST threshold would have to be addressed when the cost of collecting it was less than the amount that it cost, because it is quite difficult to collect.
So the intention of this bill is actually quite good, even though the time frame is ridiculous, but one has to ask whether or not it achieves what it sets out to do. What it does, in an operational sense, is this: currently the low-value goods threshold is $1,000, and it lowers that. It is a vendor registration model, so overseas suppliers, including electronic platforms like eBay and Amazon, that re-deliver services into Australia with an Australian turnover of greater than $75,000 in a 12 month period will be required to register and charge GST. It puts the onus on the vendor and it lowers that threshold, so that companies in Australia that are selling to the Australian market do not have a tax disadvantage. Again, this is all good in principle until you start to look at the detail and the extraordinary lack of consultation that there was on this bill, even though it was first put forward in the budget in 2016 over a year ago, the legislation was first introduced in February and it is being debated now, two weeks before its start date. But the level of consultation on this has been minimal, both prior to the presentation of the legislation for the first time in this House and since. Virtually everybody that will have anything to do with this has criticism of it—virtually anyone has criticism of it.
It is as if the government have picked up some of the language of the start-up communities and think that they can apply it to government. The notion of a minimum viable product when you are start-up means that as soon as you have something ready to sell you get it out there—you are still embarrassed—but you get even the minimum viable product out there as fast as possible and you change and improve it as you go. That is the model. The word 'agile' is actually about the sector out there being able to come together and put together new ideas and new solutions and move forward very quickly. But 'minimum viable product' and 'agile' are not necessarily words you would apply to government. Governments need to be able to apply frameworks in which others can be agile. Governments need to provide a level of certainty so that others can work their path through the government policy. This is 'minimum viable tax policy'. It is not finished, it is not ready, it is too early and they are getting it out as quickly as possible. When they have to change it and change it and change it again, through the agility which they think is so great, there are businesses out there that will struggle incredibly hard to try and meet that compliance burden as this government changes its mind, as it gets at its minimum viable tax policy on two-weeks notice. If the government were a start-up, you would be congratulating them for this, but, as a government, this is completely in the wrong space. Governments provide certainty and frameworks so that others can be agile and solve the problems of the world; they do not do this. This is quite absurd.
There are threats to Australian bricks and mortar retailers and to Australian companies online. There are many, many threats at the moment, and one of those threats is the tax discrepancy between the different markets. But the threats are there because there are opportunities in the world at the moment and someone else has stepped into them. It would be foolish for any Australian government or opposition to look at the circumstances that we have now—the rapid growth of the online international goods market, as well as in the service market, and the fragmented supply chains and the growth in international movement of labour through online platforms—and to only be concerned about the threat that is well understood because it threatens existing businesses. And that is what we have here. We have a government that has not considered what this piece of legislation will do to emerging companies in Australia that set up their online sales businesses in Australia and then have a tax discrepancy with businesses elsewhere.
The government is not actually considering the growth of the sector and what the opportunities are. There is no policy for getting Australian businesses online, and we are lagging behind. We have an NBN which is failing dismally and which will not provide businesses with the opportunity that they need to be online in a major way, and we do not see policies and incentives that actually encourage the large numbers of businesses in every one of our communities that are not yet online to get online and compete internationally. The threat that Australian businesses face in this market is an opportunity in every other one, and we are fooling ourselves if we think we can stimulate or even protect growth in Australia without addressing the opportunities that are there and only looking at the threats. As much as that has to be done, it is a very small part of making Australia competitive—a very, very small part—and, unfortunately, it is not particularly competent.
If I look at stakeholders across the board who have criticisms of this measure, they come from every single area: consumer organisations, new businesses and, of course, the businesses themselves that will have to collect the tax.
There was a very good Senate committee inquiry into this that did really great work, and the government senators on that committee also recommended a 12-month delay to this legislation because it is just not feasible that this will be ready for a 1 July start. What they found in that Senate inquiry is that Treasury expects a compliance rate of 25 to 30 per cent in the third year of operation. So, by July 2019, on the current timetable—assuming the government can get it off the ground in two weeks time—we are looking at a 25 to 30 per cent compliance rate in the third year of operation, but only for companies that turn over more than $75,000 in here. On top of that, there will be a whole range of other companies that resell goods that they do not actually have any ownership in, they will be platforms rather than retailers in the conventional sense, and there will be a whole range of models that we have not even thought of yet that will grow in this space. The large warehouse based retailers are not the only model. There will be many, many more that will sit outside of the rules that this rather poorly drafted bill imposes—many more. Even those that we can think of now, the couple of dozen or however many large-scale retailers that sell more than $75,000 a year worth of goods into Australia, will have only a 25 to 30 per cent compliance rate because other jurisdictions, like the US and China, will not enforce the measure on the Taxation Office's behalf. So I assume that compliance will be largely voluntary for overseas operators.
It also means that overseas operators within Australia will face a competitive disadvantage here, because 100 per cent of operators in Australia, even if they do not turn over $75,000 in this market, will be collecting GST. So, if we want Australian businesses to open up here, establish themselves here and compete in the international field, perhaps we need to consider making the tax regime competitive for them as well. They are in many ways the future, and if we want to take advantage of the opportunity that caused the threat to Australian retailers then we need to actually make sure that those that are finding new ways to do it can base themselves in Australia rather than do what this bill sort of incentivises them to do, which is move offshore: move your headquarters offshore and then you will not have the tax disadvantage you will have if you are based in Australia. That part of this bill, that contradiction—that it attempts to improve the competitiveness of Australian businesses but does not actually protect the new ones—is quite alarming.
There have also been a number of submissions from eBay, Alibaba and Etsy, who have all been extremely critical that they would have to collect GST on goods that they simply serve a platform for. As you know, if you buy a good on eBay in Australia, you do not pay GST on it because you are buying it from another person. It is a trading platform, not a conventional retailer, as is Etsy and Alibaba. They are incredibly successful business models, but they do not fit into the old bricks-and-mortar model retailer who is now selling online. They are something else altogether. For them it is hugely problematic because the platforms that they built are quite specific and, according to some of them, these are quite major changes in their platform and they now have two weeks. It is quite extraordinary. We have also heard from some of them that they will geo-block Australia. They will just not sell here. That is also alarming because Australian businesses sell their products through these platforms as well. Again, the businesses that are at the forefront and are using platforms like Etsy, for example, to sell right around the world might find their efforts to get into the international market stifled because of this particular piece of legislation.
Labor wants the government to delay its legislation for 12 months. We do not think that is enough, but we believe the government should do that, and the government's own backbenchers who sat on the Senate committee said that they should. We have heard people opposite saying it is Labor kicking a can down the road. If it is actually a bad can with holes in it that will leak all the way down the road, it is probably a good idea to take it off the road for a while and fix it. I would absolutely prefer that a government gets its tax policy right and does the consultation before it actually imposes it on people who do not have to comply anyway because they are in a jurisdiction where they will not be compelled to do so. If we are going to expect these companies to do it voluntarily, we would want to make it as easy as possible for them.
The delay might seem extreme. The issue is getting greater month by month, but for people like me who were in the copyright industry back in the 90s this has been coming for a long time. In fact, in 1993, 1994 and 1995, US universities had to shut down their servers and ban the downloading of music because 60 per cent of all downloads in the US were music. Napster had 80 million customers by the time the GST was introduced. The online platforms that deal in the sale of labour were well and truly formed in the late 90s and were going gangbusters by the year 2000. I remember when John Howard first introduced the GST. I was sitting around with some of my colleagues in the copyright sector. We thought it would not even be relevant in 10, 15 or 20 years time—that the time for that kind of geographically based tax collection on the sale of goods and services was actually over. Even in 1998, we thought it was over. We were a little early, but the world is changing. The way that goods and services, inputs into manufacture and labour will be traded in the next 10 years requires a comprehensive look to ensure that Australian businesses can benefit from the opportunities created in the world market.
What we do not need is a government whose only focus is on the quickest possible fix of a problem that we have known about for a decade, particularly when their solution disadvantages those who are trying to move into the new world and are trying to break into international markets, and particularly when it disadvantages our consumers and some of our most innovative businesses who are finding new ways to sell to the world. This bill says, 'If you want to do that, move offshore because you get a tax advantage.' I really urge the government to have a serious look at this. This is backward thinking. We really need to engage with the people who work in this field and have serious consultation. Delay it for a year and get it right.
As a student of Australian history I can just feel Ben Chifley, John Curtin and Edward Theodore turning in their graves: 'Is this the Labor Party we produced?' In the most extraordinary statement, the previous speaker in this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017 said that this will force businesses to go offshore. What businesses? Perhaps I could ask the chair for an answer: what businesses will go offshore? I will tell you what businesses have already gone offshore. There is a clear-cut situation here. A foreign seller, a company selling clothing out of America, gets an order and sends the order via the internet to Australia. It gets an order for a hair dryer, or whatever, and it sends the product to Australia.
Previously, before the enlightened free marketeers of the Labor Party, the Labor Party was formed on the major reason it came into existence: to protect the workers' jobs, not to export the jobs overseas. But the member for Parramatta is talking about some people sitting in an office with a computer in front of them—and oh, there are thousands of them! There are not thousands of them. There might be hundreds of them, but whole industries—the whole white goods industry of Australia—closed down. And whose fault was it? The Labor Party's. They removed all the protection the Australian businesses had and exposed us to competition from people who work for $5 a day.
If you walk into this place you will walk past a magnificent portrait of the first member for Kennedy. That member for Kennedy ranted and raved against cheap labour being brought into Australia, because we had fought and died—quite literally—in the strike at the station property where Waltzing Matilda was written two months later. That strike and occupation of the woolshed led to three people being shot dead. That was not fun. The entire executive of the AWU was jailed for three years with hard labour for holding a strike. And when we got those hard-won decent conditions and decent pay, the plantation owners in the sugar industry brought in the Kanaks. And the mining magnates—corporates—brought in the Ceylonese from overseas to work the mines, and the coolies; it was mainly coolies.
And we had the great Charlie McDonald, the second or third Speaker in this place and one of the founders of the labour movement, ranting and raving. But here we have a lady getting up and pleading the cause of the importers. She represents the importers to Australia, the people she represents—the exporting of Australian jobs and the importing of foreign products. Now, I am not one of those who comes in here and praises the rich and powerful. But I am one who acknowledges people such as Gerry Harvey. Gerry said, 'I will have to close businesses everywhere and put, quite literally, thousands of people out of work if this is allowed to go on.' He estimated—and he produced the figures publicly—that the real cost difference was 30 or 40 per cent. If he was to provide what they call in the car industry a floor plan, if he was to provide a shop with all of these goods that you could go in and look at and evaluate, then that would cost a lot of money. If people were all going to buy on the internet from overseas, there was not much purpose in him having the shops anymore. He fought like a tiger to try to keep this at bay, and when he got attacked—'Oh, the poor people; they can get these things really cheaply from overseas'—he thought, 'Well, if you can't beat them, you have to join them.' So he just went ahead and joined them. So, thousands of jobs vanished.
I do not know where the shop assistants union is in all of this. I mean, shop assistants pay their dues to the shop assistants union. Where is the union defending the jobs here? We are all a bit sick and tired of unions going on holidays when the fighting needs to be done. They are like a lot of other peak bodies that I have had dealings with in the agricultural industry.
This place is characterised by nobody ever having battled for a quid for themselves. I seem to be one of the last of the Mohicans who actually comes from a business background. Joh Bjelke-Petersen had a saying: 'If you haven't backed your judgement with your own money, you shouldn't be making decisions with other people's money.' The last speaker is a classic example of that! No wonder that in a recent poll in Townsville we 'others' were on 35 per cent, the Liberal Party was pretty close to 30 per cent and the Labor Party was on 25 per cent. If the people in Townsville heard that speech Labor just gave, Labor would be down under 20 per cent. People are desperate for their jobs, and all we have heard from the Labor Party is constant and continuous attacks upon the coal industry.
One-quarter of Australia's income comes from coal. Without a coal industry you will not be able to buy anything because everything is now foreign produced. We have no whitegoods industry in Australia. We have very little textile, footwear and clothing manufacturing in Australia. So we have to import all these things. That is all very well. If you want to import watches, biros, mobile telephones and pads from overseas, that is fine; but you have got to sell something to be able to import things, and we do not sell anything anymore. We do not mine. Mining is when you dig it out of the ground and sell a product, a metal; when you dig out the ground and sell the ground, that is called quarrying. So we have just two sources of income—a coal quarry and an iron ore quarry. There are people in the Liberal Party who are against coalmining. Certainly, the overwhelming bulk of the Labor Party are against coal. All right, where are you going to get the money to buy all these things from overseas? You are not going to get it! The country is going to go bankrupt at 100 miles an hour—which, of course, it is.
I am not an important person. But Paul Keating most certainly was—whether I like to admit it or not. John Howard and Paul Keating between them were either Prime Minister or Treasurer of Australia for a period of over 30 years. Between the pair of them, they controlled the Australian economy for 30 years. The people of Australia voted for both of them, so it was the people's choice to put them there. When the current account deficit hit $15 billion, Paul Keating said we were in danger of becoming a banana republic. When the current account deficit hit $23 billion, John Howard reminded him of that. John Howard said the continuing current account deficit was the overwhelming problem above all else. Those were the statements of the two people who ran the Australian government, if not the Australian economy, for over 30 years: we were going to become a banana republic and the continuing current account deficit was the overwhelming problem above all else.
But the budgerigars on this side of the House do not think there is any problem at all. They say, 'What's the problem?' There is an old joke about input and output: the electrician says 'overload' and the politician says, 'What problem?' This is a classic example of it. 'What problem?'
Already our purchasing power, in spite of being propped up by outrageous interest rates, completely out of step with the rest of the world—our interest rates have been a thousand per cent higher than the rest of the world—
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
There is a gentleman laughing over here. I will have to give him a little economics lesson, because he obviously did not spend much time at school! The average interest rate throughout the world for 10 years was under 0.3 per cent, and the average in Australia was over three per cent. If you do not believe me, go and check it, but do not keep opening your mouth here. We know you are a galah, but you do not have to keep opening your mouth and proving it.
The gentleman over here has questioned that our interest rates were out of step with the rest of the world. I cannot ask the question of him, but I would like to ask him what the interest rates were, and he can tell us what they were: what were the prevailing interest rates in the rest of the world for the last 15 years and what were they in Australia for the same 15 years? If he had been in this place, he would have heard some people commenting upon it. If you hold interest rates up, people are going to put their money here, not overseas, so the dollar is going to rise. So we had a policy of a high dollar.
I do not know what his name is, but I think he is a bloke that represents a rural electorate. A rural electorate is dependent upon exports. Let me be very specific, because I do a lot of research on this. When Keating free floated the dollar, the dollar went down to 49c. Shame on me, I heaped great praise on him for allowing the dollar to free float. Doug Anthony got me aside as a very young man—I had the great honour of knowing and having spoken to and met with Jack McEwen and Doug Anthony—and he said, 'Don't worry about the substance of tariffs. That's not what we die in the ditches over. What we die in the ditches over is the value of the dollar.'
Those who have little bit of age on them—not like this little fledgling galah over here—and who have bit of experience will remember Bill McMahon, the Prime Minister, announcing a revaluation of the dollar, and the next day Doug Anthony announcing a devaluation of the dollar. Of course nine days later it was devalued, because no-one was going to fool around with the Country Party of those days. They had walked out of office three times and brought the government down, and they left Menzies out in the cold for eight years. Menzies was elected Prime Minister, and he announced a revaluation of the dollar. Again, two days later, Jack McEwen announced that it was going to come down, not up, and nine days later it went down. Those were the great days of a great party called the Country Party.
Now we have a gentleman over here that thinks it is good to have a high dollar. Every time I say that it is bad he starts laughing and thinks it is funny. Well, he cheated his people out of 50 per cent of their income, because when Keating allowed the dollar to free float it went to 49c. Then he propped it up. I am ashamed that I praised him. In comes Costello, and he does the same thing. He free floats the dollar, so the dollar goes down to 51c. So I would submit to the House that that is obviously where it should have been—at 50c. When it was allowed to free float on both occasions that is where it went. Then Costello, for reasons best known to himself, propped it up. We have been propping it up ever since.
For the last two or three years, at long last, we have put our interest rates—because other nations have put theirs up a bit—down a tiny little bit. The margin is not so great, so the free market has started to take over, and the dollar has come down. But this is no thanks to the budgerigar that is squawking over here. It is no thanks to the likes of him. He, in fact, is the architect of the dollar being at 90c instead of where it should have been at 50c. (Time expired)
I thank all members for their contributions to this debate, including the member for Kennedy. I want to give a shout out to the member for Maranoa too for being here in the chamber. Thank you for being here and making your contribution.
This bill amends the goods and services tax law to apply GST to goods imported by consumers valued at $1,000 or less. With this bill the government is levelling the playing field for Australian businesses. We are removing the loopholes in the tax system that we inherited so that we force foreign multinationals to remit tax to Australia on Australian sales. Under the current law, GST does not imply to the supply of low value imported goods, which self-evidently creates an unlevel playing field. The government is absolutely committed to stopping this unfair and distortionary benefit enjoyed by foreign sellers, and in the process strengthening the integrity and fairness of our tax system.
The state and territories, I note, unanimously support this bill. We reached agreement back in August 2005 at the Council on Federal Financial Relations meeting. They chose to adopt this model—the vendor collection model. Earlier this year all state and territory governments formally wrote to the Treasurer signing off on the policy reflected in the bill. Under the vendor collection model, vendors of offshore goods with an Australian GST turnover of $75,000 or more will be required to register for, collect and remit GST on goods valued at $1,000 or less that they supply to consumers in Australia, just like any Australian seller has to do. This measure will also apply to online marketplaces, also known as electronic distribution platforms. It is essential for the success of this measure that it applies to these types of entities, since they facilitate the majority of low-value imported goods sales in Australia.
Obvious to everyone is the fact that we live in an increasingly globalised world, where online cross-water shopping is now the norm and low value imports will continue to rise. Collecting GST at the border, as we currently do for goods over $1,000, is too costly and inefficient for the tens of millions of low-value parcels that come into Australia each year. Indeed, in 2011 the Productivity Commission estimated that applying GST to goods worth $20 or more at the border would raise $550 million but, perversely, cost over $2 billion to implement and administer. Further, goods would be physically stopped at the border, causing lengthy delays and creating bottlenecks. That is obviously not good for consumers, taxpayers or our economy.
Another alternative considered was the logistics model, whereby transport companies would charge and collect GST. This model could provide a high level of coverage, but it would be very expensive to implement. Transport intermediaries would be required to gather additional data on the taxable or exempt nature of goods, as well as the consumer or business status of the importer, and then calculate the GST. Currently, transporters are removed from the point of sale and do not have complete information to assess the GST payable in that way. High costs are also involved with system changes and storage of the goods at the border if the GST is not being paid by the importer. Adopting this model could mean creating bottlenecks at the border, and Australian consumers may be charged additional handling fees. Again, such a model would not be good for consumers, taxpayers or our economy more broadly.
We also considered the financial intermediary model, which requires financial intermediaries to charge and remit the GST on low-value goods sales that they process. Again, this model was ruled out because financial intermediaries would find it difficult to determine if the transaction involves goods that attract GST and whether a good purchased from overseas would eventually enter Australia. This model would also require reform of international payments system mechanisms, which is really beyond the power of any single jurisdiction such as Australia to mandate. We cannot burden our domestic businesses with the current inequitable arrangements while we wait for the technology to catch up. Another review will not deliver new information and will only delay reform by at least another two years. We must act now.
Other jurisdictions are already taking action, and they are focusing on taxation of goods by the vendor at the point of sale. This is why, from 1 January 2018, Switzerland, for example, will be requiring vendors to collect GST, or VAT, on low-value imports. Within the European Union, vendors are already required to charge and collect VAT on sales within the EU. The OECD and the EU also recognised, in recent reports, that there can be no substantive reform without a key focus on taxation of goods by the supplier at the point of sale. The vendor collection model is already being used by other countries to collect a GST on cross-border digital products and services. This includes Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, member states of the EU—Switzerland and Norway—South Africa and now Australia.
In this new world of increasing cross-border online trade, we need to take action so that Australian businesses and jobs are not left behind. This bill fulfils that objective. It will level the playing field for Australian businesses to compete with overseas retailers and, importantly, protect the integrity of the GST base. 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 McMahon 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 McMahon be agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill is a sensible bill which the opposition supports. It gives effect to an agreement with the International Monetary Fund to provide a standing appropriation and authority to borrow for payments to meet drawings made by the IMF under a new bilateral loan agreement which was signed at the end of 2016 and the start of 2017. Under this agreement, the maximum amount of Australia's lending commitment to the IMF is special drawing rights 4.61 billion, at around A$8.39 billion. This is an international reserve asset which can be allocated to member countries in proportion to their IMF quotas.
This updates the agreement that was first made when we were in office in October 2012, with legislation passing in 2013 for the same SDR amount. The agreement is activated only when additional funds are required to support lending to member countries. This bill has no direct impact on the budget bottom line; however, if the agreement is activated and funds are provided, there is an indirect impact where the government's lending to the IMF increases our borrowing requirement and where interest payable on any money borrowed by Australia to meet an IMF drawdown exceeds the interest paid by IMF with regard to that drawdown.
This agreement will accordingly be included in the budget papers as a quantifiable contingent liability, just as it was when we were in office. I note that giving effect to the agreement was recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties this year. This represents an important aspect of our obligations as a member of the IMF. Of course, we hope that we are never called upon to make this contribution. It will be called upon only in times of international financial stress. The IMF will work hard to avoid calling upon it, but we have no choice, as members of the IMF, but to engage, of course, in such activities, as happened, when my honourable friend the member for Lilley was Treasurer, when this agreement was first entered into. It was a sensible way of dealing with it. This is an update.
Of course, given that the opposition supported it when we were government—the now government supported it from opposition—I did go back and have a look at some of the contributions made at the time to familiarise myself with the views of honourable members opposite about it in the 2013 debate. The now Minister for Finance said:
There is a lesson which must be learned from the current financial stresses in much of the western world—if debt is the problem, more debt is clearly not the answer.
Well, this government seems to think that more debt is the answer, because this week, on Friday, we will pass $500 billion in debt.
But I thought the most interesting contribution of all back in 2013 was yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly. You had a lot to say in 2013. I was surprised to see that you are not on the list this time. I would have thought you would make a contribution similar to the one you made back in 2013. In 2013, you, sir, said:
Here we are in Australia laden with debt—already with five budget deficits in a row and with a sixth and a seventh committed to by this government, were they to be re-elected—yet we are going to provide money to an international organisation that produces nothing.
That is what you thought when you were in opposition. Now that you are in government you are strangely silent, Mr Deputy Speaker. You went on to say:
They will then loan this money to even more irresponsible countries which have greater debt than we do. Under this bill, we will be borrowing money from countries such as China and lending it to places like Greece, which will use it to pay off the German banks—
You had it all covered back in those days, Mr Deputy Speaker—
which have financed a generous Greek welfare state. The process and the outcome of such folly cannot be good in the end.
You had plenty to say in 2013, but now you are in government you have been struck dumb. I am just wondering why you are not making a contribution in this debate. The opposition would be more than happy to facilitate it. You have had a lot to say about all sorts of things over the last 48 hours in various forums in this House and this building. You have been very prominent. You have been out there. You have been fighting the good fight against action on climate change, you have been leading the charge against the Finkel review, you have been undermining the Prime Minister at every opportunity, and we want to hear what you think about the IMF these days.
This side of the House stand completely in support of the IMF. We lend bipartisan support to the Treasurer when he brings in sensible legislation. It appears, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have gone quiet compared to your views in 2013.
I thank the member for McMahon and I compliment him on learning some very wise and sensible words from one of the members in this House.
While the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2017 is a relatively uncontroversial bill, it is an important one—despite the controversy that a similar bill caused under the previous Labor government. It speaks to our values as a nation; not only a nation that is a member of the brotherhood and sisterhood of nations but one that continues to stand up to support those less fortunate around the world.
The International Monetary Fund was conceived in 1944, at the Bretton Woods Conference, by 44 UN member countries in order to build a framework for economic cooperation that would avoid a repetition of the competitive devaluations that had brought about the Great Depression. Australia played a key part in those processes and the conference. Not well enough known through our great land is the integral and pivotal role that Australia played in the establishment of the key international organisations rising from the ashes of World War II that are still key parts of the world order today. As Doc Evatt said, the ambition of the UN and its related organs, such as the IMF, was:
… not very much; just peace and justice and decent standards of living for themselves perhaps, but mainly for their children.
At the end of the Second World War, the IMF was charged with overseeing and rebuilding national economies. Since that time it has been responsible for promoting international monetary cooperation, facilitating the expansion of international trade, assisting in the establishment of a multilateral system of payments and assisting member states who are experiencing difficulties. In the 1970s, after the system of fixed exchange rates collapsed, a series—
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Burt will be given an opportunity to conclude his contribution at that time.
The first of July marks Territory Day. It is when we in the Northern Territory celebrate self-government, which we obtained in the 1978. This year there will be a lot of Territorians who will not be celebrating, because they are going to have their penalty rates cut. The first of July 2017 will be marked as the day when millionaires get a $16,400 tax cut, but the very next day, Sunday 2 July, 700,000 Australians, including thousands of Northern Territory workers, are going to have their penalty rates cut.
Last weekend we in the Top End had a lot to do. We could go camping over the long weekend; we could watch the Cowboys do over the Eels in the NRL; we could go fishing; we could spend time with our families. But we were also thinking about those people who were serving us, who were working in hospitality, retail, pharmacies. Those Territory workers are going to have their penalty rates cut. That will be their Territory Day present, at the same time as the member for Wentworth, the Prime Minister, will be giving millionaires a tax cut. It does not seem very fair to me—tax cuts for billionaires, corporate tax cuts, while the lowest-paid workers have their penalty rates cut. It is not fair. (Time expired)
I rise to congratulate an award recipient under the Queen's Birthday Honours on the Gold Coast, Dr Roger Welch OAM. Dr Welch has given his life as an ophthalmologist to serving the most disadvantaged in our community, not just in the Gold Coast but also down your way in Parkes, Mr Deputy Speaker, where he has spent decades serving Indigenous communities and providing free eye care every year to service the most disadvantaged in our communities. It is always extraordinary to see professionals in all walks of life giving to those most needy and giving their time at no cost to recipients. Dr Roger Welch is certainly a very worthy recipient of recognition for this work. Not only has his served Aboriginal communities in your neck of the woods, Mr Deputy Speaker, and further afield; he is also a very keen environmentalist. He has published some of the best work globally on the pygmy seahorse, in terms of preserving that species. Unbeknownst to anyone but an ophthalmologist, the pygmy seahorse does not have an iris, as is necessary in the eye to accommodate a blinding flash under water, and photographing them makes them blind. He has brought that to global attention and began work to protect that species. He is a truly great Australian. He has served environment and he has served fellow man. I think he is a very worthy recipient and I pass on the parliament's good wishes to him.
This government is out of touch. It is prepared to give millionaires a tax cut of $16,400 on 1 July, whereas the next day people in my electorate will have their penalty rates cut. Over 700,000 workers throughout Australia will have their penalty rates cut, whilst those who can afford it will have a tax cut. Those opposite do not understand that low wages growth means that business conditions, critically for small businesses in a regional area like Northern Tasmania, are made even more difficult. People need to have secure employment in order to fully participate in our communities. Low-paid workers, people in insecure work, students trying to support themselves by study—all rely on penalty rates and the extra income that can be received while working on a Sunday. There are personal stories around the loss of penalty rates. Kids may not be able to attend sport because their parents lost the extra income from working on a Sunday. Workers in Bass need a pay rise, not a pay cut. Every small business benefits from the circulation of money within the community, money which will be scarce if there is a real cut in wages. Our lowest paid spend most of their pay packet on day-to-day expenses. They do not deserve a pay cut. This government can change the lot of 700,000 workers on 2 July by supporting Labor's bill to save penalty rates. It is vitally important that we understand the pressures that are on businesses and working families in regional Australia. Our people in Bass need penalty rates to survive.
The Queen's Birthday weekend is more than just a necessary long weekend in the middle of the year. It is also a time to reflect on those who make our communities such vibrant and welcoming places. Hundreds of Australians from all walks of life were recognised on the Queen's Birthday Honours List this year. Amongst them was one local man who I would like to commend today. Mr Giuseppe Pino Migliorino of East Ryde has been awarded an AM for services to the Italian community. Mr Migliorino founded the excellent Italian Bilingual School in Meadowbank, which I have been fortunate enough to visit on a couple of occasions. He also helped build a culturally targeted aged-care program.
Ageing and growing old in a foreign land can be difficult. Accessing services in your second language or finding support when your family may live far away can make this time particularly difficult. Mr Migliorino's program provides dignity for the Italian members of our community and helps them through this time. Anybody who listens to my speeches in this chamber will know that I am fiercely proud of the ethnic diversity of the area I represent. These cultures have all flourished thanks to rich community organisations like those run by Mr Migliorino. I congratulate him and all those who help make our local area such a strong and diverse society. Grazie, grazie mille, Giuseppe.
I rise today to stand up for the 13,000 people in the seat of Lalor, living and working in my community, who face a penalty rate cut on 1 July. I rise at a time when inequality is at a 75-year high, when we have 1.1 million Australians saying they are underemployed and 700,000 people who are unemployed. I rise 24 hours after the Minister for Human Services, the member for Aston, vilified my community of Werribee—not making jobs, not coming in here to vote with us to protect penalty rates, but running around briefing journalists to vilify communities across this country.
I rise to stand up for the people in my community today and to ask those opposite with a conscience, those opposite who know what $77 a week is going to do to a family's budget and to my local economy—I ask them to speak to one another, to cross the floor and vote with us to protect the penalty rates of the 700,000 workers across this country that they are going to have a detrimental impact on on 1 July. It is a time of great inequality. We have global financial crisis rates of unemployment, and this government needs to come in here and start speaking for Australians, stop working against Australians, stop vilifying Australians and act to pay workers properly.
We know, at this time in Canberra, it is rather cool outside. One of the best ways to warm up is to have a rum. Talking about rum, I would like to recognise the efforts of the oldest operating rum distillery in Australia. Beenleigh Rum, run by Beenleigh Artisan Distillery in my electorate of Forde, was recently awarded at the international level for the quality of its spirits. The 133-year-old distillery picked up five top gongs at one of the world's most influential spirit competitions—the San Francisco World Spirits Competition in California.
Where are the samples?
In my office. They won a silver medal for their 10-year-old rum, their Beenleigh white rum, their Beenleigh port barrel rum—which I can highly recommend—and their Beenleigh vodka, while the Beenleigh double barrel rum was awarded bronze. These awards follow another four won at the same competition in 2016. Beenleigh's artisanal distillers have been commended for their stellar efforts in producing a local product that stands up against the world's best. They have also recently opened a new $5 million visitors centre, which is now attracting even more attention as it invites visitors to explore the venue, learn about artisanal distilling and sample some of this fine Australian rum.
( The clock is ticking to 2 July, when we will see penalty rates cut in Australia. Today I speak for the 10,588 people in the Oxley electorate working in the retail, pharmacy and accommodation industries and will be affected by these cuts. In 17 days, these people are facing a pay cut. It does not matter if the cuts are phased in over two or three years—the damage is the same. People will lose money. The day before penalty rates are cut, this government will show exactly where its priorities lie, delivering a tax cut worth $16,400 for millionaires. This increasingly divided extreme right-wing government is proud to give them the largest pay cut in Australia's history since the Great Depression. If you are a worker living in my electorate in the suburb of Durack cleaning a hotel, you get a pay cut. If you are a retail worker living in Redbank Plains, you get a pay cut. If you are a pharmacy worker living in Jamboree Heights, you get a pay cut under this government.
Bill Shorten and Labor will fight this pay cut, the proud unions that represent the 700,000 workers in Australia who will be affected will fight this pay cut, and my community will fight this pay cut. It is time this Prime Minister started listening: start backing workers in Australia instead of looking after the millionaires in boardrooms in this country. Cutting penalty rates will hurt our economy. Only Bill Shorten and Labor will fight these cuts. Only Bill Shorten and Labor will stand up for the workers in this country.
This week is National Men's Health Week. The theme this year is 'Healthy Body—Healthy Mind: Keeping the Balance'. It is a great opportunity to raise men's awareness of the benefits of keeping healthy. I could not think of a better organisation to work with on this than the Mount Gravatt Men's Shed. As their president, Murray Rogash, tells me, men's sheds are much more than group workshops. They are health initiatives that improve their members' physical, mental and social health. Mount Gravatt Men's Shed offers a variety of health activities such as fitness classes. It counts among its 292 members a medical doctor, a psychologist and a minister of religion, who will help cater to other members' health needs. It also provides health check-ups to members through the Australian Men's Shed Association Spanner in the Works program.
Last Tuesday, I was pleased to contribute to the Mount Gravatt Men's Shed's health initiatives with a Men's Health Week morning tea. I was joined by a special guest, local GP Dr David Hunt, who spoke on the crucial health issues older men face and on the importance of regular check-ups. Dr Hunt has treated a number of men from the shed and he tells me the shed has made a positive difference in their lives, and that men's sheds are a vital community health resource. No doubt men's sheds help save lives. I am proud to support the men's sheds in my electorate. I commend them for their work in improving local men's health.
The seat of McEwen will be the second-most impacted seat by this government's penalty rate cuts. Some 8,000 people are about to lose their penalty rates on 2 July while those opposite give themselves a minimum tax cut of $6,000. Just think about that for a minute: that means that, because of cuts for people who work in pharmacies and in shops, some $19 million of disposable income will come out of the economy just so the ideologues on the other side can ensure that they get their tax cut. You have got to sit there and wonder: why does a Prime Minister who can hide millions of dollars overseas in tax havens need to give himself an $8,000 tax cut while the average worker finds himself losing some $2,500 a year? Think about the logic that they are using on the other side.
The government says the businesses will be able to open longer. But what they are actually saying is that people in rural communities will have to work longer for the same amount of money, while these guys sitting here get themselves some $5,000 to $8,000 a year in tax cuts. It is ridiculous to cut penalty rates when inequality is at a 75-year high. At the moment, we have the most unemployed people in this nation's history. Wages are stagnant, business profits are growing, and the only thing we can see is a government hell-bent on bringing in a tax cut for themselves. The difference is quite clear: Labor stands up for people, while those opposite stand on them.
The 2017 Queensland Labor budget is a slap in the face for all people on the Sunshine Coast. The state Labor government has spent the last year doing nothing but complaining, while we have poured $1.6 billion into much-needed infrastructure on the coast. And now, when the time comes to do its bit, it shows just how little it cares about people on the Sunshine Coast.
Our residents' first priority was the Bruce Highway. On that, the coalition government has delivered in spades. But it is very clear that the duplication of the railway line between Beerburrum and Nambour is an equally important and vital project. The Queensland government had the opportunity this week to pull their weight and finally do something substantial for Sunshine Coast people. They have failed spectacularly. The Commonwealth government's 2017 budget contained a $10 billion national rail program to help fund rail projects just like this one. I wrote to the Deputy Premier, Minister Trad, three weeks ago to request a meeting to discuss how we might work together for local people to get some of that funding for the Sunshine Coast. I have received no substantive reply. I now call upon her to schedule this meeting today. On behalf of Sunshine Coast residents, I want to know why there was no funding for the duplication of the rail in this year's budget and when she will meet me to discuss how we can move this forward.
Glencore is an international commodities trader. In Queensland, from the days of Ernest Henry in 1866, when he went to Cloncurry, my home town, and also the forebears of Scott Morrison, our Treasurer, we have the choice of making money out of mining and creating jobs and prosperity for our people or allowing the resources to be owned by international commodity brokers who want to play stock market games. This also occurs with Australian companies. In Queensland we had two policies, and the history of Australia and the people of Queensland can be extremely proud of this: use it or lose it. It was introduced by Edward Theodore, the great founder of the labour movement in Australia, and was carried out with ruthless brutality by the Bjelke-Petersen—God bless him—and also me as mines and energy minister. We served notice on what was, I think, the first coal mining venture at Emerald: 'You either use it or I'm taking it off you. I'm calling for expressions of interest to give it to somebody else. You can make the choice yourself.' They called my bluff and that mine is operating today, but not by them. We must enforce 'use it or lose it' as a government here and in Queensland. (Time expired)
I rise to pay tribute to three outstanding individuals in my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast who over the long weekend received Order of Australia honours. Ian Robilliard, or Moose, from Terrigal received a Queen's Birthday honour for his service to sport. Ian played with the Australian Olympic basketball squad. He has had a successful coaching career and he remains a strong advocate for sport in our region. In addition to playing and coaching, Ian is a board member of Gosford City Basketball and is the founder and director of the Central Coast Academy of Sport. Peter James, also from Terrigal, has been acknowledged for his services to surf lifesaving. Since 1962, Peter has dedicated his life to keeping the beautiful beaches of the Central Coast safe for residents and visitors alike. Peter continues to dedicate himself to our community and is currently the director of Central Coast Surf Life Saving and is an active member of the Wamberal Surf Life Saving Club. Another outstanding local resident, Dr Brian Shaw of Erina, was recognised for his dedication and service to palliative care. Dr Shaw has worked as a specialist anaesthetist at Gosford Hospital for more than 30 years and has played a vital role in health services for our local committee. Dr Shaw was also the inaugural medical director of the Central Coast Palliative Care Service and has been a director of palliative care in New South Wales. It is fantastic to see Ian, Peter and Brian acknowledged for their service to our nation. I thank them for all they do for our Central Coast community.
The first weekend in July will tell us absolutely everything we need to know about the Turnbull government. On the Saturday, the PM will give millionaires a $16,400 tax cut. On the Sunday, the next day, nearly 700,000 workers will cop a pay cut. These are the twin obsessions of those opposite. Only a Prime Minister as out of touch as this one could possibly think that is fair. He would not have a clue how important penalty rates are to making ends meet for hundreds of thousands of Australians. My community will be hit much, much harder than most. My electorate is in the top 10 most affected, with 13,350 workers in the retail food and accommodation industries affected by these pay cuts. It is no accident that we have record low wage growth and record high underemployment and precarious work under those opposite. This is what they want for this country. They want the top end of town to thrive while working people struggle. They want tax cuts for the powerful and pay cuts for the vulnerable. It is all part of the Thatcherite trickle-down fantasy on that side of the House. They could step in and prevent these penalty cuts if they wanted to. The fact that they will not says everything about a government of the top end of town, by the top of town and for the top end of town. And, if they prevail here, who knows where they will stop and which workers they will attack next.
I rise today with a good-news story from my electorate of O'Connor, and to thank the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Nigel Scullion, for his help in saving more than 20 jobs in the goldfields of Western Australia.
At the end of March, Ian Baird and Ethan Hansen, who oversee the Spinifex Land Management rangers program, visiting me in Canberra to tell me their funding would cease on 30 June. The Indigenous Rangers program is run out of Tjuntjuntjara, a community in the heart of the spinifex country, 700 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie-Boulder—probably the most isolated community in Australia. Previously, the Spinifex rangers had been funded by the Biodiversity Fund program, which expires on 30 June. The expiry of the Biodiversity Fund meant their future was uncertain and we had to find some new money to support them into the future.
The program is the largest employer in the region. It employs five people on a permanent basis and provides casual work for another 20. This may sound like a small number to some, but in the most remote community in Australia the impact of losing these jobs would be enormous. The Indigenous Rangers program employs more than 2,000 people across Australia and plays a vital role in preserving our environment. It would have been extremely disappointing to see this program disappear from my electorate. We made representations to Minister Scullion's office, and I am very grateful to the minister, who has agreed to fund the program out of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy on an ongoing basis. I wish Ian and his team every success in the future, and I look forward to working with them.
On 1 July, millionaires across Australia will get a $16,400 tax cut, while some 700,000 Australian workers will get their Sunday and public holiday pay rates cut. In my electorate, 11,000 people work in the industries that will be affected by these cuts. Tell me how that is fair. I have been talking to people across my community about these cuts. Countless locals have signed our petitions 'Protect our penalty rates'. People in my community are worried, and for good reason. Our community are concerned, and they are taking real action because they know what these cuts mean for low-income earners in our community. Whether these cuts are phased in over two years or three years does not really matter; the damage will be done: Australian workers will be worse off.
I call on the Liberal Party do the right thing by my constituents and, indeed, their own constituents by voting with Labor to protect the take-home pay of some of our lowest paid workers. Today they can decide to back workers instead of their millionaire mates, and they can do it by supporting Labor's legislation. This is a government that is presiding over a low wages growth economy, an economy with low growth across sectors, and its trickle-down model is not working. The country is becoming more unfair, the difference in the distribution of wealth is sharpening and Australians are worse off. It is time for this government to demonstrate some real compassion and support Labor's legislation to restore wage justice.
Last week, a tragic evil struck our wonderful Goldstein community. Brighton's Bay Street turned from a vibrant shopping village into the scene of a siege, an horrific two-hour hostage incident. An innocent man, Kai 'Nick' Hao, was murdered by a gunman who should not be dignified by giving his name and who claimed inspiration from Islamic extremism. The gunman had been on parole since 1 November, and had a long record of serious criminal offences. The courageous efforts of the Special Operations Group of the Victoria Police meant that, thankfully, the female hostage walked away unharmed. Our thoughts of course remain with the three injured officers, and we thank them very much for their service to the Victorian community. Most importantly, our thoughts are with the family of the victim. Nick's mother has said that she feels like her world has ended.
The Goldstein electorate office has been inundated with sentiments of support in the wake of this terrible tragedy, and many have one simple message: enough is enough. As lifelong Bayside resident Katherine put it, 'We should be free and safe to walk the streets and attend school and work.' And the Turnbull government agrees. We live in our community because it provides a secure environment in which to live freely, have a family and retire with dignity and safety. Like all wounds, this one will heal, but there is a scar. We can never allow terror to become the norm on our streets, and I hope all members will agree with me.
On 1 July this year, if you are a millionaire in Australia you will get a $16½ thousand tax cut. But the very next day, 11,630 workers in the electorate of Kingsford Smith will lose take-home pay when their penalty rates are cut. It says everything about the priorities of this Turnbull government: tax cuts for multinational corporations, tax cuts for the highest income earners in the country and capital gains tax discounts for property investors. But, when it comes to protecting the take-home pay of the lowest paid workers in this country, most of whom are women or part-time and casual workers, that mob over there will not lift a finger. They will not do anything to protect the wages of low-paid workers. Unemployment is up, underemployment is at record levels and real wages are going backwards, and this government supports taking up to $70 a week off some of the lowest paid Australian workers.
I am proud to be part of the Labor Party, which will stand up for the rights of low-paid workers and which has put a bill to this parliament asking the government to support protecting the rights of low-paid workers. If this government is in touch with the Australian people, it will support Labor's bill to protect the take-home pay of some of Australia's lowest paid workers and it will stop cutting their penalty rates. It is not too late to stand up for Australian workers. (Time expired)
I would like to congratulate a local resident of La Trobe, Ms Donalea Patman, for the Order of Australia Medal she received on the Queen's Birthday for her service to animal welfare and, in particular, the work she has done to support African lions. Her service includes being the founder and director of For the Love of Wildlife since 2013. She is so passionate about African lions that she sold her house to work full time so that she could self-fund. I worked closely with Donalea in respect of the banning of the importation of African lion hunt trophies into Australia. This took a personal toll on Donalea with regard to the stress of making this happen. She is the Australian and New Zealand partner for Blood Lions, a multi-award-winning documentary on the abhorrent practice of canned hunting. She was a guest speaker at the animal activist forum held by Animals Australia in 2015. Donalea has organised and been a guest speaker at the Global March for Lions in Melbourne in 2014, 2015 and 2016. She also received the Animal Action Award from the International Fund for Animal Welfare in 2015. La Trobe is incredibly proud to have Donalea in our electorate. She is a great friend and a great servant to animals all around the world.
It is clear now, given the vote yesterday, that on 1 July we will have millionaires getting a $16,400 tax cut, yet on the next day workers in this country will lose money. They will lose money because the Prime Minister and this government refuse to quash an order of the commission that is going to mean 700,000 workers in this country will be worse off. Those are the priorities of this government—tax cuts for millionaires and pay cuts for workers. That is all those opposite care about—their mates.
The reality is that we know what the Prime Minister's views are, because we saw them when he debated Work Choices. Here he comes into the chamber now—the defender of Work Choices. When he was debating that, the Prime Minister said: "You have to free the market to do its work and let the cost of setting the clearing price, be it for labour or loaves of bread, be as low as possible.' This Prime Minister thinks wages should be as low as possible. That is why yesterday in this place the Prime Minister and the government voted against bringing on a bill that will quash an order to stop the cutting of penalty rates in this country. We know that the lot of them—65 members and senators of the Liberal Party—are on the record as saying they want to cut or abolish penalty rates in this country. It is an absolute shame. They should reconsider their position and defend workers for once in their life. (Time expired)
Local sporting clubs play such an important role in our communities in bringing people together, encouraging fitness and allowing their players to share their passion for sport. Today I want to acknowledge one of those clubs, the Hunters Hill Rugby Union Football Club, which is one of the oldest clubs in the Sydney suburban rugby competition and indeed Australia. The club has its spiritual home at Boronia Park in my electorate and has well over 600 players across its divisions. This year the club is marking its 125th birthday, a considerable milestone and achievement. Known as 'Hillies', the club involves male and female players aged from four to 60. Due to a fire in 1973, records of the early history of the club are patchy. However, The Sydney Morning Herald records that it played its first trial match on the Queen's Birthday long weekend in 1892, followed by its first competition game a few days later. Other than during the interruptions of the two world wars, the club has been an important part of our community through its 125-year history. The club's motto, 'Facta non verba'—'Deeds not words'—has been reflected in its incredible success in premierships over those years. The club is proud of its activities on and off the field with a very vibrant and active membership. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the club—its president, Luke McCormack; the president of its juniors, Adam Latham; and its seniors president, Gary Lane. On 15 July this year the club will mark its 125th birthday. I wish them a wonderful night of celebration and every success for many decades to come.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The clean energy target has never been Labor's preferred position, but we are willing to work with the government in the national interest. Will the Prime Minister now commit to work with Labor in the national interest—
Government members interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Members on my right are preventing me from hearing the question.
An honourable member interjecting—
I did not pick up who said that—but, whoever it was, consider yourself lucky. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his question and members on my right will not interject. I need to hear the question. The Leader of the Opposition will begin his question again.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The clean energy target has never been Labor's preferred position, but we are willing to work with the government in the national interest. Will the Prime Minister now commit to work with Labor in the national interest to end the policy paralysis which has led to high electricity prices and instability in the energy market?
It is always very busy in the lead-up to question time—and I know that the Leader of the Opposition was rushing out of his office and he grabbed the speech notes for the Midwinter Ball instead of for question time! What a phoney act of sincerity we have there, how unconvincing—so much bipartisanship from the Leader of the Opposition! Let us be very clear about this: Labor's track record on energy has delivered higher prices and insecurity.
Four long years!
The member for Griffith is warned!
Let me run through some of the great achievements of the Labor Party. The Labor Party have always made it their case that they prefer to put a tax on carbon. That has always been their preferred position. That has been their position federally. What they have done since then, whether it is with respect to gas or renewable energy, is put Australians' businesses and households at risk with higher prices and less secure electricity. The track record in South Australia, delivered by a Labor government over many years, is probably the most egregious. They have built up an enormous wind reserve and no storage at all—no backup at all. They did not even think about it. Completely mindless, thoughtless—all ideology, all politics, all slogans; no economics, no engineering. And then we see their achievements with gas. Let us reflect on this. Under the last federal Labor government and under a Queensland Labor government, they succeeded in allowing for the export of gas from Queensland. Fair enough. And new coal seam gas resources were tapped into. Fair enough. But did they give any thought to the domestic market? No, not at all—again, thoughtless, mindless. They got us into the situation where we had more of our gas being exported every day, to the point where Australian businesses, Australian industries and Australian households were being asked to pay more for gas than the customers of the gas exporters in Japan were. That is the consequence of Labor's approach to energy—thoughtless, slipshod political ideology with no economics and no engineering. We are delivering for Australian households affordable, secure energy and are meeting our emission commitments.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley will cease interjecting. Before I call the member for Robertson, I am not going to keep reminding members every question time not to interject and then warn them. The member for Perth is interjecting incessantly. He will cease interjecting if he wants to stay in question time, as will the member for Bruce, and the members for Kingston and Rankin as well.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on action the government is taking to guarantee and fund the vital services that Australians rely on such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for Robertson for her question. As the honourable member knows, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is a great national enterprise introduced under a Labor government with the full support of the coalition—truly a bipartisan achievement.
That's bipartisanship.
That is real bipartisanship. That is a commitment to supporting it. When the Labor Party called on the opposition—the coalition in those days—to support a half a per cent increase in the Medicare levy to pay for the NDIS, we supported it. We gave them that support. But Labor did not fund the NDIS. They left a $55 billion hole in the NDIS. Their recklessness, their financial negligence, mocks the empathy they claim to have—they are dripping with sanctimony and empathy, but there were no resources to put behind the NDIS. We are delivering on that. We are taking the tough decisions. We have sought savings elsewhere in the budget but we have not been able to get them through the Senate. We are taking the tough decision to raise the Medicare levy by another half a per cent to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
I was delighted today, with the Treasurer, the Minister for Social Services and the assistant minister for disabilities, to meet with stalwart advocates for people with disabilities—John Della Bosca from Every Australian Counts, Ara Cresswell from Carers Australia, Katherine McLellan from National Disability Services and Kirsten Deane from the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations. They have come to Canberra to ask the Labor Party and the crossbenches to support the Medicare levy increase of half a per cent to fully fund the NDIS. There is a big poster there: 'A message to the Treasurer—fully fund the NDIS'. What is our answer? Yes. We are delivering on it. We are prepared to fund it. Labor is not.
How can they look into the eyes of mothers of children with disabilities? How can they do that? The Labor Party are filled with hypocrisy—all empathy, no resources; all empathy, no responsibility. We are funding the NDIS and Labor should support it. They know we are right. Three-quarters of the shadow cabinet know we are right. It is about time in Labor that the politics came to an end, and on this issue this new master of bipartisanship can give us a demonstration of supporting that great national project—backing in that great exercise, that national enterprise, of practical love, of solidarity, of commitment—with real money. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. On 1 July, AGL electricity prices in New South Wales will go up by 16 per cent. With power prices going up, why is the Prime Minister cutting the $365-a-year energy supplement for pensioners, a cut that will make it even harder for pensioners to stay warm in the wintertime?
I thank the member for her question. The question is with respect to the energy supplement, otherwise referred to as the compensation for the carbon tax. Of course, the carbon tax was only in for the briefest period of time. The carbon tax also had the habit of driving electricity prices right up. We all remember that. What the member now complains of is government policy—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Shortland is warned!
to end the supplement that was meant to compensate for a tax that did not actually go ahead. What the member fails to tell the House is that the savings achieved from that measure the Labor Party has already banked and spent. When you have a look at Labor's fiscal plans, they are absolutely explicit on page 30 on all the measures which we have openly and transparently said that we would pursue and which they have said they would reverse. There is a big long list of them. They would not proceed with applying a one-week ordinary waiting period. They would not proceed with changes to pension affordability. The list goes on. Mysteriously absent from the list is the energy supplement. So it is just like the changes to the pension assets test. We all remember that—when the member for Jagajaga's party announced during the election campaign that they would support—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Taylor interjecting—
The members on my right will cease interjecting—the member for Hume, in particular.
Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. The minister could at least talk about pensioners once—
The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
I am waiting for interjections from the member for Isaacs to cease.
Members on this side of the House think it is quite relevant when members on that side complain about a savings measure they have already banked and spent. We actually think, as a matter of fiscal management, that is quite relevant.
The point is that the member for Jagajaga is probably the single greatest threat to this country ever returning to surplus, because there is not a savings measure that she has ever agreed with. The press release comes out before the savings measure is even thought of, binding the shadow cabinet to whatever the member for Jagajaga thinks is the case! That is why the member for Jagajaga gets herself into these awkward situations such as her party agreeing to a change to the pension assets test at the same time as she is collecting signatures on a petition opposing it. I ask her: what did you do with those signatures? What did you say to the pensioners whose signatures you were collecting opposing a measure you support? What do you say to the House when you are complaining about a savings measure you have already banked and spent? The next time you get up, you better work out whether you actually support it, whether you do not support it, whether you are going to support it or whether you oppose it. There are so many positions here, it is more like Bikram yoga!
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on the importance of fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
As the Prime Minister noted today, we had several representatives from the disability community and they spoke with one voice. They said that they wanted this parliament to agree to fully fund the NDIS through the levy. The Prime Minister mentioned several of those. One of the advocates who he did not mention was Juan de la Torre from the National Ethnic Disability Alliance. John Della Bosca made a number of very important statements. He said that it is now time to fully fund the NDIS to ensure that the changes are absolutely intergenerational, that the young children we saw today have absolute certainty of funding going forward.
Members opposite have said two things. One is that there should be an increase in the Medicare levy, but only for those on above $87,000. Through the shadow Treasurer they have also said that they will not spend that money on the NDIS. Do you know what it is if you apply it to people on over $87,000 and do not fund it on the NDIS? It is a brand-new and novel type of class warfare, where you declare war on the middle class—you declare war on aspirational people who are trying to get ahead and are earning over $87,000. What is fair about that? What is fair about saying to a teacher in New South Wales with five years experience that they alone should pay a 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy, and a teacher in New South Wales with four years experience should not have to pay any increase in the Medicare levy? What on earth is fair about that?
What we have devised is a system that all of these disability advocates absolutely agree is fair, and the reason it is fair is that it asks every Australian who is paying the Medicare levy, with all of the exemptions that are inside the system, to pay according to their ability. So a person on $180,000 might have an income only six times greater than a person on a lower income in the system but they would pay 12 times more. What the Labor Party does in asking a teacher of four years experience to contribute nothing while asking a teacher with five years experience to contribute under the Medicare levy is not only misrepresent people's capacity to pay but misrepresent people's goodwill and capacity to want to pay to fund the NDIS.
Finally, one of the advocates we had today was Juan de la Torre from the National Ethnic Disability Alliance. He had some very interesting things to say to me and asked if I would pass a message on to the Leader of the Opposition. I said to him, 'I have just the time we can do that,' and here it is. Leader of the Opposition, Juan de la Torre said that you would remember him from your parliamentary secretary days. His message was very simple. In his words, he wanted you to get 'fair dinkum' and be like you used to be and support funding for the NDIS.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on my right! The Minister for Small Business will cease interjecting, as will the minister for transport.
My question is to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister knows, wholesale electricity prices have doubled under the Liberal government. The Australian Energy Council has said:
… the lack of national policy certainty is now the … biggest driver of higher electricity prices.
Does the Prime Minister agree, and will the government commit to working with Labor to end four years of policy paralysis under this government which have led to higher prices and instability in the energy market?
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Gilmore is warned!
The recent increase in wholesale electricity prices is the consequence of years of Labor policy, at the state level, where you have seen—
Opposition members interjecting—
Well, honourable members can wave their fingers around as much as they like, but they should be waving them in the direction of Spring Street in Melbourne. The reality is that the gas prices in Australia have been entirely created by Labor governments. There is no question about that. The failure to have regard to the needs of the domestic market was a failure of the last federal Labor government and a Labor government in Queensland.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Perth will leave, under standing order 94(a).
The member for Perth then left the chamber.
The failure to allow any exploration or development of Victoria's extensive onshore gas reserves is a political decision of the Victorian Labor government. We have a shortage of gas in Australia that was created by political decisions by Labor governments, and we are taking the hard decisions to resolve it. It is a tough measure.
Opposition members interjecting—
One of the honourable members opposite laughs. Well, I wonder how he would laugh at the workers at Incitec Pivot in Brisbane, whose jobs are under threat because of the increase in gas prices created by Labor's recklessness and mindless approach to policy—allowing too much gas to be exported without having regard to the needs of the domestic market, and at the same time campaigning against the exploration and development of gas in Victoria.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a).
The member for Griffith then left the chamber.
The Labor Party's track record on energy is one of ideology and politics. That is all they have. We are now cleaning up their mess. We are providing the storage that they overlooked talking about. We are delivering the gas security that they negligently put at risk. We are making the tough decisions to ensure that Australians will have affordable, reliable energy that will meet our international commitments.
I am pleased to inform the House that we have the President of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of New South Wales, the Hon. John Ajaka, and the Deputy Clerk, Mr Steven Reynolds, with us today. I extend a very warm welcome to you both.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
I am also pleased to inform the House that we have in the gallery today the Hon. Natasha Fyles, Northern Territory Minister for Justice, Minister for Health and Attorney-General. Again, on behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Australian Textile Mills in Wangaratta is facing a 141 per cent increase in energy costs, and the timber manufacturer D&R Henderson in Benalla tell me they will pay a million dollars more for electricity in 2017 than last year. There are over 20,000 people in Indi employed in the manufacturing sector, and the loss of these jobs is a very real threat. Industry is willing the parliament to get on with good policy, combining affordability and sustainability. While the Finkel review provides an opportunity to deliver long-term energy security, what practical steps will the government take to address the immediate impacts of ballooning energy costs and the demand for renewables, particularly in my electorate of Indi?
I thank the honourable member for her question. Regional communities like those that she represents contain the full spectrum of our economic life. Agriculture, manufacturing, mining, timber, tourism—every aspect of our economic life is represented in her electorate and in the electorates of other members representing regional communities here. Affordable and reliable energy is absolutely critical to ensuring that those businesses of which she spoke are able to continue to provide the jobs and economic growth that her communities need.
This is what the government is doing in the here and now. The biggest single impact on wholesale prices at the moment is the rapid increase in the price of gas. That has been driven by the shortages I spoke about a moment ago, because of misguided and reckless decisions made a long time ago by previous Labor governments both here and in Queensland to allow more gas to be exported than was available and of course, by the Labor government in the honourable member's state, to prevent the exploitation of onshore gas resources in Victoria. So we have taken the tough decision to put export limits on gas. It is not one we take any pleasure in doing, but it will ensure that there is sufficient gas for the domestic market. At the same time, we are accelerating reforms to the way in which gas pipelines are run, because, of course, we need to see more transparency so that the cost of moving gas around the country comes down. That is another key component.
We are also pushing the states to deliver on electricity market reforms. We have the ACCC, as the tough cop on the beat, looking at the way the electricity market operates the retail market. In particular, the honourable member would be well aware of concerns expressed by the Grattan Institute and others about the way in which retail margins have grown without any explanation or justification in her state of Victoria. At the same time, the honourable member asked about renewables. The key thing we need to have in order to make renewables reliable is storage, completely overlooked by Labor—to the best of my knowledge, no mention ever made of it by the Labor Party—and certainly overlooked by the Victorian Labor government and, most negligently of all, by the South Australian Labor government. We have put that on the map. Not only that, but we are going ahead with Snowy Hydro 2.0, which will add 350,000 megawatt hours of storage into the system—the largest introduction of pumped hydro in our history—all of which supports the increasingly distributed and variable generation of electricity, including in the electorate of the honourable member.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on why strong borders are a necessary part of our national security framework? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I am pleased to report to the House that it is 1,053 days since we have had a successful people-smuggling venture to this country. And it should be celebrated. I know my colleagues are proud of the fact that we have been able to stop the boats. The fact is that Labor presided over a complete mess. When John Howard left office in 2007 there were four people in detention, including no children. Labor's mess saw 50,000 people arrive on 800 boats, 17 new detention centres open, and thousands and thousands of children and adults put into detention.
What we have seen today, after an action was taken in the Supreme Court in Victoria as a result of the disastrous policies set up by the Labor Party—an action taken against the Commonwealth—is a settlement of $70 million to plaintiffs represented by none other than the ambulance-chasing lawyer firm of Slater and Gordon, who pocketed a neat $20 million.
Opposition members interjecting—
Now, there is a little bit of objection opposite, because many of those opposite worked for Slater and Gordon, and others of course have received benefits from Slater and Gordon. To this very day, Slater and Gordon is a significant donor to the Labor Party. I think that is worth noting as part of this discussion, because it is reality.
I can tell you, this side of the parliament will not be making the mistakes Labor and the Greens made when they were in government—1,200 people drowned at sea. You would have thought Labor would by now have learnt their lesson. Have they? No. They have not. We know that the same people who presided over the mess that resulted in boats recommencing are the same people who are coming out now opposing the changes that we are proposing in order to tighten up citizenship in this country—none other than the member for Watson, who was the minister for immigration. He presided over a record 83 boats arriving on his watch, carrying 6,600 people—which, most disgracefully, resulted in 1,100 children going into detention. Do you think he has learnt his lesson? I do not think so. As was reported in The Australian in 2013:
New Immigration Minister Tony Burke says that people-smugglers have outsmarted Australian efforts to turn boats back to Indonesia, warning the Coalition plan would only succeed in towing "people around in circles" in the Indian Ocean.
There is only one party that is going around in circles, and that is the Australian Labor Party. Let me make this promise; mark these words: if the Australian Labor Party are elected at the next election, the boats will restart.
Mr Gosling interjecting—
The member for Solomon is warned.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
As is the member for McEwen.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the finance minister told Fran Kelly that 'the price of electricity has been going up in recent times; it's projected to continue to go up and up and up if we do nothing'? Also, he said, 'We need to embrace this blueprint that is being put forward by Dr Finkel.' Does the Prime Minister agree that if the energy policy paralysis continues then power prices will continue to go up and up and up under this government?
The member for Port Adelaide should know better, because he comes from the state of South Australia, where electricity prices have gone up and up and up. Even in his own electorate, Adelaide Brighton—they employ 450 people—had a blackout for 36 hours. Did you hear an apology from the member for Port Adelaide? No. Did you hear an apology to the 450 workers in your own electorate?
The reality is: when Labor was last in office electricity prices more than doubled. Right now, as the Prime Minister has acknowledged, the wholesale price is going up, and the wholesale price is going up particularly because we are now exporting two-thirds of what we produce, and states like Victoria are sitting on 40 years worth of domestic gas reserves. And your friends in the Labor government in the Northern Territory, who have restrictions on unconventional gas extraction, are sitting on 180 years worth of gas reserves.
So I say to the member for Port Adelaide: we are all in favour of affordable, reliable energy, but to do that you need to drop your reckless 45 per cent emissions reduction targets, which the Business Council calls risky and unnecessary; you should not pursue your ideological approach to energy policy; and you should come on board with important bipartisan initiatives like carbon capture and storage.
This is what the member for McMahon said:
Carbon capture and storage projects are already occurring throughout the world.
This is what the member for Corio said:
… carbon capture and storage … is a critically important technology.
And this is what Senator Penny Wong said:
I'm on record as supporting CCS.
So you can imagine how surprised we were to see a press release last night, under the cover of everything else, from the member for Port Adelaide saying they would not support our amendments to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in order to support carbon capture and storage.
We are all in favour of lower electricity prices and a more stable system, and you are much more likely to get that under Malcolm Turnbull and his government than through Labor's ideological pursuits.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House on why it is important to ensure the integrity of decision making at the highest levels of government? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Moore for this very important question. All governments have a responsibility to ensure that there is integrity in the decision-making processes, including at the highest levels, and in the case of the federal government that means in the cabinet and in the National Security Committee. The public must have confidence in these forums to ensure that decisions taken are in the national interest and on their merits. The fact is that, when decisions are taken in these forums, those charged with the solemn duty of making national security decisions should be unencumbered by any obligation to any benefactor who may not have Australia's national interest at heart. The fact is that leaders of political parties have a particular responsibility to ensure—in fact, to follow every credible lead to ensure—that their party is free from any obligations that could compromise Australia's national interest. The Leader of the Opposition has failed this fundamental test.
Yesterday it was revealed that the shadow minister for agriculture, the member for Hunter, while serving in a previous Labor government as Australia's Minister for Defence and a member of the National Security Committee, had a benefactor with alleged close links to a foreign intelligence service. It was also revealed that the Department of Defence had grave concerns about the Minister for Defence and the nature of his relationship with this benefactor and the connection with a foreign intelligence service.
Mr Speaker, given that the member for Hunter remains on Labor's frontbench and would be a cabinet minister in a Shorten government, wouldn't you think that the Leader of the Opposition would be demanding a security briefing about these specific allegations of the targeting of a senior member of his leadership team by a foreign intelligence service?
I can inform the House that the Leader of the Opposition has not sought such a briefing—36 hours later, after these revelations, and the Leader of the Opposition has not sought a security briefing about these serious allegations. His failure to do so means the Leader of the Opposition is now personally compromised on national security.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs!
My question is also to the Foreign Minister. What are the consequences for Australia's standing on the world stage of one of the Liberal Party's biggest donors, mining magnate Sally Zou, establishing a company called Julie Bishop Glorious Foundation? Does the minister seriously expect the House to believe that a Liberal donor who she knows well set up a company in her name—the Julie Bishop Glorious Foundation—but never raised it with her on the many occasions that they met?
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left are preventing the foreign minister from answering the question. I am making it very clear now—the question having been asked and some people having their moment's fun—there will be no interjections.
All donations to the Liberal Party are declared in accordance with the AEC obligations. Until the matter was raised with me by the media a week ago, I had never heard of such a foundation. I say that in the solemnity of this parliament: I had never heard of such a foundation. The third point is that at no time have I ever compromised government policy in relation to foreign affairs. I have never given in to any influence, like Senator Sam Dastyari, who stands in stark contrast and who actually contradicted the opposition's policy on foreign affairs, has.
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
The member for Goldstein is warned.
He stood next to a Chinese benefactor, as I have never done, and publicly contradicted opposition policy on foreign affairs. Also, at no time have I ever had a benefactor who had alleged links with a foreign intelligence service while serving as the foreign minister or while serving on the National Security Committee. I know why the Labor Party is putting up the straw man argument. It is because the Leader of the Opposition has failed to investigate the very serious allegations against Senator Sam Dastyari, whom he then restored to his leadership position, and against the member for Hunter, who, as defence minister of this country and as a member of the National Security Committee, had a benefactor with alleged links to a foreign intelligence service. I can stand here and be proud of my record. Labor is covered in shame.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is now warned. I remind the member for Goldstein he is warned. The member for McEwen has already been warned, so he can leave under 94(a).
The member for McEwen then left the chamber.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the Regional Investment Corporation will make it easier for farmers and investors to manage their finances and raise capital for investment? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches to raising finance?
I thank the honourable member for his question and note that, even around Maryborough, there have been real concerns about the dry start to the sugar season and how they did not intend to get the crush that they expected at the Maryborough sugar mills. Of course, what this means is that we are always working with our farming community to make sure we get the very best outcome for them. We cannot afford the interest rate subsidies anymore that we had in the past, but we can afford to make available concessional loans, which are not only better for the farmers—the rates are 2.47 per cent, the lowest rate at the moment—but also put the competition on the banks. You would think that by putting competition on the banks with the set-up of the Regional Investment Corporation we should have wide support to make sure that we get a very competitive price. The Regional Investment Corporation has been a goal of the National Party and regional Liberals, and even the member for Kennedy, for such a long period of time, but, rather than talking about it, we are actually doing it; we are actually setting it up. It is going to capitalise up to $4 billion—$2 billion in water infrastructure alone, to build our dams and make our nation a stronger place, and $2 billion in concessional loans. It has the mandate in the future to expand where it goes. It will be set up in the member for Calare's seat, at Orange, where we already have Paraway financial, part of Macquarie Bank. We have a large section of the National Australia Bank's rural investment unit set up there, we have the Rural Assistance Authority and we have the New South Wales department of agriculture to create a centre of excellence at Orange in financing. We have a vision for creating Orange and making sure it grows as the premier venue for financing rural investments in Australia. We are going to be part of that and this multi-billion-dollar organisation is going to be part of that process as well.
He also asked about whether there are alternative finance methods. I know that the Labor Party are flippant about this, but we must get to the bottom of exactly what connections are between members of parliament, regardless of their side, and foreign entities that have an influence on them. This is incredibly important. The front page of a major newspaper yesterday revealed that an ALP donor is linked to a Chinese spy. That was yesterday. The member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, convinces himself that he is completely across these details, especially with questions regarding Senator Sam Dastyari. It says in the paper:
In what is the first direct link between a donor to Australian politics and an operative of a foreign intelligence service, Fairfax Media can reveal one of Helen Liu's Australian companies sent $250,025 to a Hong Kong company that American authorities believe was a front for Chinese espionage.
It later says:
Wincopy Pty Ltd, Helen Liu's Australian company which sent the money to Liu Chaoying's firm in 1996, later gave $20,000—
(Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Can the minister please advise the House whether any coalition MPs have made representations about immigration matters to the department or the minister on behalf of Liberal or National Party donors? If so, will he advise the House which coalition MPs have made these representations?
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The member for Hunter will cease interjecting.
Firstly, thank you to the member for Blair. This is his inaugural question after 300-odd days. Well done. Out of all the questions he could have asked—how do we stop boats, how do we get kids out of detention, how do we stop the drownings at sea—he has had 300 days to think of a question and he came up with a dud question like this. Let me answer it directly. He is referring to some revelations, as I understand it, that were broadcast on the ABC's Four Corners program recently. It made allegations in relation to Senator Sam Dastyari making approaches to my department in relation to citizenship on behalf of a particular individual. I do not have any comment to make in relation to that allegation. All I will say is that I deal frequently with, for example, the member for McMahon. He would write dozens of letters to me each month. He speaks to me on a regular basis in relation to his constituents and, if he has a case with merit, we provide support. And on occasion, people—I can look out on the front bench, including on our front bench and on the back benches—have come to us with cases in relation to their constituents. As immigration ministers past have done, we will look into those cases, and if they are with merit we can provide them with support.
I would be completely blind as to whether or not, for example, the member for McMahon had any financial relationship with somebody. I can say that I believe the honourable member to be absolutely honourable, and I would take the representations that he puts to me on face value, as I do with every other member in this place. That is the reality. If people have, as members of parliament, presented to us cases that they want assistance with, we have looked at those cases. If the honourable member has specific cases that he wants to put to me, I am happy to investigate them, happy to look at them. But if he is just attempting to throw mud, then I think he should look first to Senator Sam Dastyari in the Senate, and he should also look at a couple of others on the front bench who I think might have a little bit of form in this area.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government is acting to improve integrity in Australia's taxation system? And how is the government's Tax Integrity Package, announced in the budget, working to combat fraud?
I thank the member for his question and his keen interest in ensuring that our tax system has integrity. He will know that it has been this government that introduced the multinational anti-avoidance laws which already, in this financial year, will be clawing back some $2.9 billion from multinational companies. This is the legislation that was opposed by the Labor Party. I do not know which multinationals they were acting for in opposing this legislation, but they opposed it, and this legislation is already yielding some $2.9 billion in additional tax liabilities, coming into the tax coffers of this country, because of the action taken by this government.
But in this budget we have gone further, and we are acting further. Our Black Economy Taskforce is addressing the cash economy, and we have accepted the first tranche of recommendations from the Black Economy Taskforce, which includes ensuring that payments made to contractors are reported and outlawing the manufacture, distribution, possession and sale of technology that suppresses the sales and income received by contractors and others. We have abolished all capital gains tax exemptions for foreign investors in residential real estate in this country. We have tightened up withholding tax arrangements. And we have restored the caps on foreign ownership of residential real estate that were lifted by the Labor Party when they were in office.
Another thing we are doing is stopping tax fraud in the gold and precious metals industry. We are putting an end to the blatant and criminal tax activity that has already cost taxpayers more than $860 million to date. We read today that the gold-plated fraud which we are acting to stop has wormed its way into the Australian Labor Party. At the last election Labor recruited Simon Zhou, who was reported to have channelled $140,000 from dodgy gold deals into the coffers of the Labor Party. And he was recruited to join the Senate ticket with Sam Dastyari—Shanghai Sam! So, we have Shanghai Sam and a would-be Labor senator—Labor's own Goldfinger—who wanted to become Goldmember of the Australian parliament! It only leads you to wonder: who is the Mini-Me of the Leader of the Opposition over there? And who is No. 2—the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—really working for at the end of the day?
But the real question for the Leader of the Opposition is this: will the Labor Party set aside that $140,000 in a trust account so that it can be accessed by the Australian Taxation Office as a result of their investigations into this gold fraud? Or is the Leader of the Opposition going to hang on to Labor's ill-gotten gains?
Before I call the next question, I just want to make clear to members: on many occasions I have said that members need to refer to each other by their correct titles. That also applies to senators. That is not a widely known fact, but I am making it very clear now that the practice to refer to members and senators by their correct titles is quite longstanding.
My question is also to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to reports that the former minister for trade, Andrew Robb, began working for the Chinese company Landbridge before the last election, a part-time position that earns him $880,000 a year. Has the foreign minister sought advice from the secretary of her department about whether Mr Robb breached the Prime Minister's Statement of ministerial standards, which imposes restrictions on post-ministerial employment? If not, why not?
The Leader of the House on a point of order.
Mr Speaker—
Ms Husar interjecting—
The member for Lindsay is warned.
Mr Speaker, the question—
Honourable members interjecting—
I will now hear the Leader of the House. Members will not interject.
Mr Speaker, the question is not in order, because the person concerned ended being a member of parliament on 9 May 2016, when the writs were issued for the election. How he earnt income after that is not the responsibility of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Therefore, the question is not within her responsibilities and, as a consequence, she cannot answer. He was not the minister for trade on 1 July 2016. He stopped being a member of parliament on 9 May 2016.
I am ready to rule, but in the interests of fairness I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. The member for Wills should either take his seat or leave the chamber. I know; I get a sore back too, but I keep thinking you want the call. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
On two points, if I may. First of all, in terms of the tenor of question time today, I think it is a bit late for the Leader of the House to get precious on a day like this. On the second point—
I say to the Manager of Opposition Business—
on the issue of ministerial responsibility—
No. I have the call for a second. I say to the Manager of Opposition Business: I know emotions run high, but I am going to rule on whether the question is in order or not—and the standing orders do not vary according to the emotion of the place, I have to say. The Manager of Opposition Business can proceed.
The second issue I want to raise goes to the fact that the foreign minister today is in the House as the representative of the minister for trade. The question goes to whether or not advice has been sought from the department's secretary as to whether or not a breach subsequently occurred. The relationship between a minister and the secretary of the department can—
The Leader of the House can just resume his seat. He is not going to get the call any earlier by standing up.
A question about whether or not a minister has sought advice from the secretary of a department must be in order.
I will just ask the Leader of the House to resume his seat for a second, because I have heard both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. I listened very closely to the question, and I could see the Leader of the House wanted the call, as did the Manager of Opposition Business. I have a different problem with the question, and that is it relates to the ministerial standards for which the Prime Minister is responsible. That is my difficulty with the question. So, on that basis, I am going to rule it out. But I make it very clear that if that question was directed to the Prime Minister, who is responsible for ministerial standards, that question—
Opposition members interjecting—
No. That is a matter for ministers. I have made that clear. I am not going to take appeals by way of interjections. I am making it very clear. I have heard the Manager of Opposition Business, patiently, and the Leader of the House. That is my ruling on the question. We will go to the next question.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important that employer and employee organisations always act in the best interest of their members? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Wright for his question. The Leader of the Opposition is very fond of lecturing the government about foreign donations, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The Leader of the Opposition presides over a frontbench that includes the reinstated Senator Sam Dastyari, a person who did not just solicit donations for the Labor Party from foreign donors; he had his personal debts paid by donors—and within a matter of months Senator Dastyari was reinstated to the Labor Party frontbench. So this side of the House is not going to take any lectures from the Leader of the Opposition or the Labor Party about donations.
In fact I notice in The Australian today it is reported that in the financial year 2006-07 the AWU national office received a $27½ thousand donation from AustralianSuper, an industry fund. In the same year, the AWU donated $25,000 to the Leader of the Opposition's first campaign for Maribyrnong—just a coincidence, of course, another Deidre Chambers moment for the Leader of the Opposition. He has a few of those. But the problem is that the Leader of the Opposition at the time was both a director of AustralianSuper and the National Secretary of the AWU. Under the Corporations Act, it is his duty to ensure he puts the interests of retiree fund members first, not his own interests. So whose interests was he putting first?
But this morning the AWU says, 'Wait, it was all an error; it wasn't really a donation'—all another coincidence, another one of the Leader of the Opposition's Deidre Chambers moments, to which we have become so accustomed. So perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could explain the other seven donations received by the AWU national office in 2006-07, coincidentally the same year that he was campaigning for election as the member for Maribyrnong, which were recorded as donations apparently in error: $11,000 from Cbus, the superannuation fund, $16,500 from Members Equity Bank, $22,000 from IUS, $17,600 from OneSteel, $15,400 from Smorgon Steel and $16,500 from Visy, all recorded as donations and obviously all recorded in error by a man called Michael Chen, who was the financial controller of the AWU and who the Leader of the Opposition, in his maiden speech, described as 'one of the smartest people I know'—but not so smart with returns to the AEC on donations from the AWU. These payments represent a significant conflict of interest, and the Leader of the Opposition has to explain: what were those payments for and why were they erroneously recorded? (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. The member for Fadden was forced to resign after it was revealed that, while he was Assistant Minister for Defence, he promoted a deal between a major Liberal Party donor and a Chinese government owned mining company. Has the Prime Minister obtained any advice about whether the disgraced former assistant defence minister's conduct may have jeopardised Australia's national security, and will the Prime Minister rule out reappointing him to the frontbench?
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr Laming interjecting—
The member for Bowman will cease interjecting.
I thank the honourable member for his question, which comes as yet another example of the abuse he prefers to use question time for. I would say to the honourable member that the maintenance of the compliance with ministerial standards is the highest priority. I maintain the maintenance of those ministerial standards. As far as future ministerial appointments go, the honourable member should understand that I will always ensure that ministerial standards are complied with both prospectively and, of course, in the past and dealt with appropriately in accordance with those standards. I reject the shabby smear that the honourable member chose to use his question for.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. I refer the minister to a large manufacturer in my electorate which directly employs 350 people. This business is in danger of closing down because its gas bill is set to double in the next financial year. Minister, can you advise the House what is being done to address this issue of gas supply and affordability, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The member for Whitlam is warned.
I thank the member for Barker for his question and acknowledge his deep concern about the rising power prices and the impact on households and businesses from Mount Gambier to Millicent, some of whom I have met with the member for Barker. He understands that gas is a critical part of our economic security—indeed, it provides about 20 per cent of our electricity, it is a vital feedstock for industry and it is an important transition fuel.
Gas prices have increased about threefold over the last five years. That is why, under the Turnbull government, we are taking a number of steps to put downward pressure on gas prices, including export controls and export restrictions to reserve more for domestic use. We are also putting in reforms through the COAG process to lower the costs for transportation. As well as that, we had a $90 million package in our recent budget to incentivise further investment.
I am asked if I am aware of any alternative approaches. During the Labor Party's time in office, they took major financial investment decisions on the three gas projects at Gladstone. The member for Port Adelaide earlier this year went on Insiders and was asked by Barrie Cassidy, 'You were in government four years ago and you got plenty of advice then that the surge in exports would lead to these sort of problems, but you did not take this action.' It is important to listen to this. This is what the member for Port Adelaide said—'No, we didn't get that advice.'
I asked myself: what level of advice does the member for Port Adelaide get about the LNG industry and its impact? I looked at the Australian Energy Market Operator's report for 2012. Under the heading 'LNG market impacts' it said:
This LNG export market is having a significant impact on the domestic market …
… … …
… potential supply shortfalls to the LNG export and domestic markets may be seen …
That was the advice. In an energy paper put out by the Labor government in 2012 it said in a highlighted area that: 'LNG export industry will lead to transitional pressures and will manifest in tighter supply and higher prices.' So the member for Port Adelaide has gone on television and said he did not get any advice. In 2012, both AEMO and his own energy white paper gave him advice. I think this is a smoking gun. The member for Port Adelaide should come into this place and apologise, because he had been given advice about the problems his party created. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister really opposes foreign donations, why has the coalition voted against banning foreign donations three times in previous parliaments? Will the Prime Minister agree to bring Labor's private member's bill on for a vote in the House today so we can ban foreign donations once and for all?
Mr Falinski interjecting—
The member for Mackellar will cease interjecting.
Mr Falinski interjecting—
The member for Mackellar is warned!
I think honourable members would take the Leader of the Opposition more seriously on foreign donations were it not for the fact that Senator Dastyari took a personal donation to himself from a Chinese donor and then proceeded to do a switch on Labor's policy on the South China Sea at a press conference in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices in Sydney at two lecterns, each of which had the Australian coat of arms on them. It was a disgraceful performance of cash for comment and a clear policy switch. The Leader of the Opposition stood him down from the frontbench for just six months. That is how seriously he took it.
I made a commitment at the beginning of this year that we would ban foreign donations. I did that. You could drive a truck through Labor's bill. We will be introducing legislation in the spring session that deals with it. As honourable members would be well aware, it is important in light of the findings of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that any such ban is comprehensive and is not simply limited to political parties but applied to other political organisations, like GetUp! and the unions. It needs to be a comprehensive ban so that only Australians and Australian businesses have the ability to have a say through donations on the political contest. We are committed to doing that.
The Labor Party's track record in this area is demonstrated manifestly by Senator Dastyari's case. Let us not forget that he solicited money from a foreign donor. He accepted it. It was given to him not because he was a nice guy, not because he was hard up but because he was a senator. He got that privileged payment. He used his position to get that payment and then he opposed the longstanding policy of the Labor Party on a vitally important issue of national security. For all of that, he was in the sin-bin for six months. The Leader of the Opposition has got a long way to go before anyone will take him seriously on foreign donations.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Parramatta is warned.
My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister update the House on what the government is doing to protect vulnerable children from child sex offenders both in Australia and overseas?
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting. I am listening to the question and there is a wall of interjections from both sides. I have listened to the question and I am now calling the Minister for Justice.
I thank the member for Swan for that question. He knows that the government will not tolerate the exploitation of vulnerable children, whether it occurs here in Australia or whether it occurs overseas. This morning this government introduced legislation that will stop registered child sex offenders from travelling overseas to commit unspeakable acts of depravity. This is a world first and the strongest crackdown on child sex tourism ever. No other country has ever taken such strong and decisive action to stop its citizens from leaving its borders to abuse children overseas.
Once this bill is passed, it will allow the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to take immediate action to cancel the passports of registered child sex offenders for the duration of their reporting requirements under the National Child Offender Register. Last year alone we know that 780 people who were on that register travelled overseas. So far this year the figure is almost 400, which is two offenders leaving Australia per day, and one-third of those offenders travelled without permission, which is in clear breach of their reporting obligations and is a sure sign of ill intent. These offenders often travel to vulnerable countries which do not have the same laws, the same cultures or the same policing capability, and therefore this provides a more permissive environment for people to abuse children.
This government will continue to do what it can to protect vulnerable children both overseas and in Australia. Last night we saw a milestone in this House—the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill, which is also known as Carly's law, was passed. This law is named after Carly Ryan, who was a 15-year-old South Australian schoolgirl who was raped and murdered 10 years ago by a 50-year-old man who had posed online as a 20-year-old man. Once this bill passes through the parliament, it will be a testament to her mother, Sonya Ryan, who has used the intervening 10 years to campaign for the greater protection of children online. The offence will provide police with the power to intervene before predators have a chance to act or before a child can be harmed. Carly's law, once passed, will complement this government's ongoing approach to countering the sexual exploitation of children online, which is spearheaded by the Australian Federal Police's ThinkUKnow program, which educates students, parents and teachers about dangers online.
These two bills will be substantial steps forward for the protection of children here in Australia and overseas. Both these pieces of legislation enhance the protection of children, and I urge the House to deal with them as expeditiously as possible.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Most egregiously.
The member for Fadden may proceed.
The member for Isaacs and this House know full well that the insinuation that the member for Isaacs made in the House has been well investigated and well cleared by the AFP, the AEC, the ECQ and any other agency that those opposite have referred it to. No amount of mudslinging will clear the stench that currently covers the Labor Party on this issue. The member for Isaacs knows it. The Labor Party knows it.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.
Today in question time the Leader of the House repeated yet another false allegation about me regarding my time leading the Australian Workers' Union. As was explained in today's Australian, the claim was false. No rules were broken; no conflict existed. I am advised that the reporting error was corrected. This is nothing more than an inaccurate and undergraduate smear from a minister who is fiddling while weekend penalty rates for 700,000 Australians burn.
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 Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The need for certainty in energy policy.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
This week there is no more important question before the parliament than the question that I think people across the community—households and businesses—are asking, and that is whether all of us in this parliament will step up to take serious action to deal with a deep energy crisis that is gripping this nation. The crisis has become very, very deep indeed. As we have heard in the parliament over the last couple of days, and as households and businesses know only too well, wholesale power prices have doubled in the four years of this government. As we know, across the country retailers are now feeding those wholesale power prices increases into household power bills. AGL, the biggest retailer in New South Wales, for example, is lifting power prices by 16 per cent for households across our largest state. All of that is at a time when wages are flatter than they have ever been. All of that is at a time when hundreds of thousands of workers who work Sunday retail and hospitality shifts will be losing their penalty rate entitlements in the next couple of weeks. And all of that is at a time when this government continues to insist on removing the energy supplement, designed to deal with high energy prices, of about $360 per year for all new pensioners in the country.
The Prime Minister told us yesterday and tried to tell us again today that the only reason that wholesale power prices are going up is because of gas prices, particularly because of moratoria on gas exploration in Victoria—understandably, I guess, from his point of view politically, not wanting to talk about what is happening in New South Wales about gas exploration.
I want to talk more generally about the real reason for household power prices going up. The Energy Council has been very clear, as has every expert body that has looked at this over the last couple of years. Power prices are going up primarily because of policy paralysis—policy uncertainty that has gripped this nation particularly in the four years of this government. You do not need to look any further than a presentation that the minister made to the coalition party room yesterday. It was a PowerPoint presentation headed 'Finkel review into the future security of the National Electricity Market.' In that presentation to the coalition party room the minister, who is at the table today, included a graph saying 'wholesale prices at record levels'. In the next slide in the PowerPoint, which was helpfully provided to people by the members of the coalition, the question was posed, 'How did we get here?' The minister, quite truthfully and admirably, said, 'Policy uncertainty which is holding back new investment'. I do not understand that to be a public document, so I seek leave to table this document as well.
Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.
That is a great disappointment. We know exactly what is happening here. Wholesale power prices are going through the roof because this government is gripped by policy paralysis—and has been so for four years. Four years ago it knew what to do to get into government and tear down and dismantle the previous Labor government's energy and climate policy framework. But it had no idea what to do then. It introduced this safeguards mechanism, which is so universally ridiculed that they do not even bother modelling it anymore; the Energy Market Commission said it does not even bother to model that; the existing energy policy this nation has is so ridiculed that it is not even modelled as an alternative anymore.
And, of course, they went after the one energy policy that was supposed to be bipartisan at the 2010 and 2013 election—and that was the renewable energy target, which the former Prime Minister tried to dismantle. That caused investment to plummet by 88 per cent. And according to the ABS, which reported on jobs data in the renewable energy industry a few weeks ago, it led to the loss of one in three jobs in the renewable energy industry over the last three years—some 6,000 jobs.
And the minister has talked about the gas market. For four years, people have been warning about supply shortages to the LNG export operations in Gladstone. For at least two years the Labor Party has said there should be a national interest test introduced around gas exploration and gas export. And up until the last few weeks, when they suddenly got the idea, this government has said: 'It's all working fine; just leave it up to the market.' Well now, suddenly, they realise there is a seriously deep gas crisis fronting this country.
To the minister's credit, and to the credit of state and territory governments, the Energy Council tried to break through this last year and appointed the Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, with a very eminent panel of people working with him. We welcomed that. State and territory governments, Labor and Liberal alike, welcomed it. It is a credit to the minister that he tried to break through this. It was on the back of a specious campaign by the Prime Minister about the causes of the blackout in South Australia in September; but we will let that be a bygone and talk about the positive aspects of this process.
Last week the Business Council, other business groups, the ACTU, ACOSS and environment groups all had a clear message for this parliament, and it was that all members of this parliament should give full and fair consideration to the Finkel report—not rush to judgement, not do the knee-jerk responses that have too often characterised this parliament's responses to energy and climate policy for at least a decade. And we are committed to giving that full and fair consideration. We have said the market recommendations, the governance recommendations, have a lot to commend them; we want to study them more carefully, we want to engage with stakeholders, but they have a lot to recommend them. The generator reliability obligations are a sensible next step in us considering how we roll out the greater threshold of renewable energy into our electricity system. We want to talk to stakeholders more about how that might be designed.
And we have said we are open to a clean energy target. This is a big shift for Labor. Unlike the coalition we took a detailed energy policy to the last election that included a commitment to an emissions intensity scheme—a scheme which, since, has been supported by the Business Council, pretty much every business group, every energy company and every expert body from the CSIRO to the Energy Market Commission. Notwithstanding that we actually had an election policy, we have said that we are open to putting aside that policy and talking about a clean energy target instead—not because we think it is the best policy but because the Prime Minister says to the nation it is the only one he is willing to talk about.
There are no red lights for Labor in the Finkel report. We are willing to engage constructively with the government, with state governments and with other stakeholders about it being implemented. But I tell you we will not be party to a sham that seeks to rig the definition of clean energy to include new coal-fired power stations. Let's take a reality check on where the Australian electricity market is up to on coal. More than three-quarters of electricity in the National Electricity Market was generated by coal in the last full year. That is why Australia produces twice as much pollution per megawatt hour as the United States or the OECD. We need to reduce our reliance on coal, not increase it. Fiona Simson, the National Farmers' Federation president, said as much recently in response to Finkel. She said: 'It is inevitable that, as a nation, we will move away from coal fired power generation as assets age.'
The clean energy target sets no impost on existing generators. Unlike an EIS, which was our policy, which imposed a direct price on incumbent coal generators, this clean energy target imposes no impost on even the most heavily polluting coal generators. There is no prohibition in the Finkel report on building new coal-fired power stations. Unlike Canada and the United Kingdom, where you simply cannot build a new generator that emits more than 450 kilograms per megawatt hour, there is no prohibition in Finkel. Now they have a small problem—no-one is willing to invest in it—but there is actually no prohibition.
But apparently members in the coalition party room want to include unabated coal-fired power in the definition of clean energy. You just cannot rig that definition. It would make a mockery of the Finkel process. As the Chief Scientist himself said yesterday, it would be surprising to include new, unabated coal-fired power as clean energy. The whole scheme would be impacted by a decision like that. It is quite clear the modelling that underpinned the Finkel report did not include unabated coal-fired power being included in the definition of clean energy. You just have to ask the man and the woman on the Clapham omnibus—it does not pass the laugh test to include new, unabated coal as part of clean energy. I urge members in the coalition party room to take a deep breath, do what energy groups, business groups, unions and ACOSS have asked and give this report full and fair consideration before you rush into rigging the definition of clean energy.
Before I call the minister, I will remind honourable members on both sides of the house that only one person at a time should speak during the MPI. I call the Minister for the Environment and Energy.
I would have thought the member for Port Adelaide would know better. I would have thought that he would have looked in his own backyard in South Australia and understood what a bad energy policy looks like. And it is spelt Labor—L A B O R.
The member for Swan, the member for Boothby, the member for Maranoa, the member for Goldstein, the member for North Sydney, the member for Hume, the member for Grey, the member for Bennelong—they are in this chamber because they care about good energy policy. And good energy policy depends on a technology-neutral approach. Good energy policy places a premium on energy affordability. Good energy policy places a premium on energy stability and reliability, and good energy policy is consistent with our international agreements, which we take seriously.
In South Australia, in the member for Port Adelaide's own electorate, Adelaide Brighton—450 workers—lost its power for 36 hours. The CEO of Adelaide Brighton said, 'Can't I just expect to be able to keep the lights on so that I can run my own business?' And so did other businesses: BHP at Olympic Dam; Arrium steelworks at Whyalla; and the Nyrstar smelter at Port Pirie. Like the fishermen at Port Lincoln, the cafe owners in Mount Barker and the small businesses in Stirling—right across South Australia—they expect that the lights stay on and that the prices are affordable.
But unfortunately the ideological approach, which is: put renewables first, second and third, without the necessary backup, without the necessary storage, without taking into account the frequency control and ancillary services, the stability and the inertia that you need when you take out synchronous generation from the mix—that is what Jay Weatherill's big experiment looked like. Unfortunately the member for Port Adelaide described 1.7 million people losing their power and $500-plus million lost to his state as 'a hiccup'. The member for Port Adelaide should come into this chamber and apologise to his fellow South Australians. Today in question time, we also found out that the member for Port Adelaide went on the Insiders show in May this year and was asked directly, 'What did you know when you were in government about the LNG export industry and its impact on domestic gas prices and shortfall?' He said: 'We didn't get any advice. We didn't know.' Well, today in question time we found a smoking gun—or maybe even a bazooka!—and it showed that the Australian Energy Market Operator's report in 2012 warned of shortfalls under the heading 'LNG export market'. Then we found, even more embarrassingly—
Opposition members interjecting—
We will get to the member for Shortland—we will do him slowly! We know that not only was there this AEMO report—this bazooka—but also there was an energy white paper in 2012 which specifically said that there would be 'transitional pressures' on supply and higher prices as a result of the LNG export market in which, when you were in government, the final investment decisions were taken.
Prime Minister Turnbull is cleaning up Labor's mess. That is why he has put in place export restrictions, because we need to get downward pressure on gas prices. We know that in 2014 gas was setting the price of electricity nine per cent of the time, but in May 2017 that figure was 24 per cent. We know that gas prices have tripled in the last five years, and we know that this is a critical part of the energy mix to get electricity prices down. But do you know what is another important part of the energy mix? Those on the other side dare not mention its name—it is kryptonite for the Labor Party! It is coal. Coal is a critical part of our energy mix, making up more than 60 per cent of today's national electricity market. Under Dr Finkel's plan—which he explicitly says is not about the inputs but about the outputs—he has created a system in which coal will be consistently used throughout the decades and will provide more than 50 per cent of the supply up to 2030.
The member for Shortland is looking down now, because the member for Shortland knows that, on the Labor Party's policy, he is sacrificing over 300 jobs in his own electorate in Vales Point. Dare I say, he probably personally supports that power station but, unfortunately, he sits on the other side of the House in opposition—for good reason!—supporting a party that wants to see the forced closure of coal-fired power stations. We know that that side is stuck between their blue collar and their green thumb. We know that that side, on the other side of the parliament, joined with the Greens not that long ago in a motion in the Senate to force the closure of coal-fired power stations. I look across to the member for Wannon, and he cares about the workers in the Latrobe Valley. So does the member for Gippsland. They care about the workers at Loy Yang A, at Loy Yang B and at Yallourn. But the member for Port Adelaide and the Leader of the Opposition do not care. They do not care about the 600 workers at Liddell, in the member for Hunter's electorate.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
He says it is not 600. Well, how many is it? How many workers are you prepared to sell down the river? Are you prepared to sell the hundreds of workers in your own electorate and the hundreds of workers in coal-fired power stations across Queensland and New South Wales down the river?
We recognise that you need to have an energy mix that is technology neutral. We recognise that we need more gas for domestic uses. We call upon these Labor state governments to drop their mindless moratoriums and bans on the exploration of conventional and unconventional gas. The disgraceful behaviour of Daniel Andrews in Victoria is pushing up the price for hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers across his own state, and for 80 per cent of households that are dependent in one form or another on gas, despite having 40 years worth of domestic supply. What about the Northern Territory? They are sitting on 180 years worth of domestic supply. What about other states across the country that are not developing the gas they need? We call upon them at the federal level to be more responsible and to bring gas in.
The other area we are focusing on in our energy policy is reining in network and retail costs, because we understand that networks make up about 50 per cent of the bill and retail costs are also a significant proportion of the bill. But what we will not do on this side of the House is pursue the mindless 45 per cent emissions reduction target that we see the Labor Party follow, without understanding its impact on costs and on jobs. We on this side of the House always come back to our values. Our values are about markets. Our values are about families. Our values are about free enterprise. Our values are about the power of the individual over the collective. And, ultimately, our values are about creating jobs not only for Australians today but for Australians tomorrow. Unfortunately, those on the other side of the House believe in their ideological emissions reduction targets that are based on demand destruction, not about creating new jobs.
As long as there is breath in our bodies, as long as we sit on the right side of the Speaker's chair, both in name and in place, as long as we are in charge of the government's coffers, we will ensure energy affordability and energy reliability as we transition to a lower-emissions future. We will put jobs first and foremost.
What a hopeless performance by the minister. It truly was like being flogged with a wet lettuce. Sadly, not statesman like, the minister is all tip and no iceberg. The truth is that he dare not speak to the workers. The most disrespectful thing you can do to workers is to lie to them, and that is what the coalition government is doing, because change is coming. The great Hunter Valley produces one-third of Australia's coal-fired power and the owners of those power stations have already set use-by dates: Liddell, 2022; Vales Point, 2028; Eraring, 2034; and Bayswater 2035. Those are the dates by which the companies have said they will close down. So the real debate here is how we look after the workers and ensure we get new investment. Those on the other side are doing a great disservice to those workers in those communities by pretending that nothing has to change. That contradicts their own language. Business as usual, which is their recipe, is a recipe for higher power prices and investment paralysis. Their own document, the Finkel review, has said that business as usual means a 10 per cent higher power price, which means households spending $175 more on average on electricity. That is the policy of the fossils in the Liberal party room. That is the policy of the member for Hume, and it is the policy of the member for Hughes: higher electricity prices—and he acknowledges it with a wave. He acknowledges with a wave that his policy is one of higher power prices and investment paralysis.
The graph that demonstrates the moral turpitude of those opposite is from their own documents. Their own Finkel report has a graph on wholesale power prices, and it demonstrates that in the four years they have been government—because they seem to forget that they have actually been in government for four years—wholesale power prices have doubled. That endangers manufacturing workers in this country and it puts greater cost of living pressures on households around the country. Why have they doubled? Because of policy uncertainty. The Australian Energy Council, the industry peak body, has said that policy uncertainty is equivalent to a $50 a tonne carbon price. This is the energy industry saying it, not us, not some mad hippies or mad greenies. The Australian Energy Council has said that the policy uncertainty under the government's watch, under the four years of their stewardship of the economy, is equivalent to a $50 a town carbon price. That is a great tragedy, and we have an opportunity to end it in this place if we grasp the nettle and if we actually fulfil our obligations as legislators and embrace the Finkel review.
We have said that we have moved from our well-considered policy around an emissions intensity scheme—a policy we took to the last election and tested with the populace. We have moved to a clean energy target. We said: 'It's the second best option, but if it ends the policy paralysis we'll embrace it. We've got an open mind about it. We'll talk you through the details and hopefully get some legislation that everyone can agree with.' That is because the industry needs certainty. But what do we get from those on the other side? We get climate change denialism and a rejection of markets. From the party of free markets, we get a rejection of markets. Instead, they want command and control. The government is building coal-fired power stations—what utter irresponsibility from the government. What do we get from them? We get quotes like this from the party room: 'Malcolm could lose his leadership over this if he doesn't listen to us,' 'Finkel in its current form is dead,' '20 MPs expressed serious misgivings,' and, as another MP said, 'It's a slaughter.' A lot of the usual suspects have not spoken yet. Another MP—hopefully not you, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, because I know you reflected on leaks from your party room—said, 'This has shades of 2009 about it,' which is when they last rolled the member for Wentworth.
I am calling on the Liberal-National coalition to embrace markets for once, to embrace bipartisanship and to end the policy paralysis and the uncertainty that is destroying our energy system. I call on them to come to us, embrace Finkel and provide a long-term solution to the energy crisis that they have created, that they have caused and that they are now denying.
The member for Shortland, who spoke before me, is right: there are shades of 2009, when the Labor Party rolled their leader because they put forward the idea that climate change was the greatest moral challenge of their time and then they backed down from it, because they had a policy and then they did not have a policy. I had to reread the text of the matter of public importance today because it read like it was a matter that came from the government calling on the parliament to deliver policy certainty. Instead, we have a hypocritical argument from the opposition, because what is causing the greatest damage and the greatest sovereign risk in this country today for stable, consistent energy policy to deliver affordable electricity to Australian households and businesses is the Australian Labor Party. They are the people who constantly chop and change and want to increase regulations and restrictions which make it harder for anybody to invest with confidence. They are the ones who make it harder to invest with any confidence, because they are not led by reason, by markets, by evidence or by substance. They are led by the member for Melbourne and all of the other Greens friends that they have, who would rather lead the opposition on a path to economic ruin. They are the party who have always looked at prosperity by taxation, and that is what they are putting forward. The Prime Minister was 100 per cent right when he insightfully made the remark today that the policy of the Australian Labor Party has been to introduce a carbon tax and that they want the government to adopt their policy position. I can tell the Labor Party resolutely—right here, right now—that we will not be doing so.
What we are going to do is provide policy certainty by focusing on what we need to do to increase supply, and I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Energy for their leadership in this space. What we have seen from the minister's comments and reflections today, and since he has been the minister, is that he is somebody who is focused on how to increase supply into the marketplace to put downward pressure on prices. What we have seen is national leadership by the Prime Minister in increasing storage into the marketplace to turn the failures from the opposition's policy in their time in government into something that will be sustainable into the future. That has been the fundamental problem. They have put more and more renewables into the market—and there is space for renewables. I am somebody who is resolutely technology neutral. I like a diversity so that we can manage the challenge ahead of us as a nation, but you cannot do it without the proper storage mechanisms to make this type of technology viable and to compete on a level playing field with other types of technology to put downward pressure on prices, because we know what we have seen as a consequence when we do not.
We have seen the human cost, not just the economic cost, of what has happened in the state of South Australia, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for leading the nation down that path. The consequence is that people lose jobs, that there is a lack of investment and that there are lost opportunities for South Australians to build their future. Go and tell people locked in lifts overnight of the human consequences of the policies that you have implemented, and you will see the folly of what you are putting forward.
We also need to congratulate Alan Finkel, the Chief Scientist, on his review. The Chief Scientist has done an excellent job in providing a report that provides the foundations for stable and certain policy into the future. His recommendations, particularly in following the leadership of the Prime Minister around battery storage, are most welcome in building stability and predictability into the marketplace. It is one of the best reviews into energy policy we have seen for at least a decade, certainly eclipsing all the times that the opposition was in government, because it has focused on how to deliver affordable, stable, reliable power.
That does not mean there is no room for improvement and recommendations in addition to that, and I have made my own commentary in that space and will continue to do so, about making sure that we get a broader scale of energy into the marketplace. But it says we need some key things: new renewables that must provide a minimum level of storage; large generators, regardless of type, that will be required to give three years notice of closures; and a clean energy target in its current form, which we preferred over an EIS and will provide the necessary certainty for investment in new generation. It is a start. It is not the end of the conversation, but they will destroy that conversation with their high jinks and politics.
We have an historic opportunity to use the Finkel report to finally engage in a serious bipartisan discussion on resolving our energy and climate change issues, and we genuinely call on the coalition to join us to get this underway. It is disappointing to see on the coalition side so many troglodytes resisting this. If only we could capture and store them far away from responsible policy development! We still have the member for Warringah throwing hand grenades from the sidelines in a last ditch effort to defend his 1950s bunker. In fact, the member admits he has not even read the report. That is a clear sign that he has reached a terrible new level of intellectual bankruptcy. I guess it takes a fossil to love fossil fuels. Everyone knows this is simply the national interest being held hostage to the leadership ambitions and bitterness of two men. Mr Turnbull, it is leadership we need now, and the nation and the world are watching and waiting to judge you as a leader.
There is no equivalency or balance between Labor and the coalition to be confected in reporting on this issue. Labor are rightly proud of being on the right side of history through our genuine and sensible policy processes, including green and white papers, widespread consultation, examination of international lessons learned, and careful evidence based design. Then there have been our attempts to achieve agreement. We took on the Shergold recommendation and John Howard's policy to go with an emissions trading scheme concept. We engaged and achieved agreement with Malcolm Turnbull 1.0 on such a scheme, only to see that go down at the coalition version of the Red Wedding. We then offered to move to an emissions intensity scheme, supported by a who's who of industry and experts, as well as the National Farmers' Federation and the New South Wales Young Nationals, which was government policy for only a nanosecond, as brave, brave Sir Malcolm bravely turned his tail and fled, yet again.
Now again we are ready to talk, but the question is: talk to whom and over what? After four years of doing absolutely nothing to address the issues of planning for the new grid and managing the NEM, we have reached a critical watershed. We know that there is a need for measures to address the stability of the market and the orderly transition to renewables. Business knows this, and so too does the Snowy Hydro team. What business needs is broader policy certainty, not stunts like the PM standing at the Snowy Hydro pumped storage project site like some uninvited photobomber. The entire project, from the bid for the feasibility funding from ARENA to the investment in the building phase, has had and will have nothing to do with the Turnbull government. In fact, the coalition tried to kill off ARENA and has not played any role in the fundraising process for construction. It is, in fact, projects like this which will deliver the storage and synchronicity we must have. The shame is that this and other projects would have been much further along if the coalition had not destroyed the policy framework of the Clean Energy Future package in 2013—an act of rank vandalism—thereby strangling the investment flow that was underway. The image of them celebrating on the floor of this chamber over that act will be forever frozen in history, along with Neville Chamberlain waving his piece of paper, as an image of delusional futility, negligence and betrayal.
The damning evidence is in the Finkel report: the need for a strategic plan to manage the orderly transition from coal, the management regime to prevent the gaming of the system caused by privatisation, and the evening out of generation across the NEM, eliminating the challenges of intermittency. Certainty will free up investment and make possible the deployment of technology that might in fact help thermal coal achieve a gentler glide path while eliminating harmful emissions. There are technologies out there that can do that. They profess a love of coal and have done nothing to assist the industry survive in a decarbonised investment world. We have had a doubling of energy prices, with greater slugs to come. There are the perverse attempts by the government to remove the energy supplement—it was called that for a reason—that supported the most vulnerable pensioners, including those on veterans pensions, in our community.
The whole country is watching the coalition right now and saying, 'Get real, get on with it, get talking to Labor.' If you fail yet again to take on this policy challenge, you and the members who irrationally buried their heads in the sand will rightly stand condemned by future generations for your disservice to them and the vital national interest. Eternal shame will be forever yours, preserved right here in Hansard and in the chaotic energy landscape that you bequeathed, with all its tragic consequences.
The hypocrisy of those opposite knows no bounds. Firstly, let's start on their record—the record that they brought to this place over the years of the Gillard-Rudd-Gillard governments, with the great policy of the carbon tax—the $15 billion tax that they imposed on every Australian. The promise that Gillard made during the election campaign was that she would never lead a government that had a carbon tax. The heads go down on those opposite because they know that this was an impost on every Australian and it put Australians out of work. Now they come back into this place with a different philosophy, another philosophy on a 50 per cent renewable energy target. We could not even get the member for Port Adelaide to say that number before. He was too embarrassed to put the number out there. He was scared to say that we were going on a philosophical rant of 50 per cent renewable energy, and so he should be because he has a lot of friends in state governments who have gone down that track.
In my home state of Queensland, they are now talking about wanting to take up a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. We currently sit at 4.5 per cent. That is a 45 per cent increase in renewable energy. That is an amazing transition for any economy to undertake. It is not possible without significant damage to the people of Queensland, and that does not just stay in Queensland. We have the position in Victoria and in Adelaide in South Australia. We have already seen what has happened in South Australia. We have seen what happens when you get to 40 per cent renewable and what happens when the lights go out. It cost the people of South Australia $450 million the day the lights went out because there was nothing to sustain them, nothing to help them and nothing to keep the jobs going. There are 1.7 million South Australians that have nothing because of Labor.
But then you get on to gas. Anyone who understands how energy is priced understands that gas is central to that. In my electorate of Maranoa, we are the ones who are generating the gas. The Queensland Labor government have come in and exploited it, but, like pink batts and the school halls, it was a rushed policy with no concept and no understanding of where they are going to go, and no thought about where we may go as a nation and as a state. They went in and made sure that the gas reserves in Queensland are exported. What we are seeing now is that there is effectively no domestic supply from Queensland because we have a short-sighted Labor government in Queensland and we have one that is trying to be one here.
The member for Port Adelaide walks in at a timely moment. He talks about the virtues of the Labor Party and how they work strongly together. You need to get on the phone to those in Victoria and those in the Northern Territory who have a moratorium on gas. That is what you need to do if you want bipartisanship, if you want a solution to this. This is when leadership comes in—not platitudes and slogans but real action.
But are Labor up to that? They are not. They are up to false philosophies driven by the member for Melbourne and everyone in the Greens, because that is what they are worried about. Each one of them here is looking down because they know the Greens are coming for them. The Greens are coming for them because they have this ideology of 100 per cent. And you have done well; you have done well just to get to 50 per cent. But it does not make sense and it does not pay the bills, and that is the unfortunate thing. But there is no leadership. Gas can change where we are going right here and now. There are people hurting in the now, not just in the future, which is what Finkel is looking at. We need to look at the now, and gas is a key element of opening that up.
But let me finish on our friends in the Queensland state government. The minister spoke before about the cost of distribution: nearly 50 per cent goes to distribution. We have a Queensland state government that is controlling the distribution out of the coal-fired generators, three of which are in my electorate. They are controlling supply, which the ACCC have now become interested in. But the reality around the distribution costs is that the state government are taxing the people of Queensland by stealth. They are taxing them by stealth every time they send out a bill. They send out bills with fees and charges that are so significant that they are being disingenuous to everybody in relation to this. This lies at the feet of state governments just as much as it does at the feet of Labor.
I rise to speak on the need for certainty in energy policy in Australia, and nowhere is this more important than in my electorate of Paterson. Certainty in energy policy is needed so that pensioners in Paterson are not sitting in the cold and dark, with a rug over their knees, rather than putting the heat on, so high is the price of electricity under this government. Certainty in energy policy is needed for businesses in Paterson, for manufacturers in Paterson, who employ the vast majority of our workers, who keep our economy strong and who are being held to ransom by high gas prices. And certainty in energy policy is needed for the workers in my seat of Paterson, many of whom are employed in the energy sector—the people who work in our mines, our power generators, who need to know what the future holds.
We need to know what this government is going to do. In four years, what have you done? You have shown absolutely no leadership on this and you have managed to erode every piece of good work that had been done. We need to face the fact that we are in transition; we must do our best to make it a just transition for all Australians. We on this side of the House are sitting down with stakeholders—business groups, environment groups, unions, consumer groups—and talking sensibly and seriously about the Finkel review, while those on the other side of the House bicker and squabble in the party room and probably pass around a lump of coal. Today we have extended the hand of bipartisanship, but they are too busy fighting in the party room and they know they cannot get the support from the people that they really need.
Certainty in energy policy is needed so that we do not see a repeat of 10 February, when at Tomago Aluminium, in my electorate of Paterson, we were forced to cut back production so the lights and the air conditioners of New South Wales would stay on. I hope you enjoyed that! Tomago supplies a quarter of Australia's primary aluminium, and it uses 12 per cent of the state's electricity. It supports at least a thousand people in my electorate, nearly 2,000 if you take contractors into account. As the heatwave hit on 10 February, Tomago had no choice but to cut production by 30 per cent. We need to create certainty for the likes of Tomago—for energy users, for energy retailers and for energy generators. Our manufacturers cannot keep paying the gas prices they are paying, either. And, finally, there has been a little glimpse of common sense from across the aisle. Our pensioners cannot keep paying the electricity prices they do either, and yet we are all faced with these increases.
In my electorate, we have seen one aluminium smelter close, in Kurri Kurri, and I do not want to see another one close because you lot cannot get your act together. Let me remind you: you have been over on that side for four years. What the hell have you been doing? Not very much. The energy crisis could lead to manufacturers closing their doors, and that is not good. It has already led to the doubling of wholesale energy prices over the last three years. What Australians, including the people of Paterson, want is energy policy certainty so that we can have lower prices, so that we can have investment in energy generation—that is really the key—and so that we can have lower pollution.
It is so important, because, as we said, we want to be on the right side of history on this. I do not want our grandchildren to say, 'What were you doing in parliament, Grandma, all those years ago when you were supposed to be making good decisions about our planet and you were sitting there not making the decisions?' You on the other side will go down as being not just on the wrong side of history but on the wrong gulf of history. I wonder who will play each of you in the movie. I tell you what: it will be a horror show.
The member for Paterson will address her remarks through the chair.
Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure someone good will play you in the movie, sir. Labor has said that we are open to being bipartisan and working with the government, because Australians deserve to have lower electricity prices. All Australians—all of us—need a plan for cheaper, cleaner and more secure power, and the Finkel review is a good place to start. Our leader has said, 'We want to work with you.' We need to end this. Seriously, people in Australia want an end to this. They watch the news of a night. Their children go to school and learn about this, and they say, 'When are we going to have something real done?' We are supposed to be leaders and adults, and so far all we are seeing is terribly immature behaviour from a group of people who do not want to face the facts about our world. I say to this lot: get over yourselves and put some energy back into the energy debate that is so sorely needed in this country—not just for yourselves but for everyone.
The member for Paterson is calling for certainty. The certainty that she is calling for is the closure of the Tomago smelter. That is the reality. When she talks to her grandchildren in the future, her grandchildren will be saying to her: 'Grandma, why did you impose a 50 per cent policy renewable target that ultimately led to the closure of the Tomago aluminium smelter? Grandma, why did you do that?' And she will say, 'Well, Granddaughter, I was pursuing an ideological campaign and I was prepared to sacrifice the jobs of the Tomago smelter on the altar of that ideological campaign.' That is what you will have to say, and that is fine. I for one do not want to pursue a certainty that means that, for example, those that work at Millicent at the Kimberly-Clark mill end with a certain future that sees them on the unemployment line. I do not want to see people in my electorate faced with the kind of certainty that the member for Paterson is quite comfortable with, which sees a massive deindustrialisation of our effort across this nation. What I want to see is a policy that backs Aussie jobs, and a 50 per cent renewable target does not do that.
How do I know that? I know that because I live in South Australia, and we have achieved a renewable penetration of some 42 per cent. I did not get the privilege of hearing the member for Port Adelaide earlier, but others have told me that he did not mention South Australia once—not one mention of South Australia in this debate. So to those opposite I say: why are you so embarrassed about the South Australian experiment? It is your experiment. It is effectively the real-time modelling of what you want to see. In fact you want to see it on steroids, because you would like to see it at 50 per cent rather than 42 per cent. But why are you so embarrassed? It is your policy. It is a 50 per cent renewable policy. We are well on the way in South Australia.
I will tell you why you are embarrassed: you are embarrassed because, like me as a South Australian in this place, you know that every time the station starts with, 'Are the lights on?' Those opposite have to deal with that as much as I do. I am sure the member for Port Adelaide gets asked at the odd barbecue or fundraiser in the state, 'So are the lights on at home?' We have to say, 'Yes, they are, but unfortunately they are very expensive to keep on,' because in South Australia we have the kind of electricity prices that you cannot fly a rocket ship over. I have employers who come to me on a daily basis and say: 'Tony, this can't be right. We've just got our offer for a new contract for electricity. It's over a 100 per cent increase. There must be some sort of error.' I say: 'There is no error. That is the consequence of a Labor government in South Australia that idealistically pursues an agenda with no focus on storage.' It was a government that thought, 'The Northern Power Station—let's blow it up.'
Relying so heavily on renewables means that when I go into homes to speak to pensioners on unrelated matters I see over in the corner a gas bottle and a burner. I think, 'Surely not?' So I work it into the conversation. I ask politely, 'What is happening over there?' They say, 'That's how we keep ourselves warm.' I ask, 'Why is that?' They say: 'That is because we cannot afford the electricity prices. We can't afford to remain connected to the grid.' Those opposite want to see pensioners huddled in a corner, as we see in South Australia, turning the Bunsen burner on to keep warm. This is the reality for South Australia. If you do not believe it, come with me. I will introduce you to these people. I will show you what happens when you pursue an ideological agenda and do not worry about the cost.
What do those opposite say? They say: 'Don't worry about jobs. It's fine. Let's pursue this.' The member for Paterson really does surprise me because she comes in here to represent smelter workers. She has a reasonably sized coal industry in her electorate. But she says, 'I want to pursue a 50 per cent renewables target.' You have to be kidding me! It beggars belief. The only certainty they are talking about is the certainty that unemployment will abound— (Time expired)
Let's talk about workers. Imagine, if those opposite can, what it is like to be a worker in the energy industry. There is policy paralysis from those opposite. There are constant headlines about the sector in which you work. Everybody has a view on it, and mostly the commentators do not really give the full picture. So when real workers wake up to headlines like 'Energy target on PM's back', 'Turnbull faces revolt on power' or 'Coalition in revolt over climate fix', how do you think it makes them feel?
While those opposite are busy tearing themselves apart over the Finkel review—well, actually, it has been for the last decade on this issue; they cannot decide whether a price on carbon is a good idea or not—the workers will be at the frontline of any efforts to reduce carbon emissions so that we can achieve the very modest Paris climate agreement target agreed to by this government. They have been left feeling vulnerable about their future. The reason for this is that when the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott abolished the carbon price he replaced it with nothing—not a single piece of energy policy.
If this government was willing to consider a bipartisan approach on the proposed clean energy target—and we have certainly indicated that we are up for the conversation—we could achieve a number of things. For a start, we would see lower power prices. That would be good for consumers both at home and in their businesses. When I talk to small businesses about overheads, they say the cost of power, which cannot be turned up or down, is crippling. With wages growth at all-time lows, the prospect of ever-increasing power bills is frightening, especially when losing the clean energy supplement, for many lower income people. We would also see certainty for investors, who have been driven away from the sector by the inability of those opposite to accept the need for policies to address climate change and energy security.
We have an energy crisis where no-one is making an investment and wholesale energy prices have doubled since 2013. They are the facts. That is because investors face such huge uncertainty and they cannot make investments until they know what this parliament is going to do around carbon pricing and emissions reductions in this country. It has been four years of paralysis—in fact, a decade of those opposite's indecision.
In a bipartisan way we could achieve some certainty for workers. In fact, we need to ensure that there is, as the Paris climate agreement mandates—the one that those opposite have signed—a just transition for workers in the sector. We cannot afford the unplanned, ad hoc approach that car industry workers or the Hazelwood employees went through thanks to those opposite.
Germany has done this well, starting way back in 1998, and their plan will see 130,000 coal industry workers transitioned, with none left behind. This does not just happen, and it certainly does not happen by sticking your head in the sand. But with a tripartite approach of employers, government, and unions, including the CFMEU, a bright, clear future for energy sector workers is possible. If we do not do this well, this is what is going to happen. I am going to tell you what Jason, a Hazelwood employee, said: 'I got a text message about 15 minutes before the announcement meeting commenced.' His reaction: 'I was silent. To be honest, I was numb. You couldn't really react, because you were just knocked for six.' That is what lack of planning does. This parliament has an opportunity to get this right.
The science is clear. The economics is clear. We need to price carbon. And this is not just me. A Labor MP who lives in a fragile World Heritage area is saying it. Even coal-fired generators are saying it. The list is long—and I will leave out the CSIRO and scientists—BHP, Origin Energy, AGL, the National Farmers' Federation, and every state government. Like us, they would prefer a different model, an EIS. But, like us, they are willing to see careful consideration of the Finkel recommendations. We would be in a much different position if the current Prime Minister had not been rolled by his predecessor, Mr Abbott, in 2009 and been able to agree to Labor's carbon pollution reduction scheme. Under Malcolm Turnbull, car prices are up, pollution is up and jobs are down, and no-one knows whether he has the guts to fix it. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on this matter of public importance regarding energy policy, which the member for Port Adelaide has brought forward. I like the member for Port Adelaide. He is a fairly relaxed sort of guy. He never causes problems. But his MPI has certainly brought along some passion into this chamber this afternoon, and it is good to see. I know he always has thoughts of his constituents in mind, and he should keep that in mind. But I did see that he did not mention South Australia during his speech—not once.
He is embarrassed!
That might be because he is a bit embarrassed by it. Do not get me wrong: I am the first to agree that we do need certainty in energy policy, and I would say that we probably need it most in South Australia, where their target is 50 per cent by 2025 and is now standing at 41.3 per cent.
Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, I know you are a bit of a rooster in your electorate, and there are plenty of people who would like to rename your electorate of Parkes the electorate of Coulton. But the member for Paterson is wrong in saying that they would get someone else to play you, because you would not play any part in that. You would not stand up, talking in the third person—about any movie, about your most disastrous time—or sit on a park bench and say, 'And I say to myself, Dasher', speaking about yourself in the third person. You would not do that on this side of politics; it is only those on that side of the game who want to be movie stars and talk about themselves in the third person. What a disgrace that was!
Anyway, South Australia, where Premier Jay Weatherill has admitted his $550 million favour, is where we need certainty in energy policy after the blackouts in September last year, which affected 1.7 million. And there were further blackouts throughout the state in December, January and February. Everybody holds up the South Australian model as a rolled gold standard for the Labor Party. And just to tell you what happened in the WA election—and I see the member for Burt here, and the member for Moore, who are both WA members—what happened was that the member for Cannington, 'Johnno the Commo', during the Labor commitment—
Opposition members interjecting—
Senator Conroy called him that, in public, and thanked him in his speech for being such a dedicated communist. Anyway, he made a commitment around the Labor Party' South Australian standard—a commitment of 50 per cent. It was so strong that he backed down from it within two days. That is how rolled gold the Labor Party is with their energy policy.
These blackouts in South Australia cost the businesses at least $450 million. They affected companies—BHP's Olympic Dam, 3,000 people; the smelter in Port Pirie, 750 employees; Arrium steelworks in Whyalla, 1,600 employees. At the AMEC conference we heard one of the speakers talking about the fact that under the Labor policy we are going to have companies like BHP at Olympic Dam having to bring their own power plants to their new projects. You cannot rely on the Labor policy, and everyone knows that.
Do you know where else we need certainty in energy policy? We need it in Victoria, where they have targeted 40 per cent by 2025. It is costing at least $14 billion and currently stands at 12.1 per cent. There is a long way to go. I would say that we probably need certainty in energy policy in Queensland, where there is an even more outrageous target of 50 per cent by 2030 and it is costing at least $27 billion. That is a lot of money. The Grattan Institute have described their modelling as 'magic pudding economics'. Do you know what the common theme is with these three examples—South Australia, Victoria and Queensland? They all have Labor state governments continuing to set reckless renewable energy targets with no thought spared for the economic disasters they are causing to their constituents.
I have a quote here—this is about the ALP policy—that says:
The lame claim that it is only when in government that the necessary facts to back up the targets can be found is, in my view, completely farcical. You can’t set policy on a wing, a hope and a prayer … Labor cannot out-green the Greens.
I wonder who said that? Graham Richardson, a former Labor minister, in The Australian, 6 January 2017. He is even calling out your own policies. He also went on to say: 'The farce of this policy has become obvious to all. Labor has no plan on how this target would be reached. Sadly, Labor is playing games with people's lives.' They need to get on board and show bipartisanship with the Liberal Party.
The debate has concluded.
() (): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights I present the committee's report entitled, Human rights scrutiny report: report 5 of 2017.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—In accordance with the committee's legislative mandate under section 7(a) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 the committee examines the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's obligations under international human rights law.
A key purpose of the scrutiny report is to provide parliament with credible analysis about the human rights implications of legislation. The report is therefore a technical examination and does not assess the broader merits or policy objectives of particular measures.
The committee receives legal advice in relation to the human rights compatibility of legislation. It is served by an external legal adviser to the committee and secretariat staff.
Committee members performing a scrutiny function are not, and have never been, bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports. Like all parliamentarians, committee members are free to engage in debates over the policy merits of legislation according to the dictates of party, conscience, belief or outlook. Scrutiny committee members may, and often do, have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation.
The vast majority of new bills considered in this report—34—were assessed as promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights. These 34 bills are therefore listed as raising no human rights concerns.
The committee is also seeking further information from legislation proponents in relation to five bills and legislative instruments. The committee requests additional information where a statement of compatibility has not adequately addressed human rights matters.
A comprehensive statement of compatibility not only assists legislation proponents to think through the impact of the legislation on human rights, but may also permit the committee to conclude that a measure constitutes a permissible limitation on human rights.
For example, a new bill which could be classified as raising no concerns was the Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2017, which increased compliance requirements in the vocational education and training sector. The statement of compatibility clearly acknowledged potential limitations on the rights to education, work and privacy, but provided enough information to justify these limitations under human rights law.
I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the report to enhance their understanding of the committee's work.
With these comments, I commend the committee's report 5 of 2017 to the chamber.
As I was saying earlier today, in the 1970s, after the system of fixed exchange rates collapsed and a series of oil shocks caused an international debt crisis, the IMF stepped in to assist countries in dealing with the economic aftershocks. Following the downfall of the Soviet Union, the fund played a central role in transitioning former Soviet bloc countries from centrally planned to market-driven economies. Today the IMF continues to support nations to deal with the implications of the current credit crises and oil price shocks that we see.
This bill gives effect to an agreement with the International Monetary Fund to provide an increased standing appropriation and authority to borrow for payments to meet drawings made by the IMF under a new bilateral loan agreement. The agreement is only activated when additional funds are required to support lending to member countries. While the bill has no direct impact on the budget bottom line, if the agreement is activated and the funds are provided then there is an indirect impact where the government's lending to the IMF increases our borrowing requirement and where the interest payable on any money borrowed by Australia to meet an IMF drawdown exceeds the interest paid by the IMF to us in relation to that drawdown.
Australia should continue to provide support to institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the nations and people that it supports. The IMF has certainly had its critics—even I do not profess to have agreed with each and every step in some cases—but Australia's support of it and its work should remain. It is therefore important that such legislation receives bipartisan support, which this legislation does. I commend it to the House.
The IMF has a fairly unpleasant history. Whilst I agree with the bill and the government's action, the IMF's history is actually quite ugly. Our nearest neighbour is a country called Indonesia, and the IMF destroyed the economies of Indonesia and Thailand—the Asian Tigers, as they were called. Malaysia told it to go to hell, and Malaysia came out of the Asian Tiger crisis with comfortably low employment levels, its economy intact, and its corporations and productive capacity owned by Malaysians. Indonesia came out of that period with vast swathes of its economy foreign owned, because they forced the corporations to knuckle under to the banking fraternity before it foreclosed on them and put the corporations up on the open market. The only people with money were people outside Indonesia. So a very significant proportion of their entire economy was taken up. It is, unfortunately, true that these sorts of policies have led to a lot of the resentment, rage and terrorism that comes out of the Middle Eastern countries as well, where the economies, when you move to a free market, enable the big corporations to take over the smaller corporations. That is the free market for you.
When Paul Keating announced—and I remember it vividly, climbing out of bed, switching the radio on hearing him—that we are going to have the freest economy on earth, my reaction was to think, 'Is the man completely mad?' I am going to compete against people who work for five dollars a day? And if we do not, what do we do? Just export all the industries overseas. As well as that, an American car factory is producing on economies of scale that we cannot even dream about. There are 400 million people there, and most of them are wealthier than Australians. So they are working on economies of scale that we cannot even dream of. Similarly, with Japan they had a closed market there to get their industries off the ground. And a closed market of 120 million people who are the richest people on earth—their average incomes exceed those in America, last time I looked—is a very huge market indeed. So, we are up against, on the one hand, slave-labour wage levels and, on the other hand, giant economies of scale. Did any serious, intelligent person think that the Australian economy was going to survive that ferocious attack?
Well, of course, it has not. We closed our last white goods factory in Orange, two years ago. And those in the government might take cognisance of the fact that the seat of Orange was lost by the conservatives for the first time in 45 years. Would it have anything to do with the fact that the two giant white goods plants that were operating in Orange both closed as a result of free market policies not only advocated but constantly promoted by the Liberal Party and the Labor Party? Well, they are never going to vote Labor there, but they are most certainly not going to vote for conservatives, either. As I said earlier today, now, as a result of these policies, we buy all of our whitegoods from overseas. Next year, we will buy all of our motor cars from overseas. We buy all of our tires from overseas and all of our electric light bulbs from overseas. We buy biros and our mobile telephones from overseas. Even though I might have shoes that might be made in Australia by RM Williams, invariably, they are made from imported tanned hide. We have virtually no tanneries left in Australia.
What exactly do we have left in Australia? What has Australia got left? We cannot mine anymore—mining is when you dig it out of the ground and you sell a metal. We do not dig it out of the ground and sell a metal; we dig it out of the ground and sell the ground. It is that is called quarrying; it is entirely different. There is no sophistication in quarrying; it is just working a dozer and putting it on a conveyor belt. The sophisticated operations require cheap power, and we now have—on the graph that I have—the second highest electricity charges in the world. And, yes, the conservative side of parliament are quite right in blaming the green movement for 30 per cent of those charges. There is no doubt that 30 per cent of those charges can be sheeted home to the green movement, but the other 60 per cent of the increase has come from the free market.
I mean, what did you think was going to happen? Did you think there were going to be hundreds of people owning the electricity industry of Australia? No. It is concentrated in the hands of two—arguably four—providers. As I have said on many occasions in this place, the real problem is that our mummies and daddies did not have us play Monopoly—because if you played Monopoly you knew that if you had half the utilities you got four times as much money and if you had all the utilities you got seven times as much money. Surprise surprise! When electricity went to the free market, it went from $600 to $750 over 15 years and then in nine years it soared to $2,500 per household. Well, what did you expect to happen? Do you think Origin, AGL and these people are in there to be Santa Claus? No, they are in there to make money. Surprise surprise! They use their oligopoly powers to make money.
When you deregulated the dairy industry what did you think was going to happen? Again, do you think Woolworths and Coles are there to be Santa Claus? They are there to maximise their profits—that is, to minimise the price they pay for the milk and maximise the price they get for the milk. They are enjoying an oligopolistic situation with magnificent returns. The deregulation of the egg industry delivered to them an extra $400 million a year. This is back in the 1990s. You can almost double that figure now. They made around $400 million in the deregulation of the sugar industry and they made over $1,000 million a year in the deregulation of the dairy industry.
So whether we are talking about the IMF imposing free markets upon the Indonesians—very sadly, they will remember what we did to them; they do not differentiate between us and the Americans. If you wish to find out exactly what happened read Globalization and its Discontents, by Joseph Stiglitz, who got the Nobel Prize for Economics. That book and two of his other books outline the fairly ugly impositions by the IMF. And where the IMF were told to go to hell—Malaysia—they come off quite successfully.
In talking about Australia's competitiveness and our ability to put money into the IMF instead of being a country that needs to get money out of the IMF—which I think is the category we will soon be in—at the heart of your cost structures the most important cost is electricity. Aluminium is congealed electricity, to quote but one example. We have iron ore and coal. Coal is a massive user of electricity. We do not have dozers in the coal industry anymore; we have giant drag lines and they are run by electricity. So the coal industry runs on electricity.
The good Lord did not put our mineral deposits on the coastline. We are a huge country. The North West Minerals Province, where I come from, is 1,000 kilometres from the nearest port. The cost of getting minerals to the coast is enormous. We cannot send 80 per cent earth and 20 per cent copper to the coast; we have to try and send 60 per cent copper to the coast; we have to process it. The charges imposed by the Greens movement are $21 million a year in RET payments alone. The costs that have been imposed via the stupidity of the government and the tax industry have imposed massive cost structures. The electricity in the North West Minerals Province comes from gas. We have a massive cost of gas and a massive cost of electricity—a cost imposed by monopolistic rent—and we have to get the minerals to the coast. The difficulty in doing that is making all of our mineral province extremely marginal. That mineral province brings $5 billion dollars a year into the Australian economy. For a number of years, the fertiliser plant at Mount Isa was bringing in $2 billion a year by itself. If the Mount Isa copper stream goes down then the fertiliser plant goes down with it. We are talking about $4 billion there are about 10,000 jobs.
So you can talk about your IMF and your free markets and you can continue on down your current pathway, but you cannot be a mining country, because you cannot process it into metals. You can only be a quarrying country. We get $130 billion a year from iron ore and coal—the two quarries. There is nothing else. The next item down may be aluminium, gold or beef, but they are about $10 billion. So the big two quarries bring in $130 billion and everything else brings in at most—any individual one of them—about $10 billion. So we are a two-item economy. But if there is a hiccup in coal! Heaven only knows, because the front bench was savaged in the Liberal party room by the 'gang greens' in the Liberal Party. And heaven only knows, the Labor people are in hiding. The Greens have taken over the Labor movement, it would appear. There were nine speakers, every one of them attacking coal. I am sure that is going down really well with the CFMEU. I am sure they really will be pleased to hear that you spend all of your time in this place attacking the coal industry. But they are nice people. They are not likely to hit back and ruthlessly and brutally assert their opinions inside the Labor Party. I am quite sure that all your endorsements are intact and safe, and I am quite sure the abominable snowman lives in Bedourie, as well!
I live in a country that has been destroyed by the policies promulgated by the IMF, which is controlled by people such as Goldman Sachs, in the United States—people who took $3 trillion off the people of America. Barrack Obama said 'Those disgraceful people are occupying five of the 11 most powerful positions in this country and when I am elected president that will cease.' That is what he said, and he was right. The five Goldman Sachs people in the top 11 positions were replaced by eight Goldman Sachs people in the 11 positions. He was right—he kept his promise, but not the way the American people interpreted it. These people have acted in their own interests. Banks like Goldman Sachs walked away with $300 million in their pockets that were made by them personally in that period where they took $3 trillion off the American people. Those are the people who are running the IMF. Whilst I once again state that we have to honour our obligations here, one of the more successful businessman on the planet is a bloke called Donald Trump, and he said there is going to be change— (Time expired)
Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate, including the member for Kennedy. The renewal of Australia's bilateral loan agreement with the IMF is part of a broader global effort to maintain a strong and resilient global financial safety net, which has the IMF at its pillar. With continuing risks to the global economic outlook, the IMF's mandate to support global economic and financial stability is of critical importance. As an open economy that is exposed to global conditions, we have a very strong vested interest in doing all that we can to ensure that the IMF has the resources it needs to fulfil this very crucial role. I therefore commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to sum up the debate on the Comcare and Seacare Legislation Amendment (Pension Age and Catastrophic Injury) Bill 2017. Again, I would like to thank all members who have supported this bill. The bill makes minor but important amendments to the workers' compensation arrangements in the Comcare scheme and the Seacare scheme. The bill will ensure that injured employees will not be disadvantaged when the pension age rises after 1 July 2017. As a result of this bill, injured employees will continue to be eligible for the generous income replacement payments provided by these schemes until they qualify for the age pension.
The bill will also align the Comcare and Seacare schemes with the minimum benchmarks in the National Injury Insurance Scheme. This will provide employees who have a catastrophic injury access to uncapped compensation for the attendant care services and household services that they will need. This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to ensuring that injured employees are able to maintain their independence and receive the care that they need. I therefore commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That all 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 condemns the Government for giving a tax increase to low and middle income families, and giving a tax cut to millionaires".
In debating this bill, we are fundamentally debating progressive taxation versus flat taxation. Progressive taxes have a long legacy. In response to the early Napoleonic successes on the battlefield, Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger decided that Britain had to impose the world's first progressive income tax. That tax had rates increasing from one per cent to 10 per cent and put in place a basic principle that has been followed by many countries many times since—that, when you have a higher income, you should not just pay more money; you should actually pay a higher rate.
There are a few countries that levy flat income taxes. In Russia, for example, income taxes are a flat 13 per cent. But, if you look across the advanced world, progressive taxes are the norm. The higher the amount you earn, the higher the rate you pay. In times gone past, that rate has been very high indeed. When the Beatles sang 'Taxman' they were complaining about the fact that the marginal tax rate that they paid on their earnings was 95 per cent.
When we debate this issue of progressive and flat taxes in Australia, it is often surprising to see that those opposite just do not get it. We had Liberal Senator Scott Ryan thundering:
The top tax bracket—$180,000 and above—seven per cent of all income earners or just under, they’ll pay 27 per cent of the increase in the Medicare levy so it is highly progressive.
We had an editorial in the Australian claiming:
… Scott Morrison proposed lifting the Medicare levy from 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent from 2019 to meet the NDIS shortfall identified by the government. However unwelcome for taxpayers, that strategy at least affirmed “we are all in this together”. The levy is a progressive tax.
We even had commentator Mungo MacCallum, who is often sensible on many issues, saying:
… raising the Medicare levy, which in fact means an overall tax increase, is sensible policy, and, crucially it is fair. It is not a flat-rate, across-the-board, slug …
Unfortunately all three of them are wrong. When you ask a hairdresser and a surgeon to pay 0.5 per cent of their income, that is a flat tax. A progressive approach is something different. Helpfully, when he delivered his budget reply at this dispatch box, the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, outlined what a progressive approach would look like. Labor have said that we do not support increasing the flat Medicare levy across the board. We would confine that Medicare levy increase to taxpayers with incomes over $87,000, thereby shielding four out of five taxpayers—around 10 million people—from paying more income tax. To make up the revenue, Labor would maintain the deficit levy for those with incomes over $180,000. Those with incomes over $180,000 currently constitute just two per cent of adults. Nine-tenths of the revenue raised by maintaining the deficit levy would be paid by the top one per cent.
The top one per cent have not had a bad generation, it has to be said. Along with the late Sir Tony Atkinson, we looked at trends in the top one per cent share going back to World War I. The trend since then is a steady equalising from World War I through to 1970, but, since the late 1970s, the top one per cent have doubled their share of national income. That is research that has been confirmed by Professor Roger Wilkins at the University of Melbourne, who has continued crunching top one per cent series since then.
So that top one per cent group that has doubled their share of national income would pay nine-tenths of the income raised by maintaining the deficit levy. By maintaining the deficit levy and restricting the increase in the Medicare levy to those earning over $87,000, over the medium term, Labor would raise more money than the coalition. When we are debating progressive taxes versus flat tax, we should remember that there is nothing inherently left wing about progressive taxes. As I have mentioned before, it is a nominally Communist country—Russia—that has a flat tax, and there are many countries governed by right-wing parties that have progressive taxes. Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger was a Tory.
What progressive taxes do is simply reflect the fact that a billionaire has a greater capacity than a battler to pay for schools, roads and hospitals. When you ask a cleaner to pay more taxes, the result may be that they cannot afford to see the dentist or to pay for Christmas presents. When you ask someone on the rich list to pay a little more tax, it might mean they have to buy a 175-foot yacht rather than a 200-foot yacht. Inequality in Australia is now at a 75-year high. Earnings have risen three times as fast for the top tenth as for the bottom tenth. We have profits rising at record rates and wage growth in real terms going backwards.
And yet this government's strategy would see judges get a $3,800 tax cut and pharmacists pay $350 more tax. The government's strategy would see plastic surgeons get a $4,700 tax cut and aged care nurses cop a $220 tax rise. Those at the bottom are doing it tough in Australia. One in five Australians say they cannot afford a week's holiday away from home once a year. These are the people who Labor wants to shield from paying a higher Medicare levy. Low-income Australians need an approach which is progressive, not flat, and indeed, when inequality rises, our tax system should become more progressive, not less.
In the Hawke-Keating era, inequality was lower than it is today. So, as inequality rises, it is appropriate for us to look at the question as to whether our tax system should become more progressive, not yield to those who say that a less progressive tax system is the answer in Australia. If you are worried about taxes deterring work, as some of those in the right-wing commentariat sometimes claim, then you should be worried about effective marginal tax rates and the combined impact of tax rates and benefit withdrawals on work incentives.
How bad is that problem? A recent report that was compiled by the Australian National University's Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, titled Effective marginal tax rates, authored by David Ingles and David Plunkett, set out the effective marginal tax rates for a range of groups in Australia. Someone on a single disability support pension earning between $20,000 and $50,000 pays an effective marginal tax rate that ranges from 70 per cent to 85 per cent—well above the effective marginal tax rates paid by a millionaire in Australia. When they looked at a couple with children aged eight and 10 and no child care earning between $10,000 to $50,000, their effective marginal tax rate starts at 60 per cent and spikes at certain points to 120 per cent. They are deterred from work to a far greater extent than a millionaire is deterred from work by the top marginal tax rate. If you look at an age pension couple earning between $25,000 and $75,000, their effective marginal tax rate is in the range of 80 to 90 per cent. Again, the work disincentive faced by age pension couples in Australia is greater than for millionaires in Australia. If you look at a single person receiving Newstart allowance, their effective marginal tax rate for earnings between $10,000 and $25,000 starts at 60 per cent and goes to 100 per cent. That is a significant deterrent from moving from income support into work. It is important that we tackle those effective marginal tax rates, but the evidence that high-income earners, and particularly high-income earning men, will be deterred from work if the tax rate for people with million-dollar incomes stays at the rate that it has been for the last two years, is, frankly, farcical. High-earning blokes are not deterred from work on the extensive margin as a result of income taxes. To say otherwise is to misread the evidence on effective marginal tax rates and on the elasticities of labour supply.
We on this side of the House worry too about the gender impact of this. The gender impact ought to have been outlined in the government's Women's Budget Statement—a document produced first under the Hawke government, then under the Keating government, then under the Howard government and then under the Rudd and Gillard governments, but it was scrapped after 30 years. After being produced from 1983 to 2013 without fail every year, the Women's Budget Statement was scrapped. So it fell to Labor to continue producing the Women's Budget Statement and it reveals that the beneficiaries of maintaining the deficit levy will overwhelmingly be men, and yet those who suffer the cost of cuts to income support are overwhelmingly women. There is a gender lens through which we are debating today and, in standing against the increase in the Medicare levy for those earning under $87,000, Labor is keenly aware of the gender impact of this tax change.
If we are worried about what the Liberal Party likes to refer to as 'the forgotten people', then, frankly, we should look back at the words of their mentor, Robert Menzies, who said in that speech 'the rich can look after themselves'. He said that instead his party should be concerned with 'salary-earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers and so on'. But the Liberal Party of today has forgotten 'The Forgotten People' speech. They have forgotten that they are raising tax rates on salary earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, and farmers. They are focusing on the needs of the rich rather than listening to their founder's words that the rich can look after themselves. If it was true at a time when inequality was significantly lower than it is today, surely it must be doubly true now.
Why do the top end of town, who have enjoyed a disproportionate share of the economic gains in Australia over the course of the last generation, need a tax cut when minimum wage workers are copping a tax increase? It is not just a tax increase: minimum wage workers and average wage workers in Australia have it tough on so many dimensions under this government. We have seen a fall in home ownership. Home ownership rates are now at a 60-year low. We have got penalty rates about to be cut, costing up to $77 a week, ironically on Sunday, 2 July—the day after millionaires get their tax cut. We have got $22 billion of cuts to schools and to universities, which will affect the ability of low-income Australians to attend university.
At the same time, the government is ignoring the opportunity to do something about good tax reform. Labor has proposed cracking down on tax havens. We have recently seen work from Gabriel Zucman and co-authors that has analysed who benefits from tax havens. That has shown very clearly, using evidence from leaked data from the HSBC leaks and the Panama papers, that those who benefit are disproportionately not just the top one per cent, but the top 0.1 per cent. It is the very wealthy who benefit from tax havens. That is why Labor has pledged country-by-country reporting. We are acquiring the public reporting of tax paid in every country by firms turning over more than $1 billion a year. Our big mining companies BHP and Rio Tinto already do this on a voluntary basis. But, for tax integrity purposes, it is vital that all billion-dollar companies comply in the same way.
We have called on the government to put in place whistleblower incentives, providing something akin to the US False Claims Act and the British laws, that create stronger protections for whistleblowers and incentives for whistleblowers to do the right thing and speak out on tax fraud. We have said that a Shorten Labor government, if elected, would require firms to disclose to shareholders as a material tax risk their dealings in tax havens, using as a list of tax havens something akin to the EU tax haven blacklist, which 32 countries are currently on.
We have called for AUSTRAC data to be publicly available—not controversial, given that it was released under freedom of information laws. We believe that if you are a firm that is tendering for government work of over $200,000, you should be required to disclose your country of tax domicile. We are not arguing that you ought to be ruled out based on that country of tax domicile, but simply that where you are domiciled ought to be public information if you want to win government work.
Under a Labor government, we would consult with superannuation funds to develop appropriate guidelines around tax havens. We have committed to a beneficial ownership register—a policy that we believed the coalition was committed to, but which they have steadily backed down on since they first spoke about a beneficial ownership register. We have called on the Australian Taxation Office to disclose settlements over $50 million in order to provide greater transparency. This sits on top of Labor's announced policies in the multinational tax space. Our worldwide gearing ratio, as costed at the last election, would raise nearly $6 billion over the medium term.
Our measures on ATO compliance and on tax transparency are important as well. We would put a community member on the Board of Taxation in order to ensure that we get greater tax transparency and a greater say for the community sector in taxation.
Labor does not believe that this is the right time to be raising taxes on middle Australia, as this bill does, while giving a huge tax giveaway to the top end of town. We know already—thanks to Labor's laws, opposed by those opposite—that among large Australian firms one-third do not pay any tax. We know, too, that under their very own analysis any benefits from a corporate tax cut to the top end of town will in the first instance go disproportionately to overseas shareholders, because dividend imputation means that Australian shareholders benefit only through reinvested profits, not paid-out profits.
But I would urge any cheerleader of the government's company tax plans to read their own documents, in particular a document called Analysis of the long term effects of a company tax cut, which shows that under the most likely scenario, in which a company tax cut for big business is funded by higher personal income taxes, the benefit to households is 0.1 per cent—total, not annualised. The total benefit to households of the government's $65 billion company tax cut, if funded through higher individual personal income taxes of the kind in this bill that we are debating, will be a benefit to households of 0.1 per cent—and all this in order to reduce a company tax rate which is, according to the United States Congressional Budget Office, not among the highest in the world.
Those opposite would have you believe that Australia's company taxes are extortionately high. The United States Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis International comparisons of corporate income tax rates, released in March of this year, found that Australia's statutory corporate tax rate of 30 per cent was right in the middle of the G20 range, that our average corporate tax rate—that is, the amount of corporate tax actually paid as a share of corporate income—was 17 per cent, the fourth lowest in the G20, and that our effective marginal tax rate, which is the share of income paid in tax from a marginal investment, is at 10 per cent, which is about the 11th highest in the G20. So, if you compare Australia's company taxes paid with those of G20 nations, we sit in the middle—or, indeed, on some measures, in the lower part of the distribution.
And that is before you get to the fact that Australia has dividend imputation, a system that gives back about a third of company tax revenues to taxpayers through the personal income tax system. A company tax system with imputation means that you raise about a third less revenue. Therefore, a 30 per cent company tax rate with imputation raises about as much as a 20 per cent corporate tax rate without imputation.
This government would seek to raise taxes on middle Australia at a time at which the coalition has set a host of new worst records for economic management. In an article in Crikey on 1 June, economics reporter Alan Austin reported a range of these 'worst ever' records. He reported that the figures of the Office of Financial Management showed total gross debt at a record of $495.5 billion—about to crash through the half-trillion figure. Net debt, according to the finance department, was $317 billion at the end of April. And debt is now increasing at a rate per month of $6.85 billion. The rate at which debt is increasing in Australia is the fastest in Australian history. It compares with the rate of debt increase during the global financial crisis, which was significantly lower. That is right: the coalition are borrowing at a faster rate now than Australia did to ward off the worst global disaster since the Great Depression.
All advanced countries put in place fiscal stimulus when the global downturn came. There was bipartisan consensus that it was important to take on debt to shield ourselves from the crisis. No-one thought the razor-thin surpluses that were left by the Howard-Costello government could have gotten us through the crisis. But the question is: why are we borrowing at a faster rate now than we did during the global financial crisis?
The government has also set a record for the number of people unemployed. There are 700,000-odd people unemployed. Full-time jobs have fallen to below 68 per cent for only the third time. We have seen hours worked per adult per month dropping to 83.8, the lowest since February 1994—significantly lower than it ever reached during the great recession. Hours worked per adult per month is the lowest it has been in more than two decades. The share of jobless women is 6 per cent, which is a higher figure than we have seen since the late 1990s. Underemployment is up to an all-time high, and has recently reached one million people. New housing approvals are significantly down. Infrastructure is declining again: according to Allen Austin, infrastructure has declined in 12 of the last 14 quarters, the worst result in Australian history. Annual wages growth is just 1.9 per cent, the lowest since records have been kept, and below the inflation rate of 2.1 per cent. Retail sales are up just 2.6 per cent, a real decline once you account for inflation and population growth. The only worst first quarter on record was 2.5 per cent in 2010. Interest rates are still low. There are record profits, yet record tax dodging.
When the Prime Minister took over from the member for Warringah, he said that his reason for doing so was to provide economic leadership. But we have seen now in Australia anything but that. We see real wages falling; we see debt at record levels; we see home ownership at a 60-year low and inequality at a 75-year high. This bill does nothing to address those challenges. It slugs Australian households with higher taxes. Middle Australia will pay higher taxes under this government, which is why Labor have said that we prefer a progressive approach. Make no mistake: what we are debating is an increase in a flat tax. Labor's approach is a progressive approach. This is the right strategy at any time of the economic cycle, but it is particularly the right approach when inequality is at a 75-year high. Labor believe that we need less inequality, not more. That is why Senator McAllister has announced today that a Shorten Labor government would task the Productivity Commission to inquire into the issue of inequality and ways we can reduce inequality in Australia. We cannot just sit back on our hands as inequality rises. We need to take action.
Labor has also announced that we will crack down on dodgy directors—another way in which workers and decent small businesses are diddled out of their rightful entitlements. I am pleased that the shadow minister for employment is here in the chamber, because he has been a powerful voice for cracking down on dodgy directors. Labor's plan on exposing fraudulent directors will tackle a problem which cost the economy $3 billion five years ago, and surely more now. We believe that we need a director identification number, stronger penalties and the right standard of proof to crack down on the scourge of phoenix activity. We are supported in this by the Productivity Commission, by the Australian Institute of Company Directors. We are supported by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and we are supported by almost by almost every independent body apart from the Turnbull government, which is yet again sticking its head in the sand when it comes to tackling the critical issue of dodgy phoenix directors.
Labor has a plan to tackle multinational tax avoidance. Labor has a plan to tackle tax havens. Labor has a plan to tackle phoenixing. Labor has a plan to tackle inequality. The coalition only has a plan to raise taxes on middle Australia. Labor will not have a bar of it.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question is now that the amendment be agreed to.
It is not infrequent that the member for Fenner quotes Robert Menzies in this chamber. You would think the member for Fenner might be a closet Liberal until you hear the substance of his speeches and you realise that he reflects the same creeping to the left—the same socialist hysteria—that the Labor Party has fallen into with their allies the Greens. His speech was full of the rhetoric of 'tax the rich' until he started quoting international figures, suggesting, if you look at Australia compared to the rest of the G20, there is scope to tax everyone in Australia more. Let's just tax everyone more. That is the proposal of the Labor Party.
The finale of his speech was how Labor has a plan for addressing phoenixing activity, when in truth he knows that the coalition has a Phoenix Taskforce and that the coalition is now addressing these very issues. When you are on the Socialist Left and you see a coalition government actually taking action on something you should have been taking action on when you were in government—the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era—what do you do? You get on the bandwagon. That is all they have to offer.
We are here today to talk about something that the member for Fenner did not really want to speak about, and that is the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017. They ignored that. Labor like to ignore this bill because, firstly, while they support the increase in the Medicare levy, they have no intention of using the increase in funds to pay for the NDIS, which is the coalition's intent. Instead they will just take the money and use it elsewhere.
The second reason I suspect the member for Fenner did not want to address the bill that we are here to speak about today is that, despite his words, he knows that the bill being discussed today in fact helps those people in Australia who are most vulnerable. It is a broad-based levy based on the principle of the more you earn, the more you pay, and the most vulnerable in Australia need pay nothing at all.
This bill ensures that $180 million will remain in our community and in the pockets of those most in need—the families and individuals on the lowest incomes, those unable to work, and our pensioners and seniors—with $60 million in 2017-18 alone to be retained in the community. The bill ensures low-income earners will continue to receive relief from the Medicare levy through the low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners.
By maintaining thresholds in line with the rise in the CPI—the consumer price index—we ensure our most vulnerable Australians are treated fairly and protected from paying the Medicare levy through either a complete exemption or a phased discount system. Thresholds are also applied to ensure that people who pay no personal income tax due to their eligibility for structural offsets, such as the low income tax offset or the seniors and pensioners tax offset, do not incur the Medicare levy. These thresholds, which come into effect on 1 July this year, will directly benefit around one million Australians.
The government is setting these new thresholds for one reason, and that is to ensure fairness. Fairness is a word that has become synonymous with this Turnbull government. The Medicare levy is fundamental to sustaining our healthcare system—a healthcare system that guarantees Medicare, which is, in itself, an essential part of a modern, caring society. Indeed Medicare directly enables the concept of a shared wellbeing, a common good. That is why this government is committed to fully funding the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, through the Medicare Guarantee Fund, and, most importantly and significantly, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the NDIS.
Unlike the opposition, this statement recognises the full cost of supporting all Australians who are living with or supporting those with disabilities. The 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy to be implemented in two years time will ensure the NDIS is fully funded. We are closing the $55.7 billion gap left by the previous Labor government, giving assurance to all of those who are living with a disability—assuring them that they matter, that we recognise and support their wellbeing as fellow citizens and as members of our community, giving assurance to all Australians that if they or a loved one are born with or acquire a permanent and significant disability they too will get the support that they need. These are assurances that the Labor opposition has failed to provide—assurances they continue to evade. How can Labor continue to deny the obvious—that they have not fully funded the NDIS? I just do not know. There are some good people on the other side—there are some very good people in the Labor Party. I believe that. How can good people continue to deny the fact that they are leaving the NDIS short-changed? It is an absolute disgrace. That is why it is so important that we get this Medicare Levy change through parliament.
The government's objective is clear: to fully fund the NDIS by increasing the Medicare levy—a broad-based levy. As I said earlier in response to the member for Fenner's comments, if you are on a high income, quite simply you pay more. If you earn less, you pay less. Basically the more you earn the more you pay—it is simple and it is fair. As we see in this bill, there are clear provisions for our most vulnerable, for our lowest income earners, to pay nothing—as should be the case. That is the coalition's plan. Labor on the other hand, sadly, will be happy for the Medicare levy to rise but, unlike the coalition government, they do not plan to allocate the money raised to the NDIS. As always, Labor are happy to take the money but they will not use the money to help the people in need. They would rather, and quite irresponsibly, leave the scheme critically short-changed. Under the government's plan, in 2016-17 it is anticipated that 10 million Australians will pay into the Medicare levy. This is surely a fair and reasonable ask of a sophisticated, caring society—a fair and reasonable ask for an insurance scheme for all Australians as a safety net against the crippling costs of living with permanent and significant disability.
Disabilities can affect anyone at any time. In fact, every single week five Australians suffer a spinal cord injury and 10 to 15 Australians sustain a severe brain injury. Every 13 hours an Australian child is born with cerebral palsy. For those Australians the NDIS will be there to support them. Over 460,000 Australians under the age of 65 will rely on the NDIS to build skills and capability to participate in the community, to participate in employment and sporting activities. I know in my part of the world, on the Sunshine Coast, an estimated 4,790 people will be supported by the NDIS upon its being fully rolled out. By supporting this bill and other interlocking measures relating to the Medicare levy and not resorting to puerile political brinksmanship, this parliament can allow our healthcare professionals to get on with the task of making the NDIS the best it can be. On this basis I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017. I should state up-front, because people listening to the previous speaker might get a little bit confused, that Labor supports this bill.
Really?
I take the interjection from the member for Durack, because she seems surprised that Labor supports this legislation. I am not sure what she has been listening to. I note the member for Fenner's amendment suggesting that:
… whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for giving a tax increase to low and middle income families, and giving a tax cut to millionaires.
However, that is in the context generally of the Medicare levy surcharge and the increase, particularly for those above $87,000 or thereabouts. This bill will increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds, particularly for individuals and families eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset, in line with shifts in the consumer price index. Those opposite need to understand that. Why does a sensible government do this? It is to ensure that these families and individuals do not have a Medicare levy liability where they do not have an income tax liability. The bill will also increase the Medicare levy surcharge low-income threshold in line with movements in the CPI. Labor supports the indexation of the income thresholds so that Australians who are not earning high incomes will not pay the Medicare levy or Medicare surcharge.
It is only fair that our most vulnerable Australians are not disadvantaged in order to maintain our world-class universal healthcare system—a world-class universal healthcare system made by Labor. The foundations were put down by previous Labor governments under Hawke and Keating. Rudd and Gillard, after, made those foundations stronger. Medicare is one of the greatest legacies, I would suggest, of the late and great Gough Whitlam. The scheme was originally proposed by the economists Richard Scotton and John Deeble in 1968 but was introduced by the Whitlam Labor government in 1975. The birth of Medibank, as it was originally called, was not an easy one. Prior to its introduction there was a bitter battle with doctors' groups, private insurers, most state governments and, most defiantly and short-sightedly, the coalition parties: the Liberal Party and the National Party.
The legislation eventually passed in August 1974, but not before it was necessary to hold a double-dissolution election and a joint sitting of federal parliament. That is a fair dinkum reason to go for a double-dissolution election, not the concocted reason given by the Prime Minister prior to the election on 2 July last year. In the nine months after the legislation was implemented on 1 July 1975, Medibank staff increased from 22 to 3,500, and 81 offices were opened. But the optimism for the new universal healthcare system was short lived. Sadly, the Fraser coalition government, after taking office in November 1975, introduced a series of modifications which resulted in Medibank being dismantled by 1981. It was the Hawke Labor government, when it was elected in 1983, that acted promptly to re-establish a universal health insurance scheme that is the envy of the world. The reinstated scheme was renamed and rebadged as Medicare.
Medicare commenced operation on 1 February 1984. Medicare, like Medibank before it, included free public hospital treatment and subsidised or free medical services, depending on whether the provider bulk-billed. Medicare was funded by a one per cent levy on taxable income. There have been a few policy tweaks to Medicare since 1984, but the central tenets of providing universal medical benefits and free public hospital treatment, regardless of income, have been largely preserved. Medicare has so far survived several more coalition governments since the Fraser government, but we know that the coalition fundamentally do not believe in Medicare. They never have and they never will. It is not in their DNA like it is in the Labor Party's. Any chance the coalition get to tinker with or destroy Medicare, they will take. They have form. It is in their DNA.
Labor will always protect our world-class universal healthcare scheme. We are proud of this legacy and will defend it any day, every day. Central to our universal healthcare scheme is the notion of fairness. Whether you live in Point Piper or in Proserpine, it is fair that you are able to access quality health care. It is fair that what you or your parents earn should not determine whether you can access the health care that you need. It is fair that everyone in Australia can access quality health care.
The Medicare levy was originally set at one per cent of taxable income, with exemptions for those on low incomes. It is currently levied at two per cent of taxable income, again with exemptions for those on lower incomes. The Turnbull government announced in the 2017 budget that the Medicare levy will increase to 2.5 per cent. This increase will apply to everyone. And at the same time the coalition government are hiking the Medicare levy for everyone, including low-paid workers, they are discontinuing the deficit levy imposed on those who earn over $180,000 a year. Remember the deficit levy that was brought in by former Treasurer—
And that was always the plan. Remember that?
I will take that interjection from the member for Durack. I do remember that. Do you know what you do? I am sure the member for Durack would know that you look at the circumstances. They brought in a deficit levy, which Labor supported, because there was a deficit. Is there still a deficit? Yes. As I am sure the member for Durack would well know, there is still a need for budget repair. In 2014, Treasurer Joe Hockey said, 'The deficit levy was brought in to ensure higher-income Australians contribute to the budget repair.' That is a quote from the Treasurer of the day. Well, the budget is not repaired—far from it. The deficit for 2017-18—it is hard to believe this—is 10 times bigger than that predicted by Treasurer Hockey in his first budget, that horror budget. And he was of course punished for that budget by being sent to some place called Washington—I am not sure where that is!
Gross debt is equivalent to $20,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Yet the Turnbull government is lifting the deficit levy from higher income earners. You do not need to be Einstein to work out that if you take a half a per cent of someone's wage and then give them back two per cent of their wage, they will end up with more money. So the effect of the Turnbull government budget is very simple: it gives more money in the hand to people earning over $180,000 and less to those earning less than $180,000. Suddenly, according to the Turnbull government, high-income earners do not need to contribute to help repair the budget. This is at a time when the damage done to the budget by the coalition government has left it in a state that obviously is diabolically worse.
This government thinks middle- and low-income families should be doing the hard lifting to repair the budget mess that they have created. They are about to enter their fifth year of government. Remember that. This is not a group that are fresh to government; they are about to enter their fifth year of government. Under the Turnbull government, 10 million working Australians will be paying more tax. Under the Turnbull government, low-income earners will be taking home less pay after they have their penalty rates cut from 1 July. Under the Turnbull government, high-income earners and big business will be paying less tax because of the bizarre commitment to a $65 billion tax giveaway.
Increasing the Medicare levy across the board is a flat tax. It is unfair. It is unfair to make a cleaner pay a higher tax rate, which may mean they cannot afford to see the dentist. It is unfair to make a nurse pay a higher tax rate, which may mean they cannot pay for their children to play sport. It is unfair to make a teacher pay a higher tax rate, which may mean they cannot afford to get their car repaired or buy extra equipment for their classroom. It is unfair to give a tax break to those who have a greater capacity to pay when those who have little capacity to pay, and less disposable income, are asked to pay more. That is fundamentally unfair, fundamentally un-Australian, at a time when we have the greatest level of disparity in terms of income distribution since the Great Depression.
For wealthy Australians, being asked to contribute a fraction more may only be the difference between spending two weeks overseas this year or 2½ weeks. And good luck to them. But the wages of low- to medium-income earners are stagnating. They have the lowest annual wages growth on record—ever since the ABS started publishing data in 1997. But, for high-income earners, the income of the top one per cent of income earners, and that includes politicians, has doubled. The income of the top 0.1 per cent has actually tripled.
What is Labor's approach? What would we do that is fairer? We would confine the Medicare levy increase to only those with incomes over $87,000. I am not suggesting that you are wealthy if you are making over $87,000; I am just saying that you would have more capacity to find a few extra dollars. This would protect 10 million people from paying more income tax. To make up for that lost revenue, because we do believe in responsible budgets, Labor would retain the deficit levy for those earning over $180,000. Over the medium term, our proposal would actually raise more revenue than the coalition's. The budget would be $4.5 billion better off over the next decade. Our position is fairer and better for the budget.
Budgets are all about choices and priorities. It is clear that the Turnbull government's priorities are to make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and that is un-Australian. The ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods has done modelling on the Turnbull government's budget decision, and found that twice as many households would be worse off than under the Labor Party's fairer plan—twice as many. The ANU modelling shows that 60 per cent of households would be worse off, 39 per cent would see no change and only one per cent would be better off if the Turnbull policy were in place. Alternatively, the ANU modelling shows that under Labor's policy only 27 per cent of households would be worse off and 73 per cent would see no change at all. The modelling also shows that over four years Labor's policy would raise $300 million more in tax than the Turnbull government's proposal. So, over 10 years Labor would raise an extra $6.8 billion. This is a fairer solution.
It is not fair to make battlers pay more and have millionaires getting a tax cut of $16,400 at a time when wage growth is at record lows, when energy prices are rising and when young Australians are struggling to get together a deposit for a house and are concerned about going to university. Imposing a flat tax would be cutting the income of people who are struggling to make ends meet right now. Even more troubling is the data from the National Foundation for Australian Women, which found that women on around $50,000 could face an effective marginal tax rate of—believe this—100 per cent. This would mean that a woman who has graduated from university and is earning $51,000, who is relying on child care and is receiving family payments, will have less take-home pay than a man earning $32,000. How could those opposite argue that that is fair?
The priorities of this Turnbull government are clear for all to see in their policies. They will always look after the top end of town. They will never protect Medicare. They claimed on budget night that they were lifting the Medicare freeze, but what did we find out later? The freeze will not be lifted until 2020. There are 113 Medicare items that will stay frozen for another three years. These items were accessed 23 million times in the last financial year. Important health services like consultations for mental health plans and chronic disease assessments will stay frozen. These are services that are essential to keep Australians healthy.
If that is not enough, we also see that their plans involve a significant cut to public hospital funding and abolishing the private health insurance rebate. The Liberal government cannot be trusted with our health care. At Senate estimates, it has been revealed that senior health bureaucrats have been actively working on options to attack our universal healthcare system for years. The task force proposal was discussed as recently as a few weeks ago. We should have learned by now that the Liberals will attack Medicare every chance they get. It is unfair to the universal health care that we all cherish and that keeps so many people from going down the road that the United States has. Do you know the No. 1 cause for bankruptcies before the Whitlam Labor government stepped in and brought in Medibank and Medicare? It was health costs. It is unfair that universal health care, which we all cherish, is again under attack by this government. Our universal health system is fair; it is very, very egalitarian and very, very Australian. It is the envy of the world. Medicare, the legacy of the late, great Gough Whitlam, will be under threat as long as we have a coalition government that is blinded to the benefits that it brings. Labor will always fight to protect Medicare. I guarantee that.
Ms Husar interjecting—
I remind the member for Lindsay that the warning from question time still carries over.
I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017. This bill will increase the Medicare levy by half a per cent to a total of 2.5 per cent to fully fund the NDIS. This bill will also increase the Medicare levy low-income threshold for singles, families, seniors and pensioners for the 2016-17 financial year, in line with movements in the consumer price index.
Australians place great faith in their government to provide them with the services that are essential for them and their families to go about their day and their business. The average Australian does not want government interfering in their life. What they want is for us to do our job in this place and to give them the services that best allow them to go about their day. This is precisely what our recent budget has set out to do. We have guaranteed the funding for the services that have been promised to the Australian people for the last few years—especially the most vulnerable of Australians. That is important because trust in politicians and trust in this House is at an all-time low. We must all work harder to regain that trust.
I hope that, in the debate around this bill and the criticisms that have been levelled at this government, we do not lose sight of the fact that our most recent budget fundamentally guarantees funding for some of the most essential services that Australians take for granted, and so they should. Re-indexing Medicare, fully funding the NDIS, addressing the inequity in federal funding for schools in Western Australia—our recent budget achieves all of this.
With respect to this bill that we are debating, this measure is ensuring that those low-income households without the financial capacity to pay the Medicare levy will continue to not pay that levy. That is a simple, fair and reasonable measure by this government. That means that no Medicare levy will be paid by an individual taxpayer with income up to an amount of $21,655. Single taxpayers with no dependents will only pay after their income hits an amount of $27,068. Couples and families not eligible for the seniors and pensioners offset will not pay the levy until their income hits $36,541, whereas couples eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not pay the levy until their income hits some $47,670.
As you can see, this is all very reasonable. So why is it that Labor, up until recently, have been denying us the chance to fully fund the NDIS? I heard from the member for Moreton, who was the previous speaker, that now they are all on board, they are happy with this particular bill and they are going to sign up to it. That is good, but there is no denying that there was one great big whopping hole left that had to be filled. The arrogant claim that our funds were wrong and that they had fully funded it was incorrect. Although I am told by those opposite that they support it, let's see how we go at the end when we actually vote on this.
What we do know at this point in time is that Labor did not fully fund the NDIS. The budget papers very clearly demonstrate that there was a $55 billion hole between now and 2027-28. There is a funding shortfall; there is no denying that. This government has taken the hard steps towards fully funding the NDIS, because Labor were clearly incapable of doing so. Only this government will support the most vulnerable Australians, and I am immensely proud of that.
Our government is asking those who earn more to pay more of the Medicare levy to help support those vulnerable, most disadvantaged Australians, and I believe that that is appropriate. A taxpayer on $80,000 a year will pay $1,600 in a Medicare levy. A taxpayer earning $240,000 a year will pay $4,800 in a Medicare levy. Very clearly, those who are earning more are paying more and those who are earning less are paying less or, where appropriate, nothing at all.
This class warfare rhetoric that we are hearing time and time again from Labor—we heard it from the previous speaker and we will no doubt hear it from the next speaker well—is clearly their fallback. The reason why it is their fallback is that, when they have nothing constructive to say, we hear this time and time again. Labor always revert back to what boils down to the politics of envy, always banging on about how the top income earners are not paying their fair share and that somehow they are ripping off the system. But the reality is that the top 10 per cent of income earners pay 60 per cent of the income tax in this country. That is undeniable. I think what incenses Labor so much—and we have seen this in this debate tonight—is that, after all is said and done, what we have proposed in our budget is actually indeed very good for Australians.
This bill is getting on with the job of looking after Australians' needs. It is guaranteeing essential government services over the forward estimates. These are the big programs that people rely upon day in and day out. This is ensuring that Medicare is protected. This is the Commonwealth funding for schools, especially in Western Australia, which is the biggest winner here. This is also fully funding the NDIS. It is on that basis that I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017. I thank the previous speaker for pre-empting what I might actually speak on! I remind the member for Durack that on 1 July, high-income earners, those people earning over $1 million a year, will actually be in receipt of a $16,400 pay rise in the form of a tax cut. So while the member for Durack might lecture us on class warfare, I think it is poignant to make that very salient point.
Labor welcomes the indexation of the income threshold below which Australians do not pay the Medicare levy or the Medicare levy surcharge. This is a regular process that ensures that the most vulnerable Australians are not disadvantaged while maintaining their access to the Medicare system, which is fundamental to the health of most Australians.
I have come in here today because during the speech the Treasurer, the member for Cook, made to this House on 24 May on this piece of legislation he said that it was 'to give families dealing with disabilities and their carers' some certainty. To the Treasurer I say this as the mother and carer of a child with a disability, we do not 'deal with' specific disabilities—
Ms Price interjecting—
Member for Durack, I do have a copy of the Treasurer's speech here that I am happy to table. But, as it is on the Hansard and publicly available, I do not feel that I need to do that. But it is here. We do not 'deal with' people who have a disability. To the Treasurer I say this: some of the things that he might deal with on a daily basis could be bad coffee, traffic jams or running late. Those are reasonable things that we might deal with. Some of the things that we on this side have to deal with are the raucous crew who run this country, for example. The member for Durack is providing a fine example of what that looks like. We deal with double standards and we deal with hypocritical answers from ministers about foreign donations during question time. They are what you deal with, Treasurer. We do not deal with people who have a disability. Parents and carers of those people with a disability simply do not deal with our loved ones who are affected by disability. We love them, and we love them hard. We love them on the tough days, the long days and the days we think will have no end.
I will also point out that during that same speech made by the Treasurer he also said that I showed a continuous lack of support for the NDIS. I might just take this opportunity to say exactly how I do not show a lack of support for the NDIS. I can put on record that that is one of the fundamental reasons why I actually sought election through a very hard-fought campaign to get here.
I have a son, my second child, who has a disability. When he was 18 months old, I realised that things were not right and that we might need to take a look at some of those things, and we might need to find some ways of helping him. He is now 10 years old. What I found with the system during that time, prior to the NDIS, was this: it was a system that was broken, it was unfair, it was difficult to navigate; and parents who were not educated or did not have access to a high amount of money for services for their child or other loved one were extremely disadvantaged. The system was mismatched to people who had a disability. It was incredibly inconsistent and completely broken.
I felt that we were one of the lucky families. There was me, driving my son's therapy. I knew who to ask for help. I knew where to go. So, when the idea of the NDIS came along, of course I jumped at it. My son was lucky, but not everyone else was as lucky. Some families could not access the services for their children or other loved ones who are affected by disability—not 'dealing with' disability but affected by it—by themselves. We needed a system that would actually provide for these families, a system that would care for these families and a system that was fair and equitable for these families.
So for the Treasurer to come in here and say that I show a continued lack of support for the NDIS is completely not true. For other people's children who are affected by disability; children who are in care or are taken into care because their families cannot care for them; for people who are in care institutions, where someone is charged with their care but abused that system, I welcomed the opportunity of the NDIS and everything that that represented, because as the parent of a child with a disability I know what a difference that will make.
I was involved in the Every Australian Counts campaign. To the Treasurer, who says I continue to show a lack of support for the NDIS: I was involved in those very early meetings many, many years ago, when the member for Lindsay was not me, and not a Liberal, but David Bradbury. We got involved and I started fighting. I started fighting for the NDIS, to ensure that not just my child but every child could be looked after—that every person who had a disability could be looked after. So, when I hear the Treasurer telling me that I have a continued lack of support for a scheme that I have fought so hard for, I am completely aggrieved.
As I said, I was involved in the Every Australian Counts campaign, and, when people from my electorate—whom I now have the absolute privilege of representing in this House—tell me about how their lives have changed through the advent of the NDIS, I am completely humbled, and the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. And it sometimes brings tears to my eyes, because I know the difference that early intervention and support for these families makes. It is life changing. It is a game-changer for this country. No big reforms that have ever been undertaken in this country were easy. We never got to the end of a big reform and said, 'Hey, that was easy,' high-fived each other and said, 'Let's do it again.' They are hard work, and we on this side of the House would know that because we are the only party that have been involved in major changes that this country has undergone and in major social reform that has been undertaken. The member for Moreton spoke very positively about the changes we made to Medicare many years ago.
What the NDIS means to me and my community is certainty for people in a space where we had no certainty before. We have some consistency. We have services available to these families who are sometimes at breaking point, who relinquish their children. And, when we as parents or carers or as the older people who are responsible for our loved ones shuffle off, we have people and systems in place and we have supports for our loved ones—not people who we are 'dealing with'.
My commitment to my community on the NDIS is that I will continue to be an advocate for it, using my experience to change their lives. The reason that I stood for parliament and worked my arse off to get into this place, in an eight-week winter campaign in a marginal seat that was tough every single day, was the NDIS. It was to ensure that this system was something that could go forward, be implemented and not be ruined. My efforts were hinged on my experiences of my son, amongst many other things, and the experience of those people I represent—the other mums I have met and the tired therapists who have always wanted to do more for their clients but were constrained by families' ability to pay or the ability to get those families through the door. So to the Treasurer who comes in here and accuses me of not caring or being someone who had to 'deal' with my son I say this: we do not deal with them; we support them and we fight for them.
Of course I support the NDIS being funded, of course I want the program to succeed. But I also offer this: I come in here today as well because during question time members of this government are frequently ending their questions not with quotes but with 'Are you aware of any alternative approaches?' I am progressive and I am pragmatic, but you need to be neither of those things to display absolute common sense—some people might even call it applying the pub test. So my answer to the Prime Minister and to his Treasurer, and to all of the backbench who constantly search for alternatives, is this: do not fund a big business tax cut in the order of $65 billion and slug average income earners with higher taxes to pay for it. The member for Hughes and the member for Pearce have had some interesting things to say about the NDIS and the cost of the NDIS. The member for Hughes was asked about the scheme on 29 May in a TV interview on Sky News. He said that the costs of the NDIS are 'almost double what Julia Gillard, when she first proposed it, actually are.' However, the minister in charge, Minister Porter, the member for Pearce, said it was 'wildly premature to make that conclusion.'
The Turnbull government must stop misleading the people about the funding of the NDIS. The NDIS is far too important for political games. People with a disability, their carers and their mothers have waited an exceptionally long time for this. In fact, there are people in my electorate who are 70 years old who I have known my entire life—which is not 70 years!—who have waited for this and who actually will be ineligible, but they know how important this is and they campaigned alongside me. To this government I say: stop playing with people with a disability, their families and their carers, who have waited their entire lives. Get on with the job of ensuring that we get the best possible NDIS.
Before I call the next speaker, I remind the member for Lindsay that there are certain words that we do not use in the parliament and I would not want her use of such words to be set as a precedent available to others in this parliament to follow. I let it go because I know the member was very passionate in her speech, but I just want to make that point.
To the member for Lindsay, I can assure her that that is exactly what this government is trying to do—ensure that the NDIS is fully funded and provided for, unlike the system provided by her colleagues when they were on this side of the House. I am pleased to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill, which is designed to provide relief and certainty for some of the most vulnerable in our community. The bill is a response by this government to the faith that individuals across Australia place in us every day. Health care, and in particular affordable health care, is one of the things that sets this nation apart from the rest of the world. It is one of the things that makes us the greatest country in the world, and this government should be very proud of so effectively continuing that tradition.
This year's budget is all about protecting those essential services that so many Australians rely on, and it is only this government that has a plan to make sure these services are fully funded into the future. I have heard those opposite talk about people earning $60,000 and those earning $180,000 and all the rest of it. As a bit of an education for them on who currently pays what in our system, somebody earning $60,000 a year is paying approximately $11,000 in tax, plus about $1,200 in Medicare levy, and the subsequent increase will add another $300 to that, taking it to about $12,500 in tax. That is not allowing for any welfare they receive back in family tax benefits and all those sorts of things.
Somebody on $180,000 a year is paying $54,000 in tax and paying $3,600 in Medicare levy. And they are about to add another $900 to that, which takes that to $4,500. So, they pay about $3,000 a year more on their Medicare levy, and they pay some $40,000-odd more in tax. In total, they are paying about $45,000 a year more than those on low to middle incomes. I think it shows the progressive nature of our tax system and why the arguments of those opposite are full of hypocrisy and fallacy.
The important part of this bill is that we are ensuring the long-term integrity of the system. I know this is an issue that is of vital importance to many Australians. Indeed, in my electorate of Forde I regularly speak with people who are ardent about maintaining their access to quality health care and passionate about making sure that the government defends their ability to receive it. Many of these people are still living with the effects and concerns created by the grubby 'Mediscare' campaign perpetrated on the Australian people by those opposite at the last election.
Those opposite are part of a dishonest party that is in the business of scaring voters and the vulnerable, including our elderly and our young families. It was interesting to reflect on the contribution of the member for Lindsay about hypocrisy. Well, I have been in this place for about seven years, and I have seen plenty of hypocrisy on that side. It is the party opposite that has to resort to blatant lies to get ahead, trampling over our most needy along the way. But health care is not about scaremongering and point scoring. It is a vital service for Australian communities, and this government knows that. This government will continue to focus on providing those services and ensuring that we provide support to the people who need it most. And we will make sure that these people have the confidence and the security that those services will be provided and will be funded, and that is exactly what we are seeking to do in this budget.
This bill increases the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families, pensioners and seniors in line with increases to the CPI. In addition, and importantly, it provides a concession to low-income households—the Medicare levy low-income thresholds that make sure that people who pay no personal tax because of their eligibility for offsets do not incur the Medicare levy. It is estimated that some one million individuals will benefit from this increase to the low-income thresholds, as it means that some low-income individuals will no longer have to pay the Medicare levy. For others on low incomes, it will also mean that they now have to pay less Medicare levy than they would if the thresholds were not increased.
It is estimated that in 2016-17 around 10 million individuals will pay some Medicare levy after accounting for the increase in the thresholds. This means that just over one in every two adults are contributing to Medicare, and, importantly, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, through the Medicare levy. And I think all of us in this House could say that is fair. It recognises that these levies act as a proxy insurance scheme for both Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, under which all Australians are covered. We know that Australians are watching and hoping this parliament will live up to this test of fairness that the government has set to ensure that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded once and for all.
I hope that when the opportunity for those opposite comes up in the weeks to come that this parliament will respond positively to the increase in the Medicare levy, to ensure that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded. I note the comments from the member for Moreton earlier that those opposite do support the measure in this particular bill to increase the thresholds. I welcome that support. It is important. But the important bit will be when we get to the increase to the Medicare levy, to ensure that that funding is there, to create the certainty and peace of mind that is necessary for the NDIS to be fully funded.
As I have explained, under this government, and with our tax system, if you are on a lower income you will pay less and if you are on a higher income you will pay more. I have gone through some of those figures already. That is the way our tax system has been for many years. It is appropriate that those earning higher incomes, who have the capacity to pay higher taxes and a higher proportion of the Medicare levy, do pay that and support the system. Most Australians are happy with that. They recognise that in having the capacity to pay they are willing to pay to support those in our community who need it most. That is the way our system is set up. It is fair, rational and sensible. We will not ask people to pay more than they can give, but we will make sure that all are provided for.
The government is ensuring that this fairness remains central to the Medicare levy and that all us together will also share in the responsibility of helping those fellow Australians, and their families, as the member for Lindsay has quite rightly pointed out, who either are living with a disability personally or are family members of someone who has a disability. We need to give them the assurance that this vital service provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be there for them not only now but, importantly, into the future—and not just for them but for those who may need it through whatever circumstances in the future—for any and all Australians who could be forced to live with a disability.
This government is providing peace of mind in guaranteeing Medicare. We are making sure that all Australians can be assured that Medicare is not only here to stay but will be strengthened in the future so that our children will continue to benefit from it. This government is looking forward to establishing the Medicare Guarantee Fund, from 1 July, to pay for all the expenses in the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. An additional contribution from income tax will also be paid into the fund to make up the difference. This will provide transparency in the cost of Medicare and a clear guarantee as to how we are going to pay for it. This bill is designed to give people financial confidence, confidence go to the doctor without fear, confidence to have children and grow our population, and confidence to speak openly and honestly with their GP about their vital health care needs. This is what we need. We want an Australia that is healthy, vibrant and ready to meet the challenges of our modern world. Medical care and assistance are not something only the wealthy deserve. An affordable health care system is the way you move a country forward, both for those who require it currently and for those in the generations to come. It is this government that is seeking to provide that reliability, that certainty and that transparency. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise today to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017. It makes a refreshing change to be able to debate a bill by this government that involves Medicare without the bill including a cut of some sort—and no, that is not an invitation for an amendment. This bill modifies the income threshold by which the Medicare levy and the Medicare levy surcharge kick in to keep pace with the cost of living. With the vast majority of workers in my electorate earning wages well below the national average, any measure that keeps money in my constituents' pockets is fine with me.
I am pleased to say that Labor has a strong record when it comes to improving the health of Australians. Labor's Gough Whitlam introduced Medibank, but the Liberals' Malcolm Fraser killed it. Labor's Bob Hawke introduced Medicare; the Liberals' Andrew Peacock and John Howard tried to kill that but failed. But Mr Howard did wound Medicare, with one of his first acts upon his election of '96 being to axe dental care from Medicare—a great shame for the dental health of this country. But, on ending Medicare itself, the Liberals did seem to give up. One day they just stopped going to elections pledging to kill it.
But what they really did was play doggo. They waited until Medicare stopped being an election issue, until all Australians believed Medicare was safe, irrespective of who was in government, and then they struck. In 2014, having gone to the previous year's election promising no cuts to health, those opposite went to town on Medicare. They sought to introduce a $7 GP fee on top of already-widening gaps between the Medicare schedule and doctor's bills, and they hacked away at hospitals. When doctors, nurses, Labor and patients yelled, 'Stop! Your cuts are killing Medicare,' those opposite yelled, 'No, we're making it stronger.' 'There's never been a better friend of Medicare,' they cried maniacally as they drilled holes into its roots and poured in the poison. Well, with friends like those opposite, Medicare does not need enemies.
In Tasmania between July 2016 and March 2017, bulk-billing fell by 2.2 per cent—more than three times the national average. Tasmanians' out-of-pocket costs to visit a GP have risen by $5.90 per appointment since December 2014, up from $30.79 out of pocket to $36.74 out of pocket for each visit. So it will come as no surprise that I do not really believe this government when it says it has no plans to get rid of Medicare. I keep looking for that crossed pinky finger, because history tells us that by whatever means possible this government will do what it can to dismantle Medicare and all it stands for. And if it cannot dismantle Medicare in one go, it will chop and hack and saw away, bit by bit, until it achieves the same aim.
And we will be there to defend it. We will not let our guard down again, because Labor understands that Medicare is more than a logo; it is an ideal, a statement of Australian values. Medicare has come to be shorthand for Australia's universal health system, the ideal of which is simple: to provide quality health care to any Australian who needs it irrespective of their wealth or where they live in Australia. But we are failing the ideal. A properly functioning universal health system requires the proper resourcing of preventive health programs, primary health care, hospitals and more. But health care is getting more expensive, and increasingly the quality and timeliness of treatment depends on the capacity to pay for it.
When we have people on waiting lists that are so long that they died before getting the treatment they needed, we must admit that we are not just failing but have failed. Stories of men dying of bowel cancer that was caught too late because they could not see a public specialist in time are becoming too common. Stories of women who require surgery to save their sight being told that Medicare will pay $700 of their fee but that the gap payment is $2,000, none of it claimable on private health insurance, are unacceptable. It is my great hope that when Labor is next afforded the privilege of governing this nation the full repair and restoration of the principles and practices of our universal health system will form a major element of our policy suite.
So yes, this indexation relief, however minor in the grand scheme of things, is welcomed. But let's not forget that this bill is part of a regular process. It is not a generous gesture on the part of the government. It is something that happens whoever occupies the benches opposite. The process of regularly reviewing income levels and indexing them to protect the most vulnerable Australians is a lasting testament to the framework that Labor put in place when Bob Hawke created Medicare in 1984. It is a framework that is being undermined by this government, and nowhere is that more obvious than in Tasmania.
My state has been left off the map by this government when it comes to securing long-term health outcomes. Last year, for example, we suffered a diabolical failure of government with the botched switch of federal funding from preventive health programs to chronic care across Tasmania's regions, particularly in my electorate. The rollout was so bad that even Tasmanian Liberal senators, who are usually notorious for their silence, were lining up to complain. Well supported community based programs were axed, replaced with programs to address chronic care needs, such as diabetes. While I have little doubt that chronic care needs deserve attention, it beggars belief that well supported community programs were axed to make way for them. Less than two per cent of the federal health budget goes towards preventive health—and when we know that every dollar spent on preventing ill health pays massive dividends down the line. Keep one person out of hospital, keep one older Australian out of care for another year of their life, and the minuscule investment required now more than pays for itself. So when I see that this government is prepared to flush away $65 billion in its big corporate tax cashback but is not prepared to invest in community preventive health, I shake my head.
It has been six months since the changeover in my regions, and it has hardly been a painless process. Good people have lost their jobs, and people in the community are reporting gaps in services. We are hearing reports of people who used to enjoy social engagement being increasingly isolated. They do not suffer chronic illness, so they now stay home alone instead of being picked up for an activity. Perhaps they will get some attention when they end up getting sick. Others are reporting long travel times to see a health worker or long waiting times, and people are falling through the cracks. It is fair to say that any changeover will be accompanied by some painful adjustment, but let's remember that it is people who are already vulnerable who are experiencing the pain. And let's not forget that these new regional health contracts are, in the main, for a short period of time. Some expire in as little as 18 months. Are these communities expected to suffer this upheaval all over again? It is just not good enough.
I have not even started on Tasmania's public hospital crisis. Yes, the state Liberal government must carry the can for the crisis engulfing Tasmania's hospital system, but the Turnbull government's lack of coherent leadership has been disappointing to say the least. Waiting lists are out of control, ambulances are ramped for hours, and sick patients are being sent home because the hospitals are over capacity, and we are not even in peak flu season. The long lines in emergency departments have undoubtedly lengthened as the Medicare rebate freeze continues into its fifth year, when it was only ever meant to have lasted less than one. Extending it for so many years has ensured that bulk-billing is almost impossible to find across my electorate, despite the lower than average incomes. Doctors have their books shut, and people are avoiding seeing doctors because they just cannot afford it. Even doctors who try to hold out on charging anything above the bulk-billing rate have had to introduce fees this year as their own cost of living increases under state and federal Liberal governments. Every day the freeze remains is a day that the cost of a visit to the GP increases. The government has announced that the freeze will be lifted in three years time, but that is too long to wait. Every day it remains is a day when a visit to the doctor costs more.
I am pleased to report that my Labor colleagues in the Tasmanian parliament are fighting the good fight for Tasmanians by putting strong plans on the table to address these concerns. The state Labor leader, Rebecca White, has rightly identified health as the No. 1 issue of concern to most Tasmanians. Tasmanians are tired of the underinvestment, the efficiency and the ideology. They just want a health system that works, and that really should not be too much to ask for.
It is fair to say that this government's treatment of Medicare reflects its treatment of the Australian value of fairness more generally. Under this government, when you earn $55,000 a year you pay $275 more tax by way of an increase in the Medicare levy, but when you earn $1 million a year you pay $16,000 less tax. That is not fair. Under Labor's fairer tax policy alternative 80 per cent of Australians are protected from a tax increase and the budget is still $4.5 billion better off over the next decade. It says everything about the priorities of Prime Minister Turnbull, a former merchant banker, that he is so determined to give a tax cut to his millionaire friends while increasing taxes for the vast majority of Australian workers. It says everything about the priorities of Prime Minister Turnbull, a former merchant banker, that he is so determined to give a $65 billion handout to banks and corporations while doing nothing to stop wages being cut for millions of Australian workers, many of them already on low incomes and most of them women.
Alternatively, a Labor government will protect 10 million working Australians from paying more tax. Labor's plan is fairer. The Medicare levy will go up for those earning above $87,000 and the deficit levy will be kept for those earning more than $180,000 a year, including everyone in this chamber. It makes no sense that the Liberals introduced a deficit levy when the deficit was lower, and they are removing it now that the deficit under them has tripled. Labor's proposal will raise $4.5 billion more than the government's tax changes will raise, and it will be fairer.
The government claims that the Medicare levy needs to go up across the board to pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It goes without saying that Labor is fully committed to the rollout and delivery of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Labor created the NDIS, and we bitterly regret the way this important national initiative has been politicised by this government. The Prime Minister's misuse of people with disability and their loved ones, including in this House today, as political human shields has frankly been in nauseating. Let's be clear: the government is not raising the Medicare levy on working Australians to pay for the NDIS, as it so often claims. The government is raising the Medicare levy on working Australians to pay for its $65 billion tax cut to corporations and banks. If the government abandoned its $65 billion handout it would have more than enough to fill what it claims is a gap in NDIS funding. There is no need for a tax rise on most working Australians when you have a $65 billion bucket of money sitting there that you are going to hand out to corporations and banks. It really says something about this government that it would rather tax working Australians more than abandon a corporate giveaway to pay for what it claims is a funding hole to address the needs of Australians with disabilities.
I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017. To be frank, I do so from a position of always being reluctant to see any change or increase in levies as any part of the budget process. My objective as a Liberal is always to see lower taxation and lower costs charged to the good people of Goldstein. But part of the challenge also is that if we are to live in a free and just society—and I believe that we should live in a free and just society, which is central to the whole idea of Liberalism itself—you have to make sure that you support and assist people who are in the position of least advantage, particularly those people who are in situations that are outside of their control, particularly people with a disability.
I say that because justice is a very important principle that sits at the heart of Liberal philosophy. We believe in freedom; we believe in responsibility; and we believe in justice. We believe in justice because the world is not fair. We know that—many people have said that before. Some people are born into circumstances, or circumstances are visited upon them, where they need assistance and support. Therefore, having support and assistance for people who have a disability and often cannot change their circumstances to make sure that they can live a life of freedom and dignity is very important. That is why the efforts by the Turnbull government to deliver on the NDIS—but, more importantly, to fully fund the NDIS and acknowledge that there was an unfunded component to it—are so important. That is what is being underwritten by this piece of legislation: a commitment by the Turnbull government to make sure that people with a disability have the support and care and assistance they need and to recognise that the gap that existed when we came to government is now being filled. There are thousands of families all across this great continent of ours who appreciate the support and assistance that the Turnbull government is providing, because this piece of legislation is underwriting and providing certainty and predictability so that the gap that existed under the previous government, the unfunded component, will finally be filled.
It seeks to also do so by increasing the Medicare levy for people who are in a position to afford it and carry some of the cost. Let's be frank: they already carry a very significant cost of social welfare programs in our country and many of them are my electors, but they are also in a position to be able to contribute and continue to assist people today. It is that measure and that approach that we have brought to the change in the Medicare levy. It provides certainty that low-income earners will continue to receive relief from the Medicare levy through the low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners. The changes will ensure that low-income households that did not pay the Medicare levy in the last financial year will generally continue to be exempt in the next financial year if their incomes have risen in line with or by less than the consumer price index.
As I said already, the key objective of this piece of legislation is to fill the gap around the NDIS and recognise that the Medicare Levy plays an important role as the proxy for Medicare as well as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and underwriting them, so that we can have a just society for all Australians and people get the support and assistance that they need. Particularly the $55.7 billion gap in the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, over the medium term had to be addressed in this budget because we know that so many providers involved with care, assistance and reform as part of the NDIS, particularly support services, need that sense of certainty that did not exist with the $55.7 billion gap that we were left with. We have to be mindful of making sure that is filled so they can go on to plan with certainty. I have heard that directly from people within my community.
I was fortunate recently to have the Treasurer visit the wonderful Goldstein community and particularly Bayley House. Bayley House is an institution in the suburb of Brighton. We were taken on a tour by Peter, Bree and Mary, who are clients of Bayley House and simply want to be able to live a dignified life. I go to Bayley House regularly. They invite me for important occasions like Multicultural Week, where they bring together people from across the community to celebrate the diversity that sits within our community. The feedback we got from the Bayley House community was how much the effort of the federal government to fill the $55.7 billion gap that we were left with is appreciated by our community. It gives the institution and the families the opportunity to plan with certainty. But we know this is not just helped by Bayley House. In my electorate is another important community support service called Marriott House, which I am fortunate to visit from time to time as well. In fact, I was at their AGM only last year. At their AGM, I participated in working with and singing with clients at Marriott House who were also going to be clients of the NDIS into the future. We need to make sure that we provide all residents, regardless of who they are in this great country, the opportunity to enjoy the benefits and security that comes with the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
The amendments to the Medicare levy are an important part of the contribution to fill that gap, as I have already outlined. It is part of a broad package brought forward by the Turnbull government to underwrite and make clear the commitment that this government has to a just society where people, regardless of their circumstances or their health conditions, can get the important assistance that they need, and it will fulfil the sense of social obligation that we all have. It is part of a suite or a package as well as the Medicare guarantee.
By doing so, the government is making it very clear what its priorities are. Its priority is to make sure, in line with other measures like reform of the tax system and making sure businesses are more capable of employing people, that, as a country, we seek to advance economic and social progress through the preservation of our culture and our institutions, underwritten by social safety net, so that no matter who you are or where you are in the country—including if you are in the wonderful electorate of Goldstein—you will get the support and assistance that you need. We all have to share the responsibility of carrying that burden. That is the reason I support this legislation.
Debate adjourned.
I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
The Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 is a carefully targeted reform to resolve the uncertainty created by the McGlade decision for existing and future Indigenous land use agreements across Australia. The bill passed the Senate today, incorporating two sets of government amendments. The first of these was a response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill. The government accepted the recommendations of the committee to remove the measures from the bill that were not required to address the uncertainty created by the McGlade decision, and introduced government amendments to achieve this. Those amendments were agreed to by the Senate today.
The second set of government amendments was introduced at the request of the Cape York Land Council, which brought to the attention of the government a number of ILUAs in Cape York that did not fall within the ambit of the validation provisions of the act. The Cape York Land Council were anxious to ensure that the benefits provided to native title holders in Cape York under these agreements were valid, and the government amendments agreed to in the Senate today effects the protection of these agreements.
The bill in its amended form will ensure that the ILUA system is and remains a key mechanism for Indigenous Australians to enjoy social and economic benefits associated with their native title rights. While the government is pleased to be able to deliver this important reform and deliver for native title holders, it is unfortunate that this did not happen much earlier. Labor repeatedly stood ready to support the bill on 11 May, yet in the Senate they voted against the motion to sit just one extra day to ensure that the vital certainty provided by this bill could be delivered in a timely way. It was most unfortunate, given the circumstances, that this bill is absolutely urgent. It is urgent that it provides the certainty that is required to all the stakeholders within this debate. I hope that the House finally see sense and passes these amendments quickly.
Labor will be voting for the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 in the form in which it has been amended by the Senate. But let's give it some context.
Labor voted against this bill when it came to the House of Representatives in mid-February because this government, showing no respect for native title—showing no understanding of the significance of native title in Australia—decided it would rush this bill through this House and try to rush this bill right through the parliament without any proper consultation with Indigenous communities across Australia. It is because Labor said to this government, 'Show some respect for native title and for Indigenous people in this country' that the bill has been able to be amended with a number of amendments that would never have happened if the government had been allowed to rush this bill through the parliament in the way in which it originally thought to do so.
This bill went to a Senate committee because Labor insisted that it go to a Senate committee. One of the amendments that came up in the course of that Senate committee inquiry and that went through the Senate—because there have been several amendments now made to this bill—was the recommendation that the government not be permitted to give itself unfettered power over Indigenous land use agreements. We insisted, through that Senate committee process, on amendments that make sure that control will continue to rest with native title holders and not with politicians in Canberra.
There are other amendments which have been made possible by taking the extra time to consult with Indigenous communities across Australia. They include the amendments that were brought forward at the request of the Cape York Land Council. Again I say that, had this government been permitted to rush the bill through in the way it sought to do, those amendments would never have been made either. The government has stuffed up the handling of this bill from the start. I am sorry for the colloquial language, but it is appropriate. The attempts to rush this bill through parliament without proper consultation were disgraceful.
Labor has had to drag the government to talks with Indigenous people across Australia. Labor has had to ensure that there was an opportunity for submissions to be made on the bill through the Senate committee process. That is why there were more than 50 written submissions. Labor had to drag the government to a meeting with Indigenous groups across the country. And the suggestion that, in some way, Labor's insistence on consultation was in any sense the wrong thing to do—it is breathtaking for the Minister for Justice to say what he has just said in introducing the bill, as amended, to this House.
Labor has understood from the start the need for validation of the 126 Indigenous land use agreements across Australia, whose status was thrown into doubt by the decision of the Full Federal Court in the McGlade case on 2 February. But Labor has ensured that the bill is restricted in the form in which it is now going forward to validation of those Indigenous land use agreements that are already registered and those Indigenous land use agreements that have been authorised, signed and submitted for registration—because it is appropriate that those agreements, having been negotiated under an understanding of the law as it was, should go forward. The disruption that was potentially going to be caused had there not been this validation is the reason for this legislation. In addition, the bill is going to provide for what should be the situation in the negotiation of Indigenous land use agreements of this type in the future, again to restore, as far as possible, certainty to the native title system in this country.
But, make no mistake, there has been incompetent handling by the government. There has been quite unnecessary difficulty caused by the way in which the government tried to rush this bill through. In every sense, this government should hang its head in shame for the attitude it has shown to native title and the level of respect that should be accorded to native title in this country. The Native Title Act is no ordinary piece of legislation. It is not something that can be treated as the Prime Minister thought to do when he was in India, where he said to the head of the Adani Corporation that the laws that stood in the way of their mine would be fixed. Those were the Prime Minister's words. He needs to learn that native title is not just another act of parliament 'to be fixed', as he said.
It gives me no pleasure to stand and speak in this debate this evening. However, as the shadow Attorney-General has outlined, these are Labor's amendments. The two ministers opposite might show a little bit of respect for this instead of joking around and thinking it is funny. You might just sit there and listen. The shadow Attorney-General has made very clear the history of native title in this country. I attended the Mabo family's event for the 25th anniversary of the High Court decision in the Mabo case. It was a really special event. Of course, that decision is what led to Paul Keating bringing in the Native Title Act. I well remember, as others in this chamber will remember, the attacks on native title, led by John Howard and his government in 1997, and the consequent amendments to the native title legislation.
In politics, pragmatism is an important thing. As the shadow Attorney-General has said, as Labor has said, this is a process we have taken seriously. Yes, we needed more time, because there had been no consultation. The hapless Attorney-General had rushed this legislation in and unnecessarily wanted it to go through in a very short period of time. Labor showed respect and it is Labor's amendments that are being discussed this evening to try to fix a mess that has been created by the Attorney and others.
I pay enormous respect to Senators Dodson and McCarthy and those in the other place who have worked assiduously to make sure that the rights of Indigenous people have been upheld in this. I have a sense that this issue has a long way to run, in terms of legal proceedings. Some traditional owner groups have made that very clear. But this is important because something like 126 ILUAs have been signed, and the McGlade case has made the uncertainty of those ILUAs a reality. That is why we have had to pursue this piece of legislation and the amendments that have been put forward.
The inept way in which the government has handled this—and I have watched this very carefully—astounds me. Given the lack of respect this government has shown to Aboriginal people and the very fact that had it not been for Labor standing up for Indigenous people, saying that there had to be consultation, saying that there needed to be a Senate inquiry into this, then we would see a much different outcome than that which we are seeing tonight. The reality of what has been put before you results from Labor pursuing discussions and consultations and insisting on the Senate inquiry. It seems clear from comments that there needs to be a very close look at the native title legislation in the future. As the shadow Attorney said, this is no ordinary piece of legislation, this is no ordinary piece of law and this is not about anything ordinary. It goes to the heart of what connects Aboriginal people, and that is land. Our connection to country is absolutely fundamental to our identity and to our place in the land in this country. Native title legislation is of importance to that. It is very easy for people to make jokes about this. It is very easy for people like the Attorney to think that this can go through in just one day. But land and connection are important, as this side of the House understand. We understand the importance of cultural connection to country and that the native title legislation has for the making of law in this land. It was not until the native title legislation in 1992 that law was created between Aboriginal people and the state. That is the significance of this legislation. I thank Labor for its persistence in ensuring that we get this as correct as we can.
I was going to let this debate proceed, because we are very keen to get this done, but there has been such nonsense and such an enormous number of untruths from the last two speakers that I am required to get up and correct the record. The last two speakers, the shadow Attorney-General and the member for Barton, have been questioning why the government has been proceeding urgently with this. We have been proceeding with this urgently because all of the stakeholders in this debate have been asking us to do that. They have been saying that the uncertainty that was created by this decision is something of this parliament needs to deal with quickly. We need to deal with it as soon as possible. Let me give you a sense of the correspondence we have received on this issue from the stakeholders. The National Native Title Council, in a letter to the Attorney-General dated 5 May: 'On this, the National Native Title Council urges the parliament to consider this bill as soon as possible.' It is the stakeholders who have been affected by the uncertainty that was cast by this decision of the Federal Court who have required us to move consistently and quickly on this.
The Labor Party, for reasons that are not quite clear to me, has consistently stood in the way of the parliament dealing with this urgently. We are dealing with it urgently not because we do not respect native titleholders, which I think is an enormously silly argument to make in this place. We are dealing with it quickly because we have been asked by native titleholders to deal with it quickly. That is why the parliament needs to deal with it expeditiously, that is why the government have been moving to deal with it so expeditiously and that is why the government have made dealing with this an urgent priority of our legislative process.
The Senate did not deal with it last time, even though we went to the Senate and said: 'This is urgent. We believe that the Senate needs to sit one more day to deal with it. We believe that it makes sense to extend the sitting hours of the Senate to sit on a Friday.' I would not have thought, for a piece of urgent legislation that so fundamentally deals with land usage in Australia, that that was a particularly big ask. But Labor senators do not work Fridays, apparently. It is work to rule up there. They refuse to work Fridays to deal with this urgent piece of government legislation that every single stakeholder in this debate has been asking us to deal with quickly.
As I have said, stakeholders have consistently and repeatedly urged the parliament to act quickly here. They have repeatedly urged us to get on with it. By the way, because we are so keen to do this, we have accommodated the opposition's requests in relation to this bill. We have sought to work with them. Indeed, I acknowledge, in particular, Senator Dodson's role in making some sensible suggestions, particularly in proposing a roundtable. He has engaged with us very constructively about this. I would have thought that engaging with the government constructively about this is a model that other Labor members might look to and deal with the government in the same way.
All that Labor has asked for from the start of the debate on this bill—from the very first time this bill was shown to us—is that there be consultation. That is all that the Indigenous community of Australia wanted, and that is why Labor pursued the idea that there should be consultation. There has been consultation, and that consultation has allowed for amendments—sensible amendments, practical amendments and amendments which constrained the undue scope of the bill as it was first introduced. The government should be thankful. The government should be thanking the Labor Party for making sure that there was time for that consultation and that there was time for those ideas to come forward.
But, regrettably, this is a government that does not want to talk with Indigenous people. It is a government that wishes to talk at Indigenous people in every statement by this Minister for Justice and every statement by the Attorney-General. There are untruths from the Minister for Justice, here now, about the supposed unanimity of the Aboriginal community of Australia. It is not true that every single Indigenous group said, 'Pass this bill straightaway.' Far from it. The government is showing, by the ignorant statements made by this Minister for Justice, that it does not know how to listen. If it was a government that knew how to listen to Indigenous people then it would have heard the voices of Indigenous people saying that there needed to be consultation. But, regrettably, the foolish Minister for Justice, who represents the Attorney-General in this place, has shown constantly that this government does not know how to listen, and it certainly has not listened to the Indigenous community here.
I want to reiterate that, for Labor, this bill is not about mining rights, as regrettably it seems to have been for the government. Rather, it is about land rights. That is something that my colleague Senator McCarthy said in the other place. I wish it were the case that, for the government, it was about land rights, native title and the compact that the Native Title Act is between the Australian polity and the Indigenous people of our country, but they do not seem to understand that. For this government, this bill has been about the Adani Carmichael coalmine. It is very disappointing, as I said before, to read the comments of the Prime Minister when he was in India in April when he said to the head of the Adani corporation that the native title laws that stood in the way of this mine would be fixed. That was his word—'fixed'—as if all that this act of parliament was was some ordinary piece of legislation and not the incredibly important legislation that it actually is.
Let me make clear again: there are some 126 ILUAs that this bill will validate. We accept that that is a just outcome for the communities that made those agreements under the law as it then was, and for those with whom those agreements were made. Regularising those agreements is a very important step. But, to make clear also, it is not my understanding that this bill will provide some kind of removal of a final legal hurdle for the Adani mine, as some media reports have suggested. As the Attorney-General has acknowledged in debate in the other place, there are in fact several very serious pieces of litigation that remain on foot in relation to the Adani mine. In particular, the Wangan and Jagalingou people, the traditional owners of much of the land on which the mine and its facilities are going to be built, or are proposed to be built, have several legal actions on foot against Adani.
Most of the cases that have been brought by the Wangan and Jagalingou people in the Federal Court and in the Supreme Court of Queensland will be entirely unaffected by the passage of this bill. In particular, they have made clear that there are some very serious allegations of fraud that have been made against Adani regarding the processes under which the Wangan and Jagalingou agreement was purportedly reached. Those proceedings, which may very well impact on the validity of any Indigenous land use agreement, will only commence trial hearings in March of next year, and there are other legal actions underway, including a case that challenges the validity of the licences issued by the Queensland government.
I repeat: for Labor, this has been about ensuring that there has been adequate consultation with the Indigenous people of Australia—a word that this government seems to have trouble understanding the meaning of. Its conduct of this bill has shown that. Again, the Native Title Act is a compact between the Australian people and the Indigenous people of Australia. It needs to be treated with the utmost respect, which, unfortunately, this government has not shown.
I think I am probably the only person left in this place—certainly in the House of Representatives, but I think also in the Senate—who was involved in the negotiations over the original native title legislation and who was a member of the cabinet committee that actually negotiated the native title legislation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, so I have some background in this subject. I can say that the issue that the shadow Attorney has spoken about was something that was at the forefront of the mind of the Keating government at the time—that you actually had to make sure that you spoke to, listened to, talked with and negotiated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to get the right outcome for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Some might argue, and I think it is a fair argument, that by the time the native title legislation passed through the Senate, it was a lot less than it could have been because of the attitude of those opposite, then in opposition in the parliament, and because of some independents who sought to water down and change the legislation to lessen people's rights. Be that as it may, the native title legislation was ultimately passed. What we know now, as a result of the McGlade court cases, is that there are different interpretations of how negotiations should take place.
Now, let me be very clear: Labor is about the protection of native title rights. That is our fundamental objective in this process, not listening to mining companies and saying, 'Let's prosecute this as quickly as possible to get it out of the way so you can be guaranteed access to land.' That was not part of our considerations—never was and never will be. Our considerations were, and are, the legitimate rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as native title holders. This was about protecting native title rights, not mining rights. Our decisions were about giving native title holders certainty for the future.
This bill will now validate 126 ILUAs, as the shadow Attorney has said. This is the outcome for the communities that made these agreements under the law as it then was, and for those with whom those agreements were made. As the shadow Attorney has said, this legislation will not provide some sort of green light for Adani—it simply will not. There are actions on foot, as the shadow Attorney has said, one of which, at least, will not be in the court until May next year. That is an issue for Adani, perhaps, and for the government, but not for native title holders. Their rights have been protected. That is what we want to make sure happens in this legislation. I say to the member opposite, the Minister for Justice, when you are talking about negotiating and talking with Aboriginal people, you do actually need to sit down. One of the issues is that he said, 'What about the native title rep bodies, the peak native title bodies?' They too have a responsibility to talk to their members. They too have a responsibility to make sure that they are informed by discussions with the native title holders, not just peak native title bodies. They have a responsibility to talk with them and then represent their views.
I was at the round table which the shadow Attorney-General was at, which was orchestrated by Senator Pat Dodson—
It was his suggestion.
Absolutely—it was at his request. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion, was there, as was the Attorney. What I found interesting in that round table was the absolute lack of coherent knowledge by the Attorney of the process. I thought we would have seen a lot more understanding of the need to negotiate and talk broadly with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. That is the point, Minister. You need to talk broadly with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across this country around these issues so that you have an informed view from them, from which you can make an informed decision. That is the point. We have got to this position today because of the process which was brought about by Labor and ultimately the agreement by the Attorney. That is how it was brought about. The positive changes which are being made are a direct result of that intervention. The Cape York changes which you refer to would not have happened at all had it not been for the delay in discussing this legislation. I am pleased to be able to support these well-constructed amendments moved in the Senate and passed by the Senate.
The Native Title Act was passed by the Keating government in 1993. It gives legislative form to the historic High Court Mabo decision. This year we celebrate 25 years since that decision was handed down, which is obviously a historic moment for our country. I think it is important to put some of these things on the record. I want to acknowledge my colleague, the member for Lingiari, because in 1993 he was instrumental in supporting the Aboriginal negotiators, who spent months walking the halls of parliament trying to broker an acceptable and fair legislative response to the High Court's native title decision. The member for Lingiari has a long and very significant role in supporting and fighting for the aspirations of our first nations. So it was as he helped to broker what became the Native Title Act in 1993, which was a seminal time in our history as a nation, and a seminal and proud time for Labor. In fact, we have worked out that my current office here in Parliament House was often used during this time by negotiators, many of them proud Aboriginal leaders from the Top End.
The Native Title Act followed on from the Northern Territory land rights act—a Labor policy passed into legislation by a Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, in 1976. It was the first attempt by an Australian government to legally recognise the Aboriginal system of land ownership, and it put into law the concept of inalienable freehold title. It continues to inspire, and I am very proud of the role the Northern Territory has played in the ongoing battle for land and native title rights, whether that be the Yolngu people and the Gove case; the bark petition; the Wave Hill walk-off led by Gurindji man Vincent Lingiari; the Barunga Statement; or, closer to home and closer to my electorate, the Kenbi land claim, which took 37 years.
Since 1993 Labor has works to ensure that the Native Title Act continues to facilitate the recognition and protection of Indigenous land rights throughout our great nation. The McGlade decision of the full Federal Court invalidated over 100 existing ILUAs and introduced a great deal of uncertainty into negotiations for new ILUAs. Labor believes that the parliament should provide certainty to native title holders and users of the native title system while also protecting the integrity of that system. While Labor will support this bill as substantially amended, Labor is supporting only changes to the Native Title Act that will restore the legal status quo as it was prior to the recent Federal Court decision in McGlade. This means that ILUAs already entered into will be restored to the position they were in prior to McGlade and that future agreements will be negotiated under the same procedure.
The Turnbull government tried to rush its original legislation through the parliament without proper consultation. They tried to do this before there was a chance to properly consider its implications or to listen to the voices of native title holders and other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations. Labor insisted on a full Senate inquiry so that these voices could be heard. As a result of consultations with Indigenous Australians and users of the native title system that followed, Labor has supported changes to the bill to narrow its effect. This is what native title holders have asked us to do. They have been our first concern throughout this process, as they always have been over the decades.
Importantly, Labor has blocked the government's attempt to give itself unfettered power over ILUAs. We have insisted on amendments that make sure that control rests with native title holders, not politicians here in Canberra. This is about respecting the decisions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and giving certainty to the agreements that native title holders have entered into. It is the right thing to do. The minister would do well to be a little bit humble from time to time, to listen to people and to make sure that proper consultation is done. We know that they have a bit of a tendency over that side of the House to grab as much unfettered power as they can, but Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians can depend on Labor, who will ensure that they are consulted and that their rights are properly protected.
What a long and winding road it has been to get to this point we are at tonight. It does not give me great pleasure to speak about some of the misfortunes that have taken place in getting this bill to where we have it tonight. When this bill was first introduced into this House—I think it was 15 February, if I am not mistaken—I was ready to talk then. When it came back the following day, I was ready to talk again, yet the government simply gagged debate at that point. They were not happy at all to have this discussion then and there. I know it something of an inconvenience for the ministers now to have to sit here and listen to some of the debate going on tonight.
It certainly is.
I take that interjection. The minister says it certainly is inconvenient to be taking part in a democratic debate about how we best strengthen and protect native title rights in Australia. That is the one thing this government has never got. I will tell you what, Minister, you might want to have a listen to this. Quotes have been used here time and again tonight about the Prime Minister going across to India, having his discussions with Adani and saying: 'You know what? If this native title issue's a bit of a problem, we can fix it.' We have news for everybody on the opposite side of the benches: this is not your gift to be giving out. Native title is not a gift you give and take back at will. That is not how it works. You have misunderstood it from day one. The member for Lingiari gave you a very instructive history lesson as to how this bill was arrived at, and set the record straight about the opposition that came from members now who sit on those government benches.
Don't mention the member for Solomon; his contribution wasn't noteworthy.
You failed to understand it then; you have failed to get it now. The idea that you think consultation is not a necessary part of the discussions around native title is just gobsmacking. You guys always want to truncate this process. You do not want me to talk now, you did not want us to have a Senate inquiry and you did not want to have the debate the first time around. You think that you can just have some kind of fly-in fly-out mode of consultation going on here. That is not good enough. You do a grave disservice to the Indigenous people of Australia, member for Barker, sitting here, chipping in. You are very chipper at the moment. You should stand up and stand with Labor every time we seek to strengthen and protect these rights. You need to take note of your history.
We are in screaming agreement. Go back to your seat if you want a fight.
Excuse me, members opposite! It was only in the previous sitting weeks that representatives of the plaintiffs of the Mabo decision stood on the floor of this parliament. They were here to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the historic Mabo decision, which gave this nation native title rights for the first time ever. But, as I mentioned earlier, this is not a gift for you guys to dole out as you see fit. It is a common law right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
I know it is sometimes difficult for you to understand this. You have been completely muddle-headed the entire time in conflating two completely different sets of rights and arguments—land rights versus mining rights. No wonder you have people in Australia confused when you muddle in Adani with this conversation. You led that conversation. Your Prime Minister actually set up this confusion, this conflation of two distinct arguments, from day one. You should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing that misinformation to continue in this country.
You should stand tonight and thank Labor for saving your butt, because you would have been completely embarrassed had this legislation gone through without these amendments. As usual, you could not help yourselves. You completely overreached. You went well beyond the scope of what was necessary in the bill in the first place. That has finally been reined in thanks to the work of our colleagues in the Senate, who led a very thorough process to knock this bill into shape so that the parliament could pass it and have some confidence in doing so. I commend the work of Labor for getting this right.
I do not pretend to have been in this place for a long time, but in my short time here there have been things that have made me very proud to be a member of the Labor Party, sitting on this side. There also have been things in the conduct of those opposite that have profoundly disturbed me, and what we see here is conduct that is nothing more than profoundly disturbing. Let me explain why. Let's explain the conduct we have seen in recent times. What we have seen here, quite frankly, is an exercise demonstrable of either muddle-headed cack-handedness or just not understanding the issues at hand.
Not only did the federal parliamentary Labor Party, which I am incredibly proud to be part of, usher in historic legislation in the Native Title Act back in 1993; what we have seen every step of the way is meaningful attempts to ensure that Indigenous people in this country do not have things done to them but, rather, we do things with them. We are standing now in the same place that our federal Labor leader Kim Beazley did back at the time of the Bringing them home report. He stood here and wept with empathy in relation to the need to make things right for Indigenous people. What have we seen in this parliamentary term, Mr Deputy Speaker? We have seen the irony of this Prime Minister standing here to deliver the Closing the gap report and having the temerity to utter those words: we must stop doing things to Aboriginal people and perhaps do things with them. I cannot help but think of the hypocrisy, in the context of the Closing the gap report, the 25th anniversary of the Mabo decision and the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, and in response to an issue that everyone saw coming a million miles away—that is, the uncertainty created as a result of the McGlade decision—of the government rushing into this place a bill on which the ink was barely dry, with the expectation that we would just wave it through.
There was a very, very good reason why we did not wave it through—that is that this government just did not get the legislation right. Do not take our word for it. In the very brief—perhaps even 24 hours—period of time we had to study this bill before, through protest, it was passed to the other place, it took four attempts in the Senate in order to try and land upon some legislation able to be implemented which has simply sought to do what we have sought all along—that is, to create some stability and certainty in relation to ILUAs that are already in place. If we had taken the ignorant approach demonstrated by the government in this place, we would have done a complete disservice not only to the legislation but to all of those Indigenous people who, quite frankly, deserve much better than what they are getting here.
And the insensitivity to think that, just because some peak groups thought that the legislation as initially introduced into this place was okay, it comprised sufficient consultation! Well, it did not then and it does not now. It simply demonstrates what we have known all along: this government just does not get it. They do not get it because they are distracted, divided or worried about other things. They do not understand how important it is to do proper justice to our relationship with the Indigenous peoples of this land. We need to take a stand over here, because it is not appropriate to do things to Indigenous Australians; it is only appropriate to do things with them. (Time expired)
I too may be new to this place, but I am not new to living with first-nation people. My electorate of Herbert takes in Palm Island, which is probably one of the largest discrete Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the country. Native title is not just legislation that we can play with at our whim. It is something that is deeply based on the rights of the first-nation people of this country. As has been said—and as I will reiterate—we do not do things to people; we do things with people. We do not walk in front of people; we walk beside people. Consultation can be a deep, genuine and curious conversation or it can be an opportunity to talk at people and tick a box. We must make sure that, at all stages in working with first-nation people, we are having genuine and engaged conversations to ensure that their rights are recognised and provided for.
My community has had four major celebrations in the last month. Firstly we celebrated the 1967 referendum through which our first-nation people came to be counted in the census. That was a momentous occasion for the people in my community. Then we had the 25-year celebration of the Mabo High Court decision. That is really meaningful and important for my community because that decision grew from the grounds at James Cook University in Townsville where Eddie Koiki Mabo was talking to two professors—Henry Reynolds and Noel Loos—about his land. Those two professors talked to him about the fact that it was not his land; it was owned by the Crown. He simply would not accept that. He did not accept that and he fought. It cost him his life in the end. Unfortunately, he died six months before the decision was handed down, but his daughter Gail, his wife, Bonita, and their families still live in our community. That High Court decision changed the face of this nation. There was great hope for Indigenous people, and from that we have native title legislation. But that was only the beginning, and maybe people did not get what they were rightly entitled to as time went on.
We then celebrated the Bringing them home 20 Years onreport. Far, far too many children from first-nations families are living in out-of-home care. It is simply not good enough. There is much more to do, and giving people a place in the world is so important to ensuring that their children are going to be cared for at home, that they have the opportunity to live in loving and fulfilling families, and that they have the right to an education, the right to a job and the right to own their own home.
Most recently, last week, we celebrated the 60th anniversary of the 1957 Palm Island strike. That strike came about through seven brave men who stood up and complained about the conditions in which they lived, the fact that they were not getting any wages and the fact that they were virtually slaves working on the island. What happened to those men? They were banished from Palm Island—banished, told to pack up and leave, to take their families and their children, and they were not allowed back. One of the sons came back after he was exempted from the act. What did that mean for those families? No wages means no inheritance. No wages means you have no opportunity to buy your own home. No wages means you have no superannuation. What does that do to families? On top of that, we want to treat native title legislation as if it is something we can simply play with at whim. That is not what we do.
That is why I am absolutely proud to stand here as a member of the Labor Party, because we believe that every citizen in our community deserves the right to a life of purpose, meaning, choice and citizenship, and that most definitely includes our first-nations people. If we are really to move on to a place of reconciliation with our first-nations people—and we must do that—we need to ensure that we pay due respect to native title legislation and do not play around with it as if it is a toy or a thing that we can manipulate to suit our own outcomes. That is not the purpose of native title. I say that the Indigenous people of this country teach us an enormous amount about hope and resilience.
Question agreed to.
I am proud to rise in this place as a Labor member because I know that it is only Labor that will fight for and protect Medicare for all Australians. Australia has one of the best health systems in the developed world, and it is thanks to the Labor Party's vision and commitment to universal health care under the Hawke government. Labor clearly understand that the health of the nation has a direct impact on productivity and the economy.
This was also made evident in the PwC report Creating a mentally healthy workforce:return on investment analysis. This report focused on the cost of poor mental health to productivity and the economy, and the results were somewhat amazing. The report identified a total cost of $10.9 billion annually to productivity and the economy, and it comes from specific areas. Most surprising to me was $1.6 billion from presenteeism—that is, people at work, performing at 50 per cent. Absenteeism, people not at work at all, is $4.7 billion. Only $145.9 million is due to compensation claims. I say 'only' in comparison to the costs of presenteeism and absenteeism.
We are witnessing a rise in diabetes, renal failure, heart disease and cancer. Clearly, the best way to address rising tertiary care costs is by funding prevention and early intervention, including in the space of mental health—and that is the role of primary health care.
This government constantly talks about all of the drugs it has added to the PBS, which is commendable. But have they not realised that, if one cannot afford to visit the GP and/or a specialist, these drugs are completely useless, because people cannot write their own prescriptions? Adding to this situation, we see that no growth in wages—in my electorate, unemployment is incredibly high—and cuts to pensions are leaving a number of families and other people forced to choose between which prescriptions they can afford to have made up and which they will just have to let go. Properly funded Medicare care is essential if we are to be a society that creates a growing economy. Growing economies require flourishing societies.
This government labels its budget as fair, but tell me what is fair about a system that challenges people to access affordable healthcare services. Clearly, a budget that locks in a $2.2 billion cut to GPs, specialists and allied health services does not in any shape or form seem fair to me or, more importantly, to the people in my electorate of Herbert. A budget that commits only 1.2 per cent of the funding that has already been ripped out, being directed to lift the Medicare freeze in the next financial year, simply highlights a $2.2 billion shortfall over the next four years, which is clearly not fair. It is a budget that plans to index only seven per cent of Medicare radiology services, which equates to only 59 services out of a total of 891, and that will not come into effect until 2020. GPs in my electorate are not happy. In fact, I have been told that this measure, the lift on the Medicare freeze, will return 12c per visit for two years and will then grow to $2 per visit. That is nothing to be overjoyed about. The government's Medicare guarantee is not worth the paper it is printed on.
For the Turnbull government to say they presented a fair budget is a disgrace when it comes to Medicare, because in reality this government's budget is a massive insult to every Australian who relies heavily on Medicare to stay healthy. It proves yet again that the government are still determined to make Australians pay more when it comes to health. How completely out of touch can they be? The government also plan to increase the Medicare levy by 0.5 per cent, to use their words, 'to fully fund the NDIS'.
The NDIS was created by Labor. In fact, the coalition was dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge the importance of the NDIS and the transformational change that it would bring for people living with a disability. I have worked in the community sector for more than 15 years. I have worked in the disability sector. I can tell you that the NDIS is the most transformational change that people living with a disability will have seen in their lifetime and in the lifetime of those that have gone before them. The NDIS gives every person living with a disability a chance to live a life of purpose, meaning, choice and citizenship. For this government to say that Labor did not fully fund the NDIS is a complete insult and an utter myth.
The reality is that the government have chosen to give corporate business a $65 billion tax cut, which has left them with no alternative but to increase the Medicare levy. That is not fair on low-income earners. To add insult to injury, members of the coalition government, including the Treasurer, are calling the Medicare levy a progressive tax. I think the Treasurer and his comrades may be a bit confused about the meaning of progressive taxes and flat taxes. But once again I am more than happy to clear things up for the government right here, right now. A progressive tax is a tax that takes a larger percentage from high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals, whereas a flat tax is merely a system that applies the same tax rate to every taxpayer regardless of their income bracket, and that is exactly what this increase does. This government has chosen to increase the Medicare levy for every wage earner by 0.5 per cent of their income. Under Malcolm Turnbull's plan, someone earning $55,000 pays $275 more tax and someone earning $80,000 pays $400 more tax. In order to not put further pressure on low-income earners, Labor is proposing that this increase be applied only to the top two tax brackets. This is much fairer, and Labor actually understands the meaning of the word 'fair'.
So it is very clear where the Turnbull government stands when it comes to supporting low-income earners. Low-income earners are families, pensioners, teachers, nurses, blue-collar workers—people who keep the cash flowing in our economies. The government's priorities are to give tax cuts to millionaires and multinationals and to increase tax on ordinary low-income workers, once again only further disadvantaging the already disadvantaged and vulnerable. Wage growth is at the lowest it has been since the Great Depression. In my electorate alone, unemployment sits at 11.3 per cent and youth unemployment at 21.7 per cent, yet this government continues to attack the vulnerable. How are these people expected to afford much-needed health care. We need real action by this government, not broken promises and taxes that create further disadvantage.
A Shorten Labor government will reverse Malcolm Turnbull's Medicare freeze immediately, because Labor knows that every day until the freeze ends is another day on which Australians will be paying more for health care or simply not accessing health care, because they cannot afford it. In fact, since the government introduced their Medicare freeze in the 2014 midyear economic forecast, out-of-pocket costs are at an all-time high. Non-referred GP attendances are now $33.45, up 14 per cent under their freeze. Specialist attendances are now $69.75, up 19 per cent under their freeze. Allied health is now $40.45, up 21 per cent under their freeze. Despite this, Australians will be left waiting years and years for relief, impacting on many of Australia's most vulnerable patients, such as those needing critical oncology treatment, obstetric services and paediatric treatment.
Malcolm Turnbull said he had gotten the message on Medicare, but it seems he has missed the mark entirely. Labor is the party that built Medicare and only Labor can be trusted to fight for and protect Medicare. Labor knows that 804,000 Australians delay seeing a GP, due to the out-of-pocket cost. We know that 600,000 Australians who need specialist care delay a visit, due to cost. We know that 300,000 Australians are deciding to forgo vital diagnoses every year, due to costs. Labor understands that every single Australian will continue to pay more for their health care as a result of this budget. Labor believes this is simply not good enough. Labor will support a Medicare levy rise only for people earning more than $87,000 a year.
Under Labor's fairer alternative 80 per cent of Australians are protected from a tax increase and the budget is $4.5 billion better off over the next decade. Labor believes that people who are the lowest income earners in society should not be expected to pay more for proper health care. At the election, Malcolm Turnbull promised the Australian people that no-one would pay more to see a GP, yet we are waiting for this government to drop its cuts and to start acting for the most vulnerable people in our society, because, sadly, they are generally the people who need health care the most.
I have taken action in the Herbert electorate by forming a health reference group, which consists of representatives from a range of local health services and sectors. The group consists of representatives from the general and private hospitals, the mental health sector, Northern Australia Primary Health Limited, allied health services, the Torres Strait Islander health service, home doctor services, dental services, youth services, access to therapy services and many more. The purpose of this reference group is for me to listen to and receive expert advice from the professionals who currently work within the industry. In my opinion, there is no point forming policy if you have not spoken with those who are on the ground and know the issues of concern. The difficulty for our low-income Australians is the reason that Labor is committed to a progressive solution rather than a flat tax on everyone earning over $21,655.
I condemn this government for giving a tax increase to low and middle income families, while giving big business a tax cut. When inequality rises our tax system should be more progressive, not less. There is nothing fair about raising taxes on middle Australia and cutting taxes on multinationals and millionaires. This government needs to acknowledge that raising the Medicare levy is a flat tax change and letting the budget repair levy expire is a regressive tax change. For this government to continually call the levy progressive is simply untrue and provides only false hope to the Australian people. You cannot trust this government on Medicare and I think it is about time they started working for all Australians.
I rise to make a contribution in the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017 because it actually speaks to priority. The budget demonstrates once again how this government is prioritising those at the top end of town, those who are in big business and those who are millionaires; meanwhile, they are again whacking people on the smallest of incomes and middle incomes—people who are earning less than $87,000 a year. I support the amendment that has been moved and in my contribution I wish to outline why. On budget night, there was a lot of rhetoric from the government. They said that they were going to protect Medicare. There was a lot of rhetoric about how they were going to make it fair and a lot of rhetoric about how Labor did not fund the NDIS and that is why they need to increase the Medicare levy. That was all rhetoric.
On the weekend, I had the great opportunity to be participate in a panel as part of the Woodend Winter Arts Festival. This topic came up in conversation. One question came from the audience and they said that there is no real difference between the coalition and Labor. The person was quite cynical about where things were at in politics. The truth is that, when we unpacked it, discussed it and debated it, there is a very big difference in terms of policy between the government and the Labor opposition. Unfortunately, however, the government has started to copy of a lot of Labor's rhetoric in the hope that people will not understand the policy differences and the shallowness of the government. As we have shown since budget night and in this debate, as well as in the debate in our communities, when you have the time to explain to people the real policy differences, people soon realise that the government is nothing but rhetoric. They are not saving Medicare, for all of their claims, and they are not supporting the NDIS in the way that they should. When Labor was in government, the NDIS was fully funded. The money was in the budget. What we have seen from this government is their priority to increase taxes for workers earning over $21,000 by increasing the Medicare levy and, at the same time, cutting big company taxes and cutting the tax that millionaires and people in the top tax bracket pay. That is the truth of it. They are taking from one column and putting it into another column. That is their priority.
In regional electorates, above 80 per cent of workers earn less than $87,000 a year. In my electorate of Bendigo, it is 87,000 people. In some other electorates, like the member for Murray's electorate and the member for Mallee's electorate, nine out of 10 workers earn less than $87,000 a year. What Labor is saying to those households and workers is: 'We don't believe that you should have to pay more tax.' What Labor is saying to workers in regional communities is that we believe that we should continue the tax rates for those on the highest incomes. Instead, we are seeing the government giving the high-income earners, the millionaires, a tax cut. We are seeing from the government tax cuts for big business and they are yet again expecting our workers—people earning a wage, like our doctors, nurses, and school cleaners—to pay more. As an example, some millionaires will get a tax cut and they will save about $16,400 a year, whilst someone earning $60,000 will pay an extra $300 a year in tax. Another example: a nurse might be earning $70,000 a year and will pay an extra $350 a year in tax, while someone earning $500,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $6,400. It is in the figures. They say to people, like our teachers and our nurses—people who have chosen to support our community; our hardworking public servants—that they should have to pay more tax while those who earn the bigger salaries, and there are very few of them in regional communities, will get a tax cut. It is just not fair to allow low- and middle-income earners to be asked to pay more tax while millionaires and those in the top tax bracket receive a tax cut.
It is also quite interesting that the government has chosen to again highlight Medicare. I just want to put on the record again how shocking this government has been in supporting Medicare. Just after the federal election, like the member for Herbert, I launched by own inquiry and set up a task force to examine the rising costs of health care in my electorate and what is happening with Medicare. The truth is that people are really scared about what is happening to our once-universal healthcare system. They are really scared about what is happening to Medicare. Yet again, this government has lied to them.
At the round tables we held throughout the electorate, some quite alarming results came out. We talked to people in the postcode 3550, which is the postcode for Bendigo. We surveyed all the medical services in that postcode and found that we are down to one practice that is 100 per cent bulk-billing, and that is the Bendigo Community Health Centre. That is the only 100 per cent bulk-billing practice left in 3550 postcode. We found that throughout the electorate people were paying, on average, $21 out of pocket for each GP visit. We found that the number of clinics that did not bulk-bill concession card holders was on the increase. We found one clinic, on the east side of town, actually charging $50 out of pocket per doctor's visit, and that was also for pensioners and for children. This government will say: 'Well, that's just competition. Go to the next clinic.' The problem is that we are getting to a stage in regional Australia where there is no 'next clinic'; every clinic has an out-of-pocket fee attached. Whilst the government says that they are lifting the freeze, that will not be until next year. And, as we have already heard in this debate, it is by only 12c. These people are paying on average $21 out of pocket per visit; 12c and $21 does not add up.
So, what we have seen from this government is a confirmation that Bendigo residents will continue to pay these high out-of-pocket fees. Here are some of the comments that we heard from people. One Bendigo retiree said: 'I'm so grateful for Medicare. Without Medicare, the last 12 months would have been terrible. When you are going through sickness you do not want to have the extra stress of paying out-of-pocket up-front fees. However, I have noticed that they have started to ask me to pay more and more.'
A former paramedic living in Heathcote said that people are concerned about what is happening, that 'there is a fragmentation of services, particularly in our small towns.' At the same hearing we heard how in the town of Rochester it is $50 out of pocket to see a doctor. So, from your bank account, you have to be able to pay the full fee, and then they reimburse you. But you are still $50 down. For somebody who is on a fixed income, that is a lot to be out of pocket by. We also heard what the freeze of the Medicare rebate means for GPs, how they are charging more for visits. We heard from a doctor in Maldon who is trying to keep their clinic going. They are close to bankruptcy. They know that incomes are low in Maldon, and they know that for every extra dollar they charge they lose more and more patients. Fewer people will actually go to the doctor when they need it. They are prolonging going to seek help. In fact, 40 per cent of the people who participated in our hearings said that they delayed seeing a doctor because of price. These are the out-of-pocket expenses that they are paying this year and that they paid last year. And the 12c that this government is offering them is not going to help those GPs lower the out-of-pocket fees.
One hundred per cent of people said they believed that the government should be doing all it can to protect a universal health system. And right now you cannot say that what is going on in Medicare is universal. If we have entire parts of our community that cannot access a bulk-billing doctor then we can no longer say, hand on heart, that we have a universal healthcare system. People are now paying more for Medicare and more for their GP services than they ever have before. That is what really stinks about what the government is doing. They are saying to the 40 per cent of people in my electorate who are already—
Debate interrupted.
For over 100 years, Australians of all political persuasions have been passionate about the untapped potential of northern Australia, an area of great size, magnificent resources and awe-inspiring natural beauty that is relatively sparsely populated. It was in this vein that Labor were unanimous in our support for the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. This fund, if well designed and well run, has the potential to help develop northern Australia and increase its contribution to the Australian economy. However, if it is to do this, the NAIF must have sound governance and be scrupulously apolitical in its operation. If the NAIF becomes the political plaything or mouthpiece of one political party, it is doomed to fail. Sadly, the current composition of the directors gives this appearance.
Before I turn to this specific concern, I need to highlight my deep reservations regarding the governance of the NAIF. Compared to similar organisations such as the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the NAIF lacks strong governance arrangements. The shortfalls are most obvious in poor or nonexistent development of policies required by its establishing legislation, limited public information about applications and assessment processes, weak disclosure and consultation requirements, and only having nine staff. It is no exaggeration to say that large community organisations have stronger governance arrangements than the NAIF. I am worried that my local bowls club has better governance than the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. This governance failure makes it imperative that the parliament and the people of Australia have full confidence in the board of the NAIF, and I regret to say I do not. I do not have confidence in the minister, Senator Canavan, who oversees the NAIF.
The minister's maladministration is best demonstrated by his appointment to the NAIF board of his friend Karla Way-McPhail. This was a partisan appointment of a person with obvious potential conflicts of interest, as she leads two mining supply companies that may benefit from NAIF funded projects. What is more egregious than the potential conflict of interest is Ms Way-McPhail's hyperpartisanship. Ms Way-McPhail regularly attends Liberal National Party fundraisers and has donated to the LNP. She has made the following public comments:
… a vote for the ALP = a vote for the Greens = a vote for the end of the Resource Sector ….. no miner or secondary industry that supports mining would even consider voting for these anti mining political parties !!!!! The silence by our State members on supporting mining is deafening !!!! But they are very happy to use Union funds from the industry to support their campaigns !!!! Unbelievable they are making a fool of the genuine hard working Miner ….. and laughing while they do it !!!!
In another post she stated:
… it is unbelievable to me that anyone in Coal would be a member of the Union or vote for the ALP !!! My husband and I both were Union members and voted ALP ….. wouldn't dream of it now ….. both of them are dictating the industry closure !!!!
These are horribly false and offensive statements, and they were made after her appointment to the NAIF board. They reflect a complete failure to understand current Labor policies and our achievements in government. As a proud representative of Australia's original and greatest coal community, I utterly reject them.
Ms Way-McPhail has every right to make these statements in a free country. However, this is grossly inappropriate for a director of a $5 billion government entity. It completely undermines the bipartisan nature of the NAIF, reducing confidence in an organisation tasked with helping develop the North. Ms Way-McPhail's behaviour as a Liberal National Party lackey renders her completely unfit to remain a NAIF director. She should resign immediately and, if she fails to resign, Minister Canavan should terminate her appointment under section 21 of the NAIF Act and section 30 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. This is because Ms Way-McPhail is clearly breaching sections 26 and 27 of the PGPA Act, as she is causing detriment to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.
This is a test for Senator Canavan. Can he acknowledge he made a mistake when he appointed his LNP mate, Ms Way-McPhail? Can he understand that maintaining the apolitical status of the NAIF and ensuring the development of northern Australia are bipartisan and are more important than supporting an LNP donor? If he cannot recognise and act on this then he should resign as well.
Whilst Shepparton, my home town, is world famous for its food production—with companies such as SPC and Campbell Soup, the Murray Goulburn and Bega dairy processors, and all of the other food processors throughout the whole Goulburn Valley—it is little known that we have a company called Pental products also based in Shepparton. Pental manufactures a whole range of White King bleaches, Pears and Country Life soaps, Softly detergents, Lucifer and Jiffy firelighters, Martha's wool wash, Huggie, and the Velvet and Luxe brands of soap. They are all manufactured in Shepparton.
It was quite an amazing opportunity to look through that last week with Carmine and Paul Moore—to have a good look around and see exactly what this manufacturing precinct has to offer in relation to the employment that is going on in Shepparton, and also to see some of these commodities that are produced in Shepparton but have been able to compete not just in the Australian market but around the world. There are a whole range of home brands that are also produced at the Shepparton site. The employee base, which comes from everywhere around the Murray electorate, certainly seem to be very well looked after and seem to be very happy in their jobs—and we see this a lot. The beauty about Pental is also that a large amount of their product is based on tallow—animal produce—rather than palm oil. We understand there is a very strong environmental push against palm oil products, and, for the vast majority of the products that we see at Pental, the base is in fact the animal produce tallow.
I had an opportunity to speak to a range of the employees there, and they are very happy with the way it is working, but they are all concerned about the concept of rising energy prices. Electricity and gas prices are putting more and more pressure on these businesses. This is no different to a lot of the other food manufacturing plants I have been to. It is one of those issues that we have to continually be aware of, and I know it is now gaining serious traction throughout the parliament. It is interesting that Paul Moore has been on this issue for quite a while. As one of the managers of the Shepparton site, he is very concerned about what these rising energy prices are going to mean to their viability at Pental, and is very strong to push the fact that they simply need affordable gas and electricity if they hope to remain competitive. They are taking the opportunity to investigate what it would cost for a capital expansion to solar. They have a huge factory roof area, and the opportunities to, potentially, go into solar are being sourced at the moment. But that would be a very expensive capital expansion if they go down that path.
This issue was also flushed out when we had the opportunity to visit Tatura Fresh, the hydroponic set-up on the Midland Highway just outside Tatura. There are 10 hectares under glass cover growing world-class quality tomatoes, and they are about to replicate what they currently have. Straight up it will be another 50 jobs for the Goulburn Valley, but, again, this $10 million investment is being put under threat by the uncertainty surrounding the electricity and gas markets. Murphy Fresh have other hydroponic set-ups at Mansfield and Benalla, but the Shepparton region has the ideal climate, for all but two of the hottest months of the year, and is very well placed for these future expansions. We just need to be able to do everything we possibly can to drive the cost of electricity and gas down, so that we can secure these jobs for our people in our electorates.
Tonight I want to speak about a special community in my electorate, a community who, over the past years, have endured many tribulations and been forced to helplessly watch the persecution of those of their faith in Egypt. That community is the Coptic Christian community from Egypt.
If you ever wanted to see a structure that embodies its community and its positive impact and effect on our landscape, you need only look at the magnificent St Mina and St Marina Coptic Orthodox Church in Hallam. It is a landmark building which can be seen by all travelling on the Princess Highway. Often I gaze across the highway at night and admire its magnificent towers and steeples, adorned as they are by the crosses on top. The Coptic community established their church in Hallam in 1993, when there was nothing more on the land than a cattle shed. As the community has grown, so has this place of worship. From that cattle shed to this now imposing spiritual centre and community hub, this church offers the Coptic community and its followers a sense of faith, hope and renewal.
I wish to commend the outstanding leadership of this wonderful community and church by His Grace Bishop Suriel, the Bishop of Melbourne, Canberra, Tasmania, Western Australia and New Zealand. This man has dedicated his life to the Coptic community. He leads his people in good times and bad. And I am afraid to say that there have been many dark days for the Coptic community in this country.
I have spoken in this place on numerous occasions about the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt. This ancient Christian community has, for over 1,000 years, suffered persecution under different rulers in Egypt. As approximately 10 per cent of the population of 91 million people, the situation of the Coptic Christians in Egypt has always been precarious, as they are an ancient Christian minority in the epicentre of the Muslim world.
But what I want to raise again in this House tonight is the more recent persecution of those in the Coptic community. For example, on 1 January 2011, 22 people died after a suicide bomber set off a massive explosion as hundreds of Coptic Christians celebrated a New Year's Eve service in the Church of the Two Saints in Alexandria. Several congregation members who were killed in this murderous atrocity had relatives in Australia. In October 2011, following the burning of a Coptic church in Upper Egypt, security forces clashed with Christian protesters and 28 people, mostly Copts, were killed. In 2013 Muslim extremists laid siege to Egypt's main Coptic cathedral in Cairo. This assault followed a funeral for five men who died days earlier in Khusus, a town north of Cairo, in clashes with militants. Muslim extremists also carried out a despicable and cowardly mass murder and beheadings of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya, on 15 February 2015, by ISIL affiliated terrorists. The majority of the victims came from poor villages and went to Libya to work as labourers to send money to families back at home.
On 11 December 2016 an ISIS suicide bombing at St Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in Cairo killed at least 25 people and wounded 49. At least seven Coptic Christians in North Sinai, the stronghold of Egypt's ISIS affiliate, were killed in the following months, prompting the majority of Coptic residents in al-Arish, the area's biggest town, to flee to mainland Egypt. On 19 February 2017, in a video that was published, ISIL claimed responsibility for the Cairo cathedral bombing and threatened further attacks on Christians, accusing them of being 'the spearhead of the crusader project to fight God's religion in Egypt'. On Friday, 26 May 2017 at least 28 people were killed and 23 others were injured in Egypt after unidentified gunmen opened fire on a bus carrying Coptic Christians, many children, who were traveling to a monastery. On 9 April 2017, their Palm Sunday, at least 45 people were killed in separate suicide bombings, whilst many more were injured. According to the Interior Ministry, Pope Tawadros II, the leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, was inside St Mark's Church but was not harmed.
As you can see, there are a litany of terrorist attacks on the Coptic community in Egypt. As I said, it is an ancient community. It is a community that has suffered much over the years. But I wanted to reaffirm to the Coptic Christian community, particularly the Coptic Christian community that I represent in my constituency, that those attacks do not go uncondemned in this place. The community has the support of those in this place, and we will continue to lobby to keep these people safe. And for those seeking to flee persecution, who are on our shores, we will continue to represent you and to encourage the government to look at the cases currently before them and hopefully encourage the government to reach a good decision in recognising the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt.
I rise tonight to reflect on and to honour my very good friend tourism identity and business leader Charles Woodward. Charlie passed away on 18 May 2017 after a battle with cancer, and I certainly was profoundly saddened when I heard the news. He was such a lively character and had a generous spirit, and I am really going to miss him turning up to events in his pith hat—and his quirky sense of humour. My thoughts are with his wife, Pip; his sons, Michael, Ben and Peter; his extended family; and the wide network of friends, staff and contacts.
No-one could dispute that Charlie was a visionary whose amazing business acumen and leadership helped shape Far North Queensland's tourism industry into what it is today. In the early 1980s, Charlie successfully lobbied for the Cairns Airport to become an international gateway, and he continued to focus on building capability through his work on the board of the Cairns Port Authority. Today the airport boasts unrivalled connectivity for a regional city. In fact, it has recently been identified as No. 7 in the top 13 international regional airports, so it is doing extremely well.
Charlie had the foresight to recognise the potential of the Japanese tourism market and was a key player in its development, working in the market to attract investment and visitors to Cairns. He was one of the first to identify the potential of the Chinese market, as far back as the mid-1990s, and had worked since then to ensure Cairns can successfully meet the travel needs of the burgeoning Chinese middle class.
I have known Charlie personally since the days of the Orange Blossom Balls in Kuranda, back in the early 1980s. Charlie and Pip purchased the disused Mountain Grove orange orchard and, through their vision, turned it into a world-class tourism facility with the opening of the Rainforestation Nature Park back in 1976. Under Charles and Pip's leadership, CaPTA Group now consists of Rainforestation, Australian Butterfly Sanctuary, Cairns ZOOM & Wildlife Dome, Jungle Tours & Trekking, Tropic Wings Cairns Tours and Charters, Wildlife Habitat, Careers Training Centre and ABC Sales & Maintenance. While the innovative range of tourism products they established has paid amazing economic dividends for our city, it would not have been possible without the relationships they formed along the way.
Charlie's strong social conscience was especially evident through his work in addressing inequality for local Indigenous people. From early on, he worked closely with Indigenous elders on a shared vision for the betterment of communities, focused on training and employment. His desire to ensure that authentic Indigenous heritage was shared with visitors led to the establishment of the Pamagirri Aboriginal Experience at Rainforestation in 1993. The strength of the relationship formed between the Woodward family and the Yirrganydji people is demonstrated by the longevity of employment of the guides and the performers at Pamagirri. Some team members have been there since the opening, 24 years ago, and have subsequently seen their children employed in the same place.
Charlie's community spirit meant that he was first to put his hand up to offer support for local charity appeals and disaster assistance. This was most evident through the founding of the Committee for Oncology Unit at Cairns Hospital, or COUCH. COUCH came about because Charlie and Pip saw how their dear friend Liz Plummer, who was undergoing treatment for cancer, had suffered through the absence of an oncology unit in Cairns. Charlie and Pip were the driving force in rallying the community and corporate and political support. This determination that people in Cairns should not endure the lack of services was the genesis of the establishment of the Liz Plummer Cancer Care Centre in 2011. The community will again benefit from the generosity of the Woodward family through their donation of a significant parcel of land for the COUCH cancer help and wellness centre. COUCH has now raised much of the money needed to build stage 1, a remarkable achievement. Sadly, it has come too late for Charlie.
Over recent decades, Charlie, Pip and the CaPTA group have received many awards for their work in tourism, business, community and Indigenous engagement. Last year, Charlie received life membership of TTNQ, and this year was named Cairns Regional Council's Citizen of the Year for the second time.
I valued Charlie as a dear friend, a trusted adviser and an absolutely inspirational leader in our community. He will be missed on so many levels. He was one of a kind, and we should continue to reflect on him as somebody who made such a difference to our community in his lifetime. Long after he is gone, he will live on in so many ways, particularly in the work he has done in COUCH and the wonderful infrastructure and support that he established.
Needs based funding is making a difference in classrooms across the Central Coast: extra teachers, Indigenous classes, coding, robotics, instructional leadership, speech pathology and extra teacher aides. This needs based funding is a direct result of the former Labor government's landmark review into school funding. This success is now at risk due to the government's funding cuts. The school funding package in the budget cuts close to $23 billion from schools across the country—an average of $2.4 million per school. Critically, it walks away from targets in the current act to lift high school and cert II and III attainment rates. In a region where only one in two students finishes high school, this matters. The official youth unemployment rate on the Central Coast remains stubbornly high at 16.6 per cent. For too many young people and families, living and working on the Central Coast is increasingly out of reach. Labor knows that education transforms lives. If young people on the coast are to have better futures, we must fight these cuts. A quality education means every young person on the Central Coast and across Australia has the opportunity to reach their potential.
Needs based funding is about fairness. Labor's plan looked beyond state and territory borders and sectors to the resources needed to properly fund schools. Labor committed to funding two-thirds of the extra funding needed and, importantly, made sure the states also boosted their funding by one third. We cannot and should not allow cost-shifting to threaten the quality of education in Australian schools. But that is what is happening: the government wants to walk away from the Schooling Resource Standard.
The secretary of the Department of Education in New South Wales, Mark Scott, has pointed out the $1.8 billion funding shortfall in New South Wales and warned principals that the government's figures do not stack up and cannot be relied on. Under this flawed plan, 85 per cent of public schools will not have reached their fair funding level by 2027. Students who are yet to start high school will have left school without seeing this target reached. Under this model, less than 50 per cent of extra funding goes to public schools, in contrast to 80 per cent of extra funding under Labor.
I am deeply concerned that the government's funding model penalises Catholic schools on the Central Coast in my electorate. My parents chose Catholic schools for me, my five brothers and my sister. Growing up on the Coast, I attended St Cecilia's Primary School in Wyong, and Mater Dei and Corpus Christi Colleges, which is now St Peter's Catholic College in Tuggerah, which my colleague the member for Scullin had the pleasure of visiting recently. I have received hundreds of letters from families who have been let down by these changes. One concerned parent wrote to me and said:
We have had three children that have attended the local Catholic School at MacKillop, a K-12 school and currently still have a daughter in Year 9. The financial cost is a severe strain on our house already and any increase of fees could cause my daughter to have to leave a school she has attended since she was 5 years old.
Another said:
Some teachers in our small system of Broken Bay Diocese schools are at risk of losing their jobs. Will this really improve students' learning.
Local schools should not have to choose between increasing fees or cutting teachers. The government announced these changes without talking to Catholic schools. Worse, when schools spoke up, they were shouted down.
Catholic schools teach around 20 per cent of Australia's school children. Principals and teachers in Catholic schools, and the families, deserve to be treated fairly. The decision to enrol a child in a Catholic school should not be based on a family's household income. In the last four years, the government has chopped and changed its position on school funding, while Labor has remained consistent. This uncertainty on school funding will affect enrolments in many Catholic schools as parents and families cannot be certain about what the school fees will be next year.
This funding model is not fair. This funding model is not sector-blind. This funding model will hurt Central Coast schools. Whichever Central Coast school a child attends—public, faith based or independent—Labor believes every child in every classroom deserves every opportunity. Education changes lives and funding matters.
I want to dedicate this time tonight to the work of Cancer Council Queensland and in particular their facility in Herston known as the Charles Wanstall Apex Lodge. Brisbane was very fortunate to have the Minister for Health and Sport, Greg Hunt, visit us last Friday. We managed to fit a lot into a morning—we met with many of Brisbane's and Queensland's sporting clubs and codes, we held a morning tea with many of the community groups who provide amazing support services around Brisbane, and we also visited the Charles Wanstall Apex Lodge in Herston to turn the first sod for some work commencing there with the strong support of this government. I have previously spoken in this place about the significant financial contributions that this government has made to some brand new support facilities around Brisbane, like Hummingbird House, opened last year, supporting families going through the toughest journey of all as they spend some moments together as a family with a child going through the final stages of a terminal illness; or like the new Ronald McDonald House in Brisbane, bigger and better than the last one, providing accommodation for the remote and regional families of kids undergoing surgery at the children's hospital. It was at almost 100 per cent capacity even before its official opening!
The Charles Wanstall Apex Lodge probably sits at the other end of this spectrum. It is not a new facility. It is a very weathered and much-loved complex near the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital. These facilities, operated by Cancer Council Queensland, have done what I would call a real tour of duty, providing accommodation and vital support for regional and remote Queenslanders travelling to Brisbane specifically for cancer treatment. Having supported so many people, so many families and carers for so many years, these facilities are very deserving of an upgrade they need to keep them going for hopefully many more years to come. So, I was very proud to announce in the election campaign last year that this government would provide $785,000 towards the modernisation of 11 self-contained residential units, a community room, an administration office and a communal barbeque area. Now the work is commencing, and this government is delivering on its commitment.
We can all imagine the strain, the trauma, the sacrifices and ultimately the bills that are inextricably linked with a cancer diagnosis. At the sod turning we met a few people facing those very experiences. We met Barbara from Nanango, staying at the lodge with her 17-year-old son who is going through treatment for testicular and stomach cancer, and we heard what it meant for them to receive the Cancer Council's support to get through such a difficult time. We also met Sandra and Robin from Barcaldine, who have been in and out of the lodge too many times over the past year after Robin was diagnosed with cancer in his lymph nodes. They were back in the lodge last week while undergoing tests and they had just received the very happy news that Robin finally had the all-clear. Their journey is hopefully done, and they were extremely thankful for the Cancer Council's support. One thousand four hundred patients and carers each year stay in the Charles Wanstall Apex Lodge—1,400 stories of cancer, struggle and support. It is an invaluable service that the Cancer Council offers and I am proud that this government has been able to support them to keep going. I thank the Health Minister for his support, I thank everyone from Cancer Council Queensland, from the CEO Chris McMillan down through the whole team, including all their volunteers, and even—and maybe especially—the bus driver, Bill, who is much loved.
I also want to thank the leaders and the managers of all of the community service organisations who took the time out on Friday to meet with the minister and me. We had some serious and constructive conversations about so many of the priorities in Brisbane, and I look forward to working with them all very closely in the future. They really do provide great support for the Brisbane community every day. I want say thank you to the QLD Accounting Group and their managing director Dominic Guinea for the fundraiser they held last month for the Cancer Council. I was very happy to support them at that event. Also I pass on very big congratulations to the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, celebrating its 150th anniversary this year.
House adjourned at 20:00
Twenty thousand people—that is the approximate number of residents in Melbourne's south-east who attended the department of immigration office in Dandenong over the past year. Twenty thousand people is the number of people who because of the Turnbull government's shameful decision to close this office in Dandenong will now have to get on a train or drive 35 kilometres down the Monash Freeway to attend the department's office in Melbourne's CBD. Let me mention a few more numbers: $212,000 is the reported annual rent for this building in Dandenong that provided a close to home contact point for 20,000 local residents in the past year; $250 million is the reported price tag for the upgrade that Peter Dutton wants for the department of immigration's new head office in Canberra. At $212,000 per year the government—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:02 to 10:15
In continuation, $250 million is the reported price tag for the upgrade that Peter Dutton wants for the department of immigration's head office in Canberra. At $212,000 per year, the government could pay rent for over 1,100 years for the Dandenong office and it would still not cost the same amount as the upgrade to the Canberra office. We all know where this government's priorities lie—and it is not Melbourne's south-east. It is a petty and pathetic act by this government to close an office that provides an essential service to one of Australia's most multicultural communities. I can assure the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection that Melbourne's south-east will not forget this attack on our community.
The great irony, of course, is that this government has a declared agenda of decentralisation—of moving public services out of Canberra and the CBDs of our major cities and into outer suburban and regional areas—but here we have the perfect example of decentralisation at work: an office 35 kilometres from Melbourne's CBD that has, for years, ably served Melbourne's south-east and saved thousands upon thousands of unnecessary drives and train trips to the city. The department's website is not a substitute for the personal contact provided by the Dandenong office, particularly for those people whose command of English is limited. The Dandenong office plays a key role in the Dandenong community, one of the most multicultural cities in Australia and one where a high number of its residents use the services offered by the department of immigration on a regular basis. Shamefully, the government ran no consultation with the Greater Dandenong community before deciding to close this office that has supported tens of thousands of local families. Only a government that knows nothing about Greater Dandenong and Melbourne's south-east would make this decision.
I invite the minister for immigration to join me and my colleagues the member for Bruce, the member for Hotham and the member for Holt in Dandenong to learn about this great community and why it needs a department of immigration office right there on Thomas Street in Dandenong. Labor will always support public and social services in our suburbs. It is a tragedy for millions of Australians that the Liberals cannot say the same. (Time expired)
It is an honour to stand here today and offer my congratulations to those who have given tireless service to their community and the nation. As a local member, I am continually astonished at the width and breadth of those in our community quietly working to improve the lives of others. The 2017 Queen's Birthday Honours List recognises the service of five Mackellar residents.
Mr Christopher Cuffe from Terrey Hills was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for his distinguished service to the community as an advocate for philanthropy, as a supporter of improved financial efficiencies in charitable organisations and to the funds management industry. As founder and chairman of Australian Philanthropic Services, Chris has sought to use his 25 years of experience in building successful wealth management practices to inspire and support more individuals and families to engage in philanthropy.
Mr Barry Finch of Frenchs Forest received the Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the community through social welfare groups, including the St Vincent de Paul Society, where he serves as president of the Broken Bay Central Council. Barry has been a member of the society for 32 years and is also the Forestville Conference president and the president of the No Interest Loan Scheme, Northern Sydney.
Mr Allan McCormac, who lives in Newport, was also awarded an OAM for service to the community, particularly to road safety. Alan is the national coordinator of the Driver Reviver program and has been involved with the program since 1989. Over the years of his involvement, the road toll has dramatically declined—in no small part because of the program's excellent work around Australia to reduce fatigue related crashes on our roads. Allan is also a recipient of the Melvin Jones award, which is the highest award the Lions Club International can bestow upon a person.
Mr Peter Wachtel from Palm Beach, who has served the community through ski patrolling for over 40 years, was recognised with a Medal of the Order of Australia. Peter has been a member of the Perisher Ski Patrol, the Volunteer Rescue Association ski patrol squad and the Australian Ski Patrol Association, serving in various positions throughout his many years of service. He has been an examiner and trainer in ski patrolling and first aid for many years and has contributed much to the safety of outdoor snow sports.
Francis Wong of Belrose was recognised with a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the Chinese community of Sydney. Francis is the honourable life president of the Chung Shan Society of Australia, former president of the Zhung Shan Business Association and former secretary of the Kuan Yin Temple Foundation. He has also given service to the Lions Club, the Chinese Youth League of Australia and Australia Day Chinese community commemorations.
I rise today to congratulate the Victorian government on its recent apology to the descendants of nearly 20,000 Chinese-Australian goldminers who were forced to walk 500 kilometres from South Australia to Victoria to avoid the imposition of racially discriminatory poll taxes in the 19th century. The Victorian Premier made this apology at a parliamentary reception for the participants in the Great Walk, a 20-day re-enactment of this journey organised by the Chinese Community Council of Australia Victorian Chapter. The event, I am pleased to say, culminated on its last day with a visit to the Heavenly Queen Temple in Footscray, in my electorate.
Apologies of this kind are not empty gestures. They are not hollow words. They are an important part of the never-ending task of building the imagined community of our nation and of defining what it means to be Australian. Racially discriminatory policies like the poll tax were designed to exclude members of our community from being part of the Australian identity. Using powerful symbols like the Great Walk and this apology to recognise these past injustices is an important way of rejecting this misguided history and of saying to Chinese Australians that the Australia that rejected them in centuries past is not the Australia that we live in and celebrate today. In this way, recognising past injustices binds previously excluded groups into the Australian national identity. It makes us a stronger nation by bringing us together.
In this respect, it is valuable to reflect on the fact that, while the size of the Chinese-born population in Australia today is around the same as it was in the gold rush era—around two per cent of the population—the experience of Asian Australians living in our nation today has been transformed over the past 150 years. During Australia's history, Chinese Australians have had to endure a series of racial injustices. They were frequently the targets of racially motivated violence like the infamous Lambing Flat attack, and they were the primary target of the greatest racial injustice of all, the White Australia policy, the first substantive legislation passed by this parliament—all in the name of excluding them from this nation.
Despite this, Chinese Australians have made major contributions to our national story. A Queensland stockman and cane cutter, Billy Sing, was the greatest Allied sniper in the Gallipoli campaign, and a 17-year-old Melbourne boy, John Wing, anonymously wrote to the International Olympic Committee suggesting that competing athletes should march together in the closing ceremony of the Melbourne Olympics, creating a new Olympic tradition and sealing the games' reputation as the Friendly Games—all while the supposedly egalitarian nation in which they lived refused to acknowledge them as equal members.
The Victorian government statement follows similar apologies for past practices in New Zealand, Canada, California, the US Senate and the US House of Representatives. In this respect, I echo the call of the member for Greenway, Michelle Rowland, for 'a statement by the Australian government of acknowledgement, recognition and regret for past discrimination and injustice towards Chinese Australians'. So I congratulate the Victorian Premier and the organisers of the Great Walk for their outstanding patriotism and for their contribution to the continued job of building the Australian national identity.
I rise to speak about innovators in Bradfield, and I am pleased to say that there is an enormous amount of activity going on amongst businesses and innovators. I recently had the chance to visit the CSIRO facility at West Lindfield. The CSIRO has opened up that space to start-up companies. I visited Baraja, an emerging company which is focused on developing LIDAR technology, a vital technology for the next generation of driverless cars. Baraja received a $1 million Commonwealth Accelerating Commercialisation grant in 2016 to help it in developing its product to a stage of commercialisation. Also at the CSIRO facilities at West Lindfield, there is a collaboration hub being set up, Fledge Innovation Labs, which will support medical technology start-ups to reach the commercialisation phase, by facilitating industry connection and providing prototype maker spaces. So I commend CSIRO for the work that they are doing and I certainly want to congratulate the founders of Baraja and Fledge Innovation Labs for their exciting work.
I also recently had the chance to visit Novogen labs in Hornsby. Novogen is an Australian-grown biotechnology innovator. It was recently awarded a Cooperative Research Centres Program, CRCP, grant from the Commonwealth government to work closely with the University of New South Wales on a new generation of cancer treatments. This initiative, in partnership with Sydney based ICP Firefly, is bringing together industry professionals and researchers to advance medical technologies and share research costs.
I also recently had the chance to meet with Bradfield architect and entrepreneur Malcolm Carver and his son and business partner, Simon, who are bringing innovation to one of the most fundamental devices in the home: the toilet. They have designed a retractable toilet and they recently won a significant award for their innovation at a global industry trade fair in the plumbing sector. They received that award in the face of strong international competition.
I am pleased to note that a number of these companies I mentioned have benefited from research and development tax rebates and other incentives offered as part of the Turnbull government's innovation agenda. It is important that this support be provided to allow innovative companies to remain financially sustainable through the very difficult prototyping phase that is really critical if these businesses are to get through that phase and achieve commercialisation.
I want to congratulate and acknowledge Baraja, Fledge, Novogen and Malcolm Carver for their innovation and I look forward to these companies continuing to be successful, generating prosperity, employment and benefits for their customers.
This place has been rife with—it is on the news this morning, again, and the Labor people should particularly tune in here—the anti-coal movement. Let's just face it: it is an anti-coal movement. The economy of North Queensland, where there are five federal marginal seats, most of them held by the ALP, will be really happy when they read what the ALP members have been saying here. I do not think the CFMEU is going to be really happy either—they are the biggest donor. These people hand out how-to-vote cards for you. They provide the money for you to fight the election. The biggest donor for the ALP in Queensland was the CFMEU. It is my union, and I am very proud of it—I have never been ashamed of it or denied their association with the Labor Party—but this is unbelievable.
This country has only two sources of income: coal and iron ore. With the free marketers—mostly on my left-hand side but this mob are no different—and the privatisers, every single industry has been exported. So the only exports we have left are coal and iron ore. Let me be very specific—
An opposition member interjecting—
The honourable member over here used to be the deputy leader of the Labor Party, and I can understand why they got rid of her. She is sitting there laughing. She thinks it is funny that 46,000 Australians are going to lose their jobs when you close down the coalmining industry. And they said, 'But the solar industry and wind will replace it.' Well, I have a little story for you. Solar comes in from overseas. It does not provide a single job in Australia. If you had any brains or knew anything about science or metallurgy, you would know that silicon is the second-hardest—I draw the attention of the Federation Chamber, once again, to the deputy leader of the Labor Party as she was sitting there laughing and thinking it funny that we should close down the coalmining industry. She thinks that is funny.
The people of Mackay who have 2½ thousand empty houses do not think it is funny. The people of Townsville—with the highest unemployment in Australia and arguably the highest crime rate in Australia—do not think it is funny. The people of Moranbah to Charters Towers, where there are a thousand empty homes, do not think it is funny. But the ALP think it is funny. (Time expired)
I am delighted that my electorate of Boothby will see not one but two major rail projects commenced and concluded in the near future. As my local residents and businesses know, one of these is the long-overdue Oaklands rail crossing and road separation project, the full funding of which was announced last week by the Minister for Urban Infrastructure. I am grateful to the minister and my state colleagues Corey Wingard MP and David Speirs MP for the hard work they did with me and with our local community to secure the full funding for this project.
The other rail project is the Tonsley rail line extension to Flinders University and Flinders Medical Centre, for which $43 million of federal funding was announced by the Prime Minister in May last year, when I was still the candidate for Boothby. The funding was confirmed in this year's budget. The Tonsley rail line extension to Flinders University is an example of the very best kind of infrastructure investment by a government.
Unfortunately, the incompetent Weatherill state Labor government does not invest in infrastructure in quite the same manner. Where they spend billions of dollars on infrastructure, it does not earn a cent of revenue for our state—such as with the $1.8 billion desalination plant that is mothballed or our $2.2 billion Royal Adelaide Hospital that still has not opened its doors. The infrastructure announcements I have worked for will also work for my residents and businesses in Boothby and for my wonderful state of South Australia that is in such desperate need of jobs.
The Tonsley rail line extension to Flinders University will deliver 74 jobs during the build. It will link Flinders Uni's Bedford Park campus with the Tonsley campus, which is home to computer science, engineering and maths, alongside the Flinders Medical Device Research Institute, the Centre for NanoScale Science and Technology and the New Venture Institute. The Flinders Uni Tonsley campus does exactly the kind of work that fits in with the Prime Minister and our government's plan for science, innovation and jobs for the future.
The Tonsley rail line will deliver greatly improved public transport options for students and staff and link them with Adelaide's central business district. It will also deliver greatly improved public transport for patients and their families and staff at Flinders Medical Centre. Week in, week out, I hear horror stories of patients and their families being unable to find a park at Flinders Medical Centre, and it really breaks my heart to think how terrible it will be for our returned service men and women and older residents in my community when the state Labor government shuts down our wonderful Repat hospital. At least with the rail line extension they will have another way to get to Flinders Medical Centre without the stress of trying to park on the site, and I am so pleased to have fought for this option for them. The rail extension will also provide new public transport options for local residents. Our $43 million federal investment will help unlock an additional investment by Flinders University of $800 million and around 2,000 or so extra jobs for local people once the Darlington upgrade is complete and the rail line upgrade is concluded. (Time expired)
I rise today to acknowledge the efforts of the Port Noarlunga community in completing a new sculpture at Port Noarlunga beach. My electorate of Kingston is home to many beautiful beaches, including the very picturesque Port Noarlunga beach. Port Noarlunga is surrounded by a reef only 150 metres from the shore, which has made it a popular destination for diving, snorkelling and swimming. As a young child, I spent many summers on that beach, enjoying everything that it has to offer.
The Port Noarlunga community's newest project is an installation called The Goggles which is now situated on the foreshore. This project was initiated by the Friends of Gulf St Vincent and the Port Noarlunga Business and Tourism Association. Jeanette from the Port Noarlunga Business and Tourism Association said there were a number of reasons behind the project. The first was to create a sculpture on Port Noarlunga beach that highlights the beauty of the marine life at Port Noarlunga and sends a message about the importance of protecting our oceans. They also wanted to create a teaching tool for the over 14,000 students who use Port Noarlunga beach for aquatic activities each year. Finally, they wanted to create an iconic sculpture that will be an attraction for tourists and add to the economic development of the community.
Local husband and wife Anna Small and Warren Pickering, from A Small Art Factory, were selected to create the piece. Anna and Warren designed a large steel sculpture in the shape of goggles, to allow visitors to look through the sculpture and observe the reef, jetty and sunsets. The design incorporates the rich marine life at Port Noarlunga by depicting a number of local marine species. The sculpture has been completed and was unveiled to the community last week on World Oceans Day. The Goggles has added to the already beautiful landscape and area of the Port Noarlunga beach. It will be enjoyed by local residents and tourists for many years to come. I would like to congratulate the Port Noarlunga Business and Tourism Association and the Friends of Gulf St Vincent for their hard work and involvement in bringing this piece to life. I also want to congratulate Anna and Warren from A Small Art Factory on creating this beautiful work, and Wades Engineering, who put in hours upon hours of work to construct the sculpture. I also acknowledge the City of Onkaparinga for providing grant funding, and ExxonMobil and Wine Coast accommodation for their support. Finally, I would particularly like to acknowledge the entire Port Noarlunga community, including the Port Noarlunga Primary School and Aquatic Centre, who have all contributed to making this a very special piece of art. Together, the community takes so much pride in the area and I would invite any members to come and visit our beautiful Port Noarlunga.
Last week I visited the Portland, Cudal and Blayney men's sheds. They have each received funding under the 2017 community volunteer grants program. The Portland Men's Shed are receiving $1,500, which will go towards the reimbursement of fuel costs. They are receiving an additional $1,600 through the National Shed Development Program and will use this for a tour across the region called the Shed Crawl. Members will have the opportunity to network and share fundraising ideas, techniques, and projects with other men's sheds. Their first stop is Orange, later this month, with other visits planned to Lucknow, Canowindra and Katoomba. I would also like to take this opportunity to make mention of the coordinator, Norman Richardson, and some of the members: Tony Walker, who is the secretary and a great community champion who has done some wonderful work with the Vietnam Veterans Association of New South Wales, Otakar Triboj, Don Sharp, Andrew Norris, Franz Kohl, Ray Woodin, Tony Lennett and Peter Hayman. During my visit, I was also able to see some of the great work they are doing, including the construction of planter boxes and the repair of a park bench for the Leura railway station. They also provided me with scones—they said they were commercially acquired scones, but they tasted great. Well done, gentlemen.
The Cudal & District Men's Shed are set to purchase a new router and table after receiving $2,500 in funding. It is going to make a big difference to the work they are doing, as it will be used to round off edges on boards and tables. They decided that this piece of equipment was necessary because the current one is 35 years old. I would like to mention the members of the Cudal men's shed, including the coordinator, Darcy Callan, and Dave Farrel, Geoff Middleton, Craig Klaymer, Robert Smith, John Jackson, Neil Bowen and Tony Carmen. Other work that members are busy doing includes making picture frames and chairs, building tables for the Cudal Show Society and converting hospital beds into workbenches. Well done, gentlemen.
The Blayney Shire Community Men's Shed are another recipient of the 2017 volunteer grants. They have received $5,000 for a new spiral cutter, which will enable members to turn thick pieces of timber into thinner pieces that are easier to use—they will be putting that order in later this week. I would like to make special mention of the coordinator, Ian Tooke, and also to mention members Bob Webb, Wally Whitfield, Brian Griffiths, Ted Francis, John Morvell, Peter Williams, Ian Ewin, William Fennell, Phillip Parkinson, Don Bell, Bill Burdett, Peter Davies, Max Fowler, Ken Harris, Evan Hayden, Robert May, George Mehmet, Paul Mulholland, Ross Newburn and Peter Sutton. The Blayney men's shed is also keeping busy by renovating garden chairs for local residents and helping widows of returned servicemen by building model cars for their grandchildren. As you can see, Deputy Speaker, it has been a busy time for the men's sheds of the Calare electorate—and we wish them well in their future activities. (Time expired)
Today I want to pay tribute to Reverend Frank Duffy of Corlette from my electorate of Paterson, who was awarded the Order of Australia medal in the Queen's Birthday honours list this week. Reverend Duffy is a deacon of the Anglican church and was recognised for his work with veterans and their families. Reverend Duffy sees his role as a deacon as providing a link between the church and our community. He was ordained in 2007, and much of his ministry has been supporting veterans and their families—but this was a job he was doing long before that. Reverend Duffy has been a member of the RSL for 30 years and is the second of four generations in his family to serve in our forces. His father served in Papua New Guinea during World War II, and Reverend Duffy himself carried out compulsory national service from 1957, which saw him complete military training to be 'at the ready' should conflict break out. His son and his grandson are now serving in our Navy.
Reverend Duffy joined the RSL in 1987 while living in Penrith. He became a welfare officer and began visiting veterans when he lived in Coffs Harbour, a service he continued when he moved to our beautiful Nelson Bay. Reverend Duffy is part of the Nelson Bay RSL sub-Branch welfare team, who visit 100 or so veterans in their homes, hostels and hospitals to check on their welfare. It is often only for a chat, but it makes the world of difference to these veterans. Reverend Duffy is also the welfare chaplain for the Nelson Bay RSL sub-Branch and the National Service and Combined Forces Association—good on you, nashos. He and his wife, Yvonne, attend All Saints Anglican Church in Nelson Bay. Congratulations, Reverend Duffy, on this fantastic honour.
I would also like to pay tribute today to a group of Maitland people who were, yesterday, inducted into the Maitland City Hall of Fame. The hall of fame was started last year by the Maitland City Council, and this week's 19 inductees take the total number to 44 people being recognised. It is not just about sport; although, of course, sport does run deep in the Maitland DNA. Recipients were also recognised in the arts, academia and public service. Yesterday's recipients were swimming champion Councillor Henry Meskauskas; internationally-renowned artist Nell; distinguished engineer and academic Sue McNeil; respected educator Janette Grossmann—and I welcomed some students from Maitland Grossmann this morning—Dr John Fraser and John Robert Hinder; William S Pender, hardware merchant and expert beekeeper; rugby league greats Bandy Adams, John 'Whacka' Graves, Noel Pidding, Jim Morgan, Terry Pannowitz and David Trewhella; David Power, Olympic medal-winning distance runner; cricket legend Harold 'Mick' Hinman; golfer Barrie Baker; former mayor Noel Unicomb; alderman Duncan Sim; and Reverend Thomas Pierce, preacher and editor of the Maitland Mercury. Congratulations.
Edith Cowan University in my electorate has been named, today, as an academic centre of cybersecurity excellence by the minister for education and the minister for cyber security. The federal government is delivering $1.9 million in funding over the next four years to Edith Cowan University and the University of Melbourne to further cybersecurity research and develop expertise in combating online threats. The centres will encourage the commercialisation of cybersecurity research in the interests of our economic and national security and prepare graduates for the workforce. A key element of the government's $230 million cybersecurity strategy is to ensure that Australia has sufficient highly skilled and capable professionals to keep it safe.
It is estimated that, globally, there will be a shortage of up to 1.5 million cybersecurity professionals by 2020—just three years away. The Australian cybersecurity industry is predicted to triple in size over the next 10 years, offering excellent career prospects for information technology professionals. Currently, up to 20 per cent of jobs in the sector within Australia are unfilled due to a shortage of suitably qualified professionals. ECU has established its reputation as a leader in cybersecurity research, producing more than 1,000 graduates from its undergraduate cybersecurity program since 2001. The Security Research Institute based at ECU is one of the leading cybersecurity and digital forensic groups in the world, and it is also recognised for its expertise in human, physical and aviation security. The institute, led by Professor Craig Valli, consistently delivers quality outcomes in computer and digital forensics, network and wireless security, information warfare, physical security and risk management. The institute was recognised by the Australian Computer Society as the centre of expertise in security. The group's other achievements include a digital forensics tool developed with the WA Police to assist with cybercrime, preliminary crime scene investigation, disaster victim identification and evidence tracking.
I acknowledge the visionary leadership of the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Steve Chapman, and the Executive Dean of the School of Science, Professor Andrew Woodward, in expanding the university's focus on cybersecurity research. In our digital world we have witnessed the impact of cyberthreats and security breaches of vital computer networks, so I am pleased to support the additional funding for ECU's locally based Academic Centre of Cyber Security Excellence.
I thank the member. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I want to start with redress, an issue that both sides of the parliament understand is very important to survivors of child sexual abuse. As the minister would be aware, the Gillard government established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse back in 2013. We expect to see the final report from the royal commission at the end of this year, and I am sure all members are united in thanking the survivors of child sexual abuse for coming forward and giving evidence to the royal commission. I want to take this opportunity to particularly acknowledge the extraordinary advocate, the late Anthony Foster, who passed away recently. He did so much to support so many survivors.
One of the recommendations of the royal commission's interim report was the establishment of a national redress scheme, and I acknowledge the money that the Commonwealth has allocated in the budget for the establishment of the redress scheme. Nevertheless, we on this side of the House are concerned with the very slow progress of getting agreement from the states and territories and from institutions. As the minister would be aware, survivors are very concerned that some institutions or some parts of institutions may not come forward and opt in to the scheme. That is why Labor does not agree with an opt-in approach. But, that said, that is the policy of the government and, given that it is the policy of the government, we want it to be as successful as possible.
I understand that the minister has met with state attorneys-general recently, so I ask him to update us on how many states or territories and institutions have signed up so far and whether he is confident of reaching agreement with the states and territories and all the relevant institutions so that the redress scheme can start from 1 July next year. There is one specific question that survivors have put to me, which I am sure he is aware of: Minister, is consideration being given to the issue of eligibility? How will redress be delivered in cases where survivors have passed away in recent years? Will family members of survivors who have passed away be eligible for redress?
It is my great pleasure to rise and ask the minister a question in this consideration in detail. I want to raise the very important issue of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the wonderful investment that is occurring in my community of Geelong with the establishment of the national headquarters of the National Disability Insurance Agency.
As Corangamite constituents would know, construction of the national headquarters is just about to begin. It is a $120 million building, and it will also house workers from the Department of Human Services. This is a great boost to our region and, of course, a wonderful win. I want to acknowledge the very considerable work of the former Victorian coalition government, which contributed $25 million to assist in the relocation of the NDIA.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
I take issue with the interjection from the member opposite, because it was while—
Who actually made the decision?
Please do not interject. Madam Deputy Speaker, could you please ask the member opposite not to interject. It is just rude—very, very rude.
Opposition members interjecting—
The chamber will settle down now. The member will stop; she has asked me to intervene. Normally in this chamber there is some allowance for interjection, but it is getting too noisy. I do not like interrupting speakers. I would rather wait till the end to make the point, but we need to keep it a little bit under control.
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to acknowledge the work of the former Victorian Liberal government in putting $25 million on the table and actually making it a condition, when the former Labor government announced that decision, that the Liberals in Victoria wanted to see the national headquarters in Geelong. There has been a great celebration that we are rolling that out. Techni Development has been chosen to develop the building and this is going to deliver hundreds of jobs to our region—both direct and indirect jobs—which is absolutely wonderful. This is going to be a landmark building. Some 450 NDIA staff and contractors will be based there, and we are already seeing that, at full scheme, we will have some 105,000 participants across Victoria, with an estimated 14,850 full-time jobs created. So we are seeing an absolute boom as a result of our government's commitment.
I am a passionate supporter of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is already supporting nearly 3,000 participants in Corangamite. I do want to acknowledge the work of Barwon Child, Youth and Family, which was recently awarded a $4.3 million contract to support the rollout of the NDIS across the Barwon region. BCYF will draw on its early childhood knowledge to help determine appropriate supports for children aged from newborn up until six who have developmental delay or disability. That is a great win for Barwon Child, Youth and Family. They are based in both Geelong and Colac. That is a really good recent example of the way in which local agencies are working to support the rollout of the NDIS.
There has been a lot of discussion about the need to fully fund the NDIS, and I would like the minister to update the House on how the government is fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme so that all Australians with a permanent and significant disability can access the care they need to live. Is the minister also aware of any alternative approaches?
In following the extraordinary contribution from the member for Corangamite, I would say that, if she wants to take a bipartisan attitude, she might acknowledge that the decision to locate the National Disability Insurance Scheme head office in Geelong, in the member for Corio's electorate, was actually made by the former Prime Minister with the agreement of the former Liberal Premier. We are quite happy to give credit where it is due, which, unfortunately, the previous speaker is not.
When giving his response the minister might be reminded that this is a Social Services consideration in detail, so I hope he will stick to—and we will, of course, make sure that he does—the appropriations in this portfolio, not in other portfolios.
The question I want to turn to now is on a very significant change that the government has admitted that it is determined to pursue, and that is the policy to increase the pension age to 70. This means that people born from 1 January 1966 will have to work until they are 70 before they have access to the age pension. Of course, there are many people in their early 50s and late 40s who are thinking about their retirement—how much extra they are going to have to put away in superannuation and so on. They are now having to face the fact that this government is determined to increase the pension age to 70. We all remember the origin of this idea. It was the 2014 Commission of Audit, which contained the most horrific recommendations that led to this government attempting to cut billions of dollars out of the pockets of pensioners and families.
You might all remember the extraordinary attitude of the member for Warringah and the former Treasurer Joe Hockey. We had the famous quote of 'lifters and leaners'. One thing that remains from the 2014 budget is this policy of increasing the pension eligibility age to 70. Even the Commission of Audit had recommended that that not happen until 2035, which is a full 18 years later than the government has actually decided. We did find out at Senate estimates that the government is going to see $3.6 billion come out of the pockets of these Australians as a result of this decision. This minister, of course, thinks this is a sensible decision. I want to quote from someone who has emailed me. Her name is Mandy, and she wrote:
It's unbelievable and disgraceful that the age pension age should be raised to 70 for those born after January 1966, and, as someone born in 1967, I find it particularly scary. My husband's in his early 50s and works in a very physical factory job which he couldn't possibly still work at when he's 70. I'm 50 and, after retraining for a new career start, I'm finding it impossible to find a job.
So many Australians are very concerned about this, so I ask the minister: when are you introducing the legislation to increase the age pension age to 70? When will that actually happen, Minister? Can the minister tell us how many Australians currently in the workforce will be affected by this proposal? If he does not have these numbers, I will put these questions on notice. For each year from 2025 until the change to age 70 is implemented, how many people in each age category are going to be affected? Can the minister tell us what other country is planning to increase the qualifying age of the age pension to 70?
The member made an important point during her contribution which I will remind the House of. We are considering at the moment the Social Services portfolio, but the Human Services portfolio will follow subsequently. Could people make sure that they correctly direct their questions to the minister during this period.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for enlightening me on what questions I should ask the minister. It is great to have the minister in the chamber and to see him here. He—and I am guessing the member for Jagajaga—will know what sorts of questions I am going to focus on.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
I just heard you talking about and asking the minister about the redress scheme. It is great that the minister used to be part of a government that probably gave the most generous redress scheme in the whole of Australia, the Redress WA scheme. So, Minister, you are part of two governments now that have been part of redress schemes that have been set up. This one is a national redress scheme which, unfortunately, when the apology was done in November 2009—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
It was a long time ago, Jenny. I remember being down at the parliament house in Victoria with you and we worked on the committee together. It is a great memory for the many people who came to Canberra—over 1,000 people visited. It has been part of a journey for them and a journey we have shared as well. It has been very important for them. The sooner we can establish this national redress scheme and make sure it works and has the best outcomes for those people who are, as you call them, survivors who have been through enormous pain during their journey, the better it will be. It was great to be part of that and to be part of the announcement in November last year when I joined with the minister in my home city of Perth as he announced that this government would establish a Commonwealth redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sex abuse. He invited the states and territories and non-government institutes to join the Commonwealth scheme to deliver redress to survivors. The member for Jagajaga and I have spoken about our efforts to try and get the states to come onboard. I can inform the member for Jagajaga that I wrote to the new Premier of Western Australia four weeks ago and, unfortunately, have not heard back from him at all—not one peep. It is a bit unfortunate because I know Minister Sue Ellery was very vocal and very supportive of a national redress scheme. So I am looking forward to a positive response from the new Premier.
In my maiden speech in the House, which was almost 10 years ago now, I said I wanted to bring the focus onto this national issue. Since then I have been advocating for a redress scheme with members on both sides of the House so that institutions who inflicted this abuse can be held accountable for what they did to far too many of this nation's children. In 2012, I welcomed an announcement by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard that a royal commission inquiry would be held into institutional responses to child sex abuse, which myself and members on the other side of the chamber called for. In March 2017, the royal commission had its 57th and final public hearing. Since its commencement, the commission has held public hearings in every state and territory and identified more than 4,000 institutions where abuse took place. More than 6,500 victims who gave private evidence said more than one person had abused them. I would like to take this opportunity to, again, acknowledge the victims and the survivors and thank each and every one of them who gave evidence. I know how traumatic it would have been for many of those people who did that.
It is very difficult for those who have suffered emotional, physical and sexual abuse or trauma to relive their abuse when telling their personal stories. When I have joined with the member for Jagajaga and we have met with survivors, I found they had an underlying current within their personality of anger, which comes from the time and the abuse they received while they were in these institutions. Without their courage to share their experiences, without their bravery in having to explain their ordeals, a scheme like this would never have been established.
The Turnbull government listened to the survivors, and I know the minister and the Prime Minister will probably be sick of me beating a pathway to their doors with regard to this issue, but, finally, it was announced. We are demonstrating national leadership in following the royal commission's recommendations by developing a best practice, simple and supportive redress scheme for survivors. The Commonwealth will lead the development of the scheme and seek corporation of the states and territories to create a nationally consistent approach to redress. I know some of the institutions and charities have come onboard, and we can only hope that some of the states who are holding out will come onboard. Minister, the budget includes funding to establish this Commonwealth redress scheme. Can you provide detail on the package and how a Commonwealth redress scheme will actually help the survivors of abuse in Commonwealth institutions, not only in redress but also through the services they need and require to help them deal with the abuse that they have had over many years?
Minister, last year in October, I asked you about the commitment in the Women's Safety Package of September 2015 of $12 million to trial with the states the use of innovative technology to keep women safe, such as GPS trackers for perpetrators, with funding to be matched by the states and territories. In October 2016, which is more than a year after the announcement had been made by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, you told us that only 1½ per cent of the total of the $12 million for that trial of the use of innovative technology to keep women safe had actually been spent. That was one measure worth $180,000. The remaining $11,820,000 had not yet gone towards keeping women safe. This was a major measure in the Women's Safety Package, but unfortunately very little has actually been committed. Minister, can you update the House as to what has been done since October 2016 with the $12 million that was committed for innovative technology to keep women safe? Has further money been spent from that $12 million allocation? If so, on what has that further money been spent? What projects have come to fruition in the intervening period? What proportion of the $12 million allocation has actually been spent to date?
I will commence with redress. Two honourable members have raised the issue of redress and raised a variety of issues. Both of them mentioned the allocation in the recent budget. That is a very important allocation—funding of $33.4 million for 2017-18. That is funding that is shared between the Department of Human Services and the Attorney-General's Department to the separate amounts of $23.6 million and $1.61 million, and DSS to the amount of $6.04 million. That, in effect, allows us to commence the establishment of the administrative bureaucracy that will actually run the redress scheme. So it is very much evidence of the commitment to the scheme, the commitment to the 1 July 2018 commencement and very important money that is established in this budget.
With respect to redress, the member for Jagajaga asked how the redress scheme is envisaged to deal with people who have passed away. My recollection is that we are following the recommendation of the royal commission—I think it was recommendation 47. The royal commission recommended that redress should only be available for applicants who are alive at the time that the redress scheme is operative and available. We are following that recommendation, which is to say that the scheme is not envisaged to be available for those people who have passed away. We will have a system of prioritisation so that those people who are in aged categories or in categories of ill health will be at the absolute front of the applicants queue and considered first. In that respect, we are abiding by the royal commission's recommendation but also recognising that, of course, timing is important here. We will be making every effort and giving administrative consideration to bringing forward and making a priority those applications that represent people who are in conditions of frailty or ill health or who are aged.
As to the issue, by way of passing, that you raised as to Labor's view that it should not be an opt-in scheme, the observation I would offer there is that we are following the royal commission recommendations very closely. Given the constitutional status of the Commonwealth's ability to operate this scheme, it is hard to envisage that there could be any scheme other than that which we would describe as an opt-in scheme. You then say that progress has been, in your words, slow. The progress, I think, represents the significance of the challenge in front of us. I would not describe it as slow; I would describe the progress as substantial and positive. The meeting that we had with attorneys-general was very positive. Issues were raised there, but none of them seemed to anyone in the room to be insurmountable issues that would cause a barrier to any jurisdiction entering. As an observation, the tone, language and constructive nature of that meeting was very different from some of the public statements that have been made. As you are well aware, there were what I would describe as unfortunate early public statements from the South Australian government that they did not have an intention to join the scheme. Those were not statements that were repeated in the attorneys-general meeting that I presented at. But there were issues raised, and these issues probably come as no surprise to you, Member for Jagajaga, or anyone else here. There were issues around funding of last resort, around the nature of the administrative costs and how they would be delineated and how we would communicate those, and around the legislation itself. The intention is to have draft legislation available relatively soon. I am giving consideration at the moment as to how we would release a form of that draft for open comment. I think that that is important to garner as much confidence in the joining parties.
On the issue of non-government institutions, so the churches and charities, a range of complications arise whereby organisations that we would see from the outside as representing a single unit are administratively and structurally a combination of a variety of different decision-making units. I will use a few examples of meetings that I have had recently. Scouts Australia is not one body but a federation of individual state bodies, each of which, they inform me, would need to make an individual decision about opting into the scheme. The Anglican Church represents a range of dioceses, all of which have independent decision-making power. It is also important to have Anglican schools in the scheme. It is also important to have Anglicare in the scheme, and Anglicare itself has two decision-making bodies inside it.
So the stage that I am at, at the moment, is the point at which we are formalising our approaches to get some kind of formal recognition of an opt-in, and we are trying to delineate exactly who that should be made with. (Time expired)
I ask the minister again to respond to my questions about the progress in relation to the $12 million allocation made in September 2015 for innovative technologies to help keep women safe, a matter I asked him about in October 2016. I now ask him again to update the chamber in respect of the progress of that funding allocation for those innovative technologies, given that in October 2016 he told the chamber that only 1½ per cent of the money had been spent in the more than one year that had elapsed since the announcement had been made.
I also ask the minister to address some questions in respect of the 1800RESPECT trauma-counselling service. When will the tender process be finalised? How long will the term of the new service agreement be? Will the minister commit to ensuring that 1800RESPECT is funded for the remainder of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and Their Children, which runs from 2010 to 2022? Is the minister able to confirm that the government will ensure that victims and survivors who contact 1800RESPECT are able to speak to someone who is in a professional setting, not working from home, who is a counsellor with a four-year-minimum degree and who has specific trauma-counselling experience and expertise?
Will the minister finally take action to prevent Medibank Health Solutions from gagging the subcontractor, Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia, from making public comments critical of the system? I appreciate that the minister has previously said that is a matter between the subcontractor and Medibank Health Solutions, but of course this government is not a bystander; this government is responsible for ensuring that trauma counselling is provided to victims and survivors of family violence, and the minister ought to take action to ensure that the subcontractor is able to raise concerns about the quality and extent of the service being provided to victims and survivors of family violence who are contacting 1800RESPECT.
I ask that the minister also address some comments made by the department in estimates in March 2017 in which they indicated that $3.6 million had been allocated in 2015 by the department to Medibank Health Solutions for the engagement of 50 extra staff. Would the minister explain how many extra staff were engaged directly by Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia using that $3.6 million allocation that his department spoke about at estimates in March 2017? And does the minister stand by the department's answer in respect of the four-day expression-of-interest process for Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia to express interest in continuing to be the service provider for the 1800RESPECT service, whereby the department said that they thought that that was an appropriate length of time? If so, will the minister explain how giving someone notice on a Tuesday that they need to express interest by Friday of the same week, when that service provider is a respected trauma-counselling service and has been providing the service since earlier than 2010, is appropriate and why the minister stands by the comments of the department in that regard?
Finally, will the minister advise the chamber as to the progress of the expenditure of $14 million that was allocated in the 2015 women's safety package for DV-alert training? Will the minister advise how much of that $14 million has been spent since September 2015? Will the minister advise whether that training is to be made available to people beyond health and community services frontline workers who are likely to receive disclosures of family violence?
For example, will the training be made available to people in the retail and services trades and occupations who might be likely to receive disclosures of family violence, such as the hairdressing service community?
I would like to thank the Minister for Social Services for this opportunity to have a look at the budget around social services in some more detail. I recognise that it is a part of the budget that is a significant expenditure. It is important that we ensure that we spend the public's money in a very proper manner.
I would like to reflect on one of the announcements in the budget and direct a question to the minister on the issue of the Newstart drug testing. I think we are all well aware that we have a significant issue in this country with illicit drugs in our community. This battle is a very tough one. We see every single day families who are affected by drugs, and, unfortunately, drugs do not discriminate; it can be a poor family, a middle-class family or a wealthy family.
In addition to that, it is not just those who are taking drugs and the problems that that creates for them and their families, but also all of the associated impacts on the community. Our frontline health services, our paramedics—those people are put at the forefront every day of dealing with people affected by drugs. The task before them is immense and, in many cases, it greatly affects those people. We regularly see reports of paramedics being bashed and hit by people who are affected by drugs. There certainly has been a very public discussion in Queensland about the issue of how paramedics are being treated and how we can help deal with those issues.
One of the ways that I can see for how we can help with that issue—and this is, in part, the purpose of this measure in the budget—is helping people get off drugs. The best thing we can do is help get them off drugs and restart and rebuild their lives. In taking these steps, we are seeking to encourage people to re-enter the workforce or, if they need, to retrain.
My question to the minister is: with the announcement in the budget, could the minister please provide some more detail as to how the trial for drug testing is going to work for the proposed 5,000 recipients of the Newstart allowance and youth allowance who will be in the random drug testing trial? What are the benefits that we are potentially going to see as a result of that to help give these people a hand up to allow them to rebuild their lives and make a genuine contribution to the community, which we all know they can?
In the time remaining, I hope we will have answers from the Minister for Social Services to all of the questions that the member for Griffith has already made to him and also the questions that I put to him on the government's decision to increase the age pension age to 70.
I want to turn now to another new item in the budget this year, and that is the government's decision to abolish the bereavement allowance. As the minister knows, the bereavement allowance is a fortnightly payment paid for a maximum of 14 weeks from the date of the death of a spouse. I would like to get some details from the minister about how this is actually going to work. How many people will lose the bereavement allowance? How many people will be worse off on each of the different payments that will be affected? Could the minister outline each of the different payments people are on that are expected to lose the bereavement allowance, how much worse off they will be and—I am sure the department has this figure—how much worse off, on average, people will be over the 14 weeks?
This is just the latest cut from this government. We have seen some extraordinary efforts over the last four years. In the main, most of the horrific cuts have not got through the parliament. Some of the people on the other side may have forgotten—but we have not—that the Liberal-National government tried to cut more than $8 billion out of the pockets of family payments recipients. It wanted to cut indexation of the pension, which would have seen pensioners lose an extraordinary amount of money over the next 10 years. Fortunately, the vast majority of these cuts have not got through the parliament and Labor has been able to protect the poorest people in this country.
This latest cut of the bereavement allowance is extraordinary. I would like the minister to answer these specific questions: how much worse off will people be; how much will they lose as a result of the abolition of the bereavement allowance; and what are the details of each of the different categories of income support recipients who will lose that payment?
I will begin with the questions around the RDVSA and the redress issue. I met with MHS very recently. The tender process, I understand, is drawing to a conclusion and will be finalised soon. With respect to the observation that there was a relatively short time to put in expressions of interest to the tender, I am advised that a short time for providing expressions of interest to a tender process is not at all unusual.
The independent probity officer was consulted on the time frame of the tender process overall, including the time allowed for organisations to respond to the EOI. The time for the EOI was determined to be in line with the level of information required in the EOI. With the formal tender process itself, the applicants were given 30 days to submit their tender documentation, so a short time in which to offer an EOI—it is a very simple thing to offer an EOI in the context. That was seen as reasonable by the probity officer. Those submitting their tender documentation, which RDVSA did, I understood, and in good time, were given 30 days to submit that tender documentation.
The other question was with respect to the $4 million provided in May 2015: how much of that went to RDVSA, and what the effect of that was on staffing. That was $4 million; $3.6 million of that went directly to RDVSA, which was to allow for a 50 per cent increase in staff to RDVSA. The expectation, in those circumstances, was that with that very large increase in funding, and the commensurate 50 per cent increase in staff levels at that point, there would have been a commensurate increase, an improvement, in the timeliness of calls being answered and the number of calls being answered. That did not materialise.
I have met with the union on this issue. They put the proposition that the reason it did not materialise is that there was a commensurate increase in the number of calls coming in. None of the data reflects that at all. The increase in the number of incoming calls was modest compared to the increase in funding and staffing, and so there is no explanation as to why there was not the significant improvement that we were expecting. Had we done nothing at that point, it is quite clear that we would have had a persistence of the outcomes we had been getting up to that point.
For the honourable member's benefit, the problems we were having at that point were that in the final quarter of 2015-16, following the full increase in staff—that is, the 50 per cent increase—approximately a third of calls were unanswered and the maximum wait time recorded was 88 minutes. So the reason why we took the action that we did to reform the system and offer the model that is now in operation was that that very significant increase in funding did not produce anywhere near the results that were expected or that were acceptable.
Following that, the government announced $5 million further to improve 1800RESPECT. However, that funding was provided following an independent review into the 1800RESPECT operational model, the first responder triage model. On 16 August 2016, 73 per cent of calls were answered within 20 seconds. The data from MHS between 16 August 2016 and 31 March 2017 shows that approximately 30 per cent of callers required intensive support provided by trauma specialist counsellors. The MHS data on call outcomes also shows that, of the remaining callers, 38.1 per cent received information, 34 per cent received initial trauma informed counselling and education, 19.2 per cent received information about provider options, 8.3 per cent discussed safety plans, and a small number—0.4 per cent—resulted in mandatory reporting to relevant state based—
How many of those had four-year degrees?
I am sorry?
Four-year degrees or sitting at home: those were the two aspects I asked you about.
Well, there are various qualifications of the two groups. My recollection is that the first responders have at least a three-year minimum degree plus experience in a relevant field. There is slightly greater qualification for the RDVSA. But the whole point is that 8.6 per cent of the calls that went into 1800RESPECT were classified as crisis calls. To operate a system like this without any kind of differentiation at the opening point of the call meant that we were getting terrible results for callers. (Time expired)
I believe there are still a few minutes left in the Social Services portfolio, so I want to again, for the third time, ask the minister to address my question about the $12 million allocation back in September 2015 in relation to innovative technologies to keep women safe, which we asked about in October 2016. By that time, only 1½ per cent had actually been spent.
I would also like to add another question to the minister: of the $20 million announced in October 2016 for the prevention and early intervention programs to break the cycle of domestic and family violence, how much of that allocation has been spent? Could the minister also answer the questions that the member for Jagajaga has asked in respect of the age pension and retirement age?
With respect to the funding that you have just raised, $180,000, as you note, has been applied to the South Australian scheme. There has been a further $1.8 million agreed, and we can provide details of that. There is also $8 million which is in negotiations. From the Commonwealth's perspective, we are ready to go with those, but, because this is a cooperative program with the states, the greater volume of that $8 million is pending approval by state cabinets. Otherwise, the Commonwealth's position on that is fixed and, as far as we are concerned, that money is ready to flow.
With respect to the pension age issue, it is very interesting that the member for Jagajaga noted that the relevant report that recommended this measure said that the pension age should not be lifted to 70 until 2035, which is what the member for Jagajaga noted. The government policy is not to lift the pension age to 70 until 2035. So the way in which this issue has been—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Well, Member for Jagajaga, what you said was that the relevant report that recommended this said that the pension age should not be lifted to 70 until 2035. In fact—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Well, Member, as you know, it is staggered over a period of time, but a child born today would have their 18th birthday—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Order! The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting.
before the pension age hit 70.
Could the minister please advise: of the $20 million for the prevention and early intervention programs to break the cycle of domestic and family violence announced in October 2016, how much has been spent?
Honourable members interjecting—
I thank the member for Griffith. Before I continue, could I ask members in the chamber to cease interjecting, particularly when I ask for that to happen.
That is a separate question to the information that I just gave. That $20 million, I understand, was announced at the end of last year, and that is all under negotiations with the states at the moment. But again that requires state cabinet approval on all the cooperative schemes, and that process is underway.
I thank the Minister for Social Services. The Federation Chamber will now consider the Human Services segment of the Social Services portfolio in accordance with the agreed order of consideration. I call the Minister for Human Services.
In the time that I have available, I would like to briefly discuss the things which Centrelink particularly and, more broadly, my department are managing, and also the projects which we have underway to improve the operations. As you would be aware, Centrelink is often under scrutiny, particularly by the Fairfax press, TheGuardian and, indeed, on a very regular basis by the Labor Party, and I think very unfairly in many cases. I would like to take the chamber and, through this chamber, the parliament through exactly some of the work that it does—the very good work that it and its 35,000 staff do on a daily basis.
First of all, let me give you the context. The Department of Human Services, apart from Defence, is the largest department. There are about 35,000 staff. It is equivalent to the size of Westpac in its size and in the processes that it operates, and the amount of money which it distributes. When you look at the work that it does on a daily basis, it is actually quite extraordinary. Each year, the organisation manages about 212 million transactions. Each fortnight, five million Australians receive a payment to support them with their day-to-day living costs. They get that payment each fortnight, they get it accurately and they get it on time. Those people are beneficiaries of that payment to help with their food, their clothing, their rents and other expenses. The department does that exceptionally well. I think we need to bear that in context.
The department sees 20 million people through its doors each and every year. By and large, the people who go to the Centrelink or the Centrelink and Medicare service centres get good treatment. They wait on average about 10 minutes before they get to see someone. But then they see a professional person who deals with their issues appropriately and, by and large, deals with their issues well and on time. You get people who appreciate the professionalism of those Centrelink officers. The department handles 56 million calls each and every year—again, an extraordinary number. Each year, that number increases in terms of how many calls it has to take.
Of course, as members would know, when an emergency occurs, such as recent floods which have occurred in New South Wales and Queensland, the department is exceptionally good at immediately putting its people into operation and ensuring that there are emergency relief payments available for people. And it does that within days—under the radar, frequently, without people being aware of it. It does that professionally without missing a beat, so the people who are in need get those payments. These are the types of things that sometimes I do not think the Labor Party and some members of the Fairfax press or The Guardian fully appreciate—in terms of all of the very good work which goes on.
Ms Burney interjecting—
I know that the member for Barton is interjecting there. She is a relatively new member. I think that it would be nice from time to time that she would recognise the good work which the Centrelink officers do.
Ms Burney interjecting—
At the moment, on top of the work which is already done, we have a huge investment in IT projects. This means that our welfare payment system is going to be upgraded in the years ahead, so we will have a much more seamless interaction. We already do an enormous amount in the digital space. There is still a lot more work to do, but about 130 million out of those 212 million transactions are already done digitally. People do not have to call the call centres and do not have to go to a Centrelink office. They can do all of their business online. We are improving those digital interfaces on a very regular basis. When you look at the Medicare payment system, which we also operate within the Department of Human Services, 97 per cent of transactions are now all done digitally. People know that they can go to the GP, see the GP and swipe their card, and they know they do not need to do anything else in 97 per cent of occasions. We hope that number continues to increase so that people do not have to take a paper based claim anywhere.
In the budget, we are putting 250 more people towards answering phones so that those call wait times can be lower. We know that, for many people, call wait times are too long, and we are working hard to reduce those call wait times, including investing in the technology so that people never have to call in the first place. It is a good record for Centrelink, and I would like the Labor Party to actually acknowledge that from time to time. (Time expired)
I thank the minister for his attendance in the chamber today. It is a shame that the Human Services portfolio is only allowed 30 minutes for consideration in detail. It makes sense, though, given the complete lack of detail the minister has included in his departmental budget. We cannot consider where his 1,188 job cuts will come from—the department does not know, and the budget papers do not tell us. We cannot consider how his department will implement his drug-testing policy—the department says it has not planned it yet. We cannot consider how much it will cost—he does not know. He cannot tell us if it will work—he has not even looked at the experience with similar policies overseas. We cannot consider his new demerit system—he has not provided us with any actual detail, other than a few words he has provided to the media. We cannot consider his 250 privatised call centre jobs—he will not say how much they will cost or how much of a difference they will make.
Those opposite are very fond of dropping stories to the media, but, when it comes to detail, they are nowhere to be found. This is what we do know. The minister is happy to smear suburbs and electorates as being full of dole bludgers. He was happy to let robo-debt continue for months, even though everyone knew it was broken, and he has no problem expanding it to vulnerable age pensioners and DSP recipients. He knows there are 42 million calls a year which cannot get through to Centrelink. He sees no problem in making age pensioners wait over 20 minutes on the phone just to hear a human voice, while people with disability wait over half an hour. And he has no issue in paying PricewaterhouseCoopers $150,000 to provide a report on how to improve service standards and then totally ignoring its recommendations.
This is typical 'lifters versus leaners' thinking. The problem with this view coming from the top of the Department of Human Services is that it infects the culture of the entire organisation. Staff are demoralised and feel helpless to assist with those who contact them and who clearly need assistance. I know because I meet with them. This is the thinking that saw a woman who contacted my office recently—after leaving, with her children, a violent relationship and obtaining an AVO against her violent ex-husband—unable to get assistance from Centrelink for months. Centrelink staff wanted to help, but they did not feel that they could. This is the thinking that saw an age pensioner's payment withheld after she was wrongfully accused of owing a debt. It is the kind of thinking that says that it is age pensioners, people with disability and jobseekers against everyone else.
Overwhelmingly, people do not choose to be unemployed, Minister. They certainly do not choose to get older and live with a disability or to have a sick family member and have to become a carer. People who can work should work, and those who do not need assistance or are defrauding the system should be punished. There is no disagreement on this side with those points. But, given the minister's behaviour over last year and his claim yesterday that he would save $600 million through the government's ninth or 10th welfare crackdown, my question is a simple one: after robo-debt, after the fudging of the figures on call wait times, after his ethically reprehensible privacy leak, which we still have not gotten to the bottom of, how on earth can we trust this minister? How on earth can we trust this government to do the right thing by people who are seeking to do the right thing?
The robo-debt debacle was shameful, absolutely shameful. You know, in the department, that people have become sick, people have hurt themselves and people have taken their lives because of the blunders of this minister and the blunders of the top end of the department. I met with Centrelink staff the other day up in the Tweed, and they told me how they are feeling. They told me what they thought of the higher echelons of this agency. My question is: Minister, do you have a plan to improve service standards to make sure there are enough Centrelink staff to enforce compliance and answer phones, or do you just have a plan to punish honest Australians? That is my question, Minister.
Minister, I would like to begin by thanking you for making your time available this morning to answer our questions. I very much appreciate the opportunity to do that. Minister, my question today relates to the cashless debit card. To put some context around this question: the cashless debit card legislation was passed in 2015 with bipartisan support, so I acknowledge that support from the opposition, thank them for that support and hope that it is ongoing. Minister, as you know, after that legislation was passed, you instituted two trials, one in Ceduna and one in the East Kimberley.
My personal interest in this came from a series of suicides amongst young people in the town of Leonora, in my electorate, and a plea for help from that particular community. To your great credit, you responded almost immediately to my request for you to visit, meet with the community and perhaps discuss the possibility of a cashless debit card trial in that community. That meeting took place in Leonora in late 2015, and the community was very, very supportive of that process. There were some hiccups along the way in implementing that particular trial, and then we had an election, and you quite rightly pointed out that we were out of sync with the other trial sites and that perhaps we should wait and see how things develop.
I guess the important point to make here, Minister, is that you have always maintained that there will be no trial imposed on a community that does not want and welcome a trial site. To update you, Minister, on where we are at: the regional councils on the Goldfields of Western Australia, in my electorate of O'Connor, requested some more information on a cashless debit card trial, and once again you responded very quickly to that call, visited Kalgoorlie a month or so ago and met with those stakeholders. I am very pleased to report that the consultation and the extra information that those communities requested have been rolled out. I have certainly been meeting with stakeholders as often as I possibly can to provide any further information that they require.
Minister, the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder has organised a trip for local community leaders to go to Ceduna, meet with the stakeholders in Ceduna and get an update firsthand on how the trial site is working in their community. I also can report that people from the shires of Menzies and Coolgardie and the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder will be coming here to Canberra next week as part of Local Government Week, but they are also very interested in meeting with you and giving you an update on how the consultations are going in their communities.
So, Minister, my question is: can you update the Chamber on the progress of the cashless debit card trial at the two existing sites, and can you comment and give any further information on any additional sites?
I will come to the cashless debit card trials second, but let me just first address a couple of the points from the member for Barton. I gave the opportunity and set the challenge to the member for Barton to say one positive thing about the work from the 35,000 dedicated Department of Human Services staff, and in all the five minutes not one positive thing could she say, despite the fact that they ensure that every fortnight five million people get their payments on time, accurately, to support them to pay the rent, to buy food and to pay for all of the essentials. Not once would she admit that they do some good work and by and large do a very good job.
She asked me: what are the plans to improve service standards? I outlined some of those things, but I will just recap on some of those. One, we are now investing a billion dollars a year in upgrading our information technology services—a billion dollars a year. This is not something which the Labor Party invested in; they just kicked the can down the road. But we are investing in the technology to improve services. We have improved the myGov site, and so now we have almost 11 million Australians—
Ms Burney interjecting—
who log onto myGov and have a record on myGov—hundreds of thousands of people, each and every week. We are making process improvements right now. Already, for example, we have brought the youth allowance processing time down from nine weeks to about 4½ to five weeks. We are also looking at other processes and improving the processes before these large IT processes kick in. And in the budget we are putting funding towards 250 additional people answering telephones. The member for Barton has not been around for very long, but she is constantly saying that we have been cutting staff and that that has been contributing to the so-called problems which she alludes to. I would like to ask the member for Barton—right here in this chamber—to look at the record, because the record will show that, when the Labor Party were in office, they cut 3½ thousand staff out of the Department of Human Services. And in that time what happened to call wait times? Call wait times went from three minutes up to 12 minutes in that time—because Labor ripped 3½ thousand staff out of the Department of Human Services. Look at the record, Member for Barton! She is in here every day saying that we are cutting staff, and in fact they are the ones that ripped 3½ thousand staff out of the Department of Human Services—they closed 110 Medicare and Centrelink offices. If you look at what we have done, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Ms Burney interjecting—
the staff levels have basically been constant since we have been in office and, as I have just alluded to, 250 more people will be answering telephones in the near future.
Let me get to the cashless debit card, which the member for O'Connor raised. That has been going as well as we could have possibly hoped in the two trial sites. I know that there are many members of the O'Connor electorate, community leaders, who would like the cashless debit card trial to be rolled out into the Kalgoorlie, Laverton and Leonora area. I have now been there several times with the member for O'Connor. I have spoken with many of the community leaders: some have been very impassioned about the desire for the card and the associated services to come to those locations because they are, quite frequently, in desperate situations. I recall a meeting which the member for O'Connor and I attended with some senior female elders who were pleading with us to introduce this card because of the state of the community, where they see desperate situations, with children roaming around at night in the streets because, as one of the elders said—and I will not mention her name—it is safer for them to be roaming in the streets than, often, it is to be in their homes. And she said that, unless we get on top of the alcohol, we are not going to address many of the other problems. So we are having a look at the Kalgoorlie, Laverton and Leonora area to see whether or not it is an appropriate location for a trial. As the member for O'Connor said, we will roll this card out into places where the community leadership would like it to be introduced. That is the basis for it. To date, we have had good support, but there is still more work to do. It is pleasing to hear that some of those leaders will be going across to Ceduna to find out firsthand on the ground there how people think it is going. This is not a panacea, but it can make a real difference on the ground to some troubled communities.
I would like to remind the member for Barton that she is warned and to issue a general warning to members to my left that I will have no hesitation in using standing order 187 to direct a member or members to leave the room for a period of 15 minutes. It is the fact that I cannot hear the response by the Minister for Human Services when he is speaking. I would ask those members to my left to pay the same respect to the minister that is paid to them when they are speaking.
Davoren Park—which used to be called Elizabeth West—is a proud working-class suburb. It is a suburb where people have worked hard to scrape together enough money for a house, and enough money to settle, to go to school, to go to university, to go to work and to live proudly. I am thinking about people like Betty and Caesar Alberton—Caesar, who worked at Holden, and Betty, who has been a tireless advocate for the community and has worked hard for the community. The people of Davoren Park had to wake up yesterday, open The Advertiser to page 5 and read the headline 'Davoren Park is bludger central'. I have rung the Adelaide Advertiser about this headline and I have rung the journalist concerned about this headline about the damage it does and about the vicious nature of this headline. I have expressed my contempt for that headline.
That headline would never have occurred were it not for this minister. This minister comes into this room and talks about 35,000 hardworking staff—and they are hardworking and they are decent Australians. The problem is that they have an incompetent clown minister at the wheel. He is presiding over all of these disasters and then coming in here and hectoring us and asking for your protection like he is some sort of delicate flower, and yet he is rolling out these smears on working-class Australians and their suburbs. What does that do for those areas? What does it do for the northern suburbs? What does it do for Davoren Park? Does it do one ounce of good? Does it give anybody any hope? Does it make anybody get out of bed and say, 'Gee whiz, I'm going to try extra hard today'? It does not do any of those things. It is all about this rancid, vicious, nasty politics of smear. You should be ashamed of yourself. It is not just Davoren Park—
The member for Wakefield will address his remarks through the chair.
I am allowed to have my go without your intervention, Deputy Speaker. If you want to eject me from the chamber, I would welcome it.
The member for Wakefield will resume his seat. I would ask the member for Wakefield to refer to members by their proper title and to address his remarks through the chair.
And to respect the chair.
She doesn't need your help.
I will respect the chair when you respect Davoren Park. I will respect the chair when you respect Blacktown.
The member for Wakefield will resume his seat. I have asked the member for Wakefield to address his remarks through the chair and to address members by their proper title, not to use the word 'you'. Member for Wakefield, if this occurs again, I will ask you to remove yourself from the chamber for 15 minutes under standing order 187.
I am quaking in my boots! If you think threatening me with getting kicked out is going to prevent me from expressing my views, you have got another think coming. This minister deserves the contempt of this House, as he deserves the contempt of every fair-minded Australian. This House should condemn him because he briefs the papers—he did—in this country: 'These are facts.' He proudly briefs the facts, smearing suburbs and smearing good Australians. And on what basis did he smear Davoren Park over? On the basis of 124 people. There are 5,000 people in Davoren Park. There are many, many more in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. There are many, many more suburbs all over this country, and they had to wake up yesterday and read this in the paper.
My question to the minister—if I am allowed to put it—is: what does he say to Betty Alberton and Caesar Alberton who live in Davoren Park? What does he say to those people who have worked hard all of their lives to buy a house in Davoren Park and who woke up yesterday to find that they are in bludger central—according to the Adelaide Advertiser? This is generated by this minister and this government, and he should be ashamed of himself.
I would like to talk on this topic as well because one of the suburbs in my electorate was also named in the headlines yesterday in different papers right around the country. I think it was at No. 5, Deception Bay. Yes, there are people on welfare in my electorate in Deception Bay and, yes, there are some people that are not doing the right thing. But, overwhelmingly, the majority of people are hardworking; they go to work each day and they pay off their house. I will tell you what, I do not mind the truth being told, and that is what I endeavour to do as the member for Petrie. I endeavour to tell the truth and to talk about local issues. The fact is that, when it comes to welfare, one of those suburbs in my electorate has a higher percentage than normal.
As a member it is good for me to know that so I can address it, so I can continue to do things like my jobseeker boot camps that I do right around the electorate. We have good form in Petrie. Since the 2013 election, when I was elected, we have seen a big drop in youth unemployment. A lot of that has come down to jobseeker boot camps, encouraging businesses to hire local people. The member for Barton, opposite, gets up and reflects on the—I am out, regularly, talking to Centrelink officers in my electorate as well.
So am I!
And so are we on this side of the Chamber. You are not the only one. There are other good members in this Chamber who get out there and do everything that you accuse the minister of not doing. Wake up. The Labor Party does not represent all Australians. In fact, the coalition are in government, and we reflect more than you do.
Ms Burney interjecting—
The member for Barton will remove herself under standing order 187 for a period of 15 minutes. I have warned the member for Barton previously about interjecting, and I would ask her to remove herself from the Chamber.
The member for Barton then left the Federation Chamber .
I would say to the minister that there are suburbs in my electorate as well that have higher rates of unemployment and higher rates of noncompliance. Please could the minister address, a little bit, how as a government we are helping those people get back to work, be ready for work, get on with their lives and significantly improve their lives. Could he also tell me a little bit about the welfare compliance system and how it will work, how it will help the local people of Petrie.
In 2015 the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs released a unanimous bipartisan report regarding the inquiry into the child support program. The report was called From conflict to cooperation. That report recommended establishing a dedicated family violence response unit within the Department of Human Services. In the government's response to the report it did not agree with this recommendation but advised that the department had a family and domestic violence risk identification and referral process. There had been a scoping study on that process, in the previous year or two, in the government's response to the report.
I would be appreciative if the minister could provide an update on the department's progress on that family and domestic violence risk identification and referral process. In doing so, I would like the minister to advise how many clients to date have been referred to support services via that risk identification and referral process; whether that process is being rolled out across Centrelink and through child support agency personnel; and how the minister's cuts to 1,200 jobs in DHS will affect DHS's capacity to identify risk and refer people who are victims and survivors of family violence who are in contact with child support, Centrelink or other agencies.
I have had three questions put to me now: one from the member for Wakefield, one from the member for Petrie and one from the member for Griffith. I will address, first of all, the two issues that are interrelated, from the member for Wakefield and the member for Petrie. It is a shame the member for Wakefield did not bother to be around to listen to the answer to his question. That indicates the seriousness of it. But I know the member for Petrie is here, and his question relates to it. Both were in relation to data on our new compliance system, which was in the newspapers yesterday. First of all, let me clarify that the data in the newspapers yesterday actually showed not the numbers of people who were on welfare in a particular area but the numbers of people who had repeatedly and consistently missed appointments, missed job interviews or failed to accept jobs that were offered to them. The unfortunate reality is that they are concentrated in certain areas.
I always point out, and I point out again today, that when you look at all of the jobseekers in Australia you will see that two-thirds are hungry to find work, never miss a beat and never miss an appointment, but there is a cohort of about 100,000 people in Australia who consistently and repeatedly fail to turn up to their appointments, fail to turn up to job interviews and turn down jobs that are offered to them. To date, many of them have been able to get away with it with very few repercussions. We believe that about half of those people may have some issues going on in their lives that we may not know about. There may be a domestic violence issue, as the member for Griffith was referring to, there may be a homelessness issue, or there may be something else that we want to know about to be able to offer assistance. But with the other half of this group there is no indicator that there are issues going on and, frankly, we believe that these people are taking the taxpayer for a ride. They are deliberately avoiding the system and have been getting away with it.
In part, they have been getting away with it because the Labor Party introduced a system of waivers whereby you could repeatedly and consistently fail to do your mutual obligation requirements but, if you were about to receive a penalty, you could ring up Centrelink and commit to re-engaging—sometimes in just an online course. One person did an online interactive gaming course and therefore avoided any penalty. We have completely redesigned the compliance system, and this compliance system, which will be introduced into the parliament in the weeks ahead, is specifically designed to identify earlier in the piece those people who need our assistance so that we will be able to provide that assistance. But it is also going to crack down harder on those people who are deliberately flouting the system.
It will work very much like your drivers licence demerit system, where you will accumulate demerit points if you miss appointments. You can accumulate up to four demerit points and, when you have accumulated four points, you will be asked to come into Centrelink. We will have a very comprehensive interview with the person once they are on four demerit points. If, through that comprehensive interview, we find that there are things going on in the person's life then we will provide them with guidance on how to get assistance. But if there is not anything going on then that person is on notice. The next time they fail to turn up to a job interview, they will lose a week's payments; the time after that they will lose two weeks payments; and the time after that they will have their payments cancelled and will not be eligible for four weeks.
We think this system strikes the right balance between finding those who need assistance and identifying them earlier in the piece. It gives opportunities for everybody to have a number of failures before they have to be put on notice, if you like. But then, if they are consistently, repeatedly and without reasonable excuse missing those appointments, we are going to be serious about the repercussions. We are doing this because we know that the best form of welfare is a job and that you are not going to be able to find a job unless you are serious about the job search, unless you are serious about turning up to the job interviews and unless you take the jobs when they are available.
I know that there is the domestic violence issue, which the member for Griffith raised. If there is a domestic violence issue going on in someone's life then we want to know about it as well if that is why they are missing some of their appointments. Typically, they would be able to ring up and that would be a reasonable excuse in any case, but if they have not identified that then of course that would be considered as part of that detailed assessment by Centrelink. I am happy to provide a more detailed briefing to the member for Griffith separately to this meeting. (Time expired)
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
I am pleased to rise to speak about the budget for the Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio, a portfolio that I am immensely passionate about. I am focused on ensuring the future of Australian businesses, both small and large, is successful. In my opening remarks today, I want to talk about a particular area of interest to me—that is, what we have entitled the National Business Simplification Initiative. What is it in a nutshell? It is bringing a new approach to what has traditionally been deemed as red tape and regulatory issues in this country. How have we changed our thinking? We are attempting to bring business thinking to this space. It is quite clear that we need regulation across all three levels of government. What has unfortunately and sadly been the case in our system in our history of Federation is that, for 116 years, government has traditionally defaulted to a regulatory role. This is the thinking that my previous minister, Minister Hunt, who is sitting beside me, and the present minister, Minister Sinodinos, have been working with me to change through our department.
The fact is that we are actually also a business partner with every individual business in this country. Irrespective of their ownership structure, we get between 30c and 49c in the dollar. How are we trying to change the thinking in the department and the structure of that red tape and regulation? By realising the time taken to comply with it is an expense that appears in the profit and loss statement of every business. By default, we are up for 30c to 49c in the dollar of that. If there are ways that we in government can revolutionise the business-to-government relationship and take that red tape and regulation and codify it—for example, make it easy to comply with—ultimately, whatever we do, we make it time critical that we reduce the time taken. What happens then? A few things. The expense item decreases in the profit and loss statement and the profitability of the business increases. Where do we come for the ride? We obviously get an increased tax take because of the increase in company profitability. But what do companies do? What have they always done historically in this country when they increased their profits? They reinvest in their business. What happens at the back end of that? The business continues to grow—not only their profits but also the employment outcomes that result. And guess what? As a result of the increased employment, PAYE tax receipts increase at the same time.
That is the return on investment proposition we are talking about when considering the National Business Simplification Initiative. It was originally slated as NISA 3.0. However, due to the great work initially of our New South Wales colleagues, who through Service NSW were already embarking on this line of thinking, we on 8 May worked with them to deliver our first ICT linkage to their website through business.gov.au.
What is the policy? Minister Hunt has said this term and I borrow it frequently: a no-wrong-door approach. The idea in the specific example, the beta, that we chose in New South Wales in the Parramatta LGA district in the state of New South Wales in the country of Australia, which sadly for 115 years has operated as three different regulatory environments, was that we got all three systems to talk. We chose the category of opening a business: as a specific example—a beta if you like—a bar, restaurant or cafe in the Parramatta LGA district in the state of New South Wales in the country of Australia. We took the time that it takes to open one of those from 18 months on average to three months on average. What do you get at the end of that process? You have a business functioning for 15 months further than it would have done in previous situations. What happens? Tax receipts from that business flow to government quicker, as do the PAYE tax receipts of the wage earners flowing to government quicker.
I would like to congratulate Minister Dominello and his team at Service NSW. It is pleasing to note that, off the back of that, every state has signed up to the National Business Simplification Initiative. Minister Hunt announced it with me in late November. We have chosen a beta in every state. We have delivered New South Wales on May 8. Ecotourism in Tasmania has been delivered. We are not far away from Western Australia coming online. My great hope is that this initiative becomes the centrepiece of a new approach to attack red tape and deregulation in this country, something that politicians so often speak about with zero understanding of the impact it has on the frontlines.
Can I start by saying how disappointing it is that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here. This is our opportunity to scrutinise the Resources and Northern Australia portfolio. He has a responsibility in the House of Representatives to represent the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, and the fact that he is not here to face the music and answer questions put by representatives in the House is very disappointing and, I think, shows us the disregard with which he thinks of this process. Hopefully, the Minister for Health can answer some of these questions.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
I will be offended if you do not answer the question, because that is the point of this process. What I want to ask first is: why do you keep stalling on building a flood levee for the people of Rockhampton? This is a levee that will protect about 1,500 properties in the southern part of Rockhampton. More than 1,000 families live in that area and there are a lot of local businesses. Anybody who has paid any attention to this over the last decade will know that the area keeps flooding time after time. It happened in 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2015, and it happened again this year in the wake of Cyclone Debbie. And it is going to keep happening unless we do something about it. The damage and clean-up costs of doing this cost the local community a fortune—we are talking tens of millions of dollars every time Rockhampton floods. It also cuts off 3,000 people from their jobs and shuts down local businesses. One of them is a business run by a bloke called Josh Whitcombe in Depot Hill. Last time, when Rockhampton flooded in April, it cost his business 20 grand. He told the local paper, The Morning Bulletin, that it is too expensive to get insurance down there because of the risk of flooding. Instead, he just has to close; he packs everything up and waits until the floodwater recedes again. He wants a levee to protect his business, and he is not the only one.
The government is prevaricating on this and delaying by saying that there is not community support. Well, this is a survey that was done by the local council in 2013, funded with the help of the local university, CQU. It says that 64 per cent of the local community want a flood levee, 25 per cent are unsure and nine per cent do not want it. So you have support. You have majority support in the community—64 per cent want it and another 25 per cent are unsure. That is overwhelming support. They want it to protect their homes and their businesses from being flooded again. We have been talking about this for 25 years. Some of us were still at university then. It should not take this long to resolve a matter as simple as building a flood levee for the people of Rockhampton. The only thing that is missing is the money and the will to do it. The council has designed the levee. It has been through all the official processes. It will cost $60 million to build the flood levee, but, as I said before, the last three floods have cost more than that. The council is willing to put in $10 million. The state government has offered to put in $25 million, so there is $25 million missing. We have said as an opposition in this place that, if we are elected at the next election, we will make that $25 million available to build it. But it should not have to wait for an election. There could be another flood between now and then. If the government have $65 billion in the budget to give away to companies, if they have $6 billion to give to millionaires for a tax cut, why can't they find $25 million for the people of Rockhampton to stop the place flooding again? It tells you everything about this government's priorities.
Again, I am disappointed that Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister, is not here, because before the last election, when they were in opposition, he wrote to Rockhampton Regional Council. He wrote to the mayor, who was desperately arguing for this flood levee, and said:
Your project looks like it has a strong case … I will ensure that it receives strong consideration from the Coalition.
It is now four years later, and we are still waiting. Rockhampton has flooded twice since then. It is time to stop talking, and it is time this government backflipped and delivered the money needed to build that flood levee for the people of Rockhampton. I want an answer from the minister. When are you going to do it?
It is my great pleasure to rise in this consideration-in-detail debate and raise with the minister a very important commitment that has been made in our government's budget in relation to manufacturing. I was absolutely delighted with the commitment of $100 million for an Advanced Manufacturing Fund, which includes $47.5 million for a new Advanced Manufacturing Growth Fund. There was great excitement in the Corangamite electorate, including in Geelong, where we have punched above our weight in terms of the work that we are doing to grow the advanced manufacturing sector.
There are many advanced manufacturers in our thriving community that are doing incredibly well. Carbon Revolution is an absolute stand-out. It is manufacturing carbon fibre wheels for the global market and doing an incredible amount of work to impress upon the nation that we in Geelong and Corangamite are a premier hub for advanced manufacturing.
This announcement builds on the very significant number of programs and commitments that our government has made to support advanced manufacturing. I note the great success that we have had under the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, which has created some 857 jobs. Of course, $15 million is from the Commonwealth and $4.5 million from the state, and Ford and Alcoa have each contributed $10 million.
When I was first elected in 2013, the member for Corio was talking down our local economy, saying that this was the end. It was really quite disgraceful—the way in which he was trying to sap confidence from our region. I can say that we are very, very proud of the way in which we have grown and diversified our economy with the significant commitments that we have made. While this program was announced by the former Labor government, we have actually delivered all of the funding under this particular program, the full $15 million, and we are very proud of that. It is quite ironic that the member for Corio takes credit for some of these decisions, when in fact all of the decisions, all of the jobs delivered, were delivered by our government as part of this program.
Seventeen businesses have received GRIIF funding, including the global giant Cotton On, which is doing an incredible job, with 390 jobs. Last week I was with the Deputy Prime Minister in Corangamite, and we were talking about the wonderful work that the GRIIF has done for companies like the Australian Lamb Company. One hundred and twenty-five jobs were forecast with a $3.25 million grant under the GRIIF, and in fact the Australian Lamb Company have delivered 150 jobs under that program. So we have seen an absolutely great success, close to 1,000 new jobs, and we are so proud.
This, of course, is not the end. We have also committed our growth fund and, under our growth fund, $155 million. Many local manufacturers such as the likes of Backwell IXL, under the Automotive Diversification Program, MHG Glass and High Q have benefited from the very important grassroots contributions that we are making to support these companies as they look to diversify. Some, of course, had manufactured traditionally in the car component sector, and, with our support, they are now moving into other new markets. That is wonderful to see. MHG Glass, for instance, has received $1 million under the Automotive Diversification Program to develop a new architectural glass processing business, which is leveraging off its existing skills and capabilities. That is just a really good example of how, on the ground, our government is working so hard to grow these jobs.
Of course, that builds on the other very significant work of our Geelong region job connections program and the $20 million regional jobs and investment fund that we have announced. That now is open for applications, which is very exciting, giving local manufacturers more opportunities to get support from our government. I want to pose a question to the minister. There is a lot of work, I should say, in lobbying for some additional money to establish one of the innovation labs, which are part of the Advanced Manufacturing Fund, in Geelong. I would like to ask the minister: can he update the Chamber about these budget initiatives, including in relation to the $100 million for the Advanced Manufacturing Fund?
I hold here the Turnbull government's 2017-18 budget. Could the minister please advise on what page funding has been allocated for vital water security and energy infrastructure for Townsville? Townsville has a massive water security issue. The Ross River Dam is currently at 18 per cent, we are on level 3 water restrictions and the Townsville City Council is pumping water from the Burdekin Falls Dam at a cost of $34,000 a day. The Burdekin dam is only 130 kilometres from Townsville and is one of the largest dams in Australia. Whilst 70 per cent of Queensland is drought declared, the Burdekin Falls Dam has overflowed twice. Why hasn't the minister committed any funding towards the construction of water security infrastructure? Has the minister any plans to build water security infrastructure for Townsville from the Burdekin Falls Dam? Will the minister hear the chair of the water taskforce, Brad Webb, and commit funding towards vital water security infrastructure for Townsville?
The cost of wholesale electricity prices has doubled under the Abbott-Turnbull governments. Nowhere is feeling the cost of skyrocketing electricity prices and the lack of federal government action more than Townsville. Reports compiled by the AEC Group state that companies like Sun Metals, a zinc refinery in Townsville employing hundreds of locals, pay $10 million extra per year just for being in Townsville. Businesses like the Organic Pantry are closing down due to high electricity prices. Businesses cannot afford any further inaction from the Turnbull government. Will the minister explain why the Turnbull government has not committed even one cent for energy infrastructure in the north? What plans does the minister have to reduce energy prices for Townsville and North Queensland? What action has been taken by the minister to reduce energy prices in Townsville and North Queensland? When will the minister actually do something to address Townsville's skyrocketing electricity prices?
Bloomberg New Energy Finance has predicted for Queensland to become the epicentre of large-scale solar development in Australia because of its excellent resource, sprawling grid and demand for growth. Does the minister agree with this statement? If so, why won't the minister fund vital energy infrastructure in the north? Since January 2016 North Queensland has had an unprecedented level of renewable energy investment activity, with over 780 megawatts of large-scale projects either commencing construction or securing financial support. The total of these projects will deliver over $1.6 billion of infrastructure spending to North Queensland and will create over 1,400 jobs during construction.
Some of these projects include: one of Australia's largest solar farms being built in Clare, creating over 200 jobs; the $225 million, 148-megawatt Ross River Solar Farm, delivering around 200 jobs during construction; Sun Metals' 125-megawatt solar farm, which makes them the largest single-site user of renewable energy, creating 210 jobs during construction. Will the minister join the Queensland government, Sun Metals and other companies in constructing renewable energy infrastructure? Why hasn't the minister invested in the renewable energy boom in North Queensland? Why hasn't the minister invested in developing energy infrastructure in the north?
Bill Shorten and Labor are leading the charge in investing in North Queensland. In April this year, I hosted a 'back to work' round table with Bill Shorten, where water security and energy costs and constraints for Townsville were discussed. In less than a month, Bill Shorten returned to Townsville and announced $100 million for water security infrastructure and $200 million for construction of a hydropower station on the Burdekin Falls Dam. Why won't the minister listen to the community, like Bill Shorten has done, and commit to much-needed funding for a much-needed hydropower station project?
Why won't the minister listen regarding the need for water security infrastructure? Will the minister match Labor's $200 million commitment and $100 million commitment? Can the minister please advise why the Turnbull government has committed funding for the Snowy Hydro project in South Australia but refuses to commit even one cent to the hydro project on the Burdekin Falls Dam? Surely, if it is good enough for the south, it is good enough for the north?
In December 2014 Meridian Energy shelved plans to develop a hydropower project in North Queensland on the Burdekin Falls Dam because the Abbott-Turnbull government wound back and destabilised Australia's renewable energy target. Will the minister explain to the people of Herbert why the Turnbull government has policies which deter infrastructure being built to address our energy crisis? Will the minister act to rectify the Turnbull government's damage and set stronger renewable energy targets so as to allow vital energy infrastructure to develop in North Queensland and address our skyrocketing electricity costs?
I would like to welcome Minister Hunt and Minister Laundy, who are here representing the portfolio, and I look forward to giving them some questions, particularly on this industry portfolio, which is an exciting portfolio indeed. I must admit I spent some time working in industry. We had a manufacturing plant in the great state of Victoria—where Minister Hunt comes from—in Cheltenham. We employed over 100 staff at that manufacturing plant, but unfortunately in the eighties we had to shut it down because of the extraordinary demands of the metal workers union. So we became non-manufacturing and became a representative company.
But the industry portfolio is an exciting portfolio. It contains this government's National Innovation and Science Agenda, which defines our nation's strong innovation strategy to help shape our economic future. It really is science and innovation that can improve and change the world in which we live. The 2017-18 budget measure 'Maintaining Australia's optical astronomy capability' provides $26.1 million in new funding over the forward estimates to secure Australia's pre-eminence in optical astronomy research, industry engagement and instrumentation. The government is providing $119 million over 10 years to enter a strategic partnership with the European Southern Observatory, known as the ESO. Astronomers in Australia will be eligible to compete for access to the world's best optical and infrared observing facilities, including eight-metre-class telescopes at the ESO La Silla Paranal Observatory, through a 10-year strategic partnership with ESO for 2017. Australian companies will be eligible to compete for work packages at the observatory on the same basis as companies from ESO member states, and Australian institutions will have the same opportunities as institutions in the ESO member states for involvement in instrumentation for the La Silla Paranal Observatory.
The government has also allocated funding for the Australian Astronomical Observatory, the AAO, which had been going to terminate on 30 June 2020. This measure will see the transition of world-leading research and technical capabilities in optical astronomy from the government operation to research sector ownership from 1 July 2018. A university consortium, led by the Australian National University, will fund the operations of the 3.8-metre Anglo-Australian telescope at Siding Spring Observatory, near Coona-bar-bran through to at least 2024—
An opposition member: Coonabarabran!
Thank you for the interjection and the correction from the member opposite. I am sure he has visited there many times.
An opposition member: I have.
And left his mark.
Honourable members interjecting—
An opposition member: It is a great spot.
I like the congeniality in this chamber for a change. A university consortium, led by the Australian National University, will fund the operations of the 3.8-metre Anglo-Australian telescope at Siding Spring Observatory, near Coonabarabran, through to at least 2024, extending its important role and supporting recently funded ARC Centres of Excellence to the end of its operational life.
On the advanced instrumentation capability front, a consortium led by Astronomy Australia Limited, a not-for-profit company representing the goals of the astronomy community, and interested university partners will retain and further develop the AAO's world-renowned Sydney-based instrumentation capability. I am sure the member for Blaxland will be interested in that. This will link to the world-class ANU instrumentation facilities at Mount Stromlo in Canberra and other university laboratories to create our national optical instrumentation capability. It will position Australian instrumentation developers to compete for contracts under the new ESO partnership. This element will be supported by the $5 million per annum of operating funding from the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. A smooth transition of Australia's domestic astronomy infrastructure and expertise from the AAO to the research sector will support the ESO partnership, maintain key national strengths and capabilities in astronomy instrumentation, and foster innovation and research-industry engagement.
Could the minister advise people who are interested in the sector how the Australian government's 10-year strategic partnership with the European Southern Observatory announced in the budget will benefit the Australian science and industry sectors? And can the minister also outline how this new measure presents an opportunity to reshape Australia's domestic optical astronomy capabilities? I thank the Chamber.
Two weeks ago, Pippa Middleton, the sister of the potential future Queen of England, visited the Northern Territory, and it got a bit of publicity. You might have seen it on the TV. I am going out on a limb here, but I think it is a fair bet that that trip will probably deliver more economic development to the North than this government's Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has in the last two years. That is because they have not done anything. They have not delivered any money to any projects in two years. Two years ago they announced the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility: $5 billion that they said they would use to fund job-generating, nation-building infrastructure in northern Australia. There was a lot of fanfare. The former Treasurer Joe Hockey said this was 'the first major step in our plan for our great North'. The Minister for Northern Australia said, 'The time for talk is over, and the time for action is here.' Since then, nothing has happened. No money has been allocated. They have spent over 600 grand on salaries and expenses for board members, but they have not delivered a zack for any project that is creating jobs in northern Australia. All we know is that, over the last two years, they have had 119 inquiries for funding and they are apparently considering 60 active deals, but there are only four projects that are currently subject to due diligence, and nothing has been funded. In two years nothing has been allocated.
More worrying, though, is what we found out in estimates only two weeks ago—in particular, what we found out about one board member, a Karla Way-McPhail. We found out that Ms Way-McPhail is a personal friend of the minister, that the minister put her forward for appointment to the board and that Ms Way-McPhail regularly attends LNP fundraisers and is a donor to the LNP. We also learned that Ms Way-McPhail is the CEO of two mining services companies that could benefit from potential NAIF funding. One is Undamine Industries, which hires out labour and machinery to mining operations, and the other is Coal Train Australia, a mining training company based in Central Queensland. She is also the director of a boat company that could benefit from potential NAIF funding for tourism development on Great Keppel Island.
The point I am making here is that there is a clear potential conflict of interest on that board. In a story in The Guardian last month, Ms Way-McPhail refused to say whether she had participated in board discussions where she has a conflict of interest. In the same story, a spokesperson for the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia said that NAIF's conflict of interest policies require board members to 'declare their interests and recuse themselves from discussions if there is a conflict of interest'. So we asked in estimates whether Ms Way-McPhail has done this: (1) whether she has declared conflicts of interest; and (2) if she has conflicts of interest that she has declared, whether she has recused herself from discussions where a potential conflict of interest may arise. That is when the shutters came down. The minister and the CEO of NAIF refused to answer any of our questions, on the basis of public interest immunity. That is not good enough. This is $5 billion of taxpayers' money. We have a right to ask whether proper governance is being applied in this board to make sure that the money is allocated to the proper places.
Apart from that, Australians have a right to know what is going on inside the NAIF. We know at least one person on the NAIF board is a political mate, we know she has a clear potential conflict of interest because of the companies she runs that could benefit from NAIF funding, we know the NAIF board has considered projects where conflicts of interest could arise, and this government refuses to say whether she was in the room for discussions about these projects or whether she recused herself. It is not good governance; it is a cover-up. It is why we have asked the Australian National Audit Office to investigate NAIF. It is why we have put forward a motion in the Senate today to refer NAIF to the Senate Economics References Committee for investigation.
When the Deputy Prime Minister was asked about this a couple of weeks ago, he said, 'If there's a claim that there's a conflict of interest, we'll check it out.' Minister, where is the investigation up to? Has it started? Has it concluded? Will you answer the question that the minister refused to answer in estimates: has Ms Way-McPhail recused herself or not from all discussions on the NAIF board, where she has a conflict of interest? (Time expired)
I would like to ask the minister a question surrounding onshore gas reserves and their role in contributing to the national energy mix. As I do that, I acknowledge that we and many stakeholders engage in discussions to secure a national energy future that will provide affordable and reliable supplies whilst meeting our emissions targets, and I reflect on my own electorate of Groom, which I believe provides a very interesting model of a balanced energy future that the nation should consider. My city of Toowoomba is the second largest inland city in Australia behind this city, the national capital. We are an emerging agribusiness centre of Australia. We are based on small business. It is a small-business economy throughout the entire electorate. We are the education and health centre for southern inland Queensland and northern inland New South Wales. We are also a very important energy centre with a truly technology agnostic approach to developments throughout our region.
Just to the north of Oakey, outside Toowoomba, we have the New Acland coalmine, which maintains an international reputation as having one of the lowest greenhouse gas-producing coals in the world. It provides direct jobs for 300 people and 160 contractors, and 2,300 more indirect jobs. It injects about $110 million just into our local economy each year. Within a few short kilometres of that, the 80 megawatt Oakey solar farm is being built. Nearby to that, the 332 megawatt open-cycle, dual liquid/gas-fired Oakey power station is providing yet another energy source. Slightly further afield, we have a range of other power projects, including AGL Energy's proposed $500 million Coopers Gap wind farm, which has a proposed capacity of 350 megawatts. Together with supplies from further afield, I believe these examples present an interesting case study just in my own electorate of a dependence on coal based energy supplies to provide our baseload requirements into the future, with the potential for renewables, fossil fuels, old technology and new technology all working together to ensure a stable, secure and affordable energy supply network into the future.
As is the case throughout the nation for the majority of my constituents—families, businesses, irrigators, farmers and industrial users alike—it is security and cost that matter most. Our local economy has benefited tremendously in recent years through the development of the coal seam gas sector in the Surat Basin to the west. Not without its challenges, as a former minister for agriculture in Queensland I was intimately involved in getting the parameters of coexistence right between agriculture and the gas sector in our region. I believe taking advantage of the natural attributes of a region in a sustainable way makes sense when it comes to energy production. In our region, our local gas and coal reserves do not necessarily play a direct role in meeting our local energy needs. In fact, our gas has largely been destined for export markets to date, but we all exist in the same national energy market. So our region is certainly concerned and vitally interested in the role that gas plays in the national energy market. We are all considering and we are all conscious that, as part of the changes underway in the national market, the Australian gas market is certainly undergoing significant structural change. Therefore, I ask the minister: what is the government doing in response to rising gas prices and to ensure there is adequate gas supply to alleviate pressures on industrial users?
The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Industry, Innovation and Science Portfolio be agreed to. I call the member for Lingiari.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton—'Mr Coonabarabran'! I just want to share my disappointment that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here. I understand the presence of the two venerable gentlemen at the table—and I would not often call you that, but in the context of the Deputy Prime Minister I am certainly able to. Let me say that the Deputy Prime Minister has been the single person in this country who has been advocating for the development of water resources in northern Australia—principally, dams. Yet my colleague the member for Herbert has raised significant questions, which remain unanswered, around water supplies in the Townsville region, and the minister, forever not here, cannot respond to those questions. So I ask the minister at the table: how can we make the Deputy Prime Minister respond to those questions? I understand that you may not have any knowledge of those questions but he certainly does. So it is with Northern Australia. I note again that you two wonderful gentlemen come from southern climes—one closer to Antarctica than to Northern Australia, probably—but that, nevertheless, we have a legitimate series of questions to be asked here about the development of northern Australia.
My colleague the shadow minister has spoken about NAIF. From the Northern Territory perspective, we regard NAIF as really a Queensland slush fund because, of all the projects under active consideration, 13 per cent were from the Northern Territory and 50 per cent were from Queensland. How many of the four which were referred to by the shadow minister are in the Northern Territory? And what are the prospects for other projects from the Northern Territory being actively considered? When are we likely to see some answers from the NAIF board as to what projects are going forward? These things are important for us. We know that this is a $5 billion facility. We are all in the dark as to how it is being spent. We are all in the dark as to what consideration has been properly given. So I ask the minister: could you provide us with that information?
I also want to refer briefly to the matter of roads. Again, with the greatest respect for the two members at the table—because the outback is a long way from where they live, and Northern Australia is even further—let me say this: in the context of the Northern Australia Roads Program, which is worth $600 million, and, for developing Northern Australia and improving beef cattle chains, the Beef Roads Program, which is worth $100 million, $30 million has been allocated to the Northern Territory. I ask the minister: how many kilometres of roads will that $30 million address, given that, in the Northern Territory, of our 36,000 kilometres of roads, around 70 per cent is unsealed, and that includes the roads which have been earmarked for that $30 million? So I would ask the minister: tell us in detail what the cost effectiveness of that $30 million investment is. Tell us in detail how many kilometres of roads will actually be dealt with, with that $30 million, given the need in the Northern Territory alone, as I say, of the unsealed 70 per cent of our 36,000 kilometres of roads—which, from my brief calculations, is about 26,000 kilometres. So there is a significant length of roads which need to be addressed in the Northern Territory. Many of those roads are beneficial to not only the pastoral industry and the tourism industry but also, most importantly, Aboriginal communities across the Northern Territory. So these are roads for joint use; they are not single purpose roads. I ask the minister: what is planned to make sure that those roads get properly addressed?
Then I go to the question of the $600 million. As I read budget paper No. 3, page 48, $231.5 million is allocated to Queensland. Could you give us the detail of what roads are proposed to be funded under that program? That $231.5 million of course is more than a third. Less than a third goes to the Northern Territory. Could you also identify which roads in the Northern Territory will benefit from the investment under the Northern Australia Roads Program? And could you advise as to what money will be made available for the development of the Tanami Road, the cost of which is understood to be about $750 million?
Let me deal in sequence with a series of issues that have been raised on both sides of the chamber. The member for Blaxland asked about a flood levy for Rockhampton. The advice I have is that the coalition has committed $416,000 from the Community Development Grants Program for the South Rockhampton flood levee planning and design project. I am advised of comments by the state member for Rockhampton, Bill Byrne, who I understand is a member of the Labor Party. On 6 April of this year he said: 'I'm already on the record as saying this proposal has merit but I've always said I'm not going to support something when the vast majority of my community don't want it.' That quote is on the record, and I note that it will be up to the ALP to develop a consistent, coherent internal approach to it.
The second thing I want to deal with here is the comments of the member for Corangamite, who has been a fierce advocate for manufacturing in her region, the electorate of Corangamite and nearby in Geelong. She has been one of those who has fought for and been successful in obtaining the additional $100 million which the Turnbull government has committed in new funds to help drive innovation in Australia. This is in relation to advanced manufacturing growth. As part of that, there is $47½ million for the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Fund, and I have seen in her own electorate the Carbon Revolution premises about which she spoke, and I have seen their product on display at Ford headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. That was one body helped by previous funding that the government provided. In addition to that, there is $20 million for cooperative research centre projects to support larger scale advanced manufacturing of up to $3 million funding over three years, $10 million to establish innovation labs and $13½ million dollars for a reduction in tariffs on imported vehicle prototypes—something I worked on with the assistant minister when I had the privilege of being in the portfolio.
The member for Herbert raised questions about the Burdekin Falls Dam. The advice I have is that under NWIF feasibility and assessment projects in Northern Australia, $400,000 has been made available for the Burdekin Falls Dam raising feasibility study. That is funding which is going to assess precisely this sort of investment but a full assessment is precisely the sort of thing that should be done before any decision is made. No person has been a stronger advocate for dams in Northern Australia than the Deputy Prime Minister—no person has been a stronger advocate. Let me be absolutely clear about that. The member for Herbert also raised issues about electricity prices. We abolished the carbon tax; that was opposed by the ALP. We saw the largest drop in electricity prices on record in Australia. We introduced the Emissions Reduction Fund, which has had considerable benefits for North Australia. She referred to 780 megawatts of projects under the Renewable Energy Target which have followed our settlement of that target. So there is a real investment occurring precisely as result of the actions we have taken.
With regard to the comments of the member for Swan, I am thrilled that Australia will be part of the European Southern Observatory, or ESO, project—the Chilean project. This will be one of the world's great astronomical projects. We are the only country that has been invited in on a discount rate, because of our expertise. It is a tribute to the work of people across Australia.
In relation to the member for Groom's comments, very simply the answer is quite clear: the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Energy are taking real action to deal with the consequences of the strike on new gas reserves in Victoria and elsewhere which has led to the impact on gas right around Australia. In relation to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, dealing with questions from two members opposite, there are 60 currently active assessments—28 per cent are in WA, 13 per cent are in the Northern Territory, 50 per cent are in Queensland and eight per cent of these projects are across multiple jurisdictions. The facts are clear—the commitment to Northern Australia is absolute.
From the north to the south: I want to ask about manufacturing in my home state.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
I have lived in Darwin and I loved being up there, as the member for Lingiari points out, but I love my home town of Elizabeth too, the place in which I was born, based largely around automotive manufacturing and the Holden factory, which still resides in it. When we talk about manufacturing, this government has a record you can tell in headlines. We remember the headline 'Hockey dares GM to leave.' There is no doubt about who was responsible for the decline of automotive manufacturing; in fact, there was a bit of a contest on between the former Treasurer Mr Hockey and the former Prime Minister Mr Abbott about who put the torpedo in the water. They used to brag about it prior to the consequences of their actions becoming apparent. These are consequences that the government has never released modelling for. It will not tell us how many workers will be made unemployed. Plenty of academic studies and plenty of figures from the South Australian government are out there, but this government has never copped to doing any work at all in terms of—
Mr Falinski interjecting—
The member for Mackellar!
A member was kicked out of here before. You should punt him, Deputy Speaker.
The member for Wakefield will not reflect on the chair.
I digress. Anyway, most recently we had a headline just before the budget, 'Hang on … help is on its way', about how Mr Morrison, another Treasurer, is now promising $100 million for businesses to 'evolve' after Holden's closure. So we have one headline daring GM to leave and another headline telling us that help is on its way in terms of manufacturing. We know that literally thousands of real people's jobs and livelihoods across South Australia and Victoria, and the industrial base of our country, are being cast to the wind, and we have a member from New South Wales joking around like it is some fanciful argument. We have a government that have not done any modelling about the impacts of this. They have seemingly taken the decision on an ideological whim. They have promised that help is on its way, yet we know that their first package has already been spent and their second package is a long way short of $100 million. It is actually $10 million a year for South Australia over four years.
One must reflect on the enormous damage that has been done in South Australia, my home state, in my home town and in Victoria. Thousands of people are being made unemployed. Thousands of component workers are being made unemployed. I notice the government's shipbuilding plan has some genuflection about re-employing displaced automotive workers in the shipbuilding yards, but people need a trade plus at least another year on top of that in qualifications to work on the blue-collar side, and similar time at university to work on the white-collar side.
I am just wondering: what plans does this government have? Could the minister—I have asked this question in this place before—possibly enlighten us as to what specifically is going to be done for South Australian industry and for the workers who are going to lose their jobs? Is anything being done to link the job outcomes of those people with the very small things the government is doing? What is being done? How many workers are expected to be displaced? What is being done to help them? What is the government's plan for this area? What is its plan for South Australia? What is its plan for Victoria? What is its plan for manufacturing in the western suburbs of Sydney? If the minister could enlighten us on this, it would help the House, and I would stop having to ask this question year after year. We should remember that we are perilously close to the closure date in October, when thousands of people will lose their jobs and when this government's chicanery and lack of planning will become readily apparent, I fear.
My question to the minister is: what is the status of the government's reforms to country-of-origin labelling? I ask this question because we know a number of things about the importance of country-of-origin labelling. The first is: you cannot have a market operate effectively and efficiently if you do not have information available for consumers to make choice. It is called asymmetric information. It is incredibly important that we as legislators ensure that consumers have the information they need. Secondly, we know that there are enormous economic benefits from having proper information clearly communicated to the market. It is estimated that country-of-origin labelling laws will generate $66 million for the Australian economy. Finally, of course, there is the producer issue, as well. It is difficult for producers to spend the time, the money and make the investment to ensure that products are made here in this country, are sourced here in this country and are packaged here in this country if it goes into a marketplace where they cannot distinguish their products as being Australian made from other people in the marketplace who are deliberately hiding or seeking to confuse that fact and confuse consumers from the fact. It is for these three issues that I ask that question.
In my community, whether it be the mothers of Avalon or the fathers of Forestville, they have spoken to me on several occasions about the fact that when they go shopping they want to understand what they are buying and where they are buying it from. For those of us who are ocularly challenged, the current labelling laws at the moment make it very difficult to know what you are buying and where it comes from. It is written in six point. Often, there are chemical formulas involved. And, by the time you finished reading it, you probably would have preferred to read War and Peace. So it is incredibly important that, when we are going to buy products, we know what we are buying at the time of purchase.
This is not new information. This is not a startling revelation. It has been written about in behavioural economics, freakonomics and nudge economics for a long period of time. We cannot make proper choices for ourselves if we are not aware of what we are buying and where we are buying it from. It is incumbent upon all of us in this place and it is incumbent upon this government to make sure that the labelling laws in this country communicate as easily and as effectively as possible what it is that you are buying, and that that communication is made as simple as possible.
The other day I took matters into my own hands. I went to Forestway—an excellent shopping centre. If you are ever there, I highly recommend you go to the Gaslight Inn and purchase one of their cappuccinos. For those opposite, I understand that they do activated almond milk, as well. So if you are into that. Otherwise—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield tells me on several occasions he has enjoyed the activated almond milk.
Mr Champion interjecting—
I hear rum goes well with milk, too! There are some who would claim that it is a crime against humanity, but there are others who have it a lot.
Anyway, back to labelling laws—something that Labor Party is not interested in. While I was there having my normal flat white, I decided to go to Woolworths and see what it is that consumers have to do to make sure that they are buying Australian. To my shock, there was a nice gentleman there by the name of Muhammed. He was actually demonstrating the new labelling laws to shoppers in Woolworths at Forestway. It is pretty easy to understand. A bit like a country fair that you might find in Mr Gee's electorate, where you go along and you bang something down and you see how far it goes up the pole, what you can find now on packages into the future is a bar graph. The more that bar graph is filled in, what you will find is: the more Australian it is. This is critical. When consumers are making decisions about what to buy, they can now easily see that at a glance of the packaging rather than having to understand and determine where products come from in six point.
An honourable member: And the shoppers loved it.
The shoppers absolutely loved it. The other thing is: the package has right there how it is calculated. It is not like a Google algorithm. Anyone can understand how it is that a product is more or less Australian. Minister, what is the government doing about introducing these laws?
I too rise to ask some questions and talk about manufacturing, as my colleague from Makin just did, about South Australia, especially in my electorate of Hindmarsh in the western suburbs. My electorate was a hub of manufacturing. We made everything—you name it—from shoes to motor vehicles by Lightburn back in the sixties and seventies. What we have seen is the diminishing exodus of manufacturing industries.
This is what I want to ask the minister: what are you doing to assist manufacturing, especially in the western suburbs of Adelaide or South Australia? We had industries, like Perry Engineering, with over 250 workers. Perry decided to downsize, moving some of its operations offshore. We had Hills Industries do the same thing—another 250 workers gone. We had Clarks Shoes that employed up to 300 people on two shifts in the suburb of Marleston. They made a whole range of things, including school shoes. They offshored, to Fiji, to pay very cheap wages.
To top it off, we had former Treasurer Hockey dare GMH to leave—which they did. We would like to know why on earth Mr Hockey would make a speech like that which dares GMH to leave—and they did, the following day. They made the announcement that over 1,000 people lost their jobs, and there was the 30,000 ripple effect across the South Australian community in manufacturing and everything else.
There is one industry in my electorate. There is one bootmaker who is absolutely adamant about staying in Adelaide, in the western suburbs. It is the longstanding family owned company Rossi Boots. They are employing people locally. They are a proud family owned Australian business that has been operating since 1910. They are a significant contributor to my community and to manufacturing in South Australia. They are 100 per cent proudly Australian owned, employing about 100 people. And there are many people around the country, including me, who wear their wonderful well-made Rossi boots. In addition to being a popular leisure wear company they have gained a reputation for producing footwear that meets the specific high demands of industry, notably supplying the Australian military.
Unlike many other manufacturers, Rossi is determined not to move its operations overseas, because they are proudly Australian, they are proudly in the manufacturing industry and they are proud of the product they make. But this is proving difficult for them. For example, in 2014, this wonderful Australian owned company lost its bid to provide boots to Defence and other uniformed personnel, costing the company a substantial amount of time and money. Unfortunately, the contract was awarded to a company in Indonesia, which has no benefit to the economy in Australia.
The reason given by the government of the time was 'value for money'. But this is exactly the kind of manufacturing we need in Australia, especially in South Australia. The flow-on benefits, the value, are enormous for the local economy. They are enormous to people who would earn their wages locally, pay their taxes locally and spend their money locally. Compare those benefits to what the government calls value for money. I would like to know how that is calculated. Local industry provides benefits for the local area, in terms of taxes that are paid, money that is spent, which helps our economy go round, and jobs that are created. Compare that to people going on the doll queue. Tell us where that difference is and how that was value for money. They gave it to an overseas company. That has no benefit to our economy.
I would like to know why the government is continually failing to support South Australian manufacturers, like Rossi Boots. How will the government properly recognise the immense value that local companies provide to our economy, in future procurement processes, and what is the government doing to support local industries to become more efficient and competitive in the global market? What is the government doing to assist existing manufacturers keep their operations local and enable new industries to grow and thrive, therefore creating new jobs and more money in the economy?
A good example of this is the South Australian state government, which just gave them a grant for $250,000 to be able to have a product online to sell overseas, which will benefit them enormously. That is a good example of where we are helping manufacturing; I would like to know what this government is doing.
I rise to answer the questions from my colleagues the members for Hindmarsh and Wakefield. Today is a continuation of something I have seen a lot in this place: because those on the other side say something does not mean it is true. This government has a proud record of standing up for our manufacturing industry. And what is not spoken about, and what is derided at every turn—and here is an unknown fact: in the last 12 months in this country, 100,000 jobs have been created in the manufacturing industry Australia-wide. The industry is in a transition and growth period. Why? Because it is at the back end of the launch of the National Innovation and Science Agenda.
I will give some specific South Australian examples. I was at Mawson Lakes last week, the UniSA campus, where there is a CRC project which the former minister, who is sitting beside me—now the Minister for Health—okayed. There is a company called SMR Automotive that is transitioning: it is staying in automotive, but high-technology, value-add—transitioning beyond—using the technology and patents driven out of UniSA at Mawson Lakes. There are contracts totalling $68 million that have been signed by SMR Automotive and UniSA to deliver new-age lightweight mirrors to Ford—and that is Ford international. That is a gateway to the automotive industry worldwide. There is interest worldwide. Why? Because the uni has come up with a way to attach an adhesive to plastic, for the first time: this is a non-glass mirror, lightweight. And in the world of automotives, weight is king—because the heavier it is, the more fuel it costs to drive, the more expensive it is, and the more carbon emissions result. The whole derivative here that they are trying to drive is lower weight. And this uni has some groundbreaking, world-first technology that is being leveraged off the back of a CRC project coming out of the National Innovation and Science Agenda—and not only keeping the jobs in SMR Automotive in South Australia but also creating more jobs into the future. Why? Because SMR, who have traditionally done automotive only, are right now as we speak looking at—again in partnership with the uni—developing a testing slide for cancer. That—again—will be a game changer, patented with the university and with worldwide application. This traditional, third-generation, family-owned automotive business will soon be providing cancer-testing kits worldwide. That is an example of transformation.
To the member for Hindmarsh: not far from his electorate is the Tonsley innovation hub, where we have TAFE, uni and the federal government coming together. I have been there to see, at the back end of our innovation program, a company that is heating molten silicon to 1,300 degrees. Why? Because for the first time, they have groundbreaking, innovative technology that will allow them to store renewable energy in such a way that it can be re-used. And the by-product—and this has signed off in a deal with a greenhouse farming, agricultural business in regional SA—is the heat that will be used to fuel those crops. We have energy companies piling in on the back of our entrepreneurs program to deliver—and I have spoken about automotive ongoing—a brand spanking new company that will innovate and grow in South Australia.
To the member for Corangamite: she spoke about the carbon hub at Deakin University. Under the CLC project there, which I launched in her electorate only a month ago, a company that had its research and development arm based in Germany—with 26 employees—has closed that down and has moved all 26 back to Geelong. The research and development arm of that automotive company will be based in Geelong—that is, 26 jobs, paying tax in Australia, which up until a month ago were located in Germany, the home of advanced manufacturing. These are real frontline grassroots examples sitting behind that number of an increase of 100,000 in our manufacturing sector in the last 12 months.
Unlike those opposite, we do not deride the manufacturing industry. We do not say things that are not true. We work out, if it needs to be transitioned, the best way to do it. That is, in the end, the policies sitting inside the National Innovation and Science Agenda, 29 of which have been delivered. There are five more to come and two are being legislated as we speak.
I am pleased to hear the assistant minister speak about creating jobs. He might be concerned, though, to know that, according to LeadWest figures, there are 4,000 workers in the seat of Lalor whose jobs are linked to the auto industry, and many more in Melbourne's west. Workers in component businesses and supporting industries have, as we know, been struggling with the knowledge since that fateful day when Joe Hockey dared Holden to leave Australia, a sad day for Victoria and a very sad day for Melbourne, including Melbourne's west.
I would like to ask the minister, as one of my questions, exactly how many engineers were working in Holden's R&D division when that announcement came and where they are employed now. How many of them have maintained their employment in this country? How many of them have become part of the brain drain and headed overseas?
I understand that the government has done some things in its transition proposal. I understand that in key seats in the south-east of Victoria, such as Corangamite, and in certain parts of South Australia, as we have just heard, the government has made specific attempts to support people. Nothing specific, however, has been done for the people in Melbourne's outer west—nothing from this government. In round 2 of the Next Generation Manufacturing Investment Program, one grant recipient was from Melbourne's west. Unfortunately, although the business is based in Melbourne, those jobs are going to Kilmore.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 13:12 to 13:24
The fact is that, of $30,498,000 spent in round 2 of the program to help businesses deal with changes to the automotive industry, not a cent was spent in businesses in the west of Melbourne.
The Victorian government, on the other hand, have a good handle on this. They understand what the support industries affected in Melbourne's west need. They have committed $46.5 million for their plan to facilitate Victoria's automotive transition plan, which is called Towards Future Industries: Victoria's Automotive Transition Plan—a catchy title. As part of this plan, the Victorian state government have committed $10.6 million for Melbourne's north, $10 million for Melbourne's south-east, $7.5 million for the Geelong region and, critically, $5 million for Melbourne's west. The Victorian government appreciate the fact that our region has suffered significant job losses in industries tangentially connected to the auto industry. The Labor government in 2013 committed $30 million to assist businesses like those in my community under the previous Labor government's Automotive New Markets Program, something this government replaced with a poor imitation called the Automotive Diversification Program, which directed $10 million less to feed in and support businesses.
My questions are: when will the federal government come to the table and, like the Andrews government, support effective businesses in my community? Is it that the government does not understand the complexity of the issue, or is the government only committed to assisting workers directly employed by car manufacturers because that satisfies its political purposes? Either way, the workers in my community deserve better. Does the government have a comprehensive plan for workers in Melbourne's west—significantly, the estimated 4,000 workers in the electorate of Lalor? Has the government identified the component manufacturers and other linked businesses that are at risk? Has the government identified the workers? Will these workers be supported by this government, or will they join the 700,000 unemployed and the 1.1 million underemployed Australians as the cost of doing business in this country? Will the workers in my electorate find themselves being vilified by another minister in this government for their inability to find work? Will they become part of the casualised, insecure workers that live in my electorate, under enormous pressure trying to make ends meet? Will this government give a commitment that it will support the workers in Melbourne's west—not just workers in Melbourne's south-east and not just workers in Geelong but those workers who live closest to Toyota and those workers who are employed in the seat of Lalor in the motor car components industry?
I can assure the member for Lalor that we are backing up workers Australia-wide, as I answered to the previous questions from the members for Wakefield and Hindmarsh on the stats in terms of manufacturing jobs moving forward. There was one thing I did not get to, because of time limitations, but subsequently checked out in the division. I am going to be cut off here in a minute, so I will go straight to it: a large portion of the defence spend that we are spending Australia-wide. The member for Hindmarsh mentioned Rossi Boots, and in the break I instructed the department to get in touch with them, because the Centre for Defence Industry Capability has been absolutely tasked, as we move into this crucial spend in our nation's defences, with better building the links between defence procurement and local business, with industry participation plans. There is a precedent here. RM Williams have already engaged with the Centre for Defence Industry Capability.
I note that the member for Hindmarsh has left, but I will seek him out when we leave here to tell him that the department will be in touch with Rossi Boots to work through this recently announced initiative co-hosted by the Minister for Defence Industry, Christopher Pyne—who likes to take all the credit, obviously, on all parts of this!—and my own Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. My wonderful Department of Industry, Innovation and Science is providing a lot of the grunt work sitting behind it, of course—sitting in the background getting the job done.
I want to finish where I started. We are committed to manufacturing. What we are trying to do through the National Innovation and Science Agenda is move from traditional manufacturing to advanced manufacturing, something we have had great success in doing over the last 18 months and we hope to continue to do.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 13 : 30 to 16 : 00
I would like to make some brief introductory remarks overall for this portfolio. Clearly, the issues that we are facing in education are quite significant for us, and it is important that, as we go forward, we approach education funding as a continuum. I have on a number of occasions in this place made it very clear that in fact, when the government look at education funding, we do so on the basis that we are looking at education as a continuum. It starts at the preschool, the kindergarten, area. It moves through the primary and secondary schooling. It goes through, potentially, vocational education—although clearly, if you look at the education highway, that is a destination in itself—but clearly a pathway through to higher education. So the education stream that we look at is a continuum, and we on this side are very conscious that what we do has an impact on all parts of that education highway.
Let me say that in schools we are delivering, for the first time in Australia, a funding model that is fair, genuinely needs based, transparent and sector blind and provides unprecedented certainty to schools with its 10-year transition and enduring framework. We are delivering what the Gonski report actually proposed, to replace messy funding arrangements corrupted by special deals, trade-offs and a lack of transparency. We are delivering a funding model such that students and schools with the same need attract the same support from the Commonwealth regardless of where they live and regardless of what type of non-government school they attend. We are delivering a true level playing field for how funds are allocated to schools and greater transparency about who gets what.
We are delivering record investment into Australian schools. These are real funding increases, with an extra $18.6 billion over the next 10 years. Over 2018 to 2027, Commonwealth school funding will be a record $242.3 billion. Funding grows every year, from $17.5 billion in 2017 to $30.6 billion in 2027. We have appointed David Gonski to lead the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools so that our extra education dollars can be invested to improve our nation's education performance. The Turnbull government is committed to a school funding system that is fairer, nationally consistent, needs based and transparent.
With regard to higher education, more than a year ago, on budget night 2016, the Turnbull government set out possible elements of a revised higher education reform package. The Turnbull government took full fee deregulation off the table. The Minister for Education and Training said he would listen and consult, and that is exactly what he has done. After 1,200 submissions, countless meetings with stakeholders and advice from an expert advisory panel, the Turnbull government in this budget reversed the previous package of reforms and proposed a new package. The package is fair. It ensures sustainability so that, irrespective of financial means or background, future generations of students will continue to access higher education. It also seeks to ensure that higher education institutions are held to account for the learning experiences and job outcomes of their students, for whom they receive significant and growing taxpayer subsidies.
Not only does this package of higher education reforms keep the demand-driven system; it has ensured that we can pay for it and at the same time offers more choice to students by extending access to diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees. We are, for the first time, funding work experience in industry as part of university courses. We will support up to eight regional study hubs in more regional and remote parts of the country, and we are seeking to enshrine the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program, which supports low-SES, regional and Indigenous students, in legislation.
Funding for higher education has grown at twice the rate of growth in the economy, and, with these proposed reforms, funding is still projected to grow by 23 per cent between now and 2021. This package is fair because it is asking students who have not had an across-the-board fee increase in over a decade to pay a little more—1.8 per cent more next year. It is asking universities to fund from further efficiencies, through an on-average two per cent reduction to base teaching and learning funding, and the taxpayer will also contribute through this package, given $700 million less in savings. The taxpayer will continue to fund, on average, 54 per cent of the teaching and learning costs at universities despite many of those taxpayers having never been to university. This package is fair, it is sustainable and it will drive improved transparency and better outcomes. (Time expired)
May I start by welcoming the minister to this consideration in detail. Perhaps next time you might arrive on time. Perhaps again—
Better late than never, I say to the member. Better late than never.
I think the member for Griffith is more optimistic than I am. I think we perhaps might have done better with the assistant minister responding to questions. But it is the attention to detail which you have just demonstrated, Minister, that perhaps explains why your colleagues have been so receptive of your package of reforms in the energy space. In any event, perhaps, representing Minister Birmingham, you can account for yourself rather better in this chamber than you have been in your party room.
Before we get to questions—and I will be dealing with questions in respect of the schools portfolio—it is worth reflecting on what the coalition has done to schools.
A government member: Where's your minister?
The shadow minister, soon to be minister, is away sick, actually. The rhetoric of this government has gone through many, many evolutions, but the reality remains the same. We remember on this side of the House that the coalition were on a unity ticket when it came to needs based school funding, before the infamous 2014 budget. Since then, what have we seen? We have seen two fundamental failures: a failure of process where the now minister, Senator Birmingham, has failed to engage with state and territory colleagues and with the schooling sector before delivering a package which is a substantive retreat from needs based funding; and an abandonment of a national responsibility of our national government for schooling standards in Australia.
What the Prime Minister and the minister are currently proposing is the opposite of needs based funding, however the assistant minister may dress it up. There are students in every suburb in every state throughout Australia whose needs will never be met by this government's inadequate plan, which does not provide a pathway to the schooling resource standard, which was the core of the Gonski recommendations. Every school in my electorate of Scullin will be worse off.
Let us be very clear: only the Australian Labor Party is committed to investing in our students everywhere based on their needs. Under the Prime Minister's plans, Australia's schools, principals and teachers will be $22 billion worse off, as the Prime Minister's own briefing note has made clear and as, perhaps, the minister at the table might be brave enough to admit in this consideration in detail. This is money that would make a huge difference to school communities and the educational experience of so many students. Under Labor, students would get every chance to fulfil their full potential, no matter their parents' background or bank balance or where they live.
I do not expect satisfactory answers from the minister, because the government are much more interested in avoiding their responsibilities to schools than in actually supporting students, but I will take the minister to recommendation 1 of the review, which said:
The Australian Government and the states and territories, in consultation with the non-government sector, should develop and implement a schooling resource standard …
How is your plan, Minister, with no requirement for states and territories to ever contribute their share of the SRS for public schools, meeting this recommendation? Further, what consultation did the government commit to, particularly with states and territories, with the private school sector and with the Catholic sector, while developing this framework, which has no logic underpinning it or evidence base supporting it? Where, Minister, in the review of funding did the panel recommend that 80 per cent of the SRS be paid by the Commonwealth to non-government schools, and where does it recommend—and this is perhaps the crux for many of us on this side—that 20 per cent only should be paid for government schools? What analysis was undertaken to determine this was the right figure?
Does the government believe that all states and territories have the same capacity to adequately fund their school systems? Last week, Minister, I was in the Northern Territory visiting schools in Darwin. If the government genuinely believed in needs based funding, it would not be producing a model, regardless of commitments to transition funds, that will leave every one of the 151 government schools in the Northern Territory worse off. Why does the Northern Territory—with 40 per cent Indigenous students, nearly 66 per cent low-SES students and the worst schooling outcomes in the country—get an increase of only 1.3 per cent a year?
This government has no plan to deliver needs based school funding. What it is presenting the parliament and the Australian people is walking away from needs based funding and, more fundamentally than that, walking away from an Australian government having an interest in educational outcomes for every Australian child. In so doing, they are undermining, for all of us, our future wellbeing.
Debate interrupted.
Before I call the member for Forde, I inform members we have present in the chamber the President of the New South Wales Legislative Council, the Hon. John Ajaka. On behalf of the Federation Chamber we welcome you. You have an all-star cast before you this afternoon.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Whilst I have a lot of regard for my colleague on the other side of the chamber, the member for Scullin, it is once again instructive to stand in this chamber—also having stood in the House—talking about education funding and listen to five minutes of whingeing and whining and complaining with no constructive solution to the problem, as usual.
I am very pleased to stand in this chamber today and speak about our education funding package, very pleased indeed. There is not a single school in my electorate that is not getting an increase in funding. As I go around to my schools and talk to the principals about the funding package, they are very happy.
An opposition member: Check your emails!
I have checked my emails—I have not had a single email of complaint. They are all happy. It is very pleasing to speak about our funding package for schools. Importantly, more than just this funding package, this government should be congratulated because in Queensland, after we were elected in 2013, in the 2014 budget we put an extra $800 million of funding into Queensland schools. Those opposite did not put this into Queensland schools, because the Queensland government had not signed an agreement. That funding has been extremely important and valuable to schools in my electorate.
The schools have used that for a range of activities. In fairness to Education Queensland, and I will give them kudos for this, that money went in full to the schools. The schools were able to design their own programs that suited their own school cohorts of students. I am pleased to say that this funding package builds on that extra $800 million that we have previously put into Queensland schools. It is about putting students first. That is what we have always done. We had the education minister, Minister Birmingham, in the electorate several weeks ago. He had a forum with the majority of principals at our schools and they were all happy with what had been proposed.
I will give you a flavour of how some of our schools have benefited. Mount Warren Park State School, which has more than 680 students, will be allocated an extra $1,705 per student from 2007 funding levels. But this is not the only school in my electorate that will benefit under this funding package. Total Commonwealth funding from 2018 to 2027 for Beenleigh State High School will be around $60 million, a total increase of around $14.2 million. Commonwealth funding, for the same period, for Loganlea State High School will be around $35 million, a total increase of some $8 million. Eagleby South State School will have funding of about $14.6 million, an increase of some $3.5 million.
This shows, quite clearly, without going into the other 42 schools in the electorate, how the claims of those opposite are completely without foundation or basis. This education funding package is fair, transparent and consistent, and it reflects the needs based funding model that Gonski outlined. It is record funding for the schools in my electorate of Forde and for schools around the country. So those opposite can complain and whinge and whine, because that is all they ever have to offer. They do not have anything constructive to offer. It is this government on this side of the chamber that is doing the work necessary to ensure our schools are fully funded. My question to the minister is: how will the Commonwealth's allocation of funding grow for the government, right across schools in all sectors in my home state of Queensland, and how is that going to benefit students in those schools?
In 1996, I ran to become the president of my student union. I ran on a platform that included a range of things—obviously $1-pot night at the student club was very high up there! I also ran on a platform of defending students and higher education from the attacks on students, universities and the public by the then Howard government. Interestingly enough, 20 years later here we are still fighting against attacks on higher education by conservative governments. I am pleased to say that I have been on the same side of that for the entire period. I have always fought, for my entire life, against attacks on higher education by conservative governments. I intend to continue to do so or, even better, to be part of a Labor government that will defend higher education and invest in higher education because of the benefits that it brings to this nation and this nation's future.
But, interestingly enough, just two years before my amazing run for the presidency of my student union—something that is very dear to my heart—there was another person running to become the president of his student union. It is interesting to see where both of us have ended up. That person, like me, ran to become the president of his student union. I am sure it was an illustrious campaign and that he served an amazing term as the president of his student union if he won—I do not know if he did; maybe he did. But I have seen the flyer that he used when he was running for the presidency of the student union. Of course, I am speaking of the now Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham. Everyone here would be a fan of BuzzFeed. I am certainly a fan of BuzzFeed. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, you are a great appreciator of the works of Mark Di Stefano and, like me, you are probably gutted to hear that he is leaving our country and going off to the UK so we will not have him here for BuzzFeed anymore.
Shame!
It is a shame, isn't it? But that is love for you, Member for Newcastle. Anyway, Mark Di Stefano, the political editor for Australia for BuzzFeed, wrote a very instructive article called, 'The Education Minister's 1994 Student Political Campaign Is Very Funny Now.' And it absolutely is very funny now—great picture, great flyer! And what does he say on this flyer in 1994:
Simon Birmingham for President. Standing up to the Federal Government's assault on students & education …
How proud he must be almost 25 years later to be leading the assault on students and education.
I remind the member not to use props. You can read it to your heart's content but do not use it as a prop. Thank you. Continue.
I am sorry. For the benefit of those who are not able to see this, it is a beautiful flyer. There is a picture of a young Simon Birmingham, now the Minister for Education and Training. The phrase is 'Standing up to the federal government's assault on students and education'. Now he must be so proud to be leading the assault on students and education, a mere almost 25 years later. I was thinking about this and I thought, 'I wonder if there are any other interesting articles on the internet about Simon Birmingham's assault on students and higher education.' I came across—
Order! Is the honourable member seeking to ask a question or make an interjection?
I wish to draw to the attention of the chair that members need to refer to members and senators by their correct title.
Sure.
Yes. I have been careful to do that, other than when it was a direct quote, which I am entitled to do under the standing orders, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Resume your seat for a second. I would just remind you of that very point. I take it that you initially quoted Senator Birmingham. But, if you are going to refer to people, refer to them by their proper title—in this case, the Minister for Education and Training.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you and of course I will be careful, other than when I am quoting an article, which of course will require me to quote it properly. But let me tell you about this article, because I know you are going to love it. It is written by 'the Backburner'. I know that we are all gutted to hear that the Backburner will not be continuing. It is called, 'Birmingham Dismisses Student Protest As "Happening Since We Started Eroding Their Future"'. You could of course mistake this for a factual article. It is parody but it is hard to tell that it is parody, because in fact the minister has been out there eroding the future of working Australians and middle-class Australians by launching an assault on higher education. So I ask that the minister answer this place and the people of Australia: how is it fair to increase university fees; how is it fair to cut public funding to universities; how is it fair to lower the threshold for repayment of contributions down to $42,000; and what does the minister expect this will do for the economy and our society?
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Order! The minister will have his chance shortly.
I have the pleasure of asking a question of Minister Josh Frydenberg, who is representing the Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham. The education reforms of the Turnbull government will finally address a glaring injustice in the schools funding debate, an injustice that I have spoken about many times in this place, and I no doubt will continue to do so for some time. To put it simply, the share of schools funding in regional Western Australia has been nothing short of a joke in the past. On a sliding scale of need, we are sadly up around the top of the ladder. We have the greatest disparity with the clear needs of our students, who are under-represented in school completion rates, mean grades and higher education take-up. By most measures, we are in serious need. We have finally had those issues addressed, by a government that I am very proud to be a part of, a government that actually cares about regional Australia and its future.
Just last week I visited a school in my electorate, in Geraldton, and spoke about the importance of these changes for regional Australia. Under the coalition's model, this school stands to receive roughly double the amount of federal funding per student by 2027, compared to what they are currently receiving. That translates to an extra $3 million over 10 years and will mean that, by 2027, they are receiving $4,000 per student from the government, versus the 2,000 pitiful dollars that they are currently receiving. I think we can all agree here that that is indeed a very fantastic result for that tiny little school in South Geraldton.
It is worth ruminating on what those members opposite have done in the past for that little primary school in the Mid West of Western Australia. Of all the special deals that the Labor Party have cut to gain influence and support through the little games and the dodgy deals that they have been able to accumulate over the years, it is interesting to note that not one of those special dodgy deals ever benefited a school in regional Western Australia. Perhaps the member for Sydney and her colleagues believe that the expensive private schools in the member for Sydney's electorate deserve more money than that small school in Mount Tarcoola in Geraldton. Well, I do not think so, and I do not think anyone here thinks so either. How anyone can say that the current model is equitable and fair is beyond me. It has rewarded those bad, dodgy deals made in the past and it disadvantages rural students and Indigenous students. I know that in the Deputy Speaker's electorate, Canning, they have also experienced this.
In Geraldton, the Geraldton Flexible Learning Centre—with around 87 students, 86 of whom are Indigenous—will be allocated an extra $28,980 per student in Commonwealth funding in 2018, growing to $40,842 per student in 2027, an increase of $13,006 from 2017 funding levels. Total Commonwealth funding over 2018 to 2027 for the Geraldton Flexible Learning Centre will be around $30.16 million, a total increase of $5.94 million. Over the next four years, annual average per-student funding to the government school sector in Western Australia will grow by 7.3 per cent. This is well above inflation and well above the wage price index. That means that funding for Western Australian government schools goes up some 44 per cent. I see that we have the member for Fremantle in the House here today. I will be very interested to watch how our WA Labor members of parliament react when we finalise this, because I will be very surprised if they cannot back it. In fact, I dare the WA members of parliament representing the Labor Party not to support these increases.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Keep your interjections to a minimum, please.
These changes we will see will be a great improvement in remote Indigenous communities where, if you want to measure need surely there is none greater anywhere in this country. Djugerari Remote Community School with around seven students, all of whom are Indigenous, will be allocated an estimated $12,450 per student in Commonwealth funding in 2018, growing to $22,508 per student in 2027. That means that total Commonwealth funding over 2018 to 2027 for Djugerari will be around $1.2 million, a total increase of around $393,000. Minister, how will the Commonwealth's allocation of funding grow for schools such as the Geraldton Flexible Learning Centre, which is a Catholic school in Geraldton— (Time expired)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this discussion today. The responsibilities of the Department of Education and Training are very important to me and also to members of my electorate. I welcome to the chamber today Claire, Loretta, Mim and Anika; it is lovely to have you here. I want to raise the matter of transition arrangements for Budget Based Funded services, including mobile services, under the Jobs for Families Child Care Package, which is a responsibility of the minister for education. Providing secure access to child care is one of the single most powerful things the government can do for regional productivity.
The assistant minister for education is aware of the concerns raised in my electorate and throughout regional Australia around the sustainability of mobile childcare services as a result of the transition to funding under the Community Child Care Fund, CCCF. While the government says it wants to transition these 42 services across Australia, sadly, for many services, there is nowhere to transition. Often these services are the only child care available, particularly in remote Aboriginal communities. Some services have already indicated that without certainty of funding they will not be able to continue. Some have already closed, and their loss is significant. The education department has released its draft Community Child Care Fund program guidelines, and it has undertaken briefings with childcare providers via information sessions around Australia, including one last week in my community of Wodonga.
Assistant Minister, I have some questions in relation to the guidelines for the restricted non-competitive part of the CCCF program that will apply to Budget Based Funded services—it is a specific part of this service. It is not stated in the guidelines how much notice services will receive on whether or not they have been successful. How many months in advance of the transition date in July 2018 will services be advised? There is concern that the assessment criteria asks applicants to describe how their proposal will support the service over time to 'achieve greater viability and/or sustainability under the new child care system'. Providers of mobile services in rural and remote areas argue that these services are never going to be able to grow their businesses in the long term, simply because the number of children requiring care will fluctuate. They are not designed to grow. Service providers are concerned that they cannot guarantee that they will meet this criteria. Of course they cannot. Can the department assure providers that the assessment criteria to improve over time to achieve greater viability and/or sustainability will not be restricted to how the proposal represents value for money and whether, alternatively, it will result in achieving greater sustainability or viability over estimated time frames? Clearly, if you are not designing a service to grow but you are designing a service to meet a need, you want it to do that and you want to measure that.
Given many BBFs operate from buildings owned by councils or other third parties, will the department be taking a flexible approach to the requirement within the draft guidelines that indicate, where grants are to be used for capital improvements or a capital contribution, that in-kind contribution and designated-use periods may apply? The guidelines state that there will be no appeal mechanism for decisions to approve or not to approve a grant under the CCCF—is this correct? We hope it is not. Appealing decisions is a really important part of provision of service. Will oversight by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or some such other body apply to these decisions by the minister or his or her delegate?
The guidelines say:
The Assessment Team may apply an equitable funding formula to determine the amount services may require during their transition to the new child care scheme.
Could this funding formula be applied to assist providers with applications to the CCCF and planning? In leaving these questions with the minister and also department staff, I want to stress how important mobile child care is to my community and to those in rural and regional Australia. Sadly, we find we are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, and we need all the assistance we can possibly get from the department and from these guidelines to help us provide an essential service to all the industries in regional Australia. We want this program to work, but at the moment there are so many problems with the system that we are very worried about its ability to continue to deliver child care.
My questions are focused around school funding. I see schools as very central to our local communities. The first thing I did when I was elected was to write to all of the schools around Brisbane. I wrote to the P&Cs and the P&Fs and then to the principals to introduce myself as the new member for Brisbane and to begin what I hope will be a long and meaningful relationship with them in their school communities.
As the minister for education would know because he visited Brisbane very recently and we held a morning tea and a round table with almost all of the local schools attending, Brisbane is home to many great schools in both the government and the non-government sectors. In Brisbane, we proudly have some of the best government and non-government schools in Australia. We also have one of the highest proportions of Catholic schools in the country.
I have enjoyed visiting many of the schools around Brisbane so far to talk about the benefits of the Turnbull government's school funding reforms. I have enjoyed talking to principals, school boards, parents and students alike. It has been quite enjoyable because I know—and almost everybody that I speak to agrees with this—that the aims of these reforms are right. The school funding announcements made by this government and funded in this budget are fair. They are creating a system that is equitable and that is needs based, as David Gonski originally intended, and that is why Gonski has endorsed these reforms. The fact that almost all schools around Brisbane should receive more funding under the reforms also helps the discussion to be more enjoyable and easier for me, of course.
The transparency of the reforms is a really important element. It is key. It demonstrates the fairness for all to see, so I have been strongly encouraging all parents in Brisbane to check out the government's online estimator and see for themselves how much better off their school should be and to look at how the funding of so many of our local schools could change. In fact, I have written to about 20,000 parents right across Brisbane, showing them not only how their school looks under the reform but how all of the other schools around Brisbane look by comparison. I would invite the minister to expand on this by telling us how the Commonwealth's allocation of funding will grow across Catholic schools in my home state of Queensland or, indeed, how it will grow for government schools or independent schools too.
There is a lot of information there. For example, Our Lady of the Assumption school in Enoggera will be allocated about $5,960 per student in Commonwealth funding in 2018, growing to over $8,000 per student in 2027—an increase of more than $2,300 per student from the 2017 funding levels. St Rita's College in Clayfield will be allocated an estimated $5,670 per student in Commonwealth funding in 2018, growing to more than $7,700 per student in 2027—an increase of over $2,250 per student from 2017 funding levels. Reflecting the diverse backgrounds and the challenges of its unique student cohort, St James College in Spring Hill will be allocated an estimated $11,740 per student in Commonwealth funding in 2018, growing to almost $16,000 per student in 2027—an increase of more than $4,500 per student on 2017 funding levels. That will add up to a total increase allocated to St James College of around $9.8 million in additional funding over the 10 years.
It is important to get into these details because then you realise what has been so wrong with the model up until now and how unfair Labor's approach has been in the past when it comes to school funding, with their secret deals and their different approaches for different schools, and different systems in different states, which was the complete opposite of the model that David Gonski originally recommended. The minister may wish to confirm, in fact, what was said in a recent letter from the executive director of Catholic Education to parents in the Brisbane Catholic archdiocese—that they—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will cease interjecting.
support the government's reform aims, that they are receiving a net 3.7 per cent increase in funding overall and that parents can expect to see no unusual fee increases within the Brisbane archdiocese as a consequence of these reforms. That type of feedback is important because, for most schools, there is, of course, this second step to their funding models. Of course, after the Commonwealth government provides its funding, state governments schools continue to get most of their funding from the state governments that run them. Non-government schools will continue to charge private school fees.
On top of that, there does remain this very important ability of the different systems—in Brisbane's case, like Education Queensland for the state schools and the Queensland Catholic Education Commission for Catholic schools—to redistribute the funding in their systems. We are very proudly backing them and their continuing ability to decide how they redistribute within their school systems.
I would like to welcome New South Wales Minister John Ajaka, who is with us today. I congratulate the New South Wales Liberal government for their understanding of the importance of a genuine needs based funding model and for standing their ground on agreements that were struck but which this government fails to honour.
Today, I want to draw the minister's attention to the detrimental consequences of his government's plans to cap places, introduce student fees and institute a tender process for university enabling courses. Make no mistake: the $3,200 fee being proposed by the Turnbull government will repel tens of thousands of low-income and disadvantaged students from enrolling in enabling courses, especially since these courses, unlike diplomas or bachelor degree programs, do not result in any formal qualification. Thousands of potential students will be locked out of higher education entirely. At a time when Australia should be staking our place in a global knowledge economy by investing in our people and developing our national skills base, it is utterly counterproductive to discourage participation in higher education
As the nation's oldest and largest provider of enabling programs, the University of Newcastle and the lower Hunter region more broadly has, perhaps, the most to lose from this proposal. The University of Newcastle currently runs three enabling programs—Yapug, Newstep and Open Foundation—which provide targeted training and tertiary study pathways for Indigenous and mature age students, as well as recent school leavers aged between 18 and 20. Together, these programs have helped over 42,000 students gain entrance into higher education since 1974. In fact, today close to 20 per cent of the current student cohort at the University of Newcastle entered their degree through an enabling program. That is how significant these programs are. They play a critical role in supporting thousands of disadvantaged students into degrees. Indeed, many participants are the first in their families to have attended universities. Many have to contend with multiple obstacles in order to succeed, but it is no coincidence that Newcastle has 1,000 Indigenous students enrolled. It is no coincidence that the University of Newcastle trains more than half of this nation's Indigenous doctors. Those incredible successes are directly attributable to the decades of hard work and Newcastle's steadfast commitment to delivering equity in education through high-quality enabling programs.
Last month, I had the opportunity to meet an outstanding woman, Makayla Guest, a second-year Indigenous student at medical school at the University of Newcastle. Makayla directly credits the university's Yapug enabling program for allowing her to reach her potential. Her words tell the story much better than I could. Makayla said:
Never in my remotest dreams would I have thought that I would have the opportunity to be studying to be a medical doctor. I never believed that I would have the ability to achieve and participate in something so meaningful. Not just meaningful to myself, but also, my family, my friends and my Mob.
For Makayla, and the tens of thousands of others just like her, it was the enabling program that gave her the confidence and the skills to undertake higher education. Like me, these students are deeply worried about this government's plan to cap places, introduce student fees and implement a tender process for universities' enabling courses.
Indeed, since the 2017 budget was released, I have been inundated with heartfelt calls and messages, from current and former students as well as university staff, about the dire impacts this proposal will have for our communities. They are all asking similar questions. So, on behalf of them, I ask the minister: what is this government's commitment to equity in education? How will the next cohort of Indigenous students, of those who are first in family to go to uni, of women and of potential students from low income families gain access to university? With the exceptional successes of the University of Newcastle clear to see, why on earth would you consider contracting these programs out to private providers? Unlike universities, private providers have no specific equity mission or community obligations, and many have no previous experience in teaching students who have faced prior educational challenges. I ask the minister these questions.
We have heard a lot about the wide range of benefits that will result from the Turnbull government's new childcare package, but I would like to spend some time, in the consideration in detail of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 today, examining the important provisions of one particularly important component of the package—the $1.2 billion Child Care Safety Net. This is a new and improved approach to ensuring that our most vulnerable children are receiving all the care they need. We know that children from disadvantaged backgrounds benefit most from quality early-childhood education and care. That is why our new childcare package is providing additional support to those who need it most.
Within the overall childcare package, our Child Care Safety Net recognises that vulnerable children need extra support, and it does so in various ways. First of all, the Child Care Safety Net will support families earning around $65,000 or less who do not meet the activity test, by providing two days a week. That is two six-hour sessions at the highest, 85 per cent, rate of subsidy, which is an increase on the current 72 per cent rate of subsidy for this group.
Secondly, also under the Child Care Safety Net, the additional childcare subsidy will provide extra subsidies to families of children at risk of serious abuse or neglect, those experiencing temporary financial hardship and people moving from income support into work. Thirdly, families of children at risk of serious abuse and those experiencing temporary financial hardship will be exempt from the activity test and will qualify for up to 50 hours of child care a week, at a subsidy equal to 100 per cent of their childcare fees, up to 120 per cent of the hourly rate cap. Families moving from income support will attract a subsidy of up to 95 per cent of their childcare fees—that is up to 95 per cent of the hourly rate cap—and the hours of subsidised care will be based on the training or study activity.
The ACCS will also ensure that grandparents on income support who are the principal carers of their grandchildren—that is, who are caring for their grandchildren 65 per cent of the time—will not have to meet the childcare subsidy activity test and will receive a subsidy equal to 100 per cent of their childcare fees, up to 120 per cent of the hourly rate cap.
The $404 million Community Child Care Fund will provide grants to services to reduce the barriers to accessing child care. It will improve service viability, particularly in disadvantaged or remote communities. $61.8 million of the Community Child Care Fund, the CCCF, will be set aside to support the transition of budget-based funded services, including mobile services in regional, rural and remote communities. This funding will be in addition to childcare subsidies families using those services receive for the first time and will support the expansion of services into areas of unmet demand to increase Indigenous children's participation in early learning.
A key component of the childcare safety net is the $550 million Inclusion Support Program. Understanding that the ISP commenced last July in advance of the package, I ask the minister to provide an update on its implementation.
Today I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the plight of Catholic schools in my electorate in New South Wales. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon. George Ajaka, the President of the New South Wales Legislative Council. I have received hundreds of emails and letters from families across the Central Coast whose children attend Catholic schools in my electorate and who have been let down by the government's proposed new model for school funding, which will result in significant cuts to their school funding. I have met with teachers and principals from local parish schools who strongly oppose these changes. They are shocked and have been blindsided by this new model, which will significantly reduce the federal funding their schools, such as Saint Cecilia's Primary School, receive.
A government member: They are getting a 3.8 per cent increase.
That is not according to the diocese of Broken Bay. They are also concerned that the government's position means that parents and families do not know what their school fees will be next year. Parents and teachers across the Central Coast have many unanswered questions, and they deserve to be responded to. I would like to take the opportunity now to ask the minister some of those questions. I ask the minister: did the government consult with the Catholic education sector in my community in New South Wales before settling its position? Has Minister Birmingham consulted with the sector since announcing the model? If so, what has been their response?
Catholic schools educate around 20 per cent of Australian school children. Families in these Catholic schools deserve to be treated fairly. Some 31 per cent of students educated by Catholic and independent schools are identified as students with some level of disability or higher learning needs, which is considerably higher than in the government school sector. Many families choose Catholic and independent schools because of a particular service or support these schools may be able to provide for their child with a disability or higher learning needs, and they are often supported by the school providing subsidised fees. Does the minister acknowledge that not all students in nongovernment schools pay full or part fees? The new model is likely to impact particularly heavily on those families. Has the government considered a mechanism to support non-fee-paying students? What has the government done to properly consider the impact their model will have on students with disability, particularly those in nongovernment schools?
I will now quote from some of my constituents, and I put these questions directly to the minister:
Our students require extensive assistance and their parents have jumped through bureaucratic and medical hoops to gain funding, so why are their needs deemed unworthy of additional assistance now?
This is from another parent:
Some teachers in our small system of Broken Bay diocese schools are at risk of losing their jobs. Will this really improve students' learning?
And this is from another parent:
Personally, our family chose Catholic education for our two children. We are not rich. We work hard. We prioritise our budget to make this work. Why can't the government do the same?
Another family in my electorate said:
We rent a house in Toukley … and we are surviving on one income. Where does our financial situation factor in and why are we potentially being penalised because we choose to make sacrifices to raise our child in an education system that I am familiar with?
These are just some of the hundreds of letters and emails that I have had from parents and teachers in Catholic schools across my electorate—like Saint Cecilia's in Wyong, the primary school that I went to, or Mater Dei and Corpus Christi, which I attended for high school. These kids deserve good quality education. Can the minister respond to the very real fears families have for their kids' future and for their own financial security that have arisen from the uncertainty the government has created with this new funding model?
In my electorate there are close to 10,000 children living below the poverty line. In pockets of my community, around a third of households have a combined income of less than $600 per week. Many of these families send their children to Catholic schools, and I am very concerned that the proposed new model of school funding will have a profound impact on their families and their budgets. The government must adopt Labor's policy and restore needs-based funding in full to ensure that all children have fair and equal access to quality education that meets their needs in their communities.
When it comes to the Labor Party, do not look at what they say, look what they do. The member for Dobell has 44 schools in her electorate, which miss out on an average of $7.1 million each under the coalition's program, so she must go to the people of Dobell and explain why they are better off. She asks me in particular about the Catholic system. The Catholic system will receive a 3.5 per cent increase over the next 10 years; and 98 per cent of Catholic students will see a growth of more than 3.3 per cent per year. The Catholic sector already has the highest Commonwealth student funding in every state and territory, now and into the future. So yes; we do consult with the Catholic sector and we do continue to support additional funding in this space—and it was Sir Robert Menzies who first decided to provide funding for the Catholic system.
The member for Scullin has to front up to the 46 schools in his electorate and tell them that on average they will be $7.6 million better off under Malcolm Turnbull's plan. The member for Scullin may barrack for a good football team, but he is barracking for the wrong political team! In the Northern Territory, students are already getting the highest funding from the Commonwealth—now at $6,445, and out to 2027, $7,369. The member for Griffith asked me about higher education.
Ms Butler interjecting—
I can tell the member for Griffith that $16 billion per year is being supported by the coalition: compare this to Labor's record between 2011 and 2013 where they cut $6 billion. Again, do not look at what Labor says, look at what Labor does. Through the good work of Senator Birmingham, we have ensured that we will continue to have a generous loans scheme, that we will not have up-front fees, and that taxpayers will still fund the majority of university fees.
The member for Griffith is warned—and, as a general rule, I suggest you internalise your interjections.
The member for Newcastle also asks about higher education: she would know that under the coalition, we will see a 23 per cent increase—through to 2021—in the funding of higher education, and that we are supporting regional student hubs, and that we have already seen growth in funding greater than the economic growth across the economy. We are basing our recommendations and our policy on the work of an expert panel which received many submissions. The member for Indi asked me about budget-based funding for childcare centres; there are 300 of these around the country, 22,000 students are supported, and we will continue to strongly support their funding of more than $60 million. Consultation on the guidelines closed on 13 June and it will be important to have these settled.
My own colleagues raised important issues. The member for Ford asked about funding in Queensland. We will see a 4.9 per cent increase for government schools, a 3.5 per cent increase for Catholic schools, and a five per cent increase for independent schools. The member for Brisbane also would be pleased to know about the increased funding in that state under the Turnbull government's plans, and the Brisbane archdiocese has also come out very strongly in support of the coalition's program. When it comes to child care, I was asked important questions by my colleague the member for Chisholm—and she would know very well, because she is an excellent local member, that childcare funding is going to increase under the coalition government, and that this increase will benefit nearly one million hardworking families. We are rewarding those families who have the longest working hours. Families who are earning less than $185,000 will be much better off under this program. We will see 230,000 families empowered to work under this program, so there continues to be strong support for child care under the government's plan.
The member for Durack was also pleased to know about the increases in funding across the state of Western Australia—4½ per cent for independent schools, 3.8 per cent for the Catholic sector and 6.8 per cent for the government sector. And, of course, the schooling resource standard will be much better funded under the coalition government than it ever was under Labor's 27 secret special deals.
Unfortunately, in this budget what we see continued is the Liberal government's appalling treatment of our TAFE and vocational education sectors. We know that since they have been elected the Liberals have cut more than $2.8 billion from TAFE, from skills and from apprenticeships. This is yet another example of an opportunity to try to right some of these wrongs which has not been utilised. What we know is that Australia now has 130,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than it did when this government was elected. We know that TAFE and vocational education funding and the number of students who are being supported are lower now than they were a decade ago, and this is despite an increasing number of jobs in Australia requiring vocational skills. It is clear that this government is not up to the job of ensuring that Australia has the skills that we need for the jobs of the future.
We on this side know that, in too many towns and regional centres, TAFE campuses have closed, courses have been scaled back and fees have increased. We see this particular problem with TAFE, and we have seen this government absolutely neglect TAFE, let the reputation of TAFE be deeply damaged and not protect what should be at the centre of our vocational education. Those over there have a problem with TAFE, and it was once again clear in the budget.
Recently we have seen that programs such as the migrant English program and the Skills for Education and Employment program have now also been ripped off our TAFE providers in regional New South Wales, in Tasmania, in Melbourne and in Adelaide, where we see the further privatisation of these programs. Other areas where these programs have been delivered include the capital region, Canberra; the Illawarra and the South Coast; north-east Melbourne, south-east Melbourne and the peninsula; Somerset; Adelaide north; and Perth north. In some areas there are double and triple subcontracts, not approved by the department, which will see foreign-owned for-profit companies taking the place of trusted TAFE providers in delivering these important government programs. This is yet another way that we are now seeing the Turnbull government continue to privatise TAFE, when we know that we should be going in the other direction.
When it comes to ongoing funding for VET, the Liberal government do not have a plan. They just wish that TAFE and VET would go away. We do not know the details of what the government really have planned for the replacement of the national partnership, but we do know two things. One is that they will only train Australians, and possibly they will only fund TAFE, on the condition that more foreign workers are imported. That is what the government's budget says. They will only provide funding for the national partnership if we continue to import more skills. That is crazy policy. It does not make any sense.
No. 2 is that they will not do what Labor is doing and guarantee that two-thirds of public funding, state and federal, will go to TAFE. We know it needs to be the backbone of the system. We made it really clear in the budget reply. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what we are prepared to do—
A government member interjecting—
The minister will cease to interject.
invest an additional $637 million into TAFE and vocational education, reversing the government's cuts in full. That is $637 million on this side, additional to what was in their budget. We are also going further, guaranteeing at least two-thirds of public vocational education funding for TAFE. We are investing in a new $100 million Building TAFE for the Future Fund to re-establish the facilities that have been absolutely neglected and left to be run down under those opposite. We are also setting targets for apprentices, one in 10 on all Commonwealth priority projects, investing in pre-apprenticeship programs and establishing an advanced entry adult apprenticeship program. The Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party understand TAFE. That is why we all celebrated National TAFE Day yesterday. We have the policy to backup. We know it is not just words.
Perhaps the assistant minister can tell us what she did on behalf of the government to mark National TAFE Day yesterday. Did the government go out and mark it in any way? If not, why not and is it because they wanted to further their record of just neglecting, walking away, privatising and running down our TAFE sector? Why is the minister further privatising TAFE by letting the migrant English program and the Skills for Education and Employment program be run by for-profit, foreign-owned businesses who are replacing the contracts that TAFE used to have? Will the minister guarantee at least the projected funding under the proposed national partnership?
I thank the honourable member for her contribution.
The minister does not want any more questions. She is calling time and running away.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! I have just taken the chair and we need to owe this room a little more respect. I encourage your enthusiasm, but while I am here we will play by my rules.
I am pleased to present a very different view and discuss the importance of Australian Apprenticeships. Apprenticeships are an incredibly important pathway for a rewarding job and career for many young Australians. They provide the job and practical skills training combined with formal study to thousands of Australians every single year. In my own electorate of Berowra, there are currently more than 1,200 apprentices in training. The apprenticeship pathway provides strong job outcomes for young Australians entering the workforce—92 per cent of trade apprentices and 84 per cent of non-trade apprentices who complete their apprenticeships go straight into employment. Anecdotally, apprentices are more likely to become small-business owners and entrepreneurs than their peers who graduate from higher education. Apprenticeships are also critical to the national economy. Industries including tourism, hospitality, health and ageing, agriculture, engineering, manufacturing, building and construction and digital technologies are currently facing potential skill shortages. Increasing the number of young Australians undertaking an apprenticeship will help ensure our growing and emerging industries do not suffer this skill shortage that would inhibit their capacity for growth.
What did the previous Labor government do to encourage apprenticeships? They slashed employer incentives for taking on apprenticeships nine times between 2011 and 2012. This totalled $1.2 billion in cuts and it included a discontinuation of the $1,500 standard employer commencement incentive for existing worker apprentices and trainees in non-National Skills Needs List occupations. They then put this money into a five-year National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform with the states and territories. This included no specific funding for TAFE despite what we always hear from those opposite about TAFE. Two-thirds of the funding provided by the Commonwealth through the national partnership agreement was to allow the states and territories to achieve structural reform in the vocational education and training sector. They effectively dragged the money out of direct on-the-job apprentice training and poured it into VET administration. What did Labor's national partnership agreement really achieve? TAFE's share of national VET enrolments fell from 60 per cent to 49 per cent and apprentice and trainee commencements halved from 126,200 in the June quarter of 2012 before the cut to 61,700 in the June quarter after the cut. Over the five years of the agreement, apprenticeship numbers have fallen by 46 per cent—down from a high of 512,000 in 2012. The biggest decline was in Labor's last year of office when the numbers collapsed by 22 per cent or more than 110,000 apprentices. The Leader of the Opposition was employment minister at the time.
The Productivity Commission and TAFE Directors Australia said that the number of apprentices in training were directly impacted by Labor's incentive cuts. The Productivity Commission report into the workplace relations framework from December 2015 said:
… changes to a number of government financial incentives between 2012 and 2013 … appear to have contributed to a marked decline in the number of commencements in non-trade occupations from mid-2012.
The chief executive officer of TAFE Directors Australia stated:
The reduction in employer incentives in July 2012 was the primary reason for a dramatic drop in apprenticeship numbers …
When you cut incentives for employers to take on apprenticeships, commencements fall. These cuts continue to affect the numbers of apprentices in training today. Instead of supporting Australian apprentices, Labor tried to plug the growing skill shortage with foreign workers. While the Leader of the Opposition was employment minister the number of 457 visas rose from 60,000 in 2010 to 110,000 in 2013.
In direct contrast to the Labor Party, the coalition is committed to supporting Australian apprentices and their employers. Unfortunately we have been locked into Labor's failed national partnership agreement for the past five years. Despite this, the coalition has been working hard to improve the situation for apprentices and their employers over the past three years, by investing up to $190 million annually in the apprenticeship network, to make it easier for employers to recruit, train and retain apprentices, and reforming training package development to place industry at the centre. Labor's national partnership agreement thankfully concludes in just a few weeks, on 30 June. Further measures announced in this budget will allow the government to hopefully have an even greater impact in restoring confidence to Australian apprentices and their employers. It is a very important move. My question to the assistant minister is: what is the government doing to invest record amounts in support of Australian apprentices?
I am glad to have this opportunity to ask some questions about the impact of the government's budget on women, particularly through the government's changes in higher education. The government has abandoned what was the bipartisan practice of producing an annual women's budget statement, which I think is a shame. What I would like to know is whether the minister has received any advice or has given any specific consideration to the impact of the government's higher education changes on Australian women. This is particularly important at a time when Australian women face considerable economic discrimination and inequity. We are kidding ourselves if we do not continue to recognise that.
Under this government, over the last four years, that has got considerably worse. Since the government came into office in 2013, Australia has dropped from 19th to 46th in the Global gender gap report. We have a high and enduring gender pay gap. It is higher in my state of Western Australia than anywhere else in the country. The gap is present at every part of the life cycle, every part of the work cycle. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency report this year, 2017, said that the average gender pay gap for graduates is now 9.4 per cent in favour of men, so that is from the very get-go. Young women coming through with a university education and going into the workforce are, at the outset, 10 per cent worse off in terms of pay and conditions than their male equivalents.
Sixty-two per cent—nearly two-thirds—of the 180,000 new Australian graduates affected by the government change to the HECS threshold will be women. They will be potentially hit by both a HECS repayment obligation that cuts in at a significantly lower threshold and an increase in the Medicare levy. It is important to consider the context of this threshold change and its impact and where it fits in the income spectrum. HECS was introduced a year before I started university, in 1989. At that point, the threshold was $22,000 per annum. That was the equivalent of 73 per cent of average male full-time earnings at that point. The new threshold that the government has put forward, the $42,000 threshold, is less than half of average male full-time earnings. It is $12,000 to $13,000 less than median income. That is when it cuts in. It is not surprising, on that basis, that organisations like the National Foundation for Australian Women and the National Union of Students have criticised this change on the basis that it has significantly negative consequences for women.
The government has abandoned the sensible practice of considering the impact of budget changes on women separately and in aggregate, but I would like to know if the minister has considered that impact through changes in his portfolio and, if not, why not. The fact is: a female graduate on the minimum wage will have virtually no incentive to earn more or to work more. Has the minister considered the fact that, under the changes to the HECS repayment threshold, some graduates—most of them female graduates—would have more disposable income if they earned $32,000 a year than if they earned $51,000 a year? They would have more disposable income if they were paid $4,000 less than the minimum wage than if they earned $51,000, because of the marginal tax rates that this government is introducing. As Greg Jericho has written:
The proposed changes will see university graduates paying a lot more – both in annual repayments and total amounts due to increases in the cost of degrees. And the ones who will feel the extra payments the most are the ones earning the least from their degree.
It is worth remembering that this week the government has just hit young people earning less than the median income with a nice big tax hike, and two-thirds of those young people will be women. I would like the minister to explain why the government is introducing a change to university funding arrangements through HECS that will disproportionately impact women, that will discourage greater female workplace participation at precisely the time when we need the reverse, and that will make the existing gender gap in pay and overall material wellbeing for women significantly worse at a time when it needs targeted policy and programs to move it in the other direction.
Just before I hand the call to the member for Boothby, I just want to make a comment for the benefit of the room. The member for McPherson, the assistant minister, will make a comment towards the end, but it is my intention to go alternately, in line with what I believe the procedures for the consideration in detail process are. So I give the call to the member for Boothby.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I must say it is a great honour to be able to ask some questions of two outstanding ministers today. I am very excited about this topic, because the Turnbull government's $1.5 billion Skilling Australians Fund was one of the many significant announcements that we made in last month's federal budget. I am very excited by the opportunities it will provide to industries, businesses and people in my electorate and, indeed, throughout Australia. By re-engineering the partnership between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, the Turnbull government will set clear objectives to achieve better outcomes and create an extra 300,000 apprenticeships over the next four years.
Businesses that benefit from employing overseas trained workers on new temporary skills shortage visas, as well as certain permanent visas, will be required to contribute to the new Skilling Australians Fund. The fund deliberately targets boosting apprenticeship numbers, for very good reason. Without action, our growing and emerging industries face a looming skills shortage that threatens their capacity for continued growth. That would be very bad news for the Australian economy.
Like so many problems we are fixing, this one can be traced back to Labor's mismanagement when last in government. Those sitting opposite are all responsible. Between 2011 and 2013, Labor slashed $1.2 billion from employer incentives to take on an apprentice. In 2012, they established a National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform, committing the Commonwealth to providing $1.75 billion to states and territories over five years. Just one-third of that, around $600 million, was allocated to training outcomes. No money was allocated to TAFE. The result of Labor's cuts to employer incentives and the national partnership agreement was a steep decline in the number of Australian apprentices. In fact, in Labor's last year in office, from June 2012 to 2013—and thank goodness it was that long ago now—apprentices suffered their biggest annual decline on record, falling by 110,000, or 22 per cent. Over the life of Labor's funding agreement, apprentice numbers in total collapsed by over 46 per cent. That is absolutely disgraceful. In my own electorate of Boothby, the number of apprentices and trainees has declined by 1,481. Nationally, TAFE's share of vocational education students also dropped from 60 per cent to 49 per cent. These are the sorts of results we see under Labor governments.
Mercifully for our vocational education and skills sector, Labor's funding arrangement will end on 30 June and be replaced by the Turnbull government's Skilling Australians Fund. The fund is being established after extensive consultation with key stakeholders, including industry and employers. The Skilling Australians Fund will provide an average of $367.5 million a year to improve training outcomes, compared to around $130 million a year under Labor's funding deal. My own state of South Australia will be around $67 million a year better off when it comes to skills training under the Turnbull government.
Under the new arrangement, states and territories will be asked to submit project proposals that focus on boosting apprenticeships in priority industries and occupations. To be approved, they must match Commonwealth funding, and the project must identify clear outcome targets. Of particular interest will be projects that target better outcomes and improved apprentice numbers in rural and regional areas. As someone who grew up in a rural and regional area, I say that is wonderful news for our country people. We recognise that, while those living in rural and regional areas account for only 29 per cent of the population, they make up around 37 per cent of those in the vocational education and apprenticeship sectors.
Along with providing the skilled workforce Australian industries need to grow, the Skilling Australians Fund is also an important part of our government's commitment to raising the status of vocational education and apprenticeships. University is not for everyone, and there are many paths to a rewarding job and career. Absolutely, one should not be seen as better than another. Statistics show that people who complete their skills training have a greater chance of moving straight into a rewarding job and career.
I have an important question for the minister: I am very interested to know what the reaction from industry has been to this excellent range of announcements by the Turnbull coalition government.
Before I give the call to the honourable member for Griffith, it is the intent of the chamber that we conclude this debate at 5.30 pm. With the indulgence of the room, and I seek you guidance, once I give the call to the assistant minister it is my intention to follow the procedure. Do you want to hear from the minister at the end, which would mean that I would need to forego that last position if we wind this up at 5.30 pm? You do not have to answer it now; have a think. The member for Griffith has the call.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the opening that the assistant minister gave because the minister had to yet to arrive, there was an acknowledgement of the 2.8 per cent cut to public funding to universities that was contained in this budget. Part of that is the efficiency dividend of 2½ per cent to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme for the years 2018 and 2019.
As the higher education legislation is written, it appears that universities will continue to be on funding agreements of a one-year duration. If that is the case, it would be appreciated if the minister could advise whether that is considered adequate by the government and why. On the question of the indexation of the CGS payments, I ask that the minister advise what happens to the CGS payments after the efficiency dividend has been taken. Will they return to the 2017 rate or will they be indexed based on the lower 2019 rate? In other words, will there be an overall lowering of the Commonwealth Grants Scheme as a consequence of this so-called efficiency dividend that the government seeks to impose on universities?
A $3.8 billion cut, in fiscal terms, to public funding to higher education—which is a very significant cut and will have an impact not just on the quality of higher education but also on the workforce in higher education—will lead to significant job losses amongst academic and general staff at universities. On top of this, the government intends to take 7½ per cent of public funding to universities and remove it from the CGS, placing it into a separate performance and reward pool. I suggest the minister might have a better chance of answering my questions if he were to listen to them.
An honourable member: That is very generous to the minister but he probably should be listening.
The 7½ per cent reduction in public funding and the removal of that into a performance and reward pool will see universities, if they continue to be on a one-year funding agreement, not know from one year to the next what their revenue will be from government. In other words, 7½ per cent will be contingent on certain performance requirements.
The university sector is completely confused about this because the government has failed to announce what those performance requirements will be for the future years. If you are trying to plan for the future, for your staffing requirements for forthcoming years, not knowing how much the revenue will be makes that a little more difficult. If 7½ per cent of your revenue is contingent on unknown performance indicators, then planning for the future and for future staffing requirements is certainly difficult. Universities are concerned that this will lead to a greater casualisation of their workforces, and I am very concerned about what that will mean for the academic workforce and general staff workforce of the universities of this nation.
Can the minister advise what modelling has been done, if any, on the workforce impact of the 7½ per cent performance and reward pool proposal?
What is expected to happen in terms of allowing universities to engage in long-term planning for their staffing needs given this large contingent component of the higher education funding that is proposed to be introduced?
The member for Newcastle raised concerns about changes to enabling courses, including the removal of the Commonwealth loading and the replacement with a student contribution through HELP, and the tendering of the program to private providers. Unfortunately, the minister, even though he purported to respond to the member for Newcastle's concerns about the University of Newcastle and enabling courses, only took the opportunity to take a bit of a sledge at her about schools. He did not, with any specificity, address the enabling courses changes, which are a matter of great concern to people who are interested in improving the participation in higher education of people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, disadvantaged backgrounds and first-in-family people—people like me who were the first in their family to go to university.
On top of last year's cut to the Higher Education Equity and Partnership Program of $152 million, these changes to enabling courses are going to make even more difficult the attainment of the goal of increasing the representation of people from lower socio-economic backgrounds in higher education and their participation in higher education, and the same goes for people from disadvantaged backgrounds more generally. I would request that the minister answer the questions posed by the member for Newcastle in respect of the enabling courses.
It would be helpful if he would listen.
It would certainly be helpful if he would listen, shadow minister. (Time expired)
There have been a number of questions that have been put this afternoon in relation to skills, and it is my intention to deal with as many of those questions in the next five minutes as I am able to do. I acknowledge the contribution of all members to the debate in relation to skills. I particularly note the contributions by the member for Boothby and the member for Berowra. I understand that, if time had permitted, the member for Gilmore was keen to speak in this afternoon's debate.
I would like to start by talking about the existing national partnership agreement, which continues until 30 June this year. It was a five-year agreement that was negotiated back in 2012, and I can say that I am so pleased that I was not the person who negotiated that agreement. That agreement provided for $1.75 billion over a five-year period. Of that $1.75 billion, $1.15 billion was for structural reforms. It was for things such as harmonisation between the states. The remaining $600 million was for training outcomes. The agreement is being replaced by the Skilling Australians Fund, which was announced in the budget, which is a $1.5 billion fund over the next four years. However, it is structured so that it will be a continuing fund into the future. That $1.5 billion will go towards training outcomes. If you want to compare the dollars under the current national partnership agreement specifically for training outcomes and the dollars in the new Skilling Australians Fund for training outcomes, you are comparing $600 million over a five-year period to $1.5 billion over four years. The Turnbull government is certainly increasing, significantly, the amount of funding that is available, particularly for direct training outcomes.
I note the contributions from one of the members opposite in particular who I note is no longer in this chamber. I think that the important thing to note out of that contribution is that there is clearly an absolute lack of understanding about the funding arrangements for vocational education and skills. There are two parts—at least to the funding arrangements that have been in place. These are arrangements that have been in place since the start of the existing national partnership agreement. One is a $1.5 billion special purpose payment that is made to the states. Within that is a range of funding options that the states can use to disperse funding to their needs within the state. The national partnership agreement sits on top of that. Of the national partnership agreement money, not one cent under the existing national partnership agreement was dedicated to an outcome for TAFE. So there was no specific funding that was allocated to TAFE under the national partnership agreement that was negotiated by Labor back in 2012.
The national partnership agreement that is in place had a number of things that are important to the situation that TAFE currently finds itself in. That agreement introduced contestability into the market. As a result of that, TAFE's share of vocational education students has eroded, falling from 60 per cent pre the national partnership agreement to 49 per cent now. In fact, if you want to look at the time period during which TAFE was negatively impacted, it was actually during the national partnership agreement that Labor negotiated. So the opposition had negotiated it. It had a devastating impact on TAFE.
I also notice that, in the proposals that the opposition had in the lead-up to the last election, if you look at the table that shows the number of dollars that the opposition was dedicating to TAFE over what would have been the forward estimates, it actually has zero in each of the four years. So under their proposal that they took to the election, they were providing absolutely not one single cent.
How many cents?
Zero. Zero, zero, zero equals zero.
Under this budget it has become clear that the government has replaced uncertainty in respect of schools funding with inequity. Nothing illustrated this better than the fact that it took the minister less than a minute to pivot to Menzies. The future of our schools is in 1964—a golden age for members opposite! We are more concerned with the future of Australians and Australia. This government is walking away from the future because it is looking backwards. While you may have your disagreements with the member for Warringah, you and he can enjoy the warm afterglow of the 1950s and the '60s together, once you have resolved your other matters that you are discussing.
Under this budget, there is another factor when it comes to schools that the minister should respond to. What we know is that every Australian does not count when it comes to schools education. Some of the most vulnerable students in need of real adjustment interventions that increased funding would and should offer are students with disability. This government needs to act to support students with disability, their families and their school communities. Instead of providing much-needed support for those who need it, however, the government is continuing with a cruel plan to cut $23 billion from Australian schools. That will impact most significantly on those most in need.
I have been around the country, unlike the minister, listening to students with, and teachers of students with, disabilities. They have waited too long for education which is inclusive. The government is failing students with disability. They continue to deny students the support they need and deserve. In turn, this denies them the opportunities they deserve in life. According to estimates—
Member for Scullin, if I could just remind you: that is two minutes—
Again, I think, Deputy Speaker, I am entitled to go as long as I will, but I will allow the minister time to respond.
Absolutely, it is your entitlement.
The loading for students with disability will increase by just 2.91 per cent after removing indexation. The number of kids required to be supported will double. This means that the students with disability funding will increase from $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion while the number of students to be supported will double. This simply is not good enough. Is there a strategy in place? I ask the minister to ensure that all schools are able to properly understand and apply the results of the nationally consistent data collection and ensure that every Australian counts when it comes to schools education.
I actually wanted to add to an answer that I gave earlier. When it comes to the coalition's plan, the schools in Dobell will be better off under Malcolm Turnbull's government at an average of $7.1 million, including Gorokan High School by $9.4 million, Wyong High School by $7 million, Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Primary School by $9.3 million. So if they vote for Malcolm Turnbull, they will be, on average, $7.1 million better off in Dobell, even though they have a Labor member. So let's get rid of the Labor member and put in a coalition member! When it comes to students with disabilities, the government is providing $1.6 billion this year—up from $1.1 billion in 2014—into state and territory non-government schools to support children with disabilities, and Commonwealth funding for students with disabilities will grow by an average of 5.9 per cent each year. To the member for Griffith: we are looking at multiple-year funding agreements and tertiary education. The efficiency dividend is a base adjustment of 2.8 per cent on average, and we will determine performance requirements in consultation with the sector. I remind the chamber that the coalition continues to spend more money on education, whether it is schools, whether it is tertiary education, or whether it is skilling and training.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to make an opening statement. The Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio has 13 agencies that receive funding from the government. The 2017-18 budget provides the portfolio ordinary annual funding of $5.5 billion in 2017-18 and an average staffing level of 5,027 people. In the 2017-18 budget, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet itself has funding for 13 new measures, ordinary annual funding of $2 billion in 2017-18, and an average staffing level of just over 2,000. It also has a relatively stable level of funding throughout the forward years.
The three key principles that underpinned the 2017-18 budget were fairness, opportunity and security. The Indigenous-specific outcome 2 initiatives supported in this budget need to be seen through that lens. The government is committed to working with Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, and the Indigenous affairs measures in the 2017-18 budget demonstrate that continued investment. The budget facilitates the delivery of innovative and effective support for Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs: $146.9 million over four years will fund business support for the Indigenous entrepreneurs measure to provide services to businesses including workshops, business planning, and training. It will also facilitate tailored loan products, including capital assistance for Indigenous entrepreneurs who would like to establish or grow their businesses—and we want to see much more of that. The government will also provide $52.9 million over four years from 2017-18 to implement a whole-of-government research and evaluation strategy for the policies and programs affecting Indigenous Australians. The cost for that will be met from the existing resources of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. As the Closing the Gap initiative approaches the 10-year mark, it is timely to reflect on what has worked over the past decade and where greater effort is required, so this funding sees $40 million to strengthen the evaluation of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. It sees $10 million to establish an Indigenous research fund that will add to the Indigenous policy evidence base, and $2.9 million will go to the Productivity Commission to enhance its role in Indigenous policy evaluation and to expand the commission to include an additional commissioner with relevant experience in Indigenous policy. What gets measured gets done—so a real focus on understanding which parts of our programs are working best is crucial to continually improving what we do.
Two Indigenous portfolio bodies reported measures in the 2017-18 budget. The Torres Strait Regional Authority will receive $3 million over two years for the construction of fit-for-purpose office accommodation on Thursday Island from the Public Service Modernisation Fund. This will replace the current facility, which has aged considerably. This budget will showcase sustainable design in remote areas, incorporating solar and battery technologies, sustainable water use and other environmental design technologies. Indigenous Business Australia redirected $146.9 million for business support for Indigenous entrepreneurs. This is an extension measure from its Business Development and Assistance Program to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. As I mentioned earlier, this funding will be used to support Indigenous entrepreneurs who would like to establish and grow their businesses. I thank the committee for this opportunity to set out the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's outcome 2 Indigenous Affairs budget measures, and to give a brief insight into how they will benefit our community and economy.
Can I recognise the member representing the minister in the House today, although I am not sure what expertise he actually brings to the matters being examined. Let us hope he has been briefed well by his colleague in the Senate.
I do not need to explain to this House the perilous situation that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities find themselves in today. We know from the Closing the gap report earlier this year that things are not getting any better. Nor do I need to explain to the chamber the history of dispossession, injustice and discrimination experienced by first peoples in this nation, and the enormous personal costs. And of course, I do not need to explain that, remarkably, this government cut half a billion dollars out of the Aboriginal affairs budget. But it may come as news to the member here today that in February this year, the Australian National Audit Office found that this government's Indigenous Advancement Strategy was an absolute failure—useless, actually. Its implementation was utterly botched—not my words, the words of the Auditor-General, whose report said that the administration of funding for this program:
…fell short of the standard required to effectively manage a billion dollars of Commonwealth resources.
The Aboriginal community has been saying exactly this for months, but their complaints were all either ignored or not heard. For all the talk of those opposite about their commitment to Indigenous affairs, they simply were not listening, and still have not heeded the call for change.
The Australian National Audit Office found that the Indigenous Advancement Strategy did not involve any consistent assessments of funding applications against the relevant guidelines. It found that there was a total failure to establish performance targets for programs, and that there was no evidence that programs which received funding delivered the outcomes that they were supposed to. Most predictably, the Auditor-General found that there was no proper communication or consultation with the organisations involved. The government simply was not listening and, apparently, neither was the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs later dismissed the damning ANAO findings by saying:
This is a bureaucratic report, a very important report for bureaucrats about what box was ticked and what box was not ticked.
Let me say that this is not academic. I am very aware of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy; in fact, before becoming a member of this place, I was the chairperson of a small organisation that applied for funds. I understand the toing and froing, and some of the decisions that were—remarkably—made in relation to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. The very fact that the ANAO has been so critical of the implementation of the report speaks volumes for me. It is not just a report for bureaucrats, as the minister called it. It is a report that means a great deal to the Indigenous community. Many organisations have had to close down. Many vital services do not exist anymore. Those services were on-the-ground services. They were not based in a government agency; they were on-the-ground services that, through some botched effort of evaluation and decision-making in relation to the IAS, did not receive funding. This could well mean services into communities that the member for Lingiari represents, and into many communities across this country.
The government has committed $40 million to evaluate this project; the member said that, but this money is for bureaucrats and big corporate agencies to run evaluations. It will not deliver any additional services to Indigenous communities or Indigenous people on the ground; it will simply be $40 million going to the likes of Ernst & Young and many of those other big organisations, and to the government itself. It is like the government is paying itself for this. My question is: why is the government continuing with a flawed project, spending money on bureaucrats and not on services for Indigenous people? Why won't the government sit down with Indigenous people and design a grants program that meets their needs and their aspirations? That is my question. I do not need to hear fuddled messages from you; I just want those two questions answered. When are you going to actually talk to Aboriginal people about the design and the implementation of these programs?
Before I give the call to the honourable member for O'Connor, the time allocated for this debate is until 6.15 pm, and I have just remembered that, whilst we are in the consideration in detail stage, honourable members are able to ask as many questions as they like. I give the call to the honourable member for O'Connor.
I welcome the opportunity to ask a question of the minister, and I thank him for making his time available. I also want to acknowledge Minister Scullion and the interest that he has taken in my electorate of O'Connor, which is 880,000 square kilometres in the south-east of Western Australia and is home to around 5½ thousand Indigenous people, many of whom live in very remote communities and face all the challenges that come with that.
The questions I want to ask today are specifically about the government's support for the Indigenous employment through the Indigenous Rangers program. Could the minister please advise how the government is supporting Indigenous ranger groups across Australia, particularly in my electorate? Why is this investment in rangers so important to regional and remote Indigenous communities and to the protection of the environment in these places?
I know from talking with a lot of my constituents that the Indigenous Rangers program is very important, not only for the jobs it creates but to ensure Indigenous communities are able to work on and protect their country. For example, I have been talking with the Spinifex Rangers group, who I have been able to secure funding for from the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, to deliver land and cultural management across the Spinifex and Pilki native title areas. This will support 28 rangers to work on the land. Importantly, it will also deliver training and capacity building for these rangers as part of this investment in their employment. These rangers have a close relationship with their school, and the students participate in the Spinifex bush ranger program as part of their school activities. How does this investment in the Spinifex Rangers contribute to the Turnbull government's investment across Australia in jobs for Indigenous Australians and the important work that Indigenous Rangers deliver?
Secondly, I would like to ask a question about native title and how the government is supporting native title holders to use their land. I want to acknowledge the importance of native title to Indigenous Australians and the significant determinations that have been made across Australia. Forty per cent of Australia is now subject to native title determinations in recognition of Indigenous ownership of country, but it is important that we make sure that native title does not restrict development and can be used to promote the economic future of Indigenous communities. Native title should be used to deliver jobs and commercial opportunities for Indigenous communities. How is the government investing in native title holders to deliver these jobs and economic opportunities?
I know that, in my electorate, organisations like the Goldfields Land and Sea Council and the Central Desert Native Title Services body work closely with native title holders and that they have the economic future of these communities they represent as the focus of their work. This is why I am pleased that I was able to secure funding for Central Desert Native Title Services to hold workshops with native title holders to consider what economic development opportunities they want to pursue on the land that they own. The minister will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that this funding has been delivered from capacity-building funding allocated by the Turnbull government and that this is the first time the Commonwealth has allocated funding directly to native title holders, in line with the Turnbull government's commitment to working directly and in partnership with Indigenous Australians. Can the minister advise how the government is supporting these native title holders?
I have already mentioned in this chamber the history of discrimination against first peoples in this country. That manifests in a whole range of ways—education, health and economic outcomes for First Australians lie way behind those of the broader community. Of course, incarceration rates are one of the most stunningly disproportionate. In this country Indigenous men are more likely to go to jail than they are to go to university. By some measures we are the most incarcerated people in the world.
According to the Productivity Commission, the adult imprisonment rate for Aboriginal people increased 77 per cent between 2000 and 2015. For juvenile detention of Aboriginal children, Aboriginal young people are incarcerated at 24 times the rate of the rest of the community. You only have to look at the Don Dale experience to see what this means. These are real, human stories. Mothers, fathers, sons and daughters separated by a justice system are sometimes subjected to horrific abuse.
As my good colleague the member for Lingiari will tell you, the territory has the nation's highest rate of young people in detention. Ninety-four per cent of young people in detention in the Northern Territory are Aboriginal children. These are children who, in many ways, are incredibly disadvantaged. But how can it be that 94 per cent of children locked up in the Northern Territory are Aboriginal? And the numbers do not get any better on the top part of Western Australia and through much of that state. In my own state of New South Wales 50-odd per cent of young people locked up are Aboriginal. The story is not much better in other states and territories.
UN Special Rapporteur Victoria Tauli-Corpuz has described the situation in Australia as disturbing. On her last visit she said:
There should be a justice target that will look into the high levels of Indigenous people [in prison along with] the funds that are provided to be used for prevention, reintegration and diversion programs.
My question is a fairly straightforward one and goes to the heart of what the special rapporteur and Labor have been calling on for a number of years to the COAG process and to the closing the gap process. We have been asking that a justice target be included in that process.
Tony Abbott steadfastly refused to do it, and there is still no take-up of adding a justice target into the Bringing them home targets. It would, at least, put a marker for state governments, and I am sure state and territory governments will be interested in having that discussion. We are not playing politics with this, because these are real people's lives that are dramatically affected by incarceration. Look at many of the Aboriginal people incarcerated in remand and in jails in the south—I cannot speak for the north, member for Lingiari. Many of those people are in jail for six months or less for minor things, like driving offences. There must be a better way to deal with it.
Part of that is putting in a justice target to the COAG process. That would make us all more accountable, for those of us in the federal parliament but also for state and territory governments. That accountability, that target, would drive more effort in bringing down the incarceration rates. I was well around in 1987-88 when the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths took place. Many of us were. I very much remember what that said, and I have recently read the recommendations from the royal commission.
My question is to the minister representing the minister in the other place. Why won't the government sit down with the states and territories and heed the calls of Labor, the community sector, Indigenous leaders and the United Nations and do something to reverse this terrible trend?
There are a range of questions there: Indigenous rangers, native title, the ANAO report, incarceration and the justice target. They are all good questions. Let me start by answering the member for O'Connor's question on Indigenous rangers, which is a program I thoroughly commend. It has been an absolutely fantastic program. I know the member for O'Connor has been a very strong advocate of this program with the spinifex rangers, and he helped secure funding for $580,000 to increase the capacity of the spinifex rangers group in southeast Western Australia. It was a terrific effort to get that up and running.
Indigenous rangers are an important part of this government's commitment to provide more jobs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people whilst managing and preserving important environmental assets. That dual purpose has been part of the great success of this program. I am pleased to update the chamber that more than 2,500 First Australians are now employed as Indigenous rangers as a result of this government's investment of more than $500 million over seven years through to 2020 for Indigenous rangers and the Indigenous protected areas.
The government has been a very strong supporter of Indigenous rangers since they were introduced back in 2007 by the Howard government. We have maintained and built on this support by increasing the funding available for Indigenous rangers to record levels since we came to government in 2013. Funding is now at $70 million per annum, an increase of around 15 per cent on what was provided under the previous government. So this is a program where we are really doubling down and investing because we believe it is working.
Just like police and health workers, Indigenous rangers are frontline services that will be funded from now into the future, and we have committed to work with those groups to extend their contracts to reflect that commitment. They of course undertake very, very important work in a range of areas, protecting and conserving threatened species, marine systems and cultural places and addressing environmental threats caused by feral animals, invasive weeds, marine debris and wildfire. They deliver very considerable environmental and cultural benefits while supporting better outcomes in a range of areas from improved health to increased wellbeing and self-confidence, lower rates of violence and crime, and greater economic security. A number of my very close friends have been deeply involved in this program, and they have seen firsthand and commended to me the extraordinary results they have seen on that front.
In the 2017 budget, we committed funding to secure the Indigenous Protected Areas program at similar levels for another five years from 2018-19, and that includes $15 million for new IPAs to be used over time. Let me make a couple of comments on native title. The Turnbull government respects the importance of native title and the recognition of Indigenous land rights. We are just as committed to ensuring that we support Indigenous Australians to have their rights over Indigenous land recognised and that this leads to better outcomes for communities. We are providing just under $90 million in 2016-17 through to the end of this financial year to support native title representative bodies, service providers and native title corporations. That includes $20.4 million over four years for native title corporations. This is the first time that the Commonwealth will have allocated funding directly for native title holders. It will build the capacity of the PBCs to take advantage of economic opportunities and others arising from native title rights.
The member for O'Connor is absolutely right in saying that funding for native title holders has been provided to his electorate. I acknowledge the work that he undertakes with the local community to secure this funding—again, a hardworking local member from the coalition.
There were other questions here in regard to the ANAO. Can I answer the question from the member for Barton in regard to that report. The department has accepted the four recommendations contained in the ANAO report. We have taken action. We have implemented those recommendations. The evaluation at the end of the day is an important part of every program. It should be an important part of every program. It is a tiny fraction of the total cost of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy of $5 billion over the coming forwards. We are spending a very, very small proportion of that on evaluation, but it is crucial. It is absolutely crucial that we see how this program is performing and that we continually improve it in every way we can. That is part of this government's philosophy, and that is— Time expired
Can I just acknowledge the member for Barton and also acknowledge the traditional owners of this country that we are meeting on today. I am the longest-serving member of the parliament on this side of the Chamber. That means I have seen a lot come and go, and I have seen a lot of policies come and go, particularly in the space of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. I want to concur with the comments which were made at the outset by the member for Barton about the importance of what we do here and the importance of our actually addressing the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and doing things with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—in concert with them, not to them. I speak regularly with the minister. We have a commitment to try to work here in a bipartisan matter. But I have to say that when we are being critical—and we can be critical; and my comrade here is bring critical—we want to be constructive in the process.
I want to refer to Closing the Gap targets. As you know, in February of this year, the ninth Closing the gap report found that only one of the seven Closing the Gap targets was on track. The target to halve the gap in child mortality by 2018 is not on track this year. The target to close the gap in life expectancy by 2031 is not on track, based on data since the 2006 baseline. In December 2015, COAG renewed the early childhood education target aiming for 95 per cent of Indigenous four-year-olds to be enrolled in early childhood education by 2025. This is not on track. The target to halve the gap in employment by 2018 is not on track. The target, however, to halve the gap in Year 12 attainment by 2020 is, pleasingly, on track. Yet, in this year's budget, it appears to us that there are few initiatives to improve performance in many of the areas which are of concern. Only the employment target and the education target have any new money associated to them—and I will come to that education money at later time.
I want to make this observation: the member for Barton mentioned that $500 million was taken out of the budget in the 2014-15 budget. That still has not been replaced. Portions of it have, but there has been no replacement of the 2014-15 budget's $500 million, and there is nothing we can see in this budget. We would like the minister to inform us about what the government has done since the release of the report in February of this year to reverse the trend in each of the target areas and get the Closing the Gap framework back on track. Can the minister list the new initiatives under each of those targets?
One of the other areas that I want to refer to is housing. In 2008, the Commonwealth committed $5.5 billion to the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. In 2015, funding for the final three years was transferred into a new Indigenous housing strategy. The budget papers indicate the amount transferred was $1.1 billion. However, the website says that the total funding under the new strategy is $777 million, and many of the differences between this strategy and the old strategy are not clear, nor is it clear if construction has begun or what progress has been made under the new agreement. My questions under this heading are: how many houses have been built since the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing was converted to the Remote Housing Strategy; is the program on track to meet its targets; and is the government committed to extending this beyond the middle of 2018? I would appreciate responses from the minister.
While I am on my feet, I will make an observation about the ranger programs, which I am pleased to say were given additional funding by the government. Of course, it has not matched Labor's commitment to double funding for the ranger programs. I will just make the observation that there is a particular minister—I will not name him just in case he might get embarrassed by it—very close to this portfolio who said, not too long ago, that the ranger programs were not real jobs. They are real jobs, and I am glad that the government has recognised the importance of those jobs. They are very important not only in sustaining the environment but in providing culturally appropriate employment opportunities for Aboriginal people where they live. That is a really important outcome of the ranger programs.
I take this opportunity to ask a series of questions in relation to what the government is doing to support Indigenous and small business. The government have made supporting small business a priority through the National Economic Plan for Jobs and Growth, which, of course, includes our commitment to reduce the corporate tax rate of small businesses. I have taken this economic angle because that is how the Indigenous issues around my area of Murray, particularly around Shepparton and the Goulburn Valley, have been explained to me. They are very much economic issues. I understand the various tax cuts and the corporate tax rates coming down for small business, the immediate tax write-off for items less purchased for less than $20,000, the simplified trading stock rules and the options to avoid end of year stocktakes if the value of that stock has changed by less than $5,000.
In the electorate of Murray, supporting small business and employment is key to growing the regional economy and it is important that Indigenous Australians are part of that growth. In areas of the Goulburn Valley, we have the Yorta Yorta people and the Bangerang people. Only last week I was able to take the Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health, Minister Ken Wyatt, to the Shepparton region to inspect the Rumbalara elders facility. It looks just like an aged-care facility, however it is housed with Indigenous elders and residents and has Indigenous healthcare workers and Indigenous gardeners. It is an amazing experience to see what is happening there. As we know, Minister Wyatt is the first Indigenous Australian to be a member of cabinet. He was able to witness the issues firsthand. I have taken the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister Nigel Scullion, to look at all the facilities that the Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative have to offer in relation to sporting facilities, health facilities and aged care.
Elder uncle Paul Briggs has put a cost on the Indigenous issues around the Goulburn Valley and in particular Shepparton. He has done the work and he has compared the Indigenous cohort around the Goulburn Valley, particularly Shepparton, with mainstream society. He looked at the cost of domestic violence, alcohol and drug addiction, the greater rates of school refusal and truancy, unemployment within his people, breaking the law and all the issues associated with incarceration and he has been able to put a cost on it. He wants to have the conversation about how we can reduce his people's cost on society, how we can invest and partner with them to bring about better outcomes. As he puts it, this is a cost that is being paid now and no-one is overly concerned about this cost because it is just absorbed into the everyday spend of all governments. As well as supporting Indigenous businesses, he is looking at ways that we can continue to partner with Indigenous businesses to create better outcomes in a whole raft of areas that he has identified. Assistant Minister, given this raft of measures that we have implemented to support all Australian small business, can the minister advise whether we are introducing specific measures to support Indigenous businesses and boost Indigenous employment? Are there measures specifically for Indigenous businesses?
During the budget there was great fanfare given to the release of a document announcing a $138 million package: the 1967 Referendum—50th Anniversary Indigenous Education Package. Among other things, it included $40 million to the Clontarf Foundation, which provides programs for boys in schools—a very successful and very good program. It also provided $5 million for the Brisbane Broncos for Beyond the Broncos Girls Academy, $3 million for the Wirrpanda Foundation for Deadly Sister Girlz program, $1 million for the Stars Foundation and $4 million for Role Models and Leaders Australia. These are all programs for young women.
There were other moneys made available: scholarship money to the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation, $30 million; the MADALAH Limited education scholarships, $1 million; Yalari Limited education scholarships, $1 million. Then there is capital infrastructure money for the Cape York girls program, Power Community Ltd and the Young Australian League. My issue here is the difference between the funding of boys programs and girls programs. The boys programs are funded three to one, so almost 75½ per cent of the funding for programs went to boys and 24½ per cent went to girls. I wonder if there is an explanation as to this inequity.
I would like to ask the minister: what measures are being taken to rectify this situation? Is the minister able to explain the differences between the various programs funded under these headings for girls programs, how they differ from one another, how they are being evaluated and how the Clontarf program is being evaluated? Can the minister say what other funds have been invested in any or all of these programs? I understand that they have been given funding before. I am assuming that that funding is ongoing.
A real question that arises out of this is: once that funding period for this allocated money finishes, will there be ongoing funding made available? You can appreciate that these programs are set up in schools. They meet the expectations of the community, we hope; they have the involvement of teachers, parents and kids. If they are not guaranteed funding beyond the funding period, then their funding is likely to cease, which means the programs stop and people get disappointed. We need to know: what are the commitments being made by the government to make sure these program funds are ongoing?
It would be interesting if the minister could also explain the funding periods that these funds have been available for, specifically the ones I have mentioned. I note the Clontarf program is funded until, it appears, December 2020. When are the other programs being funded until? That is the $40 million made available. What are the funding periods for the other programs and, if they are different, why is that the case? What is the explanation for the difference? As I said earlier, what is the process for evaluating the success or otherwise of these programs?
I should point out that I have observed many of these programs in operation, particularly Stars and Clontarf because they work alongside each other in schools in the Northern Territory. I have to say, they are regarded as very valuable by the school community. They are very successful—as I read success—in retaining people at school and providing pathways into the future. That is a very important—but not the only—outcome. They are also important in improving social and emotional wellbeing and recognising the importance of mental health and other issues related to young Aboriginal men and women. I would appreciate a detailed response from the minister around these issues and, if he cannot respond himself, I am wondering if can make sure that he takes it on notice and gets back to me about them.
I thank the member for his question. I agree with him that many of those programs are wonderful programs. I have seen the real impact of the Clontarf program, for instance, in practice. It has had a profound and wonderful impact in my electorate over an extended period of time.
Before I get to the member for Murray's question, I want to finish off on this ANAO question with a couple more comments. What the ANAO audit did not recognise was that frontline delivery was maintained and outcomes were improved through the introduction of the IAS, of course. Since the implementation of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy in 2014, over 8,500 grants have been funded to a combined value of just under $3½ billion. But, importantly—and part of your question was about how we are consulting with communities to design programs, which is always a good question—what we have sought to do in the IAS is enable greater flexibility and responsiveness in program delivery through the introduction of the IAS itself to better meet the aspirations of individual communities. That is a real focus for what we are doing. We are listening to stakeholder feedback. With any program, it is as important to learn from the past as it is to put the program in place in the first place. There has been a real effort across government to achieve that.
I want to come back to this question of the justice target in a moment but, before I do, I want to answer the question from the member for Murray on Indigenous business and employment. I commend you for the question and for your focus on employment focused on Indigenous businesses. I firmly believe that there is no better way to get people into work than by having a business that they feel they are a part of, that they control and that is genuinely theirs. We are committed to growing the Indigenous business sector. We see it as a real focus. We think it will create more jobs and provide greater economic independence for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We also think that it strengthens the overall Australian economy and increases growth and company tax revenue, and that is good for all of us. It also creates trade opportunities internationally.
One way we are doing that is with the Indigenous Procurement Policy, which is driving demand for services that Indigenous businesses provide. The IPP gives those businesses an opportunity to bid for work, and this is another part of what I have seen in action in my own rural electorate. Indigenous businesses are required to demonstrate, like all other businesses, that they are value for money. We have seen them succeed in doing exactly that, and the great thing about this is that it is really working. We have brought forward the target of three per cent by 2020 to this year, nearly three years ahead of schedule. That has been a really terrific outcome. It has delivered extraordinary results in its first 18 months, with 708 Indigenous businesses winning more than $407 million in contracts. This is real, measurable success that we can all be proud of.
To support that increasing demand, the government has just released a draft Indigenous Business Sector Strategy for further testing with the sector. That 10-year road map is fuelled by what Indigenous businesses have told us they need to thrive. This ensures that the programs are designed through working with local communities and businesses, and we will be going out and talking with the sector over the coming weeks to ensure we get that final strategy right. As part of that strategy we are looking to establish the Indigenous Entrepreneurs Capital Scheme, which will work with those businesses that cannot access mainstream finance. One of the great challenges is accessing finance and helping people to understand what they have to do to access finance. That strategy is the cornerstone of the $115 million we are spending on the Indigenous entrepreneurs package.
In the time I have left, let me finish with a couple of comments on the justice target for incarceration. You raised a good question. We share your concern and that of many Australians about the rate of Indigenous imprisonment. I think it is a very good question. When young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men see jail as a rite of passage, we have really failed to do the right thing by them. So we are working with state and territory governments to introduce justice targets. Ultimately, they are responsible for the criminal justice system, and they have the levers to effect the important changes that we want to see and that I know you want to see. So it is crucial that we work with them so they can put those targets in place.
There is a final issue that I would like to raise, and I am hoping that I will get answers to those questions I have asked about the education programs. I do not mind if I do not get them this afternoon. I would like them on notice, although if you want to respond to me that would be bloody fantastic. I want to talk about the Community Development Program. Currently, the Community Development Program covers about 33,000 jobless people in remote communities around Australia.
Here is what we know about this program. Those under the CDP are forced to work up to three times longer than city based jobseekers to receive welfare payments. More than 200,000 CDP fines have been issued to people who are late or have failed to show up to activities. These fines lead to hunger and poverty in some communities. Although I know the minister does not believe that, it is, in fact, true. Since the project commenced in July 2015, less than 3,500 Indigenous participants have found full-time or part-time work lasting six months or more. A Senate committee has been told this.
It is abundantly clear, therefore, that, not only is the project not delivering real jobs for Indigenous people, it is actually pushing them into poverty. So I ask the minister—given the short time available, he will have a minute—given the evidence that this program is not delivering jobs and that it is driving people into poverty, what is the government doing to fix this program? Nothing, obviously—and I am happy to stay on my feet.
There are a range of questions we still have not got through, so let me turn to your earlier question about housing. The government is absolutely committed to delivering better housing outcomes for Indigenous Australians to remote communities. We realise how important that is. Indigenous Australians deserve to be able to live in similar conditions to the rest of us, and that is absolutely crucial. I am keen, and I know the minister is keen, to see state and territory governments improve the construction and management of public housing in remote communities. There is no doubt that that improvement is necessary. The current investment in remote housing will achieve 11,500 more livable homes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by mid-2018, so that is a very important initiative, and 75 per cent of the existing stock has been improved. Overcrowding will have fallen by 15 per cent in 2018.
The member also asked more broadly about the Closing the Gap initiative and in particular how we are performing versus a range of targets. We firmly believe we are making the right choices with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and they were and are big winners from the federal budget. The cross-portfolio budget investment delivered fairness, opportunity and security for all Australians, with a particular focus on First Australians.
The 2017 report Closing the gap revealed important progress in key areas. There have been significant improvements in the proportion of 20- to 24-year-olds achieving year 12 or equivalent, and we all know how crucial that is. At high levels of education there is virtually no employment gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, and that is a terrific achievement. There are significant improvements in health. We have seen significant declines in mortality rates, greater access to antenatal care, reduced rates of smoking, a reduction in mortality from chronic diseases, and declining infant mortality. Reading and numeracy are improving for Indigenous children. There has been a significant increase for female employment over the longer term. You made the point about Indigenous programs being skewed in a particular way, but the truth is that we have seen a very significant increase in Indigenous female employment, and that is a terrific thing. Although the reports note that there have been real challenges with meeting some of the targets, we have seen some very real progress in those areas that I have described.
Thank you, Minister. The time being just after 6.15, the debate on this portfolio is adjourned until the next sitting in accordance with the agreed order of consideration of portfolios.
The 2017-18 budget was the first since the departments of environment and energy were formally combined. Of course, it is a major responsibility to secure Australia's energy future and to do so in a way which protects, promotes and enhances our environment and a series of other additional measures to protect some of our major landmarks.
In terms of energy, within the budget there was a $265 million package of measures. That included work around the gas industry and boosting gas supply, a $30.4 million commitment for new combined geological and bioregional assessments. This will help assess the potential impacts on waterways and aquifers in three onshore areas that are underexplored but prospective for unconventional gas. As we have seen recently, a number of state governments—Labor governments—have put restrictions on the development of unconventional and indeed onshore conventional gas—
An honourable member: Unconventional gas in Victoria.
that is right—much to the disadvantage of consumers in their own states. We would like to enhance the scientific work that is done to ensure that that is more likely to occur. There was $5.2 million to assess the impacts, the costs and the benefits of constructing pipelines to link northern and Western Australian gas reserves to the east coast through Moomba in South Australia. Pipeline activity is critical and there is no shortage of gas in Western Australia. And were the Northern Territory to lift its moratorium on unconventional gas extraction you would have 180 years worth of reserves that could make their way south.
We also provided money for the Energy Use Data Model. As you know, the energy market is changing dramatically and consumers are at the heart of this transition, and 2.7 million households now have solar panels and hot-water systems. So we are providing $13.4 million in the budget to enable CSIRO to enhance its Energy Use Data Model. We made it very clear through the Treasurer's speech that we stand committed to Snowy Hydro 2.0 and, indeed, open to acquiring a larger share or outright ownership of Snowy Hydro.
When it comes to the environment, I follow a long list of coalition ministers and Prime Ministers who have made significant achievements in enhancing our environmental protection. Malcolm Fraser protected Uluru and Fraser Island. John Howard established the EPBC Act. Tony Abbott banned the dredge disposal projects he inherited from the previous Labor government in the Great Barrier Reef national park. And Malcolm Turnbull is continuing with an announcement, in the budget, of this vein, of an additional $1.1 billion over seven years for Landcare. This is a very significant imitative given that there are 5,400 different Landcare groups around the country and 100,000 active volunteers in those groups.
We also saw $49.8 million committed to Macquarie Island over the 11 years from 2016-17. This is to upgrade the research station on Macquarie Island, which is a very important environmental climate change weather station for the collection of key data. This helps the Bureau of Meteorology, Geoscience Australia and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.
When it comes to the environment and when it comes to energy, there are many challenging issues. On any one day I will be dealing with issues related to sharks off the coast of Western Australia or the Barrier Reef or how we support boosting Indigenous rangers' activities across the country, or energy policy—making up for the mistakes of the Labor Party when it came to doubling of prices that we saw on electricity during their time in office. It is not something we would like to emulate. Indeed, we are doing everything we can to drive down power prices.
I refer to this budget's failure to provide additional funding to the Emissions Reduction Fund and I would like to ask a few questions around the abatement task for this government. According to Australia's emissions projections document, Australia's emissions in 2030 will be 592 million tonnes of CO2. This makes the cumulative abatement task between 2020 and 2030 to achieve the inadequate minus 26 per cent target, 1,055 million tonnes of CO2. How does the government plan to meet this task? The government claims the Emissions Reduction Fund, as currently budgeted, will lead to $50 million tonnes of abatement post 2020. They also claim that the National Energy Productivity Plan will provide around 100 million tonnes of abatement, despite the fact that most of the plan is just talk.
The model underpinning the Finkel report argues that the Clean Energy Target will contribute around 126 million tonnes of cumulative abatement. And that is if the minister actually manages to grow a backbone and stand up to the members for Hughes and Warringah. That leaves an abatement task of 779 million tonnes. To bridge this gap with the ERF would require massive funding. At the current ERF average price of $11.83, and without even allowing for inflation, this is a fiscal cost of $9.2 billion.
My first question to the minister, and I ask that if he does not know the answer he take it on notice, is: are there any other measures being considered to help achieve the 2030 target or will you add $9.2 billion to the already ridiculous cost of Direct Action?
My second question is: when will you announce additional funding for the Emissions Reduction Fund?
Turning to the 2020 target, official government documents show that Australia's actual emissions in 2020 will be 577 million tonnes of CO2. This is actually 4½ per cent above the minimum target of minus five per cent. The only way we get to the cumulative abatement target for 2020 is through the projection improvements, which I will return to; carryover of credits from Kyoto period 1, thanks to Peter Beattie and Anna Bligh; and the hopeless Emissions Reduction Fund that the Clean Energy Regulator said was not tested for additionality and the Prime Minister said was a fig leaf for doing nothing and was fiscal recklessness on a grand scale.
The minister's own department, in their projections document, state that projections have fallen due to lower electricity demand; worse-than-expected agricultural conditions due to drought; lower manufacturing output due to industrial closures; the closure of Hazelwood power station; and lower-than-forecast emissions from land clearing. The minister is claiming credit for a revision in our abatement task—in other words, because they have killed manufacturing, particularly the automotive industry; the drought reduced cattle production; consumers are responding to higher electricity prices by reducing electricity demand; and Hazelwood is closed. So we will probably achieve the minus five per cent target but then we will have an economic structure of plus 4½ per cent, which will make reaching the 2030 target so much harder.
I have three questions to the minister and ask that, if he does not know the answer, he takes them on notice. Firstly, has any country or the UN questioned the additionality of the Emissions Reduction Fund and therefore the legitimacy of the abatement claimed? Secondly, do the latest revelations from the Clean Energy Regulator around additionality demonstrate that the Emissions Reduction Fund is a giant fraud? Thirdly, how can the government be proud of reaching the minus five target, if we do reach it, through the de-industrialisation of Australia and the drought?
You would know about de-industrialisation.
Mate, you've presided over it for the last four years.
I thank the honourable member for Shortland for his questions and confirm to him that the government remains on track to meet and beat its 2030 targets, just as we beat our first Kyoto target and just as we are on track to beat our 2020 target by 224 million tonnes. When it comes to the Emissions Reduction Fund, I think it has been a star performer. I think the land sector has been very, very pleased with the fact that 189 million tonnes of abatement have been met by the various projects that have been undertaken, at a cost of abatement of around $11.83 per tonne. The Labor Party knows that, when it had its dreaded $15 billion carbon tax, the impost on households was much higher than that—by a multiple factor. It was only pursued by the Labor Party because of its ideological position on this issue. The Emissions Reduction Fund still has $300 million left in it, and that should at least provide for one more significant auction—or more. We are getting a more mature market; hence the cost of abatement has gone up slightly, but it is still a very successful program.
I was asked by the honourable member how we are going about meeting our targets. We are doing it through a suite of policies, as the member for Grey would know. We have had the National Energy Productivity Plan. A building built in Australia in 2007 uses 30 per cent more power than a building built in Australia after 2010. We are doing a lot of initiatives through LED lighting and other appliance standards and the like. We believe we could get a 40 per cent improvement to energy productivity by 2030 through the various measures underway. We also have the renewable energy target. There were certainly some problems with the design of the renewable energy target: not providing for storage; not providing for FCAS, frequency control ancillary services; and not providing any geographical restrictions. These are the issues that Dr Finkel has taken head-on in his attempt to ensure a more stable system overall, because we do not want to see a repeat of the statewide blackout we saw in South Australia through the sheer negligence of a Labor government there, which did not prepare for the eventuality that occurred. So it is the Emissions Reduction Fund, the National Energy Productivity Plan and the renewable energy target.
It is an inconvenient truth—and I like to use that term, 'inconvenient truth'—for the Labor Party that we have seen a fivefold increase in renewables in 2016 compared to 2015. Look at the ABS numbers for jobs in renewables in 2012-13; it does not make for very good reading for the Labor Party. We have seen Australia, under the coalition government, become one of the five top destinations in the world for renewable energy investment. Another major achievement of the coalition government has been the work we are doing to phase out HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons, and making it a global effort to do so, because those forms of gases provide a problem for the atmosphere, and our work to phase them out over time has been very important.
In the time remaining, I want to point the finger at the member for Shortland and ask: why did he and the member for Port Adelaide fail to move their fellow caucus members and get them to support what they know would be good policy—for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to be able to invest in carbon capture and storage? If you were genuinely technology neutral, as the Labor Party's own election platform stated in 2016, then you would support a form of technology proven throughout the world and supported by everyone, from the CSIRO, Australia's Chief Scientist and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the International Energy Agency, as a means to reducing emissions from thermal generation and emissions from the industrial sector. That is why the people at Shell, the people at BHP, the people at BlueScope and the people of the Business Council of Australia came out to support it and welcomed the coalition's announcement of amending the legislation for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. It goes to the heart of the hypocrisy of the left in the Labor Party. (Time expired)
I have had no luck this morning—
Mr Ramsey interjecting—
This is a debate, Member for Grey, so it goes from one side to the other. When the minister takes the call, it goes back to the other side.
I had no luck earlier today with Minister Hunt, so I am going to try again to get my question answered with Minister Frydenberg. Minister, I hold here the Turnbull government's 2017-18 budget document. Could the minister please advise on what page funding was allocated for vital water security and energy infrastructure for Townsville? Townsville has a massive water security issue. The Ross River Dam is currently at 18 per cent, we are on level 3 water restrictions and the Townsville City Council is pumping water from the Burdekin Falls Dam at a cost of $34,000 a day. The Burdekin dam is only 130 kilometres from Townsville and is one of the largest dams in Australia. Whilst 70 per cent of Queensland is drought declared, the Burdekin Falls Dam has overflowed twice. Why, then, hasn't the minister committed any funding towards the construction of water security infrastructure? Has the minister any plans to build water security infrastructure for Townsville from the Burdekin Falls Dam? Will the minister hear the chair of the water task force, Brad Webb, and commit funding towards vital water security infrastructure for Townsville?
We know that wholesale electricity prices have doubled under the Abbott-Turnbull governments. Nowhere is feeling the cost of skyrocketing electricity prices and the lack of federal government action more than Townsville. Reports compiled by the AEC Group state that companies like Sun Metals, a zinc refinery in Townsville employing hundreds and hundreds of locals, pay $10 million extra per year just for being in Townsville. We are seeing businesses close down, like Organic Pantry, due to high electricity prices. Businesses cannot afford any further inaction from the Turnbull government. Will the minister explain why the Turnbull government has not committed even one cent to energy infrastructure in the North? What plan does the minister have to reduce energy prices for Townsville and all of North Queensland? What action has been taken by the minister to reduce energy prices in Townsville and North Queensland? When will the minister actually do something to address Townsville's skyrocketing electricity prices?
Bloomberg New Energy Finance has predicted for Queensland to become the epicentre of large-scale solar development in Australia because of its excellent resources, sprawling grid and demand for growth. Does the minister agree with this statement? If so, why won't the minister fund vital energy infrastructure in the North?
Since January 2016 North Queensland has seen an unprecedented level of renewable energy investment activity, with over 780 megawatts of large-scale projects either commencing construction or securing financial support. The total of these projects will deliver $1.6 billion of infrastructure spending to the north and will create over 1,400 jobs during construction. Some of these projects include: one of Australia's largest solar farms being built in Clare, creating over 200 jobs; the $225 million, 148-megawatt Ross River Solar Farm, delivering around 200 jobs during construction; and Sun Metals' 125-megawatt solar farm, making them the largest single-site user of renewable energy, creating 210 jobs during construction. Will the minister join the Queensland Labor government, Sun Metals and other companies in constructing renewable energy infrastructure? Why hasn't the minister invested in the renewable energy boom in North Queensland? Why hasn't the minister invested in developing energy infrastructure in the north?
Bill Shorten and Labor are leading the charge in investing in North Queensland. In April this year, I hosted a 'back to work' round table with Bill Shorten. The water security and energy costs and constraints for Townsville were discussed. In less than a month, Bill Shorten returned to Townsville and announced $100 million for vital water security infrastructure and $200 million for construction of a hydropower station on the Burdekin Falls Dam. Why won't the minister listen to the community, as Bill Shorten has, and commit to much-needed funding for a much-needed hydropower station project?
Why won't the minister listen regarding the need for water security infrastructure? Will the minister match Labor's $200 million commitment and Labor's $100 million commitment? Can the minister please advise why the Turnbull government has committed funding for the Snowy Hydro project in South Australia but refuses to commit even one cent for a hydro project on the Burdekin Falls Dam? Surely, if it is good enough for the south, it is good enough for the north.
In December 2014, Meridian Energy shelved plans to develop a hydropower project in north Queensland on the Burdekin Falls Dam because of the Abbott-Turnbull government's winding back and destabilising of Australia's renewable energy target. (Time expired)
Can I just remind members that they must refer to all members of the House by their title, not by their name.
I trust that the member for Herbert will get a map and find out where the Snowy Mountains are. South Australia, Minister, is the epicentre of the energy crisis facing Australia, and it is a cheap and adequate example to the rest of Australia on what not to do with your electricity network.
In 2011, I first met with Alinta and was alerted to the impact that the proliferation of wind energy was having on their business plan. Throughout 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 I continued to meet with them. In 2012, I met with AEMO and tried to encourage some of our large customers to write longer term contracts with the Northern Power Station at Port Augusta, which was owned by Alinta—all to no avail, it seems, Minister. I am sad to report that Alinta announced the closure of the Northern Power Station in 2015. It had 15 years life left in it, and South Australia would not be facing the issues that it is now if that power station had not closed.
Alinta tried to get the Weatherill government to contribute $25 million for it to stay open for a further three years, which they chose not to do. Their next offer to the Weatherill government was to sell them the Northern Power Station for $1—one dollar. The consequent solution from the Weatherill government was to spend $350 million of taxpayers' money to try and address the problem. We could have solved the problem for $1. However, throughout this period the Port Augusta community, anticipating the eventual closure of the Northern Power Station, have been campaigning loudly and vigorously for a solar thermal power station with storage to be situated at Port Augusta.
There has been a plethora of renewable projects in South Australia. Last year, 47 per cent of our electricity came from renewable sources. That sounds impressive, but unfortunately it is an unmitigated disaster. Not only do we have the most unreliable electricity in Australia; we have the most expensive. Sadly, this is an issue that I warned of. Because there has been no corresponding investment in storage of energy, that has led us to this very fragile state in South Australia. Consequently, the subsidised surplus of wind energy when it is windy—and I must say that, in South Australia, that is a fair bit of the time—has destroyed the business model of the base-load generators like Northern. Every day a new intermittent facility is commissioned, every day that a new facility comes online—and the Weatherill government shows no intention of slowing up on giving planning permission to these new facilities—it further destroys the business case for Torrens Island and Pelican Point gas-fired power stations.
In 2015 I had the opportunity to lead a parliamentary delegation to the US, and I had the opportunity to convince them that it would be good idea to visit SolarReserve's Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Facility in Nevada, a 110-megawatt solar thermal concentrator with 1.1 gigawatt hours of storage—and I think that is a very important point, Minister: 1.1 gigawatt hours of storage. It is a very impressive facility, and we were all impressed. SolarReserve is very interested in building such a facility in Port Augusta. Subsequently, I met with an Australian company, Solarstor. They have developed Australian world-first technology—heat storage in graphite blocks, multiple towers, and revolutionary toroidal mirrors—and they too are very interested in building a facility in Port Augusta. I have worked with both companies. In the lead-up to last year's election, I elicited support from the government, with then industry minister Greg Hunt, to announce that the federal government would support a solar thermal facility with storage in Port Augusta up to a value of $110 million. In this year's budget, I was delighted when the Treasurer confirmed this commitment with an allocation of $110 million for solar thermal at Port Augusta by way of a tender process.
Minister, the question to you is: how is this process going, and where are we up to at the moment? Because we all wait with bated breath to see this become a reality in Port Augusta. The great emphasis that both of those proposals have on storage is of the essence to South Australia. We have more than enough renewable energy; we need to be able to store it and manage it.
We have an energy crisis in Australia. One of my questions to the minister is: are you unable or unwilling to put an end to this policy paralysis and do something meaningful about it? The Finkel review deserves full and fair consideration. It deserves better treatment than those opposite have been giving it today. The direction we take on energy policy will have major implications for all Australians—implications for the security of the network, for the reliability of the network, for the affordability of the network and for our transition to clean modern energy generation fleets. We are in transition. We cannot deny that. There might be some in the Liberal party who want to deny that, but they are in the minority. Australians are not ignorant of the realities of climate change and the need for us to lower our emissions. But lower emissions do not mean we have we have to endure higher prices for electricity and gas. Lower emissions and lower prices can be achieved, if only this government would sit down and talk about it. Minister, will you engage in meaningful dialogue? All the Liberals want to do is bicker among themselves, and accuse Labor of putting ideology over reality. Well, ideology is not at the centre of Labor policy on energy and environment—reality is at the centre of Labor's policy on energy and environment. Reality is at the centre; the reality of higher prices for electricity and the reality of climate change, meaning we must lower our emissions.
Now let us talk about coal—because that is all that this government, at least some sections of it, seem to want to talk about. They want Australians to believe that Labor is anti-coal. Nothing could be further from the truth. Labor is not anti-coal. I am a coalminer's daughter: I know the value of coal to Australia and I know the value of coal to my electorate of Paterson in the Hunter Valley. Many people in my electorate work in coalmines, many work in electricity generation, and many jobs in my electorate rely on reliable and affordable energy supply. Jobs are uppermost in my mind. But I cannot wish away what the owners of the electricity generators are saying: that coal-fired power stations will close. They just will. We know that is a reality. They are ageing and they are approaching their use-by date. But we have to get organised. This government has to get some energy into its energy policy. Coal will still have a terrific place in our energy mix and our export landscape—there is no doubt about that. But our reliance on coal will be reduced—and there is also no doubt about that. The only doubt is in the government's mind, about how they are going to take us forward into the future.
Our focus now has to be on how we make that transition from coal-fired energy to clean energy. What will the children of those power workers and coalminers be doing in the future? That is the critical thing. And what will those workers themselves be doing? And how will we ensure that that transition is just—just for the workers in the industry and just for the communities they live in?
Business groups, environment groups, unions, industry—these stakeholders all believe that the worst outcome for energy consumers and suppliers would be the absence of any credible and enduring energy and climate policy in Australia, which is what we currently have. The status quo is really, really hobbling us. Without reform, we will endure higher prices, reduced security, lost investment opportunity and stubbornly high emissions. We need careful review and considered decision-making that leads to the return of stable investment, affordable prices and reliable supply as we reduce emissions.
The Prime Minister's idea to subsidise new coal has been comprehensively rejected. The facts are: it would increase emissions, it would increase power prices, and taxpayers would be left footing the bill. You cannot have a clean energy target that defines new coal-fired power stations as 'clean energy'. The experts have all said: it is uninvestable; it is not clean. The Prime Minister needs to stare down the destabilisers and climate change deniers in the Liberal Party and back a plan for more renewables.
Labor welcomes the release of the Finkel review. We will carefully consider the recommendations.
My other question to the minister is: will you take the offer that was made to you today by the Leader of the Opposition for meaningful dialogue to correct this impasse that has been going on for too long now in Australian politics? Australians are depending on it. It is our future. The responsibility sits squarely on your shoulders. We are offering to meet you and to have meaningful dialogue on this. Will you come to the party and talk about the real solutions that can be achieved with the Finkel propositions?
I thank the member for Paterson for her question and acknowledge that, indeed, as she said, she is the daughter of a coalminer and committed to the coal industry and she sees it as having an important role to play into the future.
Certainly, we need to be technology neutral when it comes to energy policy. We have to focus on that trilemma that we are seeking to deal with: energy affordability and energy stability as we transition to a lower emissions future. Indeed, Dr Finkel and his expert panel made a series of recommendations, one of which was the clean energy target, which would see more than 50 per cent of the National Electricity Market's power coming from coal by 2030. There were also important recommendations around ensuring that there was a three-year notice of closure period, which would help avoid the problem we had with Hazelwood, and that there would be a requirement for renewables to provide their own storage, which may be a pumped hydro facility or may be gas or indeed may be batteries.
But the member for Paterson should rest assured that we are committed to dealing with that trilemma. I have to point out to her that, unfortunately, when her party was last in government, there was a doubling of the retail prices—a doubling. And that was due to a combination of gold plating across the poles and wires and the carbon tax.
We, as a country, do need to ensure lower electricity prices, because it is affecting the heart of jobs, investment and growth in this country. It is not right that we have the world's most abundant reserves of uranium and coal and we are soon to become the world's largest exporter of gas, and, according to ARENA, have the world's largest supply per capita of wind and solar, but we have rising prices. And that is why the government is investing in a series of measures to get more gas supply, to put in export controls, to rein in the networks and the retail prices, and to ensure that we give due consideration, as is appropriate, to Dr Finkel's report.
The member for Herbert I dare say has faced a lot of pressure in her own seat in refusing to come out and vocally support the Adani coalmine. There is 11 per cent unemployment in Townsville. It is the coalition who have taken a very positive step with the Townsville city deal as a means of supporting the 190,000 people across Townsville, the largest city in northern Australia and one which has great opportunities whether it is in defence, water security, tourism, our initiatives around the stadium, the CRC or the work that we are trying to do in the surrounding areas to boost renewable energy. Indeed, we have a very proud record in that regard. In 2016 there was a fivefold increase in renewable energy investment compared to 2015. I am proud to say that both ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation have undertaken significant funding during the time of the coalition government. ARENA is investing around $8.9 million in a renewable project around Kidston that involves a 50 megawatt solar plant and there is the work around a potential 250 megawatt pumped hydro facility. We know how important the combination of pumped hydro with the storage capacity that would provide with a solar project such as planned for Kidston could be in stabilising the grid and providing 24/7 power.
We are absolutely focused on water initiatives and water security in Townsville. We are making record investments in water infrastructure and undertaking the proper studies that need to be done to ensure the potential for new dams. We are working with state government colleagues there. We have reinvigorated the area with the Townsville city deal, which was welcomed by the mayor and by the state government. (Time expired)
I refer the minister to the recently released review by Dr Alan Finkel into the future security of the national electricity market, which, Minister, I say up-front I have not read. But I rely on the member for Shortland and the member for Port Adelaide who I know are more familiar with the report. I notice that the member for Warringah has been free in his commentary on the Finkel review without having read it. I recall that when the member for Warringah was Prime Minister he oversaw the closure of three coal-fired power stations. He seems to have forgotten some of that. In the spirit of good government—and I note the gasp of surprise from the member Corangamite at the idea of good government—I am hoping that the Turnbull government will be doing all that it can solve this energy crisis that has engulfed the country under this government.
The member for Corangamite on a point of order.
A point of order: on the basis of a misrepresentation that he made of me, I would ask the member to withdraw that terrible slur. It was an absolute slur and it was not appropriate and it was unfair.
The member for Corangamite will resume her seat. It is not a legitimate point of order.
Thank you for protecting me against the member for Corangamite. As she is well aware, wholesale power prices have doubled under the government of which she is a member. There has been an 88 per cent collapse in private investment in new generation on their watch. Under the Turnbull government, power prices are up, pollution is up and jobs are down. What a trifecta! I know that Dr Finkel is doing all he can to ensure that the National Electricity Market, which services the eastern side of Australia not the Northern Territory and Western Australia, can achieve the best for consumers and for business.
I note comments by Dr Finkel in Senate estimates on 1 June where he said:
… the actual cost of bringing on new coal in this country per megawatt hour is projected to be substantially more expensive than the cost of bringing on wind or solar.
I know that the minister is a youngish minister with young children and will be doing all that he can for the future of this planet. I know that he has a good heart and is trying to do the right thing. In light of that, Minister, I am asking you: do you and your party agree with Dr Finkel's comments to Senate estimates on 1 June that large-scale renewable projects are cheaper than new coal power stations?
Following this, the peak business body, the Australian Industry Group, has said that a new coal-fired power station could only recoup its costs if wholesale electricity prices are sustained at around double their historic average level. Given industry does not back the proposal of building a new coal-fired power station, and Dr Finkel has also said that renewable projects are cheaper than new coal power stations, do you still support the development of a coal-fired power station for Central Queensland and/or North Queensland?
Minister, I note that you referred to the city of Townsville, and I note that the member for Dawson's electorate extends up into the southern suburbs of Townsville, and you talked about jobs in Townsville. I note that the member for Dawson is calling for the power station to be state owned or owned by the Commonwealth; he has not quite made that clear. I am not sure if we have a lot of engineers and electricians working for the Commonwealth, but I note that the member for Dawson has a marginal seat and that you need the member for Dawson's support to govern. Will you soon be attending the sod-turning on the Malcolm Turnbull Memorial Commonwealth Coal-Fired Technology-Neutral Power Station? When you do that sod-turning, Minister, will you be making a comment to Dr Finkel about his statement, which I will repeat again:
… the actual cost of bringing on new coal in this country per megawatt hour is projected to be substantially more expensive than the cost of bringing on wind or solar.
I would like to ask the minister a few questions, and one thing I would like to ask him to confirm is the increases in the price of electricity we have had over recent years. I have had the opportunity—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member over there may wish to acquire this knowledge as well. He may wish to look at the statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. When I looked at them, I looked at the timing. Do you remember when Labor and Kevin Rudd came to power? I looked at that date, and I looked at when Kevin Rudd lost the office and it was Julia Gillard in between there—I think they call them the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd glory years. So what actually happened to electricity prices in this nation during those glory years? I looked at it, and when I did the sums on the ABS numbers I saw an increase of 118 per cent. So I ask you, Minister: is that correct? Did we see an increase of 118 per cent under the glory years? The member over there—I think the member for Moreton—was a member of a government whose policies saw a 118 per cent increase in retail electricity prices. To me, Minister, that takes a special type of gross incompetence to get a 118 per cent increase.
You might also wish to inform us of what has happened, according to the ABS statistics, to electricity prices under the coalition government. I have also had a look at when the coalition came to government, when the last Labor people were chased out of town, destroyed in a landslide election, and the coalition government was elected. I saw in that period of time a three per cent increase. So I saw a 118 per cent increase under the glory years of the Rudd Labor government, against, I think, three—not 30 but three per cent. What type of incompetence does that take? I ask the minister.
I would also like to ask the minister: are there any lessons to learn from the golden state of South Australia? What can we learn from there, Minister, about the brilliant policies of the South Australian Labor government? Surely there are some lessons that we could learn there. I would also like to ask you about the glorious Victorian government. Did they actually increase the coal royalties, and what effect did increasing the coal royalties have?
Order! The time for this discussion has concluded.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
It being 7 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the next day of sitting.
The Liberal-National government's new education policy is most definitely a con. We only have to go to their own briefing documents that they gave to members of the press gallery that said quite clearly that, compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a saving of $22.3 billion over 10 years, 2018 to 2027. That means that schools are getting $22 billion less than they would have under Labor. And, of course, we want to hold the government to account, because we remember how, across the country, at election booths they said that they backed Labor's education policy dollar for dollar and that no school would have a dollar less when they came to government. Well, they have let us down dramatically—first under the member for Warringah's leadership and now under the member for Wentworth's leadership. They have let us down terribly. Labor's policy would have seen all schools move up to their fair funding level by 2019, and by 2022 in Victoria, whereas the government are making promises out to 2027.
I have to spend a moment on the hypocritical nature of some of the assertions that have been made here, because I was in this chamber when, for month after month, those on the opposite benches claimed that saying you were funding something past the forward estimates was no guarantee that you were funding something at all. And yet now I hear speaker after speaker make assertions that they are funding something beyond the forward estimates and that we are to take them at face value, even though I have heard them time and time again say that there is no government that is committed beyond the forward estimates. So I have to put it on record tonight that I do not believe that, beyond the forward estimates, there will be one cent extra for schools across this country. I say that with absolute belief, because this government has absolutely no faith in education as being an economic driver and it has no faith in the notions of fairness that should be driving this country.
The government's policy is not fairer. In fact, their policy is more unfair than the policies that John Howard had as Prime Minister of this country. Under John Howard, the biggest funding increases went to private schools, as will be the case under this government, but it was limited to 60 per cent of the government spend, and 30 per cent of the government spend went to public schools. Now we are in a situation where they have broken with the Gonski recommendations—absolutely broken with the biggest review of education funding in this country's history. They have broken with those recommendations and are suggesting that they will take the policy that gives 80 per cent of the federal spend to non-government schools and only 20 per cent to government schools. This is grossly unfair, and to claim otherwise is to seek to deceive the Australian people.
I know what it means in my electorate, having come from schools. I know full well what these cuts mean on the ground to schools in my electorate. I know that a school like Iramoo Primary School, a severely disadvantaged school in terms of the families whose children attend there, will have a $500,000 cut. I spoke across last week to the Catholic sector and I understand what it is that they are complaining about. I understand why they say this is unfair. I am going to take a moment to explain it to those in the chamber who may just be reading from their speaking notes and not actually understanding this policy.
They talk about 27 special deals. Let me take the last 40 seconds to explain. Deals that they claim are special deals are where the Commonwealth entered into an agreement with a sector or a state to allow their needs based models to operate. That is the case in the Victorian public sector and in the Victorian Catholic sector. That means that, in both of those sectors, they have a finer grain needs based model than the SES model, which, in fact, determines what children attend which school, not what is the average income across an SES. It is not to do with postcode; it has to do with the actual enrolment in that school. That is why when Catholic school and public schools are saying this is a con and a rip-off, I stand with them and agree with them. This is an absolute con.
If I were asked to name one thing that makes me proud to be Australian it is the volunteering spirit and the fact that Australians across the board always help those in need. Last week, in Chisholm we held our inaugural annual Chisholm Volunteer Awards night at which we had the honour of our very special guest the Hon. Julie Bishop. Having the Minister for Foreign Affairs taking the time to attend and give these awards with me is a testament to how warmly and truly appreciative the Turnbull government are of the thousands of Australians who contribute and volunteer their own time. Forty-two recipients, their friends, families and colleagues all gathered at Crossway in Burwood. They came from a diverse range of Chisholm volunteer organisations. Attendees were entertained by a choir from the wonderful Koonung Secondary College, who sang beautifully and also led the singing of our national anthem to open the ceremony. Indeed, the attendance of the foreign minister was a wonderful addition to the evening. I am so proud to be part of a Turnbull government which is ensuring that our local volunteer organisations in Chisholm will have the support to continue their valuable work.
I was pleased to name Mr Trevor Eddy as the 2017 Chisholm Volunteer of the Year. Trevor was nominated by Burke & Beyond in Blackburn South, who provide an important inclusive and supportive environment for individuals of all abilities, and Greenlink Box Hill in Box Hill North for his outstanding dedication to both organisations and the local community. It was an honour to be in the company of such wonderful people and their families who, like Trevor, exemplify Australian citizenship and values and make such outstanding contributions. They are as follows: Christine Prandi from Alkira Centre; Janet Tung from Alkira Centre; Claire Morton from Avenue Neighbourhood House; Judy Hope from Box Hill Girl Guides; Charlie Xu nominated by Box Hill police station; Sharon Leverett nominated by Box Hill Wesley Calisthenics Club; Liz Logan by Burke & Beyond; Cheryl Webster from Burwood Neighbourhood House Knitted Knockers; Ron Jacobs, Carrington Health Men's Shed; William Au Yeung from Chinese Health Foundation of Australia; Shun Fong Wong, Chinese Parents Special Support Network; Siu Man 'Betty' Tung, Chinese Parents Special Support Network; Sue Scamporlino, City of Whitehorse Meals on Wheels; Merran Smith, Clota Cottage Neighbourhood House; Angela Czarnota, Crossway LifeCare; Kim Ng from Crossway LifeCare; Mary Groves from Dixon House; Tim Cooke, Eastern Gymnastics Club; Nicholas Mitchell from FROGS Basketball; Robert Jones from Greenlink; Vicky Kafkakis from Kariatides Greek Women's Club; Janet Radnell from Kingston Adult Day Activity Support; from the Louise Multicultural Centre: Judy Ho, Margaret Crutch, Moyra Dovolil, Salwa Aly and Sara Yuan Ying Huang; from the Migrant Information Centre in East Melbourne, Raymond Murray; Sarah Jeong from Monash City Council Dementia Day Centre; Ann Koch from Monash City Council Meals on Wheels; Pam Wilson from Monash Health McCulloch House; Kathleen Hosie and Robert Jamieson from Monash Oakleigh Community Support and Information Service; Alex Forbes and Joe Horniak from OC Connections; Dorothy Timmerman from the Royal Children's Hospital Waverley Auxiliary; Glenys Pattison, Rotary Club of Clayton and Ben Peacock from the Victorian Vision Impaired Tenpin Bowling Association.
Indeed, all the winners were so incredibly deserving of these awards, as they were all nominated by other members in the Chisholm community. Volunteering is in the DNA of all Australians, and I am proud to say that the Turnbull government grants of approximately $10 million are benefiting nearly 100,000 volunteers across Australia.
The grants will assist a range of volunteer organisations in Chisholm as well, including groups where our award recipients volunteer, such as the Chinese Health Foundation of Australia, the Greek Seniors and Pensioners Association of Clayton and District and Hera Greek Ladies Club, the Victorian Vision Impaired Tenpin Bowling Association, the Burwood Neighbourhood House, Dixon House Neighbourhood Centre, Catanzaro Senior Citizens' Club Of Monash, Monash-Waverley Community Information and Support centre, the Cook Islands Women's Federation of Victoria and the Australian Iranian Society of Victoria.
I would like to conclude by thanking the wonderful team at Crossway—not only for the integral work they do in our community but also for providing the venue for such a wonderful event—and, of course, the Koonung Secondary College. It was an honour and a privilege to be in the company of so many fantastic people in Chisholm—Australians who have each contributed to the marvellous community we share, enjoy and love in my electorate of Chisholm.
We have heard about the climate wars, but we are in our first ever Finkel fight. What we have is a government that is divided, that is not looking towards the future and that is not capable of conducting itself in the normal manner. What used to happen is that governments used to ask for reports to be created. They would appoint a person to do it. They would then get the findings. They would read the findings and adapt the findings. The executive would then push it through their party room and implement it. But what we have here is a totally different model of government. We are in a parallel universe now.
I was reading one of Phil Coorey's articles on 13 June: 'Coalition MPs revolt against Clean Energy Target'. Extraordinarily, in this article he refers to the fact that Mr Abbott is leading a group of determined MPs who are apparently opposing this report. It says:
Mr Abbott, who had not read the Finkel report, slammed the CET on Monday as a "magic pudding" and "a tax on coal".
It is an extraordinary thing. Now we do not even read the reports, apparently. A former Prime Minister is opposing this report without even having read it. Think about that for a moment. In the ordinary processes of government, you would normally expect your opponents, if they want to oppose the report, to have at least read it. But no. That is not what is happening in this country.
Joe Aston points out that Mr Abbott is something of a weathervane on policy. He points out all of his inconsistencies over many areas, not least climate. I can remember when Mr Abbott, the member for Warringah, actually said that the Liberals should pass an ETS to get it off the agenda. Imagine if we had taken his advice then. It would have been implemented, and Australia would have been better off. We would have had an electricity sector that was not plagued by investment uncertainty. We would have investment certainty for those participants.
But, not content to be a weathervane on policy and not content to not read reports and yet oppose them, he is also fighting with members of the government. We have this ABC report on 14 June: 'Finkel review: Tony Abbott and Craig Laundy clash over energy review after party room meeting'. I would probably be backing the publican in that fight. I think some people would back the boxer, but I think I would back the publican. I think he probably would have dealt with a few belligerent customers over the years. And there is no more belligerent customer than the member for Warringah, Mr Abbott—absolutely no more belligerent sort of character around the place.
He is like a cross between Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. That is who Tony Abbott is. He is this country's unthinking populist opposition. That is what he is. He should never have been made Prime Minister—a mistake that the people admit and a mistake that the coalition party room admit now. That is why they knocked him off. This is a matter of record of history. You went into the election promising us adult government and stable government. What did we get? We got a change in prime ministership, and not just prime ministers but treasurers and three defence ministers—a revolving door in the National Security Committee of Cabinet. How many other ministerial changes? I have lost count. We are about to have another reshuffle and probably another leadership contest. Let's be honest about it. That is where this is heading.
This man is a menace to the body politic. He is an absolute menace. Why do people listen to him or give him the time of day in the coalition party room, allowing him to wreck the government? Clearly, the Prime Minister is sick of it and has struck back: 'Glib answers and one-liners are of no assistance in keeping Australia's energy secure and affordable.' That is certainly true. But it is time for Malcolm Turnbull to finally face down Tony Abbott and end the division in this government—
An honourable member interjecting—
The Prime Minister and the member for Warringah: those two need to sort this out. It would be preferable if they sorted it out in opposition, because only one party can deliver this country energy stability, security and certainty, and it is the Labor Party. It is about time this minority government got on with falling to bits so the rest of us can get on with good government.
My mother used to always tell me if you cannot think of anything good to say do not say anything at all. Perhaps that could be a lesson for the member for Wakefield. She also said you do not make yourself look good by running other people down.
An opposition member: She sounds like a nice lady.
She is a nice lady; you could learn a lot. I actually want to talk about something that is more important to the Australian people than just a political rant like we have just heard, and that is gas. We do have a requirement for very important gas in our electricity mix, very important gas for our households, for our businesses. But there is a great concern, at the moment, about the price of gas becoming almost unaffordable for businesses. Our competitive advantage in Australia has always been access to cheap energy. We do not have cheap wages but we have cheap energy. If we take away our competitive advantage we inhibit our capacity as a nation to lift the standards of living.
I want to touch on gas, because gas is the quiet issue that has not been discussed so much when the focus of the week has been on the Finkel review. I want to point out something that has always been very passionate to my heart: ensuring that our natural gas is there for Australians, first and foremost. I talked about it in my maiden speech in 2013 and it is something that is, clearly, becoming the focus. There are two ways to ensure we have affordable gas for Australians. One is to open up supply, to increase the total volume of gas that comes onto the market. We do need to do that.
I am pleased to hear that the federal government, in the last budget, announced an additional $90 million to support increased gas exploration. To find ways of getting that potential gas exploration to market, the federal government has announced $5.2 million to support a pre-feasibility study to put two gas pipelines in, one of those from the west and one of those from the north. Ultimately, it does make sense if we can link those into the Moomba gas grid. Mildura, in the electorate of Malley that I represent, does source its gas from Moomba. That is very important.
The other thing, in how we bring gas into an affordable realm in the short-term, is to restrict exports. This goes against what a free marketeer would usually argue, but it is clear that we have a short-term problem that we need to address, whilst we structure ourselves for a long-term solution. The short-term problem we need to address is to put some downward pressure on gas reasonably quickly.
The figures we need to aim for are about $8 a gigajoule. In turn, that will bring electricity down to $75 a megawatt-hour. It can be done. It should be done. And I commend the interventionist policy that the Prime Minister has announced about export certificates to ensure that gas is, first and foremost, put on the market for Australians. Those are the figures, at $8 and at $75, for gas and power. We will maintain job security in Australia. We will maintain manufacturing in Australia. That is really what we should focus on.
It also needs to be said that we have to have a very real conversation with our state governments around some of their moratoriums. We have to ensure we have best science, but we should be looking at how we can develop and use that gas resource in Victoria. I am sure that in a modern-day society with very good technology we can maintain aquifer integrity for our water supply. But we can have that debate and that discussion, and bring people along on the journey. But it is perhaps easier to bring them on the journey if they know that that gas has been made available for Australian industry.
We need to have that discussion, particularly with the Northern Territory, where there are substantial amounts of gas, to bring that gas supply into the marketplace—and, of course, with New South Wales. The classic example, and I know the Deputy Speaker will agree with me on this, is the farmer who is anti-gas but who is spreading urea on their farm. Urea, of course, is a derivative from gas. We have to have that very real conversation about what natural gas brings to both our agricultural sector and to our manufacturing sector, as well as to our households and to our standard of living. We are doing two things: the short-term solution, while also investing in the infrastructure we have for the long-term solution. We do need the state governments to get on side and, ultimately, if we do that we will address the energy concerns we have at the moment.
I rise to speak on a crucial infrastructure issue for my electorate: the condition of the Bass Highway west of Burnie—in particular, the section between Marrawah and Wynyard and between Cowrie Point and Detention. At the conclusion of my contribution I will seek leave to table a petition signed by 654 members from the local community on this issue. This petition has been approved by the Petitions Committee.
The Bass Highway runs from Launceston to northern Tasmania, to Marrawah on the far north-west coast. Between Burnie and Devonport it carries the highest volumes of freight of any road in Tasmania. The highway is also the entry point to Tasmania for visitors travelling on the Spirit of Tasmania. Between Launceston and Burnie the highway is classified as part of the National Highway. West of Burnie to Smithton the highway is classified as a regional freight road. From Smithton to Marrawah the highway has the lowest classification of any road in Tasmania and is simply classified as 'other roads', but from Marrawah to Burnie the road carries fuel tankers, milk tankers, log trucks, container trucks, cattle and sheep trucks, heavy transport and low loaders, school buses, public buses, tourist buses, campervans and motorhomes, public and private plated vehicles, motorcycles and cyclists.
A report prepared by the Circular Head Council has been presented to the Tasmanian government and states that the highway carries more than one million tonnes of freight annually, worth over $1 billion per annum. Circular Head is Tasmania's largest dairy and prime beef production area, and is home to the world-famous Cape Grim Beef, and the freight task is in addition to the growing number of tourist vehicles. West of Wynyard there are currently two pressing issues in terms of the highway's construction and safety: from Smithton to Marrawah the road is largely constructed over a timber base. It is narrow, crumbling, corrugated and uneven. A trip from Smithton to Marrawah will soon tell you if you suffer from motion sickness or if your feelings are intact. Local school buses travel from Marrawah to Smithton on a daily basis, and the experience of local children is a case of holding on tight so they can remain in their seats.
Elsewhere on the highway, between Cowrie Point and Detention, there are numerous access points in and out of small coastal villages. While some small improvements have been made, the Circular Head Council's report identified nine black spot areas in this 18-kilometre stretch of highway—that is one black spot every two kilometres. Compounding road safety issues are the limited overtaking opportunities, which frustrate motorists who are stuck behind heavy vehicles. Travelling behind a heavy vehicle loaded with livestock is not the most pleasant experience, and most motorists want to get past these trucks sooner rather than later. What is really needed between Smithton and Marrawah is for the structural integrity of the road to be re-engineered to deal with the long-term needs of the community and to address safety as a No. 1 priority. Planning and design work is needed to identify the priority areas for work from Cowrie Point to Detention.
The community, through Circular Head Council, has campaigned for several years to have the highway upgraded from Marrawah to Burnie. The council has engaged its own consultants to prepare the case for why the road needs upgrading. Local school bus operator Kimbra Wells, from Wells Wagons, has led the community campaign. In October last year Kimbra invited local MPs to join her for a ride on the school bus from Smithton to Marrawah, and the MPs discovered the joy of holding on and keeping their lunch down on a 92-kilometre round trip.
To be fair to the coalition, they have funded black spot and road safety improvements at dangerous intersections at Wynyard, which is just west of Burnie. But it is worth noting that this funding was not forthcoming until after a grassroots community campaign and a commitment from the shadow minister for infrastructure. At Wynyard, it was a case of Labor leads and Liberals follow.
But, west of Wynyard, not one cent of Commonwealth funding has been allocated to the Bass Highway. The state Liberals have taken Circular Head for granted. The community are rightly stunned and disappointed that the recent state Liberal budget had nothing for the highway. From Marrawah to Smithton, all that has been offered is filling some potholes and pavement resealing from the state-wide maintenance budget. This is a bandaid solution, when major surgery is needed. It will be only a matter of time before the surface deteriorates over the winter months. Elsewhere on the highway, only routine maintenance is being carried out.
The Bass Highway is the Circular Head community's social and economic lifeline. It is the only major access road in and out of the district. I trust I have presented the case that the Bass Highway west of Burnie should be a priority for the state and federal governments. On this side, we know and understand the importance of this road. I call upon those opposite to join with Labor, take notice of this petition, and allocate the funding so that planning works can start to address road safety and transport issues ASAP.
I now present the petition.
The petition read as follows—
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
This petition of the undersigned residents of North West Tasmania draws to the attention of the House of road safety and transport issues associated with the Bass Highway from Marrawah to Burnie, Tasmania.
We therefore ask the House to call on the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to provide the funding necessary to allow the planning works to commence so road safety and transport issues can be addressed. Improvements to the Bass Highway from Marrawah to Burnie will also support long term economic growth and development in Circular Head.
from 654 citizens.
I rise tonight to pay tribute to Dennis Richardson, who retired recently from the Australian Public Service after a career spanning almost 50 years. I had the great privilege of serving with Dennis when I was Minister for Defence and he was—as he had been until recently—the secretary of the Department of Defence.
Some 48 years ago, Dennis Richardson came to Canberra as a trainee for the Australian Public Service from Albury on the border of New South Wales and Victoria. Amongst others who he joined at the Kurrajong hostel, as it then was—the now Hotel Kurrajong—was Ric Smith, another person who has become a senior and distinguished public servant in Australia. In recent years, Dennis has served this country not only as Secretary of the Department of Defence but as the director-general of ASIO and also as our distinguished ambassador to the United States in Washington DC.
Dennis Richardson is a person who has genuinely served the public of Australia through his service. It is common these days to refer to public servants as 'bureaucrats'. There are some public servants who are bureaucrats; there are probably some in our profession, Deputy Speaker—politicians who are bureaucrats—and in other walks of life as well. But a genuine public servant is something different, and I have had the great privilege, over the years, to have worked with many great public servants in Australia.
It is a mark of the respect that people have for Dennis Richardson to relate his background, because he worked at one stage for Gough Whitlam, the Labor Prime Minister of Australia, and indeed he was the senior adviser—probably, in today's nomenclature, the chief of staff—to Bob Hawke in the years before he lost the Prime Ministership of this country. So Dennis is someone who has served both sides of politics. But it is a tribute to his impartiality and his service of the Australian public that, at the farewell function tonight, hosted by the current secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Dr Martin Parkinson, there were present the former prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott, both of whom spoke, as well as the defence minister and I. And this, as I said, is a tribute to the service of the public which Dennis has provided.
As parliamentarians and, indeed, as ministers, we always claim that we want frank and fearless advice—to use that well-worn cliche—from the Public Service. But can I say, as someone who has been responsible for a number of portfolios, nothing is more valuable to a minister than genuine frank and fearless advice, and, with Dennis, it was always frank and fearless, and was always put pretty bluntly. He served as a very senior diplomat for Australia, but, on occasions, he could be nigh on undiplomatic. I recall the occasion when the whole program for the tender of the new submarines for Australia was the topic of a conversation at which there were a number of countries bidding: France, the ultimate successful bidder; Germany; and Japan. And when the Japanese suggested that, in order to aid their bid, they could sail a submarine to Australia, Dennis's response was: 'Well, you know the way'—a reference, of course, to what happened during the Second World War when mini submarines from Japan found their way to Australia, indeed to Sydney Harbour, and caused damage at that particular time. It was an example of what I call not only frank and fearless advice but pretty blunt comment about that. But it is something which, as I said, is valued by ministers in government.
I wish Dennis, and his wife, Betty, every enjoyment and every blessing in their retirement. I am sure, in his support for the Demons, but more so his beloved Canberra Raiders, he will find many occasions on which to be frustrated, as he was with ministers on occasions in the past. But he has served Australia well. He is a great public servant, and we wish him well in the future.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 31