As I indicated earlier, Mr Speaker, I will be absent from the forthcoming sittings in August to be with my family as my wife, Jodi Dack, fights to restore her health. In 2012 Jodi was diagnosed with breast cancer which led to very invasive medical treatment. I took some parliamentary leave at the time. The illness returned in 2014. Jodi fought fiercely in the intervening years and continues to fight. This month we were informed of further bad news, and another bout of intensive invasive medical treatment is required.
While I will continue to work on portfolio and constituent matters, I need to be closer to home to be there for my family for the next month. Accordingly, I have informed the Leader of the Opposition, the Manager of Opposition Business and the Chief Opposition Whip of my intentions. I thank them for their understanding and support. I thank my staff and caucus colleagues, and in particular I thank in advance Senator Cameron and the members for Chifley and Bendigo for helping me in the parliament, and I thank everyone for their well wishes. I thank the forbearance of the parliament. Jodi and I have every intention of seeing off this most recent challenge and getting on with living a rich and purposeful life.
I thank the member for Gorton. You have our understanding and support, as you know.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's Advisory report on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's Advisory report on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016. The bill will amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to manage national security risks of espionage, sabotage and foreign interference to Australia's telecommunication networks and facilities. The task of the Commonwealth government is to provide the Australian people with national and economic security, and this bill is designed to fulfil that very obligation. It will increase the security of telecommunications infrastructure that is so fundamental to the economic prosperity and social wellbeing of all Australians.
The bill introduces a security obligation whereby carriers and carriage service providers will be required to protect telecommunication networks and facilities from unauthorised interference and unauthorised access for the purposes of security. The bill will require certain telecommunications companies to notify the government of changes to telecommunications systems and services that could have a material adverse effect on their ability to meet this national security obligation.
A key objective of the bill is to formalise and strengthen the existing collaborative relationship between government and the telecommunications industry. In doing so the bill aims to provide a more transparent, consistent and enforceable set of security obligations across industry than currently exist. The committee recognises that the bill will implement recommendations made by this committee in earlier reports. In addition, the bill has been subject to extensive consultation over several years, which has addressed many concerns raised by industry stakeholders. The committee examined outstanding concerns around the operation of the proposed framework.
The committee supports the legislative framework that establishes the security of Australia's telecommunications infrastructure as a joint responsibility between government and industry. In its bipartisan report, the committee has recommended that the bill be passed by the parliament and made 12 further recommendations aimed at increasing clarity and certainty for industry, strengthening information sharing between government and industry and improving transparency and accountability. In particular, the committee considered that the 12-month implementation period for the bill will be crucial. The Attorney-General's Department must work closely with industry during this period to ensure that the administrative guidelines that support the legislation are revised and expanded to maximise certainty for industry.
In this regard, the committee has recommended greater clarity be provided with respect to the following: a company's security obligations for over-the-top services, infrastructure that is used but not necessarily owned by a company, infrastructure located in a foreign country but used to carry or store Australian customer information, cloud computing and cloud storage arrangements, and, finally, the sorts of changes to services and systems that will require notification to the government.
Similarly, the implementation period must be used to identify and implement effective mechanisms to share information—particularly threat information—with industry. Early engagement about security risks and the effective sharing of threat information with industry will help telecommunications companies make decisions that consider national security early in the planning process. Early engagement will also provide the government with increased visibility of national security risks.
The committee was concerned that existing laws do not provide the government with sufficient information about where and how data is being stored. To provide greater assurance the committee has recommended that a specific obligation be included within the notification requirement to ensure that industry notifies the communications access coordinator of any new or amended offshoring arrangements for stored data under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.
Finally, with respect to ensuring transparency and accountability, the committee has recommended that certain key regulatory performance information be included in the annual report presented to parliament and that framework be reviewed after three years to ensure that it is operating effectively. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I rise also to speak on the PJCIS Advisory report on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016. Increasingly over the past decade, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has played a vital role in national security in Australia. The bipartisan work of the PJCIS to review and make improvements to national security legislation proposed by the government has ensured that Australia has national security legislation that is fit for purpose. Australians can be proud that our national security legislation strikes an appropriate balance between keeping Australians safe and ensuring that rights and freedoms are not unnecessarily infringed on.
The Abbott-Turnbull government has introduced a range of national security legislation, and the PJCIS played an important role in ensuring that there are safeguards and protections in place. These safeguards ensure that the measures do not unnecessarily infringe on civil liberties or go further than what is necessary to keep Australians safe. The telecommunications sector security reforms that this bill is about are not a novel or groundbreaking approach to national security. They are legislative reform. They are the outcome of a long history of negotiations between the telecommunications industry and the government. Consultation on these reforms started several years ago during the first term of the Labor government. The PJCIS first examined the issue of telecommunications security during the 43rd Parliament as part of its 2012 Inquiry into potential reforms to national security legislation. It was acknowledged that threats to Australia's national security can arise through telecommunications systems and that there needs to be a framework for assessing and responding to those threats.
In its 2013 report that followed the inquiry, the PJCIS recommended that a telecommunications security framework be implemented that would impose an obligation on the industry to protect its infrastructure and information. The PJCIS also recommended that industry be required to pass on information to the government that's necessary for assessing security risks, that the government be granted powers to direct the industry and that there be a civil penalty regime imposed to encourage compliance.
In 2015, again, the committee expressed its support for the telecommunications sector security reforms as part of its advisory report on another bill, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014. It was hoped that these reforms would be enacted prior to the end of the implementation phase of the data retention regime which began in April this year. Unfortunately that was not possible, but the bill is again before the House accompanied now by this report of the PJCIS.
Telecommunications companies are already voluntarily working with the government to ensure that Australia's critical infrastructure is safe from foreign interference, threats or espionage. This bill puts a framework around that working relationship to ensure that both government and industry know what is required to keep Australians safe and what is expected of them to ensure these measures are taken. Until now the government has relied on the goodwill of industry to voluntarily implement security advice. Security agencies do not currently have adequate levers to ensure the cooperation of those who do not wish to engage voluntarily. If security risks are identified and an agreement cannot be reached with the relevant carrier or carriage service provider, the only thing that the government can currently do is to use its so-called shutdown power—that is, the power to stop a service under section 581(3) of the Telecommunications Act. Because of the severe impact that the use of this power might have on innocent users of non-complying telecommunications companies, as well as on Australia's economy and telecommunications infrastructure, the power has never been used. The bill also gives the Attorney-General the power to direct a carrier or carriage service provider 'to do or to refrain from doing a specified act or thing within a specified period'. This will ensure that the Attorney-General can act to eliminate or reduce risks that are prejudicial to security. In contrast to the existing shutdown power, this new power provides a more proportionate and graduated power of intervention and enforcement.
The bill also empowers the secretary of the Attorney-General's Department to request information that relates to security threats from carriers or carriage service providers and their intermediaries. The fact that industry is not currently obliged under law to share threat information with security agencies means that our agencies may be unaware of potential threats. This bill puts in place processes for information sharing to ensure that agencies will be aware of threats to critical telecommunications infrastructure. The bill also inserts additional safeguards around the use of the directions powers by adding a requirement that ASIO must have issued an adverse security assessment before the power can be exercised. The bill also ensures that the directions are subject to judicial review.
The PJCIS is often tasked with weighing up the need for enhanced powers for Australia's security agencies against the need to protect the civil liberties of Australia's citizens. The task before the PJCIS in considering this bill was an additional task. The committee had to weigh up commercial interests with national security concerns in determining the appropriateness of the measures proposed. I believe that following the implementation of the recommendations of the advisory report we will have a bill that strikes an appropriate balance between those competing concerns. I commend the work of the PJCIS in engaging in careful scrutiny of this bill, and, as always, ensuring that we have national security legislation that is fit for purpose and gives security agencies the powers and tools they need to keep Australians safe.
On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Government Procurement, I present the committee's report entitled Buying into our future: review of amendments to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The Joint Select Committee on Government Procurement was established on 1 December 2016 to inquire into the Commonwealth Procurement Framework—in particular, the amended Commonwealth Procurement Rules. Amendments to the CPRs came into effect on 1 March 2017. The aim of the amendments is to make sure that the full benefits of Commonwealth procurement flow into the Australian economy. It will also ensure that Australian regulations and standards are upheld. The amendments are designed to mitigate the disadvantage faced by Australian suppliers accessing government procurement opportunities.
The evidence received by the committee showed overall support for the amendments to the CPRs. However, there are concerns over effective implementation. Many of the new clauses lack clarity or leave too much to the discretion of officials. The committee has made suggestions to tighten up the clauses by refining and expanding the terms. The committee heard about several problems with the implementation of the previous CPRs, including: a procurement culture that focused on lowest cost rather than value for money; a lack of accountability and transparency; and unacceptable risk-shifting. Also, there is a perception that due to a lack of technical skill and expertise the government has become an uninformed purchaser. The absence of a requirement to comply with Australian standards is considered another deficiency.
There are several flow-on risks that may be detrimental to Australia more broadly. These include: the loss of a skilled workforce; safety; economic and environmental risks; and potential wastage. Of real concern to the committee is the possibility that the procurement system itself may present barriers for domestic businesses attempting to take advantage of procurement opportunities.
The committee considers that comprehensive guidelines are essential to address the current deficiencies and to ensure successful implementation of the new clauses. New guidelines are required to remove the discretionary nature of decision-making and replace it with specific standards that must be met. The guidelines should also mandate the evidence required from tenderers. In particular, an explicit definition is required for 'economic benefit' and a weighting system to properly assess suppliers' claims. Additionally, the committee considers that procurement-connected policies are needed to provide guidance for environmental sustainability and human rights. These guidelines and policies should be supplemented with a Public Service-wide training program. Improved record-keeping is essential to address the lack of transparency and accountability in the current system.
Contract management is another area that the committee would like to see better utilised to control implementation and maximise procurement and contract outcomes. Good contract management ensures that tenderers meet their obligations and responsibilities. If the amended CPRs are to encourage Australian suppliers, the Australian government must not enter into international trade agreements which diminish the benefits that underpin these amendments. Additionally, procurement officers must be better informed of the exemptions currently available in international agreements to preference domestic businesses. The committee was made aware of a range of best-practice models available for Australia to draw on and improve our procurement system.
The committee believes that a three-pronged approach is necessary to address the implementation issues identified in this report and to ensure that new rules are applied consistently, transparently and to maximum effect. We would like to see:
Accordingly, the committee has made 16 recommendations to that effect. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I also make some remarks on the report of the Joint Select Committee on Government Procurement. Smart use of procurement policy is a subject I have spoken about on past occasions. Regrettably, it's a matter about which the Turnbull government has taken little interest, and the government had to be dragged reluctantly into the committee inquiry. Whilst responsibility for government policy ultimately rests with the government I don't excuse government bureaucrats, who have at times have taken the lazy option in overseeing government procurement rather than using some initiative of their own and maximising taxpayer return for the dollars spent.
Most of the committee's recommendations should have and could have been initiated by bureaucrats. Each year the federal government spends about $58 billion on procurement of goods and services. It is estimated that about the same amount is spent by state and local governments throughout Australia, which combined means that across the three levels of government over $100 billion of procurement is made annually. Procurement does matter, and communities understand the benefits that flow when government funds are spent locally. Of course, some of those funds are already spent locally, but the government and, indeed, all governments could do better. One only has to look at the effect the coalition submarine contract had on South Australian politics and, ultimately, national politics to understand just how well government procurement is understood by the Australian people.
Importantly, good policy can be used to achieve several other important objectives. Firstly, government procurement can be used to develop and sustain local economies. The economic flow-on in local economies, including the development of skills, securing apprenticeships, attracting new investments and investments made in research and development are all made possible when government contracts for which payment is assured are made. Secondly, government procurement policy can be used to ensure that workers, whether they are in Australia or in overseas factories, are fairly treated and paid. It should be a condition of government procurement that contracts will only be awarded to entities that do not exploit their workers and, in particular, do not use slave labour. Thirdly, government procurement should ensure products used in government contracts comply with Australian building and safety standards. It is clear that in the past product compliance was either not demanded or not checked. Fourthly, procurement policy can be used effectively to achieve environmental objectives.
The ability to pursue those objectives and adopt relevant policies should therefore not be traded away in unilateral or multilateral trade agreements. Wrongly referred to as 'free trade' agreements, such agreements are often neither fair nor free because they impose severe limitations on government procurement. It was notable from the inquiry that whilst in the past bureaucrat advice to government was that favouring Australian suppliers in government procurement would cause Australia to breach trade agreements to which Australia was a signatory, it now seems that there are ways of adopting smart procurement policy without breaching those same agreements.
The last matter I comment on is the notion of value for money. It's a broad term, and one that is difficult to measure when value implies so much more than up-front costs. It should, indeed, include whole-of-life cost, total tax return to government, welfare costs that may be saved, indirect benefit to other local industries and skills training. When all are taken into account, it would be difficult to go past local procurement. Other governments know that, and that is why they find ways of supporting their local economies—albeit that they too are signatories to trade agreements.
For example, in the US, the Federal Acquisitions Regulation, the Buy American Act, the Berry Amendment and the presidential executive orders all have the effect of maximising local procurement. Canada also has a proactive procurement policy for its government. Indeed, I note that both the South Australian and Victorian state governments in recent years have also adopted very proactive local procurement policies.
As the member for Moore has quite rightly pointed out, there are 16 recommendations to the committee's report and those recommendations were unanimously adopted. Recommendation 16 states:
The committee recommends that a parliamentary inquiry is established by March 2018 to evaluate the implementation process and report to the parliament by the end of 2018.
It is now up to the Turnbull government to act in the national interest and implement the 16 unanimous recommendations of the committee. I commend the committee's report to the House.
() (): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report and incorporate the dissenting report—who would have thought!—entitled Report 172: Singapore Free Trade Amendment Defence Supplies and Services to Japan.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Today I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Report 172. The report contains the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' review of two treaty actions: the agreement to amend the Singapore Free Trade Agreement; and the agreement between Australia and Japan concerning the reciprocal provision of defence supplies.
Firstly, the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Australia has had tariff-free access for goods exported to Singapore since 2003. However, Australian access for services and service suppliers to the Singapore market has been more difficult to achieve.
The agreement to amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement consequently focusses on services and regulatory issues.
The agreement also incorporates a number of improved provisions previously negotiated as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
One of the improvements is an updated version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership's Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions.
The new ISDS provisions in the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement will protect Australia from claims on: tobacco control measures; the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; Medicare; foreign investment decisions; and Indigenous traditional cultural expressions, amongst others.
Another important outcome relates to Singapore's recognition of Australian university qualifications.
Singapore has recently adopted a more internally focused attitude towards recognising foreign university qualifications, particularly law qualifications.
For example, Singapore recently removed eight British universities from its list of recognised law qualifications.
In this environment, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that Australia has notably succeeded in retaining the number of recognised Australian law qualifications recognised by Singapore. It also speaks to the world-class tertiary institutions we have in Australia.
Australia has also obtained concessions that will make it easier for Australian law practitioners to open offices in Singapore to practice international and Singaporean law.
In relation to other skilled professionals, the amendment to the Singapore free trade agreement establishes a formal framework for negotiating the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
In an increasingly international environment that is more internally looking—another word could be 'protectionist'—the amendment to the Singapore free trade agreement shows Australia can both defend its access to foreign markets and open up new fields for Australian business to explore. The committee wholeheartedly supports the proposed treaty action.
Report 172 also contains the committee's views on the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of Japan concerning reciprocal provision of supplies and services between the Australian Defence Force and the Self-Defense Force of Japan.
The agreement replaces a similar agreement that came into force in 2013, and reflects changes in Japanese domestic law relating to Japan's involvement in international peace-keeping activities.
The agreement will permit the provision of logistic supplies and services to the military forces of Australia and Japan for specified joint activities. These supplies and services will be in return for either cash payment or the reciprocal provision of logistic supplies and services.
Specifically, the agreement now includes the reciprocal provision of services and supplies for internationally coordinated peacekeeping and security operations.
The proposed agreement will ensure that Australia's logistical relationship with Japan remains on the same footing as Japan's logistical relationship with other close allies, including the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
The committee supports ratification of this agreement.
Finally, the report also contains the committee's review of two minor treaty actions:
On behalf of the committee, I recommend and commend the report to the House.
I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the order of the day concurrently with the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017. There being no objections, the chair will allow that course to be followed.
I rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017. These amendments amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to harmonise the rates of excise and excise-equivalent customs duty applying to different tobacco products. The bills ensure that tobacco products in cigarette form and those containing other tobacco, such as roll-your-own tobacco, receive a comparable duty treatment. This effectively means roll-your-own tobacco attracts the same rate of excise per kilogram as tobacco as cigarettes.
Labor will agree to support these bills. This measure is yet another example of the Turnbull government adopting Labor's previous tobacco excise measures. It is always important to remember that changes to limit the scourge of smoking in Australia have been championed by Labor. Historically, Labor has been committed to ensuring the reduction of smoking rates in Australia and improving the health outcomes of Australians. Labor is mindful that this government has a long way to go when it comes to fair budget repair—another reason we will support this legislation. The government's 2017 budget was a budget for millionaires and multinationals rather than for working and middle-class Australians, and we have repeatedly made that case. We will support these measures in the House, but we will continue to hold the government to account. We are pleased they are following our lead in this regard with this legislation. It is critical that we reduce smoking rates in this country, to improve the health outcomes of all Australians, and deliver a fair budget for all Australians.
I will take the opportunity to talk about smoking rates and the commitment we need to undertake and have undertaken in the past in relation to tobacco consumption and smoking reduction measures. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's 2016 National drug strategy household survey released on 1 June 2017 found that the use of roll-your-own cigarettes had risen from 26 per cent of smokers in 2007 to 36 per cent of smokers in 2016. Between 2013 and 2016, roll-your-own tobacco use in smokers in their 30s had jumped from 29 per cent to 37 per cent—an alarming statistic. The reduced comparative cost of roll-your-own cigarettes is due to the current more favourable tax treatment of roll-your-own tobacco. It's believed to be a contributing factor and I agree with the experts in that regard. By better aligning the tax treatment of roll-your-own cigarettes with tailored cigarettes, it's hoped that the increased use of this type of tobacco will be halted and, indeed, reversed.
This measure will result in a gain in excise and excise-equivalent receipts of $360 million over the forward estimates period—a welcome addition to budget repair. Imported goods such as imported tobacco are known as excise-equivalent goods and attract an excise-equivalent customs duty collected at the borders of Australia. This applies at the same rate as the excise duty on locally produced goods. Goods and services tax receipts are estimated to increase by $35 million over the forward estimates period from this budget measure—again, welcome. These increases are in addition to the decision made in the 2016-17 budget to increase tobacco excise on all tobacco products. We welcome this revenue, although we don't welcome the other unfair measures imposed by this government and their wrong economic priorities.
The bills before the House today are to harmonise the rates of excise and excise-equivalent customs duty applying to different tobacco products. It's done by four annual adjustments of the duty rate from 1 September 2017. The legislation amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Section 19AB(2) is to be replaced with the following words:
The amount worked out under subsection (1) is to be rounded to 5 decimal places (rounding up if the sixth decimal place is 5 or more).
I'm often wary of the government's ability to draft legislation, but I'm relieved that they do in fact know the correct method of rounding decimal places as enshrined in this legislation!
Labor has taken the lead in driving smoking rates in this society to historic lows. We've implemented plain packaging laws, and our leadership on tobacco excise is demonstrated and has historically been demonstrated. It was under a Labor government that Australia was the first country to produce plain packaging for cigarettes, which took effect from 1 December 2012. Despite legal challenge after legal challenge, the World Trade Organisation recently upheld Australia's right to impose plain packaging label restrictions on the sale of tobacco products. Labor's leadership on this matter is undeniable, with Bloomberg reporting recently:
The decision could usher in a new wave of global tobacco restrictions from other countries that have sought to deter smoking among their citizens through the use of plain packaging rules.
France, Hungary, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, the UK—all have adopted in their own way their own plain packaging rules. Similar laws in relation to this matter in Canada, Turkey, Singapore and South Africa are all on the cards following Australia's lead.
Under a Labor government, not only was Australia the first country to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes but we also introduced a number of key measures that I think are important to put on the public record in the context of this bill. We increased the excise rates applying to tobacco products by 25 per cent as part of the 2010-11 budget. We introduced legislation to restrict advertising on tobacco products on the internet in line with advertising in other forms of media. We invested $61 million towards the national tobacco campaign Every Cigarette Brings Cancer Closer. There was $27.8 million over four years for social media marketing campaigns targeted at high-risk and hard-to-reach groups. We also invested $14.5 million over three years from 2008 towards the Indigenous Tobacco Control Initiative, funding 18 pilot projects in Indigenous communities around the country. And we invested a further $10.7 million in 2010. We took it up through the COAG process, investing $100.6 million towards the National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes, tackling Indigenous smoking measures. We introduced the first-ever national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-specific antismoking television campaign: Break the Chain. We provided $5 million for one-off funding for Quitline in 2009-10 and invested $102.4 million to support the provision of nicotine replacement therapies and other quit-smoking supports through the PBS.
This shows that Labor has historically been a strong supporter of programs to reduce tobacco use. In November 2015 Labor continued this commitment through our original excise tobacco rate increases. We announced we would deliver a further four 12.5 per cent excise rate increases, commencing 1 July 2017, if we were elected at the last election. This is all about making sure we can reduce tobacco consumption in this country.
The government has followed our lead in this legislation; it copied our plan. It announced in May 2016 that the 2016-17 budget would have an annual increase in tobacco excise, an excise-equivalent customs duty rate of 12.5 per cent, on 1 September in each of the years from 2017 to 2020.
Labor will support the passage of these bills through the House. I think Labor's leadership in this area, in combatting tobacco smoking, was clearly reflected in the data recently released by the National Drug Strategy Household Survey. According to the survey, the proportion of Australians who have never smoked has risen from 60 per cent in 2013 to 62 per cent in 2016. And it's a fact that 98 per cent of Australian teenagers have never smoked. Simon Chapman, emeritus professor in public health at the University of Sydney, summarised this victory perfectly in an article he did for The ConversationI commend everyone to have a look at it—by saying:
While it was always going to be hard to show even further decline in teenage smoking from what was an already very low level, it’s happened again—
and that's very welcome.
Younger people also continued to delay when they first smoked their first full cigarette.
From 1995 through to 2013, the age increased from 14.2 years to 15.9 years. By comparison, between 2013 and 2016 the age jumped significantly from 15.9 years to 16.3 years. The effectiveness of the plain packaging initiative is undeniable.
There are troubling statistics—I want to finish on this note—that have emerged from the 2016 National Drug Strategy Household Survey that reinforce why Labor is supporting these bills. For instance, one in eight Australian adults still smoke daily; smoking is still killing 15,000 Australians a year. We need to do much, much more. This government was the government that mothballed the Australian National Tobacco Campaign in 2013. That campaign, which you might know as the 'Every cigarette is doing you damage' campaign, had been in existence since 1997 and had been hailed around the world as world's best practice; it was very effective. This is why I come back to the data. The data we have seen clearly shows there's no statistical fall recorded in the total smoking levels; they'd simply dropped out or levelled off between 2013 and 2016, from 12.8 per cent in 2013 through to 12.2 per cent in 2016. This stagnation perfectly aligns with the government's failure to commit to a new national media campaign on smoking.
Another commitment we made at the last election was an additional $30 million in funding to help groups that contribute to smoking at alarming rates, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and those with mental illness. Labor urge the government to continue to follow our lead when it comes to improving the health outcomes of Australians, especially taking the initiative to help those who continue to smoke at alarming rates—including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and those suffering from mental illness. Labor will support the passage of these bills through the House, and we will continue to hold the government to account to reduce smoking rates in this country, to improve the health outcomes for all Australians and to deliver a fairer budget for all Australians.
I am pleased this morning to rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017. These bills increase the rate of excise and tariff on tobacco products other than cigarettes. I am glad that these bills have bipartisan support across the chamber. I agree with the honourable member who just spoke, the member for Blair, as I also want to see the rates of smoking driven down in this country. In fact, I would like to see them driven down to nothing. I agree with him that both sides of politics must tackle the scourge of smoking and drive those rates down. And I agree with him that the additional revenue we will get will help repair the budget deficit that we have to tackle.
However, I would note what we are actually doing. We are increasing the price of cigarettes by 12½ per cent, 12½ per cent, 12½ per cent and 12½ per cent over the next four years. We are going to drive the retail price of cigarettes to $40 per packet. I would hope that, when many Australians see the price of cigarettes at $40 per packet in the shops, they will make the decision that this is the time to quit. If that happens, we will have been successful.
But my concern is that we will be basically creating a prohibition by price. And, where the wholesale price of a packet of cigarettes is the equivalent of one Australian dollar in Asia, where there are hundreds if not thousands of tobacco wholesalers that lawfully sell the products in those countries for $1, and the retail price is $40 in Australia, we create the risk that we are going to turbocharge the illicit and underground market; we are going to turbocharge smuggling; we are going to turbocharge black-market cigarettes; and we will be giving a leg-up to organised crime.
Already, the estimate is that about 14 per cent of all cigarettes sold in this country today are from an illegal source or a counterfeit source that avoids the customs tariff. That is $1.6 billion lost to government at the moment. I think almost all of us would have stories around our electorates of small tobacconists selling this unlawful product. We hear common stories. A packet of cigarettes, unbranded or counterfeit, can be bought for $10, I would suggest, in almost every electorate in this country. The real danger is: if we put these cigarettes up to $40 a packet, what will that do to this market?
There is a real risk, because of the price-sensitive nature of cigarettes, that we may merely be trading one health hazard for another. It is wonderful that we have heard the great results of fewer and fewer teenagers taking up smoking. But is it the fact that, as we are making cigarettes more and more expensive, they are only diverting to other drugs instead?
With that, I support this legislation. I want to see the scourge of cigarettes driven from this country. I want to see the smoking rates that we have, which have declined in recent years, decline even further. But we need to remember that, if we are going to do this, we will be increasing smuggling. We will need to put more resources into law enforcement. There will be greater cost to society in other areas. We must monitor this situation very carefully because history tells us what happens when you go down the track of a prohibition, and with this legislation we are going to prohibition by price. I hope my concerns and fears are proved incorrect. But this is something to monitor. We need to give more resources to our law enforcement officials to enforce that. I hope that I can come back here in a couple of years and say that I was wrong and celebrate that we have driven smoking rates down in this country.
First, I'd like to thank all of those members on both sides of the chamber who have contributed to this debate. To ensure that cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco receive comparable taxation treatment, the government will amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017 adjust the rate of excise and excise-equivalent customs duty on roll-your-own tobacco over four years, with increases occurring on 1 September each year, starting in 2017. This matches the timing for other changes to tobacco rates, therefore minimising compliance costs.
The adjustment will address the disparity in the duty applied to cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. This disparity occurs because the duty on cigarettes is a set amount per stick, which assumes each cigarette contains 0.8 grams of tobacco, while duty on roll-your-own tobacco is applied to the actual tobacco content at a per-kilogram rate. However, the average cigarette contains less than 0.8 grams of tobacco. As a result, the average manufactured cigarette is subject to a higher rate of duty than a comparable cigarette made from roll-your-own tobacco. Adjusting the per kilogram excise and excise-equivalent duty rate to better reflect the average tobacco content of manufactured cigarettes will improve the fairness and efficiency of the taxation system. It will also ensure tobacco is subject to comparable duty treatment regardless of form. I commend these bills to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
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.
This bill to increase safeguards and help ensure quality in higher education is important and the government should be praised for introducing it. But this bill can't be considered in isolation. It must be seen against the background of the mess that the Turnbull government is making in higher education.
Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, as you know, higher education matters. It's an important export for us. In 2016 education export earnings were $21.8 billion—that's a record. That was growth of 17 per cent year on year. Even more importantly, we need high quality universities so that Australian students get the skills that they'll need for the jobs of the future. Those two facts alone—the importance of education as an export industry and the importance of education to domestic students, Australian kids and Australian mature-aged students—must be remembered when we consider higher education policy in this place.
I want to mention some of the driving factors for our success and for universities' success in the higher education sector in Australia. Universities Australia puts our export success down to Australia's excellent reputation for high quality university education, our proximity to Asia and a lower Australian dollar. Those are the reasons that they say drove the 17 per cent growth in export earnings last year compared to the year before. Obviously, we cannot rely on the last of those three things all of the time. We cannot rely on always having a low or lower Australian dollar. We certainly can rely on our proximity to Asia, and we have to do everything we can to exploit that benefit. But when it comes to the first of those three factors—high-quality higher education—the last thing that we should do is put downward pressure on quality. It's one of the reasons this bill is important.
Taking steps to ensuring that we have quality in one area in higher education doesn't make up for what this government is recklessly doing to our important higher education sector. The Turnbull government wants to put prices up for uni degrees. The Turnbull government wants to push debt up for households with students and graduates. The Turnbull government wants to start taking money out of the pockets of people who earn less. The Turnbull government wants to cut funding for higher education so that students will pay more to get less. Today is a national day of protest. On university campuses across the country people are protesting this government's attacks on higher education. I commend everyone who is standing up for a good, high quality higher education system with secure jobs, a great student experience and, most importantly, a capacity to provide opportunities for learning that changes lives.
I want to say a few things about this bill. I also want to talk about the political context and the higher education context in which it is being debated. Labor supports this bill. Labor recognises there is a genuine risk that our higher education system could be targeted by unscrupulous providers. Ensuring that Australia's world-class higher education system and students are properly protected is absolutely critical to the system's ongoing success. Labor fully supports a robust and rigorous higher education regulatory system. Labor welcomes the additional focus on the greater scrutiny placed on the background of organisations who wish to operate in this country's higher education system. The reforms proposed in this bill rightly acknowledge there has been a surge in applications from vocational education providers to become higher education providers.
Labor also supports greater protection for students, particularly those accessing the FEE-HELP system. Students who take on debts for study need to do so with confidence. Labor therefore welcomes the changes the government proposes to the arrangements for using HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP. It's troubling that there is evidence that students have fallen victim to unscrupulous marketing activities. It's even more troubling that there is evidence to suggest that many providers have had tax file numbers passed on for the Australian Taxation Office. It's a very good thing that this bill seeks to ensure that this cannot happen. It's also important that this parliament seeks to protect Australia's higher education system from some of the poor practices we've seen in the vocational education sector.
Labor supports the bill. The Turnbull government does need to ensure it continues to properly consult with the sector in relation to the bill. It also needs to ensure that it is providing the higher education regulator, TEQSA, with adequate resources to do its job. Most importantly, this government needs to get serious about building upon our universities' existing high-quality teaching, learning and research, in order to serve both our export market and, more importantly, Australian students. The government needs to drop its attacks on higher education and instead work to make our higher education sector even better than it presently is.
As I said, the Turnbull government is seeking to cut funding for higher education so students will pay more to get less. The government has included in its package for higher education guaranteed public funding cuts to offset the fee hikes students will be paying. On top of that, it has included a 2½ per cent guaranteed cut to public funding. On top of that again, there are additional potential cuts of up to 7½ per cent. The locked-in cuts will mean job losses. The union and Universities Australia have each been clear about that. The unions expect job losses. In fact, the NTEU expects job losses of between 7,000 and 9,500 full-time equivalent positions nationally as a consequence of these locked-in cuts to public funding for higher education.
The potential cuts of an additional 7½ per cent—cuts that arise in relation to yet unknown and unannounced performance measures for most of the period—are making planning very difficult for universities. This also means universities are going to be even more prone to putting staff onto casual contracts or short-term contracts, and that's a real problem. We are not opposed to performance-based funding, of course, but you've got to go about it the right way.
Cutting the guaranteed amount of public funding to create a performance based scheme is the wrong way to go about it, and announcing a scheme without working out the detail of the performance measures leaves a lot of uncertainty in the sector. Between the cuts to offset fee increases and the efficiency dividend—the 2.5 per cent cut—there are big cuts to public funding. In fact, the budget papers indicated that there would be savings—cuts—of $3.8 billion in fiscal terms as a consequence of this package. That is almost $4 billion in cuts to the public funding of higher education in this country. It's a massive cut in public funding to universities. The fee increases will offset some of that—and, of course, universities will seek to increase their international student intake—but the cuts will still mean less revenue to universities. Students will be asked to pay more; at the same time, universities will get less to fund higher education. Questions have to be asked about how this will affect quality.
I visited Monash's Peninsula campus and spoke with some excellent allied health and nursing academics. They are doing great work but they are worried about the government's funding cuts. Will students in nursing programs get less individual attention? Will physiotherapy students have less access to the type of equipment they will encounter when they are in the workforce? What will the potential impacts on quality mean for employers? Will they be expected to take graduates who are less prepared for their profession?
Australia already has low public investment in tertiary education by OECD standards as a proportion of GDP. We have higher levels of individual contributions—fee income as a proportion of the overall income that universities receive—compared with other OECD counterparts. Last year, writing about the Australia in the Asian Century white paper, Ken Henry pointed out the need to ensure that Australians are endowed with capabilities that are relevant for success in this century. He said that this calls for a renewed focus on our national endowments, such as high quality education systems, policy frameworks that promote economic security and working conditions that promote human dignity. He pointed out that the white paper had identified a need for new foundational investments, including public investments in Australian schools, universities and vocational training centres.
I respectfully agree with Mr Henry. That is one reason why I find it so bewildering that, five years after the white paper, the government wants to take the opposite approach. The Turnbull government wants to cut funding to universities—public funding and overall funding. I also find it bewildering that right now, in the economic context in which we are operating, the Turnbull government wants to put up prices for university degrees. They want to push up debt for households with students and graduates—which is, of course, the natural consequence of that. When I visited the University of Western Sydney they told me they believed that students from low socio-economic backgrounds and 'first in family' students were sensitive to price. It is all very well to claim that students won't be sensitive to price, but that is not the experience that universities have. The University of Tasmania told me similar things. When I visited the University of Tasmania, they told me that their Burnie campus had a 'first in family' cohort of over 90 per cent of their students. You can't tell me that someone from a poor family who has never had anyone from their family go to university is not going to be worried about the amount of debt they are going to have to take on in order to get a university degree.
I came from a family like that when I was growing up. My dad was working in the mail room at Australia Post and my mum worked in her father's business when I was a little kid. I did not know anyone who had been to university—other than my GP. If you asked my parents 10 years later, when I was thinking about going to university, whether I should take on tens of thousands of dollars of debt—how could you not think about the consequences of that? How could you not think about what that would mean? Hiking up fees by 7.5 per cent will mean bigger debts for students and graduates. That means more pressure on households, not just at the time they decide to go university but for many years after. It is a massive problem, particularly as incomes are stagnating.
The recent Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey said that we have had a slight decline in average household income since 2012. Things are grim. This year we have seen a wage price index lower than CPI. Wages growth is at record lows. Graduate incomes are down. They are less than they were for people who graduated at any other time in the last 15 years, and they have been dropping across this period. In the last 15 years home ownership for under-40s has dropped from 36 per cent to 25 per cent. But people under 40 have twice as much housing debt as people of the same age 15 years ago, and they are facing much higher prices for child care. At the time these dynamics are happening—stagnating incomes, low graduate wages, high household debt, high house prices and high childcare prices—why on earth would the government want to saddle people with much more student debt? It is irresponsible. How will households with this higher debt react? What is going to be the effect on household consumption? It is really important for economic growth that we have strong household consumption. What are people going to do when they are 35, with two kids, massive student debt, massive housing debt, hard-to-afford child care and incomes that are stagnating? Why is the government not thinking ahead about how these fee hikes are going to affect people?
And the worst part about these fee hikes—the worst part about the government's utter lack of consideration of the future impact of these fee hikes—is that there is no good reason for them. There is no good reason for these fee hikes. They are just coming from the government's ideological position that students should make a greater private contribution to the cost of higher education, even though they already make a higher contribution by OECD standards. The government have an ideological position; they want to rebalance the proportion of the costs paid by private individuals compared to costs borne by public funding.
I feel like I have been having this argument for decades, probably because I have. I remember being a student and having Liberal students argue we needed to increase the proportion paid by private individual contribution. So they have this ideological position. And you do not have to take my word. You can just read Minister Birmingham's speech from when he announced this package and he said they believed there should be an adjustment to the costs borne by private individuals compared to the proportion borne by public funding.
The express purpose of this package is to serve that ideological view of the Liberals. The express purpose of this package is to make students pay more but get less. It is not as though they are saying: 'All right, students, increase your contribution and we will match that with an increased contribution from public moneys and that that will help to build an amazing new set of quality frameworks for universities, and it will help to continue to improve university quality teaching, learning and research.' None of that is happening. They are saying: 'You lot pay more, because we reckon ideologically you are not paying enough. At the same time, we will cut university funding in a commensurate way, and on top of that we will cut it again, by another 2.5 per cent and on top of that we will reduce it again by another 7.5 per cent and make that contingent on yet unannounced perform measures.' This is ideological nonsense. It is reckless and irresponsible.
The Turnbull government also wants to start taking money out of the pockets of people who earn less. If they get their way, they will start demanding a contribution from people earning $42,000 a year. So much for the extra tax you pay after you get a higher education being justified by the private benefit you supposedly get from it! If you say to people, 'Once you earn $42,000 a year, you're getting so much private benefit from your higher education that you should pay some additional money to the government,' then that is actually telling them that the university education that they are getting is justifying that additional payment, even though they are earning less than half the male average full-time income. It is not even much more than the national minimum wage. So much for this additional contribution being justified by the vast private benefit that people are supposedly getting from having gone to university—42 grand a year; that is what they want to drop it to. 'Once you hit 42 grand a year, you're doing so well and you've got it so good that you should pay extra tax to the government.' That is what they are really saying to people. It is utterly ridiculous. They do not know this—because they did not bother checking—but this will fall disproportionately on women, because women are more likely to work part time and are more likely to work in the lower paid professions.
As I said, they did not bother to find out the extent to which women would be especially affected. The Australian Association of Social Workers pointed this out in a submission they made recently. They said:
Michael Brennan, the Deputy Secretary of Treasury's Fiscal Group has admitted that they did not undertake the modelling of budget impacts that was requested by the Office for Women. If they had undertaken this modelling, they would have quantified the combined effect that this measure, the changes to Family Tax Benefit and the increase on the Medicare levy will have on female-headed households. Instead, the National Foundation for Australian Women has conducted its own analysis and concluded that this budget is "particularly harsh for women".
So it took a not-for-profit non-government organisation to do the analysis that the Treasury should have done under the direction of the government to have a look at the distributional impacts of this particular package and the way it was going to operate with other measures in the budget. The government did not do it. Why did they not do it? I do not know. I do not know why then Prime Minister Abbott decided to axe the women's budget statement when he came to government. Former Prime Minister Howard had women's budget statements. Former Labor governments had women's budget statements. But this government saw fit to axe them, and they still have not reinstated them because, frankly, they do not really care about these issues.
I have visited a lot of universities since the package was announced. Every single one of them has expressed to me grave concern about the cuts, about the fee hikes, and about the reduction in the threshold at which people start to be asked to make a contribution for higher education—the point at which the government starts putting its hands into the pockets of working people. Universities across the country are very concerned about this. Student groups are very concerned about this and university staff unions are very concerned about this. And why wouldn't they be worried about these changes? We have not even scratched the surface of what this government have done to higher education. We have not even talked about last year's $152 million cut to the equity programs. We have not talked about this complete mess that they seem to be making with postgraduate Commonwealth-supported places—again, an announcement without a plan behind it. They have no idea what they are doing with this. They have not even talked about those things.
But we do know that when you take almost $4 billion out of public funding for higher education, when you hike up student fees, when you ask people to pay more to get less, when you increase the debt on people's households that households are expected to bear and when you start putting your hand in people's pockets—when the government are arranging only 42 grand a year for extra money to go into government coffers—that this is a pretty bad package. It is a pretty bad package for the impact it will have on Australian students, be they school leavers, be they people returning to higher education after being in the workforce or be they people at any point in their life trying to improve their skills. If that happens to students from any of those cohorts, these changes will have a terrible impact on them. It absolutely will.
Let's not mince words. We are going through a period of enormous economic change in this country. We are going through a period of time in which we need to diversify our economy and we are going through a period of time in which there is a lot of transitioning happening in our economy. That is a really sanitised way of saying that in some industries people will lose their jobs. When that happens, we need people to be able to get the skills that they will need to transition into new jobs. We will need them to have access to vocational education and to higher education. We need to have a situation where it does not become impossible or ridiculously onerous for people to go and get more education in this country, particularly given those transitions that need to occur.
For people at the front end of their working life, leaving school, we need them to be able to go and get skills for jobs that do not even exist yet, and that should not be the exclusive preserve of people who are comfortable. For kids who are growing up in poor households, kids who are growing up where they do not know anyone who has gone to university except for maybe their doctor, there should not be impediments. There should not be disincentives for these people if they have the academic merit and the drive to go to university. If they have the desire and the willingness to go to vocational education, we should not be putting up impediments for those people; we should be encouraging them.
The fact is that in the future jobs are going to need education. The skills you will need for the jobs of the future are going to involve education. The last thing we should be doing is exacerbating inequality by making it harder for people to have access to good quality education. As I said before, let's not forget about the impact of quality of education on our export market, and also on the future workforce from the perspective of the employers and from the community. Of course it's important that individuals who get the benefit of education are ready to do those jobs, but it's important for all of us. I don't want to go to hospital and have medical professionals who had a lesser quality higher education treating me. I don't want you to do that either, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell. I don't want that for my family. I don't even want that for the families of the people sitting opposite us. I want high quality higher education. I don't want to drive on roads and bridges that have been designed by engineers who've not had the best possible quality higher education. None of us want that. Also, we need to remember: we need a future workforce that is going to be capable of doing work and paying taxes, because we're all going to need that when we're a bit older and when we're relying on that to have occurred.
As I said earlier, it is really important to remember just how significant this is as an export market for us. International education and international tourism are up at the very top in the rankings of our export markets. People always think of iron ore and they think of coal. They need to be thinking about international tourism and international education in those same terms. As I said when I started, of the income from exports last year, in 2016, billions of dollars were from education exports, with a 17 per cent growth on the year before. We can keep on that track of growing our international education exports and using them for the important export market that this is, but if we start to cut funding to universities and put pressure on them, then of course it is going to impact their ability to grow, to build, to improve quality and to improve research. We haven't talked about research either, but it's obviously very important, for our international standing, that our universities have world-class research as well. So it is for all those reasons, and for many more.
Export markets are not just about economics, of course. It is important, for our security and for our place in the region, that our students have opportunities to meet other people from within the region, and international education is a great way of making sure there are opportunities for that to occur. When students from India or China or anywhere else in the region come to Australia, they don't just get a great education here; they give us the opportunity to meet them, to get to know them, to break down cultural barriers and to have people-to-people contact. Those benefits are important from a security perspective, from a social and cultural perspective and from an economic perspective.
Given the importance of university education to Australia, domestically, regionally and globally, it is no wonder that people are up in arms about what this government is trying to do to the university sector right now. It is absolutely no wonder that there is a national day of protest happening today, as we speak, even here in Canberra. If you were to go out to the University of Canberra or the Australian National University, you would see that people are protesting right now over what this government is doing to higher education. If you were to go to any state in the nation, you would find protests today, on this national day of protest, in relation to higher education. Students are protesting. Staff are protesting. It's not just because of the impact on their job security, because of the job losses that will follow or because of the fact that they'll be on shorter contracts or more precarious forms of work at university. These are people who value what they do, and they want to provide the best possible experience to their students. They are in teaching and learning because they believe in training, developing, teaching and educating the next generation of Australian people, and because they believe in being part of world-leading research that makes a real difference to our society.
I was talking to someone before. He was someone I met doing public health work at the Australian National University. This was someone who could have been earning a lot more in the private sector but who was dedicating his life to adding to the sum of knowledge that our country has in relation to public health. You couldn't really get much more important than that. There are so many people—tens of thousands of people—across this country who are doing the same: who are working are in universities not just because it is a pay cheque but because they believe in the vocation of being part of the higher education system. They believe in the vocation and the professionalism of teaching, of creating learning opportunities and of changing lives. No wonder they are up in arms about what this government is doing to higher education. No wonder they oppose the funding cuts. No wonder they oppose the fee hikes. No wonder they oppose the reduction in the payment threshold, which will see the government putting its hand into people's pockets a lot sooner and at a much lower annual pay rate. No wonder they oppose these kinds of radical cuts that we are seeing from this Turnbull government. And no wonder there is a national day of protest happening today.
As I said earlier, the bill that we are considering here today is a good bill. It is crucial that there be strong regulations in place to ensure quality in the higher education sector, just as it is crucial that there be strong regulations in place to ensure quality in the vocational education sector. We must be very, very vigilant at all times to prevent unscrupulous, predatory behaviour, and that means we need to be very careful to ensure that those who enter the higher education sector in Australia are doing it for the right reasons and are treating people in the right way.
I will never forget being in Tasmania a couple of years ago and hearing people tell me stories of kids who had problems with literacy, kids who had not done particularly well at school, having predatory vocational education providers pull them aside at supermarkets or doorknock them and say: 'Look, if you sign up for this course, we'll give you a free iPad. Here's the iPad. You can have the iPad.' Kids were taking on courses that they were never going to be able to do, because the support was not there. They were never going to be able to finish them. And they were taking on, at the same time, massive debt. So they get an iPad. They go into debt for a course they are never going to complete, a qualification they are never going to get and learning that is not going to work for them, for their circumstances.
This sort of unscrupulous, predatory behaviour must not happen. It certainly must not happen in relation to higher education, just as it must not be allowed to happen in vocational education. So it is very sensible that the government is pursuing stronger regulation in higher education to mirror what's already happening in vocational education. It is very sensible that the government is looking at what can be done to improve the operation of TEQSA, which is the quality standards agency for the tertiary education sector. As I said earlier, this also needs to be coupled with making sure that TEQSA has the resources it needs to be able to adequately discharge its obligations and to do its job. But it's good that the regulation is being put in place. It is very sensible that there will be measures in this bill to assist students who are on the FEE-HELP arrangement.
Labor supports the bill, but it would be remiss of me, and would have been remiss of me, to speak in relation to this particular bill without saying: it's great that they're doing something about quality in the regulation space, but you just can't divorce that from the fact that the much bigger actions they're taking right now will have a massive impact on quality, because you can't cut almost $4 billion out of higher education without that impacting on quality. You just can't. It's foolish to believe that you can take the axe to higher education funding without impacting on quality.
I know the minister's got his lines that he's written—you know, the stuff he's been handing around the press gallery or his officers have handed around the press gallery about universities operating with surplus budgets, as though that's some sort of sin, as though it's wrong for a university to operate a surplus budget or as though that deserves some sort of punishment. If you operate a surplus budget then obviously you're getting too much money and you need to be cut! That is not the case.
Can I thank the member for Griffith for her brief contribution. I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2017, which builds on the outcomes achieved by the VET Student Loans Bill, passed in December last year. This bill will strengthen regulatory controls and student protections in the higher and international education sectors. I note the member for Griffith's interest in how strong the international education sector is. I can tell the member for Griffith that it is Australia's largest service export. It was worth some $21.8 billion in 2016.
I've been very fortunate in my portfolio role. I've had the opportunity to visit several education facilities run with Australian involvement. Last month I visited the Solomon Islands and toured the Australia-Pacific Technical College—which is the APTC—campus in Honiara, which works in collaboration with the Australian government funded Skills for Economic Growth program. The APTC offers scholarships to train in other regional campuses and delivers training through partnerships with existing training schools in hospitality, automotive and construction. It offers training courses at its own campus. Since 2008 the APTC has trained over 1,130 Solomon Islanders in Australian quality technical and vocational skills. More than 95 per cent of APTC graduates are in employment. Australia has provided over 500 Australia Awards Scholarships to the Solomon Islands to study in Australia and the Pacific region.
Whilst in Vietnam earlier in the year I had the opportunity to visit RMIT University Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City. They do have other locations in Saigon South campus and, of course, Hanoi. They started with 30 students. RMIT Vietnam now has a student body of over 6,000 from more than 40 countries. It is a substantial campus. RMIT Vietnam offers a range of undergraduate, masters and PhD programs in business, technology and design areas and has produced around 11,000 graduates who are work ready for the labour market. The Centre of Technology sits under the umbrella of the College of Science, Engineering and Health of RMIT University in Australia. The centre has developed key relationships with industry to enable its students to work on real life projects while studying. This combines well with its state-of-the-art infrastructure and facilities, such as modern labs, new electronic materials testing, processing equipment and software. Over 6,000 Vietnamese students study an Australian qualification in Vietnam every single year. Vietnam is Australia's fourth largest market for overseas students, with 22,000 students currently studying in Australia.
I also visited the APTC campus in Suva at the start of the year. The program's strong results include training more than 10,000 Pacific Islanders across 14 countries since 2007, with more than 95 per cent of graduates gaining employment either domestically or overseas. Around 300 Fijian students enrol to study in Australia each year, with 65 per cent enrolling in a higher education course and 28 per cent attending vocational education and training institutions.
The quality of our education services and the quality assurance system which we operate are critical in maintaining Australia's reputation internationally. The Australian government has the overarching responsibility for protecting the reputation of Australia's international education sector, supporting the capacity of the sector to provide quality education and training services, and maintaining the integrity of the student visa program. It is important to note that, for the majority of providers who do operate with integrity and in the best interests of the students, these measures which we propose in this bill will mean little change. These reforms will only apply to bodies approved as higher education providers under sections 16 to 25 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003—that is, non-university higher education providers, excluding universities operating in Australia.
This legislation will address instances of unscrupulous providers transitioning operations in the FEE-HELP scheme and international education sector in the wake of reforms to vocational education and training and the VET student loan arrangements. Changes in the VET Student Loans Bill included limiting eligible courses for VET student loans; loan caps set at $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000; increasing student engagement for continued access to the loan to ensure legitimate enrolments; a new application process for providers, setting a much higher bar for entry; and prohibiting cold-calling or using brokers to solicit prospective students. The coalition government's action to address these unscrupulous practices in the VET sector has resulted in a surge of VET providers, including some who had their VET FEE-HELP approval revoked, looking to transfer their operations into the higher education and international education sectors. Therefore, it's clear that the amendments to the higher education and international education legislative settings are needed when compared to the regulatory reforms and protections in relation to VET student loans.
The bill amends three acts to protect students from unscrupulous providers. The Higher Education Support Act 2003 is the main piece of legislation providing funding for higher education in Australia, providing for government subsidies and tuition support for students. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 provides regulatory enforcement powers and quality assurance mechanisms to ensure the reputation of higher education. The Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, the ESOS Act, is the key legislation governing international education to enable the government to take action, monitor, prevent and address unscrupulous businesses from gaining registration to deliver education services to overseas students.
The amendments will bolster enforcement powers and oversight capabilities of relevant regulators, enabling them to intervene as necessary, to prevent malicious practices across the higher and international education sectors. The bill also ensures that, as we increase learning opportunities for overseas students and market opportunities for dedicated education providers, we will also shut down opportunities for unscrupulous providers to harm the reputation of our education services. There are a number of amendments to the ESOS Act. There will be a strengthened fit and proper persons provision, which will ensure that the people governing individual education providers are fit to deliver high quality services, which will preserve the integrity of the international education sector and protect students' interests. The amendments to the TEQSA Act will enhance the compliance capabilities and introduce more stringent provider application requirements to better equip that organisation to implement robust student protection mechanisms. I commend the bill to the House.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Last week, Australia's Point Piper Prime Minister visited WA to try and understand why West Aussies were so upset about receiving a miserly, pitiful 34c in the dollar of GST revenue. Mr Turnbull must be living in a parallel universe to think that Western Australians are happy about getting the nation's lowest GST share, despite facing a huge resources downturn and massive state budget deficit left by the previous Liberal government. The PM and the Commonwealth Grants Commission would have you believe that the reason we receive so little of the GST carve-up is that we had a mining boom. Well, that was over three years ago and things have changed a lot since then. This lag, coupled with the news that WA will take a further $2 billion hit due to the changes in population estimates from the debacle of a census, has WA people up in arms. Then there are the changes made by this government over here in 2015 to the commission's formula for calculating remoteness, effectively writing off service provision in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Broome, Derby, Eucla, Fitzroy Crossing, Karratha, Marble Bar, Port Hedland and many other towns.
What is clear to the Western Australian community is the complete absence of any meaningful leadership from the Turnbull government in addressing the current level of disparity in Western Australia's allocation of GST revenue. It may have been naive to think that the Prime Minister, bringing his entire cabinet over to Perth, would mean some actual results and action. But, in the end, Malcolm Turnbull visited WA and all we got were these lousy(Time expired)
Props will be put down.
I am rising today to honour an Australian sporting legend, and member of the Bennelong family, who sadly passed away over the weekend. Betty Cuthbert AM, MBE was a true champion. She is still Australia's second highest medal winner, only behind Ian Thorpe, and, to this day, is the only person to win Olympic gold in the 100-, 200- and 400-metre sprints. These are incredible achievements.
Many parts of the country claim Betty as their own, but Betty told me that her love of running was first ignited in Bennelong, running the long distances between home, shops and the Ermington Public School. Running home was better than running there! She is one of our great local heroes, the Ermington flash. I had the honour to call her a friend and have known her for well over 20 years. In our last official engagement together, I was delighted to be there to unveil a plaque to honour her on Betty Cuthbert Avenue in Ermington.
Betty was diagnosed with MS over 50 years ago and she continued to fight this ever since. Even those who were not around to see her at her sporting peak know how strong she was. There was hardly a dry eye in the house when she carried the torch into the Sydney Olympic opening ceremony, pushed in a wheelchair by Raelene Boyle. It was one of the most powerful and enduring images of the games. Vale, Betty Cuthbert. You were a fighter, a champion and an inspiration, and you remain our golden girl.
I just remind members: if props are to be used and you want to miss question time, try me.
This morning I met a group of passionate and hardworking hairdressers who were in parliament to alert MPs to the fact they are the latest group of workers who are being targeted by employers for reductions in penalty rates. The Australian Industry Group and the Hair & Beauty Industry Association have made application to the Fair Work Commission to cut Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for hairdressers. They are using the precedent established by the recent changes to the award that were made by the Fair Work Commission in the hospitality and restaurant industry. Labor said that that would be the thin end of the wedge, and we were right. Employers are now using that precedent to flow it on to other industries, and hairdressing won't be the last if no-one stands up for them.
Hairdressers are one of the lowest paid trades there is—and a great example, unfortunately, of the gender pay gap in action. Hairdressers are predominantly women. They work long hours into the evening and over the weekends so we can all look good. The AiG and the Hair & Beauty Industry Association seek to widen that gender pay gap by cutting the penalty rates of hardworking hairdressers. The AiG and the Hair & Beauty Industry Association stand condemned for this action. The Turnbull government could stop this, of course, by supporting hardworking hairdressers and Labor's bill to stop the cuts to take-home pay. Supporting Labor's bill could stop this action being taken. The government's failure to protect the nation's lowest paid and most vulnerable workers is shameful. I stand with the hairdressers of Australia to fight to protect their wages and the Australian Workers Union.(Time expired)
By far and away the best part of my role as the member for Chisholm is the amazing people I meet who every day make a difference to our local and broader community. Last week, I had the honour of a comprehensive tour of Aurora School. Aurora School is a school for deaf and deaf-blind children and their families. It is founded and underpinned by the passion of the amazing teachers and staff who, without exception, conveyed that they feel privileged to be teachers and educators in this school. Under the superb leadership of Bernie Coleman, you can visibly see the development opportunities, happiness and excitement for these children to embrace life.
Similarly, I attended Alkira Centre. Alkira is a wonderful organisation, again, because of the people and staff who encourage, teach and passionately embrace the development of those who are socially and intellectually disabled to integrate into the paid and volunteer workforce, whether that be to learn barista skills or to engage in wonderful art and creative pursuits. The staff and residents of Alkira make up an integral, vibrant and important part of our community.
There are countless individuals in Chisholm who contribute outside of organisations to our community, no matter their age, as is the case with the inspirational primary school student Luke Eaton, who constantly advocates for the protection of orangutans and the introduction of mandatory labelling of products containing palm oil.
Given their contributions to our community, it's the people I meet every day in my electorate of Chisholm that I am most proud of.
There are days in our communities where we stand back and are overwhelmed with pride for the people we represent. Saturday was one such day for me. I attended the Werribee Hockey Club to open its Land of Legends memorabilia room, which came about from funding from the Stronger Communities Fund. This club turned a $5,000 grant into a room full of memorabilia. It was a stunning thing. But what most impressed me at Werribee Tigers on Saturday was that it was fair-go round. They were an inaugural club in Victoria's fair go many years ago.
I watched the men's hockey team playing in their rainbow socks and I was so proud of my community. I was so proud that they understand diversity, that they understand inclusivity. When I left, the players gave me rainbow socks to bring to parliament. They, like me, were hoping against hope that this week we'd get a free vote in the parliament to make marriage equality a reality on the ground in our country. They will be disappointed in that. They will be disappointed because $122 million would go a long way for Werribee Hockey Club. They could have a new pitch. The footy club could have a new oval. That $122 million would mean a lot. And $122 million on a non-binding plebiscite is an absolute waste of money according to the people in my community.
It is national Homelessness Week. I was quite proud last week to be able to partner with MASP, Mallee Accommodation Support Programs, which has been running for 30 years in the electorate of Mallee. The federal government gave MASP $2.45 million to match its contribution to build a new $5 million building to address homelessness in the electorate of Mallee. I want to commend the board and chairman, Mr Greg Leslie, and the chief executive, Mr Gary Simpson. They have had three goes at applying for a grant under the national Building Better Regions Fund and this time they got up. It is going to be a great multipurpose building to address youth homelessness in the Mallee.
One of the things I really am proud of about the people who live in north-west Victoria is that when they see a problem, rather than come and complain about it, they usually roll up their sleeves and see what that they can do to address it. MASP started 30 years ago because people saw a problem and, out of that, it has grown into an organisation that now employs just under 100 people. I have got to say that their contribution has been recognised with this $2.45 million from the federal government to build a $5 million facility, one that will be there to improve people's lives. That we are addressing the problem is something we should celebrate, particularly during this national Homelessness Week.
I want to thank once again all Canberrans who have taken part in my Send Me Your Speeds campaign. The campaign has been underway for over 18 months, and I've received hundreds of speeds from people right across the ACT. The speeds I'm about to read out will remind everyone who is listening that this is what people in Canberra live with every day. This is what Canberra students live with each and every day. This is what Canberra families live with each and every day. This is what Canberra businesses live with every day.
Andrew from Scullin—not in my electorate but over the lake—had some of the worst speeds I've seen: a download speed of 0.39 megabits per second and an upload speed of 0.10. Penelope in Tharwa gets 0.77 megabits per second as upload and download, so it's no wonder her speed test image can't even be done. Tomislav from Chisholm is an IT professional who is trying to run a small business from home with a download speed of 1.79 megabits per second and an upload speed of 0.7 megabits per second. How can anyone run a business with these upload speeds? Kris from Gordon runs a small business. He has a download speed of 5.2 megabits per second and an upload of 0.84.
I want to quote from Karen, who tried to book an airline ticket, couldn't because of her appalling speeds and lost out as a result of that: 'This is disgraceful in the nation's capital in 2017.' (Time expired)
Jim Connaghan, Ken Finlay, John Forsyth, Pat Esse and Kalie Nookes are committee members of the Keenagers. Keenagers are retired people who play table tennis. They play table tennis at Latrobe Leisure Moe Newborough. A long time ago the government of the day promised to spend $1 million on a new section for the centre. There's a little problem that came up: we lost that election campaign, so that promise was never fulfilled. But we've never forgotten the promise. At the moment, because of the changes that are happening in Latrobe Valley I've got a proposition to upgrade the centre so that the Keenagers get a centre or a room for table tennis. It can be used for other things, but basically table tennis will be the focus.
These people who play table tennis range from their 50s up to 90 years of age, and my connection with them goes back to Jim Connaghan, who came to see me one day and said: 'We carry out these huge tables every time we want to play table tennis and then we have to put them away at the end of the day. It'd be great if we had our own centre.' So I'm promoting once again the opportunity for the whole centre to be rebuilt, revamped and re-established so that the Keenagers can have their day in the sun.
On Sunday I visited Nepean Hospital and its emergency department in my electorate to see the terrible state that it's in. There were 83 patients in our emergency department at 3:30 on a Sunday. We have just 32 beds. In seven years the Liberal state member, Stuart Ayres, has done absolutely nothing to increase the staffing or bed capacity at Nepean. The promise of an upgrade is a mirage; the $550 million he promised is not even in their budget for this year. We are now in the grip of the worst flu season in history, and presentations in my hospital have increased by up to 266 per cent. This is without any additional staff, doctors or beds.
In a 24-hour period last week, our ED saw 266 emergency presentations. I reiterate that we have 32 beds. After 12 years, our local GP after-hours clinic, which was co-located at the entry to the emergency department, has been moved off site. There have been several complaints from patients, staff and the medical profession about this move. Our community was given no consultation. As anticipated by those of us with some common sense, it is no surprise that this move has increased the number of ED presentations.
This incompetence is on a grand scale. I fear for the safety of our community through these poorly-thought-through decisions. Stuart Ayres, I urge you to raid the coffers that you have created by selling off our assets in New South Wales. Get the staff on the ground and the beds open and give relief to the most under-pressure hospital in the state. I urge you to show some respect to the people who have elected you to represent them. (Time expired)
Sadly, heart disease affects some 1.2 million Australians. Indeed, there are twice as many deaths from heart disease each year as the next two most significant causes: dementia, which with an ageing population is sadly on the increase, and cerebrovascular disease. Indeed, heart disease deaths are three times greater than the next major cause which is tracheobronchial and lung cancers.
Heart disease is also the biggest killer of women in Australia. Three times as many women die of heart disease each year compared to breast cancer. There are very many campaigns—proper, appropriate campaigns—about raising awareness of breast cancer, and yet heart disease kills three times as many and has a significant impact on the lives of so many people. Indeed, it takes the lives of 24 Australian women each and every day of the year. So it's important that women, in particular, are aware of this significant disease, this hidden killer, and have regular medical check-ups—particularly postmenopausal women, because that's the time when the hidden nature of heart disease has an impact as far as women are concerned. By making what is invisible visible, we can help many people. (Time expired)
Much is said about the rising youth unemployment rate in my electorate of Paterson. It's an important issue and one that I consider among my top priorities. However, I believe it's important that in addition to seeking solutions for our young people, we take the time to celebrate their talents and achievements. It gives me great pride and pleasure to stand before you today and share with you my utter respect for the performing arts talent of the young people of Paterson.
Last Tuesday I was treated to a display that left me inspired and full of hope for our young people. I was among 1,000 guests given the joy of watching students from the Lakeside Learning Community of schools share their talents on stage during 'Showcase, Just Imagine'. Performers across the two-evenings event, which was held at Irrawang High School, ranged from early primary years through to the later secondary stages. Cast members were drawn from the student bodies of Irrawang High and Medowie, Wirreanda, Grahamstown and Irrawang public schools. The musical, theatrical and artistic talents of the students were enhanced by professional lighting and sound. It was a fabulous experience for performers, parents and, simply, lovers of the arts. We have so many reasons to be proud of our young people and to be full of hope for their futures. Well done kids! Outstanding!
I bring excellent news to the House. I would like to shine a light on the incredible youth talent of a young athlete in my electorate. Local track star—superstar—Riley Day, has continued her run of success. The Australian flag-bearer took silver in the girls' 100 metres before a winning surge in the final propelled the Beaudesert schoolgirl to a gold medal in the girls' 200 metres event at the Commonwealth Youth Games recently in the Bahamas. Riley will now make her senior international debut at the world championships in London. What a feat! Riley Day has continued as a community member, and we could not be more proud of her for the work she is doing. We wish her the best of luck.
Also in my electorate, I want to congratulate the recent The Voice winner, Judah Kelly. His local debut album, Count on Me, was released two weeks ago, and he is about to head off to the Gympie Music Muster for one of the biggest country music events of his first solo tour. We wish him the best there. Judah, you followed your dreams and you are an inspiration to all young people. I look forward to following your singing success.
Finally, congratulations to seven students and two teachers from Tamborine Mountain College who successfully completed the recent Kokoda Challenge under the most trying of conditions. I would encourage any members of this House who are looking to burn a couple of kilos that the Kokoda Trail is a great place to leave them! I commend the students and teachers for honouring the service and sacrifice of the fallen, and for every Australian who has served in that space. (Time expired)
On Sunday, it was my great honour to open the sixth Sydney Reclink Community Cup held at Henson Park in my electorate, along with John Bayliss who does a fantastic job with the Reclink organisation. This is an event that is now held nationally to raise funds for Reclink, an organisation that assists at-risk and marginalised young people and helps to connect them with the mainstream of society through engagement with sportspeople and artists.
It is a great event every year, and some 3,000 people gathered on Sunday at Henson Park to watch the Sydney Sailors play the Western Walers. The Sydney Sailors had been successful in the previous five matches, but this time around the Walers were successful with 72-39 in an upset result. The Sailors represent media organisations Triple J, 2SER, 2FBI and others involved in the media. They are ably coached by Stuart Coupe. The Walers are a bunch of musos and people from the local entertainment industry—and I'm sure they celebrated at the Vic on the Park late into that night. I want to also thank the government for supporting the granting of base funding for Reclink. Greg Hunt, as minister, deserves congratulations— (Time expired)
A storm has been raging in North Queensland as a follow-on to Cyclone Debbie, the Category 4 cyclone which hit the Whitsundays on 28 March—not a category 4 storm but a category D dilemma about the funding provided by the federal government under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. The Queensland Labor government lodged an application for $110 million from the federal government, but the decision was made to provide $29 million. The mayors in my region, along with the wider community, are angry. Having just experienced the effects of a major cyclone, and then hearing of a knock-back on a large proportion of recovery funding, they feel like they have been dealt a double blow. And I have to say that I agree with them.
Regardless of who did what in terms of applications and meeting the guidelines, key areas of my electorate need and deserve extra assistance. For this reason, a couple of weeks ago I arranged a teleconference between Mackay mayor Greg Williamson, Whitsundays mayor Andrew Willcox and the Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan, who oversees the NDRRA for the Commonwealth. We had a frank and fearless discussion, the result of which will be a review of that funding decision. The minister has written to the Queensland government to seek further information. I hope the state government responds as soon as possible so that we can work for a fairer outcome for the people of the Whitsundays and Mackay.
The people of Australia are going to go 'absolutely postal' when they learn that the Turnbull government is going to waste $122 million on a useless postal vote, which is nothing more than a glorified opinion poll. It is useless because members from their own caucus have already guaranteed that no matter what the result they are going to ignore it. The reason we are going to have this glorified opinion poll is not that Australians have not made up their mind; it's that the government cannot make up its mind and certainly will not do its job.
Well, today I invite the people of Australia to come forward with suggestions from their own electorates about how they would rather spend $122 million. In my own electorate, where every night there are over 1,000 people homeless and looking for a place to sleep, $122 million would go a long way to provide shelter for those homeless people. For the Shellharbour Hospital, sorely in need of an upgrade and which this mob opposite want to privatise, $122 million would go a long way towards fixing that hospital.
I support marriage equality, not the circus that this government is about to drag the country through.
Those opposite have a plan to take Australians' money, they have a plan to spend Australians' money, but they have absolutely no plans to help Australians make money. They are channelling the failed ideology of Bernie Sanders and others, while attacking small business people who are central to our economic growth. Just today the NAB business conditions index came out, and it reports the strongest conditions for business since 2008. And business confidence is double the long-run average. One of the reasons why business conditions and business confidence are strong is the policies of this government in relation to the taxation of small business. Without the help of the opposition—but with the help of some sensible crossbenchers—earlier in the year we passed legislation to reduce the tax burden on businesses with revenue of between $2 million and $50 million.
Those opposite say a business with $2.1 million of revenue is some sort of evil multinational corporation that is not entitled to tax relief. But of course a business with $2 million in Australia, which typically has a profit margin of five or six per cent, is probably making not much more than the average wage. Those opposite say those people are not entitled to tax relief. We say they are. We will back those small business people every step of the way because they are the backbone of our economy, and we will always support them. (Time expired)
What is the problem with the Turnbull government? I am not talking about the fact that they all just flew here so they could make a decision about how to avoid making a decision—
Honourable members interjecting—
which is what you did this week. Well done, fellas! But what about this? Graduate incomes are going down. Household incomes are going down. The WPI was exceeded by the CPI this year. Household debt for under-40s is at record levels, and of course homeownership for under-40s has dropped in the last 15 years from 36 per cent to 25 per cent. What does this mob want to do in those circumstances? 'Oh, I've got an idea,' they think to themselves. 'Let's increase student debt. What a great idea that would be. Let's put up student fees. Let's hike up the fees, make students have more debt and make sure that those households in the future, a 35-year-old couple with two kids and a massive mortgage—if they can afford to get a mortgage, of course—have a lot more debt weighing on them from their student fees.' What a silly idea that is.
At the same time as they want to hike up student fees, are they going to match that with additional public investment in the university sector? Of course they're not. They are going to cut public funding to universities. It's a $4 billion cut in fiscal terms to universities, and that's what's in their own budget paper. That is what is in the government's budget papers—an almost $4 billion cut to universities, at the same time as they want to hike up student fees for university students. It is an absolute disgrace. Today is a national day of protest. I commend all of those people who are protesting against this ridiculous universities package.
I am very pleased today to raise in parliament the significant works on Empire Mall in Mornington. The mall is currently undergoing $600,000 of upgrades funded by the Turnbull coalition government that were secured during the recent election. Mornington is a vibrant, small-business-focused suburb in Dunkley, and I am thrilled that the much-needed renovations on the mall have commenced.
On Monday, 24 July I visited Empire Mall and spoke to local traders who will benefit from the changes. The works are highly encouraged by both traders and the community, as once they are completed the mall will be a beautiful asset to Mornington. The improvements will ensure a safer social space for children and a more user-friendly space for locals, as well as celebrating our rich local history. The modifications include improving pedestrian access; restoring the memorial fountain, including moving it back to Mornington Park, its original location; extending the natural shaded areas by introducing canopy trees and additional planting; and enhancing the existing landscape, walls, paving and visual amenity. The project runs from July to October. It is being done in seven stages to minimise impact and disruption to traders. As well, it is being run by a local company called Maw Civil.
Mornington has been a tourism and economic hub for many years. I look forward to seeing this project completed in October to complement the already family-friendly spaces and to celebrate our rich local history.
It was a dark and stormy night as the black limousines rolled into the Lobster Cave. The men alight at the restaurant to the sounds of 'Speak Softly Love' in the background. They reach the table as one colourful character introduces his guest and says, 'Say hello to my little friend.' That little friend, of course, is 'Matthew Guyfather', leader of the Libs in Victoria. But this isn't a crime novel, Speaker; it's a fundraising event for the Liberal Party. 'Tough on crime!' he shrieks to the public, while quietly munching lobsters with the mobsters. He lectures the government on law and order while kissing the rings of the godfathers—'tough on crime', while eating cannelloni with the Corleones.
We know the Libs are broke, but we need to know what deals Matthew Guy has done with the wise guys. Did he get an entree he couldn't refuse? He joins a long list of Liberal fundraising with Mafia figures, even in this building. How much cash has organised crime given to the Liberal Party? It's time for Matthew Guy to come clean, end the lies or resign.
As I have said many times in this place, the water policy is the most critical issue in the electorate of Murray—in particular, the 450 gigalitres of up water that was put into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan at the last second. Before this clause was put into the plan, there was a rider that accompanied it.
The rider states that the water must not be sourced for the environment without any social or economic detriment. Independent studies have made it very clear that an additional 450,000 million litres of water cannot be sourced for the environment without causing substantial and further economic hardship to our farmers, irrigators and the district. What is somewhat reassuring is the fact that the Victorian water minister, Lisa Neville, seems to share the same opinion as the federal government here in Canberra, the NSW government and also the Victorian coalition. They all seem to be on the same page.
What is really worrying is the lack of support the Victorian farmers are getting from the four Labor senators here in Canberra. Senators are supposed to come to Canberra to argue and fight and represent their state first and foremost, but what we have here in Canberra is Victorian Labor senators who have somehow or other changed their charter and are happy to sacrifice Victorian agriculture so they can placate the interests of Mr Burke from Sydney and Senator Wong from Adelaide.
It is about time Senators Carr, Kitching, Collins and Marshall started representing Victoria and making sure they put Victorians first and not Labor Party— (Time expired)
The members entering the chamber can take their seats. I remind the member for Murray to refer to members by their correct titles. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for member statements has concluded. The Prime Minister on indulgence.
Mr Speaker, I rise on indulgence to acknowledge the death on 25 July of Dr G Yunupingu, one of the most important figures in Australia's music history. I place on record the House's appreciation of his contribution to the arts, and I tender our profound sympathy to his family and the Galiwinku community in their bereavement. Dr G Yunupingu was a Gumatj man from Elcho Island, the remote island in north-east Arnhem Land.
He began experimenting with music as a small child, when his aunt and his mother placed sticks in his hands so he could hit the empty can set up in front of him along the shore. When his uncle put a guitar in his hands, it set free a once-in-a-generation talent, a startlingly beautiful voice that would weave its way into the hearts and souls of millions.
Dr G Yunupingu established his early career performing alongside family members in Yothu Yindi. His eponymous 2008 triple platinum solo album brought his Yolngu Matha language to the world. He won a swathe of ARIA and Deadly awards, and in 2009 was named Northern Territory Australian of the Year. He soon joined a select group of musicians to have performed for the Queen, the Pope and a US President. In 2012 Dr G Yunupingu was awarded an honorary doctorate of music from the University of Sydney.
So many have been touched by his voice and his music. We heard recently of a distressed fellow renal patient who was calmed when Dr G began singing from his nearby hospital bed. But his mark on this country extends beyond the beauty of his music. Lucy and I were honoured to be at Garma Festival on the weekend with a number of other colleagues here in the House and our families. His uncle, Dr Yunupingu's Uncle Djunga Djunga spoke of Dr G Yunupingu's music, which aimed to create reconciliation with Indigenous people. Many of us have not understood the beauty and the significance of our First Australians' languages. Dr G Yunupingu opened our minds and our hearts to them. Many of us have been indifferent to the ancient Indigenous cultures of our First Australians, the most ancient human cultures. Dr G Yunupingu helped us understand them.
Many of us did not know perhaps that today's First Australians share a spiritual connection to their ancestors through their music, their language and culture. Dr G Yunupingu showed all of us this truth. He brought the Yolngu language to the world—ancient words—as often in poetry as prose. And by 'poetry' I mean that which is lost in translation—words of enormous power and significance. We heard those words and many words like that at Garma this year. As the Gumatj leader Galarrwuy Yunupingu reminded us at Garma, those ancient words—the most ancient words—are Australian words. They are Australian words.
So to all of Dr G Yunupingu's family and to all in the musical and broader Australian community who mourn his loss, I offer on behalf of our parliament and our people our most sincere condolences.
At Garma on the weekend, the Prime Minister and I stood with the Yolngu to remember one of their own: a man born blind who helped Australia see. He was a child of the rainbow from the remote Elcho Island of East Arnhem whose music moved monarchs and presidents alike. Dr G Yunupingu shared ancient song lines with the world, his every inflection speaking for the saltwater shore and humanity's oldest story. He also achieved a modern appeal and commercial success that not even his ever-devoted friends at Skinnyfish records could have imagined.
It is the hard truth of Australia's unfinished business that this superstar could delight a packed house and be refused a cab ride home afterwards. The unique talent that both the Prime Minister and I remember today endured all too familiar trials, celebrated and yet neglected, lauded by our nation and let down by our nation.
In remote and very remote areas of Australia, the rate of end-stage kidney disease for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians is up to 20 times higher than it is amongst non-Indigenous Australians. For Dr Yunupingu, for his uncle and for so many others, treatment can only be obtained by leaving country and connection, uncertainly farewelling family and friends. Professor Alan Cass and his task force have previously suggested that we add an MBS item to fund renal dialysis in remote areas, supporting nurses, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioners and Aboriginal health workers to provide treatment on country and in communities. So today, as we move our motions of condolence, perhaps our parties too can also work together to fund this vital service, a small price to pay compared to what Australia has just lost and we commemorate now.
In one of Dr Yunupingu's songs, Galiku, he sings about gilan. Roughly translated, this is the sound of the wind that fills sails and flaps flags. It's the noise you can hear outside this building every day—the snap and rattle of our nation's flag high above the people's House. Yet so often that sound, Dr G Yunupingu's gilan, is drowned out by TV and radio, by ringing of bells and phones and, indeed, by our own voices. So it is with the plight of our First Australians. Too often, their struggles pass unnoticed in the background of our democracy. Too often, their cries from the heart are unheard by our ears. And too often, they die younger than they should from diseases that the rest of us won't.
Dr G Yunupingu will be remembered as an international superstar, a musician of prodigious talent and a storyteller without peer. His life, his music and his triumphs uplift us all. And his death—too young, too soon and easily prevented in other parts of our nation—should prod at our national conscience. Perhaps next time we scurry from one meeting to another, from one press conference to a division, perhaps we can imagine ourselves hearing the rattle of the flag above our building, we can look up and we can remember Dr Yunupingu and remind ourselves there is more to do. Our heartfelt condolences to all who loved him. May he rest in peace.
by leave—I move:
That further statements on indulgence on the deaths of Dr G Yunupingu and Mr Lester OAM be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
I table the revised ministry list.
TURNBULL MINISTRY 27 July 2017
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Human Services in the Social Services portfolio and a Department of Veterans’ Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Since the government special party room meeting yesterday, has the Prime Minister sought a meeting with the LGBTI community to seek their views on the decision taken yesterday? Will the Prime Minister undertake to meet with representatives of the LGBTI community to hear their concerns before he resubmits his plebiscite legislation to the Senate, or does he think their opinion unimportant?
My government is committed to getting all Australians' views. My government is committed to giving every Australian a say. My government is committed to standing by the commitment it made at the election, to give every Australian a say. And the only reason that every Australian has not had their say on this issue is because of the opposition of the Labor Party in the Senate. That's the truth. That's the fact.
Throughout the election campaign, when we said again and again, 'We will give every Australian a say on this', when we said, 'We will not facilitate a private member's bill on same-sex marriage in the House until all Australians have had their say, and indicated their support'—when we made that commitment, what did the Labor Party say? They slipped and slid. The only public statement the Leader of the Opposition had made was to the Australian Christian Lobby in 2013, when he said he would support a plebiscite so that every Australian had a say. As usual, he was telling people what they wanted to hear—as he always does.
And then, after the election, he opposed the plebiscite. He will have an opportunity to vote for it, to have his senators vote for it, this week. And if they do not support it, then we will hold a postal vote and every Australian will have their say on this issue. If the answer is yes, we'll facilitate a private member's bill. If it's no, we will not. We are standing by our commitment. The Leader of the Opposition says one thing one day and another thing the next. He tells every audience what it wants to hear. There is no consistency, no integrity, no respect for the Australian people.
Honourable members interjecting —
Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The member for Bruce made an unparliamentary remark and he will withdraw.
I withdraw.
And he will now withdraw from the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please update the House on last week's counterterrorism operation to disrupt a plot to bring down an aeroplane? What steps is the government taking to keep all Australians safe, including in my electorate of Petrie?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Last week, the joint counterterrorism team in New South Wales, including the Australian Federal Police, the New South Wales Police and ASIO, disrupted one of the biggest terrorist plots in our history and contained it. They were able to do so, as Deputy Commissioner Mike Phelan said last week, because of the laws that this parliament has given them to enable them to do that work. We have ensured that, whenever our security agencies need additional legislative support or resources, we give it to them. There is no place for 'set and forget'.
The work that they did was remarkable. Two individuals have been charged with terrorism offences which attract a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. They relate to an aborted attempt on 15 July to take an improvised explosive device—that is, a bomb—onto an Etihad flight departing Sydney for the Middle East and the intent to build an improvised chemical dispersal device which would, had it been completed, have been able to disperse poisonous gas.
Had this plot been successful, the consequences would have been catastrophic: hundreds of deaths, lives ended and lives changed forever. This plot was directed by Daesh—ISIL—from Syria. These are cowards in the Middle East radicalising and directing people in Australia to kill in the name of their mad, demonic, deathly Islamist terrorist ideology. This is a real threat. This terrorist threat is very real and very close. It reminds us of the point that I have made repeatedly: in the internet age, nowhere is far away from anywhere else. So it will be alleged by police in the course of these proceedings that these conspirators were being directed from the Middle East as though their controller were across the street. It's a sober reminder of the challenges we face.
What we have done was to put additional security measures in place at Sydney Airport immediately, on the Thursday prior to the raids. These were extended to all major airports around the country. The terrorist threat level to aviation was raised. It has now been restored to its pre-existing level, but continued stronger protections will be in place at our airports. There is no room for complacency, no room for 'set and forget'. Our agencies are the best in the world, and we are working to ensure that they remain so, keeping Australians safe.
Mr Speaker, very briefly on indulgence, can I associate the opposition with the Prime Minister's remarks and congratulate our security and intelligence organisations on the work they've done in this instance and on the work they do every day to keep Australians safe.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's postal plebiscite on marriage equality. Why is it that a no vote will be binding on the government but a yes vote will not?
The commitment we took to the election was simply this: we would give all Australians their say. If they supported same-sex marriage being legalised, we would facilitate a bill, a private member's bill, coming forward into the parliament. If they did not support it, we would not. That was the commitment we took to the election, and that's what we are endeavouring to deliver. The opposition has the opportunity to vote for the plebiscite bill this week in the House. If they don't, there will be a postal vote, and every Australian will have their say.
Members will cease interjecting on both sides. The member for Ballarat, the member for Wakefield and the member for Barker won't commence their normal interchange across the chamber; otherwise, they will be doing it outside very shortly.
My question is for the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the benefits of a well-managed national security agenda, including for my electorate of Dunkley? What steps is the government taking to strengthen the requirements for Australian citizenship?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Like all Australians, and certainly the people represented by all of my colleagues on both sides, I want to see whatever effort is possible to defeat the scourge of terrorism. We know that the threat of terrorism is real. I think that, in some parts of the country at the moment, there is some complacency about the threat as it is manifesting, particularly with foreign fighters as they are returning from overseas. But it's not only that. As we're seeing in Victoria, we have gang violence issues where people who are going out on a Saturday night want to enjoy time with their families but face the scourge of that local crime.
The Australian government, as announced by the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago in setting up the Home Affairs portfolio, wants to make sure that all of our intelligence and crime fighting agencies are working as effectively together as possible. It means that we do want to make sure that the agencies have a proper sharing of information and intelligence where it's appropriate to do so. That means we need to work more effectively—as effectively as we are now, but even more effectively—with our state colleagues as well. It means that we need to recognise the threats as they're presenting in our community.
Through the work that we've done, for example, around the cancellation of visas of criminals in our country—people that have done the wrong thing against Australians—we have made this country a safer place. I pay full tribute to the Minister for Justice, the Attorney-General and all of the agencies, including the Australian Federal Police and ASIO, for the work that they have done in averting that crisis in Sydney in the last fortnight. We have also been able to, through a tough border protection policy, bring about a higher level of national security, because, if you can't secure your borders, you cannot secure the nation's security. That has been demonstrated over the course of the last several years. It was demonstrated by this government when we restored integrity to our borders. Under Labor, tragically, 1,200 people drowned at sea and 50,000 people arrived on 800 boats. You cannot have a situation where that prevails.
We have, in announcing our recent citizenship law changes, said to Australians that we want to make sure that we can have people becoming Australian citizens, as the vast majority of people currently do—people who abide by Australian laws, who abide by Australian values and who are able to integrate into Australian society. At one stage, the Leader of the Opposition believed in that. At one stage he said he supported this, but you know what happens. Have a look at the track record of the Labor Party and of this Leader of the Opposition. He is duplicitous and he hops around. He tells people in one audience what they want to hear and he tells people in the next audience something different. The Australian public have worked this bloke out. This bloke is the greatest fraud that has been in this chamber since Federation. That's the reality of this Leader of the Opposition. This government will stand up for national security. We need your support. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to this disgusting pamphlet authorised by a former Liberal minister which falsely claims that children of gay couples are more likely to abuse drugs, have sexually transmitted diseases and be unemployed. How does this fit with the Prime Minister's guarantee today of respectful discussion? Why is the Prime Minister making Australians pay $122 million to give licence to this vile rubbish?
I refer to my earlier answer: we gave a commitment in the election to give every Australian their say. One of the differences between our side of politics and Labor—at least as it is represented today—is that we respect the good sense of the Australian people. We know they are perfectly capable of having a respectful discussion and debate. We are not going to shut down democracy and debate because people here or there say outrageous or defamatory things. We have a robust democracy. We respect Australians' ability to have a frank and forthright discussion on this issue. Above all, we respect them so much that, when we say we will give them their say, we are doing everything we can to ensure that they have their say.
I inform the House that we have present in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon a visiting delegation from the parliament of Bangladesh led by the chair of the Bangladesh Parliamentary Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, Dr Dipu Moni. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. We also have present in the gallery the Northern Territory Minister for Primary Industry and Resources, the Hon. Ken Vowles MLA. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. People's lives are being broken in immigration detention, and yesterday another asylum seeker died on Manus Island. Prime Minister, was Donald Trump right when he said that you are worse than he is?
I thank the honourable member for his question, and we all regret the death of the person detained in PNG. The position is very straightforward. We stand for the integrity of Australia's borders. We are not going to do what the Labor Party did with the support of the Greens—and would do again—which is to outsource our borders to people smugglers. We know what that looks like. There is a very straightforward analysis of this. We do not have to theorise. We do not have to speculate. This is not a subject for academic dissertation. We know that, right here in this place, Kevin Rudd defended weakening John Howard's border policies. It did not matter what our policies were, he believed it was just for push-back. That was his theory. Well, he had the opportunity to test it out: at least 1,200 people died at sea and there were 50,000 unauthorised arrivals.
We are not going to outsource our borders to people smugglers ever again. We will defend the integrity of our borders. The confidence of the Australian people that their government alone determines who comes into Australia enables us to have a generous humanitarian program—one of the most generous in the world—and is the foundation of our multicultural society. Strong borders means a strong society. That is what we stand for. We know what Labor and the Greens stand for. They stand for outsourcing our border protection to criminals and people smugglers.
I inform the House that we have present in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon the 16th Australian Political Exchange Council delegation from Japan. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome to you. Also present is a visiting delegation from the parliament of Myanmar. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism. Will the Minister update the House on the recent disruption of the Sydney terrorist plot? What action is the government taking to protect Australians from terrorism?
I thank the member for North Sydney for the question. Last week, our authorities disrupted what was perhaps the most sophisticated and advanced terrorism plot we have ever had the misfortune to see on our soil. Australians were the target of an ISIL-directed plot to kill Australians with improvised devices. Throughout this operation, six search warrants were executed in Sydney. As a result, four people were taken into custody under powers within the Crimes Act that allow police to thoroughly investigate these crimes. As the Prime Minister noted, subsequent to that, two people have been charged with terrorism offences. These offences attract a maximum penalty of life behind bars.
This operation is a stark reminder that the threat from terrorism remains very real. Our agencies must deal with the full spectrum of threats from low-capability single-actor attacks to sophisticated and advanced plots. I commend the work of the Australian Federal Police and ASIO, working in conjunction with NSW police and other law enforcement and intelligence partners, in disrupting this plot. If not for the tireless work of our agencies, the outcome of this could have been very different, and it would have been catastrophic. We should make no mistake that our agencies have stopped an atrocity from occurring.
The coalition government has worked with these agencies to give them what they need to address the deteriorating national security environment including an investment of $1½ billion extra to support their efforts. We have also passed eight tranches of legislation through the parliament which give them unprecedented powers, many of which were used during this operation. We continue to make sure that we have the right settings in Australia. This operation reminds us that we are protected by amongst the best law enforcement and security agencies in the world.
It is not just in the field of counterterrorism that these agencies are striving to keep us safe and secure. I am very pleased to confirm to the House that today in Sydney the Australian Federal Police have undertaken significant operational activity including the execution of 15 separate search warrants. Some of these relate to ongoing AFP investigations and some relate to joint agency investigations. Fifteen arrests have been made, with the seizure of more than 1.9 million tonnes of drugs destined for Australian streets with a street value of over $800 million. This smashes a major international drug and organised crime syndicate and sends a clear message that we will not tolerate those trying to exploit our laws for their own gain. I am particularly pleased that the AFP have smashed a syndicate, a syndicate where the members have been very well known to law enforcement for a very long period of time and have had very high profiles, including thwarting their ill-gotten wealth. We have shown today that nobody—nobody—is above the law. I again congratulate the AFP and their partners for all that they have done to keep us safe over the past fortnight.
My question is to the Prime Minister. AUSTRAC is taking legal action against the Commonwealth Bank for breaching Australia's anti-money-laundering laws in over 53,000 separate transactions. How many more scandals will it take before the Prime Minister finally supports Labor's call for a royal commission into the banks?
I will have more to say about this, but I would just remind the Leader of the Opposition that AUSTRAC has commenced legal proceedings. It has done its job. Were there to be an inquiry held into that of the kind the honourable member suggests, it would mean delaying or staying the legal proceedings. AUSTRAC is on the case doing its job. It has uncovered the wrongdoing and it is pursuing it. But I will ask the Treasurer to say more about this.
I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond. The matter that AUSTRAC is pursuing in the courts with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia is very, very serious. That matter should be properly pursued through the courts. I was briefed on this matter in detail on Monday by AUSTRAC, and I immediately requested the chairman of the Commonwealth Bank to meet with me. I met with her earlier today to discuss the very serious issues with the Commonwealth Bank. At the same time, I have been taking advice from the key agencies and I have spoken both to APRA and ASIC in relation to these issues, as well as taking advice from Treasury. I have made it very clear to the Commonwealth Bank that, in relation to these matters, the government's response is prepared to consider all options, and that remains our view.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the government is delivering on its commitment to secure better days ahead for Australian families and businesses? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for his question and for his interest, like all members on this side of the House, in the economics of opportunity because, on that side, all we see are the politics of envy. When it comes to those opposite, they think the only way you can do better is if you make someone else do worse. This may be what the Leader of the Opposition thinks is a seductive pill for the Australian people, but it is a very poisonous pill for the Australian economy.
What the Australian government is doing is getting on with the job. Since we were elected last year, we have passed 126 separate pieces of legislation implementing the agenda of the Turnbull government—tax cuts for small businesses, cracking down on multinationals, ensuring that child care is more affordable, ensuring the rule of law returns to building sites around this country, that education funding at record levels is passed and that important counter-terrorism laws passing through this parliament. The Turnbull government is getting on with the job. In addition to that, there have been 17 separate pieces of budget legislation passed in the budget sittings, and that means the budget is passing this parliament despite the frustration, opposition, negativity and cynicism of the Leader of the Opposition—the most slippery customer ever to occupy that chair.
The better days ahead are already starting to be evidenced. At the beginning of this year, the Leader of the Opposition said that this year was going to be all about jobs. He asked one question about jobs back in February and today he is asking questions about marriage. His priorities are on display. On this side of the House, we are talking about jobs, national security, keeping Australians safe and ensuring that the economics of opportunity rein in the Australian economy, but nothing more than the politics of envy keeps gripping the Leader of the Opposition and taking him down a very dark and dangerous path if the Australian people were ever to trust him.
So far, 168,000 people have got a job in this country this calendar year alone since the Leader of the Opposition said this year was all about jobs. There are 168,000 new jobs in this country, which is a testimony to the economic policies of this government. Ninety-nine per cent of those jobs this calendar year are full-time jobs, too. If you go back over the last fiscal year, over 240,000 jobs were created—the single largest increase of growth in jobs in a fiscal year since before the global financial crisis. On top of that, over 177,000 jobs are out there advertised today. This government is getting on with the job. That opposition is all about envy.
My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer consider that inequality in Australia is getting better or worse?
I can only quote the head of the Melbourne Institute, responsible for the HILDA data which demonstrates that it is true that household incomes have been flat in this country. That remains a very serious concern for the government and that is why the government is taking the actions that I just outlined to grow the opportunity in this economy for people to get jobs and earn more wages. You cannot boost someone's wages by reducing someone else's. That's the Leader of the Opposition's plan. He talks about redistribution of income. Australians should be very clear: what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do is redistribute the income you have earned back to the government to spend willy-nilly, as Labor governments always do.
The other thing we should bear in mind when we look at household incomes, after you take into account tax and transfers of welfare payments, is that both of these systems are progressive tax systems and a welfare system that provides a safety net is intended to protect against rising inequality. As the HILDA data definitely demonstrated and as has been observed since the global financial crisis, our tax and transfer system has protected against rising inequality. They are the facts. But the question for Australians is this: we know that household incomes are flat. So there is a question: are you going to have your income raised? Are you going to have your wages increased by the Leader of the Opposition taxing Australia out of business and taxing Australians out of jobs, or are you going to have your incomes lifted because that's what matters? If someone else's income goes down, that does not mean yours goes up. With a government focused on growing the economy, that is how people's wages increase. Those opposite simply want to let taxes rip and tax Australia out of business and tax Australians out of a job.
My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government's business tax cuts will benefit all hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that pose a threat to Australian businesses, including and especially to the 15,000 hardworking small businesses in my electorate of Robertson?
Mr Hammond interjecting—
The member for Perth is warned. He has been interjecting all through question time. The minister has the call.
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She is a wonderful advocate in this place for the more than 15,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in her local community. Just like the member for Robertson, the government is firmly focused on getting our economic and taxation settings right for those small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to make sure that we can grow our economy, boost Australian jobs and increase Australian wages. We know that a strong economy means strong jobs and that those strong jobs mean more opportunity for all Australians, including for the member for Robertson in her local community. That is why this government has reduced taxation for small and medium-sized businesses. After all, small businesses represent 97 per cent of all business in this country. They employ more than 6.5 million Australians. That's about half of the workforce here in Australia. We have cut the company tax rate to 27½ per cent for these businesses with a turnover of less than $25 million, and we plan to reduce this further, to 25 per cent.
By contrast, those opposite will raise taxes on those entrepreneurial Australian businesses that employ all of those Australians I mentioned before. Those small businesses with a turnover of between $2 million and $25 million will see their tax hiked to 30 per cent. That is more than 100,000 small businesses employing more than 2.2 million Australians in this turnover bracket—they will lose out under Labor. Not only will they see their taxes increase but those small businesses with a turnover of between $2 million and up to $10 million will also lose access to such concessions as the instant asset write-off.
On top of this, we hear more recently that those opposite are going to slug these small, hardworking businesses even further with their new trust policy—270,000 Australian small businesses will be slugged more by those opposite. Labor has not one policy to grow the economy, not one policy to create a job and not one policy to increase Australian wages. They have just one big policy: to increase taxes on hardworking Australians. Shame on them.
Just before I call the member for McMahon, I'd also like to welcome to the gallery the former Premier of South Australia, the Hon. Dean Brown, who's joined us today. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How can the government seriously claim that inequality is not a problem when under the Prime Minister's current tax policy an investment banker on the top marginal rate can use their family trust to pay zero tax on some of their income while a nurse or a teacher has to pay their full marginal tax rate on all their income?
I'm sure that in the days when the Leader of the Opposition spent his time sucking up to Richard Pratt he would have been making all these points! He would have been down there at Raheen saying, 'You're doing too well, Dick; you've got to pay a bit more tax.' That's what he would have said. Can you imagine this social mountaineer? He was there, sucking up to the billionaires of Melbourne, and now he wants to proclaim himself the champion of the poor and oppressed?
It wasn't so long ago that he was going around talking about the virtues of trusts. In fact, when he was the minister for revenue and Assistant Treasurer in 2011, he used to go from one financial planning conference to another, talking about how he loved trusts, how useful they were and how important they were for small business.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a).
The member for Griffith then left the chamber.
He is always telling people what they want to hear. Now he's decided that he wants to be an Australian version of Jeremy Corbyn. Let me tell you, mate: you haven't got what it takes to be Jeremy Corbyn. You need to do a bigger makeover than you have done already.
The reality is this: as we know, we have in Australia relatively high minimum wages compared to many other countries and we have a means-tested welfare system. As Dr Leigh, the shadow assistant Treasurer, has written in his work over the years, that is why income household income inequality is less marked in Australia than it is in the United States or the United Kingdom. It is why, for example, when the Leader of the Opposition gave his speech at the Melbourne Institute, he was quickly denounced by none other than Professor Roger Wilkins, the author of HILDA:
In his speech to the annual Economic and Social Outlook Conference Professor Wilkins said a narrative claiming that inequality was ever rising was "patently false" from the available evidence we have.
This clearly shocked that distinguished academic, but it did not shock any of us, because we know that the way to address low wages and slow growth is to support growth and investment. That's what we're doing. Labor has not got a single policy that would support economic growth. In fact, when put on the rack by the redoubtable Fran Kelly on Radio National on this very point, all he could do was stumble and bumble and say, 'We like public transport.' I tell you what, Mr Speaker: under a Shorten government we'll all be getting a train to Centrelink! (Time expired)
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House steps the government is taking to grow the economy through investments in the agricultural sector? Is he aware of any barriers to unlocking the potential of agriculture?
It is without a shadow of a doubt that we are laying down the plans for how we are going to further develop the agricultural resources of Australia, especially with vital infrastructure. One of the most pertinent pieces of vital infrastructure is the inland rail. With $8,400 million that will be allocated to the construction of this vital piece of infrastructure, which is a railway line that will go from Melbourne through the inland, through Seymour and Wodonga, up to Parkes, from Parkes to places such as Narrabri, to Moree, near Goondiwindi—not to Goondiwindi—and to Toowoomba, this is going to create the mechanism to drive the commerce of those areas ahead, to create the capacity that America has created in the past with places such as Fort Worth, to give a real prospect of economic growth on the western side of the range.
We look to the Labor Party to see what their view is on this—we really do. We look to the shadow minister for infrastructure—long may he remain so. But about the best we can get is that they 'think it is a good idea'. We cannot get them to commit to a vision for regional Australia for our nation. They can come to the dispatch box and say that they are committed to the inland rail, say that they will put money on the table and say that they share the same vision, but they do not. We see the same with the Regional Investment Corporation. We are setting up a $4 billion bank in the member for Calare's seat, in Orange. What are the Labor Party going to do? They are going to get rid of it. That is what they are going to do for regional Australia. Then we go to dams. We have put $2.5 billion in grants and loans on the table for dams. What are the Labor Party going to do? They are going to take money out of it. They cannot find the money, so they are going to take $235.2 million out so that they can destroy the dreams of people like the member for Capricornia or the member for Flynn, by not building Rookwood Weir.
We know the Labor Party are owned by the Greens. They are owned by the Greens. They have given up on the agricultural sector; they have given up on the mining sector. They do not believe in labourers any more. The Labor Party have given up on labourers. They do not have the fortitude to stand up to the Greens and build the inland rail. Why? Because they are going to put frogs before people. They are the party that will put frogs before people. They do not have a vision for this nation. They do not have a vision for the future. They have not laid down one plan for agriculture. They put possums before people in the timber industry; they put frogs before people in building dams. They do not believe in the future of Australia. I challenge the member for Maribyrnong to come to the dispatch box and tell us what they are going to build in regional Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement in 2005: 'There are structural aspects of our tax system which enable people to reduce the overall amount of tax they pay. Trusts are one'? How is it fair that high-income earners can reduce the amount of tax they pay through trusts but normal wage earners simply cannot?
I do not claim to be an expert in the use of trusts. I do not have a family trust. I can say I personally am not very good at tax avoidance. I have paid a lot of tax and I have done so gladly. I am not an expert in this area. But I would say, being very serious about this, the reality is that trusts are used largely by small and medium businesses—overwhelmingly. The honourable members know that. Indeed, I want to quote the Leader of the Opposition when he was the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services in 2011. He was the minister responsible; he had all of the advice; he knew all about it. He knew a lot more about this area than I do; that is for sure. He said he was against a proposal to have trusts taxed like industry at the company rate because—these are his words, not mine—'it could see thousands and thousands of family businesses pay far more tax than they are at present'. Then, the month before, in a speech to the Taxation Institute of Australia in Brisbane, the then Assistant Treasurer, the member for Maribyrnong, said: 'We don't believe trusts are any form of tax avoidance. We see trusts as a legitimate feature of how Australians conduct their financial affairs.' That was his position there. There are many other examples of that.
But the reality is this: we have policies which are encouraging investment and employment. We have seen 240,000 jobs created in the last year. 'Jobs and growth' is not a slogan; it is an outcome. What has the Labor Party got plans for? Higher income taxes; higher company tax; higher small business taxes; higher housing taxes; higher investment taxes. The Labor Party's policies are, all of them, designed to discourage investment and discourage employment. I repeat: as I said in my earlier answer, when the Leader of the Opposition was pressed on this by Fran Kelly as to what his policies were going to do for jobs, he stumbled and bumbled and proffered a great interest in public transport as the answer. We all like catching the tram, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, but you have to do a lot more than that if you want to create a 21st century economy.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. What action is the government taking against officials of registered organisations who have been found to break the law? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Fisher for his question. Sadly, I have to inform him that, in the break, the CFMEU have broken another record, this time following a $300,000 fine from the Federal Court. They have now become the only union in Australia's history that's passed $10 million worth of fines. I heard one member from the Labor Party say, 'That's not much.' That's not much! In the same time, since 2001, they have given $13 million worth of donations to the Labor Party. That is $13 million worth of donations and $10 million worth of fines, a total of $23 million worth of the workers in the CFMEU's money that they were able to give away back to the Federal Court or to the Labor Party. So the leadership of the CFMEU thought $23 million of their workers' money was better off paying fines and donating to the Labor Party than leaving in the pockets of people who are members of the CFMEU. What a disgraceful union, and it's disgraceful that the Labor Party would think it's a good idea to keep taking money from the CFMEU.
And what was the great cause for which these fines were incurred in Queensland? Well, the great cause was disrupting work on the Queensland children's hospital and—wait for it—Ronald McDonald House. For all those families from rural and regional Australia who went to Brisbane to stay with their sick children at the children's hospital, the CFMEU thought it was a good idea to disrupt building on Ronald McDonald House and the Queensland children's hospital. Yes, they have gone very quiet. What an amoral union is the CFMEU.
But you know a person by the friends they keep, and the CFMEU's best friend in this place is the Leader of the Opposition. So, if the Leader of the Opposition intends to remain their best friend, he has to wear it. Why does he not show some backbone, some spine, like Bob Hawke did when Bob Hawke said about the CFMEU, 'I wouldn’t tolerate it. You know what I did with the Builders Labourers Federation—I would throw them out.' That's what Bob Hawke said about the CFMEU because, of course, he threw out the BLF, but not this Leader of the Opposition who, like an automaton, cannot stop repeating the same thing because he's been stung. He supports a union that thinks it's a good idea to slow down work on Ronald McDonald's House and the children's hospital in Queensland. Shame on him!
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Water. I refer to the Four Corners allegations of water theft and corruption. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the inquiry to be conducted by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority cannot compel witnesses to appear, cannot take evidence under oath, cannot seize documents, and cannot protect whistleblowers? Why won't the Deputy Prime Minister commit to a national judicial inquiry through COAG to ensure the Murray-Darling Basin plan is not undermined?
I thank the honourable member for his question and also thank him, I think, for one of the first questions he's ever given me. Might I say at this point: no-one condones theft. No-one condones theft or ever has. If a person is thieving something, it is as if they are thieving anything else—if they are thieving a car, if they are thieving water, if they are thieving cattle, if they are thieving sheep. If it's a theft, it's a theft. But these are allegations. Be very, very careful. These are allegations and have not been proved. However, there is a lot of work now going into the investigation of the allegations.
Might I remind the House that, right now, Ken Matthews, with the support of three people who have had experience in ICAC—that is, police officers—is currently investigating precisely this. Might I also say to the House that Mr Hanlon has referred himself to ICAC, right now, on this issue. Might I also say to the House that we have the Auditor-General investigating this. Might I also say to the House that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is conducting an independent review and investigation into this. All of these have the capacity, and ICAC in New South Wales do not need anybody to encourage them to expand their investigations if they need to do precisely that. We are taking this thing abundantly seriously and we are pursuing this issue through to make sure that if someone has thieved something they will be found out. But right now, as I always say, you have to understand that these are allegations that have been put forward and allegations that are being tested.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Would the minister update the House on how the government is prioritising a stable, secure and affordable energy supply which supports jobs for hardworking Australians? What hurdles stand in the way of providing a secure and affordable electricity supply to families and businesses in my electorate of Boothby and elsewhere?
I thank the member for Boothby for her question. I acknowledge her deep concern about the rising energy prices and the impact it's having on people in her electorate, from Mitcham to Marion. The Turnbull government is taking action on a number of fronts. We are trying to drive down the price of gas by putting in place a mechanism which could potentially restrict exports. We have also put in place new regulation around the transportation of gas on pipelines from 1 August—the most significant reforms in more than two decades. We are also taking action to stop energy companies gaming the system. That is why we took action to abolish the limited merits review process, which was giving the network companies a free option and leading to billions of dollars of higher energy bills for Australians. That is why the Labor Party have left it to us—because they did not take any action when they were in government. Tomorrow the Prime Minister is speaking to the energy retailers, wanting to ensure that Australian households, particularly the most vulnerable Australian households, are getting the best possible market deal, not the more expensive standing offers. We are also investing in new technology and innovation, in Snowy Hydro 2.0, demand-side management and energy efficiency.
I am asked if there are any obstacles to this approach. We know under the Labor Party, when they were in office, electricity prices went up by more than 100 per cent, and we know they have an ideological commitment to a 50 per cent renewable energy target and a 45 per cent emissions reduction target. And we know, in the state of South Australia, what goes wrong when you pursue these green-left policies. Indeed, they have the highest price and a less stable system in the national energy market.
What is the inconvenient truth of South Australia's energy system? It's that they are now importing, more than ever, brown coal fired power from Victoria. It's now that they have just spent hundreds of millions of dollars in building a new gas fired generator. And it's now, clearer than ever, that they have to spend $110 million on diesel generators that do not work in warm temperatures. I think the funniest impact of this green ideology is the fact that Jay Weatherill is hiring collaborative conservationists, people who will doorknock 18,000 homes spreading the gospel of green energy, which, ultimately, in the case of South Australia and the Commonwealth and the Labor Party, can only lead to higher prices.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be put on the Notice Paper.
I present the Auditor-General's report Nos. 58 to 62 for 2016-17, and Nos. 1 to 5 for 2017-18. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
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.
Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for Petrie and Durack to be members of the Speaker's panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.
I move:
That leave of absence from 8 August 2017 to 3 December 2017 be given to the honourable member for Adelaide, Ms Ellis, for parental leave purposes.
We congratulate Kate, David and Sam on the newest member of their family, Charlie.
Question agreed to.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's failure to address increasing inequality through a fairer tax system.
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—
Hasn't the contrast been clear today, and for all of the last fortnight, between the government and the alternative government? It's a contrast that is crystal clear. On the one hand, we have the government—and I do use the term lightly, because there's not much governing going on at the moment, but I will give them the credit of their official title—spending all their effort and energy going into contortions to prolong the amount of time in which our country is the last English-speaking country to embrace marriage equality. So determined are they to ensure that situation continues that they're prepared to spend $122 million on a postal ballot. They are the priorities of this government as they go about in this disunity and dysfunction.
On the other hand, the alternative government tackles the task of outlining an agenda for the challenges and opportunities in our economy—an agenda, which we intend to implement in government, of returning the budget to balance in a way that improves fairness and equity as well. It's a task this government is simply not up to. They can't tackle the problems because they just don't get them; they don't understand the problems in the Australian economy. We have a Treasurer who's an inequality denier: he says it's fine; nothing's happening with inequality. It's going down, according to the Treasurer. There are not many people who agree with him about that. We've got a Treasurer who says the biggest challenge he's got is increasing wages, as they slash penalty rates for those who work on weekends. We've got a Treasurer who recognises that we have record low wages growth—in fact, we are only one of six OECD economies where wages growth has gone backwards since 2013—but we have record high profit growth. What's the government's answer? To cut wages and to cut corporate tax at the same time.
We have a government that is also utterly bereft of any plan to deal with housing affordability. In a week where there's new data showing the percentage of Australians under 40 who own their own home has fallen from 36 per cent in 2002 to just 25 per cent today—one-quarter of Australians under 40—this government just wipe their hands. No plan; nothing they can do. They are a government struck dumb, refusing to pull the lever of reform to negative gearing and capital gains tax.
The other thing that they refuse to act on is tax minimisation and high-income-splitting through the use of family trusts. The government lectures all Australians on the need for budget repair, on the need for tough decisions, on the need for cuts. But they stand by as family trusts continue to be used for tax minimisation. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition and I announced a policy that will add $4.1 billion to the budget bottom line over forward estimates and $17 billion over the decade. And what was the response of the party opposite? Well, not very much, actually. There was also very little at question time. The Treasurer whipped himself up into a scare campaign before the announcement and after the announcement he was back into the witness protection program, because all they've got is a scare campaign. When that doesn't work, they've got nothing—no vision; no plans.
They can't say they don't know about the problem. They can't say that they didn't know that family trusts were an issue, because previous treasurers have tried to fix it. Peter Costello tried to fix it. I don't mind giving credit where it's due. He tried to fix it when he was Treasurer. He got rolled by his party. And the 'Tax reform: not a new tax, a new tax system' paper in 1998 said:
Wealthier individuals with access to legal and accounting advice can target particular investments and structures to take advantage of the differences in tax treatment—and … minimise the amount of tax they pay. The rest of the community subsidises the wealthier investor.
That was not some radical document. That was the then Howard government's document when it came to tax reform. So Peter Costello tried to fix it.
Joe Hockey, when he held my role as Shadow Treasurer, tried to fix it. He gave a fine speech about tax minimisation through trusts. It lasted 24 hours before he was rolled in his party room. I tell you what: this party is committed to dealing with it and dealing with what the party opposite has squibbed for years.
Now, it falls to Labor, as it so often does, to lead on policy development. The fact of the matter is that there's $590 billion in discretionary trusts—double what there was just a decade ago. They're not available for everyone. If you are a nurse, a teacher, a policeman or a soldier, you don't access family trusts for tax minimisation. It's not available to you. We have a two-tier tax system in Australia, where family trusts are available for some, not for all, to spread around their income. We saw new data just last week showing that distributions through family trusts peaked just below the tax threshold changes—an amazing coincidence! It is amazing how these things work. They peaked just below.
In reply to this policy announcement from Labor, all we have is a scare campaign. I am surprised that the member for Riverina, the Minister for Small Business isn't here. He normally takes the MPI—God love him.
An opposition member: Where is he?
He was out there today writing in the Telegraph.He isorganising the ABS for the plebiscite. That's going to go well. He was out there today saying in the Telegraph: 'Labor is going to abolish trusts.' They make it up. Now they're asserting that we'll abolish trusts. Let's be very clear: trusts can play a role in asset protection and they can play a role in succession planning. We support that. That is completely undisturbed by Labor's policy. The government should start telling the truth.
I mentioned previous Liberal treasurers. I am going to give some credit to one Liberal treasurer who did actually try and deal with this, and that was John Howard in 1980. He cracked down on tax minimisation and income splitting through distributions to minors. He said, 'If you distribute money to a family trust for people under 18, I'll tax you at the top marginal tax rate.' That was introduced and it went through the parliament. What we have done is taken the unfinished business from 1980, all these years later, and said, 'We will extend that as a 30 per cent tax rate to distributions to those over 18.' Now, that is not a radical plan. That is a sensible plan. It is a plan which deals with the pressure on the federal budget. And it is a plan which improves the fairness of our tax system. It's a plan which is sensible and well thought out. Since this plan has been announced, there's been a reaction—not just a scare campaign from the government. There has been a reaction from people who actually know what they are talking about—experts in this field.
Robert Deutsch, the Tax Institute senior counsel, said of our policy:
It's a carefully crafted, clever, well-directed attempt to deal with what are perceived to be the worst cases of abuse in the area of discretionary trusts.
Alan Kohler, in The Australian, said of our policy:
It is, or at least should be, a no-brainer: income splitting is a device that should have been removed long ago …
Opposition members: Hear, hear.
'Hear, hear' we say. And in a telling point, he said:
… if distributing income to a dependent child is wrong, as decreed by John Howard and embedded in Division 6AA, then so is distributing it to a dependent spouse, or to a brother or sister who promptly gives the distributed cash back as a gift.
And that is dead right.
Here is the challenge for the government: if you think income splitting is so good, if you think it's so wonderful that you can distribute income around your family to minimise the amount of tax you pay if you're a high-wealth individual, then reverse John Howard's changes from 1980, because if it's wrong to distribute to children then it's wrong to distribute to adults for the same purpose of minimising tax.
We have also seen a response from Associate Professor Dale Boccabella, who said:
The current income tax treatment of the discretionary trust is grossly inequitable compared with other entities and other taxpayers. It causes large losses of tax revenue and significantly undermines the integrity of our income tax system; it is widely seen as a joke.
He went on to say:
Labor’s approach involves minimal change to the tax law thereby not adding complexity and administrative costs.
And:
… Labor ought to be congratulated for tackling the discretionary trust stain on our income tax system.
So, the people who actually know what they're talking about, the experts in the field, have endorsed Labor's policy and welcome the fact that the alternative government of Australia is prepared to do what the current government is not and actually tackle the big issues, do the hard things and have the difficult conversations—just as this side of the House has led the debate on negative gearing reform, just as this side of the House has led the debate on capital gains tax reform, just as this side of the House has led the debate on superannuation reform and just as this side of the House has led the debate on capping the amount you can claim to manage your tax affairs if you're a high-wealth individual.
On all these issues, Labor leads and the government has nothing. The government is struck dumb. They try a scare campaign and then they don't know what to do. Sometimes after the scare campaign fails they adopt a policy, like they did on superannuation and tobacco—and it's not too late this time. Or sometimes they just shrug their shoulders and say it's all too hard: 'Too hard for us,' they say, 'What can we be expected to do? We're only the government of Australia; it's all too hard for us.' Well, the time will come when you can get out of the way and let a new government implement what you didn't have the guts to do. The time will come when you can sit on this side of the House and let us implement the mandate which we seek to make our tax system fairer and repair the budget.
It's always interesting getting a lecture from the failed former immigration minister here, the shadow Treasurer, who doesn't exactly have a great record as a minister. And it's one that I know he's very embarrassed about—and quite rightly embarrassed about, that period as immigration minister. Labor thinks that you address inequality by shaking down hardworking Australians even more. That's how they think you address inequality: you tax hard work; you tax aspiration more. Every single policy that the Labor Party think they so heroically come out with is an increased tax, but they're very careful to say to the Australian public, 'It's not you; we're hitting these guys.' And the guys they always end up hitting are the people in small business. Firstly, we know they are opposing corporate tax cuts. Not since the early eighties have we had to argue about the efficacy, the efficiency and the impact on investment of reducing taxes. Now we've turned the clock back 30 years and we again have to argue why these things are important. But Labor does not have one policy to increase the investment into this country.
Now, if you look at the average tax rate in the OECD, ours is far higher. And we know that in 10 years' time, when our Enterprise Tax Plan is in completion, the average OECD tax rate will be even lower than ours. We know that in the US perhaps one area the Republican Party agree on is their 15 per cent corporate tax rate. We know that the UK has a corporate tax rate south of 20 per cent. We even have the French socialist government reducing their corporate tax rate. Yet the Labor Party's vision is one of higher taxes.
They have also opposed our reduction of taxes for small businesses that have a turnover of between $2 million and $10 million. Now, anybody knows—and I'm sure members opposite understand from visiting small businesses that have a turnover of between $2 and $10 million, many of which have only a handful of employees—that these are not big, multinational, rich organisations. Why would the Labor Party deny them a tax cut? Presumably the Labor Party will go to the next election telling small businesses that they will increase their tax rates. Now, that's a very heroic position that I don't think small businesses will accept.
The shadow Treasurer lauds Labor's housing tax. Their housing tax has been spoken about ad nauseam. We know Labor's policy will not result in one additional house being built. It will not help one first home buyer get into the market. We know Labor's housing tax will increase rents. We on this side of the House will speak for the 30 per cent of people in the rental market. We know that the Labor Party do not care about the 30 per cent of people who rent, but, if you shake down landlords just like Labor are trying to shake down anybody who aspires to doing better, there's only one place that a landlord can go to get that money, and that's the tenant—and the tenant has to pay higher rent. This we know. This is not theoretical. We saw this in the eighties. If Labor's negative gearing policy was such a success, why was it abjectly rejected and abandoned by none other than the Keating government? So we know that Labor's answer to everything is higher taxes—higher taxes.
On top of the increase in the headline tax rate for small businesses, now we see another attack on small businesses, and that's on those small businesses who utilise a trust structure. The Labor Party have lauded the fact that they are supposedly taking on the work of the Howard government. So they would have been very embarrassed by the comments from the author of the Howard government's review, John Ralph—after Chris Bowen, the shadow Treasurer, triumphantly claimed that he followed through with that work—when John Ralph attacked these changes to trusts as just 'more tax' and said that, when combined with Labor's other tax increase proposals, they would 'have a negative impact on the growth of the economy'. So the very person that the shadow Treasurer points to as supporting his so-called policy on trusts has said it's just another tax and it will reduce investment in small businesses—which we know impacts the vast majority of working Australians.
There are 6½ million Australians who work in small businesses, and every dollar you take out of a small business, every dollar that the shadow Treasurer takes out of a small business, is one dollar less that can be invested in that small business, one employee less that that small business can take on and one dollar less that they can provide in income for their employees.
The Labor Party don't have a single policy to increase investment in this economy. They have absolutely no policies to do that. Their equality argument is all about shaking down hardworking Australians for more and more money.
The Labor Party might want to hear some facts. We have a very progressive tax system and we have one of the most targeted social welfare systems in the world. The top 40 per cent of taxpayers pay 92 per cent of the income tax. Forty per cent of Australians are carrying nearly the entire personal income tax burden, and this shadow Treasurer thinks that you can shake them down for a bit more money. That's all he thinks he can do. He doesn't want to make any hard decisions. He can't say no to all of the spending by his shadow ministers every time they come to him, presumably, with a proposal to spend more money. He probably wants to say no, but he's told he can't, and that just shows how little authority this shadow Treasurer has. So, in order to chase ever more spending, they have to find more people that they can shake down for a bit more money. That's what the Labor Party approach here is.
We don't think those 40 per cent of Australians who already pay 92 per cent of personal income tax should be hit harder by the Labor Party. As we know, untold numbers of those Australians work in small businesses. They rely on investment in small business. I know the Labor Party are only interested in large unions and large business doing cosy little deals with each other, but, on this side of the House, through our small business minister, we stand up for small businesses. We absolutely stand up for small businesses.
The Labor Party will have to explain to 270,000 small businesses: why are those 270,000 small businesses with a family trust being labelled as tax avoiders by this grubby stunt by the Labor Party? These are hardworking Australians: 270,000 businesses who employ Australians; 270,000 businesspeople who put their hard earned on the line, who probably mortgage their own home to expand and grow and build their business. The Labor Party's got a lot to explain with this so-called tax grab. John Ralph has called it a tax grab. John Ralph has belled the cat and said this will have a negative impact on investment and growth in this country. It seems self-evident. It seems self-evident, but the shadow Treasurer has had his own words spoken back at him.
We said four things in the budget, primarily. We wanted to grow the economy to support more and better-paid jobs. That is absolutely something that has informed every decision that this government has made. We wanted to guarantee essential services. The way you guarantee essential services is by having a well-targeted tax system and a well-targeted social welfare system. We know the top 40 per cent of individuals carry most of that system by paying 92 per cent of the tax. They quite rightly should, because we do need to fund those services, but we don't think that they can get shaken down for a bit more money.
We also think that we need to put downward pressure on costs of living, including electricity costs. That is the debate that the Labor Party doesn't want to go near, but electricity prices have an impact on every single business in this country and every single small business—particularly small businesses in manufacturing. That is going to be the big challenge for our country. I don't have any confidence that the Labor Party is going to be able to rise to the occasion, particularly not when we've got hard green members of the Left who control so much of the Labor Party—but that is going to be the untold story.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order!
Mr Deputy Speaker, this MPI is an absolute joke. We can't shake down hardworking Australians anymore!
Since the parliament last met, we have had revelations that some of the members of the other place were citizens of another country, but we also had from the Treasurer, with his comments about inequality, that he is a citizen of another planet! When the Treasurer tried to pretend we don't have an inequality problem in this country, we had his 'poor people don't drive cars' moment.
If the Treasurer were not so spectacularly out of touch, he might have noticed that more and more Australians are getting more and more frustrated that, no matter how hard they work, they just can't get ahead. If they, on that side of the House, were not so consumed by internal rivalries and division, they might have noticed that wages growth is at record lows; labour's share of national income is at record lows; and there is record high underemployment, precarious work, insecure work and inequality on the march. If they got out and about more and talked to real people rather than just being on the phone to each other organising another leadership coup; if they got out and about like we have been, they would understand that more and more Australians feel that the rules of the economy are written to benefit somebody else at their expense—and they're right.
We want to rewrite the rules of the economy to accord with our values that growth is strongest when we grow together; if you work hard, you should be rewarded for it; and, if you fall behind or fall down, we will be there to help you up. Our policy on trusts—and I pay tribute to the member for McMahon and the member for Fenner and all of the colleagues in our team—is part of a larger purpose: to deal with the inequality which is a threat to inclusive growth in this country, a threat to social cohesion, to living standards and to the broader economy. Instead of acknowledging this, they make excuses for inequality, and they make it worse with their tax cuts for the top end and their pay cuts for weekend workers. They're so negative. They've got no ability to provide the economic leadership that they promised. They're so bereft of good policies that they're reduced to just taking pot shots at Labor's ideas. The only difference—it has occurred to me—between the Liberal Party today and Statler and Waldorf, those two grumpy whingers above the stage in The Muppets, is that at least Statler and Waldorf were on speaking terms with each other. That is the only difference between the Liberals and those two muppets.
We're not deterred or distracted by the division or dysfunction of those opposite. Ours is a pretty simple and commonsense proposal, not especially radical, building on the changes that John Howard made in 1980 and taking up the proposals made by Peter Costello and Joe Hockey before they dingoed it in recent years. We start by recognising that the budget is a mess, the tax system is unfair and inequality is growing in this country. With those challenges, it makes absolutely no sense to give the biggest tax concessions to those who need them least.
Instead of engaging with the policy, we get the same old scare campaign from those opposite. We found out in the last few weeks what happens when the Treasurer invites everybody to a scare campaign and nobody shows up. They say on that side that we have to choose between dealing with inequality or growing the economy, and that the only way to grow this economy is to become less equal. The OECD, the IMF and others have said the exact opposite. I don't know about my colleagues here, but I'm inclined to take the OECD and the IMF's word for it over this Treasurer. Those on that side say dealing with trusts will damage growth, as if growth in this country depends on letting two per cent of taxpayers choose whether or not they want to pay tax. They say that increasing taxes will hurt the economy. They've forgotten the $21 billion of new taxes in their budget. They say this is about the politics of envy or class war, that tired absurdity that pretends that the only way to maintain cohesion is to maintain tax breaks for those who need them least, pay less for people to work on weekends or give tax cuts to the top end rather than tax cuts to the bottom.
Theirs is a recipe for more division and more damage to the economy, the budget and our society. Ours is a plan to start to heal those divisions, not exacerbate them. We want to resolve the class war in this country, not prolong it, by making the rules of the economy fairer. We understand that growth comes from people having money to spend and invest and it comes from deploying public money to where it can do the most good. We understand that we won't get the growth we need in this country unless we grow together, pay people fairly and invest in people so they have the skills and the opportunities they need to genuinely get ahead. That is our reason for being here. That's why we're providing the economic leadership that those opposite, with all their division and dysfunction, are unwilling and unable to provide.
I think it's fair to say that the rank and foul stench of hypocrisy hangs heavy over the opposition benches this afternoon. They come into this House bleating and preaching about inequality, but for years the Leader of the Opposition and the unions, the puppet masters who put you into this place, have been selling their own workers down the river. How is that for equality? Let's look at the recent history. In 2006, on the opposition leader's watch, when he was head, the AWU agreed to cut penalty rates for workers at Target, Big W and Just Jeans. When he was in control of it they cut those penalty rates. How is that for striking a blow against inequality? Or take the Rydges Tradewinds in Cairns, where they got rid of penalty rates for workers—cut them under the Leader of the Opposition's watch. How is that striking a blow against inequality? The rank and arrant hypocrisy from those opposite is breathtaking.
But it didn't stop at the Leader of the Opposition. Oh, no—you listen! Let's go back through what happened at Cleanevent: $75,000 from Cleanevent to AWU Victoria, where they paid workers well below the award. They stripped them of penalty rates, overtime and staff loadings. Those casual workers were entitled to $176,000 more under the award than they got under the enterprise agreement. Did the workers know that those deals were being cut?
The deals go on and on: Chiquita Mushrooms, $24,000, where the AWU falsely invoiced the payments as paid education leave and they were never disclosed as payments to the Chiquita employees. How is that striking a blow for equality in this country? Did you tell the workers when that was going on, when your puppet masters were doing that to their own workers?
How dare you come into this place and preach and bleat about inequality when you perpetrated the atrocities of inequality against your own workers?
It goes on. There were thousands of dollars from Huntsman chemicals to AWU Victoria, apparently in return for good relations with the unions. Did you tell the workers that was happening at the time? Are you proud of striking another blow for the workers in that case? We can go on and on. There was over $150,000 from building companies to the former BLF, used to construct beach houses. The payments were apparently to secure industrial peace and good relations with the union. That was another blow they struck for inequality in this country. How dare those opposite come into this House and preach to this place, in the Australian parliament, about inequality after the atrocities they perpetrated on workers in this country? The hypocrisy just goes on and on.
As Roger Wilkins, the Deputy Director of the Melbourne Institute, said, as we heard today, inequality, if anything, has been declining in this country. Between 2006 and 2014, the largest falls in household wealth occurred in the richer households, with the measure for the top one per cent of income earners falling 9.3 per cent whilst the lowest 10 per cent had an increase of 25.7 per cent. Inequality is declining. The proportion of Australians earning half the median wage has fallen to 10 per cent from 13.5 per cent in 2010, according to the ABS.
It is this government which is getting on with the job of reducing inequality in this country. In the last financial year 240,000 jobs were created—the largest increase since before the global financial crisis. We heard that from the Treasurer today. What a fine record to be proud of. That's a real benefit to Australian workers, to actually give them a job as opposed to those opposite, who did nothing but sell the workers out for years—all under the watch of the Leader of the Opposition.
Let's talk about bridging inequality in education and the great Gonski reforms. I know the member for Fairfax is very excited about those new Gonski reforms—$24 billion in extra funding which benefits every school across regional and country Australia. The schools in my electorate are no exception. Every one of them has benefitted—by millions of dollars for the bigger schools, and even the smaller schools get a significant funding increase. We are very proud of the work this government has done in bridging the inequality issue in this country, as opposed to the rank hypocrites on that side of the House.
Unlike the members of the Liberal party room, many Australians may not be familiar with the details of discretionary trusts. Let me give you a simple example of the problems that Labor's reform seeks to address. Right now, there are professionals in Sydney who are taking professional service income into a discretionary trust. They are then paying that out to their parents. The parents then turn around and pay the grandchildren's private school fees. Private school fees paid out of pre-tax income is the sort of lurk Labor is trying to crack down on. But those on the other side of the House never saw a tax lurk they did not want to defend. They never saw a loophole they did not want to fight for. They never saw a tax haven they did not think was reasonable.
Robert Menzies' party of 'home ownership for all' has become 'celebrating buying an investment property for your one-year-old'. The party of the forgotten people of middle Australia has become the party that will raise taxes on middle Australia rather than crack down on discretionary trusts. The party that once stood for small business has become the party of $65 billion in big business tax cuts. The party of the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes, actually, is still the party of the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes.
We had some nice history set out by Craig Emerson in The Financial Review recently. He pointed out Treasurer Morrison's three Liberal predecessors have all agreed on the need to act on trusts.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
As the member for McMahon has pointed out, John Howard cracked down on distributions to under-18s. Peter Costello agreed in 2000 that there would be a crackdown on trusts and, indeed, signed a letter in writing in November 2000—an agreement with Labor—saying that Labor would support a cut in the company tax rate from 36 to 30 per cent and a 50 per cent discount in capital gains tax if the government agreed to crack down on trusts and sham contracting. That signed letter from Peter Costello to Simon Crean was reneged upon. We also saw the then member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, say that trusts needed to be cracked down on. Unfortunately, as Craig Emerson pointed out, it wasn't an idea he could hold from Lateline to lunchtime.
This month we've had the extraordinary spectacle, as the member for Rankin has pointed out, of the Treasurer of Australia saying that inequality isn't getting worse. As the great American professor-turned-senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, used to say, 'You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.' Since 1975 real wages have grown 72 per cent for the top 10th and 23 per cent for the bottom 10th. Real wage growth has been three times as high at the top than at the bottom, taking the 90-10 ratio nearly from two to one to three to one. If cleaners and hairdressers had enjoyed the same percentage gains as barristers and surgeons, they'd be $16,000 a year better off. As David Hetherington has pointed out, we've seen the labour income share fall from 75 per cent in 1975 to 60 per cent today.
Treasurer Morrison said his favourite measure of inequality is the Gini coefficient for household income. Let's look at it. According to Peter Whiteford, in 1981-82 it was 0.27 per cent. By 2013-14, the most recently available data, it was either 0.3 or 0.33 per cent, depending on whether you use ABS or HILDA numbers. We can have a look at estimates of top income shares, originally compiled by the late Sir Tony Atkinson and myself and now put together by Roger Wilkins. That shows that since 1980 the top one per cent share has approximately doubled. Putting aside the Korean War wool boom, you have to go back to the 1940s to find a time when top income shares were as high as they have been in recent years. As Roger Wilkins summed up to me in an email recently, 'Inequality is currently high by modern Australian historical standards.'
When Labor increased the single aged pension by more than 10 per cent in 2009, we took more than a million pensioners out of poverty. That helped ensure that inequality at the bottom did not rise. Extraordinarily, we have then had those on the right turn around and say, 'You managed to quell a rise in inequality; therefore, inequality doesn't matter.' Policies can affect inequality. When you cut the pay of the men and women who clean your offices and give a $16,400 tax cut to those on million-dollar incomes, you increase inequality. Bill Gates, Pope Francis and Bono are among the many who care about inequality. The Prime Minister likes citing me. In 2012 he said inequality had risen— (Time expired)
Using economic policy to try to create greater equality requires a threshold strategic question to be answered. Either a political party chooses to tear people down to the lowest common denominator or they lift people up so they can realise their full potential. What we see in this parliament is the distinction between the Labor Party and the coalition on that threshold question. The Labor Party is determined to ensure it tears people down to the lowest common denominator. The coalition, on the other hand, is determined to ensure that it provides people with the freedom to achieve their greatest potential.
Now, this would be bad enough in any context. However, there is a historical dimension to this because never before, in at least the last three decades, have we had a Leader of the Opposition or leader of the Labor Party so determined to tear people down with the trick of excessive income redistribution. We spent most of the 20th century with an argument between socialism and liberalism, and liberalism won out. Liberalism won out.
What about egalitarianism?
I will take the quip from those opposite about egalitarianism. Once socialism lost, the Labor movement across the Western democratic world decided they needed to change. They were happy to continue with social justice but they realised that income redistribution would no longer work. Income redistribution was, therefore, rejected under the banner of the third way by some. Certainly President Clinton of the United States and Tony Blair rejected it. Indeed, in Australia Hawke and Keating rejected income redistribution as the main objective of economic policy. What has happened now? What has happened now in 2017 under this Leader of the Opposition? The Labor Party have gone back. They want to go back to socialism. They now want to reject any semblance of economic liberalism. They believe that the only way you can achieve equality, the only way you can have an egalitarian Australia, is if you tear people down. Only last week that was the basis for their trust proposal.
What is the means by which this Labor Party wants to tear people down to the lowest common denominator? There is only one means they know about, and that is taxation. The Labor Party will tax households to ensure they pay higher electricity prices. Labor will tax the homeowner through their negative gearing and capital gains plans. Labor will tax the hardworking mum and dad who have happened to start their own small business, with higher company taxes. And now they want to penalise trusts. They oppose the extension of the instant asset write-off. Their solution to any income disparity is to tear people down.
It has been proven time and time again—last century, for crying out loud—that these socialist ideas do not work. The problem with this is that we are talking about a Labor Party that not only wants to cut the pie—the economic pie—in different ways but, in doing so, is shrinking that pie. We are an open, liberal, democratic, capitalist system. As soon as you penalise those people who create jobs, everyone loses. The Australian economy loses. This is a socialist ideal from the Labor Party because they believe it might work with the public. They might think the public will get on board, but in fact what they're doing is undermining the Australian economy, undermining the Australian worker and undermining the Australian mum and dad. There is one way to move this economy forward, and that is by lifting those who are prepared to work. It is not by dragging them down to the lowest common denominator. (Time expired)
It's astonishing to listen to members opposite trying to justify the indefensible when it comes to doing some serious work on tax reform in this country. Having not lifted a finger in this regard, they have got the gall to come in here and try to attack Labor's initiatives and leadership in this area.
Since the 1970s, the top 10 per cent of Australians have seen their wages grow at three times the rate of the bottom 10 per cent. The richest 20 per cent of Australians own more than 62 per cent of household wealth, while the bottom 20 per cent own just one per cent. Workers' share of income is at its lowest in half a century. Inequality is as bad as it's been for 75 years. Inequality is, in fact, everywhere you look in this country: in wealth, wages, taxes, housing, health, education and life outcomes. No amount of government spin can counter the lived reality of Australian men and women who are struggling to keep their heads above water in the face of falling wages, ballooning household costs and skyrocketing power bills, but still those opposite perform some pretty desperate rhetorical manoeuvres at every opportunity. Some go on the attack, like the member for Bowman who labelled Labor's discussion of inequality as 'nasty egalitarianism'. He wanted to show how truly removed he is from the experience of millions of Australians when he said, 'Inequality is staring over the fence and noticing the other guy's got a jet ski when you don't have one.' Unbelievable.
I am proud to stand in this house as a nasty woman for equality, as a Labor woman demanding a policy response to a growing inequity in Australia. Shamefully, the Treasurer himself tried the 'nothing to see here' defence and claimed inequality is a myth despite all of the data to the contrary and the Governor of the Reserve Bank, I might add, saying precisely the opposite. Others are so desperate to avoid any discussion that might force the government to actually do something about inequality that they refuse to engage at all. Instead, they point to the person who has been so audacious as to suggest that the parliament should make decisions on the basis of fairness and equality and screech 'class warfare'.
You know what? These people are right. There is a form of class warfare being waged in this country, and it's being waged by the Turnbull government against millions of low- and middle-income Australians as it backs in the big end of town above everybody else. This is the government that's engaged in a relentless agenda of driving down pay and conditions by supporting cuts to penalty rates, opposing increases to the minimum wage and doggedly attacking workers' ability to secure better outcomes through working with their unions. This is a government that refuses to do anything about negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions that are driving up house prices. It delivers more and more support for rich property investors at every opportunity rather than extend any assistance to Australians buying their first home. This is a government that wants to hike taxes for workers earning $21,000 a year while it gives the top two per cent of income earners a tax break. This is a government that squibbed on its multinational tax avoidance policy and fought against transparency measures that allow Australians to see how little tax some companies are paying in this country. This is a government that is levying savage tax cuts to health, education and vital public services so it can pay for its exorbitant $65 billion of tax cuts for big business.
But there is another way. Labor is showing we can get the budget into balance with positive measures that decrease the debt without having to resort to savage spending cuts. We want to create a fairer tax system for all Australians, not just those who have got the means to access generous deductions and subsidies. We want a system that reins in unfair tax concessions that force low- and middle-income earners to subsidise tax breaks for property investors. We want a system that closes loopholes that are letting multinationals shift profits offshore and a system that caps the amount that people can claim as a tax deduction for managing their tax affairs. It's time this government gave up on its thoroughly discredited trickle-down economics agenda and started governing for all Australians— (Time expired)
On this side of the parliament we focus on growing the economy. That's what this government does every single day. It focuses on measures to grow the economy. What they focus on opposite is how to tax the economy. If you look at every single policy of those opposite, whether it is in capital gains, negative gearing or small business, it is all about increased taxation. History is very clear that, when you increase tax, you reduce activity. You do not grow economies by increasing tax.
It is extraordinary that those opposite have a plan to take money from the economy. They have a plan to spend the money of Australians but they do not have a plan to help Australians actually make money. That is so fundamental because, if the economy isn't generating money, there isn't money to tax. There isn't money to redistribute, so to speak, and that is why growing the economy is so fundamental.
It is encouraging that today's NAB business conditions index is the strongest since 2008. NAB has been running this survey since 2008, and the result out today shows that business conditions are the strongest they have been since 2008. Business confidence is double the long-run average. So there are very strong conditions for business under this government and a strong sense of confidence and optimism in the business sector. That is a very good thing because that means investment and that means job creation.
Another reason why business confidence is so high is the support the government is providing for small and medium-sized businesses through tax relief. Earlier this year we were successful in passing tax relief for businesses with a turnover of between $2 million and $50 million. The Labor Party opposed that. They opposed tax reductions for businesses with, say, $2.1 million in revenue. They are opposed to tax cuts for 'evil multinational corporations', if I can paraphrase them. But the vast majority of businesses receiving tax cuts under this law are actually small or medium sized, including businesses with revenue of as little as one dollar above $2 million. That business may be making a profit margin of five per cent, or about $100,000, which is not much more than the average household income. Those opposite say they should not be entitled to that tax relief.
That is an extraordinary and ridiculous position for those opposite to take. But they take a number of ridiculous positions when it comes to tax. One of my favourite examples of the absurdity of their tax policy is in relation to capital gains tax. They put out a press release on housing affordability. It lists a number of steps that those opposite propose to take. One of those steps is to increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent on everything. If the policy is about housing affordability, it would be logical to apply that change to the housing market. But those opposite say they would increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent on farms, factories, cafes, restaurants—basically, anything—under the headline of housing affordability.
My question to those opposite is: how does increasing tax on an investment in a factory in Mudgee address housing affordability issues? It is very quiet over there on the opposition side. I would welcome an interjection from the member for Rankin, the architect of those four famous budget surpluses, who holds himself out as a great intellectual on economic policy. Explain how increasing capital gains tax by 50 per cent on things that have nothing to do with housing has anything to do with the housing market. It is about increasing tax. They want to tax Australians more because they want to spend more and take more for the government from the people of Australia. That is fundamentally the wrong policy. It has nothing to do with growing the economy. It is on the wrong side of history. It will be rejected by the Australian people. (Time expired)
I stand here today as somebody who has been a low-income earner—a very low-income earner—a middle-income earner and, in more recent years, what you might consider to be a high-income earner. And I imagine that that is not unlike many people here in this chamber and many of my colleagues as well. But what I find really confounding is that I paid a higher percentage of tax as a low- and middle-income earner than I do as a high-income earner—because there are more tax subsidies and loopholes available to me as a high-income earner. That is a glaring example of the need for reform to address inequality. We are faced with a challenge here. We have declining real wages, a housing affordability crisis, record underemployment and a skyrocketing cost of living. We need tax policies that are fair, that maintain social cohesion and that support growth. The OECD recognises that this is a dilemma facing many countries. The OECD argues:
Where tax increases are necessary, the most growth-friendly approach would be to reduce tax-induced distortions that harm growth, including closing loopholes, …
But first you have to recognise that something needs fixing—and that something is inequality.
Those on the other side would have you believe inequality does not exist, that it is not a problem. The member for Bowman even put forward the mind-blowingly ludicrous proposition that inequality is staring over a fence and noticing that another guy has a jet ski and you don't have one.
I would humbly suggest that the member for Bowman and his LNP colleagues actually go out and talk to people who are doing it tough—families who are struggling to make ends meet; seniors who cannot afford food and health care; and young people who live on baked beans on toast—not avocado on toast—and then come to me and talk about inequality. I will tell you what it was like to be a casual worker raising two kids. I will tell you what it was like earning a middle income, trying to put two kids through school, pay the bills and afford a mortgage, because, unlike those on the other side, I have not forgotten what that is like. The stark and simple fact is that Australia has a two-tier tax system: one for the low- and middle-income earners, who pay their fair share and have to find the money to pay for school fees, child care, housing, food and electricity, and one for the top one per cent, who have the financial means to access generous deductions and subsidies—some to the point of paying no tax at all.
Let's take the example of discretionary trusts—a word the other side seem to have forgotten today. Trusts are being used to reduce high-income earners' tax liability through income splitting. That means that people with high net worth and high tax rates can reduce their tax by apportioning to people with low tax rates. Somebody can make a million dollars a year and stream some of that income to their non-working adult children, and end up paying little or no tax. Tell me again how this is fair? How is it fair that a nurse or a teacher or a tradie, who pays pay-as-you-go tax on every single dollar they earn above the threshold, does not have access to those kinds of loopholes?
There are now $590 billion of assets in discretionary trusts. That is nearly double the amount of just a decade ago. They have grown exponentially. In fact, they have doubled in the last 20 years. We know that this issue is not new. A range of other academics and tax experts are on the record arguing for reform. But, sadly, nobody on the other side is listening. This government has dithered and dallied and kicked the can down the road on every major issue. They have proven they are ineffective and ineffectual, whilst the Prime Minister spouts empty rhetoric about being agile and being innovative. While this Prime Minister tries desperately to convince Australian voters that he is a strong leader, everything he and this government have done shows a weak and reluctant government with no will, no guts and no plan. They have no plan. But Labor does. Labor will do what needs to be done and we will not rest until the holes in the tax bucket are mended and an equal and fair tax system is delivered— (Time expired)
I have led an interesting life thus far—and I hope it continues for some time to come—and I have enjoyed many and varied careers. I was a chippie by trade not long after I finished school. I have worked with my hands; I have been a tradesman. Not long after I finished my trade, I decided to go back to school and I did my law degree. The time that I had my own business as a builder and went back to university full-time was a time that my then three daughters—I now have four daughters—referred to as 'that time in our lives when we were poor'.
Fortunately, I finished law school and then became a barrister. So I have enjoyed all sorts of different businesses and incomes. But the beauty of this country is that, depending on who is in government, we have the ability to bring ourselves up by our bootstraps, invest in ourselves through a good education and take a punt. On this side of politics, we reward people who back themselves. We provide reward for effort. On that side, all they want to do is redistribute income; they do not believe that anybody should be rewarded for the effort that they make. That's a real shame. It's a terrible shame. They believe in the politics of envy. They're led by the Robin Hood of Australian politics, by the Jeremy Corbyn of the South Pacific.
We believe that, if you are prepared to take a risk, this side of politics will back you. That side of the House believe that, if you are in small business—
Opposition members interjecting—
Now, I know that on that side of the House their experience in small business is very, very limited. We know that. We know that, because they're all union hacks over there. We know that. But on this side of the House we encourage people to have a go.
This fairer tax system that Labor talk about is code for higher taxes and higher spending. That's all it is. They want to penalise mums and dads. According to the other side, according to that lot over there, if you own a house, you're wealthy—let alone if you own an investment house. You're filthy rich. We don't believe that on this side of the House, because we believe that many, many people—policemen, nurses, salt-of-the-earth people who are on the PAYG tax system—also are investors in property, and good luck to them. On this side of the House, we want to reward them. We want to ensure that, if they want to take a risk on that, they ultimately receive a benefit for it.
Interestingly, those on the other side of the House talk about discretionary trusts. They think they're evil, by the sounds of it. They also want to do things like reducing or eliminating negative gearing. In August 1987, in a cabinet submission on the debate for restoring negative gearing after it was abolished in 1985, the then federal Treasurer, Paul Keating, suggested that the removal of negative gearing caused investors to desert the property market and drove up rents. Those opposite are clearly not students of history, because they're bound to repeat the mistakes that they made in the mid-1980s. It stands to reason.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The member for Fisher needs to resume his seat; I'm sorry. It being 4.12, the time allotted for the debate has expired.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, on an inquiry into human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Deputy Speaker—I am sorry, Speaker. My humblest apologies. I would like to make a few comments on the committee. Firstly, I would like to congratulate all committee members from both sides of the House and also from the Independents, the crossbenchers, on the way that we have all worked together cooperatively to try to get out the best report for the country rather than having political partisanship in this report.
A couple of things I would note. We have a few areas where we talk about modern slavery. You could divide it into three separate areas. One is forced labour; the second would be sexual servitude; and the third would be forced marriage. On the issue of forced labour, you could break that down to two sections. One is the migrant workers that we have coming into our country. There were some quite disturbing reports of mistreatment of migrant workers, simply because a lot of these workers were not actually informed of their rights. I believe this is a problem that can be addressed if we can give those migrant workers access, when they come to Australia, to information about what their employment rights actually are. Otherwise, we have the law enforcement facilities in place and we have the regulatory facilities in place, but we just need to work on, perhaps, the informational remedies to make sure that those people coming into the country fully know their rights so they are not at risk of exploitation.
On the issue of sexual servitude, the committee didn't find many problems in this area. There are a few minor reports, but that didn't seem to be something that needed more regulatory reach.
Forced marriage was an issue that was of particular concern to me and also to other members of the committee. We did find that the evidence is that this is a growing problem in our society. Again, I think the best way to tackle this is through information rather than through further legislation. The legislation is there and the enforcement procedures are there. It gets back to making sure that we inform Australians of exactly what the law is. One area where I think that we could particularly improve is when new migrants come to this country, because the reality is that, for migrants from some parts of the world, what we call underage marriage in Australia is something that is customary in their countries. Without defending the people who have been engaged in underage marriages, I am sure that they did not actually realise that they were doing something wrong and in breach of Australian law. If this is something that's been common throughout their culture—it may have been their parents', grandparents' or great grandparents' culture—and underage marriage was the way things were done back in their homeland then, when they come to Australia, unless they are specifically informed that the laws we have in Australia are substantially different from what the laws may be in their home country or the customs may be in part of their home country, this problem is something that is likely to continue. Therefore, the recommendations we have made in respect of that are for greater education of migrants who come to this country so that they are aware of Australia's laws in relation to underage and forced marriages.
The UK's Modern Slavery Act 2015 was brought to our attention and we looked at it closely. Our concern was that a lot of steps in it create a great deal of regulatory and red tape burden for business, and it is not clear that it actually has any practical effect. One of the concerns we particularly had was the way it would require businesses to almost certify that their supply chain was free of slavery-like practices. I can tell you from my own experiences of sourcing components and products throughout South-East Asia that it is very difficult. When you go to a certain place, you have subcontractors who are subcontracting to subcontractors who are subcontracting to other subcontractors. It is very difficult for any small or medium-sized business when they are dealing with an overseas supplier. They may be able to guarantee that supplier, but to go back through that supplier's production chain all the way back to the raw materials is virtually impossible. It may be possible for some very large companies to do this, but for small and medium-sized businesses I do not think it is practical. I think the costs of doing it are actually likely to be counterproductive. The thing that business want most from an overseas supplier is a supplier who can supply them with goods that are of high quality and deliver them on time. Any business or supply chain that is relying on slavery-like practices will simply not be able to deliver that.
by leave—I want to thank the member for Hughes for his leadership of the committee and also for the words that he has spoken today. We get a lot of feedback in this parliament about some of the behaviour around the place and some of the yelling and screaming that goes on in Question Time, but what a lot of people at home and those up in the gallery probably don't see a lot of is the quite collaborative work that happens in the Parliamentary committee process. I'm very lucky to have recently joined the committee that's delivering the report today, though I only did so at the very end of the process, but I am able to provide a few comments, on behalf of those of us who sit on this side of the chamber, on the issues that were raised in this report into human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices. It's a very important issue to bring to light through processes like this one, because I think many Australians are of the view that slavery is something that we left behind a long time ago. To the extent that it exists, people probably feel that it's very, very remote from their lives, but it's actually not. The evidence that was taken in this inquiry showed quite clearly that slavery is much closer to us than most people realise. Indeed, there are some 4,300 people right here in Australia who are literally enslaved in some fashion or another.
When we look out to the world more broadly, 40 million people today are trapped in slavery. That's more slaves than there have ever been before in human history. So I think it's pretty clear that it's imperative that countries like Australia step up and do what we can to try to make this problem smaller and to abolish it altogether.
The other thing that makes this relevant to our lives, as Australians, is that the lives of a lot of people who are in slavery and the lives that we lead in this country are actually intertwined, because what we know is that a lot of people who are enslaved around the world are working in the supply chains of products and services that you and I use every day. Now, it should not be the case that an Australian can go into a retailer, a supermarket, in this country and pick up a product and not be able to guarantee that no-one has existed in slavery in the supply chain of that product, and yet we cannot do that. In fact, we know that this is not the case. So I think the moral obligation that we have as a country to stop this horrific practice is absolutely clear.
The report that has been tabled today looked at a whole range of different issues, and I'm very proud of the role that Labor has played in this debate over the previous years. In fact, some of the provisions that exist in our Crimes Act today to outlaw slavery in Australia were pioneered by the previous Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, Mark Dreyfus, who happens to be here with us in the chamber today. This is a person who can be very proud of the work that has been done to make sure that we have really tough, strong laws in Australia. But the report points out some things that we might be able to do even better, and we're looking forward to seeing those go forward.
The member for Hughes talked, in his remarks, about the idea of Australia having a modern slavery act, and I do want to clarify some things that he noted. I want to make this really clear: under a Labor government we would like to see a modern slavery act enacted in Australia. That is Labor policy. That would mean that companies that are operating in this country, protected by our laws and using the incredible wealth of the citizens of this country, must step up and do what they can to ensure that there is no slavery in their supply chains. It's not red tape, because it's not red tape when we're talking about, literally, the enslavement of other human beings. This is one of the most horrendous crimes that can be committed. All we are saying is that big companies around this country should have some handle on what is going on in their supply chains.
I respect the member for Hughes a great deal, but I have to note that some of what he described about a modern slavery act was incorrect. It does not mean that every company operating in this country has to know what's going on in the supplier of the supplier of the supplier. All we are asking is that companies look and take precautions. I think that is a very fair ask, especially in the instance we are talking about, which is a depraved act. It is something which—and I think everyone in this chamber shares this view—should be stamped out. We should be doing everything we can to abolish this practice.
The modern slavery act is but one piece of the puzzle here. The report makes it clear that there is a lot more that we need to do in this space. Some of the things that the report talked about were, for example, proper funding for the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery. The report recommended increased numbers of Australian Federal Police officers with specialised training in the Crimes Act and how to identify those provisions when they see them on the ground.
I do want to talk about one of the biggest holes, if you like, in the way that we are managing slavery in this country at the moment. We have mentioned that we have some really good laws in our Crimes Act, and some of those were executed by Labor over its previous life in government. But we see very poor episodes of enforcement and conviction under those laws. There is no point in us having terrific statutes and talking, as we do at length, in this parliament about the meaning of those statutes if on the ground they are not being implemented and not being enforced. That is unfortunately what we see when we have this discussion about slavery. What we know is that between 2011 and 2016, 604 human trafficking and slavery investigations and referrals were made to the relevant authorities, and seven resulted in a conviction. Now, that is just not good enough. We know there are thousands of people in this country who are enslaved and there are hundreds who are being referred to the relevant authorities, and yet seven convictions were recorded over a five-year period. That is not good enough. The report makes that clear. I want us to use this as the ignition for a bipartisan conversation about how we can do this better because I think it's very clear that we can.
One of the other recommendations that was made is for the establishment of an independent anti-slavery commissioner. Again, this is Labor policy. We believe it is urgent that someone be appointed to oversee what is happening in this area. It is an area where there is a lot of policy being discussed and debated, but we are not seeing much oversight as to how effective that policy is on the ground. This is also a person who would advocate for Australia's interests overseas. We do not want a modern slavery act in Australia to put Australian businesses at risk—absolutely not. We want to lead this. We want to see this happening right across the globe, and having an Australian anti-slavery commissioner would ensure that we are represented at the relevant international forums and represented here in Australia—having a strong voice, pointing out where we can make improvements in the law and working with the very active non-profits who are working with people who have been victims of slavery in Australia.
I am very pleased to see that there is a lot of support for fighting this horrendous crime. We should always call it what it is: a crime. This is clearly against the law in Australia, but there is so much more that we need to do. I want to see this parliament use the report that has been tabled today to join together all the different political parties in the fight against this horrible act.
Does the member for Hughes wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 7 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 2011the 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 majority of new bills considered in this report—14—were assessed as promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights. These 14 bills are therefore listed as raising no human rights concerns.
This report also concludes the committee's examination of the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2016. The committee's examination of these directions is testament to the constructive role that the committee is playing in identifying particular technical human rights issues and engaging in constructive dialogue. The committee previously raised concerns about the compatibility of the directions with the right to privacy and wrote to the Australian Public Service Commissioner about this issue. The commissioner's response noted that the committee's report raised valid questions about whether the limitation on the right to privacy imposed by the directions was a proportionate measure for upholding integrity in the Australian Public Service and undertook to conduct a review into these matters. The commissioner has now informed the committee that, following the review, new arrangements have been adopted that address the compatibility of the directions with the right to privacy. Such action is applauded.
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 No. 7 of 2017 to the chamber.
Labor supports this bill. We recognise there is a genuine risk, which has been thoroughly tested, that our higher education system could be targeted by unscrupulous providers. Labor believes in vocational training and education and in the people who rely on it to contribute to society. We have always stood up for TAFE and the vocational educational system because we know how life-changing these courses can be. As a proud TAFE graduate, I can attest to this. Unlike those opposite, we are in the business of improving the standard of living for ordinary Australians, not taking every single opportunity to reduce it. We are about ensuring that Australia's world-class higher education system, and our students, are properly protected. That is absolutely critical to its ongoing success.
The reforms that are proposed in this bill rightly acknowledge that there has been a surge in applications from vocational education providers to become higher education providers. We are seeing this surge because people want choices to skill themselves, choices other than just universities. Not everybody wants to go to university and not everybody needs to go to university to be successful. Sadly, the Turnbull government does not believe in vocational training. The runs are on the board for the conservatives: TAFE has been gutted, there are plummeting enrolments and 5,700 world-class TAFE teachers and support staff have been sacked since 2012—and I reiterate the support staff.
The government and New South Wales state Liberals have made an art form of killing the TAFE system, and the result has been an increase in private operators, resulting in shonky providers who think they can game the system. As I previously mentioned in this House, under the Liberals we have seen the sector ripped off and defrauded. Students have been signed up to fake courses; vulnerable people have been enrolled in completely inappropriate courses; and young people have been tricked into taking on significant debt with no personal gain or return, nor any ability to repay. People have been bribed with iPads. These are vulnerable people—young people, sometimes people with a disability—and they are made to sign up to courses that they have no intention of participating in or completing, nor do they have the ability to complete the courses. We know of vulnerable people tricked into enrolling in classes where the completion rate was less than five per cent. We know of employers who refuse to employ people who have certifications from certain institutions.
Without a strong and effective VET sector, many people in my electorate will not be able to reach their full potential and, therefore, will not be able to contribute to society as much as they otherwise would. That means we all lose. Businesses will have fewer skilled workers to employ and we will have more people relying on social benefits rather than participating in the workforce—two things those opposite continually bang on about in this place.
Good private providers are all well and good, but we know that the bottom line for some of them is profit, not good educational outcomes. The government needs to understand that education is an investment, not a burden. TAFE course fees are rapidly rising, and hundreds of thousands of people are being locked out of courses that could change their lives. Millions of dollars of taxpayer funds have been spent on courses where the qualification was not worth the piece of paper it was written on. I am pleased then to see that this bill will go some way towards making the safeguards and protections necessary for students, but I remain concerned about the impact on students already affected. You cannot have jobs and growth without investment in education; businesses know this and employers know this. Those of us who have been educated know this. But the government is silent on this. The Liberals are saddling our youth with debt and making them put their hand in their pocket even before they start earning more than the minimum wage. If it isn't TAFEs, then it's universities and public schools where the government also wants to hurt students.
The government will have your hand in your pocket earlier by charging higher fees and cutting university funding at the same time, not to mention stopping K-12 classrooms from reaching their full Gonski funding allocation and ensuring that every classroom, no matter the postcode, has the resourcing standards it needs. The Prime Minister and the government are only interested in increasing disadvantage. We saw that today through the MPI. We need opportunities for our young people. This can only be achieved with a strong VET system. We welcome the greater scrutiny but would like to see a restored TAFE sector, where everyone gets the opportunity to participate in our society.
Just prior to question time I had the opportunity to go to my alma mater, the Australian National University. I was there to take part in the national day of protest that is taking place in every campus right across Australia to protest the attacks that this government has made on the higher education sector. These attacks have been sustained, they have been ongoing since the last government, and we saw them reach a heady height in 2014. But today was about the latest round of cuts taking place across our university campuses throughout Australia. Today we protested against the $3.8 billion of cuts to universities right throughout Australia, including $14 million at the Australian National University and $15 million at the University of Canberra over the next four years. The cuts are going to be taking place in universities right throughout Australia. There is not one university that is going to be immune from the Turnbull government's cuts.
But it is not just about cuts to funding; it is also about the other changes that this government has made. These changes, billed as 'reforms', are nothing but attacks on students, universities and our future. Higher education is one of the keys to a prosperous nation, a prosperous future. The attacks this government is making are attacks on the prosperity of this nation in the future. We were talking about these attacks at today's national day of protest at the Australian National University, which is in my electorate. As I said, there are cuts to the ANU, the University of Canberra and every campus right across Australia.
We are also seeing an attack on students living in the regions, which should be of significant concern to those in the National Party. But have we heard boo from the National Party in regard to the attack on regional students and their funding at the higher education level? No. We are also seeing cuts to Indigenous students' access to university. We are seeing an attack on those low- and middle-income families who are trying to gain a university education. Many of them are trying to be the first in their family to gain a university education. I was the first member of my family to be educated at university. My sisters and I were the first generation in my family—on both my father's side and my mother's side—to be educated at the tertiary level. That was thanks to the changes the Whitlam government introduced—free education—and also to my mother's tenacity and her commitment to seeing her girls educated beyond just the age of 15. But that's a whole different story.
Today the discussion at this national protest at the ANU and at every campus across Australia also focused on the fact that university students' fees are being hiked—they are going up thanks to this government—and also that university students are going to have to pay back their loan for their fees earlier. Does that make for a clever country? In a country that will need to compete, we will need people to be educated at the tertiary level and the postgraduate level to achieve the ambitions that we have as a nation to be able to compete in a global economy in a globalised world. We need a clever country to do that. And what's this government doing? Through these cuts to the universities and to students—including regional students, Indigenous students, women and low- and middle-income earners—it is essentially making the country less competitive in the future. And it's condemning students—particularly low- and middle-income earners, women, Indigenous students and regional students—to a debt sentence in terms of their higher education. This government is chasing the American dream when it comes to university fees. University fees are potentially $100,000 per degree. Is that what we want for our nation?
So I was at my alma mater, protesting these cuts and speaking to students and those from the academic staff who are very concerned about what this government's plans are for higher education. While I was there, one of the women who was there, who was doing the introduction before I spoke, mentioned the fact I was a former ANU student When I was at the ANU in the early 80s, which is a long, long time ago, only about five per cent of Australians went to university. I was a rare beast, a public schoolkid at university and living at a college there. I was a rare beast. In those days, as I said, about five per cent of Australians went to university. Thanks to the range of changes and reforms that Labor made over the course of the eighties, we saw significant changes in the accessibility of higher education and also the numbers and the percentage of Australians who were getting involved in tertiary education. So it rose from about five per cent in the early eighties to about 30 or 40 per cent, which I think it is now.
What this government is doing with these cuts to the higher education sector is essentially taking us back to those early days, when in my view too few Australians were participating in higher education and too few Australians had the opportunity to access the transformative powers of education. For me it broke intergenerational poverty. It broke three generations of disadvantage, of single mothers cleaning houses, theatres and hospitals. That's what tertiary education did for my sisters and me, in opening up a range of opportunities, and I want those opportunities to be provided to Australians throughout the country, in little country towns in remote parts of Australia, for Indigenous students, for Aboriginal students, for Torres Strait Islander students, for women, for students from low-income backgrounds and for students who have been brought up through the hardworking tenacity of their single mothers. I want them to have access to higher education, as I had that opportunity, because it transformed my life and the lives of my sisters.
Today at my alma mater I was also reminded of my former alma mater, the grand old Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, the oldest workers college in the world and, in a way, probably the oldest TAFE in the world—the oldest school of vocational education in the world. I was also educated at that fine institution, which has made a significant contribution to vocational education in this country for more than 100 years. And this bill that we're talking about today does look at the vocational education environment. It strengthens the regulation of Australia's higher education system, the application standards of providers of higher education and the provision of the FEE-HELP loan program. These changes are necessary. We have heard from many speakers about what has happened in this area for quite some time, and change is needed.
We've heard evidence about the number of students that have fallen victim to unscrupulous marketing activities from providers—bribes of iPads, trips overseas and all sorts of things. We have also heard evidence of the unscrupulous tactics employed by providers in obtaining access to tax file numbers from the Australian Taxation Office which led to $2.2 billion being lost through the VET FEE-HELP system. The fact that $2.2 billion was lost raises questions about the effectiveness of the existing regulatory arrangement and highlighted the need for change.
This bill amends key legislation governing higher and international education to strengthen regulatory control and student protections in these sectors. Amendments to the three separate acts underpinning Australia's higher education framework will bolster enforcement powers and the oversight capabilities of relevant regulatory authorities. This will allow them to intervene as necessary to ensure that the unscrupulous events we saw happen with the VET FEE-HELP system don't happen again in any part of our higher education sector.
It is important we support a strong and healthy higher education regulatory system, and Labor welcomes greater scrutiny of the background of organisations that apply to operate in our higher education system. It is vitally important. This is a major export industry, and we need regulations in place to ensure that our reputation is not tarnished. It's a major export industry for Australia, and I know it is for Canberra. Today I spoke about the export opportunities that are provided by our fine institutions here in Canberra—the Australian National University, the University of Canberra and the Canberra Institute of Technology—as well as by a number of private outfits that are, in a small way, exporting their services around the region and the world.
The protection of our world-class higher education system and of our students is absolutely critical to the success of this export industry. It's an enormous export industry and it is growing. Our biggest provider of vocational education in the ACT is the Canberra Institute of Technology, which trains 80 per cent of the territory's government funded vocational education students every year, with some courses offering pathways into university.
Canberra also has excellent smaller training providers, like the Academy of Interactive Entertainment. The AIE is a specialist video games and visual effects educator that was established by industry 20 years ago. It's a not-for-profit institution that re-invests surplus funds into providing first-class equipment, facilities and support for graduates. The AIE has won awards in the training sector. It has won the Small Training Provider of the Year—not once but twice—as well as the Small Registered Training Organisation of the Year and the ACT Training Excellence Award.
The AIE has been in contact with me and is concerned about the rapid changes in this sector, particularly in relation to the VET student loans system introduced in January this year. One of the key concerns is the upfront costs that students face and the limitations of loan caps. The AIE said in a letter to me that AIE courses are expensive due to the technological and professional requirements needed to provide our students with the standard of qualification that industry expects. The advanced diplomas have an added difficulty, in that students study for two years. However, none of these factors are incorporated into calculations of loan caps. As a result of the system, which provides a maximum loan of $10,000, students presently have to finance nearly 75 per cent of their studies upfront.
Allowing students to have the confidence to take on a debt to study is extremely important if we want the vocational education training system to grow and to provide quality education to students. But I hold concerns about the impact that the loan caps may have on certain training campuses and/or providers, as described by the AIE. The AIE have indicated that, unless the loan cap is extended or it's able to receive an exemption, they will be forced to reduce student numbers. They will have to lay off staff and they will have to provide less intensive, lower quality course content, which would be an extremely disappointing outcome for the AIE, which is an award-winning training provider in an innovative, growing and burgeoning industry.
It's perhaps to these escalating costs that the latest figures from the Productivity Commission for government funded vocational and educational training in the ACT can be attributed. The figures showed that the number of students in education and training programs had actually fallen from 45 per cent from 2011 to 2015 with the qualification completion rate estimated to be at 40 per cent, slightly higher than the national completion rate of 38 per cent. The increasing cost of higher education is a limiting factor for students and will ultimately hobble Australia's economic growth in the longer term and our economic success as fewer students complete higher education qualifications overall.
Labor knows that one of the best things we can do for our economy, for our nation, for our prosperity, for our society and for our future is to invest in our people. That's why we want early childhood learning, school, TAFE and universities for all Australians. Labor is committed to the full and proper funding of our education system. It is vitally important, as we go through a transition for the global economy and for the domestic economy, to invest in the future.
I rise with pleasure to support the Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2017 as it strengthens integrity in vocational and higher education. It updates the 'fit and proper persons' provisions, strengthens processes around the assessment of provider histories and provides additional powers for the department secretary to share information with agencies and the Overseas Students Ombudsman. It prohibits unscrupulous marketing practices—we all remember the scandal of inducements such as free iPads and gym memberships—it stops cold-calling and it puts an end to barriers being imposed on students' desire to withdraw from study. The amendment also changes the definition of 'genuine student' for the purposes of accessing FEE-HELP, improves compliance arrangements and provider application requirements, and increases financial viability and financial transparency agreements.
Labor supports these measures because Labor wants a stronger vocational and higher education sector. Labor also fully supports a robust and rigorous higher education regulatory system. We welcome greater scrutiny on the background of organisations that seek the privilege of operating in Australia's higher education system. Indeed, Labor recognises the vocational and higher education sectors as vital to Australia's economic growth. Australia's economy is changing fast, and the skills that Australian will need to win well-paid and secure jobs are changing fast too. As a mining company executive told a hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on the NBN in Tasmania recently, he no longer needs people skilled with spanners, but people skilled in computing and diagnostics.
Australia needs to invest in education, skills and training that will drive 21st century enterprise, which makes the government's budget this year so inexplicable. In this year's budget the government is cutting another $600 million from TAFE and apprentices, $3.8 billion from universities—including $30 million from the University of Tasmania—and $17 billion from schools. Australia now has 130,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than when the government was elected. When it comes to higher education, this is a government that wants to increase students' fees at the same time as it slugs students' incomes and cuts investment in universities. Repayment of HECS fees is kicking in, I think, at $42,000 a year, which is well under the average weekly wage, so it's widening the income inequality gap that has been in so much talk recently. That's not a good thing when we want to invest in education. We are making it harder for kids from working class areas and regional and remote communities to get into university. We are making it hard for them to contemplate the very idea that university is an option for them; they won't even consider it with the high debt that they are expected to go into. Once again, we run the risk of university education in this country being the preserve of the upper middle class and the well-off—people with high incomes and access to capital—rather than kids from working class suburbs like the suburb I grew up in.
The cuts in public funding are expected to result in between 7,000 and 9,500 full-time equivalent job losses across our universities. These are jobs we can ill afford to lose. It's a classic case of pay more and get less—a bit like the NBN, I suppose. Another witness told the NBN committee that the NBN was costing $60 billion to roll out, but would be worth just half that on the open market. These are not results to be proud of. These are not the numbers of a government committed to an education sector designed to deliver the skills and training required for full participation in the 21st century. TAFE and vocational education funding and the number of supported students are all lower than they were a decade ago, and this is despite an increase in the number of jobs requiring vocational skills. Too much of the shortfall has been made up by the importation of workers on visas, and that is another issue Labor will address in government—that is, ensuring that a better balance is struck.
The next Labor government will reverse this government's cuts to skills and training, and invest in TAFE and apprenticeships by investing an additional $637.6 million into TAFE and vocational education—reversing the government's 2017 budget cuts in full. We will guarantee at least two-thirds of public vocational education funding goes to TAFE, restoring TAFE as the central pillar of Australia's vocational educational system. We will invest $100 million in a new 'building TAFE for the future' fund to re-establish TAFE facilities in regional communities, such as my electorate of Lyons in Tasmania, to meet local industry needs and support teaching for Australia's digital economy. Labor will set a target to ensure that one in 10 workers on all Commonwealth priority projects and major government business enterprise projects is an apprentice. We will invest in pre-apprenticeship programs, preparing up to 10,000 young jobseekers to start an apprenticeship—a real apprenticeship, not this 'job pathway' fraud that is being perpetrated on young people by this government. We will establish an advanced entry adult apprenticeships program to fast-track apprenticeships for up to 20,000 people facing redundancy or whose jobs have been lost.
With these comprehensive measures, Labor will reverse the decline in TAFE and apprenticeship programs and provide young Australians the pathways they need to contribute to Australia's economic growth in the 21st century. Currently those pathways are littered with shonks and rorters, and that is why Labor is happy to support this bill. It is a sad fact of life that public policymakers seem to always be surprised by the slyness of shonks, who are willing to damage other people in order to advance their own economic self-interest. If there is one lesson that can be learnt when it comes to developing public policy, it is to design much more defensively—especially when it comes to policies that involve public expenditure. Policymakers, whether in departments or in this parliament, need to role-play and cast themselves as crooks and conmen and seek to exploit their draft policies for personal gain so that they can plug those gaps that are identified.
Good people who wish to believe that others act only for the common good find it difficult to comprehend sometimes that well-intentioned policies can be misappropriated by cons and crooks. But the fact is there are people out there adept at sniffing out how to get their hands on public money. They find the loopholes, they exploit the policy weaknesses and they pounce. Sadly, this was the case when, with the best of intentions, access to VET FEE-HELP was extended to include diplomas and a broader range of providers. The shonks cottoned on that if they signed people up to courses they could be paid by the government for the placements. These bloodsuckers engaged agents on commission to trawl the outer suburbs of Australia's cities to sign up new students by using heavy selling techniques, like those they used on Bradley Smith from Clarendon Vale—a working class outer suburb of Hobart in Tasmania.
Despite having struggled at school, Bradley was told that, if he signed up for a three-year diploma in business management, he would get a free iPad. The small print was that it would cost $26,000 in fees, but he would not have to repay those fees until he started earning more than $50,000 in income. Luckily, Bradley's mum showed the salesperson the door before Bradley signed. But there are thousands of Bradleys across Australia who were not so lucky, who were signed up for courses they had little hope of attending, let alone completing, but who were then on the hook for the repayment if they ever earned enough to commence the repayments. Students were signed up in their tens of thousands across all sorts of providers, a number of them completely new to the sector.
Soon it became clear that far too often what was being offered bore little relation to what was being delivered. The training regulator pulled the reins and started demanding proof from providers that they were delivering the courses they were selling. Access to public funding was cut, unless proof was forthcoming. And, like dominos, they started to fall. Provider after provider was either ordered to cease trading or went bust. Careers Australia, Smart City, RGIT and Avoca are some of the bigger names to have fallen. The victims are the staff left without jobs and the students left without courses, diplomas or degrees but with fees still to repay.
The National Audit Office has been damning of the education department's handling of the issue. There was no concerted effort to deal with the emerging problems until after last year, when allocations under the scheme reached $2.9 billion. Now more than $2 billion has been essentially written off, has disappeared into the accounts of shonks, but the course fee debts have not been forgiven for students left without courses to complete. Staff without jobs and students without courses are the victims in all this. Labor is backing this bill because we need to ensure it does not happen again.
Phil Honeywood, chief executive of the International Education Association, is backing the changes, saying the inclusion of reporting on agent performance would 'promote greater transparency and accountability in educator-agent relationships in the wider sector'. While positive, he also cautions there is a need for ongoing vigilance to protect Australia's international education brand and to close the loopholes that wrongly motivate education providers. He said:
Even if providers abide by all existing legislative and regulatory requirements, in seeking to maximise their enrolments they can often encourage a 'race to the bottom' with abnormally low tuition fees particularly for business studies/accounting courses …
By the time these providers have paid large commissions to education agents their tuition fee structure is only sustainable if they cut corners on quality.
And quality is something we must not skimp on—for the sake of students, but also for the sake of our international education reputation and, more broadly, our economy. We must not allow the reputation of our education sector to slip. Last year, education export earnings generated $21.8 billion for the Australian economy. That level of earnings demands both serious investment from the government and serious regulation. We must ensure the sector is managed properly. Labor does support better protections for students, and a crackdown on dodgy practices. But we also have serious concerns about the implementation under this government. After all, this is not a government that covers itself in glory when it comes to competent management. Whether it is water, the NBN, the census, Centrelink or marriage equality, this government has shown it cannot be trusted to manage the details.
Students of failed institutions do have access to the VET ombudsman, if they are made aware of it, to assist with issues like transitioning their course to another facility. Establishing an ombudsman to help these students get justice was Labor policy at the last election, and we are pleased to have won government support in this parliament to see it established. Sadly, students accessing FEE-HELP at other providers have also been affected by the government's tightening of the VET sector. The government's decision to cull 478 courses from the list of those eligible for FEE-HELP assistance, whether students were partway through the course or not, has had real impacts. Students in affected courses have had to decide to either complete their course by paying the rest of their fees up-front, or to drop out and start something else while remaining liable for the FEE-HELP fees incurred for the abandoned course. There was no warning given and no time to make alternative arrangements. Teachers were affected too because their courses were suddenly up-front fees only, leading to massive drop-out rates. Some were left to carry the can, having personally invested heavily in expensive teaching materials. Irrespective of one's judgement of the value of a course, it's unfair to tell a student that their course is covered and then pull the rug out from under them. Our young people and our teachers deserve more respect than that.
Labor has repeatedly raised concerns over the jobs that will be lost, the students who will be disadvantaged and the career pathways that will be blocked if the government fails to implement reforms thoughtfully and with care. Labor is concerned that the methodology employed by the government to determine the eligible course list is too simplistic and blunt and the consequences for many students and providers are too extreme. The government needs to ensure that it continues to properly consult with the sector about the changes, and Labor is concerned that this is not being done. The government needs to ensure it is providing the higher education regulator with adequate resources to do its job. Labor believes the government has been negligent by failing to act on the rorting within the system for far too long. This bill goes some way to addressing that negligence, and that's why we are happy to support it.
Finally we have seen some action taken to address this very serious issue. After months of Labor lobbying the Turnbull government, after months of students lobbying and after what feels like a lifetime of lobbying from TAFE, the Turnbull government has finally listened to our calls and is finally doing something. Protecting our students should not have taken this much effort and lobbying. The evidence of unscrupulous marketing tactics used by some dodgy registered training organisations is overwhelming and disgraceful. Action needed to be taken to protect the reputation of our vocational education and training system, and that is what the Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2017 seeks to provide.
Education, and especially vocational educational training, is vital to the future of our country. We know that the jobs of the future will require new skill sets, and that can only be achieved by a strong and well funded vocational education and training sector. Identification of transferable skills and gap training will be essential in a fair transition for workers into new industries. As demand grows, there is always a growing potential risk that our higher education and TAFE systems could be targets for unscrupulous providers.
As a former TAFE teacher and curriculum designer I am proud to say that Australia has one of the greatest higher education systems in the world. I am particularly proud to have James Cook University in my electorate. It is ranked No. 1 in the world for two separate studies in the area of tropical sciences. This is something that no other university in Australia can lay claim to. Townsville is also home to Central Queensland University, where great educational facilities and programs are being developed and delivered. Ensuring our students have access to quality education is critical, and protecting our students from dodgy operators is also crucial to our ongoing success in providing quality education and training programs.
I have had students from former dodgy operators in the North coming to my office in tears because, through no fault of the students' own, an operator had closed its doors and simply disappeared overnight. These students are scared that they will have to start their courses again, as they do not know how to transition to another provider, if, in fact, they can. Some are angry about the extended periods of unpaid work experience and others are incredibly distressed about what it means when they have been accessing VET FEE-HELP. One student who came into my office had been trying for 12 months to get the last component of her Certificate III in Community Services—the field placement component—completed. She had been working for most of that 12 months in a voluntary capacity and she had a paid job waiting, but, sadly, she needed her completed qualification. It took me half an hour on the phone, with her in my office providing information, to sort out the mess that she was in. That was only possible because I have knowledge of the vocational education training sector. Her field placement was organised for the next week, her certificate is now completed and she is in paid work. No student should have to come to their local federal member to sort out a problem of this nature, because it should never happen in the first place.
Students who access VET FEE-HELP pay a 25 per cent loan fee, meaning that if they defer their fees they effectively defer 125 per cent of the cost of their course.
In many cases, the costs for full-fee higher education programs can range from $18,000 to $35,000 per year. Students who are willing to take on a debt in the hope of achieving a good job and a better life need every assurance and protection from the government. We need to provide these students with the confidence that there is a robust and rigorous higher education regulatory system.
Let me give you another example. As the CEO of a community managed mental health organisation with an office on Palm Island, I had staff and a person who was using the service signed up by a dodgy operator. The person that we were supporting in that service had an acquired brain injury and a complex mental health condition, and he had not been to high school, yet he was able to be signed into a double diploma of management and welfare work that he would be required to complete online. He was offered a free laptop and free internet, but sadly the internet provider that he was given did not operate on Palm Island. The staff working for me were also signed into the same dual diplomas.
When I asked the provider how they would do their four-week field placement, he informed me that Woolworths had offered spaces. There was no consideration for relevancy or the context of the learning environment, their accommodation or the fact that they would be away from home. This provider had simply gone to Palm Island and sold training qualifications to the locals with the offer of a free laptop and internet and no checks on educational history or capacity to undertake diploma level training. The students had no idea of the cooling-off period or the debt they were incurring regarding their VET FEE-HELP either.
For all of those students who have contacted my office and are victims of dodgy operators, I am proud to support the Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2017. These are great examples of why I welcome any additional focus on greater scrutiny being placed on the background of organisations who wish to operate in our higher education sector.
The reforms proposed in this bill rightly acknowledge that there has been a surge in applications from vocational education and training providers to become higher education providers. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency has described the number of applications as a surge, with more than 70 per cent of new applicants to become registered higher education providers having previously been vocational education and training providers. These higher education providers, which are almost entirely private providers, once registered, can then apply to the department for access to FEE-HELP. And this is where the dodgy providers have been rorting our system. An audit report has been provided which says that the Australian tax office was handing out thousands of tax file numbers directly to providers. The Government Actuary has identified nearly $1.2 billion in VET loans that were inappropriately issued, and it is likely that unauthorised access to tax file numbers has been a significant contributor to this situation.
It is unconscionable that this has occurred, and that is what this bill seeks to put an end to. The provisions in this bill will stop providers being able to access tax file numbers from the ATO in the future, and it is also designed to prevent providers from completing any component of the student's request for Commonwealth assistance. I strongly support this vital change, and I am also strongly supportive of the range of civil penalties that have been included for all providers who choose to breach provisions.
The three major changes that this bill seeks to rectify are correctly identified across a number of acts and will strengthen the regulation of the higher education system. Schedule 1 amends the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 to strengthen a range of provisions including updating the fit-and-proper-person test provision, changes to reporting requirements, and providing additional powers to the Secretary of the Department of Education and Training to share information with the Overseas Students Ombudsman and other agencies.
Schedule 2 amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 to strengthen processes around assessing provider history, extends the fit-and-proper-person test for providers at application and also makes a number of technical amendments.
The amendments in Schedule 3 to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 will strengthen student protections by prohibiting unscrupulous marketing practices and barriers to withdrawal from study. The amendment bill also changes the definition of 'genuine student' for the purposes of accessing FEE-HELP, improves compliance arrangement and provider application requirements and increases financial viability and financial transparency agreements.
This protection is vital to students in Herbert, where a number of students were not fully aware of what they were signing up to except for the marketing tactic of a free iPad or laptop. As I have demonstrated earlier in this speech, that is exactly what has been happening in my electorate of Herbert. Consequently, I am pleased to see that providers of this nature have gone. But, sadly, they have left behind devastated students in their wake.
Whilst I am strongly supportive of a robust and rigorous higher education regulatory system, I want to note a few sections in this bill that I am concerned about—especially under the Turnbull government. In particular, sections 16 to 60 and section 26. Sections 16 to 60 are new provisions that may allow the minister unfettered power to decide which courses are funded and which are not. I am confident that if the minister for education were the Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP in a Shorten-led government, I would know that funding for quality education and funding for students to access education would be in very safe hands. Sadly, that is not the case right now, as we have an LNP Turnbull government and the Minister for Education and Training is Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham. Quite frankly, this government's track record regarding meaningful industry consultation, funding for education and the general attack on students concerns me greatly.
There is also section 26, which means that students who fail units of study may lose their eligibility to access FEE-HELP. Adequately addressing this section will require very good consultation with students and well-thought-out consideration before decisions are made to penalise students. My experience has taught me that there are often many significant and valid reasons as to why a student has failed a subject. There could be serious financial stress, family issues, unemployment and the list simply goes on. A student cannot have financial assistance one day and none the next and perform well under assessment conditions. This could further add to any stresses currently occurring in that person's life. As a government we should be working to ensure that everybody has the ability to access further education, and consultation will be critical to this section.
The objective of this bill is to strengthen application standards for providers in higher education and to strengthen provisions for the FEE-HELP loan program, which is critical in protecting the integrity of our higher education system. Labor will always protect our education system. As elected representatives it is up to us to ensure that our proud tradition of an excellent higher education sector is protected, and, as such, we must enact legislation that does just that. I am proud to support this bill to ensure that no-one is ever a victim to a dodgy private training provider again.
I rise today to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2017. This bill makes changes to key legislation in order to strengthen the regulation of Australia's higher education system, including the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 and the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000. Its objective is to strengthen application standards for providers in higher education and to strengthen provisions for the FEE-HELP loan program.
It has become clear in recent years that unscrupulous vocational education providers have taken advantage of this system and of students, and, insofar as this bill acts to reduce the risk to students and taxpayers, Labor will be supporting it. This legislation is designed to address the risk that education providers may choose to target higher education as an alternative to vocational education. There is, in my submission, a systemic risk that without attention to the regulation of the sector that bad practices, which have been address in the VET sector, may be allowed to propagate in the higher education sector. Indeed, there is a suggestion that action to address unscrupulous practices in the VET sector has resulted in a surge of VET providers, including some who have had their VET FEE-HELP approval revoked, seeking to transition their operations into the higher education and international education sectors.
Ensuring that Australia's world-class higher education system and our students are properly protected is absolutely critical to its ongoing success. The amendments contained in the bill increase the enforcement powers and oversight capability of relevant regulators, enabling them to intervene as necessary to prevent malicious practices across the higher and international education sectors. Labor fully supports a robust and rigorous higher education regulatory system.
It's very important to note that the higher education sector is Australia's largest service export, worth $21.8 billion in 2016. Indeed, it's very important for us to note the importance of higher education generally. There is, as has been reported in a number of economic reports, a spillover benefit to the Australian economy which arises merely from the presence of university graduates and higher education graduates in our economy. This is important because it drives the growth in the Australian economy. It results in additional employment. For example, for every 1,000 university graduates entering the workforce, over 120 new jobs are created for people without a university degree. In 2014-15 the effect of new graduates entering the Australian workforce created 25,000 additional new jobs for people without a university degree. So you can see it's vitally important that we continue to invest in the higher education sector, and the maintenance of high standards is an investment in reputation which bolsters and sustains the sector and Australia's reputation for high-quality education. Domestic and international students should be able to plan and consume these services with confidence that malicious practices and unscrupulous providers are subject to appropriately stringent controls.
We welcome the additional focus and the greater scrutiny placed on the background of organisations who wish to operate in our higher education system. For example, the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, the ESOS Act, is amended to update the 'fit and proper person' test provisions, changing reporting requirements and providing additional powers to the Secretary of the Department of Education and Training to share information with the Overseas Student Ombudsman and other agencies.
This bill allows also for the strengthening of processes around assessing provider histories, extending the 'fit and proper persons' test for providers at the point of application, and also making a number of technical amendments to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011. These particular amendments will enhance the TEQSA's compliance capability and introduce more stringent provider application requirements to better equip the TEQSA to implement robust student protection mechanisms.
I'm very pleased to note that among the amendments contained in schedule 2 there are additional financial viability and transparency requirements, which include requiring general-purpose financial statements for providers of a certain size, and amending the definition of 'qualified auditors' to ensure the auditor of a higher education provider's financial statements must be a registered auditor for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2001, or otherwise someone who is approved by the regulator. Further, we see that the Higher Education Support Act 2003 is amended to change the definition of 'genuine student' for the purposes of accessing FEE-HELP to ensure compliance arrangements and provider application requirements and to increase the financial viability and financial transparency of agreements.
Perhaps most importantly, the HESA is also amended to strengthen student protections by prohibiting unscrupulous marketing practices and barriers to withdrawal from study. Aggressive recruiting tactics by some private VET providers saw students persuaded into unsuitable courses with a promise of free iPads, gym memberships and more. The extent to which unreasonable and unscrupulous behaviour infected the VET sector has been well documented. Nevertheless, it is vitally important to reflect on just how corrosive and insidious these practices became, particularly when they were entrenched across a sector. Labor supports early attention to ensure these practices do not transmit to the higher education and overseas education sector.
When ASQA reviewed the marketing and advertising practices of the VET sector in 2013, it discovered widespread departures from reasonable standards. Specific breaches of the standards found in the review of marketing practice amongst registered training organisations examined in that review included: 59.3 per cent marketed qualifications in unrealistically short time frames or time frames that fell short of the volume of learning requirements of the Australian Qualifications Framework; 32.3 per cent had websites which enabled the collection of tuition fees in advance, and half of a sample of these websites allowed RTOs to collect fees in excess of the amounts allowed by the national standards and 60 per cent did not mention the RTO's refund policy; 11.8 per cent advertised superseded qualifications and 8.6 per cent engaged in potentially misleading or deceptive advertising, such as guaranteeing a qualification from undertaking their training, irrespective of the outcomes of assessment, and guaranteeing a job outcome from undertaking training, even though an RTO was in no position to ensure that somebody would get a job as a result of undertaking training.
Providers had been able to attract millions of dollars in loan support for domestic VET students, with little or no consideration given to the circumstances or the capability of these students to complete their courses. The introduction, therefore, of a 'genuine student' test is very important. For a student to be and remain entitled to FEE-HELP, they must be a genuine student in that they have been assessed as academically suited to undertaking the relevant unit of study and have had a reasonable unit completion rate.
There are, of course, other considerations which are relevant. For example, if a student does not have adequate English language skills to undertake higher education, this may affect their academic suitability to undertake a particular course. Australia's reputation for undertaking high quality education and training, as well as a moral imperative, requires regulation to ensure that debts, either through the FEE-HELP system or privately incurred, do not arise for units of study which are beyond a student's particular academic capability.
The experience of many in the VET sector is still instructive. My electorate office has been contacted by several constituents over the past 12 months who have been induced to enrol in VET courses. When they found themselves unable to complete the course, through no fault of their own, they were left with significant debts and facing an almost impossible withdrawal process. It is pleasing to note that there are integrity measures surrounding the completion of applications for Commonwealth assistance which are required to be completed by the student and also on withdrawal from the courses. The measures are intended to prevent and countermand issues which arose again in the VET sector and in the context of VET student loans, where unscrupulous providers at one extreme and the less scrupulous at the other, completed student requests for VET assistance without the student being fully aware of the details or their loan commitments. Similarly, there are provisions relating to students withdrawing from units of study.
The higher education provider guidelines will be permitted to prescribe, amongst other things, that fees are not charged by higher education providers for withdrawal, either generally or in specified circumstances. These should specify the requirements to be met in relation to a re-enrolment after a process of withdrawal and in relation to establishing and operating processes and procedures relating to students for withdrawal from units of study. This is all necessary to ensure that higher education providers will not create financial barriers for students withdrawing from a course. The guidelines will be amended to prescribe the processes and procedures that a provider must have in place for a student to withdraw from a course of study. These processes must not involve financial, administrative or other barriers to the withdrawal.
I need to make some general observations with respect to this side's commitment to higher education. As I indicated earlier, we, on this side, believe in and have an absolute commitment to investment in higher education for economic reasons. We believe that investment in higher education and education generally has a significant economic benefit to the nation. But it's not just an economic benefit. We believe that, when we invest in higher education, we are investing in the health of our communities and in transforming communities.
In the context of my electorate of Bass, and in the context of northern Tasmania, we know that we have an underperformance with the Tasmanian economy. We have communities that are mired in disadvantage in part because of the lack of educational attainment and in part because there's been an underinvestment in ensuring that people go on to either technical and further education or higher education. I have already referred to the economic flow-on effects that arise from investment in higher education. We know that simply the presence of higher education graduates in a market is a benefit to everyone within a community. We know that the evidence is that this creates jobs.
In the context of the investment in the university relocation project in Bass, we know that the ongoing jobs and employment that will be created within my community are very, very significant. In fact, the investment of some $300 million will drive jobs and growth for the next 10 or more years.
But what is this government's response with respect to investment within the higher education sector? Despite the fact that this government is quite appropriately investing in the university relocation project in Northern Tasmania—something which is vitally important for my community—we see that the University of Tasmania is receiving less funding. Its growth in funding over the next five to 10 years is severely reduced. I submit that that's as a result of this government's wrong priorities. They have prioritised cuts to income tax and cuts to corporate taxation instead of investing in education. When they talk about investment in education through Gonski 2.0, they are actually short-changing many communities throughout Australia, particularly the communities that are served by the member for Solomon, my friend, and also those within Tasmania. We know there is an underinvestment within those disadvantaged communities within the Northern Territory and Tasmania.
So, despite the obvious imperative to invest further in higher education, we have a government that is putting less money in expenditure in the higher education sector and increasing the rate at which graduates are required to repay their student loans when they graduate. I have said before that it is vitally important, particularly for disadvantaged communities like my community in Bass, that we see people take up the opportunity for higher education, that they invest not just in their future but in the future of our community. Any steps by this government to place barriers in front of people taking on higher education is a retrograde step.
I will start by thanking those who made considered and sensible contributions to the debate today. There were, however, a number of remarks made by some of the members opposite that I would actually like to correct by putting some facts clearly on the record. The Turnbull government is clearly committed to vocational education and skills. I would dispute the remarks from the previous Labour government because when they were in office they implemented nine successive cuts to employer incentives, totalling $1.2 billion. The result of that was that in their last year in office there was a significant decline in the number of apprentices—a drop which I believe is the single biggest drop in numbers. The number of apprentices dropped 110,000 in their last year in office.
We as a government have had to take some fairly considered and direct action to reverse those terrible cuts and the damage that those cuts made to vocational education and to apprenticeships in particular. The previous Labour government negotiated a deal with the states and territories: a national partnership agreement that ran from 2012 to the end of June 2017. It was a $1.75 billion agreement of which $1.15 billion went to harmonisation of structural issues within vocational education. Only $600 million of that went to direct training outcomes. During that time, we saw a significant decline in the number of apprentices. So coming off the 22 per cent, there was upwards of a 45 per cent drop in the number of apprentices in training. That was as a direct result of the action that the former Labor government took. It's important to note that, under that national partnership agreement, contestability was introduced into the system. During that time, TAFE enrolments declined from about 60 per cent to the high 40 per cents—a direct result of the action Labor took under the agreement they negotiated with the states and territories, the 2012-17 national partnership agreement.
It is interesting to sit here and listen to Labor speak about TAFE cuts when in fact the damage to TAFE was caused under their leadership, under their stewardship, under the agreement they negotiated. They would also be aware that the states and territories have responsibility for TAFE and for TAFE funding. But the changes that they implemented directly targeted TAFE's market share. It is time those opposite recognised that the damage that's been done to vocational education skills in this country was a direct result of the actions that they took in their last year in particular in government.
I have heard Labor talk about VET-FEE-HELP. It is fair to say that what we inherited was a dog's breakfast, that there were significant problems with the system that Labor designed and implemented. Over a number of years, we sought to make some changes to VET FEE-HELP to try and stop the rorting of the system that had been implemented by Labor. We did that until it became very clear that what he had inherited was actually so poor that we needed to replace the system in its entirety, which we have done. I am very pleased to say that the changes negotiated by the Turnbull government and specifically under the leadership of Senator Simon Birmingham as the minister responsible have meant that issues of integrity are being increased within the vocational education sector and there is now an optimistic outlook for a sector that had been gutted by the former Labour government.
The bill that we are debating today is the Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I'd like to put some comments on the record specifically in relation to that bill. Students looking to expand their skills and capabilities are fortunate to have a diverse range of high-quality higher education providers from which to choose. Continued demand from students, both domestic and international, is a vote of confidence in the opportunities afforded by Australian education providers. However, the system is only as strong as its weakest link and, as we have learned from the experience of the poorly designed VET FEE-HELP scheme, there are those who would seek to exploit students and taxpayers for their own gain.
The recent increase in interest from providers seeking to enter the higher education sector underpins the importance of acting now. The Turnbull government took decisive action to stop the VET FEE-HELP rorts and has decided to act now to apply similar measures to the higher and international education sectors. These measures will ensure we are able to identify, monitor and prevent the sorts of unscrupulous behaviours exhibited by some VET FEE-HELP providers. Together they will enhance protections in place for students, strengthen the monitoring framework for international education providers and non-university higher education providers, and act to limit the risk to taxpayers. For the majority of providers who operate with integrity and in the best interests of their students, these measures will require little change and they will be free to continue to do what they do best. But the few who seek to gain at the expense of students should be on notice. We will not tolerate unscrupulous behaviours that harms students, exploits taxpayers or tarnishes the reputation of the Australian international and higher education sectors. I commend the bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Prime Minister and Cabinet Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, which is supported by Labor. I want to address some remarks to schedule 2 and schedule 5 of the bill. Schedule 2 of the bill makes some quite significant amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Act 2005, which was the act the Howard government used to abolish the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—the ATSIC, as it was known. That is schedule 2. Schedule 5 makes some quite significant amendments to the Royal Commissions Act 1902.
From the startlingly short second reading speech by the member for Hume, the assistant minister in the Prime Minister's portfolio, one would not learn very much about the significance of this bill. Regrettably, the explanatory memorandum does not really cast much light on the significance of the two schedules I am talking about. The explanatory memorandum is slightly better in respect of the amendments to the Royal Commissions Act 1902, but in respect of the amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Act 2005, anyone that lacked detailed knowledge of this area would be left guessing at the significance of the amendments that are being made.
Helpfully, the bill was referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on 11 May for inquiry and report by 13 June, and the committee has conducted a very short inquiry. No public hearings were held—perhaps that is understandable, given the short time it was provided—and only four submissions were received by the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. There were submissions from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Australian National Audit Office, Indigenous Business Australia and the Attorney-General's Department. From the report of the Senate committee, we are now able to see that in respect of the significant amendment which is being made it actually potentially affects some 4,500 assets held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations right across Australia.
From the explanatory memorandum it is possible to glean a little more, and that is the observation in the explanatory memorandum that until the abolition of ATSIC in 2005 by the Howard government, ATSIC had powers to make grants of money and grants of interest in land, to make loans to individuals or bodies, and to give loan guarantees, all for the purpose of furthering the social, economic or cultural development of Aboriginal people or Torres Strait Islanders. And, correctly, the explanatory memorandum notes:
ATSIC exercised these powers to assist organisations to acquire an interest in land for a broad range of activities (e.g. pastoral services, health services, housing, and business development). In practice, ATSIC assisted organisations, typically Indigenous community organisations, rather than individuals.
It is now apparent that these 4,500 assets, many of them very significant assets, are potentially going to be affected by this legislation. They are going to be affected in this way: it is proposed that, instead of the situation which has existed since the abolition of ATSIC in 2005—which has required that there be consent by a range of Commonwealth authorities before an asset purchased with money provided by ATSIC could be disposed of—in future, if this bill passes the parliament, that consent will be waived by the relevant consenting authority. Again, you would not know from the second reading speech the bodies concerned. The second reading speech only refers to the possibility of a consenting authority being the Commonwealth or Indigenous Business Australia, IBA. But another very significant body which is going to be involved is the Indigenous Land Corporation. What we have, as noted by the Senate committee report, is this:
PM&C advised that the consenting authorities are the Commonwealth, IBA and the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) …
As I said, we have potentially 4,500 assets affected. Some of those are cattle stations. Some of those are health centres. Some of those are quite significant community assets held by Aboriginal organisations and Torres Strait Islander organisations right across Australia. If it's the case that this bill becomes law, each of those organisations that I have mentioned—the Indigenous Land Corporation presently needing to give consent, Indigenous Business Australia presently needing to give consent or the Commonwealth presently needing to give consent—will be able to waive the exercise of the statutory consent power by giving written notice to the organisation that consent is no longer required. The way in which this has been put in the second reading speech as to the purpose of this potential waiver of consent is this:
Allowing these agencies to remove the consent requirement in particular cases will reduce the administrative burden and will support the more flexible use of assets by Indigenous organisations.
That was expanded upon to some extent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in its submission to the Senate committee, saying this:
This will support an increase in autonomy and economic independence for Indigenous organisations, reduce red tape, and better enable them to more freely use their land for economic development.
I don't think it's ever been suggested that the consent power has been anything other than an appropriate check and balance on what would otherwise potentially be decision-making that might in fact produce outcomes that are not necessarily advantageous to the Aboriginal communities concerned. It's to be hoped that, when the Commonwealth, the Indigenous Land Corporation and Indigenous Business Australia go about waiving this consent requirement, they take care. Saying simply that an objective of the change is to enable Indigenous organisations to more freely use their land for economic development has the potential to simply have the Commonwealth organisations involved, or the two corporations involved, washing their hands of responsibility for what was in fact, in many cases, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds that have been invested in these assets.
Of course it's the case that Labor supports measures that'll increase the autonomy, economic development and economic independence of Indigenous communities, but the history of the decade since the Native Title Act was enacted by the Keating government demonstrated that economic development is not always synonymous with benefit to Indigenous communities. For example, inappropriate economic development may destroy sacred sites. Inappropriate economic development may disrupt the relationship between a community and its traditional lands. One could give as an example the influx of hundreds or even thousands of fly-in fly-out construction workers to an area that may have unintended cultural and social impacts that are not to a community's benefit. And, as we've often seen, debates over merits of economic developments may deeply divide communities at a social level.
The short point I seek to make is that we saw inadequate consultation having been conducted by this government earlier this year in relation to amendments to the Native Title Act. This government seems to have a very poor idea of what is adequate consultation. Particularly when the assets that are here under consideration will be located in remote communities and the communities concerned may have somewhat tenuous relationships with government or may not be familiar with the issues involved but are nevertheless dealing with what are very significant assets in those communities, it's to be hoped that, before any of the consenting authorities who are here being given the right to waive the need for their consent to be obtained before an asset is disposed of, that power to waive is exercised only after proper detailed and, I would say, often lengthy consultation with the communities concerned to make sure of the reason why the consent requirement was put there in the first place—namely, to protect the fact that we have got hundreds of millions of dollars of public moneys having been invested in the first place to buy the assets concerned, that the public interest is protected, that the interests of the community concerned are going to be protected and that the waiving of the consent is only done in appropriate circumstances. I mention all those matters simply to say that the parliament is owed something more of an explanation than one would have seen in the page-and-a-half-long second reading speech that accompanied this bill.
The other matter I wanted to deal with is the amendments to the Royal Commission Act 1902. It's something of a grab bag of an amendment act that has in the first part amendments to Indigenous legislation. In the second part there are also a range of consequential amendments on that, including amendments to the Auditor-General Act and amendments to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, but they are of a minor nature. It's the amendments to the Royal Commissions Act that are of greater importance. They concern first of all the insertion of a new power for royal commissioners to request that information be provided in a particular form and, second of all, a very, very substantial increase in penalties in the Royal Commissions Act 1902 for failure to comply with directions, failure to produce and failure to appear to give evidence. Those penalties, as I say, were very, very substantially increased.
The royal commission's power is a very significant power that's able to be exercised by the executive government of Australia. It's been used throughout the history of the Commonwealth, very often to great effect with royal commissions that have had lasting impact on the Australian community and that have produced recommendations that when acted on by government have produced lasting benefit to our community. We have currently being conducted two royal commissions, one of them established by the Gillard government: the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. It, of course, was established by the Gillard government in December 2012. It commenced its operations in April 2013. Special legislation was passed amending the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to enable that royal commission—a very, very substantial royal commission—to go about its work.
Those amendments included empowering the six commissioners to sit separately as well as together and other amendments that empowered the royal commission to conduct private hearings and undertake its work in private session, an entirely appropriate power to give to a royal commission inquiring into the subject that that royal commission has been charged to look into. The royal commission had its term extended and will now be delivering its final report in December of this year and has already produced a significant interim report on redress. There's an example of a royal commission that has already served the Australian community exceptionally well, and I am very much, as I am sure the whole of the Australian community and certainly members of this parliament, are looking forward to the delivery of the final report of commissioner McClelland and the other five commissioners.
There's another royal commission which is also current, the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory, conducted by former justice of the Queensland Supreme Court, Margaret White and the former Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Gooder. It's due to give its report in the next few weeks and of course is an inquiry that was prompted by the shocking revelations in particular of the treatment of young people in Northern Territory detention centres notably Dylan Voller.
They are examples of royal commissions where the royal commission's power of the Commonwealth has been well used. Regrettably, I am reminded by the explanatory memorandum that accompanies this bill that the royal commission's power has not always been so well used. Two examples are the royal commission commissioned by this government into the home insulation program, a completely worthless royal commission that cost Australia more than $25 million and, secondly, the Royal Commission into Trade Unions conducted by Mr Hayden, former justice of the High Court of Australia, another almost completely useless royal commission, now discredited. It is important to mention those because, curiously, both of these royal commissions are being called in aid to support the amendments that are here being put forward to the Royal Commissions Act.
I will deal first with the amendment which would make it possible for royal commissions in the future to not merely require that someone appear before a royal commission to give evidence and not merely empower, as is the current situation, royal commissioners to require the production of documents but, in addition, to empower a future royal commissioner—because these amendments are not going to affect the two ongoing Commonwealth royal commissions—to issue a notice that will require the person receiving the notice to provide information in a form approved by the inquiry. What this is potentially about is to remove the need for someone to appear as a witness at all in order to give oral evidence. It's a very perfectly practical amendment to make to the Royal Commissions Act 1902. Rather than attributing it, I would think, to Mr Hanger, who was the royal commissioner into the home insulation program, I would have attributed it, as does the explanatory memorandum, to the Australian Law Reform Commission's report in 2009 that made this precise recommendation. What the 2009 report of the Australian Law Reform Commission suggested was that a royal commission should be empowered to issue a notice requiring a person to provide information in a form approved by the inquiry, failing which the member of the royal commission can require the person to attend the inquiry as if he or she had been issued with a notice to attend or appear before the inquiry. As I said, it's a practical suggestion made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its 2009 Making inquiries report, and perhaps the government was desperate to find something that it could actually point to from the Hanger royal commission—the useless Hanger royal commission that cost over $25 million—because not a single other recommendation of the Hanger royal commission has been acted on. It's not possible for the government to point to a single positive step or a single positive action taken by the government as a consequence of that royal commission, which ran for many months in Queensland, cost the Commonwealth over $25 million and was designed purely for the purpose of discrediting a former government. It started in a spectacularly improper manner, with the government breaching decades-long conventions by giving to its own royal commissioner the cabinet papers of the former Labor government—which, happily, were never actually used in the royal commission, but it was an improper start to that royal commission. The practical suggestion that was made by the Law Reform Commission in the 2009 report, which Mr Hanger thought was a good idea as well, is now being acted on, and Labor would support the amendment that is being made.
The second lot of amendments to the Royal Commissions Act are amendments which very substantially increase the penalties for failure to comply with the directions of a royal commissioner or the requirements of a royal commissioner. I only have to state them for it to be seen how substantial the increases are. The present penalty is, I think, $1,000 in the Crimes Act. Mr Heydon noted in his royal commission report—supporting his recommendation that the penalties for failure to comply with a summons to attend, failure to comply with a notice, failure to be sworn and answer questions, and failure to provide documents be substantially increased—that, when the Royal Commissions Act was introduced in 1902, the penalty that was provided for was a penalty not exceeding 50 pounds. He goes on to note that that fine was increased to 500 pounds in 1912 and it has only been amended once to reflect the introduction of decimal currency in 1966, when the penalty became $1,000. Usefully, Mr Heydon observes:
According to the inflation calculator managed by the Reserve Bank of Australia, the value of £500 in 1912 would be equivalent to $57,174.86 in 2014.
He rightly points out that noncompliance with an exercise of a royal commission's coercive power was, at the time of enactment and within the first decade thereafter, considered to be an extremely serious offence. The current value of the penalty has been seriously eroded by inflation, and legislative amendment is clearly necessary. What the government is doing here is acting on the particular recommendation, not quite to the letter of what Mr Heydon said.
Again, it's possible to say that this is also acting on recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission's inquiry into royal commissions and official inquiries, because that inquiry too—at recommendations 21-1, 21-2 and 21-3—suggested some very substantial increases in the penalties that are currently provided for in the Royal Commissions Act. The level suggested by the Australian Law Reform Commission was a little bit less. They were talking in the order of 30 penalty units for some offences, 60 for other offences and 120 units for contravening a direction concerning national security information.
The government here, in the amendment bill that we have before the House, is going straight for imprisonment for two years for a range of offences under the Royal Commissions Act. As the explanatory memorandum correctly points out, what that will mean is that in the alternative, because of provisions in the Crimes Act, a court that is punishing for an offence, once found, will have as an alternative to that imprisonment of up to two years the possibility of imposing a pecuniary penalty of up to 120 penalty units—in dollar terms, that's currently $25,200—or, for a body corporate, a penalty of up to 600 penalty units, which in dollar terms is $126,000.
Again, the Senate inquiry has been helpful here, because there was some inquiry by the Senate committee into why these penalties were so high—indeed, considerably more than had been suggested by the Australian Law Reform Commission. As the Senate committee notes, quoting from the submission that it received from the Attorney-General's Department:
Two years imprisonment is consistent with the penalties available for failure to comply with notices issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Royal Commissions are the highest form of public inquiry in Australia and it is imperative that persons comply with requests made under the Royal Commissions Act and that if they do not they are appropriately dealt with under the law. As such, the proposed increase in penalties is proportionate and reasonable.
Labor too thinks that there ought to be appropriate and heavy penalties for failing to comply with royal commission directions.
It may very well be that they will be needed when the royal commission into banks is established, if not by this government then by the next Labor government, because it remains a commitment of Labor that a royal commission into the banks and into the banking industry is sorely needed. If more were needed, we have only to look at the recent revelations now being prosecuted by AUSTRAC into what are alleged to be extraordinarily serious—and I say no more about them than that they are alleged to be extraordinarily serious—breaches of the anti-money-laundering provisions by the Commonwealth Bank. But one could go on to look at the long list of misconduct by every one of the major Australian banks, which of course is what has led to our call for a royal commission into the banks and the banking industry. Such a royal commission is supported by very many members of this parliament, including a number of those on the other side of this House and a number of government senators, notably—and I mention him only because I saw him in the media earlier today—Senator John Williams, who has been very vigorous in his support for a royal commission into the banks and the banking industry. I commend the bill to the House.
I would now like to thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate on the Prime Minister and Cabinet Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. The bill amends legislation and repeals redundant legislation.
I present for the information of members an addendum to the explanatory memorandum which responds to a request made by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The committee requested that key additional information provided to that committee be included in the explanatory memorandum.
I will keep this reasonably short because, unlike the member for Isaacs, I feel no need to go into long digressions and diversions relating to things such as who should take credit for the very positive amendments in this bill. The amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Act 2005 enable the Commonwealth and its portfolio bodies to waive the exercise of its statutory consent power over certain Commonwealth funded assets by providing written notice to the Indigenous organisation concerned that consent to dispose of an interest in land is no longer required.
Historical Indigenous grant funding of land or property has been secured through the Commonwealth's application of ongoing rights and interests, usually notified by a caveat. In 2015, the Council of Australian Governments recommended that the Commonwealth review all the remaining caveats on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission properties and remove unnecessary restrictions to support economic development for Indigenous land owners.
At the moment, the law does not allow the Commonwealth to waive rights and interests for an organisation unless the contractual link is broken by the sale or disposal of the property. This ongoing aspect of rights and interests is not in line with other Commonwealth grant funding processes. In addition, the current policy is to maintain the Commonwealth's interests through the use of contract law after a property sale has occurred. The changes will reduce the administrative burden and regulatory requirements for organisations and for government. The bill will also support this government's approach to work in partnership with Indigenous Australians, empowering local communities and promoting economic opportunities.
The Commonwealth and its portfolio bodies can elect to notify the Indigenous organisations that consent is no longer required to dispose of an interest in land. The consenting authorities in question include the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Indigenous Business Australia, the Indigenous Land Corporation and other bodies with responsibilities for Indigenous affairs, such as the Department of Health and the Attorney-General's Department. These amendments will reduce red tape for the Commonwealth by permitting it to remove its regulatory role in the disposal of land and will provide opportunities to further social, economic and cultural development of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders in their management of land. The government has consulted with Indigenous stakeholders on this amendment and will work with Indigenous Australians on the implementation of the measure.
The amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 streamline the annual reporting requirements of Indigenous Business Australia by repealing the requirement for the responsible minister to table a corporate plan from Indigenous Business Australia, which duplicates reporting requirements that are already in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. The bill repeals the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 1978 and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991. These two acts are both redundant as the Commonwealth can no longer declare Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reserves in Queensland, and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation is no longer in use.
The bill amends the Auditor-General Act 1997 to align annual reporting requirements of the Auditor-General with his or her responsibility to the parliament. The Auditor-General is an independent officer of parliament. The reintroduction of tabling of annual reports directly to the parliament would demonstrate the independence of the office and be consistent with its responsibilities to the parliament. It would also bring Australia in line with international best practice for comparable auditing institutions. The amendment would allow for the Auditor-General to table the 2016-17 annual report direct to parliament. The ANAO, the Australian National Audit Office, was consulted in the drafting of the amendments.
Finally, the bill amends the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to give commissioners a new power and to increase some offence penalties. These changes will assist the operation of future royal commissions. Another change will give administrative flexibility by enabling records of a completed royal commission to be held by the Attorney-General's Department when that is considered the appropriate agency. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposal and Other Measures) Bill 2017. This bill amends the Customs Tariff Act in five ways. These amendments seek to fix a mistake made by the Turnbull government in a tariff subheading in the act relating to some mosaic tiles; incorporate industry feedback on the classification of 'machining goods' within new domestic tariff subheadings; realign with international practice a tariff subheading for herbicide paraquat dichloride, which contains an added emetic; extend concessional arrangements for importing automotive prototype and components as announced in the 2017-18 budget; and remove a $12,000 special customs duty on certain used and second-hand motor vehicles. Labor will support this bill through the House today because these changes are to support Australian businesses and clarify the frameworks relating to tariffs.
The bill before the House today amends the subheading in section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act to be repealed and replaced. This subheading relates to certain mosaic tiles. If you are unsure what a mosaic tile relates to, you need to look no further than the Customs Tariff Act 1995. According to the act, they include:
Tiles, cubes and similar articles, whether or not rectangular, the largest surface area of which is capable of being enclosed in a square the side of which is less than 7 cm.
Not eight centimetres, not 7½ centimetres, but less than seven centimetres. If you are ever in an argument with your friend or a family member in the mosaic tile section in Bunnings, or you face a question at trivia about what constitutes a mosaic tile, you can thank the Customs Tariff Act 1995 for the clarification.
The reason this subheading is being repealed and replaced is because the Turnbull government's approach to drafting legislation means that it simply made a mistake. All the well-known and public flaws of the Turnbull government and its proposed policy and legislation mean we are here today to fix one of its errors. The Customs Tariff Amendment (2017 Harmonized System Changes) Act 2016 created tariff subheading 6907.30.10 for certain mosaic tiles, and mistakenly assigned to it the customs duty rate of five per cent, rather than the correct rate of free. During the second reading of this bill, the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the member for Mitchell, said:
This amendment will ensure that Australian businesses have certainty about customs duty rates applied to these goods.
'Certainty' is what this government has not been able to provide with the mistake it made in its legislation in the first place. Hence, we are here today making another amendment to the Customs Tariff Act 1995, using this particular legislation to fix up the errors of the Turnbull government.
Thankfully, Australian businesses were not adversely affected by the errors of the Turnbull government due to a notice of intention to propose customs tariff alteration, published on 14 December 2016 and tabled as the Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2017 in parliament on 15 February 2017. The amendments included in the bill before the House today will correct the customs duty rate assigned to subheading 6907.30.10 to free per cent, as opposed to the erroneous five per cent, backdated to take effect from 1 January 2017. This will ensure that Australian businesses are not paying a customs duty they do not have to, something that Labor wholeheartedly supports. If only it was just as easy to fix all the other errors in the Turnbull government's unfair budget.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (2017 Harmonized System Changes) Act 2016 created a new classification rule for machining centres classified under tariff subheading 8465.20. Since the changes, feedback from industry has indicated that the composite nature of these machining centres, and the fact that they often perform multiple tasks, makes classifying them in accordance with the domestic subheadings difficult. The purpose of today's amendment is to simplify the classification of machining centres able to perform two or more machining operations with an automatic tool change. The amendment repeals the domestic subheadings created by the act and significantly rationalises the number of subheadings. Multiple machine operations—such as machines that do bending and assembly or split or splice—are covered by the new tariff subheading. Labor will support the amendment and always compel the Turnbull government to genuinely consult with stakeholders and industry as they have done here.
Paraquat dichloride, commonly referred to as 'paraquat', is more than 130 years old, although the properties that led to it being used as a herbicide were only recognised in 1955. The herbicide, more commonly known as a weed killer, is highly lethal if consumed by humans. Given paraquat's toxic nature, it is commonly dyed blue for safety reasons. It contains an added emetic agent to induce vomiting if digested. A decision of the World Customs Organization caused the Australian classification of this particular substance containing the added emetic agent to become misaligned with international practice. This bill will repeal the additional notes in schedule 3, chapter 29 and replace it with the title 'additional note'. Schedule 3 relates to the classification of goods, and general and special rates of duty, while chapter 29 relates to organic chemicals. Additional note 2 in chapter 29 will also be repealed. This directs that paraquat dichloride with an added emetic be classified to a certain tariff subheading where a free rate of customs duty is applied. This will realign Australia's classification with international practice. Tariff subheading 3808.93.00 will also be repealed. That particular subheading covers herbicides, anti-sprouting products and plant-growth regulators and has a customs duty rate of five per cent. A new subheading will be created to realign paraquat dichloride. It will be reclassified to a newly created tariff subheading ensuring that that particular substance will be free of rate of tariff of customs duty.
As part of these amendments, goods currently classified under a certain tariff subheading are reclassified to a newly created tariff subheading. These changes are cost neutral, and Labor is appreciative of that. We are glad the amendment before the House will ensure this, making the framework for the tariffs more easily understandable and ensuring the safety of all those who use this particular herbicide.
Australia's automotive industry has been in transition since the announcement that Holden, Ford and Toyota will close their manufacturing operations in Australia. Labor has been aggrieved by the demise of the automotive industry in Australia. We believe the Abbott-Turnbull government has watched this unfold and responded inadequately. In the wake of these changes, the automotive industry has announced plans to continue other automotive industry activities such as sales and distribution and design and product development. The 2017-18 budget included an extension of concessional arrangements for importing automotive prototype and components to automotive service providers to promote research and development. Labor is glad this will benefit Australian businesses and workers as the amendments apply to relevant goods imported on or after 1 January 2017 and goods imported into Australia before 1 January 2017 where the time for working out the rate of customs duty on the goods had not occurred before 1 January 2017.
Item 39 in schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act provides a customs duty exemption for motor vehicle producers within the meaning of the Automotive Transformation Scheme Act 2009 to import automotive prototypes and components. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposal and Other Measures) Bill 2017 will amend item 39 in schedule 4 to extend this concession to automotive service providers by inserting 'all automotive service providers' after the words 'motor vehicle producers'. From a budget perspective, extending the concessional arrangement to automotive service providers is estimated to reduce customs duty revenue by $13.5 million over the forward estimates, including the current financial year. That being said, given the nature of the automotive industry and the fact that it employs 50,000 people directly and up to 200,000 people indirectly across Australia, Labor wants to support this workforce as the industry is in transition, so we will support this.
The Customs Tariff Act applies customs duty of $12,000 plus an ad valorem component of five per cent where applicable to use on second-hand motor vehicles imported from those countries. In reality the $12,000 customs duty is rarely applied as importers are able to claim an exemption if they obtain a vehicle import approval issued by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. It should be noted that it's an offence to ship a road vehicle into Australia before obtaining a vehicle import approval.
Labor believes today's amendments won't have a negative impact on vehicle safety standards in regards to imported vehicles. Given this, the bill will repeal the $12,000 duty component for used and second-hand motor vehicles imported under various tariff subheadings, including tariff subheading 8703, with effect from 1 January 2018. The amendments to those mentioned subheadings relate to items 9 to 34, also replacing 'secondhand' as one word: the word 'second-hand' hyphenated. I don't know why they are doing that, because both forms of the word are technically correct by grammatical standards, but Labor supports good grammar as well as these amendments.
For goods imported under the general rate we will now have a customs duty rate of 5 per cent. The amendments also repeal multiple tables in schedule 5 as well as repealing multiple tables in schedule 11. The table items repealed under schedule 5 relate to preferential rates of customs duty negotiated in the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. The total items repealed under schedule 11 relate to the preferential rates of customs duty negotiated in the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. For goods imported under these free trade agreements the amendments will have a customs duty rate of free.
Removing the $12,000 duty from used and second-hand motor vehicles is expected to have a negligible cost to revenue over the forward estimates. We strongly believe in budget repair. It's fair, and we will continue to push the government to follow our lead. We believe that the current government's last budget was anything but fair.
In conclusion, the current bill before the House makes important amendments to Customs Tariff Act 1995. These matters may seem trivial or minor in comparison to other issues and other matters dealt with in this place, but incorrect classifications and tariffs have real financial impacts for Australian businesses, consumers and individuals. If the incorrect tariff is applied to the goods, either the government loses tariff revenue or consumers face price increases as companies pass on these costs to consumers. I am thankful for the clarification and reminder of what constitutes a mosaic tile and that we've had the opportunity today to correct the many errors made by the government in this one area.
We—that is, Labor—will also continue to engage with industry when determining tariff classification to hold to government to account when they fail to do so. We will work with the automotive industry as it transitions. We will continue to support Australian businesses and ensure the framework relating to tariffs is clear and functional, and for that reason we commend the legislation to the House and support the government's bill.
I thank the shadow minister, the member for Blair opposite, for his contribution to the debate. I thank him for his eloquent explanation of mosaic tile classifications. I know that will be the talk of Bunningses around the country in coming weeks and months! I do appreciate his good candour. I do appreciate his commitment to an error-free administration at some point in the future. This tape committing to error-free customs tariff amendments in hundreds of thousands of line items may come back to haunt him one day!
I want to say to the house that the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposal and Other Measures) Bill 2017 contains a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that will assist Australian businesses and consumers. The first amendment incorporates the Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2017 into the act, ensuring that the correct customs duty rate of free is legislated as tariff subheading 6907.30.10, which applies to certain mosaic tiles. The second amendment extends existing concessional arrangements for imports of automotive prototypes and components to include automotive service providers, and the third amendment removes the $12,000 special duty on used and second-hand motor vehicles. The special duties is rarely applied as importers are able to seek exemptions. The final collection of amendments will improve the usability of the act by simplifying the classification of certain machining centres, realigning Australia's classifications of the chemical Paraquat dichloride with international practice, and making some minor formatting corrections. I appreciate the member opposite's commitment to good grammar and the government's commitment also to good grammar. Notwithstanding that we do not have to go into committee over the grammar of the bill, I do commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise today to speak on the Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. This bill makes two minor changes to the No Jab No Pay arrangements. First, it adds four medical specialties to the list of providers who can grant medical exemptions for vaccination requirements—paediatricians, public health physicians, infection disease physicians and immunologists. Second, it clarifies that only recognised vaccination providers and these four specialties can tell the government whether children and families have actually met the vaccination requirements.
Labor supports this bill and the practical benefits which will arise from its passage. Ensuring vaccination rates are as high as possible is one of the most important health responsibilities of a government. While this bill makes minor changes, the issue at hand is not minor. Having this legislation in front of us is a good reminder of the importance of vaccination and a reminder of the role of everyone in this place to ensure we spread the message about protecting our society. Because despite all of the scientific evidence, Australia is in the midst of a renewed debate about vaccination, a debate that ended long ago, since the scientific evidence that vaccines save lives is overwhelming.
In early March, Senator Hanson questioned the safety of vaccinations on national TV, sparking renewed discussion on the issue. Senator Hanson later backed down from her suggestion that parents should use a non-existent test for vaccine allergies but she has not apologised for her earlier comments linking vaccines to cancer and to autism. Medical experts said Senator Hanson's comments were ignorant and dangerous. Disappointingly, the Prime Minister could not bring himself to directly criticise Senator Hanson on this issue.
One of the most naive things I hear from people talking about vaccination is because there are not any current outbreaks of diseases commonplace 100 years ago that their kids will be safe. That attitude completely threatens the ongoing success of our vaccine program. Professor Clem Boughton was once the senior physician at the Division of Infection Diseases at Prince Henry Hospital in Sydney—in other words, he was at the front line of treating these diseases. He hit the nail on the head about the reason complacency is creeping in on vaccines when he said: 'As a result of the effectiveness of immunisation programs, most young parents have not seen any of these conditions once so common in the community, and do not realise how dangerous they are.'
The result of such complacency? According to official statistics, there were 340 cases of measles in 2014, almost double the 158 measles cases in 2013. So when I hear leaders questioning the validity of vaccines, anger does not even come close. There will always be misinformed opinions, with proponents clustering on hidden Facebook groups and sharing discredited research. Do a quick search of Google and you will find uninformed and dangerous views flooding the results. But it is completely unacceptable for a politician, a national leader, to use their public platform to put a shadow of a doubt in one person's mind about something as critical as vaccination. Vaccination isn't just about protecting personal health; it's a social responsibility. Herd immunity is critical to protecting Australians who simply cannot be immunised for medical reasons.
The reason that most of us cannot fathom the devastation that diseases such as rubella, measles, diphtheria and polio cause is because of our successful immunisation programs. Australia's strong immunisation program is critical to eradicating life-threatening diseases, and failure to vaccinate is a threat to public health. Our leaders need to be doing everything possible to ensure that parents know about the deadly risks of failing to vaccinate their children, not spreading misinformation.
Only last week we saw a screening of a dangerous anti-vaccination film at a large cinema in central Melbourne by an active anti-vaccination group. And while activities such as this are taking place there is a risk that uninformed views are introduced into the mainstream discussion. We cannot afford a single shadow of a doubt to be put into anyone's mind about vaccination. Accordingly, we need to refute the uninformed discussion in order to protect population health.
In line with this, Labor welcomes the government finally funding a public campaign to combat the dangerous misinformation being spread on vaccinations. This is something we have been calling on the government to act on, writing to the Prime Minister back in March to encourage urgent action. However, I will note that Labor is disappointed the government has not allocated more resources to this critical initiative. The government should not drag their feet to act on this. They dragged their feet to act on this and then failed to put enough money behind it to seriously combat the level of misinformation circulating in the community. For months Labor has been calling on the government to fund a public campaign to combat the dangerous misinformation on vaccinations.
This is a really important issue—an incredibly important issue. Health experts have consistently reiterated the importance of getting accurate information to parents, and have been calling on the government to act. Michael Moore, the president of the Public Health Association of Australia said:
We need ... to maintain accurate information in the face of the misinformation that tends to be circulated.
The president of the Australian Medical Association, Michael Gannon, makes it clear:
It is absolutely essential that we have accurate information, and this fatuous idea that parents can spend half an hour on Wikipedia and come to a greater understanding of the issues than their doctor and the accumulated wisdom of all the world's medical scientists is ludicrous.
I ask: does the Turnbull government seriously think that the small amount of funding allocated will be enough to fight against what has become widespread misinformation on vaccinations? Dangerous misinformation peddled by anti-vaccination proponents should never take the place of proven scientific advice. We welcome a step to ensure parents are equipped with the right information, and we hope that parents now take the responsible step and protect their and other people's children.
Of course, there are clear consequences if parents do not protect their children, with the No jab, No pay arrangements establishing a clear financial link. Since 1 January 2016, only families who fully immunise their children, who are on a recognised immunisation schedule or who have an approved medical exemption can receive family assistance payments linked to immunisation status, such as childcare assistance and family tax benefit part A supplement.
These reforms build on Labor's track record to use every lever possible to boost immunisation rates and to protect our children. In government, Labor made important changes to family payments to lift immunisation rates, including linking the family tax benefit end-of-year supplement to immunisation. Ahead of the 2013 election, Labor committed to further tightening immunisation requirements within the family payments system, so we were very pleased to support the No Jab, No Pay legislation, having built on our reforms. We are pleased to support the changes in this bill today.
As the shadow health minister, I am particularly pleased to see the increase in immunisation rates. I am aware that since the No Jab, No Pay measures commenced, more than 210,000 families have taken action to ensure they now meet the immunisation requirements. This means increased immunisation rates for our children. As one example, I am aware from December 2015 to March 2017 the immunisation rate for one-year-olds increased 1.35 percentage points to 93.63 per cent. Of course, it will continue to be important to support people in vulnerable communities to catch up with their vaccination requirements and to make sure they understand the consequences of failing to make sure all vaccinations are up to date.
As it stands, the Australian Immunisation Register is only able to recognise medical exemptions to vaccination assessed by general practitioners. Whilst this tightly restricted approach was appropriate when the original legislation was introduced, it is appropriate to revisit it at this time to ensure the legislation is working as well as it possibly can. As noted in the explanatory memorandum, the restriction to general practitioners was taken to prevent medical practitioners not specialising in immunisation from conducting assessments and also to protect individuals' privacy in moving from the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register to a whole-of-life register, the Australian Immunisation Register. The explanatory memorandum notes the Department of Health has received feedback from some specialists requesting the ability to have their assessments of medical exemptions recognised in the Australian Immunisation Register. These clinicians have advised that having to send patients to a general practitioner to get medical exemptions has added a burden of time for patients. Passage of this bill will allow paediatricians, public health physicians, infectious disease physicians and clinical immunologists to have their assessments of medical exemptions to immunisation recognised by the Australian Immunisation Register in addition to general practitioners.
This bill also makes a minor amendment to make it explicit that vaccination information can only be provided by recognised vaccination providers and not by members of the public. Labor thinks these are sensible amendments in line with feedback from experts. We note these changes are likely to see a reduction in the number of referrals and appointments, creating efficiencies for both patients and for our health systems.
But of course there is more work to be done. In March 2017 the government announced to pursue No Jab, No Play laws. These are state and territory laws that allow childcare centres to turn away children who are not immunised. Whilst some states and territories have them in place, there is not a not a national approach. If the announcement sounded familiar, it is of course because the Abbott-Turnbull government already announced this policy almost four years ago. In May 2013 the member for Warringah and then-Opposition Leader committed, 'If childcare centres want to implement "no jab, no play" then they should be free to do so, and we will work with the states and territories to make it happen.' This government has been in office for 3½ years and, frankly, they have not worked with the states to implement No Jab, No Play, so we welcome the government's renewed commitment on the issue. Labor will certainly be holding them to account on this promise.
The other issue I want to note in this debate is the availability of vaccines and the government's failure to do more on this issue. Since last year, Australian parents have been grappling with ongoing shortages of the meningococcal vaccine, Bexsero. In February the minister boasted he had acted on the shortage and had a firm conversation with the manufacturer to restore supply in Australia. Despite this, nothing changed and parents were still being turned away when they tried to obtain the vaccine. The minister's comments misled parents into the false hope that they would be able to protect their children immediately. I am now pleased that the manufacturer advised the shortage was resolved in June, finally. But we are now seeing similar issues with the Menveo vaccine. Australian teenagers are caught in a state-by-state lottery when it comes to being protected against meningococcal W, with the Turnbull government failing to progress a national response to the growing threat of this disease. State governments in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales currently fund immunisation programs, with the Victorian government confirming in June that 51,000 doses of the vaccine for meningococcal W have been distributed across the state. But with ongoing shortages of the vaccine and a lack of national leadership, teenagers in other states and territories will continue to miss out on this critical vaccine. The Therapeutic Goods Administration confirmed that shortages of vaccine to protect against meningococcal W are expected to continue until September. While shortages continue, states with funded immunisation programs are prioritised for supply.
At a time when there has been increased incidence of the disease, the Turnbull government must do more to protect our children. The federal government should make it a priority to work with the manufacturer of the vaccine, address shortages and make sure parents have the most up-to-date information. In the long term, Labor urges the government to work with the manufacturer and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to negotiate a way forward, including whether this vaccine should be accessible for all children on the Australian Immunisation Register, because access to life-saving vaccines shouldn't depend on which side of the border a child lives on.
In conclusion, I'd like to revisit the comment made by Professor Boughton, who said it is the result of the effectiveness of immunisation programs that most young parents do not realise how dangerous some conditions are. I would like to finish today by sharing a story of a Western Australian family who I met a number of years ago and who continue to be huge champions for vaccination. They have had very personal and deep experience of just how dangerous vaccine-preventable diseases are. I refer particularly to Catherine and Greg Hughes, who've experienced what no parent should have go through, losing their baby boy to whooping cough. At three weeks of age, Riley started displaying a mild, cough-like symptom and developed an occasional cough. The doctors began treating him for pertussis, commonly known as whooping cough, but on his fourth day in hospital he was taken to the paediatric intensive care unit with pneumonia. These are Catherine's own words about what happened:
His heart was failing, his lungs were filled with thick mucus, as the toxins from the pertussis and the subsequent pneumonia had ravaged his body. My whole world was crumbling, and while I don’t think I was a total mess, inside my heart was breaking. We mentioned that when it was time for him to go, we’d like to be holding and cuddling him, not have him lying alone on the bed. The rest of the morning was spent crying, texting family and friends about what was happening, spending time with Riley, and asking my brother to bring in our three year old daughter so she could say goodbye.
This is the heartbreaking reality of these diseases and the reason that we cannot be complacent about the importance of vaccination. If that wasn't enough for the Hughes family, they were then subject and continue to be subject to a targeted campaign of online abuse and harassment from the antivaccination movement. But they have kept up their public campaign, because they know better than anyone else the devastating consequences of these diseases.
There is a generation of Australians who remember growing up facing the threat of vaccine-preventable diseases. Some of them live with the impacts even now. As an example, in 1953 Australia had just come through its worst ever polio epidemic. At its peak about 10,000 people a year, mostly children and teenagers, were coming down with polio. One of them was my mum, who died around this time last year. She spent a year in Fairfield Infectious Diseases Hospital at the age of 17, having contracted polio. She described the absolute terror that swept through communities and families when a polio diagnosis occurred and when polio was within communities. We have been very lucky in Australia that we don't have polio anymore. Australia started using the vaccine two or three years later, and by the end of the 1950s the disease had almost been eliminated in this country. That is the power of vaccines, and that is why we need to do everything in our power to ensure that the importance of vaccination is not forgotten by society.
It's a pleasure to follow on from the remarks made by the previous speaker in the context of the importance of immunisation, particularly for children's health, and some of the stories she has recited, particularly around some of the behaviour of people opposed to immunisation and the consequences when people are in a traumatised stage of life. I think everybody in this place, regardless of their circumstances, knows that when families and children are vulnerable, particularly related to terminal diseases, we have to make sure that we always show a high degree of respect, not use it as the basis on which we advance our own political causes or arguments.
I wish to make some brief remarks around the Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 to highlight the Turnbull government's commitment to the importance of improving vaccination rates amongst Australians. Since the introduction of the No Jab, No Pay policy, the government has seen over 200,000 extra children vaccinated in just over a year. In my former capacity as Human Rights Commissioner—
And a good one.
That is very kind of you, Member for Bowman. When I was Human Rights Commissioner, people regularly came to talk to me about so-called human rights abuses that occurred as a consequence of this policy. But I have to say that the arguments presented to me were farcical. Firstly, adults have a choice about what they decide to put in their bodies; people of sound and mature mind can put themselves in a position to make judgement calls. That has not been the case with children. We have always had different laws applying to children and we should have different laws that apply to children, because of their lack of maturity and their lack of understanding.
In terms of their capacity to do things, this means that, for instance, we do not allow them to drink at a certain age. We do not allow people, let's face it, to vote for the people in this parliament until they are a certain age. We have to make sure that parents take a degree of responsibility and guide children as part of the nurturing journey towards adulthood. So policies like No Jab, No Pay are not in the framework of human rights. In fact, if you want to go down the international legal path—which, I have to say, I am not a big fan of, but that is a separate point—and if you look at human rights, they essentially apply to adults. When you talk about the rights of children—particularly around parents of children, that includes the right of children to be raised in the traditions and customs or culture of a family's background; equally parents are able to make decisions in the best interests of their children, particularly when it comes to issues around health. So this is not a human rights issue in the way some people would like to frame it. It is about making sure we take care of children and about making sure that children are in the best position not just to make their way to adulthood but to do it in a healthy way.
Since the implementation of the AIR Act from 1 January 2016, feedback from a range of health professionals has indicated that this means highly qualified specialists, such as paediatricians, infectious disease physicians, public health physicians and clinical immunologists are required to refer back to GPs for assessment and medical exemptions recognised by the Immunisation Register. This can create complex pathways of care, including multiple practitioner visits. Based on that feedback, this bill proposes to address these two issues by amending the act to extend the range of specialists who can provide assessments and medical exemptions recognised by the AIR, making it explicit that only recognised vaccination providers can provide vaccination information to the AIR and not members of the public or parents.
This bill will affect paediatricians, public health physicians, infectious disease physicians and clinical immunologists who will be able to have assessments of medical exemptions recognised by the AIR for family assistance payment purposes and in addition to general practitioners. This will streamline the way individuals are assessed for a medical exemption. Through the above-mentioned, medical practitioners will also reduce the time taken for a small number of individuals who retain a medical exemption for immunisation through these medical specialists. I am sure—I hope—all members of parliament will recognise the simple reforms proposed in this piece of legislation are not only consistent with government policy and our collective commitment to taking care of children, but it is also a pathway to make sure we are implementing sensible, practical policies to improve the lives of children, so they can have the best chance of growing up to be healthy, happy adults.
I am pleased to support this bill which makes minor changes to the No Jab, No Pay arrangements. Unfortunately for some in the community, the immunisation debate continues to exist. It is a debate that should have ended long ago. The scientific evidence that vaccines save lives is overwhelming. It is unfortunate as well that we have some people in parliament who believe we should be having a debate and stopping immunisation. Senator Hanson's questioning of the safety of vaccines does nothing but put people's lives—and children's lives—at risk. While Senator Hanson backed down from her suggestion that parents should use a non-existent test for vaccine allergies, she still has not apologised for her earlier comments linking vaccines to cancer or autism.
Let me tell you, as a mother who is raising a child with autism, I would still take raising him—with all of his quirks—over not having him at all and his life being cut short by a disease that we managed to find a vaccine for and which we have reduced or eliminated.
Medical experts—experts, Senator Hanson, those people who dedicate their entire lives to research, developing knowledge and providing advice to the community—were all in agreement that your comments were ignorant and dangerous. The only person, however, who did not criticise her—his key preference dealer—was the Prime Minister. My office was inundated with criticism of Senator Hanson, not only on this issue but also on the segregation of children with special needs.
Australia's strong immunisation program is critical to eradicating life-threatening diseases, and failure to vaccinate is a threat to public health. Our leaders and the people in these places need to be doing everything possible to ensure parents know about the deadly risk of failing to vaccinate their children, not spreading misinformation. That's why Labor has called on the Turnbull government to fund a national education campaign on vaccines, and I am pleased to see that this is now happening.
People like Senator Hanson would benefit from this, but she undermines the confidence in the Immunise Australia Program, and the confusion has only the potential of lowering immunisation rates and causing harm. Parents are only interested, I believe, in doing what's best for their children. They don't need extra confusion, and they don't want to put their children in danger. A national education campaign that delivers the message that vaccines are safe and effective and save lives is thoroughly warranted. This should include advertising and information based on science, not opinion, for parents.
It is vitally important that our hospital system is not placed under any more duress. In my seat of Lindsay, we know only too well the impacts of flu this season. I couldn't imagine how the system could handle an epidemic or outbreak on top of it. Just last Sunday I was at Nepean Hospital's emergency department, and I saw firsthand the state that it's in: 83 patients at 3.30 in the afternoon in an emergency department that has only 32 beds. We have been given no additional clinical services, just billboards and promises. Imagine the inundation with an unvaccinated community.
While parents wait and staff are under enormous pressure in Nepean Hospital, the state government announces plans for a car park. There are no beds in car parks. There are no doctors or nurses in car parks either. We need some serious action now. A health precinct that cannot meet current capacity with certainty is not going to meet future needs with our ever-increasing population growth. It has now been seven years, and Liberal member Stuart Ayres has done nothing to increase staffing or bed capacity at the Nepean. The promise of an upgrade is a mere mirage. And, after 12 years, our local after-hours GP clinic, which was co-located at the entry of the emergency department, has been moved off site without any consultation with our community. The whole issue around stress of our health system is interrelated. I have mentioned flu, and this is an issue that we could also help with better education and with better vaccination campaigns.
As well as encouraging immunisation and shutting down stupid comments by preference dealer Hanson, the government must play its part in ensuring that the vaccine supplies are available. I note the recent shortage of the meningococcal B vaccine and am pleased that it is now resolved. I am pleased that action has been taken to protect our children from this devastating disease. I know firsthand the effects of meningococcal disease and how horrendous it is. My only sister, who is older than me, contracted the deadly disease 17 years ago. She spent weeks in hospital and was in a coma. Any steps that undermine our population's health should be called out.
Finally, the government announced that it would pursue No Jab, No Play laws. These are state and territory laws that allow childcare centres to turn away children who are not immunised. While some states and territories have them in place, there isn't a national approach. If the announcement sounded familiar, it's because the Abbott-Turnbull government already announced this policy almost four years ago. In May 2013, the member for Warringah and then Leader of the Opposition committed:
If childcare centres want to implement "no jab, no play" then they should be free to do so - and we will work with the states and territories to make it happen …
This government has been in office for over four years, and what has it done on the No Jab, No Play policy? Still, we welcome the government's renewed commitment on this issue, and I commend my support.
Australia has a very proud history in the field of immunology. Even though penicillin, arguably the most important breakthrough in modern medicine, was discovered by Sir Alexander Fleming, a Scottish biologist, it was actually Howard Florey, an Australian pharmacologist, who conducted the first clinical trials of penicillin and really made it useful and effective. Howard Florey is estimated to have saved over 200 million lives since his discovery. Prime Minister Menzies described Florey as 'the most important man ever born in Australia'. Now the science has conclusively proven that immunisation is an essential part of modern health care. It has significantly contributed to the eradication of smallpox, the first disease that was completely defeated and eliminated.
We understand very well how vaccines prevent diseases. They reduce the risk of infection by working with the body's natural defences to help it safely develop immunity to the disease. When germs such as bacteria or viruses invade the body, they attack and multiply and become an infection that causes illness. The immune system then has to fight the infection, and the body is left with a supply of cells that help to recognise and fight that disease in the future.
The government understands the importance of immunisation, which is why we introduced the Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015. This legislation created a new consolidated legislative framework for the establishment and ongoing management of Australian immunisation registers. The Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is a further part of the government's very firm, clear and absolute commitment to a No Jab, No Pay program. This program actively encourages immunisation and vaccination to lift the rates of safety for our children and for the children of others with whom each of our offspring play. We know how children play. Any parents or even grandparents here in the chamber know how quickly a cold or virus spreads around when children are young be it at day-care, at a preschool, at a house or when one gets sick.
I believe that there is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting immunisation, not the least of which is to protect our precious children from infectious diseases. Put simply: vaccination saves lives. There was a family of a baby who died of whooping cough in Perth in 2015. His name was Riley John Hughes. He died at Princess Margaret Hospital. The family took to social media at the time not only to share they grief but also in a desire to help eradicate the disease. They were encouraging people to make sure that their children were vaccinated. In the days before Riley's death, Mrs Hughes made an impassioned plea to other families to consider vaccinating their children against the disease. She said, 'If you have not been immunised against whooping cough, please consider getting it done. It was heartbreaking to watch four-week old Riley struggle with it at PMH. Please keep him in your thoughts.' This is the last thing that any parents would want. The Australian Medical Association President, Michael Gannon, in the article also said that the case was a very tragic reminder that people needed to get vaccinated against potentially fatal infections and, of course, this is exactly why vaccinations are so important.
The Centre For Disease Control and Prevention estimates vaccinations will prevent more than 21 million hospitalisations and 732,000 deaths among children born in the last 20 years. More than three million people actually die from vaccine preventable diseases each year. Approximately 1.5 million of those deaths are in children less than five years of age. What better reason could there be for vaccination than that? We have had the 2015 observance of World Immunisation Week. I want to commend the Rotary Clubs around Australia. In their great efforts to deal with the global polio eradication, they have also then taken this further into measles as well.
In 1988 Rotary joined together the World Health Organization, UNICEF and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the absolute goal of protecting the world's children by eradicating polio, and they have worked constantly ever since. Over these 20 years, Rotary and its partners have reduced the number of polio cases by 99 per cent. There are now only three countries in which polio transmission has not been stopped. I commend all of the Rotarians who have committed so much of their efforts and resources to this program. And these polio assets have been applied in tandem now to measles elimination, with similar strategies to deal with this. I encourage Rotary to continue in this. Polio Plus was launched in 1985. I commend Rotary for all their work in this space.
This legislation is about a range of matters. It is about ensuring safety across the board and the importance of vaccinations, including for measles and mumps. It is about rubella and shingles. There is a vaccination for shingles. And it is about the tragic outcomes I mentioned around whooping cough. And deaths from these diseases are absolutely preventable. Immunisation is critical to maintaining public health and preventing the outbreak of infectious diseases. I am pleased that the government's approach to vaccination for young children has support from both sides of the parliament. The Turnbull government is committed to further improving vaccination rates. Since the introduction of the No Jab, No Pay policy the government has seen an extra 200,000 children vaccinated in just over a year. This has meant vaccination rates have increased to 93 per cent for the general childhood population and to 94.5 per cent for those covered by the particular measures.
It is fundamentally good public policy to ensure good public health outcomes for Australians at the most important level—the individual family. It is good public policy that protects and saves lives. You would understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie. I understand that your next child is not far away from being born. So you, of all people, would be very protective of your children and babies and understand the critical nature of vaccinations. Even Her Royal Highness Princess Mary of Denmark has lent her support to vaccination. She has seen firsthand the effect of infectious diseases in Africa. This is another way of reinforcing the importance of vaccination right around the world.
In each electorate, many places offer child vaccinations and there are many opportunities for parents to make sure their children are covered. Since the introduction of the AIR Act, immunisation clinicians have requested that other specialised medical professionals have their assessments for medical exemptions recognised under the act in addition to general practitioners. And this is a fair and reasonable and very sensible proposal, put forward by the medical profession, to advance the objectives of the No Jab, No Pay policy. These additional practitioners include paediatricians—a very good idea—public health physicians, infectious disease physicians and clinical immunologists. Specialists have advised that having to send patients back to general practitioners for medical exemptions has added an unnecessary burden of time for patients and in some cases may risk recognition of those families that actually have done the right thing. In rural and regional areas, the more efficient we can be the better. The four specialist groups identified in the legislation today, therefore, provide care to the most vulnerable children in the country, including those with complex illnesses and healthcare requirements. This is a very sensible response put forward by the profession and is yet another example of the Turnbull government consulting with professionals and making changes to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose—the purpose of good public health outcomes. As the minister did, I too want to thank and acknowledge the work of the AMA and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. It is important that the government work with the profession to make sure that the No Jab, No Play policy is effective.
It's important to acknowledge the bipartisan support lent by the opposition. I understand they've also been a very constructive partner in the push to ensure that vaccination becomes a universal outcome for Australian children, other than those with a genuine medical exemption. The Prime Minister has made this a signature personal area of investigation and action in terms of preventive health, public health and protecting children. He deserves great credit for ensuring the focus on this area. I strongly support this policy and make no apologies for the tough stance this government's taking on the vaccination of our children. I commend the Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 to the House, and I am sure that every member of this place is greatly committed to the health of children and babies. That is why there is such widespread and bipartisan support for this important bill. I commend it to the House.
I thank the member. On this subject, we are of one mind.
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the member for Forrest for her comments as well. I too rise to speak on the Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. I am pleased to speak in support of the bill because it is high time that the government took a harder line to ensure that parents can no longer play Russian roulette with their children's health.
I applaud the minor amendment to the bill that adds four medical specialities to the list of suitably trained and qualified experts who can grant vaccination exemptions. They are, quite rightly, paediatricians, public health physicians, infectious disease physicians and clinical immunologists. Labor agrees that these people are among the very few qualified to make the potentially life-threatening call to not administer a vaccination to a child. It is right and proper that they are also the only people who will now be qualified to tell the government whether children and families have met vaccination requirements. I therefore commend the government for this second minor but positive change to the No Jab, No Pay arrangements. The government must encourage and protect the collective immunity of all Australians, and that's what we're really talking about here.
I'm delighted to report that the high schools of my electorate of Paterson, in Maitland, have vaccination rates among the highest in New South Wales. This is largely due to the efforts of a wonderful woman, my good friend and Labor colleague Councillor Loretta Baker. Loretta is a candidate for the 2017 Maitland City Council mayoral election, which is coming up very shortly. In her day-to-day life, however, Loretta is a community health nurse whose work involves a great deal of time vaccinating children in schools. Indeed, she has vaccinated my own children. Apparently, she doesn't hurt a bit! In Paterson, it appears that many people are embracing the message that a failure to vaccinate is a threat to public health thanks to the education and leadership of people such as Loretta Baker. Francis Greenway High School at Beresfield achieved a 100 per cent vaccination rate for the first shot to protect against human papillomavirus, 98 per cent for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and 90 per cent for the shot that wards off chickenpox. That's well worth the investment to any parent who's ever endured chickenpox, especially over the summer. Across town, Maitland Grossmann High School recorded 90 per cent uptake for HPV vaccinations, 91 per cent for DPT and 79 per cent for chickenpox.
However, many parents in Paterson recently received bulletins from their local primary schools warning of the high rates of influenza and also the symptoms of whooping cough—yes, that's right. In 2017 there are people in our communities who have whooping cough—pregnant mothers who have whopping cough and tiny babies whose bodies are racked by the incessant, life-draining and life-threatening whoop. This can occur even among those who have been immunised, as vaccines may be ineffective in a small percentage of the population. That's why it is so desperately important that all who are medically able to receive immunisation do so. It is for the good of our community—our herd. As leaders, our goal should be to eradicate life-threatening diseases, not just in our electorate, state or nation, but across our globe. This should be our mission. The World Health Organization recognises the role of vaccinations in helping achieve the 2030 UN sustainable development goals. Here in Australia, the Immunise Australia Program is fundamental.
However, we are concerned that some recent commentary around vaccinations and purported links to autism might undermine confidence in the program. Even by engaging on the topic we encourage the illusion that there remain two sides to the argument. In turn, this creates more material that becomes cannon fodder for vaccine sceptics. The debate about whether vaccines are life saving or life threatening should have ended long ago. I believe it takes a special mix of arrogance and ignorance for a person to believe they know better than a highly trained medical professional. But, as Dr Michael Gannon recently said, about eight per cent of the population are so-called 'vaccine hesitant'. That means they are looking for any hint that might cause them to stray from a vaccination program. It is absolutely essential that we have accurate information and that members of the public have access to this information too.
Science provides us with answers that are tested and agreed upon by people who devote their whole lives to studying certain areas of expertise, and these experts have determined that the only people who should be eligible for a medical vaccination exemption are those who truly need it. This includes those who have a history of anaphylactic reactions to components in the vaccine or those who are temporarily immunocompromised. Having an innate suspicion of mass vaccination programs isn't an adequate excuse, and neither is spending an evening with 'Dr Google' or buying into viral Facebook tin-hat conspiracy theories that play on parents' fears for the safety of their child. It is imperative that the Prime Minister puts an end to the politics of fear. Again and again we see this government and its allies drive dodgy agendas pulling the wool over the eyes of the good people of Australia.
Fear is such a powerful motivator. The member for Wentworth and others have been very busy during the past couple of weeks, fanning huge clouds of fear around Labor's plan for a more equitable tax system. They've been largely silent on and, as such, permissive of Senator Hanson's ignorance and vitriol towards our residents. The Prime Minister has stayed shtum as his preference deal partner has linked vaccines to cancer and autism. That's right—Senator Hanson, such a multi-skilled purveyor of expertise, somehow became a televised expert on the subject of vaccines. She spoke about a non-existent test for vaccine allergies and encouraged parents to use it. She linked vaccines to both cancer and autism. These unfounded and downright dangerous comments—which, not surprisingly, echo those of Donald Trump—were made to a potentially national audience. Senator Hanson later backed down on her comments about the non-existent vaccine allergy test. Medical experts decried her comments and described them as ignorant and dangerous. But the damage was done. Every time we allow the vaccination debate to reignite, we give parity to a non-argument. Every time we allow this ridiculous position air, we give a patina of credibility to it. We pretend there are two sides of the argument. We create more material that populates the ethernet and eventually becomes the cannon fodder of the vaccine sceptics.
As science has demonstrated, the debate about whether vaccines are life threatening or life saving should have ended long ago. The debate is over. The science is in. The evidence that vaccines save lives is overwhelming. We should not be having this debate. It is time that the government, once and for all, moves beyond the uninformed discussions that continue to put our most vulnerable at risk. Dr Michael Gannon has referred to vaccinations as the most important public health program we have. Yet this government continues to be far too tolerant of those who encourage opting out of children's vaccination programs due to conscientious objections. Even today, as I speak, there is no national approach guiding childcare centres regarding accepting enrolments of children who are not immunised. While some states and territories have laws that allow centres to turn away children who are not immunised, it is not a universal approach. That is simply not good enough, particularly when you consider that, in May 2013, the member for Warringah, then the opposition leader, made a commitment that he would work with states and territories to develop a uniform approach. Yes, that was 3½ years ago, and what has transpired? Very little. While parents and health services around the globe plead for international aid programs to help vaccinate children from preventable diseases, here in Australia we have a government that remains tolerant of a populist and ridiculous wave that persists in linking vaccines to illness.
I put it to you that it is deadset wrong for the government to permit a culture of fear and ignorance to fester around an issue of life and death. The government must adopt an absolute position. Just weeks ago in Charlestown Square, which is a popular shopping centre in the Hunter Valley frequented by a lot of my constituents from Paterson, the Australian Vaccination-sceptics Network dropped in for a screening of Vaxxed. Although the antivaxxers plugged it as a documentary, I refer to it as a mockumentary. Its central premise is that vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella may be leading to an autism epidemic. People who came along to the $25-per-adult screening also got to participate in a question-and-answer with one of the biologists featured in the mockumentary. A roaming camera crew filmed attendees and recorded their vaccine injury stories. This was appalling: sad and angry people venting their fears and suspicions, only to have this private grief and fear captured by the unscrupulous as further evidence of the evils of vaccination. It was not just in the Hunter Valley either. Only last week there was an antivaccination film screened in central Melbourne.
It is critically important that the government does all it can to counter movements such as the Australian Vaccination-sceptics Network. Our leaders at local, state and federal levels must be united in their commitment to educate and inform parents about the deadly risks associated with the failure to vaccinate children. Labor wrote to the Prime Minister in March to encourage decisive and urgent action. While we are pleased that the government is finally revisiting the No Jab, No Pay arrangements, we are disappointed that more resources have not been allocated. We must refute the uninformed discussions that are taking place in our communities about vaccines. It is essential that we educate people about the inherent risk of these preventable diseases and protect the health of our population. If the antivaccine proponents shout loudly, we must shout louder. When uninformed views make their way into mainstream discussions, we must draw on science and refute them absolutely. If there are mockumentaries and public forums fanning fear about Australia's world-class immunisation program, we must counter them with equally emotive and powerful messages of truth. We must work to ensure that the dangerous misinformation peddled by the antivaccination proponents never, ever takes the place of proven scientific advice.
During this education program, we will have the support of the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Academy of Science, Australia's medical colleges, nurses, and the Public Health Association of Australia. We all agree that it is critically important that the public continues to be educated about the importance of vaccines. So, while Labor welcomes a federally funded public education campaign, we call on the government to allocate more resources to this critical initiative. We must eliminate any confusion, and give people access to information across a variety of channels. Parents must know the deadly risks of failing to vaccinate their children.
As the daughter of a polio survivor, I have a very personal interest in this. My father, who passed away last October, had infantile paralysis, as they called it in 1931, as a two-year-old boy. It did not deter him. His right hand was slightly less strong than his left, and he was a man who worked physically hard with tools all of his life. He never sought any sort of compensation or payment for what was a disability, but he worked so hard his whole life to put that aside and just be an incredible contributor to our society.
I say to anyone who fears vaccination: you should fear polio and the other scourge diseases that could wrack your child in a much greater way than the marvellous science that has gone into immunisation. It is the great gift of human medicine over the last 100 years and we should all be embracing it. I do thank the government. I urge them to put more resources into this. It is our responsibility to support parents and make sure they vaccinate their children. Thank you.
I rise today to speak to Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, a bill that makes minor amendments to the Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015 to expand the list of health practitioners who can assess the contraindication young individuals may have to a vaccine or natural immunity to a disease. Notably, and consequential to the amendment, changes will be required of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act to align with the medical practitioners who are able to certify a medical exemption to immunisation for family assistance payment purposes. The opposition should be supportive of this initiative—and I note that the speakers to date are—because the coalition will ensure that those families unable to immunise their children for a legitimate medical reason do not have any of their family assistance payments impacted.
Immunisation is critical to maintaining public health. It is as simple as that. Vaccination is a fundamental achievement of our modern times. Immunisation is the most significant public health intervention in the past 200 years because it provides a safe and effective way to prevent the spread of many diseases—diseases that would otherwise cause hospitalisation, serious ongoing health conditions and, in some instances, death. Since the introduction of vaccination for children in Australia in the early 1930s, deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases have fallen by 99 per cent, despite that at the same time our population has increased threefold. Members should perhaps take a moment to fathom the effects on Australia's population if vaccination had not formed an integral part of our health policy. Vaccination policy is good policy. Vaccination saves lives. This policy enhances the integrity of our No jab, No pay strategy.
I further want to impress upon the House that this bill is not about parents seeking exemption from immunisation simply because of their views on vaccination formed by reading outlandish online forums or following paleo-hungry celebrities. Some specialist immunisation clinics have approached the Department of Health since the AIR commenced. Just like the medical specialist clinics in my electorate of Ryan, they have continued to advocate the consideration for paediatricians, public health physicians, infectious disease physicians and clinical immunologists to be recognised as being able to assess for medical exemptions. Feedback received from specialist clinics indicates that the current practice sees patients being sent to general practitioners to get a medical exemption. Like many members here today who are parents, we understand and appreciate that this scenario is burdensome for already time-poor mums and dads. Expanding the numbers of those who can assess for medical exemptions will reduce the number of referrals and appointments patients would need. It will also ensure that the most vulnerable and those living with complex illnesses are afforded the best possible care available. This further demonstrates that through smart coalition policy Australian families are benefitting.
With highly infectious but easily preventable diseases like measles, the rate of immunisation required to interrupt disease transmission—also known as herd immunity—is above 95 per cent, a mark that we are still short of. Vaccination is one area of life where it pays to be part of a crowd. I wonder if One Nation Western Australia Senator-elect Peter Georgiou will now advocate for immunisation, given his run-in with the measles which delayed his swearing-in—no doubt much to the embarrassment of his colleagues and Senator Hanson, who was recently attributed with critical comments about Australia's vaccination program. The regularly-quoted this evening Dr Michael Gannon, head of the Australian Medical Association, went as far as to say that he was appalled by Senator Hanson's remarks, emphatically stating that the comments could have a damaging effect on those less-informed Australians who are already marred by the controversial debate by flat-earthers who do not accept science and vaccination.
Debate interrupted.
There is an absurdity that lies at the heart of the Turnbull government's National Broadband Network rollout plan, which means that so far, six years after the start of the National Broadband Network Companies Act, my federal electorate of Perth has only recently undertaken its rollout plan in order to be connected. Well, when I say 'my electorate', in truth only a very, very small parcel has recently received that magical purple shading on NBN Co's rollout map, and purple is the golden colour, for want of a better term, in relation to achieving NBN connectivity. Only a very, very small sliver of purple adorns the federal electorate of Perth: a very, very small corner of Bassendean and a small sliver of Mount Lawley.
The obscenity is this: I am contacted, as I'm sure all members of this place are, every week—day in, day out—by constituents complaining, quite rightly, about appallingly slow internet speeds. However, what's really interesting in relation to my electorate is that almost none of those complaints really come from Mount Lawley or Bassendean; the complaints come from those hard-working people in Noranda and Bayswater and Morley and Maylands and even East Perth, which lies not more than one kilometre from the Perth CBD: so close to the city, yet so incredibly isolated from the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
I recently met with Jill Hansen, who is running a wonderful pearl jewellery business in East Perth. The business is going well, but its potential is thwarted; it could be going so much better if she had a meaningful and reliable NBN connection. So much of her business relies on connectivity to manage stock in Australia and overseas, to manage and train staff, to communicate with traders around the world, and yet she cannot get her own phone line. She has to share a line with her neighbour. The only internet connectivity she has is with mobile broadband. Reliability suffers and she is regularly disconnected in the middle of transactions—simple web-based tasks take hours longer than they should, costing Jill's small business valuable time and valuable money. This Prime Minister's 'fraud band', not broadband, is single-handedly holding back this small business from growing and achieving its true potential.
Take Trent, for example, who recently bought a newly-built apartment in Maylands. He and other owners in his building cannot even get the internet. Telstra has told them that the copper cabling up the street is so degraded it won't even support DSL. Telstra won't upgrade it because—wait for it!—'NBN is coming'. Winter is coming, Game of Thrones is coming, but one thing that is not coming to Maylands is the NBN. The NBN is not coming any time soon, and it's happening on this Prime Minister's watch.
A government member interjecting—
Well it would be funny, if it wasn't so tragic. We are seeing education outcomes suffering. We are seeing small businesses suffering. We are seeing health outcomes suffering. They are suffering at the hands of this government, this Luddite government that is so slow to catch up to the real world it is leaving us behind at a rate of knots.
Timothy from Embleton, whose internet speed is a mere 270 kilobytes per second, cannot stream videos and struggles to connect to his network to work from home—that's businesses suffering. He won't get the NBN for another 2½ years, if he's lucky. Peter in Maylands hates the idea, quite rightly, of fibre to the node; it is a wasted opportunity. Alan from Bayswater gets one megabit per second. Many of the streets around Alan have been promised fibre to the curb; his address will only get fibre to the node. And Michael lives in a shared house in Morley where things are so grim that he and his housemates have to roster internet usage, otherwise speeds drop to dial-up. This situation is nothing short of absurd. When the Prime Minister was communications minister, his plan was for NBN co to prioritise speed over quality with the greatest need. He has let us down on NBN. He has let us down in marriage equality. He has let everyone down in relation to his government. He is nothing more than a failure. (Time expired)
On 15 July, I held a community catch-up at the Westley Village shops and constituents raised a range of issues with me like roads infrastructure, especially Pennant Hills Road, the worst road in Australia. My constituents are delighted to see the Turnbull government working with the Berejiklian government and the private sector to deliver NorthConnex, which will take 5,000 trucks off Pennant Hills Road every day and will change people's lives in such a positive way. NorthConnex will be delivered on time at the end of 2019 and on budget.
My constituents also raised concerns with me about telecommunications. That is why on 18 July I held a community forum with representatives from Telstra and the NBN to update locals on the rollout of mobile telephone towers and the NBN across the Berowra electorate. Berowra's hilly topography often makes telecommunications more of a challenge for my constituents than in other parts of Sydney. To address this, the government has secured three mobile phone towers, including one at Sackville North and two at the north end of the Hornsby shire.
During July, I also received a visit from the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. He and I hauled cable in Cherry Brooke to celebrate the fact the NBN was across 20 per cent of the electorate and 50 per cent of the country. I am holding a second community forum with both Telstra and the NBN on 23 August at Dural Country Club and I encourage any interested local residents to attend. Berowra is home to 51 outstanding schools which will benefit from the injection of over $1 billion in federal funding over the next decade. I was delighted to welcome the education minister, Senator Birmingham, to Berowra to see Cheltenham Girls High School and to meet representatives of Mount St Benedict's, two of the outstanding girls' schools in my electorate.
I have the privilege of serving on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue. The committee is inquiring into taxpayer engagement with the tax system. To get a better idea of what tax practitioners in my electorate were thinking, on 17 July I held a roundtable with practitioners to discuss these issues. It was an engaging session with feedback on everything from the ATO's online performance to ideas for more sweeping tax reform.
Over the past few weeks I have been honoured to speak at services at several congregations in Berowra. These occasions provided a reminder of the enduring values of faith, community and service that are so prevalent in Berowra. Thank you to Saint Luke's Anglican Church at Hornsby Heights, the Turramurra Gurudwara, the Iman Hassan Centre at Annangrove and the Glenorie Mission Church. I was also delighted to be asked to serve dinner at the Hornsby Cathedral Catholic Parish community dinner. Each week for the past 10 years, the cathedral congregation has served dinner to those more marginalised members of our community. The dinner emphasises essential values of human dignity, servant leadership and humility. My sincere thanks to the organisers, Curtis and Cristina Crasto, Georgina, Elizabeth and Father Vincent.
I would also like to acknowledge the service clubs I have visited. I was invited to speak at the Berowra Probus Club to celebrate its 25th anniversary with several founding members still in attendance after 25 years. This makes it a special Probus Club, and I would like to thank Bill Hartnett and Alan Milne for their invitation.
In the north-western corner of my electorate is Sackville North on the banks of the Hawkesbury. The local rural fire service brigade is the backbone of the community and its captain, John Turnbull, is a distant cousin of the Prime Minister. Every year, they get together for a Christmas in July celebration and this celebration provided me with a great opportunity to catch up with the Sackville North community. Some weeks later, I attended another Christmas in July celebration at The Dangar Island Bowling Club, a unique community at the other end of the Hawkesbury and received a warm welcome.
On a sadder note, I attended the final dinner meeting of the Beecroft Cheltenham Lions Club, which decided to hand in its charter after 25 years of dedicated service to our community. The club has a proud history. Founded by Beecroft shopkeepers, it pioneered Beecroft in Bloom, a successful local spring festival and organised the Beecroft Anzac Day commemoration services and was responsible for raising over $300,000 for the community, including the provision of a disabled toilet at Beecroft, a kidney dialysis machine for Hornsby hospital and raised money for Karonga school. I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of the outgoing president, John Glasson; Doreen Moore, the secretary, and her husband, John; and Brian and Sandy Bailey. Stalwarts of the club over the years have included Margaret and Hugh Talbot; Trish Long; Malcolm and Frances Michael; John Simpson; Glenys Johnson; Neil, Annie and Kathryn Warwick; Alex Maitland; Elaine Turner; Hazel Green; Lesley Bell; Patrick McCappion; Joanne Sim; Sandra Ross; Jenny Wilson; Roy Marzarno; Scot Gumley; Damien Tudehope and John Wakefield. Our community organisations are the backbone of Berowra.
The disability support pension is a government payment for people who have a permanent physical, intellectual or psychiatric condition so serious that it stops them from working. It's a difficult pension to qualify for, despite what some media outlets, or, indeed, the government, would have you believe, as there must be reports from doctors, specialists and psychiatrists and numerous assessments by Centrelink's own medical team. Moreover, to receive the DSP, a person must have a permanent and diagnosed disability with an established treatment plan in place. In other words, people on the DSP are genuinely unwell and are genuinely in need of financial support. But, despite all of this, too often governments treat Australians on the DSP like criminals, welfare cheats and fraudsters—a burden on Australian society. Indeed, already under the Turnbull government, DSP recipients have been subject to compulsory reviews, and, of course, the robo-debt scheme that we've all heard so much about. As we know, that scheme sent out, and is continuing to send out, thousands of incorrect debt notices terrorising many Australians to the point where some have even attempted suicide. It is no wonder hundreds of people have contacted my office to plead for assistance and to tell me how the stress from these letters has impacted their lives and their health.
Clearly, this was not enough for the government, because just last week we saw the first of the letters sent out by the so-called Taskforce Integrity: the new, and frankly tyrannical, partnership between the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Human Services. Imagine receiving one of those threatening letters, emblazoned with the AFP logo, warning you of the consequences of committing welfare fraud and telling you that you owe money or that you are being targeted by the Australian Federal Police. What would you do? You'd panic, of course. Now imagine how you'd respond if you suffered from psychosis or anxiety and depression. How would you respond if you had an intellectual disability or mental impairment? But what about if you're not crippled by anxiety and don't need to be hospitalised because your mental health has hit rock bottom and instead you have the confidence and advocacy skills to call Centrelink, and you call the line specifically for DSP recipients? Well, yesterday afternoon between 2 pm and 5 pm one of my staff tried more than 100 times to call the Centrelink DSP hotline, and every time she got the engaged signal—more than 100 times. How is this possible? How is it possible for the largest federal government department to not answer the phone that many times—a phone line designed specifically for vulnerable people? It is no wonder that people are left anxious, desperate to resolve the wrong they are being accused of and finding it impossible.
It's not just DSP recipients struggling to receive service from Centrelink. Indeed, I have had many complaints to my office on a daily basis from recipients of the aged pension, Newstart, carers payments and youth allowance—people who've been waiting months for their application to be assessed for payment and have not received a single piece of communication from Centrelink.
The personal stories are endless—for instance, of how people have called Centrelink multiple times, or been into a Centrelink office, only to be told something different every time; of people who are trying to do the right thing, to declare their income correctly, but who cannot because myGov is broken, and who, if they go into a Centrelink office, are referred back to the phone lines or to myGov. Where is the government's duty of care? And it's getting worse—so much worse, in fact, that there can be no doubt that the Abbott and now Turnbull governments are responsible for this shambles. I don't blame hardworking Centrelink staff for this situation, because there's no doubt they're doing the best they can. But they've had to deal with budget cut after budget cut because the government thinks everyone can manage their affairs online. Even if the online system worked, it's not one size fits all, and there are many people for whom using the internet just isn't an option.
People who already face a daily struggle due to their illness, disability or financial situation now also face regular bullying by the government, and quite frankly that's downright disgusting. Instead of tackling the big issues of working towards intelligent policy that raises revenue, the government's focus is on bullying and targeting vulnerable Australians. (Time expired)
I rise today to remind the parliament that in June it was 50 years since the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War. The conflict that empowered the state of Israel but began 50 years of occupation of Palestinian land is seen from very different points of view. I recognise and respect the viewpoint of many Jewish people whose ancestors and families have been persecuted for their race and faith. I know that they see in this war the Israeli's state's defence of its position as a place of refuge and as symbol that the rest of the world understands Jewish history.
As someone with a longstanding affinity for the Palestinians, including co-chairing this parliament's friendship group over many years, I wish to highlight the Palestinian perspective. The 1967 war led to eventual peace with Egypt and Jordan, but it never brought Israel full acceptance from its neighbours. Taking stock at this half-century mark, we can see that both sides have been scarred by violence, failed negotiations and a peace process that seems to be all process but no peace. The disputes over Jerusalem and its holy sites, the separation wall dividing West Bank communities, the blockades and resistance of the Gaza Strip and Israel's provocative settlement-building program are all obstacles to peace
The miracle that is Israel's start-up nation with its high-tech industries spanning the globe and the vibrant society and culture it has created on the shores of the Mediterranean astonishes every visitor. When sitting in the bustling cafes of Tel Aviv, it's easy to forget that the Palestinians even exist. There are roads into the West Bank on which only Israelis can travel. As you look across the landscape from settlements high on the hills in occupied territory, you see no evidence whatsoever of the Palestinian indigenous occupants. The richness of Israel makes the misery of Palestinians all the more troubling.
In his piece 'I fought for a better Israel than this', Israeli soldier and journalist Hirsh Goodman said:
We saved our nation, but the occupation has cost us dearly in the long run.
He said:
For 50 years, I have watched … as successive Israeli governments failedto leverage this victory into lasting peace, as Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank eroded the country morally, democratically and in the esteem of the international community.
… … …
My children … have been forced into the role of occupiers contrary to the values we hold at home. My oldest son was inducted into the army about a year into the first intifada.
… … …
His unit's precise goal was to enforce the occupation: arrest … suspects" in the middle of the night … enforce curfews … telling young kids they can't play soccer in the street because they posed a security threat; man roadblocks and turn away the sick because they did not have the right permits.
He did his duty as was expected of him, but almost the day after shedding his uniform he slammed the door on the country of his birth. He moved abroad and has not returned. … "I'll never forgive the country for what it made me do," he said simply.
The Palestinians' armed struggle has been for the most part a failure. The PLO's terrorism in the 70s together with modern-day corruption in many of its institutions have done very little to help its cause.
But think not of the leadership; think of the people. Between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea half the residents or more live as either second-class citizens or noncitizens because they are Palestinian. In the West Bank a third of the Palestinian population is under 14. Less than five per cent would remember a time without Israeli occupation. Any visit to the Occupied Territories is confronting. I remember visiting the child I sponsored at his broken-down school in Bethlehem next to a shiny, bright settler school and seeing the rebellion in his eyes. I heard of another boy sentenced to six months in prison: one month for every stone he threw, though none of them hit anyone.
Peace has not come. Every generation of Palestinian refugees in the Arab world will grow up with resentment and hatred in their hearts. Every generation of Israelis will put on the uniform and prepare to fight. But, as Yehuda Shaul of the RDF veterans organisation Breaking the Silence commented to me, 'The occupation is damaging our minds.' The Yom Kippur War cost Israel over 2,600 killed and some 10,000 wounded—a tremendous price for a small country. More have been killed since on both sides in military action and suicide bombings.
The grief of both Jewish and Palestinian families will paralyse generations if a way forward cannot be found. Palestinians are both Christian and Muslim and, before all this happened, lived peacefully beside their Jewish neighbours. I ask for this parliament to take a quiet moment of prayer or reflection to remember and recognise people of all faiths who live in Palestine today.
There is nearly as much left on the cutting floor when preparing your first speech as an MP as there is that you can manage to fit in. I wish to rectify a small part of that on this first sitting day after the first anniversary of my Nanna's passing away. Rita and Peter Travers were completely integral to my and my siblings' upbringing, as clearly they were in that of my mum, Helen, and her sisters. Dadda, to me, was a lawyer and a Rotarian but most of all a teller of funny stories around the lunch or dinner table for family events. He went to law school with Bob Hawke and Ron Wilson, was part of founding the Parents and Friends Federation of Western Australia and was on the Labor state executive during the split. Dadda knew, though, that family always came first. Being a councillor would be the height of his political career, though he was always interested in it all.
My Dadda once came to my primary school with wig and gown as part of us learning about different careers, and I beamed with pride. When I was all of about 12, he took me to visit different courts. One of the trials we sat and watched was that of WA businessman and Chairman of Rothwells Laurie Connell. This clearly had an indelible subconscious impact, as not only did I end up pursuing a legal career, but I spent much of it prosecuting corporate and financial services crime.
Reete, or Reety, as Peter called her, my Nanna, was almost like a second mum to us older Keogh children, collecting us from school often or being the first port of call after our getting off the school bus. Nanna would also regularly cook dinner for the whole family, ready for when Mum picked us up after work or uni. We will now never know the secret ingredient that she included in her bolognese to make it taste so good. Nan used to maintain that, with a husband so interested in politics and current affairs and his whole family being the same, family meals would always be an animated and loud affair with forthright views flying across the table. She summed this up at one of their wedding anniversaries by saying that she had married into a family of 'table thumpers'. I am sure that my wife now feels the same way about the Keoghs.
People always warn you to make the most of the time that you have with your grandparents because you'll regret it if you don't, once they have gone. One of the hardest parts, though, was watching my Nanna slip into Alzheimer's. Not only was it something that I was never prepared for; it was something that I just had no comprehension of how to deal with and, I suspect, in a way was in denial about and avoiding.
After the last Anzac service I attended in 2016, a voicemail told me that Dadda had been into hospital and was very unwell, and everyone was meeting at the nursing home. By the time I returned the call, I learned that he had passed just 10 minutes earlier. This made my determination in the election campaign even stronger. My grandfather rallied the people in his nursing home to my cause during the Canning by-election and was the first person to donate to my campaign during the general election.
The day of my Dadda's funeral was a bittersweet one indeed. Some things just cannot be controlled, such as the timing of funerals and the timing of when the leader of your party is coming for a town hall event in your electorate. For me, these events coincided. The latter, I believe, was a huge success, and I have no doubt that it was in part due to my grandfather looking down sweetly on us all. I suspect Dadda was happy to enjoy a political career vicariously through me, so I was devastated that he was not able to see me have an election victory—though I am sure he was telling everyone in heaven on election night about his grandson.
Only after Annabel and I voted at our family's polling booth on polling day did Mum take me aside and tell me about Reete's condition, and we all then took time out to visit her. She wasn't really conscious by this stage, but we got to say our goodbyes. Nanna passed away in her sleep in the early hours of the next morning.
I would like also to record my thanks to our local state Labor MPs, branch members and party officials who attended both of my grandparents' funerals. The Labor Party rallied to my family and showed the true strength of character of our party and movement. I would not be the person that I am and strive to be, with the values, beliefs, and approach to life and public policy that I have, without my Nanna and Dadda. I love them, I miss them and I'm sorry they never got to see me in this place or meet my son Nicholas, nor have him meet them, but I am proud to place all of this on the record in this House tonight.
I rise tonight to talk about this government's investment in the Building Better Regions Fund. I congratulate my colleague Senator Fiona Nash for her unwavering faith in rural and regional Australia. This fund is acknowledgement of the importance of rural and regional Australia in our nation's economy. Our government's investment in this fund is not predicated on rural and regional Australia being a basket case but on its importance in terms of its contribution to rural and regional Australia. In fact, my electorate of Maranoa contributes more per capita to GDP than Toowoomba, Townsville or the Gold Coast.
Only in the last couple of weeks, our announcements through this government, in the latest rounds, of an investment of just under $5 million in a cold storage facility in Warwick will create 150 direct jobs, 138 indirect jobs and 80 construction jobs and add $111 million to the exports of this nation. It's a no-brainer. We should be proud of the fact that we are investing in rural and regional Australia. My community of Warwick has 15,000 people, approximately. This is adding an extra one per cent of the population for an investment of just under $5 million. So we should be proud of the fact that we have faith in rural and regional Australia to have a fund that will contribute to create jobs and wealth in rural and regional Australia.
Our story in rural and regional Australia is one of optimism and a future of great opportunity, because we have put the foundation and the environment around the people of rural and regional Australia with the trade agreements that we fought so hard for, which are putting real dollars in people's pockets in my electorate. The story of Maranoa is 'just add rain'. There is real wealth being created in my electorate, because we have trade agreements and real wealth being created through great and absolutely unbelievable cattle prices, grain prices and cotton prices. Couple that with tourism. Put that also with the current investment in connectivity that we're also putting in place through internet and mobile phone coverage, but also connectivity through a $1.6 billion investment in the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing. While that will benefit the people of Groom and Toowoomba, it is my people, the people of Maranoa, who will benefit from that because our product will get around the world even faster. We will create greater efficiency and productivity to each and every one of those primary producers across Maranoa, because of the investment and the faith that this government is showing in rural and regional Australia that we will be the economic engine room of this nation. We should be proud of a government that has the faith and confidence to do that.
We have done that not only in my home town of Warwick, showing the confidence in that community, but also in a little community called Morven, about 700 or 800 kilometres west of Brisbane. About 100 people live in Morven. We've seen the foresight of those people in Morven in having a rail hub that will bring cattle from north, south and west and put them on a train to take trucks off the highway and ease the burden on our highways and the burden of cost of maintenance. There is also the safety factor, to ensure that we put cattle on those trains and get them into an abattoir as quickly and efficiently as we possibly can, to ensure that that community can create more jobs—another 10 jobs during construction and two once it's completed. That's an investment in a small community. No matter the size, no matter how big your communities are in rural and regional Australia, we're not going to forget you on this side of the House. We believe in your future. We believe in the future of rural and regional Australia.
We're not just looking at the economic aspects of this; we're also looking at the social aspects. We've made an investment in a community called Blackbutt of about a thousand people just up on the D'Aguilar Highway. We're putting $200,000 into independent aged care so that those people at that stage of their lives that are looking to retire with the security of living around their family can do it with dignity, can do it in a place around their family and friends and can stay in a little community like that and do it with security and confidence. That's what this government does. It's not just about economics; it's about the social aspects of having stronger communities, not only economically but also socially.
This is a great investment by our government in rural and regional Australia. It's something we should be very proud of. I call on those on the other side, if ever—God help us—one day they happen to be in government, not to forget rural and regional Australia and to commit to the Building Better Regions Fund into perpetuity, because it will be a great investment in this nation's economy.
House adjourned at 20 : 00
I rise, unfortunately, to highlight another example of where this government has dropped the ball when it comes to supporting regional Tasmania. Earlier this year, Labor's country caucus visited the north-west coast of Tasmania, and my fellow members are here beside me. During the visit, consultations were held with Costa Group, who produce strawberries, blueberries, raspberries and mushrooms. The question was asked: 'What is the single most important thing we can do for your industry?' The answer? It was, 'Add blueberries to the priority list for export protocols for China.'
Tasmania and the largest growing areas in my electorate produce approximately 400 tonnes of blueberries per annum, with a farmgate value in excess of $30 million. The industry supports over 1,500 employees during harvest seasons and several hundred FTEs in between. Nationally, the industry is growing at a rapid rate, with 54 per cent growth in 2016-17 and 190 per cent growth forecast over the next five years. That growth is being replicated in Tasmania, where our cool season conditions, particularly in Braddon, are ideal for growing blueberries.
For almost two years the Australian Blueberry Growers' Association has been calling upon the Deputy Prime Minister to make it a priority to establish an export protocol with China. Chile, Canada, Peru and Argentina can export their blueberries to China, but Australia cannot. China is one of the fastest-growing markets in the world for blueberries, and Australian farmers are missing out. A further advantage to Australian and Tasmanian growers is our harvest season does not clash with China's. Horticulture Australia has recommended that blueberries be added to the market access priority list, but this too has been ignored by the Deputy Prime Minister. That means Australian farmers are missing out on exporting to the Chinese market, where demand for blueberries is growing at 20 per cent per annum. Blueberries are the fastest-growing fresh fruit category in China and worldwide. In my state, the fruitgrowers of Tasmania have been working with the state government to try to convince the Deputy Prime Minister to put blueberries on the priority list. But, again, that work has fallen on deaf ears. Fruit Growers Tasmania has told me that having access to China would mean the industry would rapidly expand in Tasmania. Tasmania is already sending apples and cherries to China, but this opportunity should be taken up by the Deputy Prime Minister. I call on those opposite, and in particular the Tasmanian Liberal senators, to join with Labor and get this done.
Last week, I was very fortunate to host the fourth annual Deakin Community Awards. These awards are a fixture and, might I say, a bright spot in my calendar. I always look forward to the opportunity for our community to come together and celebrate what makes our part of the country so extraordinary, which is volunteerism. As I said to the more than 700 people in attendance on the night: as much as we may all lose sight of this from time to time, the strength of our community in Deakin—indeed, the strength of all communities around the country—is not found in the formal institutions or the elected representatives such as myself; it is found in the individuals, families, clubs and other private organisations that are willing to give up their time to improve the lives of others.
Once again, this year we were able to recognise more than 100 of these very deserving but unsung heroes and their organisations. From this 100, we further recognised five finalists who went into the running to receive the overall Deakin Community Award. These finalists were varied and included David Dressing, of the Vermont Football Club; Colonel David Jamison, from the Ringwood RSL; Keith Kilner, from Nadrasca; Nance Swingler, from TLC Church in Bayswater North; Bwe Thay, a great community member and leader in our electorate; and Helen White from the Ringwood Art Society.
Each of the finalists has made an outstanding contribution to our local community and is deserving of this special recognition. But, as always, there can be only one overall winner, and this year it was a great honour to announce the winner as Colonel David Jamison, a very deserving winner and popular winner on the night. As a tireless advocate for veterans in our community and indeed veterans around the country, his service has been exemplary. He has been the president of the Defence Force Welfare Association since 2007—over a decade—as well as a member of the RSL since 1967, the director of Defence Health and a member of the Department of Veterans' Affairs national ex-service round table consultative forum. David's also been heavily involved in local sporting clubs and sporting associations and has assisted in fundraising for many worthy local schools.
Also this year we were able to recognise the contributions of Georgia Hammond from the Girl Guides as winner in the seniors category and Thanushi Peiris in the youth category. Finally, in the overall group category, we were able to recognise Nadrasca, now marking its 50th year of service to our community. So, I again congratulate everyone who was acknowledged on the night and particularly our finalists.
I rise to speak about a fantastic project in my electorate, the Northern Rivers Rail Trail. Rail trails exist in Australia and indeed all around the world and utilise former rail lines and networks. The concept is relatively simple. Effectively, the rail corridor remains and the tracks are filled in or simply removed, and the resulting trail serves as a walking path or even a riding way for horseback riders or people on bikes. It connects towns, villages and tourist spots along the way. It is a visionary concept and one that will work in the New South Wales Northern Rivers.
For many years the Northern Rivers Rail Trail group has held this vision and continues to work in the community and gain support for this important project. The group recently achieved an amazing crowdfunding effort of $75,000 to go towards progressing the project. The overall idea is for the rail trail to extend right across the Northern Rivers, 130 kilometres in length and across five local government areas, including the Tweed, Ballina, Lismore, Byron shire and the Richmond Valley shire. The project is therefore divided into sections, with each shire planning towards a workable proposal. The Tweed shire has given priority to develop a 24-kilometre section from Murwillumbah to Crabbes Creek, incorporating the villages of Stokers Siding, Burringbar and Mooball. The Tweed shire's proposal was recently acknowledged by the state government, who've finally committed $6.3 million in funding towards the project. This recent announcement is indeed a great community victory. I acknowledge and thank all those who worked hard on that victory.
Tweed Shire Council has also dedicated a financial contribution of $600,000 towards the project. In light of this, I wish to mention the disappointment our community felt as a result of the recent decision by the Turnbull Liberal-Nationals government to not support further funding of the rail trail through its Building Better Regions fund, for which the Tweed Shire Council applied for matching funding of $6.3 million to complete this important project. I do, however, want to congratulate the council on what I believe was a very strong application and on the work they have achieved so far. Despite this recent rejection by the Turnbull government, the Northern Rivers Rail Trail has widespread support within our community. It's recognised that the rail trail will bring great opportunities in tourism and will be beneficial to our local economies.
But Labor at all levels supports the rail trail concept. Recently my state colleague Walt Secord, the New South Wales shadow minister for the North Coast, spoke in support of the rail trail in the New South Wales parliament. His support was in reference to the 2017 transport administration bill that was before the house at the time. And I know that Tweed Labor councillor Reece Byrnes is also an ardent supporter of the rail trail and serves as the council's representative to the Northern Rail Trail organisation. So, Labor at all levels on the North Coast supports this project. I only hope that in future rounds the council will be successful in its application and will get on and get support for this fantastic local project. I again call on the Turnbull government to fund the Northern Rivers Rail Trail. This is a project that has great community support. This is a project for which we have fought for a long time. I call on the Turnbull government to make sure that they fund this important project.
Not far from where I live in Goulburn is the Rocky Hill War Memorial and Museum. This iconic monument, inspired by the local community and built in the 1920s, stands above Australia's first inland city as a tribute to the locals who served during the First World War. The Goulburn Evening Penny Post reported, after the opening of Rocky Hill memorial in December 1925, that 'it was now generally admitted that this was the finest memorial in Australia'. Almost a century on, the coalition government is helping to ensure this special place remains a nationally significant site of respect and reflection. A $1.25 million grant from the coalition's Building Better Regions Fund will enable the Goulburn Mulwaree Council to upgrade the Rocky Hill War Memorial and Museum precinct.
This upgrade will have enormous benefits. It will improve accessibility for visitors and vehicles. There will be more space for exhibitions and educational activities. It will create jobs and opportunities for locals. The Rocky Hill museum has a fantastic history of volunteerism, with about 10 members of the local community regularly donating their time—Judy and Philip Fowler, Carol and Ken Olsen, Gwen Dries, Bob Saunders, Peter Redman, Ken Kenchington, Peter Winterton and Jenny Sullivan. The Building Better Regions Fund grant is recognition of their efforts, and I'm pleased that the upgrade will create at least five more opportunities for local people to become involved. We know community interest in war memorials has increased in recent years. We are seeing more young people take an active role in our commemorations, including the Anzac Day sunset service on Rocky Hill, which I have attended for the last two years. This upgrade will position the memorial precinct well for the future. I commend Mayor Bob Kirk and the team at the council for an excellent application.
This is just one example of how the coalition is investing in our regions, boosting local economies, creating jobs and building vibrant communities. There are many other recent examples in my electorate, including our $969,000 investment in the South-East New South Wales regional training hub, which will provide young doctors with the ability to work, study and live in Goulburn and its surrounds. The hub will create jobs for clinicians and professional staff. The investment is essential to the health workforce in regional areas.
I've met thousands of people over the past few months as part of my village visit schedule around the electorate. Whether they live in Grabben Gullen, Exeter, Boorowa, Bundanoon or Goulburn, there is a consistent message: they want a government that listens. They want a government that invests in regional communities, and that is exactly what we're doing.
I want to start today by saying that I believe achieving marriage equality is the right thing to do, and it is the right thing to do right now. Like many, perhaps all, of my parliamentary colleagues across the House and the other place, I've been engaged on this issue for many years, listening to constituents and speaking with a number of community groups, both here in Parliament House and in my electorate. The issue is a complex one, and there are many different points of view. Again, like many colleagues, I have gone through a process of understanding that there are some who hold strong religious objections to marriage equality. Part of the pathway of moving down this road is to ensure that religious freedoms are in the same breath enshrined as we put marriage equality forward. This is an important realisation to have from my point of view and one which came about by virtue of the consultation that I have undertaken and from meeting those who have sought to represent their case to me. But I have done nothing special there. That is simply the work of a member of parliament, which we are all asked to engage in and which we are all ultimately elected and paid to do. It is because of that work that we should now act on the fruits of that work and vote on this issue in this parliament. It is what we are being asked to do, it is what we were elected to do and it is what we should do.
Micky from Geelong wrote to me and said that he is counting on my support to get marriage equality passed. Melissa from Leopold wrote in to say, 'The fact I can marry whoever I choose and my brother has to wait for the Australian public to approve of his sexuality is ludicrous at best. Let's just make it law and let's be done with it.' I couldn't agree more. Carole from Newtown wrote to say, 'I firmly believe that Australians deserve the same opportunities to marry whoever they choose. I would hope that if any of my grandchildren were gay, they could have that right too.' Lyndal from Hamlyn Heights wrote in to say: 'Let's create a more inclusive country together; please do the right thing.' Let's do the right thing—I couldn't put that sentiment better myself. It is past time Malcolm Turnbull did the right thing by getting out of the way and letting this parliament do its work of getting on with the job of having a vote. It would leave a legacy that he could be proud of. This is something we have the power to do.
Former Prime Minister John Howard was able to make changes to the Marriage Act which gave rise to the current law via a simple vote of the parliament. We can achieve marriage equality in exactly the same way. We don't need a plebiscite, postal or otherwise. We just need to get on with the job of getting this done. The parliament is ready; the Australian people are ready. It is time to get marriage equality passed.
The NBN rollout continues to be an issue of high concern to my constituents. I am pleased to have another positive update for Bonner locals. NBN Co has advised me that 21 per cent of the NBN rollout is complete in Bonner, thanks to the coalition government's revised rollout plan. Every premise in my electorate will have access to NBN services by 2020. The majority of residents and businesses in Bonner will have access within the next year. Over time, the NBN will replace most of the existing networks as the deliverer of a new service network. This means that, at the end of 2020, there will be further plans for path upgrades and speed building. This will ensure that all users in my electorate will continue to have access to the best service possible.
Many people have been asking me about the NBN and what they should do when it reaches their door. Many of my constituents, particularly older residents, have come to me worried about how the compulsory switchover to the NBN will affect them. To help answer their questions, I recently hosted three community information sessions with representatives from NBN Co. We first visited the Eight Mile Plains-Wishart area to take questions from local residents and business owners. We held two seniors information sessions for locals from the Wynnum Manly and Mt Gravatt areas. Many attendees have told me how helpful they found these sessions. Common questions addressed included: what steps people must take to switch over to the NBN; whether extra devices are needed to be installed inside their home; and how people can check whether medical devices connected to their landline will be compatible with the NBN. Attendees also learned how they should shop around for a suitable provider in order to get the best possible broadband speeds to suit their requirements. These NBN information sessions were such a success that I will be holding another one around the Carindale-Carina area in the near future. I look forward to doing more with the NBN as it continues to roll out in my electorate.
One of the most important jobs for a member of parliament is to represent our most vulnerable people in society. For some time, I have been raising this issue and will continue to do so about older Australians who wish to remain in their own homes, with assistance from government packages. Some of these people have faced long delays in being assessed. Since 27 February, home care packages have been allocated directly to individuals, not to aged-care providers. People are now assessed as eligible for a certain level of the package. They then go into a national queue and wait for a package to become available. Packages can become available through either a new package being delivered by the government or perhaps someone vacating a package.
This issue was raised by Leon Byner on his program—for those of you who are aware of the Leon Byner 5AA talkback program—a few weeks ago and then again last week. Many callers rang his program and many stories were aired. Those people who called in were referred to me by his program in order for me to try to assist them. Some of the people who gave their stories said that they had been waiting up to 24 months for a package. Very often, after lengthy delays, people are offered a package at a much lower level of care than they are assessed for. For example, they could be assessed for a level 4 package, which is high-end need; there are none available, and they're given a level 2 package, which does not meet their needs. This is potentially dangerous and, frankly, not good enough. If you require needs that you are not getting, it defeats the purpose of keeping that person home, and eventually they end up in an aged-care facility.
I've written to the minister, Mr Ken Wyatt, on behalf of a lot of those people that have contacted me. I know the minister has people's best interests at heart, because I've known him for some time, as have you, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons. We worked on the Health and Ageing Committee together. I am waiting to see if he can investigate each and every one. I also commend the minister for agreeing to go on the Leon Byner program and answer questions from some of those constituents that rang Leon's program. I know that, because of Leon Byner's intervention, the minister is going on tomorrow. I look forward to hearing what he has to say. We have written to him. I represent an electorate that has one of the oldest demographics in the country. As their representative, all I ask and strive for is to support these people as best we can. I want them to receive the support they need to live independently and fulfil their lives for as long as possible in their own homes.
It's great to be back in Canberra again, although I'm not so certain about the weather, after the beautiful winter weather we've had in Queensland over the last six weeks. We get to come back down here and recommence our discussions about how best to move the country forward. I am sure all of us here would rather be out in our electorates and speaking with our communities than here in Canberra, because back in our electorates and in our homes we are able to reconnect with and better understand the concerns of everyday Australians. I would like to think that over the past few weeks I've had that opportunity in a range of areas, whether it be at the local footy club, the RSL, coffee meetings or mobile offices. It's been great to be out in our local community, finding out what their thoughts and concerns are.
Once again, one of the big issues they've constantly raised with me is safety and security in our communities. I am pleased to say that the community has welcomed our announcement recently of the confirmation of another seven federally funded CCTV cameras, which, once installed, will bring Logan City Council's surveillance camera network to over 250. This investment of some $525,000 was delivered and will provide for a mobile surveillance camera in the region as well as fixed cameras. This efficient modern technology enables our authorities to quickly and efficiently deal with issues as they arise. Not only that, if there are incidents in the community, this CCTV network has been very useful in solving crime. The residents, the local council and the police have all expressed just how valuable this investment is for the area and how much of a difference it makes knowing that safety and crime prevention remains a top priority for every level in our region.
I've also learned how our community will continue to go above and beyond for a good cause, even when that means braving a freezing cold winter's morning in Queensland—that means single digits but not minus—getting dressed in lycra and riding kilometres on a bicycle. I am sure that's an image many would be impressed with. I was so inspired that I finally decided to join them and, with an enthusiastic crew, do the Tour de Logan. What a great event, run by our dedicated Loganholme and Beenleigh Rotary clubs. The Tour de Logan has become a true local tradition since it started in 2010. It takes over 60 event volunteers to make this event happen, and brings out over 250 riders from across South East Queensland. Congratulations to all involved. It raises a tremendous amount for our local community. (Time expired)
The Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network came to the Central Coast last week, and they heard us loud and clear. I thank the members for Farrer, Whitlam and Fremantle, and Senator Urquhart, for listening to the community. I acknowledge the Central Coast committee members, the member for Robertson and Senator O'Neill, for joining me in the push for a hearing on the Central Coast so our community's voice could be heard. We heard stories of chronic dropouts, connection issues, slow rollout times, missed opportunities for schools and lost revenues for business.
The NBN has been stuffed up by this incompetent government. Noraville resident Barry Egan told us about his two-year battle with NBN and Telstra, likening the experience to an episode of Yes Minister. He said that he spoke with over 100 representatives of NBN, Telstra and other government bodies; had 11 technician home visits; and had five Telstra complaint managers and two members of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman looking after his case. We heard from Mark Beatson, whose 24-hour gym in Lake Haven suffered an ongoing fault which left his business without CCTV or personal duress alarms for customers. Mark said he spent thousands of dollars on equipment during the outage, in addition to spending around 80 to 90 hours dealing with his provider and waiting for technicians—a financial loss he won't be compensated for.
We heard from the Central Coast Rudolf Steiner School in Fountaindale, where students still can't connect to the NBN, despite the suburb being live and the NBN rollout map showing that the nearby cemetery can connect. We heard from too many customers whose fibre-to-the-node connection is delivering speeds well below the 100 megabits per second their retailers advertise and they are paying for. As Neil Keele from Terrigal put it, 'The NBN is total crap.'
My region is at the forefront of the rollout. There are now five different NBN technologies across the Central Coast, and we are seeing all of the problems with this patchwork multitechnology mix. The TIO's most recent annual report found that four of the top 10 postcodes nationally for NBN complaints are on the Central Coast. It's no surprise. My electorate office has been inundated with complaints about the NBN. The blame shifting between NBN Co, providers and government just has to stop. I am pleased that the parliamentary committee gave local residents, business owners and schools the opportunity to provide their feedback. The Prime Minister promised Australians that his NBN would be fast, rolled out sooner and cheaper. He was wrong. We need action now. This has to be fixed.
Local consultation is at the heart of my mission to help make the electorate of Fisher the place to be for education, employment and retirement. There's no better way to find out what local people care about than to go to where they are—their businesses—and gather feedback face to face. During July, I held listening posts in Wurtulla, Glass House Mountains, Caloundra, Maleny, Mooloolaba and Minyama. Local people spoke about the need to deliver lower electricity prices. They spoke about the importance of reducing red tape and about delivering the telecommunications infrastructure that we need on the Sunshine Coast and in its hinterland.
I will be working on all of these issues during the remainder of the year. I held information sessions on the government's Stronger Communities Program at Beerwah CWA Hall, Caloundra CCSA Hall, Maleny RSL, Lake Kawana Community Centre and Mooloolaba Bowls Club. This program is fantastic. It's a great opportunity to give a much needed boost to some of our local hard-working community groups. I was delighted to see so many groups getting involved in Fisher, and I look forward to supporting their applications for funding.
Finally, I embarked on a small business road trip. Over four days I visited Glass House Mountains, Beerwah Currimundi, Mooloolah, Mooloolaba and Caloundra and spoke to business owners about how we can create more jobs on the Sunshine Coast. This year, 20,000 local small businesses have begun to benefit from lower taxes, more straightforward paperwork and an extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off under the Turnbull government's policies for growth. The dividends of these policies are already flowing to the community, with more Australians employed today than ever before.
In particular, my road trip gave me the opportunity to speak to local businesses about what the instant asset write-off can mean for them. But I also saw what is already being achieved locally through this policy. In Caloundra, there's a fantastic small business by the name of My Teddy. Chris and Toni Nightingale's business creates customised teddy bears. My Teddy is growing fast, and they were able to grow their business by the use of the instant asset write-off. In Chris's own words: 'This opportunity has resulted in us being able to buy much-needed equipment to boost our production. Not only has this resulted in cost savings; it supported the exponential growth of our business and meant that we've been able to employ more locals.' I want to thank Chris and Toni, and everyone who spoke to me during my winter blitz. Their feedback will form the core of my work in parliament over the months to come.
If no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 45 minutes.
I rise to talk about the devastating impacts of the federal government's reforms to the higher education system. Today in Darwin there was a rally at Charles Darwin University to protest against the devastating impacts that will come from the federal government's reforms to the higher education system. Charles Darwin University punches well above its weight internationally. It is ranked in the top two per cent of universities and it is ranked 10th out of the 21 Australian universities in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. These are phenomenal rankings for a regional university, as I think you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons. Further, CDU is at the heart of our Northern Territory government's plans to revitalise the CBD in Darwin, a CBD that has been smashed by coalition government job cuts in the AEC office and the ABS office, and by the closure of the ATO office. While the university is trying to help breathe new life into our northern capital, the coalition government is trying to slash funding to our university and slash jobs.
The education package proposed by this coalition government means CDU will lose up to $63 million over the forward estimates. This is a huge sum of money for us in the north. If the proposed legislation passes, it will mean job losses, cancelled courses and fewer Territorians being able to afford a university education. Charles Darwin University is not rolling in cash. If the coalition government think that regional universities like CDU are rolling in cash, they are even more out of touch than I thought they were. These cuts will hurt Charles Darwin University. These cuts will hurt our Northern Territory economy. These cuts will hurt Territorians and their families. Job cuts will be a reality.
These changes to funding are going to have a serious impact. They are unfair and fall under a typical coalition government funding model that punishes hardworking Australians for trying to get ahead in life. How dare the good people of the north want a university education, even if perhaps they can't afford it! A good proportion of CDU students are mature age and from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, so they have jobs and families, which means they often take a little longer to finish their courses. However, the funding model proposed by the coalition will punish universities who have slower-to-graduate students enrolled. The coalition government may not know this, but not everyone can afford to study full-time. Modelling by the NTEU has found that the funding changes will mean a direct loss of 60 to 75 jobs. That is huge for our economy. That is huge for our community. Sixty to 75 jobs in the north means a lot.
I'd like to acknowledge today the St Mary's Stingers, from St Mary's Catholic College in Casino, who just won the Australian Youth Rocketry Challenge. Not only did this very talented team of six students win with its rocket, appropriately called the Beef Town Bullet; St Mary's was the first school to win this prestigious title in their first year in the competition. The St Mary's Stingers beat 16 other finalists, including seven previous winners. I'd like to congratulate Dmitri Nommensen, Billy Hooper, Jackson Whitney, Mark Thompson, Henry Campbell and Cody Merenda, who were the team that built the Beef Town Bullet. I'd also like to acknowledge the 30 students who were part of the school's STEM program and helped in the research, preparation and development of the rocket, and practice launches. The team was led by the teacher in charge of the STEM program, Matt Rolfe. The challenge was to build and fire a rocket to reach a height of 850 feet within 50 seconds and return to earth with its payload—a raw egg—still intact. Points were given for the height achieved, time in flight and the state of the raw egg on return. The Beef Town Bullets achieved a height of 830 feet in 53 seconds, with the egg uncracked on return. The team won with a margin of 170 points. Matt Rolfe explained of the win:
Our secret was in the mathematics of not just creating enough power but also the appropriate amount of drag. We also used a two-part separation system, which, when hit with the motor back-charge, blew the payload section clear of the rocket. We then gave this section of the rocket its own parachute, allowing us to more accurately control its rate of descent. This was one of the secrets to our success.
I don't necessarily understand what Matt's quote means but I congratulate the team on an absolutely wonderful effort.
I would like to highlight the success of local Casino High School student Jacob Ellis. Jacob is one of 25 year 12 students chosen from nearly 800 candidates to begin their studies at the Australian National University in 2018 as a Tuckwell Scholar. The Tuckwell scholarships are competitive and awarded to outstanding school leavers. The Tuckwell vision is to see highly talented and motivated school leavers fulfil their potential and reinvest their knowledge, skills and experience in ways that benefit others. Competing against students from some of the most prestigious, selective and academically successful schools in the country, Jacob is a fantastic example of what hard work and determination can achieve. Jacob is top of his year for English, biology, chemistry and information technology. He found the scholarship online and took part in the three-stage process that included travelling to Canberra to be interviewed. The scholarship will offer Jacob the significant chance of pursuing his dreams of travel as he hopes to complete law and international relations studies at ANU with the aim of becoming a diplomat or ambassador. I wish Jacob all the very best.
Badgerys Creek airport is being promoted as a project all about Western Sydney. The claim is it'll deliver jobs for the region. It's the biggest selling point used by those in the east to push the project. Numerous job figures are thrown around, but here's one job figure that you'll never hear from a Turnbull government minister: the guaranteed number of jobs that will actually go to Western Sydney residents from this development. The government doesn't have one. It's not a key performance indicator. So far, none of the key decision-making jobs associated with this project have gone to a single Western Sydney resident.
We recently saw the Turnbull government decide that the official community consultation mechanism about the airport, FOWSA, will be headed up by a person who does not even live in the region: Peter Shergold. Imagine if a Western Sydney resident headed up the Sydney Airport Community Forum. The east would convulse itself into the Tasman. Peter Shergold might work in Western Sydney, but he doesn't live here. He's not accountable to neighbours or fellow residents for the quality of the job he performs on that forum. The Turnbull government's backed this up in the last 24 hours, naming former Optus boss and former boss of the urban infrastructure minister, Paul O'Sullivan, as the head of the government body developing the airport. I have the greatest regard for Paul O'Sullivan, enormous respect for him, but, again, he's not a Western Sydney resident. Look at the rest of the board. There are no Western Sydney residents: Fiona Balfour, noted executive not noted for living in the region; Tim Eddy from Melbourne; Christine Spring from New Zealand.
Are you telling me there is absolutely no-one with the talent and skill to be involved in this project from Western Sydney, a region of nearly two million people? What a joke. The reality is, this development is being driven in a typical Sydney way: the clubby east—that mix of politicians, business people and media drawn from eastern and northern Sydney calling all the shots on the development, with no regard for the impact of their decisions on us. They don't trust that Western Sydney has the talent to get this right. They don't believe in delivering a fair deal for Western Sydney. It's the club from the east telling residents in the west what they'll get and how they'll get it. It is the same club that tells us it's important to have a curfew and resident protections if you live near Sydney airport, but Western Sydney residents deserve no protection, no curfew and no flight caps.
The appointment of a person, no matter how qualified, without roots in Western Sydney means crucial decisions will be made without properly respecting local perspectives. They are not accountable for the quality of the decisions. This is wrong, and Western Sydney does not deserve this.
On Tuesday 1 August the Goldstein electorate office launched a new community space after renovation to make sure there were facilities for the community to come and meet and work with the staff at the Goldstein office and also, of course, me as the local federal member. I am excited at the opportunity this will provide all Goldstein community groups and residents to come and build a relationship, to meet and advocate for the causes and activities that they passionately support and request help where they need it. As local members, it is the responsibility of each of us to champion our communities, support them and serve them. It's my pleasure to introduce to Goldstein space that will serve the fundamental democratic duty by facilitating support and commendation of the wonderful work done by all people within the Goldstein community.
To launch this important community space, we held our first community morning tea, where we met to honour around 50 Goldstein constituents, all of whom are high achievers in a variety of fields. Among the very impressive Australians in attendance were sporting champions including young Miss Emily Barrow, who competes in international gymnastics competitions; Mr Ethan Lambie-Downie, who is an up-and-coming cricketer and a talented all-rounder; Mr Zak Bahramis, a state champion in baseball; and a young lady who deserves our great admiration and respect, Ms Sara Molloy, a silver medallist at the Special Olympics winter games in Austria. We make them well in Goldstein.
I had the privilege of meeting and learning about the work of some constituents who have made contributions in the noble fields of mental health awareness and services. Ben Carter of headspace was the winner of the youth creativity award and appointed a member of the youth advisory committee for headspace Elsternwick. Penny Robinson is a great advocate for autism awareness and was given the inspiration award for individual achievement at the Autism Spectrum Australia recognition awards in late April 2017.
Five constituents attended who were recognised at the recent Queen's Birthday Honours List and were able to come along: Mr Percy Cooper ED OAM; Mr John Fowler OAM; Dr David Larkin AM GAICD; Mr Alastair Murray AM, who likes to joke about the fact he has now has an honorific that reflects his initials; and Mr Phillip Wheatley OAM. We also paid tribute to some highly creative community servants, like Lenna Krooglik, who pioneered a program to bring her dog along to the aged care centre which she manages; Sam Beagley, who played the trumpet in the recent Melbourne Youth Orchestra's 50th birthday concert; and innovative small business owners Mr and Mrs McIntyre, who founded Beautifinda, a service designed to connect consumers with beauty professionals. It was an utterly enriching experience, showcasing the best that Goldstein has to offer to our nation.
As all of us here should be aware, the world of work in Australia is undergoing rapid changes. These changes of course impact disproportionately on young people, people just starting their working lives or those just about to start in the formal work force. These issues are of great concern to me, as I know they are to all of my colleagues on this side of the House. They are of concern in particular in areas such as many that I represent where there is very high youth unemployment. For these reasons a couple of weeks ago I organised a forum targeted at young workers in the company of the wonderful people of the Young Workers Forum in Melbourne, to discuss what was important to these young workers, what was of concern to them, and to frame policy responses that meet their needs now and into the future.
As well as the specific experiences that young workers are experiencing at work, their concerns are framed by wider questions of inequality. Today in question time we saw the Treasurer evade the subject of worsening inequality in Australia. But the survey that he tried to take comfort in, that conducted by HILDA, explains that not only is inequality on the rise, especially in terms of wealth; it has a generational component. Young people are being left behind. This has been exacerbated by a number of decisions this government has made.
This forum enabled young people to share their concerns: their experiences of exploitation in the workplace, and their uncertainty as to how to exercise the rights they have in the workplace. I am indebted to Dylan Goldsworthy from the Young Workers Centre for the way in which he explained to people the rights they have at work and the avenues for redress that are available to them. I am also indebted to all those young people who came along. Their experiences are important and their stories are powerful. They highlight the concerns that young people have today and the fact that for too many people their aspirations are being short-changed—short-changed by a system that isn't working for them and by a government that doesn't take their concerns seriously.
The ACTU says that we need to change the rules when it comes to the world of work. I agree; we do need to change the rules. We also need to engage with young people seriously and respectfully and encourage them in the belief that the rules can be changed, that they can be offered a fairer future. I want to say to all those young people who attended: thank you. Thank you for taking an interest for yourselves and for your peers and for your interest in the community that you are a part of. I want to thank, in particular, Paul Papadatos of the Innovation Youth Centre for his leadership in community and his involvement in the forum. I want to say to all my young constituents: in Labor we take the world of work seriously, and we will fight for your rights at work and for good secure jobs.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
It is with great humility and pride that I am able to stand here today in this place on what is first nation people's land and always will be first nation people's land to speak on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and the 25th anniversary of the Mabo High Court decision.
On 27 May 1967 a federal referendum was held as a result of the hard work, determination and commitment of people like Faith Bandler, Jessie Street and many other white and first nation people. The referendum was a vote on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967, which became law on 10 August 1967 following the results of the referendum. These amendments altered sections 51(xxvi) and 127, having immediate effect to include Aboriginal Australians in the determination of population and also empowered the federal parliament to legislate, specifically, for first nation people. This referendum saw the highest 'yes' vote ever recorded in a federal referendum with 90.77 per cent voting for change in all six states. It is interesting to note that, because the majority of parliamentarians supported the proposed amendment, a 'no' case was never formulated for presentation as part of the referendum campaign.
It has always been a huge disappointment to me that it was only Townsville and Toowoomba that delivered a 'no' vote in the 1967 referendum. However, 25 years on from the referendum, the Mabo High Court decision was delivered, and I like to think our community redeemed ourselves to some degree because the knowledge, work and support of three white men played an instrumental role in working with Eddie Koki Mabo and the plaintiffs to win the momentous High Court decision. They were Professors Henry Reynolds and Noel Loos, who worked at James Cook University where Eddie Koiki Mabo worked, and the Hon. Mike Reynolds, who was the mayor of Townsville at the time.
On 4 June 2017, I was honoured to speak at the Mabo celebration dinner in Townsville with the Hon. Linda Burney MP and at the invitation of Mrs Bonita Mabo and Gail Mabo. The Mabo High Court decision speaks to the resilience and sheer determination of a man, Eddie Koiki Mabo, who simply refused to accept that his people did not own their land. He would not accept the nation of terra nullius, no man's land, as determined by James Cook. As we are now well aware, this land has been inhabited by first nation people for some 60,000 years.
I feel a great personal connection to the Mabo decision as Townsville is my home, and I grew up in Garbutt, where the Mabo family lived and where the planning and hard work was done. I first became aware of the injustices to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders when I was at high school at St Patrick's College on the Strand, where young women from Palm Island, who were boarding at the school, were subjected to the fact that their parents needed to get permission to visit them on the mainland. As a teenager I also remember Professor Gracelyn Smallwood and her many activists, never silent, always out there demanding justice, recognition and a fair go for first nation people.
On 20 May 1982, Eddie Koiki Mabo, Sam Passi, David Passi, Celuia Mapo Salee and James Rice began their legal claim for ownership of their lands on the island of Mer in the Torres Strait between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The High Court required the Supreme Court of Queensland to determine the facts on which the case was based, but while the case was with the Queensland court, the state parliament passed the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act, which stated, 'Any rights that Torres Strait Islanders had to land after the claim of sovereignty in 1879 is hereby extinguished without compensation.' The challenge to this legislation was taken to the High Court, and the decision in this case, known as Mabo 1, was that the act was in conflict with the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and was thus invalid. It was not until 3 June 1992 that Mabo 2 was decided and terra nullius—nobody's land—was extinguished once and for all in law. By then 10 years had passed, and both Celuia Mapo Salee and Eddie Koiki Mabo had passed away. Six of the judges agreed that the Meriam people did have traditional ownership of their land, with Justice Dawson dissenting from the majority judgement. The judges held that British possession had not eliminated their title and that the Meriam people are entitled, as against the whole world, to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the lands of the Murray islands.
Following the High Court decision in Mabo 2, the Commonwealth parliament passed the Native Title Act in 1993, enabling Indigenous people throughout Australia to claim traditional rights to unalienated land. The judgements of the High Court in the Mabo case inserted the legal doctrine of native title into Australian law. In recognising the traditional rights of the Meriam people to their islands in the eastern Torres Strait, the court also held that native title existed for all Indigenous people in Australia prior to Cook's instruction and the establishment of the British colony of New South Wales in 1788. This decision altered the foundation of land law in Australia. The new doctrine of native title replaced the 17th century doctrine of terra nullius, nobody's land, on which British claims of possession of Australia were based. I cannot begin to imagine what it must have been like for Eddie Koiki Mabo, Sam Passi, David Passi, Celuia Mapo Salee and James Rice to fight the battle of their lives for 10 long years, and then for Eddie Koiki Mabo and Celuia Mapo Salee not to be alive when that amazing decision was brought down. It does not even bear contemplation. But I am sure that their families held their spirits in their hearts, and when the decision finally came down there was much joy for those plaintiffs and the people of Mer island.
What does Mabo teach us as a community? It teaches us that we can never measure or assess the will of an individual to fight for what they believe in and to succeed against all of the odds. It teaches us that we should never give up. It teaches us that standing up for our rights and the rights of those vulnerable in our society is always the right thing to do. Above all it teaches us that our first-nation people are resilient. They have an inner strength that has seen them survive every attempt by white man to eradicate them in some circumstances. Now is the time for us to all come together as citizens of this great nation to give our first-nation people their rightful place in our society. They deserve no less. We as a nation will all be better off for our work in uniting this great country. Our young people need to know that out of adversity comes not only survival but, most importantly, growth that will flourish into a fair go for all citizens.
This year is also the 60th anniversary of the 1957 Palm Island strike. On 9 June this year I attended a public commemoration in the Perfumed Gardens in Townsville. The stories from the family members of those five men were simply inspirational. This strike came about as a result of a complaint to the superintendent about the shocking living conditions on Palm Island. He did not take any notice of the complaint; in fact, it was complete ignored. Also, Albie Geia was accused of disobeying a foreman and was ordered off the island, but he refused to go. It was at this time that he and six other men took the courageous decision to go on strike. For their action, these men and their families were ordered off the island and sent to other communities in Queensland. They were not paid proper wages, they did not get their entitlements, they did not get superannuation and they had no ability to leave an inheritance to their children, even though they had worked incredibly hard for their working lives. This has impacted on their children and their children's children. However, the 1967 referendum and the 1992 Mabo High Court decision did give hope to our first nation people, and a strike of that nature would never, ever happen again. I am honoured to share this land with the oldest living culture on earth, and it is now our time to bring this nation together in a real and meaningful way.
The 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and the 25th anniversary of the High Court's handing down of the Mabo decision is a significant event which will be properly recognised by the nation's parliament. This year, 2017, is a year in which Australia will pay tribute to the forerunners of our Indigenous rights movement, which began a long journey of reconciliation between Australians, the modern nation, and our First Australians. This year we remember those who walked before us on this important journey with the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and the 25th anniversary of the High Court's decision. The year 2017 is really a nexus between Australia's history of Indigenous rights, our future and the future of our programs to generate opportunities for Indigenous Australians. It brought the Prime Minister to address parliament in the presence of elders of the Indigenous rights movement, those surviving campaigners and family representatives of the 1967 referendum and the Mabo decision, as well as the announcement of the government's $138 million Indigenous education package.
The first of these milestones was the 1967 referendum. On 27 May 1967 Australians walked together and voted for change in a referendum that received unprecedented support—a 90.77 per cent national majority. This overwhelming support is symbolic of the support that existed and still resoundingly remains in the hearts and minds of Australians for reconciliation with Australia's first peoples—recognition of First Australians and the injustice that sat at the heart of the Constitution that needed to be addressed. The referendum entrenched the rule of law for Indigenous Australians, inviting the Commonwealth to legislate specifically for them and allowing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be counted with all Australians in the Census.
Of course, this was not a catch-all referendum for Indigenous issues. We know there's still a very long legacy of challenges about uniting our cultures and uniting our standards of living. In fact, that journey had already begun. In 2017 we celebrate the 55th anniversary of the Indigenous vote of federal elections. However, there was much more to come in the journey for reconciliation, including the advent of the Aboriginal Legal Service across the country in the seventies and the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody in the nineties. In the spirit of continuing commitment, the Prime Minister continued his legacy by announcing the important funding package of $138 million for Indigenous education. To be matched with philanthropic support, this education package provides mentoring scholarships and focuses on building Australia's future professionals in key fields such as science and technology. This includes increasing funding to established organisations such as the Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience and the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation, which have proven themselves in taking Indigenous students who are in financial need and supporting them to achieve better year 12 completion rates and transition into the workforce so that in the end every Indigenous Australian has the opportunity not just to build a life of dignity but also to be able to go on to be self-supporting and sustaining and to contribute to the continuing story of this great nation.
These organisations are delivering the results we need them to deliver—the highest-calibre Indigenous leaders to take our country's next steps together with all of us—and this package will allow them to broaden the scope of their service. Building upon the inspiring display of national unity at the 1967 campaign, 50 years on, we now have to walk together on the next step of the journey. Of course, we are now looking at the challenges around how we deal with making sure that Indigenous Australians feel a sense of commitment to and understanding of our Constitution, and there's been an ongoing discussion around that.
We recognise the need to find harmony between different key elements in Australian society: firstly, the continent's heritage and culture from Australia's first peoples; the continuation and involvement of our British institutions of state, and in broader society; but, most importantly, pride in our sense of national unity. Only when we focus on these important principles will we be able to make sure that we come up with a pathway that unites all Australians towards a commitment of mutual success. And that's what the government is keen to do: work with Indigenous Australians to deliver change that focuses on the national unity we need so that all Australians walk on the same path.
This year we are also proud to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Mabo decision. While seven famous High Court judgements, the Native Title Act and 387 determinations made under this act may be the tangible legacy of the Mabo name, it is important not to forget the man behind this extraordinary campaign.
Eddie Koiki Mabo was an extraordinary man, a trailblazer for the Indigenous rights movement from Far North Queensland during the seventies and eighties. He and his wife, Bonita, fought a long battle for land rights, and together they educated an entire nation about the connection between Indigenous Australians and their land. Their efforts culminated in a historic decision by the High Court to acknowledge the traditional land rights of the Meriam people, giving rise to the Native Title Act, which has served as a major vehicle for recasting the relationship between Indigenous Australians and their land.
The 387 determinations made under the act now outnumber the 245 claims lodged, covering approximately 40 per cent of the Australian land mass where Indigenous interests have been formally recognised. It serves as a substantial symbol of the reconciliation commitment to respect the rights of first nations.
On the 25th anniversary of Mabo, the coalition government, in appreciation of the centrality of land rights to Indigenous Australians, is committing a $20 million fund to support better use of Indigenous rights over sea country. The government is committed to working with traditional owners and land councils to ensure this funding can deliver the economic opportunity that land and sea ownership will deliver.
But the aim of Mabo, as much as anything else, was to make sure that people had ownership of their traditional lands and waters, and to educate Australians about the important connection. One of the causes I championed in my former capacity as Australian Human Rights Commissioner was not just that Indigenous Australians continue to have that connection to country; it was also to enable them to use that land as they saw fit—to get past the discussion around land being simply for ceremonial purposes, for cultural purposes and for simple practices, and really see how Indigenous Australians and the title arrangements are necessary to make sure that they can use their land, like the rest of the Australian population, to their own advantage. I understand that work is still ongoing, and it is an important part of the work that should be being led by the Human Rights Commission, I hope, following my departure.
Each one of those steps plays an important part in the continuing story of our reconciliation, because each of these events marks a critical milestone in not only the history of Indigenous Australians but our national history and our continuing national story. As the government of this Commonwealth we hold a duty to enthusiastically learn about the issues that face Indigenous Australians in modern society, to understand the historical context that causes these disadvantages and to collaboratively work with leaders to develop solutions and provide opportunities for the next generation of Indigenous Australians to forge their place in our future. It does not come through conflict; each step of the way, it comes through collaboration and working with people, finding avenues to fully respect their dignity and place. It is with great pleasure that I acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and the 25th anniversary of the High Court's decision in Mabo.
It's with great pleasure that I stand today to pay tribute to those who campaigned and advocated for the constitutional referendum in 1967, and to the team and the community who brought before the High Court, 25 years ago, the matter we now call Mabo.
I start with a recollection from a few weeks ago, when I joined many of my parliamentary colleagues to visit the Captain Reg Saunders Gallery and Courtyard, part of the Australian War Memorial here in Canberra. Reg was a Gunditjmara man from western Victoria. He was the first Aboriginal soldier to be commissioned as an officer in the Australian Army. He enlisted in 1940 and fought in North Africa, Greece, Crete and Papua New Guinea. He wasn't alone; he served with his brother, Harry. Sadly, Harry died fighting for Australia in 1942.
Reg himself was wounded in the knee by Japanese gunfire during one of his engagements. He was treated well by the military and in later life was awarded an MBE. But the fact remained that Reg Saunders had fewer rights than did the men he led into battle. He couldn't vote, and he actually needed a special permit to go and get a beer with his mates at the pub when he got back to Australia. In 1960 Reg told his biographer, Harry Gordon:
I reckon the average Australian has some feeling of sympathy for the black man but he doesn't do anything about it. He needs to be jolted.
Well, in 1967 we got one of those jolts: the referendum. Australians were compelled to consider the constitutional status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. They voted overwhelmingly—90.77 per cent—in favour of the proposition which would ensure that they could be recognised in the reckoning in the Australian Census and that the Commonwealth government, this parliament, could make laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Why was there such overwhelming support? There was a lot of agitation, a lot of campaigning, by those who were directly affected—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—but there was also significant support from the community. In my own area, led by great Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, together with Uncle Fred Moore from the South Coast Trades and Labour Council, they formed the Aboriginal Advancement League, which was instrumental in getting out the voters and getting a very high vote in the 1967 referendum in the Illawarra and South Coast. They also had the support of the major political parties, the media and advocacy groups. But it was not inevitable. In opposition in 1964, Labor changed its platform and changed its policy to ensure that a future Labor government would bring such a constitutional question to the Australian people. It took until 1967 for the coalition government to catch up with Labor and with the sentiment of the population. It sounds familiar—one step in the process, but more to come. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were recognised, in a way, but their ownership of land was not.
In 1975 the Whitlam government famously poured sand into the hands of Vincent Lingiari, symbolically handing back ownership of the Wave Hill station to the Gurindji people, thereby foreshadowing the Aboriginal land rights act. It was a step forward, but there is an irony: the government was giving the land to the Gurindji people—land that they already owned. That's why the Mabo decision in 1992 was so important. On 3 June Australians received another of those big jolts that Reg Saunders thought they needed. The High Court found, in its decision, that terra nullius was a legal fiction—this abhorrent idea that Australia was a vacant land when James Cook planted the first Union Jack in Botany Bay. A continuous culture and settlement had existed in this country lasting back more than 50,000 years. In fact, recent research estimates that it is at least 65,000 years. That is a claim that no other country on earth can make and something that all Australians should rightfully be proud of.
But there was a difference between the 1967 campaign and the 1967 referendum, and the changes it wrought, and the Mabo decision. The Mabo decision was a judicial decision, not a legislative one. Many have since pondered whether, if it had been left to this parliament, this parliament would ever have made such a decision. Conservative politicians, vested interests, mining and farmers in particular ran a horrendous scare campaign after the Mabo and subsequent Wik decisions. Voters were told that native title claims could be made over suburban backyards, that the CBD of Sydney was at risk and, in fact, that everyone was at risk. Of course, this was not true. It would have been constitutionally possible for the Keating government to legislate away the native title decision, as Keating was being urged to do from many quarters. To his great credit, the Keating government did not succumb to these pressures, and that's something that I think Australians are all now very, very proud of.
I want to say something about inevitability. The policy response of the Keating government was not inevitable. There was fierce opposition to the Mabo decision, as there was fierce opposition to the subsequent Wik decision. We can all remember that, after the Wik decision, the then Deputy Prime Minister of Australia promised Australians that there would be bucketloads of extinguishment. The passing of the 1967 referendum was not inevitable either; nor were these decisions—these great advances—irreversible. Further progress is not inevitable; we need to work for it. We need to ensure that we can live up to the challenge that has been given to us by the statement from Uluru these past two months. It is time, in the words of Reg Saunders, for us all to be given another jolt and for us to consider once again the status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their place in the Constitution.
The proposition is simple, just as in the 1967 referendum it was simple as well. The proposition is that we amend the Australian Constitution to acknowledge that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have lived on land and cared for land for millennia—more than 60,000 years. We must acknowledge and accept the true history of Australia, not the whitewashed version of the 19th and 20th centuries. We should also remove the obnoxious and discriminatory provisions that exist within the Constitution, like section 25, which allows people to be disqualified from voting because of their race.
At the Garma Festival over the weekend, the Leader of the Labor Party, Bill Shorten, gave a commitment on behalf of the Labor Party that Labor support a voice for Aboriginal people in our Constitution. We support a declaration by all parliaments, and we support a truth-telling commission. He also set out the challenge for the government—in fact, for this parliament and for all Australians—that we should set a timetable to have a question put before the parliament and for that question to then be referred to the Australian people in a referendum to bring forward this much-needed constitutional change. In 1967, the Australian people rose to the occasion. In 1992, the Keating government rose to the occasion. In 2017, it's time for all of us to rise to the occasion. It's time for the government and for this parliament to focus on what we need to do to set the record straight. It's simply unreasonable for us, as a parliament, to expect that the Australian people will focus on these issues if we're not willing to do so.
Time marches on, but issues remain. The opportunity to recognise both these monumental anniversaries only serves as a stark reminder that we are still debating and dealing with so many issues that disadvantage our Indigenous people. In 1967, after 10 years of campaigning, a referendum was held to change the Australian Constitution. Two negative references to Aboriginal Australians were removed, giving the Commonwealth the power to legislate for them as a group. This change was seen by many as a recognition of Aboriginal people as full Australian citizens. This referendum campaign effectively focused public attention on the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians were second-class citizens, with all sorts of limitations, legislative and social—including our very own Linda Burney.
This decade-long campaign to change the Constitution came to symbolise the broader struggle for justice being fought during these years. Activists presented their case for a Commonwealth government which would be prepared for the very first time to take responsibility for Indigenous citizens wherever they lived. Twenty-five years later, the Mabo decision challenged the legal standing that his family's land was owned by the Crown. The High Court's landmark decision overthrew that standing and paved the way for native title. Native title is the recognition by Australian law that Indigenous people have rights and interests to their land that come from their traditional laws and customs. Colleen Wall, the chairperson of the Queensland South Native Titles Services, put it correctly when she said:
We have responsibility for our country, we have recognition that we are the traditional owners of the country and we can take that bundle of rights into the future to protect our land, and that our children have the right to carry on processes on country.
It is also important that we recognise the determination of all the people who work behind native title. We have to recognise the amount of years collectively that has gone past to get to where we are now, so that’s 25 years of lots and lots of tears and joy and hard work and miles travelled to get where we are now.
Our legacy and the way we go forward from Mabo, is taking that tenacity and taking that dedication and taking that strong mindedness into the future to make sure that we have honoured what Eddie [Mabo] did.
These anniversaries are a proud and a rightly proud part of the history that we can build on today.
We have to act, and my observations around NAIDOC Week and a recent visit to Alice Springs highlight that. The NAIDOC Week celebrations, which we have just had, are an important opportunity to learn more about Aboriginal culture. In many of my school visits, I was able to speak about the anniversaries which we are recognising here today. Our theme this year is 'Our language matters'. This highlights the protection and needed regeneration of Aboriginal languages. It is an important theme and it continues to be an important theme because it celebrates the unique and essential role that Aboriginal languages play in cultural identity. Language links people to their land and water in the communication of history, spirituality and rituals through stories and songs. Language is vitally important.
Today we heard in the chamber an important observation about Dr G Yunupingu. As one of Australia's most prominent musicians, his premature death at age 46 underlines the Aboriginal disadvantage that still continues today. Whilst we proudly celebrate these anniversaries, we still shamefully have such disadvantage. Yunupingu was trapped in a cycle of bad health from contracting hepatitis B as a child, which left him with liver and kidney disease. His death would have been preventable in most circumstances, especially in the circumstance of being a white middle-aged man. Yunupingu represents the soul of the original language and music of Indigenous communities. He played for the likes of Barack Obama and the Queen. He brought the NT to the world. He could play every instrument and he sang like an angel. Yunupingu started in music by playing a guitar upside down, because he was left-handed. His friend Cal Williams was lead guitarist in Yothu Yindi when Dr G Yunupingu played keyboard, guitar and percussion in the band. Mr Williams said:
Yothu Yindi started by filling the gap between white music and Aboriginal music. But he—
Yunupingu—
was the icing on the cake.
His legacy is bringing everyone together and enjoying it for what it was: an amazing sound from an amazing musician who could play every instrument and sing like an angel.
Yunupingu contributed so much to the language, music and culture of not only the Aboriginal community but the broader Australian community. Like many Aboriginal people, he has done a lot for his people and for our country. This should always be treasured and honoured.
An example of how we can be more aware of what we have and what we have lost is when we compare the coverage of Yunupingu's death to that of Linkin Park frontman, Chester Bennington, who died in the same week as Yunupingu, but whose music and sad demise saw much more media attention. While very sad, I do reflect on the fact that Yunupingu's contribution is arguably much deeper and richer to our community. This comparison highlights other measures that we need to fix in our Aboriginal community such as life expectancy, writing and numeracy, attendance rates at school and employment—to name but a few. Our Aboriginal community suffers inequality and disadvantage. As the previous speaker, the member for Whitlam, said, we need to do much more and not just pat ourselves on the back.
In rising to speak to this very important motion today, I wish to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and pay my respects to their elders past, present and future. I would also like to acknowledge the wonderful and beautiful first peoples of my community, the Dja Dja Wurrung, and in my contribution today I would like to speak about some of their journeys and the exciting moment in history that we are in in that we have settlement in our community.
This motion acknowledges that it is 50 years since the Australian people voted by an overwhelming majority for the Australian constitution to be changed to finally acknowledge our first peoples of this nation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, as full citizens. This occurred before I was born, but it is a moment in history that even my parents discuss. They discuss what the debate at the time meant. For many people in this place, like fellow members of parliament, it means so much more. It means that for the first time their families were acknowledged as Australians.
When you share those stories and experiences with school children, they find it really hard to believe that in our country's history we have our first Australians, Aboriginal people, that lived here in a time when they were not even recognised as Australians. It's part of those teachings and learnings that need to continue to ensure that we do never forget and that we continue to move forward in reconciliation. In this motion we also acknowledge the 25th anniversary of the High Court Mabo decision, a decision that changed the direction of our country and made a significant step forward on the path of reconciliation.
But there is still unfinished business for our nation. There is still a lot of work that we need to do. We cannot declare that the job is done whilst it is still more likely that a young Aboriginal man will end up in prison than at university. That is something that we all must take responsibility for. The job is also not done on health—the fact that people who are Aboriginal Australians are more likely to have kidney failure and any number of illnesses—and is still not finished on education, numeracy and literacy, while people in the country and in the regions still do not have access to decent quality health and education.
In this place we still have a job to do. In my own community of Bendigo we have the remarkable BDAC service, the Bendigo and District Aboriginal Co-op, who work collectively and collegiately with a number of health and education services to deliver support to our local Aboriginal people. One of the beautiful things that occurs when they speak at formal events is that, whilst they may live in Bendigo, which is Dja Dja Wurrung country, they acknowledge their ancestors and their birth place. It is not uncommon for their comments to start with 'I am a proud Yorta Yorta woman'—that is just to the north of the Dja Dja Wurrung nation. This is a small way that they acknowledge their history. It's a moment for all of us white folk in the room to remember that so many Aboriginal Australians were displaced.
I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution that in the state of Victoria, in Bendigo, we actually have settlement. A recognition and settlement agreement between the Dja Dja Wurrung clans and the state of Victoria was made in 2013. It was the first settlement of its kind to be made. It meant that the four claims that were before the Federal Court were ceased. It is also a recognition of what our state parliaments can do. Under the leadership of former Attorney-General Rob Hulls the Victorian government became the first government to create this process and opportunity for our first peoples to pursue through state parliament, through negotiation, recognition and settlement agreements. It was one of the first events that I went to as the federal member for Bendigo and I will never forget the tears, the joy and the excitement of the Dja Dja Wurrung elders and their descendants; the look on Rodney Carter's face; the clap and celebration from Aunty Julie when the land was formally handed over with the symbolic moment of passing soil from the state government to themselves.
Since settlement, we have seen a number of achievements and a number of milestones. It was an important milestone for the Dja Dja Wurrung people and for the Victorian government. It recognised them as the traditional owners of this country and acknowledged the history of dispossession and how that had affected their people. These are some of the comments that the elders made at that time:
Our Agreement allows for continued recognition, through protocols and acknowledgements and Welcomes to Country …
It also provides us with some legal rights to practice culture and access and use our land and resources, and to have a say in what happens on our Country. The Agreement gives us Aboriginal title of some of our traditional lands, including the right to actively managing Country.
It includes several state parks that they are now responsible for managing. There have been so many wonderful things that they have been able to do since settlement, but there are some I wish to highlight, like the Ulumbarra Theatre. 'Ulumbarra' is a Dja Dja Wurrung word that means 'gather together'. That is the name of the new Bendigo theatre, funded by the former Labor government and state government. It was symbolic that it be named Ulumbarra straight after settlement. It is also home to scarred trees, in recognition. These were saved from the redevelopment of the Ravenswood interchange. The first performance at Ulumbarra was actually a work commissioned by the City of Greater Bendigo, performed to tell the Dja Dja Wurrung story. One of the saddest points of the night was when many locals in Bendigo said, 'This is the first time that I have seen, learnt and heard about the local Dja Dja Wurrung story.' I say it is sad because many of them were in their 40s, their 50s and their 60s. It was a lesson to all of us that we needed to do more to learn more about our first peoples' stories.
More recently, we launched the Dja Dja Wurrung tram. Whilst this tram will not help fix literacy levels and will not help improve the shocking rates of health and disease that we have amongst our Aboriginal people, it is symbolic because it helps our local Dja Dja Wurrung tell their story of what happened when our town—a mining town—was mined for gold. As we sat on the tram and it travelled through Bendigo, local Dja Dja Wurrung elders could talk about what happened to their country when it was mined for gold. A local Dja Dja Wurrung artist was commissioned to paint the tram and to help tell the local story.
There's so much that I could talk about, and I don't feel like this speech has done justice to the amazing work that has been achieved by our Dja Dja Wurrung nation and their elders. But in my final comments I will include a few words from Aunty Julie. Aunty Julie was the Citizen of the Year in 2017 for Mount Alexander. She said in her speech:
The true invaders, I believe, were the landed gentry, the squatters and the pastoralists. Often the term 'settlers' is used to describe these people but I see them as the true invaders … Then came disease, massacres, poisoning, and dispossession of our land. Of the whole Dja Dja Wurrung nation in the Mount Alexander Shire, which numbered around 2,000 before invasion, only 70 were left on Country by 1863. In less than 30 years nearly a whole nation of proud people was decimated by greed. This is part of the history which must be understood, not dwelled on, but understood, so that we as a people can understand and move forward.
And she invited all of us to share that journey with her.
As we stand here reflecting on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and the 25th anniversary of the High Court's Mabo decision, it is appropriate that I open with an acknowledgement that this parliament was built on what is, was and always will be Aboriginal land. I acknowledge the traditional owners, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, and pay my respects to their elders, past and present, and also to the elders of the Kulin nation, the Boonwurrung and the Wurundjeri people, in my bit of Melbourne.
As we reflect on these significant anniversaries it's hard to believe, for those of us here, just how contemporary these momentous changes are. Most Australians either were alive when the referendum took place or have a parent or grandparent who was. And for many, especially young people, there's a feeling that now we're in politically stagnant times, that there is disengagement of people from politics and the effects it has on their lives, and it is a time of fractious parliaments and lessening trust in MPs and institutions. We've had 18 years now without any referendum being put to the people of Australia. I understand that that's the longest gap since Federation in 1901. But it would be sad if this leads us to believe that momentous change is something from a bygone era. The challenges handed to us only in recent weeks by the Referendum Council's National Convention at Uluru, the final report of the Referendum Council, remind us there are momentous changes that we still must confront.
There are dangers, of course, in constitutional change. The failed republic referendum, despite majority support for a republic, stands as an example. But real change requires leadership. To borrow Paul Keating's formula, that is imagination and courage—not, may I say, Prime Minister Howard's pathetic vision for a nation as being relaxed and comfortable, or Prime Minister Abbott's aggression and mindset of political gain at all costs, or the weak, pathetic nothingness of the current Prime Minister, who turned up to the Garma Festival and waffled, frozen, unable to make any commitment or lead his party, let alone the nation. So it's especially important and inspiring to remember what is possible when politicians and society come together to address injustices in the cause of equality and progressive change.
The 1967 referendum reminds us of a universal truth in politics and public life: that progressive change is not inevitable and never easy. It is always hard, and resisted by some, especially at the start, and achieving progressive change is always a struggle. It requires tenacity to stand up to an unfair world, to turn ideals into reality. Back then the campaigners for the yes vote worked tirelessly for over 10 years to put the case for change on the national agenda. There can be no doubt that by the time the Australian people came to a vote in 1967 the campaigners for change had put their issue, their cause, at the centre of the nation's political agenda. By the time the ballot boxes closed on 27 May 1967, these social warriors, if you like, had done all they could to progress their cause.
I asked the Dandenong historical society in my electorate whether they had any news articles from the time of the referendum. Reading the news from back then you can hear, can feel, decades on, the optimism as well as the realism of what the 1967 referendum meant. In a Dandenong Journal article on 31 May 1967, a few days after the vote, Mr Bill Onus, a local entrepreneur, speaking on behalf of '50 Aborigines' said:
I look on it as the biggest milestone in the history of my people … we're overjoyed and feel now we are recognised as part of a nation and not just as 'the other people' … This, for us, is just the beginning of the long road to progress and rehabilitation.
The hope in Mr Onus's words is still palpable today. What a sense of victory the First Australians and the campaigners must have felt. In an earlier interview with the Dandenong Journal, printed on 9 May, a few days before the ballot, Mr Onus spoke to the importance of this constitutional change, saying:
Every head of livestock in Australia is counted—every sheep, every horse, every cow—but there is no true count of aborigines.
He felt that the number varied between 100,000 and 300,000, but no-one really knew.
So, the 1967 referendum, in that context, was Australia's most successful, with 90.8 per cent of Australians voting yes. This is especially remarkable as these were not progressive times in terms of such matters—the White Australia policy was still technically in force—and with a level of bipartisanship that today seems astonishing. The hard work that these social warriors campaigning for change achieved put in place a political climate whereby parliamentarians passed the referendum legislation unanimously. There was no Peter Dutton extremist type failing to show up to the apology—not one. Just like on marriage equality today, the community then was ahead of its leaders.
1967 also reminds us that arbitrary discrimination debases us all. It damages our society. And so does extreme injustice and extreme inequality generally—whether economic, legal or social we see real-world damaging impacts on society. The latest Closing the Gap report showed us that in terms of ridding our nation of inequalities between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and all other Australians, we are still not living up to our commitments. The hope, the promise, of the 1967 referendum, of Mabo, has not been realised despite all the good intentions. The target to halve the gap in child mortality by 2018 will not be met. The goal to close the gap in life expectancy by 2021 will not be achieved. The promise to close the gap on many education and employment measures will not be upheld. Although clearly not enough, 1967 was of some practical positive impact, and Marcia Langton pointed out in her 2012 Boyer Lecture that hard-won legislative and constitutional changes in the 1960s allowed Aboriginal people to enjoy 'the political and economic benefits of citizenship: the social welfare safety net, some aspects of economic development, political representation, support for language and culture, and government policy and funding to improve outcomes in education and sports'.
In the 1990s, judicial decisions, coupled with the legislative actions of the Keating government, abolished the legal fiction of terra nullius and enshrined the native title rights of the First Australians into law. These rights have strengthened the foundations upon which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can engage in the Australian economy. Yet, it's not enough. To truly honour the 50th anniversary of 1967 and the 25th anniversary of Mabo we have to commit, now, this parliament to more action. Fine words are insufficient. We must find our own wisdom and courage to respond to the Referendum Council's report and drive change. In a statement released after the Uluru convention, delegates stated:
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard.
For our part I am so proud that Labor listened to Uluru, seeking to hear the message. Labor has laid out our response and a pathway for action with the incredible leadership by our Aboriginal members of caucus and the Leader of the Opposition. If we are being honest in our remarks I must say that I have mixed feelings about the Prime Minister's commitment or ability to do anything. He does mouth the right words. We have all sat through them. But there is no sign his heart is really in it and there's a deep hypocrisy in the speeches to this House of government MPs. I have heard some of them. I was listening to them talk in reverential terms about Eddie Mabo. They hint at some magical bipartisanship on Indigenous issues, which is a rewriting and whitewashing of history, as it is not true. Never forget, the Liberals are the party that voted against Mabo. They fuelled the utterly disgraceful nonsense in the popular press and the community that our suburban backyards were under threat. The front pages of the paper were fuelled by the Liberal Party. The Howard government's response to the High Court's Wik case was weak, pathetic and ungenerous in spirit or substance.
Few here may remember the 1997 Bringing them home report into the stolen generations. I do, though. I was a staffer here and it was the most emotional week I can remember in this building in the five years I worked here last century. Every Labor member of parliament spoke from the heart about that report. The Aboriginal community from across Australia turned up to this building, their national parliament, to tell their stories and to bear witness to the parliament's work. Yet the Howard government's response was useless. It could have been a much better moment of national reflection and healing. And Howard was the Prime Minister who then refused for his remaining 10 years in office, in that wasted decade, to issue a simple apology to the Aboriginal people, whose time had clearly come. The Minister for Immigration, a pretender to the throne, was so weak he did not even turn up to the apology. We saw Prime Minister Abbott's gaps between actions and words—he professed to care yet cut $500 million. Despite the PM's fine words, that continues today. The Deputy Prime Minister's first response is not to listen, not to understand. Let's hope the government can find some imagination, heart and courage, perhaps inspired by the spirit of 1967. I am hopeful, not optimistic—they may, but time will tell.
It's a great honour to be able to stand in the Australian parliament to pay tribute today to both the life and the work of Mr Mabo and indeed to the High Court decision in the case involving Mabo and the plaintiffs, which changed the legal story of this nation. I also pay tribute today to the most remarkable of anniversaries, that being the 1967 referendum, where our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia were finally granted the right not simply to be counted in our census but also to be counted in our history books and in the narrative of our nation and to get a say in contesting the space of colonial history that Australia was, for a long time, steeped in.
Those two events—the Mabo High Court decision and the 1967 referendum—are matters that this parliament should celebrate wholeheartedly, because these were extraordinarily hard-fought victories. They were campaigns that were long and arduous for all of the peoples involved. We really give thanks to Mr Mabo and to his family. We had the privilege of having his daughter, Gail, present in parliament on the day when this motion first came before the House. I reflected on that day, when I met not only Gail Mabo but the sons of other plaintiffs involved in the Mabo case, just what an extraordinary sacrifice those families made in sharing their fathers with this nation for decades in actively engaging in trying to reshape the history of this nation. And what a remarkable job they did.
Mr Mabo's life was full of extraordinary struggles and challenges. Regretfully, despite the 10 years which he dedicated to pursuing these legal actions, he never lived to see the outcome of his High Court challenge. Yet, there are few people in Australia who would not know his name and who would not understand the dramatic ramifications of the actions taken by that man from the island of Mer, who took on the Australian legal system in order to get justice. He asserted his continuing native title rights to the island of Mer, challenged the Australian notions of property rights and indeed challenged all of us to rethink what we had learnt about the founding stories of our nation. Forevermore, the contestability of those founding stories will ring loud in this chamber, in our courts and in the history books of this nation. And thank goodness, because I do not think we should be under any illusion that these victories came easy in Australia. These were hard-fought campaigns, with great personal cost to the people involved. That's why I paid special tribute to the families of Mr Mabo and all of those 1967 activists.
These were hard-fought gains. This was not an easy transition in Australia's history. I was working with remote Aboriginal communities in the Kimberley region when these decisions were coming down and there was great excitement in the Kimberley. The state of Western Australia, you might recall, has never had any form of land rights legislation. So prior to the title decision there was no capacity for the Indigenous people of Western Australia to ever exercise their rights as traditional owners of these lands and waters for 60,000 years-plus in this nation.
That was a shameful state of affairs. The hard work did not stop after the High Court decision. In seeking to implement changes to our laws to ensure that we recognised native title and afforded some protection, there were many members of this House who sought to extinguish native title at the first opportunity. Whether through ignorance at the time or a simple misunderstanding, they did not do this House proud. It is to their great credit that Indigenous people persevered with their negotiations with the Australian government. The then Keating government was able to formulate a native title act that was, for many people, already filled with compromises but also with lots of promise for the future.
It has been a continuing struggle to prevent perverse extinguishment of native title in legislation in this House. We recently had matters in this House where the government sought to overreach, again, when it came to dealing with the Macleay court decision and the implications that had for Indigenous land use agreements in Australia. We need to learn from those errors and not trash the legacy of those who came before us, like Mr Mabo, like the 1967 referendum heroes and heroines. These were people who stared racism, intolerance and wilful ignorance right in the face—and yet remained utterly determined to render change in this country, to ask Australians to face squarely our colonial history, to face squarely our 19th century obsession with racial discourse in this country and to face squarely the ongoing legacies of past injustices.
I know my colleagues before me have spoken of the moving ceremonies here in the House where the apology was given to the stolen generations. That remains with me one of the most profound days in my life: the honour of being able to witness that apology in this House, to witness the impact that had for the men and women who had been unlawfully stolen from their families at that time. There are lessons for us to remember now. There are more Indigenous children now living in out-of-home care, in Australia, than ever before. So it seems to me that our parliaments, collectively, around the country still have many important lessons to learn.
I do, however, give thanks to the extraordinary sacrifice of the men and women who fought so valiantly for their rights, and for the correction of that bloody and vicious colonial history on which the country was founded, through exercising their rights in the court when this parliament failed to do so. Let's learn from those mistakes. Let's not let that happen again. People should not have to go to court in order to exercise their rights. This parliament should be a generous partner with our Indigenous men and women in Australia to get this right in the future, and that's why I'm pleased that we have supported the constitutional recognition of their voices in this parliament.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 3, Committee and Delegation Reports, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I rise to make a few remarks on this report both as a member of the committee and as someone who has a longstanding interest in our relationship with Indonesia in all dimensions but, in particular here, the economic trade and investment dimension. Before I entered the parliament, I spent some years as a senior executive in the Victorian economic development department and had staff in Indonesia, and I looked at trade matters and so on.
This report, I would say in summary, is okay, but it's not deep or comprehensive and doesn't really do the topic justice, I think it's fair to say. I have just a couple of preliminary words as to why I would say that. The choice of topic and also the timing are quite odd, or curious. The committee—without breaching privilege, of course—had many ideas, as you would imagine, for work we could've done, but the minister wrote to us and said, 'This is what we want you to do.' We're a committee; we take references from ministers. But a few of us, at least on this side of the House, did think that it was curious timing for such an inquiry into our trade relationship with Indonesia, because the government are currently trying to negotiate a trade agreement with Indonesia, which they say will be out by the end of 2017.
As it turned out, it was curious timing, because at some point someone realised they were negotiating a trade agreement with Indonesia, and there was a bit of a panic and pressure to wrap it all up quickly and say, 'That's enough of that.' People were a bit freaked out. We were doing this work in public while the government was negotiating a trade agreement. It is another example, I would say, of the incompetence of the government. Nevertheless, the secretariat did as good a job as you could expect in the time, given that hearings and analysis of submissions were somewhat curtailed, and did draw on desktop material that had been submitted by business and others to the Indonesia trade agreement inquiry. Whilst I don't think any member of the committee would claim this is a stunning contribution to public policy, to the work of the parliament or to our trade and investment relationship, it does say a few useful and important things.
I'd say at the outset that Indonesia is our largest neighbour, yet the potential of our trade and investment relationship is not fully realised. We have many complementary goods and services, and sectors—agriculture, obviously; mining; education; infrastructure; and other services. We are, respectively, the 13th and 16th largest countries in the world by GDP, yet we rank quite low in terms of our trade relationship. It's particularly important, of course, for Australian businesses, at a time when they are facing declining market share in other markets, to develop new markets and grow existing markets like Indonesia. Indonesia has a growing economy and an expanding middle class, yet in some areas I think it's fair to say our performance is stagnating, as we heard in the inquiry.
I'd use the example of international education, which we spent quite some time on in the hearing. The department at first was glowing: 'Everything's good here; we've had a four per cent growth.' I said, 'That's very nice. What's been the overall growth of the market?' 'Well, that's 15 per cent.' But then, when we drill into the raw numbers, from 2002 to 2015 they showed massive growth in onshore students in Australia, yet Indonesia basically dipped over that period and has slowly struggled back to its overall numbers being where it was 14 years ago. So enrolments dropped from about 21,000 in 2002, and climbed back to 19,000 last year. So those numbers aren't even back to where we were in 2002. If you have a deeper look at the numbers, so much of that growth has been in vocational education and training, which, to be frank, is a lower economic value when compared to higher education students, where we're struggling. Others could tell stories about goods, agriculture, mining and so on.
I will make a couple of comments on the trade agreement that, curiously, was being negotiated while this inquiry was sputtering along. Strong support for a forward-thinking innovative agreement was shown by submitters and indeed by Labor. The shadow minister is here and will make some remarks in a moment. But we must acknowledge that it's not a blank sheet. We're not wandering into some magical new land where a trade agreement will fix everything. As the inquiry showed, we already have—and have had for a long time—the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, which provides for tariff reduction and economic integration. Negotiations are underway for, dare I say, a much better, more comprehensive and potentially multilateral trade agreement—the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership—with 10 ASEAN and FTA partners. It's a very careful task, then, to try to negotiate another bilateral agreement to meet the Prime Minister's arbitrary deadline, where there's relatively little to do in tariffs—all the work is in non-tariff barriers, which are complex—while we actually have these two multilateral agreements.
Jobs and growth, as we all know, is a slogan that consists of company tax cuts to big companies and a few bilateral trade agreements, so it's politically important for the government to land something—anything, really—but care is needed because trade theory does make clear, as we also heard, that multilateral agreements are generally much better than bilateral agreements. Indeed—and this is heresy for some, who just rush like lemmings to sign up to any agreement the Prime Minister pulls out of the bottom draw in desperation—not every trade agreement is a good trade agreement. Trade theory would also say that, because of diversionary effects, some bilateral agreements can hurt economic growth. I won't go into the complexity for business here, for reasons of time, but the spaghetti bowl effect often means the more trade agreements you have with the same country the more confusing it can be for business to figure out. So we need to tread carefully.
In saying that not all trade agreements are good, unambiguously trade liberalisation has made Australia much wealthier. There's no doubt about that. But this goes to an important recommendation I'd like to turn in the report—recommendation 4. Let's have a little look at it. It says:
The Committee recommends that the text of the IA-CEPA should not include provisions which waive labour market testing, or which include ISDS provisions, and the final text of the agreement should be accompanied by independent analysis conducted by either the Productivity Commission or equivalent organisation.
This is important but somewhat surprising to those opposite, because yet again a government controlled committee has recommended adopting Labor policy. Even the dark lord, as I call him—Senator Abetz—was on board. He was on the committee and signed up to this. The Treaties Committee made a similar recommendation, which my friend the member for Fremantle will no doubt talk about: 'Sign up to Labor policy, Minister.' Labor at the last election made a range of commitments, but we made clear that we don't support agreements that allow exemptions from labour market testing or willy-nilly loopholes for foreign workers. We heard a bit about that from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection with his trumpeted skilled visa reforms, which have turned out to be a scam, because there is no labour market testing, and they provide never-ending loopholes for trade agreements to jump through. So, unless the government is prepared to rule this out, we'll see more foreign workers come in through these loopholes, displacing Australian jobs with no labour market testing.
The hearing was interesting, because I directly asked a senior trade official from the department: has the government instructed you in these negotiations not to negotiate away labour market testing in this agreement? It was a yes or no question. Eventually we got the answer, which was no. Then I asked, 'Business have identified a range of things in their submissions; what have they been saying about labour market testing and their particular types?' We were told by the senior official, 'Business aren't talking to us about labour market testing; they're talking to us about being able to help Indonesia upskill its workforce, and we can do that in Indonesia.' I'm not sure what the government's ongoing reluctance to rule this out and adopt Labor's sensible policy is about—probably blind ideology.
The other important aspect of that recommendation that I will touch on in my closing remarks is that Labor believes trade agreements should be subject to a transparent, independent assessment of costs and benefits before signing. This is not socialist, leftie, radical stuff from this side. Recommendation 4, signed up to by government MPs, says this—although the government's view remains unclear. But, of course, a 2015 Senate inquiry said the same thing—that there need to be national interest assessments—because not every trade agreement that the minister dreams up over there is a good agreement. It should be assessed independently from those who signed up to and developed the agreement by the Productivity Commission. The 2016 treaties inquiry said the same thing. Of course, there are concerns about investor-state dispute clauses. They are controversial. It needs to be acknowledged there are some such mechanisms in the existing ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. But there is, as the department official admitted, a question of coherence, and the government's review, of course, remains unclear.
In closing, I would say that there is enormous potential in this relationship. I particularly note the best contribution to the inquiry from the Australia Indonesia Business Council. They made a submission, but they took the time to turn up to the hearing, and you could feel the enormous optimism coupled with the realism of the challenges. We're very different countries. We have different histories, different cultures and different economies. But, particularly to advance this relationship, it's not all about government. Government can put in place the frameworks, but the market, businesses and people—human beings—can choose where they go. This requires personal relationships and a deep understanding of the culture of the people who you're doing business with. It is time to think about what government can do to help build these relationships with organisations like the business council chambers because trust in Asia is so critical. If you don't trust and if you don't know, you don't do business. So I particularly applaud Australia's Indonesian diaspora because they are so, so valuable to our efforts to grow our economic relationship with Indonesia.
I'm very pleased to speak on the report into the trade relationship between Australia and Indonesia by the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth. It is an important report into this trade relationship between our two countries and very timely, given the Australian and Indonesian governments' efforts to finalise the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement by the end of this year. As the report highlights, while the Australia-Indonesia bilateral relationship is quite broad, our trade and investment is one area where there is significant potential for expansion to the benefit of both of our countries. Our trade relationship is relatively small—lower than that of New Zealand or Thailand, which have comparatively smaller economies. This is despite the fact that Indonesia's economy comprises more than one-third of total ASEAN GDP and is now approaching US$1 trillion.
There is tremendous potential for Australian businesses to participate in Indonesia's rapidly growing economy, which is expected to continue to grow at over five per cent per year in the near term. But it is a market not without its challenges. So I think there is real work to be done to update the Australian mindset to recognise the opportunities that our nearest Asian neighbour provides us. If current trends continue, Indonesia will move into the top 10 economies in the world by 2030 and is expected to be the fourth largest by 2050. The growth and evolution of Indonesia's economy will see expanding opportunities, such as those in health care, tourism, education and agricultural products—all of which are prime examples of where Australia is well placed to get more engaged in a trade relationship with Indonesia.
I am very passionate about our country's relationship with Indonesia, and that's partly based on my own background. Well before politics, I was involved in trade relationships in my own business in the area of farming, particularly cotton exports out of Australia and reciprocal imports of knitted and woven product based on Australian cotton. I've also had the great honour of being involved in beef trade and, certainly, in the live cattle trade resurrection as the former Queensland minister for agriculture following federal Labor's well-known trade and economic debacle in that regard.
Alongside other Queensland ministers I was well informed, holding side discussions with President Widodo, at the G20 world leaders forum in Brisbane in 2014. Therefore, based on that experience and my knowledge of Indonesian business and trade relationships, I very much welcome business community submissions to this inquiry, as reflected in the report, which highlighted the need to improve the trade relationship in a way that recognises our shared trade goals and leverages our individual strengths so that when we work together we become a joint regional powerhouse.
In terms of the recommendations of this particular report, I note a number of things. To help business achieve its objectives as suggested in the report, it recommends:
… the Australian government develop a campaign to actively promote the business opportunities presented by this partnership.
As I've outlined, that is something that I very strongly support.
The report's second recommendation is that the government prioritise the development of infrastructure in northern Australia that strengthens maritime, education and tourism services partnerships with Indonesia. Many of us know that the lack of infrastructure in northern Australia is an impediment to trade, as was noted in many submissions to this report, and that is something we do need to recognise. These are concerns very much shared by the Australian government, which recognises the need for greater investment in northern infrastructure to capitalise on our proximity to Asia—hence our government's efforts, together with Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, that are currently underway. I saw those firsthand as a member of the former Northern Australia Ministerial Forum in considering the long-term need for investment and development across the north of our country.
The committee's third recommendation, that the partnership focus on the reduction of non-tariff barriers to trade, is an important one also. It is not only tariffs that limit the opportunities of Australian manufacturers and agricultural producers to send their products overseas, including to Indonesia. The committee heard that non-tariff barriers, including variable customs procedures, red tape and import licensing arrangements continue to limit the ability and the appetite of Australian exporters to engage with the Indonesian market. We need to take a comprehensive look at those barriers to trade that we should address, and we should look at how we address them and in which fora we do that. We need to maintain our own standards, whether they relate to quarantine or product safety, for instance, most definitely, and we recognise that our trading partners, including, in this case, Indonesia, pursue their own legitimate public policy objectives at the same time. But it is in Australia's interests and the interests of our trading partners that measures to support those legitimate policy objectives don't hamper trade. The government have heard calls from industry to tackle such blockages, and the government are doing what we can, using the full range of options that we have, whether in the World Trade Organization, bilaterally or through the mechanisms that our trade agreements establish.
The report's fourth recommendation, unfortunately, appears to be what I consider a grab bag of ideas that look pretty abstract when applied to the real world, and I would caution against supporting those. The committee recommends not waiving labour market testing in the economic partnership agreement. Australia has longstanding existing commitments to waive labour market testing for certain categories of Indonesian professionals, including under the 1995 WTO agreement on services and in the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement concluded in 2009 and signed by Labor when in government. Australia will continue to honour its international obligations, as should others. At the end of the day, negotiations with Indonesia are about expanding opportunities for Australian workers by growing the trade between us, not by taking away Australian jobs.
The committee also recommends not including investor-state dispute settlement in the economic partnership agreement. It is completely appropriate that the Australian government consider investor-state dispute settlement provisions in free trade agreements on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on our national interest. Australia has previously agreed to investor-state dispute settlement with Indonesia, including our bilateral investment treaty and the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA, to which I have referred, both of which Australia and New Zealand are parties to.
Investor-state dispute settlement can be an important mechanism to protect the interests of Australian investors when investing overseas. The suggestion to apply economic modelling on all agreements, I fear, is also more theoretical than real. To begin, the government undertakes extensive prenegotiation analysis of all FTA proposals. This process is undertaken by drawing on the multifaceted expertise within the government and elsewhere covering trade negotiations, policy and economic expertise. Our trade agreements are negotiated on a case-by-case basis to open new markets for Australian exporters that will drive economic growth and create new Australian jobs. They have done just that to date. That is why parliament has voted them into law. Whilst significant negotiations, stakeholder consultation, economic analysis and modelling have been underway and will continue in order to finalise the Indonesia Australian comprehensive economic partnership, I am confident that if this agreement is presented to the Australian parliament, we will have ample opportunity to assess its contribution to our important relationship and partnership with Indonesia.
Indonesia is our next-door neighbour and it is a big and important neighbour. It is home for more than 250 million people. In population terms, that means it is the fourth biggest country in the world. By the middle of this century, it will be the fourth biggest economy in the world, sitting only behind the United States, China and India. But, at the moment, trade and investment with our big northern neighbour is massively underdone. Indonesia does not even register on the list of top 10 trading partners for Australia. We trade more with New Zealand, a country of less than five million people, than we do with Indonesia, a country with a population of 250 million. The comparison is stark. There are more than 12,000 Australian companies currently doing business in New Zealand and there are less than 300 in Indonesia—12,000 Australian companies doing business in New Zealand, a country of 4.6 million people, and only 300—or fewer than 300—Australian companies doing business in Indonesia, a country of 250 million people. This is what I mean when I say that our trade and investment relationship with Indonesia is massively underdone, and why the free trade agreement which is being currently negotiated between our two countries is so potentially important.
That agreement has the potential to provide the foundation and framework to increase trade and investment between Australia and Indonesia and to make the most of the enormous growth that is expected to occur in this economic juggernaut in the decades ahead. Just one statistic gives you an idea of the potential opportunity that awaits us in Indonesia. Indonesia's a young country. The median age in Indonesia is 28.6—in other words, more than half the population is under 30. By 2030, 70 per cent of Indonesians will be of working age. That means about 130 million to 135 million potential consumers and a market worth almost US$2 trillion. Our challenge here, as we look at this opportunity, is how we build the foundations now between our two countries that will help to make sure that, as Indonesia grows in the decades ahead, it also creates more jobs here and more opportunities here at home for Australian businesses. If we do not, then other countries will—other countries in Europe and in North and South America. The opportunity is enormous and it is up to us to make the most of it.
The free trade negotiations between our two countries kicked off about seven years ago. They kicked off under the former Labor government. They were initiated by Julia Gillard and by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in 2010. We understand now that these negotiations are reaching a conclusion. The Prime Minister of Australia and the President of Indonesia made a commitment in Hamburg at the G20 that they would seek to finalise free trade negotiations between our two countries this year. We look forward to seeing the details of that agreement when it is finalised and we hope that the government can forge a high-quality agreement, because the opportunities here are so great, in particular for Australian farmers, for Australian universities and other education providers, for the tourism sector, as well as for increased investment in both directions.
We will wait to see the details, but one of the interesting features of these negotiations has been the role that business has played so far in helping to focus negotiations and identify the opportunities that are available here. The Indonesia-Australia Business Partnership Group was established in 2011. It is made up of business peak bodies from our own country and Indonesia. It includes the Indonesia Australia Business Council. It includes Asosiasi Pengusaha Indonesia, otherwise known as APINDO. It also includes the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Ai Group. They've done a lot of important work in identifying the opportunities to increase trade and investment between Australia and Indonesia and also in identifying some of the impediments and providing advice on how they could be overcome by this agreement. This is not something that happens with all of the free trade negotiations that Australia undertakes. It is unusual to have business leaders from both countries do this sort of work. I think it is constructive and extremely valuable. Hopefully the agreement that's signed later this year will be the better for the work that these business organisations have done.
There are a number of other issues that I also hope this agreement addresses when it is finalised later this year. Some of them were picked up in this report. This report that we are debating here is a report of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth. The committee were asked by the government to inquire into Australia's trade and investment relationship with Indonesia, and they have made a number of what I believe are very important recommendations. One of them is a recommendation that this agreement, the free trade agreement with Indonesia, should not waive labour market testing. I agree. Labour market testing is a pretty simple concept. Before a company can bring in a temporary worker from overseas, they should first have to check and see if there is an Australian who can do the job. Waiving that in this agreement would mean workers from Indonesia can come to Australia without the company they're going to work for first having to check if there's an Australian who can do the job. This is the sort of stuff that makes our constituents angry. It's not protectionism; it's just common sense that, before you bring in an electrician, a carpenter or a plumber from overseas, the company seeking that person to do the work should first have to go through the basic task of seeing if there is an Aussie who can do it. The report recommends that the free trade agreement with Indonesia does not waive labour market testing. We agree, and we hope that the government do too. From the contribution we just had from a member opposite, it's doubtful that they will. It also indicates that they just don't get it: they just don't understand how simple a concept and how important a concept like labour market testing is to the Australian community.
The report also recommends that the final text of the agreement should be accompanied by independent economic analysis conducted by the Productivity Commission or an equivalent organisation. This is just another sensible, practical but important recommendation. It's not a new idea. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has recommended this before, as has the ACTU. It has also been recommended by a number of committees in this place: the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the Senate inquiry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's review of the treaty-making process in 2015.
The important point here is that public scepticism about trade, open markets and globalisation is real and increasing. You see evidence of it in the election of Donald Trump last year, in Brexit even and in the rise of Hansonism and the vote that One Nation got at our last national election. This sort of independent economic analysis of a trade agreement, once it's struck between our two countries, helps to respond to these sorts of concerns. That's important because public trust, public faith, public confidence and public support for free trade and open markets is important. One in five jobs in Australia is directly related to trade. More trade means more jobs and more high-paid jobs. We need to be able to say, when we are debating a free trade agreement, that we know—not just because the government says so, but because the independent analysis proves it—that this is going to provide a meaningful, real benefit and more jobs for Australians.
I hope that the government listens to this recommendation and implements it not just here but in the other trade agreements it is negotiating. This is a good report, and it's a bipartisan report. It's not just the Labor members on this committee that have recommended that this free trade agreement with Indonesia not waive labour market testing and should be subject to the scrutiny of independent economic analysis—the government members have too. Both sides have said this. Unfortunately all the evidence to date, and we just heard it again, indicates that the government is going to ignore its own members and the recommendations in this report. If it does that, it will be a mistake. The free trade agreement with Indonesia, currently being finalised, is an enormous opportunity for our two countries. We shouldn't be afraid of independent analysis of it, and we shouldn't have to trade away the right of Australian workers to get the first crack at a job before overseas workers in order to get a great deal done.
I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak on this committee report by the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth. I thank its members for what is a compelling and comprehensive examination of our current and potential trade relationship with Indonesia, especially at a time when we are in the process of negotiating the Indonesia-Australia regional economic partnership agreement.
The broad observations made at the outset of this report are fascinating and they reinforce the great significance of our relationship with Indonesia, not least because Indonesia is becoming a powerhouse in the Asia-Pacific. Indonesia is the fifth largest nation by population and it has the 16th largest economy. But, from the Australian perspective, we need to hold onto the projection that Indonesia is expected to be the fourth largest economy in the world by 2050. Australia is currently the 13th largest economy, and yet our trade with Indonesia—our next door neighbour—is such that neither country at the moment is a top 10 trading partner of the other. That gives a sense of the potential in the trade and economic relationship between our two nations.
The shadow minister talked about the great example provided by the Australia Indonesia Business Council of the disparity in terms of Australian companies currently involved in Indonesia and New Zealand. New Zealand is comparatively small, with four million people, and yet there are 12,000 Australian companies that have an involvement on the ground there, and only 300 in Indonesia. Another measure of that disparity is in the quantum of that investment: $86 billion worth of investment by Australian companies in New Zealand, and only $11 billion by Australian companies in Indonesia.
The committee report is also instructive in its observations about Australia's approach to trade agreements in general. To some degree, my perspective on that and my interest is as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. As the shadow minister and the member for Bruce observed, both the JSCOT and the JSCTIG—which I will take the liberty of calling the committee that has produced this report—are in broad agreement about some of the risks and shortcomings both in substance and process of the government's approach to settling preferential trade agreements, and there are three particular points I would like to touch on: independent economic analysis, the question of trade and jobs—which is really an issue that needs to be looked at a lot more closely than is currently the case—and the issue of ISDS, or investor-state dispute settlement provisions. Recommendation 4 of this report states that the final text of the Indonesia-Australia regional economic partnership agreement, which is currently in negotiation:
… should be accompanied by independent analysis conducted by either the Productivity Commission or equivalent organisation.
In the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report 165, on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, there was a similar recommendation, recommendation 2, which stated:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider implementing a process through which independent modelling and analysis of a proposed trade agreement is undertaken by the Productivity Commission, or equivalent organisation …
The report of the trade references committee of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee in June 2015 was called Blind agreement. It made a similar recommendation, recommendation 8, which says:
The committee recommends that a cost-benefit analysis of trade agreements be undertaken by an independent body, such as the Productivity Commission, and tabled in parliament prior to the commencement of negotiations or as soon as is practicable afterwards. The cost-benefit analysis should inform the government's approach to negotiations.
We have seen from multiple committees, over several years, a clear recommendation to government, and it is a commonsense one.
Unfortunately, the minister for trade, in responding to the JSCOT recommendation, has indicated—the government member for Groom said earlier—that the government has no interest in doing that. How can the Australian public, the Australian parliament or the Australian government be confident that these agreements are what they're cracked up to be, that they're worth entering into, on balance, without an informed view, without a view supported by appropriate high-level independent economic analysis? The answer is: they cannot have that confidence. That is why we on this side of the House have been pushing for that change to be made. Those on the government side have been fiercely resisting it.
It does matter because there is plentiful evidence that trade agreements tend to overpromise and under deliver. I know that in report 165, on the TPP, there was plentiful evidence that the assessment of a range of trade agreements in recent times has substantially overestimated the benefit that accrued from them. We also know that governments have a habit of talking up and misrepresenting the value of trade agreements. We have heard from this government that trade agreements are going to be enormously productive of jobs in the Australian economy when, by its nature, liberalising your economy, especially if you are a developed nation, does not tend to create jobs, it tends to see jobs go to areas where labour is cheaper. That is one of the things you deal with through proper transition arrangements and by expanding your economy in other areas.
The TPP was cited, on numerous occasions, as one of the ways in which this government was going to deliver the as yet still distant jobs and growth that we desperately need. There was no independent economic analysis of the TPP, so there was nothing to give us confidence that it would be productive of jobs in the Australian economy. In fact, the only assessment of jobs that was relevant to the TPP was by a Tufts University paper that assessed that over the first 10 years of the TPP it would likely cost 36,000 jobs in the Australian economy.
There are two further aspects of the committee's report that I would like to touch upon, contained in recommendation 4, about ISDS and the waiving of labour market testing. They both represent an extension of trade agreements outside what you would think of as being their traditional remit. These days we talk about trade agreements; they really are trade and investment agreements and they cover a range of other matters. In the case of ISDS, there is a real risk with those mechanisms that we cede our policy and government making sovereignty, that we allow foreign companies to have access to tribunals to dispute Australian policy and Australian government decisions.
It is, effectively, a discrimination against the Australian based companies. It has no demonstrated benefit, in terms of attracting investment, and it puts us at risk. In the case of waiving labour market testing, it means, through a range of recent trade agreements, that people can come in under contractual services, provide a category that covers some 650 professions—
I think the shadow minister for trade suggested to me the other day that in time to come that may well cover something like 70 to 75 per cent of all jobs in Australia. There is no justification for having an arrangement that means workers, temporary labour, can come into this country, without first ensuring that there is no Australian labour available to undertake that task. That is a simple thing.
I won't say more about the report other than to again thank the members for a strong majority report and for making the recommendation strongly and clearly that those things should be changed in both substance and process by which we approach, negotiate and enter into preferential trade agreements. Thank you.
It being 6.30 pm, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I represent a fantastic electorate—the electorate of Hindmarsh. In my opinion, it is one of the best places in the country to live. It's a great community and I am proud to call it home and have always called it home. Like most people in this place, I take my job representing the good people of my electorate very seriously, and I get fairly frustrated when the issues which my constituents raise with me are not taken seriously by this government or by any government.
The government talks a great deal about jobs. We hear the government talking about jobs growth, but I don't see much follow-through. We saw this after the budget, when South Australia missed out on substantial infrastructure projects that were ready to go. The government announced $70 billion for roads, rail, ports and airports across the country, but not a single dollar for South Australia. This has meant that many constituents have taken matters into their own hands to lobby and push for problem areas that require infrastructure to be addressed. For example, the good residents along and around West Beach Road, West Beach, within my electorate, are frustrated by repeatedly missing out on funding for much-needed road upgrades in the area. I have met with the local residents, and I have joined with local residents and councils in the area. I am calling for the problems along West Beach Road to be addressed once and for all.
West Beach Road is shared by the councils of the City of Charles Sturt and the City of West Torrens. Both councils share the responsibility for this road. Together, they have made applications to the federal government for funding, especially Roads to Recovery, for this upgrade to take place. Applications for funding have been repeatedly knocked back and ignored since 2015. This year they have again tried to get this upgrade funded. Once again, I would like to express my support for the residents in this area and for this project. If this project were to be successful and we could get the money to upgrade West Beach Road, it would increase safety for residents along West Beach Road and for visitors using this thoroughfare. We could review parking arrangements on both sides of West Beach Road and improve walking and cycling routes for West Beach Road. With each passing year, this upgrade becomes more needed.
West Beach Road now links some of the area's most important infrastructure facilities in the western suburbs—in fact, in Adelaide. It links the airport. It links Harbour Town, which is a retail and business precinct. It links tourism and sporting facilities at Adelaide Shores and, of course, the West Beach boat harbour, which is one of the only boat harbours in the area. People who go fishing use West Beach Road to go west and then turn left into the beach harbour. And of course it is the main road to one of Adelaide's premiere beaches, West Beach. But it was originally constructed for very low volumes of traffic and to serve local residents. Today it serves local residents but also many, many more people who converge on the weekend for the sporting facilities, the airport, Harbour Town, the retail area, the beach, the boat harbour and all the other activity that takes place down there. Therefore, the road now does not serve its purpose. It was there just for the local residents; now it has taken up lots and lots of volume in motor vehicles, and it becomes a quagmire sometimes on the weekend, when it is bumper to bumper for two days straight—Saturday and Sunday.
Many local residents have contacted me. They've shown me photographs and they've given me their stories, reporting the dangerous experiences that they've had along this particular road. I've had regular meetings with the local residents' representatives, council staff, councillors and the sporting bodies from Adelaide Shores to explore ways that we can improve conditions, and there is only one way of doing it—that is, some funding to upgrade the road to make it safer both for the residents who use it every single day and for the people who use it for the facilities that are down there.
Going back a few months, we decided to conduct a survey along West Beach Road of residents that use it, just to assess the level of frustration. I've got to say that, without fail, the people who responded to the survey that I put out for the local residents told me stories of: very dangerous incidents caused by limited visibility, speeding and poor road conditions; lots of cars parking illegally when there are sporting events, making it very hard for residents to come in and out of their driveways; near misses and, in fact, actual accidents. Specifically, residents reported a high number of accidents, car damage and near accidents.
West Beach Road is very narrow road. As I said, it was established a long time ago to service the needs of local traffic only. The way the road is constructed makes it very difficult for traffic when it converges. In fact, many people think it's a dual carriageway and have used the opposite side of the road. We have had so many near misses. I have heard about residents who have just managed to avoid serious accidents where vehicles were using the wrong side of the road. It's so narrow that you get the impression it is a dual carriageway. People driving on the wrong side of the road have caused so many near accidents.
I have supported this funding and upgrade of the road by submitting a supporting letter to accompany the council's funding applications this year. I am hoping that it will be successful through Roads to Recovery. In my letter, I used the findings from the survey that we put out in the electorate to add weight to the need to improve this road. I'd also like to thank: Leon Williams, who is one of the residents who have been actively campaigning on this now for a number of years, and rightly so; the other residents that have been assisting and helping him; and the residents that ring us and give us all the details of everything that's taking place down there.
So I take this opportunity to once again express my support for the West Beach Road upgrade. Once again, I urge the federal minister for transport to support the West Beach Road upgrade through the applications and supporting letters that I and councils and others have put in for funding under the Roads to Recovery program. I know that an announcement about this round will be made soon, and I am urging the minister to please, please, listen to the voices of those residents and fund this particular project—not only for the residents that have been contacting me but also for the many families with children there. It's a young area. There are lots of children, as well as cyclists, the elderly and all the visitors who use the road, who require a safe road to reach the facilities that they are attending.
Such infrastructure projects are vital for communities. But they are also vital for economic growth because, with the upgrade of the road, there will be jobs created as well. So I plead with the federal government and the transport minister: please, do you really care about jobs and infrastructure? Well, here's a way that you could prove that. It will show in the decision that they make in this next round of Roads to Recovery.
As I said, this road was built many years ago to service local people. In the meantime, we have had Adelaide Shores, which is a wonderful sporting facility, grow as well. There are facilities for soccer, baseball and a whole range of sports that are played there. It draws in big crowds on the weekend. It draws in carnivals for kids and sporting carnivals. These things were not as popular many years ago, because the facilities were not there; they weren't upgraded. Obviously we had a road that serviced the local residents. We now have a road that must service the local residents and the people that visit, and we need it to be safe. We need people to feel safe there.
We must ensure that the government does as much as it can in infrastructure. It affects the infrastructure and the services that people have, but it also creates jobs. Instead of investing in infrastructure projects, the government appears much more interested in cutting welfare benefits, especially to pensioners. I represent a very aged electorate, one of the oldest in the country. Pensioners have been hit hard recently with one cut after another introduced by this government. The government wants to raise the pension age to 70, for example. It's all right if you have a job in a bank or an office, but if you are a bricklayer, an assembly line worker, a cleaner, a nurse or a tradie—people who are on their feet all day—your body starts to break down. So working till 70 is not for those people that perhaps are doing very heavy work. That's fine if people want to work. That's good. But to make it compulsory, as this government is doing, is wrong. That would give Australians, here in our nation— (Time expired)
About a fortnight ago I made a comment in the media which was treated by some people with a bit of disdain or scoffed at. I would like to go through that. First of all, I proposed that the cost of subsidising renewables in this country was the substantial reason why electricity costs in this nation have been pushed so high, and that was making it harder for Australians to adequately heat their homes in winter, which was resulting in an increased rate of winter mortality in this nation—put simply, more people die in winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes, because of the high cost of renewables.
As I said, some have scoffed, but I'd like tonight to go through the evidence, the facts and the scientific literature that support my claim. Firstly, there is the cost of subsidising renewables. A recent report from BAEconomics estimates the total cost of subsidising renewables in this country at over $3 billion. This is for 2015-16. They estimate the cost for the renewable energy target is $2,073,000,000, made of the LRET, which is mainly subsidising wind turbines, and the Small-scale RES, which is $648 million worth of subsidies to solar. An important thing to remember is that those subsidies get loaded directly on to consumers' electricity bills. They are not a subsidy paid from government taxation revenue; they go bang onto your electricity bill. The jurisdictional feed-in tariff schemes that the states have—through Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, ACT, Victoria and Western Australia—are an initial $772 million in subsidies. Again, that goes bang straight onto someone's electricity bill. When it comes to the subsidies to solar, that's only in one single year. There was a recent report, about 12 months ago, by the Grattan Institute—hardly friends of the coalition. They said in their report Sundown, sunrise, talking about the cost of solar energy:
By the time the subsidies finally run out—
They are referring to the subsidies to solar—
households and businesses that have not installed solar PV will have spent more than $14 billion subsidising households that have.
They concluded:
But lavish government subsidies plus the structure of electricity network tariffs means that the cost of solar PV take-up has outweighed the benefits by almost $10 billion.
So, it's irrefutable that the subsidisation of the cost of renewables in this country is pushing electricity prices high. And it's a substantial cost; at least $3 billion is direct subsidies. In addition, we also have the indirect and hidden subsidies, the additional costs often, of hooking wind turbines and wind farms up to the grid—many other subsidies—plus the distortion it does to the market, which pushes wholesale prices up. But I will set those aside and will just talk about the $3 billion in direct subsidies that get added on to our electricity bills.
Is that making it harder for Australians to adequately heat their homes in winter? The Australian Energy Regulator keeps statistics on the number of Australian households that have had their electricity disconnected. You go to your house, and you have no power; your power has been disconnected because you have fallen so far behind with your electricity bills that the power's been disconnected. They also keep records on the number of households that are on payment hardship plans, who simply haven't been able to afford to pay their electricity bill and have had to enter into a payment plan with their retailer to pay it off. Those statistics show a doubling over recent years in the number of Australian households that have had their electricity disconnected or are on payment plans. And all of us will have anecdotal evidence in their electorates of constituents who have come to us, some in tears. I have had old pensioners ring me in tears, telling me they cannot afford to pay their electricity bill and cannot afford to turn the heater on at night.
What does that do? What effects does that have, if you are forced to live in a cold home in Australia and you cannot afford to turn your heater on at night? There was a recent study in England, released under the name of the Marmot Review Team, titled The health impacts of cold homes and fuel poverty. The report details some of the adverse health effects if you are forced to live in a cold home. It says that around 40 per cent of excess winter deaths are attributable to cardiovascular diseases and that around 33 per cent of excess winter deaths are attributable to respiratory diseases. It says there is a strong relationship between cold temperatures and cardiovascular and respiratory disease and that children living in cold homes are more than twice as likely to suffer from a variety of respiratory problems as children living in warm homes. It says that mental health is negatively affected by fuel poverty and cold housing in any age group. Living in cold houses increases the level of illnesses such as colds and flus and exacerbates existing conditions such as arthritis and rheumatism. It negatively affects children's educational attainment, emotional wellbeing and resilience and negatively affects dexterity, and it increases the risk of accidents and injuries.
In this nation, although a lot of the media here makes us think that the heat is the main concern, the greater killer of Australians, it is actually the cold. If we look at the figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that show the average daily deaths per month, on average an Australian is 20 per cent more likely to die in the month of July or August than during summer time—a 20 per cent higher rate of deaths on an average day in July or August than in summer time. We are looking here at about 380 deaths per day in summer, but in winter around 450. That is about 20 per cent extra.
There are many reasons that people are more likely to die during a cold winter. But the World Health Organisation attributes 30 per cent of those deaths to inadequately heated homes. And I quote from a World Health Organisation document called Environmental burden of disease associated with inadequate housing, from the WHO Regional Office for Europe. It concludes that the annual burden of disease due to cold homes can be conservatively estimated at 30 per cent of excess winter deaths.
We can take that figure and look at how it applies in Australia. We have seen evidence from studies in other medical reports that shows that the number of excess winter deaths in Australia is actually higher than in Nordic countries like Sweden. The professors that have written reports following those studies have said Australian homes are inadequately heated compared to Swedish homes. We simply do not heat our homes adequately. If we are looking at about 7,000 excess winter deaths a year and we attribute 30 per cent of those to inadequately heated homes, that means that over 2,000 Australians die every year because they cannot adequately heat their home. Yet we have policies in this nation that make it harder and harder for Australians to pay their electricity bill. We subsidise renewable energy by $3 billion annually, and that goes straight onto consumers' bills. Yet we are going to push that target higher and higher. The Labor Party even want to copy South Australia and push the target to 50 per cent. And we have seen what that does. As we saw in the Financial Review last Friday, it is gold, gold, gold to South Australia: they have the highest electricity prices in the entire world. They have even beaten Denmark and Germany, the wind turbine capitals of the world. Is it any surprise that South Australia has more deaths from hypothermia than Sweden does?
I call on good members of the Labor Party. I am sure, in your heart of hearts, you cannot see this pain inflicted on your fellow Australians. Please, join with me, and let's suspend the renewable energy target. (Time expired)
Inequality is not about having less money than your neighbour. It is not about having a basic home when your neighbour has a mansion. It is not even about whether your neighbour has a jetski in their garage and you don't. To me, inequality is about fairness. It's about having and maintaining hope. And it's about the ability to create a better future for you and your family. Labor understands the concept of inequality, because fighting inequality is the reason for the existence of the proud Australian Labor Party.
More than 100 years ago under a ghost gum, a Eucalyptus papuana, in Barcaldine, near the geographical centre of Queensland, striking shearers met to discuss the best ways to improve their poor working conditions and low wages. This occurred at a time when the wool industry was king. Under the grey leaves of that ghost gum, the shearers formed a compact to have their own representatives speaking for their interests in government. So the mighty Labor Party was born. It was born out of unequal treatment of the shearers, but the Labor Party has been fighting inequality wherever it occurs ever since that historic meeting.
We have achieved great things. For Indigenous Australians, the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act ensured Indigenous Australians could no longer be discriminated against in employment, in working conditions, in remuneration and in housing. The Whitlam government's amendments to the Migration Act ensured that Indigenous Australians no longer had to ask permission before they could leave Australia. The first Commonwealth legislation to grant land rights to Indigenous people was also a Labor initiative. And the first welcome to country in Parliament House and that historic apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples in 2008 occurred on my first day at work here under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. For women, Labor's Conciliation and Arbitration Act extended the adult minimum wage to include women workers. We brought in national paid parental leave. We brought in affordable, flexible high-quality child care under Prime Minister Gillard. It was Labor who brought all Australians Medicare and accessible university and needs based education funding. All of these great Labor initiatives have, little by little, chipped away at inequality. But the good fight is never over, to paraphrase the member for Lilley—and, incidentally, one of the world's greatest-ever treasurers. In fact, the good fight has barely begun.
Inequality in our nation is getting worse. This is a fact. Real wages for the top 10 per cent of income earners have grown by 72 per cent over the last four decades—more than three times the rate of the increase in real wages for the bottom 10 per cent of income earners. The latest GDP figures show that 51.5 per cent of income went to employees, and that is the lowest percentage since September 1964. Over the past four years labour productivity has risen nearly six per cent—commendable; yet, real wages have fallen 0.6 per cent over the same time. The wealth gap continues to widen. In 2014, households in the top 20 per cent, the top quintile, owned 62 per cent of wealth, while the bottom 20 per cent owned less than one per cent. And home ownership rates are at a six-decade low, especially amongst younger people. Despite the Treasurer incorrectly asserting inequality had actually gotten better, it is undeniable that inequality has increased. Even the RBA governor, Dr Lowe, said just weeks ago that inequality 'grew quite a lot in the 1980s and the 1990s, and it has risen a little bit just recently'. It has 'become more pronounced in the past few years because of the rise in assets prices—people that own those assets have seen their wealth go up'.
Governments make choices. Their policies either fight inequality or entrench inequality. This Turnbull government is definitely entrenching inequality. You could see the member for Wentworth's attitude to inequality when he was fresh into parliament and voting for John Howard's disastrous Work Choices legislation. I quote the member for Wentworth:
You have to let the free market do its work and let the cost of setting the clearing price—be it for labour, shares, home units or loaves of bread—be as low as possible.
The next month, the coalition begins its fifth year in power; its fifth year in office. Let's consider their visionary proposals: firstly, slowing the rate of pension increases; secondly, cutting the income support bonus; and, thirdly, removing consumer protections from financial advice. I could go on and on. There are so many things that this government has done that entrenches inequality. They have even reduced the pay for people who clean their own parliamentary offices and given a tax cut to millionaires. At the same time, they have launched a relentless attack on working people, where wage growth has stalled, where penalty rates have been slashed and where tax increases have been imposed on the bottom 80 per cent of the workforce. They have attacked unions and workplace rights by launching an expensive, politically motivated royal commission. They established the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission. These measures are shifting the balance of power in workplace relations, allowing unscrupulous employers to engage in practices that avoid Fair Work Act obligations, such as sham contracts, dodgy labour hire companies and enterprise bargaining agreements that are terminated as a blunt, brutal negotiating weapon. These tactics are entrenching inequality in this sunburnt land.
Labor understands that inequality is an impediment to economic progress. Providing better opportunity for people to access education not only creates more opportunity for the individual but creates a better workforce for the country. Providing more affordable housing so that Australians can live close to where they work and providing better public transport for Australians to travel safety and efficiently to their work create a more productive workforce. Providing better connectedness with fast and secure internet across the capital cities and the regions would mean that part of the workforce would not need to leave their homes at all and it would also create many economic opportunities. Providing more secure employment for Australian workers would give them greater bargaining power in their workplaces.
Labor will tackle the issues that are entrenching inequality in Australia. In the important area of workplace relations, Labor will fight inequality. Bill Shorten has already committed to making sure that casual work is really that and that it will not be used to avoid giving employees the entitlements they should obtain when continuously working. Labor will increase penalties for employers who do not pay their employees properly, including companies whose business practices are built on the rampant underpayment of workers. Labor will give employees a fair go by making it harder for employers to push their workers into sham contracts that do not provide them with entitlements like sick leave and holiday pay. Labor will increase the penalties associated with phoenix activity, which some unscrupulous companies use in order to avoid paying their workers. Labor will create a level playing field for all workers in Australia, including temporary overseas workers, who are often exploited. Labor will restore penalty rates and awards and legislate so that they can never be cut again.
Labor will also tackle inequality in our taxation system. Rather than having a two-tiered system where some wealthier Australians can just opt-out of paying any tax, Labor will close the loopholes so that we all have one set of rules. The current negative gearing rules are unsustainable, and Labor will act prospectively to close this overexploited loophole. We'll limit the allowable deductions for accountant's advice and lawyer's advice to $3,000 for tax purposes. We'll introduce a standard minimum 30 per cent tax rate for discretionary trust distributions to people over 18 years of age. Labor believe that Australians should share one tax system that is fair for all. That's how we pay for the schools, the hospitals, the social services and the social fabric.
Inequality affects many aspects of our lives. It is not just about the economy, although that is an important aspect of inequality. It also has a big social aspect. With one woman murdered every week by a current or former partner, gender inequality is a serious problem in Australia. Labor announced policies before the last election to tackle gender inequality, including supporting survivors of domestic violence through the courts, funding critical frontline legal services, transitional housing options for women and children escaping family and domestic violence and making domestic and family violence leave a universal workplace right. Labor will continue to develop policies to address gender inequality wherever it occurs, whether it's in the workplace, in education—and I note the horrific recent report into sexual abuse in universities which reported that women experience assaults at a disproportionately higher rate than men—or in financial opportunities like accumulating superannuation.
No discussion about inequality would be complete without mentioning marriage equality. Because of the Prime Minister's weakness, a whole sector of our community will have to endure a public debate about whether they should have the same right to marry the person they love as I have. I can think of no good reason to prevent people who love each other from getting married. We in Labor stand together. Whether you're a police officer in Moorooka, a teacher in Macgregor, a truck driver in Acacia Ridge or a childcare worker in Yeronga, you're a success, and Labor will stand with you. I will call out inequality whenever I see it, and Labor will fight inequality in this parliament. (Time expired)
Since my election last year to the seat of Fisher, I've had the honour and privilege of doing many things I would not have dreamed possible. One of these unforgettable experiences took place last month when I travelled with five members of the opposition to the Middle East to take part in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. This program is open to all parliamentarians, regardless of their political party or the time they've served in parliament. This is greatly to the credit of the program's organisers and proponents. While we may have different political ideologies, one of the most important responsibilities that all members of this House share is our role in sending troops into harm's way. The less partisan our approach to this solemn duty, the better served the Australian people are likely to be.
Our trip to the Middle East could not be called a VIP experience. We spent eight days embedded with the men and women of the ADF. We ate with them, slept in the same type of accommodation as them, received the same death-by-PowerPoint briefings, learned battlefield first aid, experienced battlefield scenarios firsthand and even fired a few shots down the range. It was truly a remarkable experience.
In some ways, now more than ever, it is critical for parliamentarians to understand what the ADF are doing in the Middle East. While Australia was losing personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, the media challenged us and kept our role at the forefront of Australia's consciousness. But, since we have not had a death in the Middle East since Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird, VC, MG, on 22 June 2013, the ADF's work has all but dropped off the radar. Sadly, it appears that the media are not interested in telling our troops' stories unless they are shrouded in Australian blood or there is some blame to be attributed.
If my trip to Afghanistan and the broader region has taught me anything, it is that our ADF personnel in all three services—the Army, Navy and Air Force—are doing a great job. From private to joint task force commander, they are all highly trained, dedicated and skilled at their roles. Each of them accepted the invitation to be there with pride and enthusiasm and though many performed their roles through a six- or even a 12-month tour, they are as unflinching in their dedication to the task at hand in their final days as they were on day 1.
I am pleased to report to the House that the spirit of Anzac is alive and well in our current serving ADF personnel. When we think of our ADF personnel, we often think of strong, pumped young men. Although there are certainly many of those, the women in today's ADF are just as impressive. Before deploying to Afghanistan from our Middle East base, I met a young woman who is an Army captain. She was an extremely engaging, bright and determined young lady. From memory, she was 28—only three years older than my eldest daughter. She commanded the other men and women on the firing range with professionalism, dignity and respect, but there was never any doubt who was the boss.
I also met a young private who was assigned to our protection detail, whilst in Afghanistan, when we went out past the wire. Her CO told me that she was a terrific soldier, at least as smart, fit and strong as any of her male counterparts. The young private beamed with pride when I told her what her boss had told me about her. Although the work performed by the ADF in the Middle East has dropped off the media spotlight, we must do more to remember the ongoing achievements of our men and women who are working in hot, difficult and dangerous conditions.
In Iraq, our troops of 7RAR have trained more than 9,000 Iraqi soldiers, many of whom served in the liberation of Mosul from Daesh or ISIS. In Afghanistan, our men and women are training the Afghan National Army so they are able to defeat the Taliban and ISIS in what is still a war-ravaged country. We have been engaged in Afghanistan now for almost 16 years and while we still have a long way to go before we can announce 'mission accomplished' seasoned veterans tell me that we have significantly helped improve the lot of many Afghanis, particularly in areas like Tarin Kot.
The Royal Australian Navy in the region serves vitally important roles in interdicting marine, drug running and anti-piracy missions. While we were in the Middle East, HMAS Arunta was completing its nine-month tour of duty and had intercepted and destroyed 1,310 kilos of illegal drugs with a street value of $186 million. These narcotics were no doubt bound for the West, and the proceeds would have been used to fund terrorism and/or international and organised crime.
The Royal Australian Air Force's F/A-18 Super Hornets are employed in providing air support against Daesh and the Taliban, aided by our specially designed KC-30A Multi Role Tanker Transport and our Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft. Without the crew of our ubiquitous Hercules and Globemaster aircraft, our ADF personnel throughout the Middle East would not have the equipment or resources to perform their important roles.
Since returning home, one of the questions I have been asked most is why I went. I have never served in the military, although from a young age I dreamed of one day flying F/A18 Hornets for the RAAF. Alas, that was not to be. Since my election, however, I have been very conscious of my share in responsibility for our troops and I wanted to glean a greater understanding of their work in the Middle East. These men and women are put in harm's way by our government. As such, I feel duty-bound to look into their service for me, on behalf of our people, and to learn first hand what they are doing and whether they are being appropriately looked after.
Australians must never forget we have lost 44 young men in these Middle Eastern theatres. We should also remember that those physically wounded in combat number more than 260. Many thousands more suffer mentally from the legacy of their service. For many of these personnel, their lives and those of their families will never be the same again. We have many veterans in my electorate of Fisher and we as a government must ensure that they get the care and support they need. My next goal in this field is to secure funding for a PTSD program at the Thompson Institute and I look forward to working with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to explore this avenue.
My second reason for wanting to visit Afghanistan was to gain a greater understanding of our equipment needs and the opportunities for my electorate. I have spoken in this place before about the Fisher Defence Industry Initiative, which has seen 170 local, small- to medium-sized enterprises attend sessions on the coast to learn more about how to win government defence contracts. I passionately believe that this government's unprecedented $200 billion defence investment represents an important opportunity for the Sunshine Coast. I want to see some of that money spent in the seat of Fisher. Not ever having served in the military, I needed to see how our service men and women work with the supplies and equipment we provide to them. I learnt a great deal about everything—from the electronic IDE counter measures to the food and toiletries that our troops rely upon. I am more convinced than ever that businesses on the coast are perfectly placed to contribute. I congratulate the government on maintaining its focus on helping small and medium sized regional businesses to get involved in the defence sector.
Before concluding, I want to thank some of the many people who have ensured the success of the program: Major General John Frewen, Air Commodore Guy Wilson and Captain Gordon Andrew; our escort officers, Major Erica Abend, and Warrant Officer Class Two Jeffery Marshall; our mentor, Major John Spencer; Colonel Mark Ascough and our photographer Corporal Sebastian Beurich from Army News; and, finally, my colleagues, the members for Whitlam, Batman, Oxley, Brand and Burt, who resisted the urge to try and indoctrinate me.
We who sit in this place have a responsibility to ensure that we only send our men and women of the ADF into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary. When we do, we must insist that they are properly equipped with the best gear, and we must acknowledge that we have an enduring obligation to ensure they are properly cared for in mind and body when they return home. I strongly encourage the government to maintain its focus on these duties and to look for more that we could do to support our serving and retired members of the ADF. My experiences through the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program have given me a new perspective on those responsibilities, and I would encourage all my colleagues on all sides of the house to do likewise.
I would like to talk about the Murray-Darling Basin and the allegations of water theft aired on the ABC's Four Corners program on 24 July. I believe they are shocking both in their flagrancy and their sheer scale. They are allegations that have angered my Mayo community and many, many South Australians. Water rights in the Murray-Darling Basin can be owned and traded, but the river itself belongs to all Australians. The allegations of complicit corruption amongst some New South Wales government officials are, if anything, even more concerning. The Sydney Daily Telegraph alleges that there have been some secret deals between the New South Wales Nationals and large irrigators, one of whom is the subject of the Four Corners investigation. We are not talking about small amounts of water here, and some of the properties in question have multiple mega dams which are measured in multiples of the Sydney Harbour rather than in mere multiples of swimming pools. The federal government has spent billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on water buybacks, and now we have no idea what they have to show for it. The communities in my own electorate right at the end of the Murray, the most vulnerable part of the Murray, now feel very angry and betrayed, and rightfully so. Let me tell you something about the southern end of the basin, where we have still have not recovered fully from the effects of the last drought.
Farmers on the river, and particularly in the Lower Lakes, have told me how much their agricultural techniques have changed in the last few decades to adapt to less water, and how, despite all of the new efficiencies, it won't be enough if the river does not fully recover before the next drought hits. Only a few months ago a group of business leaders sought a meeting with me because they feared northern irrigators would start clawing back water. Little did we know that the clawbacks may have already occurred, and under the table. Indeed, family farms in country towns the entire length of the River Murray and its tributaries have the right to ask what is happening to our water, and to get a clear and honest response. Instead, we have seen what can only be described as a farcical response from the Leader of the Nationals, whose party has such a bedfellow relationship with its mega irrigators that it defines the very meaning of conflict of interest. I believe, in light of the allegations, it is only proper that Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce step aside from the water ministry, and that the portfolio should not be held by a National Party member until all of the allegations can be resolved. To do anything less will destroy what little faith downstream communities have left in the regulatory framework that is supposed to uphold our national Basin Plan. Fishers at the end of the river system have accused the Deputy Prime Minister of placing his foot on the Coorong's neck. They are petitioning the Prime Minister to remove the Deputy Prime Minister from the water ministry and they are demanding a full independent inquiry into the Four Corners allegations and no cuts to environmental flows, and I agree with them. There are incidents—
Maybe we should kill the seals!
Why don't you stand up and talk about the River Murray, Member for Barker. You've been deafening in your absolute silence on this. There are indications that the claims aired on Four Corners are but the tip of the iceberg. I believe that we can expect similar allegations to come to light across the basin.
The Nick Xenophon Team welcomes the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry, and my colleague Senator Xenophon has written to the inquiry requesting that they urgently investigate the allegations that inside information was given to lobbyists by the New South Wales government department, and why water enforcement investigations appear only to have been curtailed. The New South Wales ICAC is a welcome step, but it is a small step in comparison to the sheer scale of the allegations.
It all leads to one conclusion: the only way to resolve such shocking allegations of grand scale theft and major corruption is to launch a full judicial inquiry with the powers of a royal commission. Anything short of a full judicial inquiry is just an attempt to sweep these allegations under the rug, or perhaps to hope that they wash away. I put to the federal government, and, in particular, to the National Party: if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear from a judicial review. Yet all I hear, and all South Australia hears, and all the communities up and down the river hear is silence—deafening silence—particularly, disappointingly, from the South Australian federal members of the Liberal Party. They should stand up for their state and they should also call for a judicial review. We need to put our state above any party politics. I might say that the state Liberal Party is supporting this, and I commend them for that.
Before I conclude, I would like to say a few words on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. As a result of the Four Corners investigation, some have sought to criticise the plan and the planners rather than the alleged plotters. Let me be clear: the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is not perfect. No plan ever is perfect. But it is a good plan, and it is our plan. It is a shared plan born of compromise—the hallmark of a well-functioning democracy. It is our national plan, and we must stick to our national plan. The alternative is that our great River Murray-Darling system, which is already on a trajectory for a full-scale collapse, still has a possibility of running dry, and there will be no water for anyone. We cannot allow this to happen to our great nation.
There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:18