Today I present the 16th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament, together with 29 petitions and eight ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. I also present with this report a corrigendum to report No. 15, which was presented on 11 September 2017.
Petitions often reflect community concerns. This report, for example, contains six petitions on the same-sex marriage debate as well as two petitions regarding citizenship requirements for parliamentarians. We also continue to receive petitions on immigration matters, climate change and international affairs. Petitions about concerns unique to individuals also continue to arrive on a range of other matters as diverse as our country itself, from coalmines to fuel quality, from private health to national road rules. The issues are many and varied.
It's wonderful that so many Australians are interested in engaging with the House of Representatives via the Petitions Committee. The Petitions Committee provides an avenue for these people’s voices to be heard about things that matter to them. The House’s e-petitioning system has made it even easier for people to have their say electronically, and the committee’s inquiry into the e-petitions system has demonstrated this.
We have been surveying people about their experiences with the e-petitions system and, while there are some areas of concern, the results so far have shown it's working well and it's making it easier for people to put their concerns to their elected representatives. We've also received some valuable submissions from users of the system as well as from domestic and international jurisdictions letting us know what has worked in their e-petition system, what hasn’t and what lessons they've learnt. All of this evidence will give the committee some direction for its current inquiry on how to improve the e-petitions system and this will be incorporated into the committee’s report.
I will continue to provide updates to the House on the work of the Petitions Committee and the inquiry into e-petitions.
I present the following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented.
At the request of the member for Melbourne, I fix Monday, 23 October as the day for presenting the Coal-Fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2017.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Across Australia, in the media and in this House, we know we've got a problem with energy. We've got a problem with the price of energy. We've got a huge problem in rural and regional communities, in particular with manufacturing in communities, with prices going up. We know that the Prime Minister is working on the big picture, but I reckon there's a really important part of this whole infrastructure, an important part of the jigsaw, that would make a really big difference, and that's support for community energy. It's part of the answer. To date, I'd say we've been working at the global picture of energy prices and we haven't paid nearly enough attention to the role of communities and local governments in addressing this problem. The Renewable Energy Legislation Amendment (Supporting Renewable Communities) Bill 2017 is part of the solution. The bill is particularly directed to the work of ARENA, and I will talk in a minute about how that can happen, but it is the opportunity to actually make community energy a really central part of resolving the problems that we're facing.
The bill that I'm proposing provides greater certainty to communities looking to develop a community energy based model. It encourages innovation and investment and aims to ensure best practice planning to support growth in community energy. The bill will give certainty to a sector that is still developing so that, while programs may come and go and governments may come and go, their industry will remain part of the conversation at ARENA and CEFC. The bill amends the functions of ARENA to allow for funding of planning, development or implementation of community energy projects, and development by the community energy sector of innovative businesses and financing models. It clarifies ARENA's role in collecting, analysing, interpreting and disseminating information and knowledge on community energy models and in advising the minister on these matters. The bill also makes additions to the functions of the CEFC to allow investments in community joint partnerships or other community energy models to support sector development. The bill defines a clear role for the CEFC in supporting and accelerating the commercial viability and self-sustainability of community energy projects. Recognising that ARENA and CEFC both play a role in supporting community energy is reflective of the original intent of these organisations when they were established in 2012. The supporting renewable energy communities package brings together the ARENA Act and the CEFC Act once again.
Mr Speaker, I will now talk to some of the detail of this. Really and truly, communities in my electorate of Indi—as I'm sure they are in your electorate of Casey—are absolutely taking the run with solving the problems of their own energy costs. I am really proud that in my electorate not only have communities, like Yackandandah, got together but councils are working together. Indigo, Benalla, Winton Wetlands, Renewable Albury Wodonga Energy, Totally Renewable Yackandandah, Benalla Sustainable Future Group, Up2Us Landcare Alliance in Mansfield, the Wangaratta Sustainability Network, the Murrindindi Climate Network, North East Water—playing a leadership role—and Wodonga Albury Towards Climate Health are among many groups establishing strong working relationships with local and state government and industry groups to develop their own solutions. These include supply based projects like renewable energy installations and storage as well as demand-side projects like energy efficiency, demand management and community education. We are working on both sides of the supply and demand equation, which we know is so important because this is an economic problem that we're facing.
One of the most ambitious and successful projects to date, which I've talked about often in this House, is Totally Renewable Yackandandah. TRY, as they're affectionately known, are actively working towards their goal of 100 per cent renewable energy and energy sovereignty by 2022 by introducing energy measures to reduce the total amount of energy the town consumes and increase the amount of renewable energy generated by the town through the installation of solar systems.
To support this, they have established the TRY Perpetual Energy Fund. This local community has its own philanthropic fund; it has raised money; and it reinvests for community energy in Yackandandah. They provide no-interest loans for energy efficient or solar installations. This perpetual energy fund has supported the installation of large solar panels on an array of community assets, including the Yackandandah Community Development Company, which is a community-owned and operated fuel station and farm produce store, and also the supermarket, the hospital, the men's shed, the community centre and the Yackandandah Folk Festival. TRY are now working on a business plan that will refine the community energy model.
This innovative approach has the potential to be replicated right across regional communities, helping to boost regional Australia. Herein lies the role for the Commonwealth. Today in my electorate we have local communities doing extraordinarily good work taking the run. We have local government providing support and infrastructure and employment opportunities. We have the state government absolutely coming to the party putting money in. The gap is the Commonwealth. While the Commonwealth is working on energy, I believe that if we could bring the Commonwealth to state government, to local government and to this community sector, we would have the trifecta working and unleash the power that our rural communities have to really and truly develop sustainable and reliable energy systems.
Of course we need a national approach and a national policy. But the community energy sector is one really important part of the jigsaw. What I am proposing today is that we bring ARENA to the table. You would ask: why hasn't ARENA been there in the past? It sounds so obvious. Initially they did. When ARENA was set up under the previous government, they did do a bit of work with community-based power. I understand through anecdotal evidence that it didn't work out so well. The industry has really matured now, and it's time for another approach. I would be saying to ARENA, and to the government, energy is like an elephant. The joke goes around, 'How do you eat an elephant?' The answer is, 'One piece at a time'. I'm saying that with community energy we can just bite off one part of the big elephant and really make it work.
I say to ARENA, come and work with us in Indi and with my colleagues in other places. I see here my National Party colleagues from Mallee and Murray. I know they have enormous amounts of sun and huge communities who want to do this as well. Come and work with us rural communities and help us work out where the regulatory barriers are. Help us work out how to do the governance models and set up the pricing so we can get these grids happening locally.
I have to say to my colleagues, in Yackandandah we have a good partnership going with AusNet Services. AusNet Services are putting in the infrastructure; the Victoria government is putting in money; local government is putting in money. We're ready to go. The opportunity for the nation is huge. It's going to take real skill for ARENA to work across the governments, because traditionally that's the hard thing. But I'm really optimistic because I've seen government projects such as the City Deals, where we've been able to work with Commonwealth, state, local and with community groups. I know that we've just had a review of Regional Development Australia and how RDAs work. I would be saying to ARENA and other CFCs, 'Come and work with our Regional Development Australia group and Regional Development Victoria, because together we could actually get this integration happening and really get terrific runs on the ground.
I want to finish off with a message to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I know you care about innovation. Your National Innovation and Science Agenda gives great hope to so many people in Australia. What I'm saying with this particular bill is that it doesn't actually need make-up stuff. We don't have to conjure magic out of the ether. We already have innovation happening in our communities. We already have job creation happening. We already have community involvement, state government involvement and local government involvement. We are on the cusp of the innovation that we know is going to make such a difference to our regional communities. It will create jobs; it will employ people; it will help solve the high price of energy; and in the process it will build sustainability and confidence in our communities.
So, I'm really pleased to bring this bill to the House. I look forward to the government encouraging them to bring it on for debate so that we can actually have a fair dinkum debate in the House and my colleagues from the government side, particularly the rural and regional Libs and Nats, can say, 'Yep: this is a great program, and it would make a huge difference to our communities, and they'd be willing to support it.' I'm very happy to commend this bill to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian economy is excessively concentrated in many sectors. In department stores, newspapers, banking, health insurance, supermarkets, domestic airlines, internet service providers, baby food and soft drinks, the biggest four firms control more than four-fifths of the market. In petrol retailing, telecommunications, credit unions, cinemas, liquor retailing, bottled water and fruit juice, the largest four firms control more than two-thirds of the market. In pharmacies, pharmaceuticals, hardware, gyms, snack food, magazines, newsagents and international agencies, the big four firms account for more than half of the market. If you apply the notion that a concentrated market is one in which the big four control more than a third of the market, then over half of the Australian economy is excessively concentrated.
This doesn't of itself demonstrate that we have a problem with competition, but rarely do you see problems with competition arise in markets where there is not a concentration issue. Bullies aren't usually the scrawniest kids in the playground. Yet one of the questions is how we go about enforcing our competition laws to make sure consumers get a good deal. In the United States, at the moment, around 90 per cent of all antitrust cases are initiated by private litigants. Recognising the public value of those cases, the United States has a measure that allows for triple damages in such cases. In Australia the share of antitrust litigation brought by private individuals is, according to Caron Beaton-Wells of the University of Melbourne, only around 26 per cent.
Labor wants to change that. At the last election we took forward a policy known as Access to Justice, and I pay tribute to my shadow ministerial colleague Michelle Rowland for her work on developing that policy, as well as to the shadow minister for small business, Senator Katy Gallagher, and the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, for their work on this policy. Labor's policy simply said that we want to allow private litigants who are bringing action under part IV of the Competition and Consumer Act to apply to a court at an early stage, seeking relief for potential adverse costs orders. Costs orders from courts can represent an unsurmountable barrier for many small businesses. They're willing to pay their own legal costs, but they're terrified of being bankrupted by the armada of QCs employed by the other side.
The European Union has called on jurisdictions in which costs follow the event to carefully review the appropriateness of this approach in competition cases. In the United Kingdom the Competition Appeal Tribunal has been granted the discretion to make any order it sees fit in relation to costs, as opposed to the usual rule that costs follow the event. Labor's measure ensures that we don't have a risk of frivolous or vexatious litigation by funding the small business ombudsman to vet small business applications for no adverse costs orders. This three-person section in the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman has been costed at around $500,000 million per year. For that price, Australians get better enforcement of our competition laws and consumers get a better deal. The vexatious and frivolous cases won't go ahead, but we will see more actions by the small end of town, standing up for our competition laws.
I am disappointed not to be debating in this place the bill which has passed the Senate for Access to Justice, the Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment (Small Business Access to Justice) Bill 2017. Labor's Access to Justice bill passed the Senate on 10 August 2017 by a vote of 36-22. At the time, we called on the government to bring that bill to this place so those who've said that they stand on the side of the little guys, such as the member for Dawson, would have the chance to vote on this legislation. Access to justice shouldn't be a partisan issue. I know that there are many on the other side of the House, particularly in the National Party, who in their hearts support Access to Justice. I hope we can bring the bill, which has passed the Senate, to the House and make it law. I am not the only one who hopes that. The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, said:
Access to justice is an important issue for small business operators. … The Senate bill allows Federal Court judges to waive liability for adverse costs to small business private litigants in cases related to the misuse of market power.
It gives small business operators confidence to proceed with legal action, knowing they will only be liable for their own costs.
This has the added benefit of filtering cases that might potentially be considered vexatious or unlikely to succeed, saving time and money for all involved.
Peter Strong, the CEO of COSBOA, said:
… access to justice for small business people has always been an issue for our members. The cost of going to court and facing highly paid barristers and expensive quarrels of lawyers is confronting when you know that to lose the case will bring exorbitant costs to cover the opposing sides legal expenses. We congratulate Bill Shorten and Labor on this initiative.
In March 2016, the Business Council of Australia chief executive, Jennifer Westacott, said:
The ALP policy announced today goes to the heart of the issue which is access to justice.
The organisations I have just quoted, COSBOA and the Business Council of Australia, don't agree on every matter in competition law, but they do agree that Labor's measure would make a positive difference.
You will hear occasionally from the other side of the House that an effects test might be a better way of tackling things. But the reason that then communications minister Malcolm Turnbull argued against an effects test in cabinet—alongside former Treasurer Joe Hockey, George Brandis, Andrew Robb and Senator Cormann—is that an effects test could potentially drive up consumer prices. It could increase uncertainty. It could stymie innovation and growth. As former Treasurer Peter Costello said:
If you take the view that competition is there for the consumer, which is what I believe is the fact, everything else will fit into place. That's why I’m against the so-called effects test, [which is] designed to protect competitors, particularly less efficient ones, from a competitive challenge.
Graeme Samuel, former ACCC chairman, said:
Under the Harper amendment, businesses would curb their competitive behaviour because of the legal risk. This would have drowned the commercial activity of big business in a sea of uncertainty. Lawyers and economists would need to sit at the right hand of business CEOs to guide them on the legality of every significant transaction.
By contrast, Labor's approach is to allow better enforcement of our competition laws. This sits alongside the suite of policies that Labor has championed to get consumers a better deal. At the last election, we called for anticonsumer conduct to be penalised, not to a maximum of $1.1 million but to a maximum of $10 million. We were pleased in this year's budget to see the government come on board with that. We also believe that the penalties for anticompetitive conduct should be raised, that Australia should adopt the European Union's penalty system for anticompetitive conduct based on 30 per cent of the annual sales of the relevant product or service, multiplied by the number of years the infringement took place, limited to the greater of 10 per cent of annual turnover or $10 million. We would use some of that additional revenue to increase the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's litigation budget to twice its current level.
Alongside Access to Justice, Labor believes the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission needs greater power to take on anticompetitive conduct. We would amend the Competition and Consumer Act to give a market studies function to the competition watchdog so that we could explore public issues such as pricing discrepancy and increased market concentration. We would task government to investigate the impact of increased market concentration on income inequality and produce policy recommendations on how the negative effect of market concentration can be mitigated.
The increase in concentration in the Australian economy is to the detriment of consumers across the board but particularly to the detriment of low-income consumers. Increased monopoly power can turn into increased monopsony power in which large firms are able to drive down wages of workers, where workers don't have a choice of other firms to go to. That may be one of the reasons we're seeing lousy wage growth in the economy at the moment. Increased market concentration decreases the incentive to invest in research and development. Why would you do research and development when you can simply buy up a competitor? We're seeing a slowing of business start-ups in Australia. The business start-up rate in the current decade is lower than the first decade of the 21st century. But, while the start-up rate has fallen, the merger rate has risen. Merger activity is on the rise; start-up activity is on the wane. Wage growth is sluggish, and anticompetitive conduct needs to be tackled. Labor's access-to-justice measure helps give consumers a better deal. It's been commended by the Business Council, by COSBOA and by the small business ombudsman, and it should be commended by all right-minded members of the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the bill and reserve my right to speak.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
It gives me great pleasure this morning to stand in our great Parliament House and speak on the motion moved by the member for Canning on the relationship between Australia and the USA. It recognises the strong historic relationships that exist between our two countries, especially the ANZUS treaty, and also our long commitment to freedom, democracy and liberty between our two nations.
We start back, during the First World War, at the Battle of Hamel when Australian General John Monash was given the responsibility to be in charge of American troops—one of the few times in history that a foreign general has been in charge of American armed forces. That honour was given to Sir John Monash, and when he had that responsibility he did so magnificently. It was a most successful campaign—a successful defeat of the German enemy in World War I. Then, our relationship strengthened at the Battle of the Coral Sea, when an Australian Navy admiral was placed in charge of American vessels. Again, Australians and Americans fought side-by-side in the Coral Sea. Even though on paper it was not a historic victory, it went on to be one of the great turning points of the war that guaranteed freedom for our nation.
In Korea and Vietnam, we still stood side-by-side with our American friends. Vietnam, often an unpopular war, gave the fledgling democracies of the ASEAN nations a chance to establish themselves. Often the Vietnam War is criticised, but if we look at the words of Singaporean President Lee Kuan Yew—he said that that time was so important as it put a halt on the march of communism and gave nations like Singapore the opportunity to develop and progress into the successful democracies that they are.
We see today the Americans, under their new president, having enormous economic success. In fact, only last week, US consumer sentiment unexpectedly surged to a 13-year high, and I note that America's perception of the economy and their own finances have rebounded following several major hurricanes. The jump in sentiment, greater than any analyst had predicted, was the result of falling gasoline prices, repeated record highs for the stock market, a 16-year low in unemployment and post-storm recovery efforts driving a rebound in economic growth. There are a few points on which we have differed with our American friends. One of those is in competition law. America, the home of free market capitalism, has divestiture powers in their competition laws or antitrust laws. They also have divestiture powers which we do not have here in Australia. America also has an act called the Robinson-Patman Act, which is a prohibition on anticompetitive price discrimination. Our competition laws have no such equivalent provision.
Although we share many great successes with the US over the last century, today we share many challenges. We see the same threats to our democracy, to freedom and to liberty that come about with our cultures being under attack. We see groups, both in Australia and in America, smearing our founders, belittling our nation's accomplishments, pillorying it for failing to live up to the ideas that we hold. We see in both nations those that mock our most sacred traditions and those that deride our heroes. We need America to be strong. What makes America strong also makes the nation of Australia strong. America is truly our greatest friend. It has been for the last century. I hope, through the work of this parliament, that it can be for the next century. I thank the House.
I want to endorse the comments made by the member for Hughes and the motion moved by the member for Canning, Mr Hastie, and to add my views in support of this motion. There it is a lot of debate about the US-Australia relationship at this point in time. Echoing what the member for Hughes said, I think it's important to think about the unique nature of the relationship through our shared history and shared values.
The member for Hughes mentioned the Battle of Hamel, and I wanted to mention it as well. Next year Australia and the United States celebrate 100 years of mateship since the Battle of Hamel. The document on the history of this mateship summarises to a large degree the nature of the relationship we have with the United States, which is often misrepresented. The document states:
In 2018, Australia and the United States will mark a centenary of mateship—a friendship first formed in the trenches of World War I during the Battle of Hamel on July 4, 1918.
The offensive to retake Hamel was the earliest instance of American and Australian troops fighting side by side. American troops offensively fought under the command of a non-American for the first time during the Battle of Hamel. That commander was Australian General Sir John Monash—and in honour of the Americans he was commanding, General Monash chose July 4, 1918 as the date of the offensive on Hamel.
The battle plan devised by General Monash was radical for its time—it marked the first time tanks had been used as protection on a battlefield for the advancing infantry and the first time aircraft had been deployed to drop ammunition to ground troops.
General Monash predicted that the offensive would last for 90 minutes. Incredibly it took the Allied forces just 93 minutes to secure victory and—
importantly—
turned the tide against the Germans on the Western Front.
The Battle of Hamel is the symbolic foundation of the deep and enduring bond, mutual respect and close cooperation that continues to exist between the American and Australian militaries today.
I would echo that particular sentiment.
In terms of my assessment of the unique relationship between the United States and Australia, four people shaped my view. One was my father, because we lived in the Goldfields in Western Australia and we had a lot of interaction with American mineral exploration companies that would come to Kalgoorlie, and a lot of people, particularly from Texas, would remark on the great similarities that existed between Texas and Kalgoorlie. As a young man I heard that often. The second was Kim Beazley—former defence minister, former opposition leader and, some would say, the best Prime Minister this country never had. The third was former Prime Minister and foreign affairs minister Kevin Rudd, who was quite strong when speaking to me about the alliance with the United States, saying that we would look at our relationships with countries like China and South-East Asia through the prism of our relationship with the Americans. I believe that they were quite eloquent words, as the member for Melbourne Ports says—
Elegant.
elegant as well—and I would continue to hold, in my mind, that particular point of view. The fourth was Senator Robert Ray.
But, when some talk about the unbalanced nature of the relationship with the United States, I quote a speech that Kim Beazley gave to this place on 24 June 2004 about our alliance relationship. He said:
That alliance relationship stands because many in government make judgments about the Australian national interest and the fact that it serves it. But it also stands because Australians believe their relationship with the United States is a matter of fair dealing. Australians believe that, in entering a relationship with the United States, we are entering a relationship with a people who are roughly compatible with us in outlook and views about life.
If you do not like the government of the day in the United States, they might not like ours. If you do not like their opposition, they might not like ours. But you know that at the end of the day the process will produce from time to time governments in the United States which every single Australian will have agreements with.
I echo those sentiments and add my voice in support of this motion that has been put forward by the member for Canning.
I would like to thank my good friend the member for Canning for raising this important motion. A lot has happened in the States since this motion was brought forward, but the sentiments in this motion remain as true as ever. The connection between our two great countries runs deep and extends back to before the arrival of the Great White Fleet in Sydney Harbour over a hundred years ago.
I had the privilege of living and working in the United States for much of my sporting career. Much of Australia's international relations take place on courts, fields and stadiums of the world, and I'm proud to have played a part in fostering strong relations. I have a deep affection for America, and it does many things very well. However, there is one scourge afflicting their society, and, like true friends, it is our responsibility to highlight this issue.
I was born on 4 July and grew up in Australia, with strong American influences such as Father Knows Best, the Nelsons, Leave it to Beaver, Elvis Presley, Crash Craddock and Ricky Nelson. All portrayed strong family values common to their little brother Down Under. I first travelled to the US as a teenager, in 1967, and stayed with American families all up the east coast. Families as portrayed in the TV shows were alive and well. I spent much of my time between that first visit to when I retired from the tennis circuit living and working in the USA. I owned homes in Atlanta, Georgia, and was a green card holder.
When first entertaining friends for dinner—roast lamb—there was great concern from my new mates, my pals, that I didn't have a gun. There was even an offer from one to pop back home and get me a gun to get me through the night. I declined. When asked what I would do if someone came into my home with a gun, I said that I'd raise my hands and ask if there was anything I could help them out with. My pals were befuddled. However, some of the women entertained my very different view.
The US have been and continue to be our staunchest ally and are at the top of the list in the 'best friend' category, as we are for them. Their little brother has grown up some—more independent, making our own way in the world, particularly in the region we inhabit. In every battle there has been where our values were challenged, and some where they weren't, we were there under fire, we proved our worth and we cemented a bond that prospers in this time of relative peace. There has been a great price in human life paid through these wars and the sorting out of your domestic conflict through your civil war. The total loss of life at the hands of your enemies is monumental, a monument to the value of your principles and your right to freedom and democracy. Your enemies have exacted a tragic toll for this prize. The US has been the world's policeman, the greatest force for peace wherever peace is threatened. It is therefore difficult to reconcile that the US is empowering its own people to do greater destruction of human life to themselves than the combined forces of all enemies over the past 150 years. Until you control gun ownership, you are your own worst enemy. With love, from your little brother from Down Under, born on 4 July.
I am pleased to speak today on the historic and ongoing relationship between Australia and the United States of America. The relationship between Australia and the US is a longstanding one. With 77 years of diplomatic relations behind us, our alliance is an important keystone in our region, working to ensure peace and stability both close to home and around the world. We have been allies and trading partners who have turned to each other in times of conflict, while supporting and encouraging each other in times of peace.
In war, Australia and the USA have shared great losses. Earlier this year, we commemorated the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Sunda Strait, the waterway that connects the Java Sea to the vast Indian Ocean and lies between the Indonesian islands of Java and Sumatra. Among the most significant events in the history of the Royal Australian Navy, this was a naval battle between the greatly superior forces of the Imperial Japanese Navy and the beleaguered allied navies of the US and Australia, reeling from the disastrous Battle of the Java Sea only a day before. At the Rockingham Naval Memorial Park in my electorate of Brand there is a small memorial which reminds us all of the sacrifice of the crews of the light cruiser HMAS Perth and the heavy cruiser USS Houston, which were both lost to the sea in the Battle of the Sunda Strait on 1 March 1942. As a memorial to the 696 crew of the USS Houston and the 375 men of the HMAS Perth who lost their lives in a truly heroic struggle in the gravest of circumstances, it reminds us of those still on watch in the Sunda Strait and gives us cause to remember the further 240 Australian and US sailors that perished as prisoners of war and the lifelong sacrifice and pain of those who survived to make it home once the conflict had ended.
From that time, 75 years ago, it is remarkable to think how far peace in the Indo-Pacific has taken us all. You cannot miss the remarkable blue and white wheat silos at Kwinana Beach, full of millions of tons of grain, that stand behind this war memorial, from which Western Australia wheat is exported from the Western Australian Wheatbelt directly up to Indonesia, through the Sunda Strait, where our two nations fought together so long ago.
Before I came to this place, I established and was the chief operating officer of the Perth USAsia Centre. This Western Australia based centre is a think tank dedicated to strengthening relationships and strategic thinking between Australia, the Indo-Pacific nations and the United States. The centre was first funded by the federal Labor government under the leadership of former Prime Minister the Hon. Julia Gillard and enjoyed the strong support of three great Western Australians: the then Minister for Defence, the Hon. Stephen Smith; the then minister for education, Senator Chris Evans; and the Hon. Kim Beazley, former Ambassador to the United States. The financial support of the WA state government under Premier Barnett was critical, as was the contribution of the University of Western Australia as a host institution. The American Australian Association, which was established in 1948 under the dynamic leadership of the Hon. John Olsen AO, is a founding member of the centre. The extraordinary effort of the AAA and John Olsen himself to establish a sister centre to the United States Studies Centre, but based on the west coast, was critical to the creation of the Perth USAsia Centre. I hope the current government continues to recognise the important work of this burgeoning institution and ensures its funding so that the Perth USAsia Centre can continue to make important contributions to regional discussions of US-Australian Indo-Pacific relations.
The recent joint publication of the USSC and the Perth USAsia Centre of its survey on America's role in the Indo-Pacific provides some significant insights into opinions of the US across the region. There is some sobering reading in the survey which indicates American influence in our region has diminished, a view held particularly in Australia and Japan but not in China. The survey indicates that there is some way to go on increasing public awareness in Australia of US alliances across Asia and of the active engagement of America in regional institutions. The survey seems to indicate that, in some parts, the Australian public holds more negative views of the US role in our region than do other Asian nations. I am not sure why this is but perhaps older friends can sometimes be more critical and open in their assessments, but, equally, they may sometimes take one another for granted. The US-Australia relationship and our respective relationships with great nations across the region are vital as we work to build regional cooperation and productive and meaningful engagements between ourselves, our neighbours and our global partners. We have been great friends for many years and that is sure to continue.
Since the election of Donald Trump, the calls have raged in some quarters of Australia for Australia to abandon the US alliance. It is an alliance of more than 65 years, which has withstood personality clashes and policy differences in the past and I believe it can withstand them now. So those of us who believe this is an alliance that deserves to endure need to speak up in its defence. Australia can have an independent foreign policy and a strong alliance with the United States, as Labor leaders have long proved.
So it was with the late, great Gough Whitlam, who took issue with Richard Nixon over the Christmas bombings of December 1972 on the major population centres of North Vietnam, Hanoi and Haiphong. According to James Curran in TheInterpreter, Whitlam wrote to Nixon to express his grave concern at the resumption of the bombing, questioning whether it would achieve the objective of bringing the North Vietnamese back to the bargaining table. Clive Cameron declared the White House full of 'maniacs'. Tom Uren accused Nixon of committing 'mass murder' and 'acting with the mentality of thuggery'. And Jim Cairns lamented 'the most brutal, indiscriminate slaughter of women and children in living memory'. The Maritime Union banned American shipping in Australian ports, which was reciprocated by the US International Longshoremen's Association. Henry Kissinger called our embassy in Washington, complaining to the charge d'affaires, 'We are not particularly amused at being put by an ally on the same level as our enemy,' and Australia was put in the freezer for a few months. Nixon only reluctantly agreed to give Whitlam a one-hour meeting in the Oval Office in late July 1973. There were no toasts, no speeches, no state dinner and no welcome on the White House lawn. Over the life of the Whitlam government, the two countries continued to disagree over regional architecture, the idea of a zone of peace in South-East Asia and Indian Ocean neutrality, and yet the alliance endured.
The recent commentary on the alliance in some quarters has assumed that Australia is always a lapdog in the relationship with America—obsequious, compliant and obedient. But Labor has proved that that doesn't have to be true. Too often under the coalition we have been 'all the way with LBJ' and 'Waltzing Matilda with you'. But Labor has always known how to preserve the alliance and Australia's dignity. In the 1980s, Bob Hawke faced down the US over the MX missile crisis. As Gareth Evans notes in Incorrigible Optimist, Hawke said at the time:
… we are not an aligned country which had to agree, or did agree, with every single aspect of US policymaking … In the expression of those differences of opinion you do not militate against the alliance. They are a re-flection of its basic strength.
Under Hawke and Keating there were other notable disagreements with Washington, including sanctions against South Africa, ratification of the Geneva protocol on the rules of war, the urgency of the comprehensive test ban treaty and the banning of mining and oil drilling in Antarctica.
In fairness, sometimes even the coalition can find Australia's voice in the alliance. In the late 1990s, I worked on the Middle East desk in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and on the normalisation of our relationship with Iran. The normalisation involved the first ministerial visit in 10 years and a trade delegation of Australian businesses looking to explore opportunities. The visit attracted a great deal of interest, particularly from the US embassy. I took the records of a number of conversations between the Minister for Trade, Tim Fischer, and the US ambassador, where it was made very, very plain that the United States was underwhelmed with Australia's plans to normalise the relationship with Iran, and where Tim Fischer made it very, very plain that it was in Australia's interests to do so.
Australia has dealt with difficult American presidents before and shown that a true friend speaks truth to power. We need to do that now. As James Curran writes, our foreign policy has a tradition of seeking greater interdependence within, or at times without, the alliance. This is what wins Washington's respect. America needs a more discerning ally and sometimes an ally that can say no. The alliance is stronger and healthier for its disagreements. It might seem an obvious point, but it bears repeating. There is not one consistent story of the alliance since 1951: its history is conditional and contingent. If you want an independent foreign policy and a preservation of the best aspects of the US alliance, then there is only one government that can deliver that. That is a Shorten Labor government.
The fourth of July next year will mark the centenary of the Battle of Hamel in the First World War. It is the battle in which American and Australian soldiers first fought side by side. It was a critical battle in the fight against Germany on the Western Front, and it had enormous strategic influence in terms of the course of the First World War. In terms of our relationship with the United States, it was the beginning of a joint military history between the two nations which has persisted through every major conflict from that day right through until the present, when Australians are working alongside United States forces in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.
The conflict in the Battle of Hamel, interestingly, took place under the command of an Australian, General Sir John Monash. It was in honour of the Americans he was commanding that he decided to make the day of the offensive in the Battle of Hamel, 4 July, American Independence Day. Next year will represent a centenary of that history. It is being commemorated by the Australian Embassy in the United States and in Washington as a centenary of mateship. I feel proud to wear the centenary of mateship badge today. That will be a significant moment in the relationship between our two countries.
The motion speaks about the political engagement between our two countries, which has been very significant over the journey as well. I was pleased to be able to add my small contribution to that last week, when I was in the United States visiting representatives of the US government in Washington and Honolulu. Prior to that I visited the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth, Texas, where Australia's 72 joint strike fighters are currently under construction. I had the honour of being able to sign the sixth of our joint strike fighters that we are procuring from Lockheed Martin with significant Australian involvement. I was able to visit Mobile, Alabama, where Austal, a great Australian shipbuilding firm, based in Perth, is making combat ships for the US Navy. It was an extraordinary thing to see how impressive that shipyard was and how significant the projection of the Australian defence industry brand is, both in Alabama and in the United States more generally, by virtue of the work of Austal. Nearly 4,000 to 5,000 people work in that shipyard.
I was able to meet representatives of the Pentagon, in the administration itself, in the Congress, in the CIA, as well as having a number of round tables in Washington. Coming through Honolulu, I had the great honour of being able to meet Admiral Harry Harris, the commander of Pacific Command, which is the largest of the combatant commands of the US—its geography, of course, includes Australia and is a very significant part of our national security framework.
I want to take this opportunity to thank those at Lockheed Martin and Austal for facilitating my visit, and all of those at the Australian embassy in the United States and the United States embassy here in Australia for helping with the program, particularly Jeff Robinson, the consul general in Honolulu. Andrew Shearer, from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, who will be familiar to people in this building, hosted a roundtable for me there. My good friends Matthew Freedman and Marty Russo did a great job in introducing me to a number of people in Washington, and Ashley Townshend from the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney also played a very significant role in the trip.
We have shared values with the United States—shared values of democracy and the rule of law and we seek to bring the rule of law to the global community. That is perhaps the most significant of all the shared values we have. We also have a very significant shared defence industry. Australian Air Force planes are being constructed in Fort Worth; American navy ships are being designed in Perth. It says everything about the significance of the relationship between our two nations, which on 4 July next year will indeed celebrate the centenary of mateship.
Earlier this year I was standing in a queue in Springfield, Illinois, reminding myself that I had been to the United States once a year every year since 2005. I have burned a neat hole in my pocket buying tickets to see NBA games in stadia from Orlando through to Chicago and from Boston through to Sacramento. Besides a sports addiction driving me to America, I have been attracted to other elements of the nation. I have sat with 20-somethings in Silicon Valley on four separate trips to that part of California, these young people energised by the prospect of using tech to change and improve the lives of many others. I have sat with some of the 20,000 Australians who live and work in Silicon Valley along with many others from other parts of the world—nearly 50 per cent of the people in Silicon Valley come from other parts of the world to contribute to development in that part of the United States. I have chatted with Americans who speak so fondly and warmly of our country, always promising to visit to learn more about our nation—a nation they think of so highly.
The biggest thing that stands out in my mind about America is the promise of America—the promise that it will always stand up for liberty, for freedom and for the pursuit of happiness, not just for its own people but for others beyond its shores. I go back to what I mentioned at the start—me standing on a chilly winter's day, in a queue, having driven hours to get to Springfield, waiting to have a look inside a place that was home to one of the greatest American presidents we have ever known, Abraham Lincoln. In this day and age some might consider that house to be tiny, but it proved to be a massive formative backdrop for someone who not only did so much for his own country but also inspired others in other corners of the world. Tested by the savagery of a civil war, Lincoln held his country together by ensuring that its promise of freedom and liberty wouldn't be compromised. It was his efforts that I thought of as I walked to see another memorial in Washington DC—the face of Martin Luther King etched out in stone standing proudly in that nation's capital. It has been a shining beacon—as much as that description has become commonplace. I think of the words of one woman sitting at the feet of another:
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Then many years later I hear these words in an angry hall in December 2015—another man trashing the lines of that sonnet with words that crack across the globe: 'Donald J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.' I can't believe this is where this great country has got to—that it exercises that ban and that it shuts out people on the basis of faith.
I visited the country at that point in time before the inauguration, friends saying to me that it was probably premature to think that it was not right to visit again some time later. But I think it's wrong that a nation that promises so much in freedom can shut out people on the basis of faith and do it in that way. It is wrong. It is against what America stands for. I think of the words of Paul Keating when he said that 'once they have pawned the crown, it's hard to reclaim the inheritance'. He is right. What America is doing to itself and the way that it's behaving is disappointing to so many of its friends. I can't see myself going back to America while this is being maintained. I cannot think of people like me, of my faith, being taken out in front of their children in a line and queuing up to visit the States, just on the basis of faith. America, I think the world of you. But I and people like me cannot be shamed by you. This is not the promise of the America we love. America is better than this.
I'm pleased to take the opportunity to contribute to the debate about the importance of the relationship between Australia and the United States. I do so because in spite of the fact that this is a motion moved by a government backbencher, the government has not been able to provide speakers in support of its own motion. That says a lot about the current government and the demoralised state that it finds itself in. It is not even prepared to back up its own members when they move a motion. We on this side are prepared to back up the importance of the relationship between Australia and the United States. It is one of the three pillars that we believe our foreign policy should be built upon: the relationship with the United States, the relationship with countries in our region, and the engagement with multilateral forums, in particular through the United Nations and its agencies.
The United States is a complex country. It's a diverse country. I had the opportunity to visit, as a guest of the United States, a long time ago before I was a member of parliament and visited places as diverse as New York, Washington, Boston, Dallas, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles and New Orleans. You really get a feel for how it is a different place from Australia—a different culture. But we have so much in common and, as the world becomes more globalised, that engagement and those people-to-people relations are so important. That doesn't mean that we can't disagree. Friends should tell their other friends when they think they've got it wrong. I back up the comments of the member for Chifley. The United States, under President Trump, has got it wrong when it comes to discrimination against people visiting the United States on the basis of their faith. That is simply a wrong policy. It's one that damages the integrity of the United States of America, a country that we look towards for international leadership and a country that we have stood side by side with so often in times of conflict and in times of difficulty. That's what friends should be able to do—not be compliant or subservient but be forthright in defending Australia's national interest. This is absolutely critical. Each year I have participated in the Australia-US dialogue in both Australia and the United States. That brings together people from politics, business, the public service, the diplomatic corps and the military in a way that is incredibly constructive. One of the things that you get out of those processes is a genuine dialogue and, from time to time, a genuine disagreement, both within the delegations and between the delegations. That's as it should be because that is what democracy is all about.
The United States, I think, remains a beacon for the world—when you look at its democratic system and the fact that you can have these challenges which are occurring in the United States in their internal politics at the moment that are still resolved in a peaceful manner. That is certainly far preferable to the conflict that we see, and how change occurs, in other parts of the world, but that doesn't mean that we should not look critically, because we're impacted by some of the decisions that are made by the United States in particular. Supporting the alliance, as we do, shouldn't mean that we are not prepared to put forward Australia's national interest. We on this side of the chamber, as the Australian Labor Party, have such a strong history with our alliance with the United States. We have proudly supported that. We have engaged with that, and we will continue to do so into the future.
I am pleased to be able to speak to this motion on the Australian-US relationship and alliance. I echo the member for Grayndler, who pointed out quite rightly that this is a motion put forward by a government backbencher and yet they haven't even been able to find enough speakers on their own motion. Nonetheless, it is good to hear some of the bipartisan views around support for the relationship between our two nations.
We have heard from many of the speakers this morning about the relationship and that it has stood the test of time. That is certainly true. For all of those milestones in our histories, and there are many over the last 100-odd years, one of the most significant—and we know it, particularly on this side, and the government side should note and acknowledge it as well—is that seminal moment in World War II when Prime Minister Curtin said:
Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.
What is less often quoted is the line that preceded this famous quote, when Prime Minister Curtin said:
The Australian Government, therefore, regards the Pacific struggle as primarily one in which the United States and Australia must have the fullest say in the direction of the democracies' fighting plan.
It is worth quoting because it was part of that significant shift in Australia's perspective and longstanding connection to Great Britain that we all know. Among other parts of Prime Minister Curtin's genius and leadership was the timing of this—the importance of the timing. If you look at some of President Roosevelt's personal letters to Eleanor Roosevelt, he has spoken of how great a leader Prime Minister Curtin was. As well as the work that they did together to lead the democracies' fight against the Nazi regime and the Japanese in the Pacific, Prime Minister Curtin was someone President Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt looked to during World War II for guidance.
Of course, our relationship has endured through many wars. Our soldiers have fought side-by-side, and so many thousands have paid that ultimate sacrifice throughout the past century and into this century. This has been something which has been a constant in the relationship. It has bonded Australia and the US, but it goes even deeper than that. It is part of something deeper. There are those shared values that many speakers this morning have pointed to: we are both great democracies, and that is certainly true; we have shared cultural values and similar world views; and we prioritise—we put first—democracy, the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom and liberty. It's something that has bonded the relationship even beyond the formalities of the ANZUS Treaty.
Other speakers have also mentioned the importance of people-to-people relationships. I certainly had the good fortune of living and working in the United States for a number of years. I was at Brookings in Washington DC, and I worked in the private sector in New York. I remember having the opportunity to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when former President Obama was a junior senator and former Vice President Biden was also a senator. At the end of that hearing, I remember going back to Brookings and telling all the people whom I worked with: 'Wow! This guy is going to be the future President of the United States.' This was in 2005. They all laughed at me and said: 'You're just an Aussie who doesn't understand US politics.' I wish there had been a TAB around the corner, because he was at about 200-1 back in 2005. Everyone thought Hillary Clinton would win the next nomination. Those people-to-people relationships are critically important.
The cultural links are also critically important. We know and we heard, too, this morning of our concern with particular administrations. I will say this about that: our two countries don't interfere in each other's domestic politics. Whether it has been a Republican or Democrat administration or a Labor or Liberal government, the relationship has endured. No one individual leader or even one particular party can derail the deep foundations of that relationship; it is very difficult to do so. It is probably worth quoting Abraham Lincoln, who quite prophetically said over 150 years ago—and I hope that he is not right about this:
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
That was a very important warning to future leaders in his own country. Whether it be Abraham Lincoln, Roosevelt or any of the great leaders that we have looked to, I think they have been an inspiration to us as well, as Australians. And we as Australians have been an inspiration to Americans—let's not forget that.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the outstanding work of hearts4hearts and its CEO Ms Tanya Hall in promoting awareness and improved treatment of cardiac arrhythmias;
(2) notes that:
(a) atrial fibrillation affects at least 500,000 Australians and comes with high risk of stroke and heart failure with conventional treatments;
(b) while many cardiovascular conditions have declined in mortality rates in the past years, the mortality rates for atrial fibrillation have almost doubled in the last two decades;
(c) catheter ablation is the acknowledged best practice treatment;
(d) there are long waiting lists for catheter ablation in the public hospital system and the treatment is not listed on the Prostheses List; and
(e) up to 40,000 Australians could benefit from catheter ablation, including 13,000 on private health insurance; and
(3) welcomes the recent announcement by the Minister for Health that the Government will consider changes to Prostheses List processes in order to account for catheter ablation and other non implantable devices, but calls on the Minister to provide further details on this announcement, including a clear time line for implementation.
I rise today to speak on this motion brought by me and seconded by the member for Bennelong, Mr John Alexander, for which I am very grateful. This motion asks the Minister for Health to urgently allow the catheter required for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation to be listed on the Prostheses List so that it can be rebated and made available for use in private hospitals. As mentioned in the motion, atrial fibrillation affects at least half a million Australians. There can be underlying causes such as congenital heart disease or thyroid disease but overwhelmingly the cause is cardiovascular disease, and the risk of developing atrial fibrillation increases with age.
The effects of atrial fibrillation can be very, very debilitating. Many in this chamber may suffer from atrial fibrillation as they get older, and they may require treatment. It can be very debilitating, particularly in older people. What happens is that the two top pumping chambers of the heart that contract and pump blood to the two bottom chambers don't contract properly because of the multiple electrical stimulation of the heart muscle, so it fibrillates—it vibrates rather than pumps—and this can lead to increasing problems such as heart failure. There is also a high risk of sudden death or embolic stroke from atrial fibrillation, as well as other morbidities, including the requirement for frequent hospitalisation, severe anxiety, loss of work, right-heart failure with oedema and the inability to exercise. As I have already mentioned, it can become much worse as people age.
Atrial fibrillation occurs when there are areas of heart damage in the two atria, as I've mentioned. Until recently, treatment has focused on either electrical cardioversion, where an electric shock is given to the heart while someone is sedated to try and stop the heart beating in the hope that it will return to normal beating function as the shock wears off, or treatment using medication, such as antiarrhythmic medications, often combined with anticoagulants, or blood-thinning medications, such as warfarin. The newer accepted best practice for treatment of atrial fibrillation is the use of a catheter to ablate, either by freezing or burning, the little areas in the atria that cause the frequent electrical stimulation. This is accepted worldwide as best practice, and is now performed in public hospitals many thousands of times every year.
However, the catheter required for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is not listed on the Prostheses List; it is not implantable—it is not seen as an implantable device. It is a removable device, and is therefore not listed on the Prostheses List and cannot be rebated by private health funds when it is used in a private hospital. This may leave private patients many thousands of dollars out of pocket. It is an area of active discrimination against people who have private health insurance. At this time, when the minister is looking at ways of trying to improve the efficiency of private health insurance and the Australian people's demand for it, this is one area where he could act immediately to provide world's best practice for private patients. I urge him to do so.
This is a little bit personal for me. My own father had atrial fibrillation and was treated with warfarin, an anticoagulant. Unfortunately, because there is often difficulty controlling the dose, he had a haemorrhagic stroke which left him physically disabled for the last 10 years of his life—although, thankfully, not cognitively disabled. This is clearly an area of discrimination against people who have private insurance, and I urge the minister to act as soon as possible to improve this. I thank the member for Bennelong for seconding my motion. I also thank the other speakers: Maria Vamvakinou, the member for Calwell; Michelle Landry, the member for Capricornia; Tony Zappia— (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. As co-convener, with the member for Calwell, of the Parliamentary Friends of the Heart Foundation and Stroke Foundation I have been proud to work with hearts4heart and its CEO, Tanya Hall, to increase awareness of atrial fibrillation. Ms Hall is a passionate advocate and a survivor of this condition. Through the work of hearts4heart she has made great headway with targeted educational programs and services to assist patients, medical professionals and policymakers to ensure early diagnosis and treatment of heart disease. In particular, the Time to change the beat white paper identifies strategies to improve the detection and management of atrial fibrillation.
Heart disease, and in particular atrial fibrillation, is a growing risk both to peoples' health and the national budget in Australia. I am sure most people in this place have personal experience with cardiac conditions and, particularly, atrial fibrillation. Whether it is oneself or a relative, a friend or work colleague, we are all touched at some stage by the fallout heart disease can create. Atrial fibrillation, or AF, is a type of abnormal heart rhythm. It starts in the upper chambers of your heart and causes them to quiver instead of beating normally. This can mean your heart doesn't pump blood around your body as efficiently as it should. AF is associated with up to a sevenfold increase in the risk of stroke, a threefold increase in the risk of heart failure and double the risk of subsequent death. That is seriously scary stuff. Perhaps the scariest thing about AF is that many patients are unaware of their condition. For 25 per cent of people who have an AF-related stroke, the stroke is the first sign that they have it. The prevalence of AF is expected to double in the next decade, placing greater strain on our health system. The annual cost of AF equates to approximately $5,200 per annum for each person with AF, which is more than the per capita cost of osteoarthritis, obesity or cardiovascular disease.
Catheter ablation has emerged as an alternative to medical management for selected patients, particularly when medical management is ineffective. The provision of catheter-based AF ablation services in Australia has increased exponentially since early this century. Studies have shown that most patients who are arrhythmia free one year after ablation remain arrhythmia free five years after ablation. Eliminating AF through catheter ablation would also reduce AF-related stroke, heart attack and poor health risks. Avoidance of an AF-related stroke is likely to save the Australian healthcare system at least $30,000 per patient for the first year.
Despite the positive statistics, we have seen reluctance from health funds to cover catheter ablations due to a technicality that just doesn't pass the common sense test. It is a fundamental of a civilised society that one can access good treatment for one's ailments. Should this particular treatment be included in private health insurance lists, it promises to both cure patients and provide a benefit to the taxpayer by keeping private patients private, not clogging up the public system. The news just last week that we, as a government, will review the listing of new targeted medical devices, like catheter ablations, is a positive step forward, and one I hope will see the procedure accepted by health insurers. I will continue to work with Minister Hunt to see outcomes improve for those with heart conditions like atrial fibrillation. Thank you.
I too rise to speak on the very important private members' motion put forward today by the member for Macarthur in regards to atrial fibrillation. I want to thank him and the member for Bennelong for bringing this very important issue to the attention of the House. I would like to acknowledge the hard work and effort by the hearts4heart foundation on this very important health issue, and I want to also recognise the outstanding contribution of its CEO and founder Ms Tanya Hall, who has worked tirelessly to raise awareness about what is a very serious health condition for Australians.
As the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Heart and Stroke Foundations, I have had the privilege of co-hosting a number of events here at Parliament House with my colleague, the member for Capricornia. I want to thank her for her contribution here today as well. Our group co-hosts events that allow this parliament to be informed on heart and stroke issues and to educate members and senators about preventive measures and about recent innovations in this area. One such event I was honoured to host as the co-chair of this friendship group was the Feel the Beat breakfast, which we had here at Parliament House on 5 September. The aim of the breakfast was to raise awareness of the growing epidemic of atrial fibrillation and to highlight the importance of improved screening, diagnosis and treatment for those affected by arrhythmias, and in this case, of course, we're talking about catheter ablation. The strong attendance at this breakfast—which did include the Minister for Health, the Minister for Education and Training, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, the shadow parliamentary secretary for health and many other colleagues, members and senators—highlighted to me just how important this issue is to each parliamentary colleague and their constituencies.
On that day, the CEO of hearts4heart, Tanya Hall, launched the white paper into atrial fibrillation, and everyone who attended the breakfast had the opportunity to attend a free heart screening test. I undertook that screening, as did my other colleagues. I'm happy to say that I got a very good report. It was all good, so I have a very minor chance—I understand you, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, took the test as well. You're one per cent, and I'm 0.8 per cent, so we're on a good ticket. We have a very minimal chance of developing heart arrhythmias for the time being. However, many Australians aren't so lucky and may not have the access to preventative screenings such as we did, and they may not be lucky enough to have healthy and strong hearts. Therefore, they may be vulnerable to all sorts of heart disease.
Prior to the Feel the Beat event, I had the opportunity to meet with Tanya Hall and talk about the challenges that she faced in her journey as a sufferer of AF. She talked about the pain of living with heart disease and the way in which it severely impacted her life and hindered many aspects of her life and activities. She also described to me, with great passion and conviction, the live-saving catheter ablation procedure, which has changed her life fundamentally. This innovative, non-invasive procedure has allowed Tanya to live a rich and full life and one that she has, to her credit, now devoted to advocating for AF and to fighting for the rights of patients who are currently suffering from this disease.
Atrial fibrillation is a major public health issue. It is one of those issues that require the immediate attention not only of this parliament but also of the government. AF affects at least half a million Australians, and associated with it is a very high risk of stroke and heart failure. Some 30 per cent of AF sufferers remain undiagnosed, and the conventional treatment that is currently available is not as effective as the alternative. Up to 40,000 Australians have the potential of leading fuller and healthier lives through best practice treatment, and that best practice treatment is catheter ablation. Yet, as we have heard, catheter ablation does not fit the criteria of the Prostheses List, and patients often have to wait up to two years to receive this life-saving treatment. Attention from government on this issue is imperative. It must happen, and it must happen now.
I thank previous speakers for their important contributions to this debate. This is an important issue and I have been very happy to be working on it across the aisle with the members for Macarthur and Calwell and with my colleague the member for Capricornia. Atrial fibrillation is a leading cause of stroke and heart failure for hundreds of thousands of people across Australia. It is a deeply concerning condition that is on the minds of many of our fellow Australians.
Atrial fibrillation is a serious heart rhythm condition which affects the heart's ability to pump blood. In many cases there are no symptoms; however, it is strongly linked with heart failure, dementia and stroke. Indeed, it causes 6,000 strokes and over 60,000 hospitalisations annually. It affects over 460,000 Australians and has no simple or easy solution. In some cases, however, it can be effectively managed by a procedure called catheter ablation, whereby small catheters are temporarily introduced into the affected heart tissue to correct electrical short circuits, which allows the heart to pump blood properly again. Up to 40,000 Australians could benefit from this procedure, which has a strong success rate of 75 per cent. However, too few Australians are receiving this treatment and far too many are suffering and dying unnecessarily.
Under current legislation, health funds are not required to cover patients for medical technology that is not listed on the federal Prostheses List. As the catheter is not implanted in the body permanently but is removed after correcting the heart's fault, it does not fit the criteria of the Prostheses List. Therefore, many sufferers are priced out of receiving this important treatment or are forced to join public hospital waiting lists of one or two years, during which time they are extremely vulnerable. This is an antiquated approach to classifying life-saving medical technology, which must be amended. For the past 10 years, cardiologists, industry and non-profit bodies such as hearts4heart have been advocating for this change, but it has come to no effect. The problem has been going on for too long and it needs to be rectified now. People are dying and having strokes as a result of this not being rectified.
When one day, hopefully soon, the federal government includes catheter ablation on part C of the prostheses list, it will require private insurers to cover the cost of the device for eligible policyholders. This will make 18,500 privately insured sufferers eligible for lifesaving treatment—a substantial increase from the status quo. This reform will drastically improve the lives of those who have suffered for far too long and will save countless lives. The old adage that prevention is better than cure couldn't be more true. Including catheter ablation on the prostheses list is not only financially feasible but also rational from a cost-benefit perspective. We welcome the minister's announcement over the weekend regarding health insurance premiums and the agreement with the Medical Technology Association of Australia. It is certainly important to keep costs as low as possible for families across the country but it is also essential that private health care is an attractive option with full options for conditions, especially for a condition that affects so many Australians.
I commend the minister for announcing the review of additional technologies that could appear on the prostheses list, including catheter ablation. But I would also like clarification on the timing. Even if this discussion takes only a few years, thousands of lives will be irrevocably changed because of this delay. I would also like to take the opportunity to praise the extraordinary work of hearts4heart, and in particular Tanya Hall, who as the CEO and founder of the group has been instrumental in raising awareness about this and other important heart related issues. I have met with Ms Hall on several occasions and she has been an exceptional advocate. I congratulate her for all her efforts so far and I look forward to seeing her continue to have a strong impact in our community in bringing this critical reform across the line.
To conclude, we have before us a policy reform that could save lives and deliver better financial outcomes for the healthcare system. The reasons to adopt this policy are clear, detailed and compelling. I trust that the minister will agree and deliver much-needed support to sufferers of atrial fibrillation in the near future.
Firstly, I commend the member for Macarthur for bringing this matter of catheter ablation to the attention of the House. I also commend all the other speakers who have spoken in support of the motion. It has bipartisan support, and that is good to see. As other members have already pointed out, atrial fibrillation is a serious heart rhythm condition. And as others have also pointed out, it affects almost 500,000 Australians. Even worse, it costs the healthcare system about $1.6 billion each year in direct healthcare costs. So, if there's no other reason for doing this, it should be done because it will end up being a budget savings for the government.
The reality is that a person with atrial fibrillation, or AF, has five times the risk of suffering a stroke and three times the risk of suffering heart failure. Just as concerning is that in most cases there are no symptoms, there are no warning signs and therefore there are no preventative actions that might otherwise have been taken. In other words, it can come most unexpectedly upon a person and can very quickly either end their life or cause them to have a stroke, indeed changing their life forever. Not surprisingly, over the last 20 years there has been almost a doubling of death rates arising from AF. The risk factors when symptoms are there are similar to all the other risk factors that people with other cardiac conditions have. Physical inactivity, smoking, being overweight, diabetes, high cholesterol and other factors like these all contribute to the risk. Additionally, if someone has those risks—again, similar to those for other cardio conditions—then high blood pressure, dizziness, chest pain and palpitations should be immediate warning signs to go and get yourself checked out.
The good thing about AF is that the test for it is relatively simple. As other members have already said, some testing was done here at Parliament House. I participated in that test. It was, again, a very simple test which gave me some indication of the level of risk I would be at. Equally, other people should be going in to see their GP and having that test. It should be made accessible and available to people wherever they live. If someone is found to be at risk in any way, the good thing is that there is a relatively modern, minimally invasive treatment that is now available. It is that referred to by the speakers, known as catheter ablation. Unfortunately, the procedure is not listed on the federal Prostheses List and therefore not covered for privately insured patients. My understanding is that some 40,000 people in Australia right now would possibly benefit from catheter ablation, of which nearly half are privately insured but can't get any insurance cover and therefore are quite likely to not take up the procedure available to them. If they go on a public hospital waiting list then they might be waiting one or two years. Sadly, for some people that might simply be too long.
Again, it simply doesn't make sense that we have a problem, we have some simple solutions now available, but because of a bureaucratic process, people cannot access those solutions. It is time that the Prostheses List procedure and process was changed. It needs to be changed because we have a clear example of where what might have been a process that was appropriate at the time it was written up is no longer appropriate today. Therefore I certainly welcome the comments from the government speakers that this may happen, but it needs to happen ASAP. Cardiovascular disease remains Australia's biggest killer. I understand that the figures, if anything, are starting to rise again, possibly because of the sedentary lifestyle that so many people live today. It appears that what was once a disease that we were making some progress with is again on the rise. This is one part of cardiovascular disease where progress has been made, where solutions are available and where people can be treated safely, with a 75 per cent success rate, and we ought to get on with it as quickly as possible.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That leave of absence from today until the end of the current period of sittings be given to the honourable member for Perth for parental leave purposes and leave of absence from 16 to 19 October be given to the honourable member for Fremantle for the purposes of parliamentary business overseas.
Question agreed to.
( Mr Goodenough ) (): I have received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on its inquiry into the life insurance industry be extended to 7 December 2017.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
If the House agrees to these amendments, the House is agreeing to finalise and deliver the most comprehensive and significant package of reforms to media laws in over 30 years. Global forces of technological and economic change are sweeping through the media industry. There are enormous global competitors such as Google, Facebook, YouTube and many others operating over the internet and almost entirely free of being subject to domestic content and other regulation in Australia. And, yet, they are competing with long-established Australian media businesses which are subject to extensive domestic regulatory requirements. The Australian media sector has been crying out for changes to an out-of-date legislative and regulatory framework, changes which are critical to protect jobs in Australian businesses, to give Australian businesses the chance to compete on a level playing field and to ensure the continued provision of viable media services and choice in regional Australia.
That is why the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications have laboured mightily to bring forward and deliver a comprehensive media reform package. The Turnbull government has achieved the unprecedented outcome in which every major participant in the media industry—all of the metropolitan free-to-air television providers, the regional free-to-air television proprietors, the newspaper proprietors, the operators of radio networks and the operators of subscription television—supported the package which the government brought forth containing changes to the outdated regulatory framework for the media sector which are designed to give the Australian media sector the opportunity to compete on a level playing field against global competitors and to give the sector the chance to remain viable, remain competitive, remain a significant employer and remain a provider of a diversity of voices in metropolitan Australia and in regional Australia. The Prime Minister and the communications minister have worked constructively with the crossbenchers and the minor parties in the Senate to achieve and deliver a responsible and constructive package.
This was a chance for the opposition to come forward and play a constructive role in nation-shaping economic reforms, much like the coalition did in the 1980s and 1990s when, as a responsible opposition, we came forward to work with the government of the day on significant and necessary economic reforms. This was a chance for the Shorten Labor opposition to come forward. This was a chance for the Labor opposition to come forward and responsibly play its part in significant reforms designed to meet the needs which unanimously the industry were calling to be addressed. What did we see from Labor when it faced this moment of truth? What did we see from the shadow minister, the member for Greenway? What we saw, I am sorry to inform the House, was a complete failure to engage constructively in this debate. The industry are virtually screaming at the shadow minister, saying: 'Please help us. Please assist us to provide continued employment. Please assist us to remain viable. Please assist us to continue to provide a diversity of voices in regional Australia and metropolitan Australia.' What is the indolent and indifferent response from the shadow minister? She sits there whistling, pretending nothing is happening. She does nothing. Labor does nothing. Labor has opposed every aspect of this package at every stage. You could not see a more dismal or more hopeless example of an opposition completely failing to engage with an important national requirement and completely failing to step up and meet the national interests because of its concern for grubby political self-interest.
If we're going to talk about grubby political self-interest, we could be here all day talking about the grubby deals of those opposite. But the only question before the House right now is one dealing with programming requirements and additional points in the realisation of a trigger event. That is the only question before the House today, which is why Labor is not opposing this bill, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. But Labor's view on media diversity and the way in which this government has undermined it for this and future generations remains clear: the level of media concentration in Australia is already one of the highest in the world and it is about to get a whole lot worse thanks to those opposite. Though they think this doesn't matter to people, I would point out that an Essential poll has shown that the majority of Australians, 61 per cent of voters, disapprove of changing media ownership laws to allow a single company to control a newspaper, TV network and radio network in the same area.
Time will tell what the public will make of how the media reform sausage got made by those opposite. What will they make of the Turnbull government attacking our national broadcasters in a grubby deal with Pauline Hanson's One Nation? The substantive bill before us not only is contrary to the public interest but—do you know what?—doesn't even contain half the measures struck behind closed doors to change Australia's media ownership laws. The very laws that govern the fourth estate in Australia were traded away behind closed doors. And for what? For a flimsy so-called innovation fund for journalism that will run out in three years and for taxpayer funded handouts to commercial media—$30 million to Fox Sports—document free. Ladies and gentlemen, these days you can get $30 million from those opposite, document free, in taxpayer funded handouts to commercial media to attack public broadcasters at the behest of One Nation.
There's a list a mile long of the backroom deals and handshakes that were done here, and what have we got at the end of it? We've got more questions than answers, such as: where does the existing $60 million come from for this so-called innovation fund? What was it previously set aside for? Why are news organisations with foreign based parent companies not eligible for the fund but eligible for the cadetships and scholarships program? Does the Turnbull government concede that permitting the biggest media companies to consolidate by repealing the two-out-of-three rule could actually squeeze smaller publishers out of the market? If media mergers that occur after the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule result in job losses, where are these 200 new cadets going to work? Where will the 60 regional journalism scholarships go? Who will select the universities that are eligible for the fund? When will further details on the fund be revealed? How will the fund be administered? When will it be released? What are the 'business activities to drive revenue and readership'? Does that mean advertising, and does it include advertising on social media platforms?
One of the grossest things about the whole debacle in the Senate was that when all of these questions were being asked by Labor—what are the details of this?—we had the spectacle of the Minister for Communications being completely unable to answer those questions. Instead, he delegated responsibility for answering them to Senator Xenophon. That's the kind of minister we have—one that doesn't even know the details of these issues.
It goes on. Why are innovative publishers like The Guardian, Buzz Feed and the New Daily being cut out of the deal? Why are publishers affiliated with superannuation funds excluded from accessing the fund? As I said, where are all these new cadets going to work? No-one can tell me that having efficiencies, synergies and these back-end cost savings realised is actually going to promote more jobs. That is an absolute furphy.
I reiterate: Labor has made its position on this bill abundantly clear. All we have before the House today are two small amendments dealing with changes in points for regional programming in the event of a trigger event being realised, so Labor will not be opposing these two small amendments that are before us today. Our position on this bill has been made abundantly clear. Again we reiterate that if those opposite think Australians will simply bat this away and forget about it they've got another thing coming. When Australians find out how this sausage was made, they will give their judgement. (Time expired)
Once again the shadow minister has shown her extraordinary and unlimited capacity to miss the main issue. This is a shadow minister who had the chance to step up and to be part of a significant set of reforms designed to ensure that this vital sector, the media sector, remained competitive, remained able to provide employment, remained able to provide a diversity of voices in metropolitan and in regional Australia, and remained able to compete against massive global companies. The government has been working through an extraordinary, comprehensive range of responses to the needs identified unanimously by the industry. I welcome the minister as a visitor to the chamber today and I congratulate the minister for the extraordinary achievements he has delivered in putting together a package of reforms to the media sector called for unanimously across this vital industry and delivered in the face of the indifference, the insouciance, the complete lack of action by this incompetent shadow minister and this incompetent Labor opposition—a party which supposedly cares about jobs and champions employment. They have stood there doing nothing when employers across the industry, the businesses across the industry, have unanimously said, 'This is a set of changes we unanimously support and call for.' But, no, the shadow minister, in her wisdom, decides that she is not interested in any of that.
We had the ludicrous spectacle just now of the shadow minister proudly announcing that they're not going to oppose this amendment. I tell you something: they opposed it in the Senate, along with their consistent pattern of disgraceful obstructionism on this vital package at every stage on the way, at every stage of this vitally needed reform process, when the opposition and the shadow minister have had a chance to come forward and play a constructive part in this important set of reforms, which are designed to give this vital Australian industry the opportunity to compete on a level playing field against lightly regulated global players using a comprehensive new technology; the opportunity to continue to operate and to provide a diversity of voices in metropolitan Australia and in regional Australia; the opportunity to continue to be an employer of journalists and of so many other people working in the media sector.
What has the shadow minister done? What has the opposition done? They have completely failed to engage. They have been missing in action. It is one of the most depressing and disappointing spectacles to see a Labor opposition sitting there with their arms folded completely refusing to engage or to be constructive participants in this vitally needed package of reforms.
We congratulate the crossbenchers, who have engaged constructively with the minister as he has worked with them tirelessly and patiently over many months and engaged with them on a whole range of constructive and sensible suggestions. Of course there has been some back and forth. There has been some toing and froing, but there has been constructive positive engagement on the part of the crossbenchers: a willingness to engage; a recognition that this vital Australian industry was facing an hour of need and it fell upon the parliament of this nation to step forward and respond. What did we see from the shadow minister? Nothing—a complete failure to engage. It was a remarkably disappointing lack of capacity to meet the call of the hour. But, thankfully, the minister and the crossbenchers have worked together to deliver this vitally important package. It is extraordinary that we have seen Labor's consistent obstructionism and negativism. They have put forward no policy of their own—not one policy suggestion. What was their big idea? To have a review. The house is burning down, and they're calling for a review. No action, no way forward—a complete failure to step up and meet the needs of the moment. (Time expired)
The Minister for Urban Infrastructure, representing the Minister for Communications, has just given a feverish speech which will be much more popular in the boardrooms than in the lounge rooms of Australia. As the shadow minister has pointed out, 61 per cent of Australians oppose the grubby deal that the government has done which has led to these amendments being put before the House today—61 per cent of Australians oppose the grubby deal that has been done by the government to ensure that this legislation comes before the House today.
The minister made a great song and dance about the proposed job-creating benefits of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. Well, if mergers, acquisitions and takeovers in the media industry lead to job creation in regional Australia, it will be the first time in Australian corporate history that that has occurred. We know that it won't occur. We know that that is absolute rubbish. We know that job losses are going to occur as a result of the three green lights that this government is giving to mergers and acquisitions in the media industry as a result of this legislation that is before the House because the government has been able to cajole and take the bribes of crossbenchers to ensure a deal could be done. The $60 million so-called innovation and job-creating fund deal done by the Nick Xenophon Team is not a deal they will be looking at very proudly in a few years' time, because we know that there are going to be job losses, we know that there is going to be a close-down in bureaus, newspapers, radio stations and television station studios in regional Australia as a result of this bill. The question we ask is: where are all these people going to be working in regional Australia? We know the answer is that if they are working anywhere, they will be working in the capital cities and not in the regional areas. It is unfortunate that the minister has left the chamber, because we are all very keen to have a look at his new cufflinks. When you give $30 million to a pay TV operator to provide a service that is already being provided by its free-to-air competitors, you have got to say that is one of the most expensive pairs of cufflinks in Australian political history.
If there is an aspect of this grubby deal that requires the most attention, it is the deal that has been done between the government and One Nation to yet again attack and heap scorn on the ABC. There is not a more respected or more valuable service in rural and regional Australia than the ABC, and yet it is the organisation most interrogated, most attacked and most maligned by these people opposite. They bite the very hand that feeds them because in their communities it is often only the ABC that is providing regular, reliable, unbiased and quality journalism to the communities that they represent. But, because there are a few clueless, blockhead knuckle draggers who are desperate to make a political career out of finding conspiracies where they don't exist, they have done this grubby deal for something called a competitive neutrality inquiry. We know what the target is—the target is the ABC and quality journalism. They are not after quality or unbiased journalism; they want a pack of cheerleaders and they won't be happy until they get them.
We reject the deal and all that hangs off it. We know that it will not create one single job in regional Australia. We do know, however, that hundreds and hundreds of journalists, production staff, technicians, support staff and sales people right around the country will lose their job as the mergers and acquisitions sweep their way across the media landscape, all because of the actions of this government today.
As the House considers the amendment that the Senate has returned to the House as part of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017—this comprehensive, extremely important set of amendments and reforms to the existing outdated legislative and regulatory regime under which Australia's media businesses operate—the House should be informed about some of the ludicrous logical contortions we've seen from the shadow minister as she has desperately attempted in the media to defend her intellectually incoherent position on this issue and her complete failure to engage, her complete failure to respond to an industry that unanimously has been saying to the Labor Party and to the shadow minister: 'This is our hour of need. Will you help us to continue to be competitive in a world where we are competing with large global companies using global internet resources? Will you help us to continue to be competitive and to continue to be able to employ Australians in this vitally important sector? Will you help us to continue to offer a diversity of voices in metropolitan Australia and regional Australia?'
One of the propositions that is blindingly obvious, it would seem—to just about everybody except the shadow minister—is that if businesses are not sustainable, if businesses cannot keep going, then they cannot provide a diverse voice. If they're not there to provide a voice, you can talk until the cows come home, using all kinds of theoretical arguments about the desirability of a diversity of voices, but you need to turn your mind to the practical questions of how businesses sustain themselves so that they can provide a diversity of voices. That, it would seem, is a basic proposition of logic that has escaped the shadow minister. But we've seen some fairly remarkable propositions of logic from the shadow minister, including her immortal interview with Kieran Gilbert on Sky News, where she was trying to defend her head-in-the-sand attitude, her attempt to pretend that the internet hadn't fundamentally transformed the media businesses—a position that is almost indefensible. Kieran Gilbert, referring to the Australian regulatory regime governing the media sector, asked the shadow minister:
So these laws are current even though they were written at a time before the Internet?
Her answer was:
Well, quite frankly, we have competition laws in Australia that were written in the 1970s but we don't say that we should abolish competition laws outright Kieran. This government has gone ahead and said we're going to do all these deals with all these different parts of the media, we're going to call it a holistic package. This isn't a holistic package, this is a grab bag.
Now, notice the first rhetorical technique there—the straw man. You refer to some suggestion that you're going to change the competition laws. And the second rhetorical technique is the complete diversion into ad hominem attack. Kieran Gilbert then wanted to ask:
But every media outlet agrees . . .
And here's what the shadow minister had to say:
Every media outlet agrees because they've got something in it for them.
In other words, to the question, 'Is it not the case that the internet is fundamentally transforming competition and the conditions in the media sector and therefore it is well past time for regulatory reform?' the shadow minister's answer was, 'Well, participants in the industry have an interest in this reform, so we couldn't possibly support it.' That is the standard of analysis and contribution we have had from this shadow minister in one of the most inadequate, inept and hopeless performances from a shadow minister when faced with the opportunity to engage with a substantive set of reforms that are desperately needed and that have been unanimously called for across the industry.
And what have we seen from the shadow minister? We have seen a continued wilful, illogical and incoherent failure to engage. Step after step there has been bitter, trenchant resistance from the opposition and from the shadow minister to any reforms of the media sector. You could not find a better example of gross irresponsibility from an opposition or from a shadow minister, and it really does make me wonder what her motivations are for being in public life, if the whole exercise here is to stand there intransigently, opposed to every attempt by this government to make vitally needed reforms to this sector, reforms that the entire sector— (Time expired)
Order! The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report entitled Report 465: Commonwealth procurement.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—It is a lovely way to start a parliamentary week: to present a tabling statement on a public accounts report, and you'll be pleased to know I crossed a lot of it out! But I think a few statements are in order. The report sets out the findings of the committee's inquiry on Commonwealth procurement based on three Australian National Audit Office reports concerning this matter. The context for this is the committee's decision to undertake thematic inquiries into important matters of public administration, and of course procurement is core business for all Commonwealth departments and agencies. So, by clustering a number of reports, we're able to identify similar themes and problems and share those learnings more broadly across the Public Service. I will turn briefly to, and make a couple of comments on, each of the three reports we considered.
Chapter 2 of the report discusses the committee's findings on audit report No. 1, concerning Airservices' procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management, ICCPM, for the OneSKY program. The Auditor-General noted at the committee's public hearing that Airservices' approach to contracting the centre was 'ineffective in providing value-for-money outcomes'. Airservices made extensive use of ICCPM to assist with the delivery of OneSKY, with 42 engagements of employees and subcontractors through 18 procurement processes. But each of those 42 engagements was sole-sourced. Airservices had also routinely failed to adhere to its own procurement policies and procedures, and concerns were raised about Airservices' management of probity risks for this procurement. The committee concluded that Airservices procurement management was problematic on a number of fronts, and made a series of recommendations to maintain scrutiny of the issue. The committee also recommended that the Department of Finance should consolidate procurement guidance for corporate Commonwealth entities to ensure more strict application of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.
It is important to note that a companion audit report, No. 46, Conduct of the OneSKY tender, was tabled by the Australian National Audit Office while the committee was conducting its inquiry and which was, to be fair, much less awful and showed effort to respond to the first audit. However, given the ANAO's findings from this audit, including that it was not clearly evident that the successful tender offered the best value for money, we recommended that Airservices report back to the committee on its progress in implementing the findings of audit report No. 46. The committee recommended also that ANAO consider conducting a third-stage audit into Airservices' conduct of the OneSKY tender.
Briefly, chapter 3 of the report discusses the committee's findings on audit report No. 13, concerning the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's management of the contract to provide health services in onshore immigration detention. The committee noted the ANAO's conclusion that this contract was developed by the department based on the strategic analysis of the shortcomings that had occurred under earlier contracts. However, the ANAO identified areas for improvement in the department's contract management, and the committee made a comprehensive recommendation—which I will spare everyone by not reading it, but it's in the report.
Chapter 4 of the report—I think this is the most substantive area in relation to the immigration department—discusses the committee's findings on audit report No. 16 concerning the procurement of garrison support and welfare services in offshore processing centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. The committee noted the ANAO's findings that there were significant deficiencies in all three phases of the audit activity by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The committee acknowledged that the department was operating in a complex and rapidly evolving environment under exceptional time pressure during establishment of the contracts. However, the committee—and this is important to note—considered that the department ought to have taken steps to improve its procurement activity within a reasonable time, particularly in relation to the subsequent phases of consolidation of the contracts and retendering. To put it in plain English, the time the contract was first entered into, the then government under Prime Minister Gillard had set a very short time frame of only a number of weeks for the contracts to be put in place, and, clearly, with those time pressures there were some deficiencies, but the audit office did not find that the same time pressures were evident under the current government when the contracts were consolidated and retendered.
The committee also noted the ANAO's finding concerning ongoing issues with the department's 'porous' record-keeping practices, including in relation to conflicts of interest, assessments and performance management of contracts—that is, there was often no paperwork to backup decisions which were made to tender billions of dollars of public money. The conduct and outcomes of the tender processes reviewed by the ANAO highlight a procurement skill and capability gaps amongst departmental officers. The committee recommended that the department provide a post-implementation progress report on its implementation of the audit recommendations and that the ANAO consider conducting a performance audit of the department’s next procurement process in this area. It is worth a read for members interested in this, given the billions of dollars of public money involved—a read if only to understand what not to do.
In closing, as I said at the start, procurement is core business for Commonwealth agencies. Achieving value for money is expected to be a central consideration, and members could expect that the committee will continue to maintain a focus on procurement in our future work program.
Does the member for Bruce 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.
In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the following reports: Review of the re-listing of Boko Haram and Islamic State as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code—Report, September 2017 and Review of the declaration of Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist organisation under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007—Report September 2017.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's reports on the relisting of Boko Haram and Islamic State as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code and the declaration of Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist organisation under the Citizenship Act. Under the Criminal Code, it is an offence to direct the activities of, be a member of, associate with, or conduct a range of activities in support of a listed terrorist organisation. The Criminal Code enables the committee to review all listings of terrorist organisations and report its findings to the parliament within the 15-day disallowance period.
In conducting its review, the committee held a private hearing with ASIO and the Attorney-General's Department and carefully reviewed the listings by reference both to the procedures followed by the government and to the merits of the listings themselves. The committee was satisfied that the appropriate processes had been followed and that Boko Haram and Islamic State—two of the most bloodthirsty and evil terrorist organisations operating in the world today—continue to meet the relevant thresholds to be listed as terrorist organisations. The committee therefore supports the relisting of both organisations and finds no reason to disallow the legislative instruments.
The PJCIS has a similar review power under the Australian Citizenship Act, which provides for dual citizens aged over 14 years to lose their Australian citizenship if they engage in certain conduct on behalf of a declared terrorist organisation. The immigration minister's declaration of Jabhat al-Nusra in July 2017 was the second to have taken place under the provisions, the first being Islamic State in May 2016. As part of its review of the declaration, the committee held a private hearing with ASIO, the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The committee was satisfied that Jabhat al-Nusra—which is already a listed terrorist organisation—is opposed to Australia and Australia's interests, values, democratic beliefs, rights and liberties. If a person were to fight for or be in the service of the organisation, the person would be acting inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia. The committee therefore supports the declaration and finds no reason to disallow the legislative instrument. I commend both reports to the House.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report entitled Referrals made June 2017 (7th report of 2017).
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The first project is the Australian War Memorial's Large Technology Objects Store Project. This project will increase the storage capacity required by the War Memorial to accommodate a number of expected future acquisitions such as an F/A-18 Hornet and a Seahawk helicopter. These assets are coming out of Afghanistan and what most people may not know is that the stuff we have on display at the War Memorial is only 20 per cent of the stuff that we have. It's important for the nation that we keep that stored, which looks after the integrity of those products. We do that out here at Mitchell. Construction of the proposed work is to take place in Canberra, where the War Memorial's existing storage facilities are located. The project cost estimate is $16.1 million.
The second project is the IP Australia Accommodation Project. This project will take place at Discovery House in the Canberra suburb of Woden. Its scope includes a rolling program of flexible improvement of office accommodation, the relocation of the existing cafe, the fit-out of a new childcare centre, the relocation of existing conference rooms and hearing facilities. The project cost estimate is $39.7 million.
The third project is the JP2008 Phase 5B2 Wideband Satellite Capability Project proposed by the Department of Defence. The project will construct facilities to support newly acquired satellite communications equipment and will support Australian Defence Force operations. The works will take place at Kapooka Military Area, near Wagga Wagga in New South Wales. The project cost estimate is $33.9 million.
The fourth project is the Explosive Ordnance Logistics Reform Program, also proposed by the Department of Defence. The works will take place in 12 explosive-ordnance depots around Australia and will include the construction of a range of storage, processing and administration facilities for all types of explosive ordnance, from small arms ammunition to high explosives. Once completed, the project will deliver increased storage and handling capacity in the ADF's explosive-ordnance logistics network. The project cost estimate is $230.9 million.
The fifth project is the redevelopment of HMAS Cerberus in Hastings, Victoria. Cerberus is the largest naval training facility in Australia and the single point of entry for sailors joining the Royal Australian Navy. The works will address a range of facility and infrastructure shortcomings including electrical, water supply, sewerage, and building refurbishment. The works include a new survival-at-sea training facility, including an indoor training pool which can simulate a range of realistic sea and weather conditions, and the ADF physical training school. Construction will commence in late 2017 and will take five years to complete, at a total cost of $463.1 million. The committee recommends that the five proposed projects should proceed.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the secretariat and how they go about their business. Pauline Cullen and James Bunce from the secretariat are present in the gallery. Can I acknowledge the work they do in this space, in particular the odd times of the day and night that I contact both of them for comprehensive briefings. Their efforts should not go unmentioned, and I acknowledge their contribution.
I would like to acknowledge the effectiveness of the committee. I know that when most Australians see the parliament they do so through the prism of question time, from two o'clock to 20 past three, and think this place conducts itself no differently from an average classroom. I will throw a congratulatory comment to each of the committee members that I am privileged to serve with as chairman. Tony Zappia, the deputy chair, is a former mayor and very conciliatory. David Coleman has incredible skills and knows his way around a balance sheet. Then there are your contributions, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough. As a former developer, you understand the cost matrix. Justine Keay brings a balanced head, and whenever she speaks we all listen. Joanne Ryan was previously in the education department and is no stranger to cost matrixes. From the other place, we have Senator Alex Gallacher, the longest serving member on the committee, along with Senator Dean Smith, a former chair of this committee, and Senator John Williams. I acknowledge the member for McPherson, now a minister, who vacated the chair more recently for me to take on the role.
There were two or three proposals of works put up by Defence, and it would be remiss not to acknowledge the work by Brigadier Noel Beutel, who recently announced his retirement on 6 October. Brigadier Beutel was across his brief. It didn't matter what the committee threw at him in trying to understand cost; he knew exactly where every cent was buried. In contrast, if he didn't, he made it his business to get the committee the answers that we needed.
We have saved, I hope, in the vicinity of tens of millions of dollars by rescrutinising and reprioritising grant proposals. Since September 2016, the committee has presented seven reports to the parliament, with 23 separate inquiries. The committee has appreciated the efforts of the secretariat and committee members. I commend the report to the House.
I move:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to:
(1) abandon its support of the decision of the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates because it will mean nearly 700,000 Australians will have their take home pay cut by up to $77 a week; and
(2) legislate to prevent the decision from taking effect to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut".
I rise to make a contribution to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017. Labor will not stand for corruption or for poor or dishonest behaviour in any form. As I have said before, we will support legislation that's properly drafted and, if appropriate, that applies equally to companies and registered organisations. We have carefully considered this bill and, as might be predicted for a bill from this government attacking unions, it just doesn't stack up. It's poorly drafted and it is a blatant attack on working Australians. For these reasons, Labor opposes this bill.
As is custom, I received a briefing on the bill from the Department of Employment. First, I would like to thank those public servants who met with me, with the assistants from the minister's office. However, I was concerned about what I heard at that briefing. Indeed, I asked about consultation in relation to this bill and was told that there was consultation. Indeed the consultation, I was advised, occurred on 14 August. The bill was introduced on 16 August. From that moment, I was aware that this was nothing more than a rushed piece of legislation to score political points against the Labor movement and the opposition and to attack the union movement in this country. There was no genuine consultation. The department advised me that the states and other stakeholders were notified that a bill was being introduced. There was no genuine engagement with anyone affected before this bill was introduced into this place. This shows that this bill is nothing more than a political tool. The government needed a distraction, so it introduced this bill without adequate, if any, consultation and without getting the basics right.
The bill divides into five schedules 15 minor and technical amendments. The second reading speech and the public statements from the minister say that this bill will bring registered organisations and officials in line with corporations and company directors. At the outset, it is important to note that unions are not corporations; they are very different things. Corporations are vehicles by which business is conducted. In the vast majority of cases, corporations are for profit, operating in a commercial world with their own financial interests at the core of what they do. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this, provided that a company pays its tax, treats its workers with dignity and respect, pays wages lawfully and ensures its creditors are paid on time.
Unions, on the other hand, are membership based organisations. They have at their core a set of values that goes far beyond financial gain. They represent workers who, without the collective support of fellow union members, cannot represent themselves effectively. Union officers are democratically elected, unlike company directors. The function of trade unions and the right of individuals to join one is enshrined in international law. Article 23.4 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out the underlying principles for international law in respect of fundamental rights in the work place and states that:
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
With that being said, even on the false premise that corporations and registered organisations should be treated in the same manner, this bill does not achieve this goal. Even a cursory reading of the bill emphatically disproves this myth that is being flogged by the government.
The truth is that this bill imposes obligations on registered organisations and officers significantly in excess of those imposed on corporation and company directors. It defies belief that the government can suggest they are bringing people on an even footing when they are clearly engaging in nothing more than the most blatant of union bashing. The disqualification regime for officers is not equivalent to that which applies to company directors. The disqualification regime recommended by the Heydon report would have provided standing to bring an application for a disqualifying order to the registered organisation's regulator. This is consistent with equivalent provisions of the Corporations Act. However, in this bill, an application can be brought by the commissioner, the minister or a person with sufficient interest. There are no conditions on the standing or bringing of an application that could operate as safeguards against frivolous or vexatious claims. I'd like to think that this is a drafting error, however serious on the government's part, but I fear it is anything but.
So who would come under the phrase 'person with sufficient interest'? It may well be that employers might be able to take this matter up against unions. It may well be a member of a union. It may well be a former member of a union. It may well be other persons yet defined. The fact is that the breadth of the persons who are able to bring this application goes well beyond what could occur to corporations in this country. It goes well in excess of the recommendations of the Dyson Heydon royal commission and underlines the enmity towards unions that this government has. For that reason it should be opposed.
The bill's imposition of the fit-and-proper-person test, in particular, which allows the court to take into account any event the court considers relevant, means that the grounds for disqualification are potentially broader in respect of officers of registered organisations than they are in respect of company directors. Under the bill the court may disqualify a person from holding office for the period it considers appropriate if one of the grounds is made out and the court does not consider that it would be unjust to disqualify the person. This formulation is different from the Corporations Act regime, which empowers a disqualification order if a ground is made out and the order is justified. The formulation in the bill has the practical effect of effectively shifting the onus onto the respondent to satisfy the court why the order is unjust if a ground is made out.
The bill introduces new grounds for cancellation of registration relating to conduct of officers, which are based on conduct grounds contained in the Corporations Act but go beyond the legislation. Only the grounds in new sections 28C(1)(d) and 28C(1)(e) appear to be equivalent. The grounds in new sections 28C(1)(a) to 28C(1)(c) impose on officers of organisations, which may include workers holding a voluntary position in the governance structure of a union, standards of conduct not imposed on company directors.
It's important to note a few things about the grounds relating to corrupt conduct of officers. First, at least in relation to the recommendation to introduce legislation about corrupting benefits, the Heydon report cautioned to avoid using the word 'corruptly' in the elements of the offence and to state expressly what fault element is required to establish the offence. Corrupt conduct of officers is given extremely broad scope in section 28C of the bill. Many of the acts or omissions that could constitute corrupt conduct of officers in the bill fall short of the standard that may otherwise lead to a finding of corruption under criminal law. Further, a finding of fact, not necessarily a finding of guilt in proceedings in any court, is prima facie evidence of corrupt conduct under this bill. It would appear there is one law for unions and another law for companies.
It is also important to consider this provision, and the potential for a registered organisation to have its registration cancelled on the basis of conduct of individual officers, against recent examples in the corporate world, where no such penalty exists. There are no provisions in the Corporations Act that allow for companies to be wound up due to a history of noncompliance with the law from members, be they directors or shareholders in the case of companies. Therefore, a company can repeatedly put workers' lives at risk or refuse to pay employees proper wages or entitlements and not be wound up, whereas a union could have its registration cancelled if a group of members takes unprotected industrial action. For example, under the proposed legislation, the journalist members of the MEAA could have the registration of their union cancelled or have their right to take protected industrial action suspended based on the conduct of their democratically elected officials, that conduct occurring without their knowledge. On the other hand, executives and directors of the Commonwealth Bank have been accused of failing to take steps to prevent the bank from breaching anti-money-laundering regulations on more than 50,000 occasions. This comes on the back of the CommInsure scandal. Yet the coalition government does not seem to view this anywhere near as seriously as the conduct of a union or its officers. Apparently, unions require a royal commission, yet hardly a week goes by without some crisis hitting the banking sector, and the government still won't join Labor in supporting a royal commission to investigate and address systemic issues in that sector.
What is remarkable is that, because of the conduct of a number of union officials, it is possible to increase the likelihood of the deregistration of an organisation, which will undermine the capacity of workers who are covered by the union to be properly represented. Yet, in the case of the corporate sector there is no similar capacity. Of course one should have regard to the impact on people who hold accounts in banks, and Labor is not suggesting that we should be able to wind up a company because of the conduct of an executive officer or directors of the company without having very serious regard to the effect on people who hold accounts with these companies, in this case the banks. But there is no proper consideration of what will happen to members who have had no control over the conduct of an officer of a registered organisation, and they could be exposed as a result of that organisation being deregistered.
In respect of schedule 4 and the amalgamation of registered organisations, the government claims that the competition test applied to companies seeking to merge is similar to the public interest test that the bill imposes on organisations seeking to amalgamate. This is demonstrably not the case. The current provision of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 that provides a simple procedural process for amalgamations to give effect to the wishes of the respective organisations' members as expressed in a ballot conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission is entirely appropriate. The competition test imposed on company mergers only takes into account whether the merger would have the effect of substantially lessening competition in any market. The public interest test that the bill imposes on organisations takes into account the organisations' record of complying with the law as well as the impact on employers and employees in the industry or industries concerned. The latter is far broader than the competition test. The former has no equivalent. Corporations can have an extensive record of not complying with the law, including wage theft, and not be prevented from merging.
Like corporations, unions may wish to amalgamate to access benefits of consolidation—economies of scale such as reducing rent and utilities payments, increasing administrative efficiencies and responding to new work processes—and to address the potential erosion of boundaries between traditional industries. They should not be denied the right to do so by Liberal-National governments or employers who despise union coverage in their industries. When the question of a company merger is raised, those companies are not required to consider the interests of employees. Perhaps they should. If you want to apply the same principle to registered organisations as companies, perhaps they should consider the interests of their employees? If they did we would see fewer situations like Japan Post taking over Toll Holdings. It has been reported in The Australian:
Toll Holdings is moving quickly to implement the findings of an urgent 100-day strategy review by its new management team that will reduce its operational business units and slash 1700 jobs, most in Australia.
This parliament could ask these questions: why doesn't the coalition require the merger of employer associations to consider the interests of employees in that industry, and why can't unions apply to block a merger between corporations? Of course, those questions are rhetorical. The answer is simply that tests proposed by this bill evidence the government's anti-worker ideological agenda—nothing more and nothing less.
Let me be clear—the government has no mandate for the bill it has introduced. Instead, not for the first time, we need to question the motivation of the government. This bill is apparently based on certain recommendations of the discredited Heydon royal commission—although this is, of course, wrong in many respects. In fact, in evidence provided to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee on 28 September by Mr Stephen Smith, head of the National Workplace Relations Policy at the Australian Industry Group, and by the Department of Employment, it was agreed that the proposals in this bill go well beyond those recommended by Dyson Heydon. Despite this, there is no regulatory impact statement in relation to the bill. What the government claims instead is that the interim and final reports of the royal commission have been certified by the Department of Employment as being informed by a process and analysis equivalent to a regulatory impact statement. This is the very same department which accepts that the bill goes beyond the recommendations of the royal commission. Further still, the Heydon recommendations were made almost two years ago. However, this lazy and incompetent government took no action to respond to any of those recommendations, not before the double-dissolution election, not after it and not even when this parliament was debating the two antiworker pieces of legislation that were the Prime Minister's justification for taking the nation to the polls. You might remember during the election campaign that the two bills that were supposed to be the trigger for the election were mentioned twice in eight weeks by the Prime Minister, which pretty much sums up the ostensible nature of the election and the fact that this government has never seriously taken up this matter other than to do everything it can to undermine organised labour in this country.
This government did nothing in response to the Heydon recommendations until it realised that it was on the wrong side entirely when it came to cutting penalty rates. Then we saw the so-called corrupting benefits legislation, which was so rushed and so badly drafted that it had to be significantly amended in the Senate by Labor amendments. Again, there is a pattern here with this government. With respect to that legislation, which is in some ways related to this legislation because it is another part of the relentless assault on organised labour and unions in this country, there was an attempt to bring in a set of arrangements in order to place a greater burden upon union officials than would apply to public officials. In fact, the construction of the offences in that piece of legislation were far more burdensome and therefore relatively unfair on union officials than that which would apply to public officials, raising, if you like, the threshold in a way that just constantly exposes the hostility and enmity that the Turnbull government has towards unions in this country.
We have a conservative government reverting to form. We have a government racked by internal division, on the nose with the electorate, losing ground from the centre and losing ground to the extreme Right, both within the coalition party room and outside of it. When they are struggling and want to pretend they have an agenda of any kind, they bring out this antiworker and ideologically inspired union-bashing agenda. We have seen it before and we'll see it again. It would appear that the only thing, the only area of public policy, that unites this government is its enmity towards unions and its hatred of penalty rates. What we have in reality is a conservative government that is not at all in tune with the electorate. A Choice consumer survey conducted in June indicated that, of the cost-of-living pressures, health, electricity and groceries were the top three issues worrying Australians. At the same time, the left-wing think tanks, those economists at Citigroup, suggested that actual consumer conditions have moved into negative territory, despite a surge in corporate profits. They suggested that the divergence can be explained by the decline in wages growth as a share of national income to its equal lowest ever recorded. Recent ABS figures show that wages increased by 0.5 per cent in the June quarter to 1.9 per cent over the year. It is the lowest annual wages growth on record since the ABS first published data in 1997. Nominal wages growth for the June quarter was worse than the previous quarter in which wages increased by 0.6 per cent to 1.9 per cent over the year to March. In the June quarter 2017, private sector wages growth remains at record lows.
While consumer surveys show that concerns about cost-of-living expenses are at the front of public consciousness, as well as concerns about record low wages growth and fears about job security, the focus of the government is on attacking the trade union movement and the workers it represents. The idea that we would be focusing on these areas of public policy, when wages are falling and flatlining and people are worried about getting enough work, when we have a record 1.1 million Australians looking for more work and not being able to find it, when we have youth unemployment between 12 per cent and 13 per cent—there is so much to be done here to make things easier for those who are struggling to pay the bills, yet the obsession of the government is to undermine the trade union movement at every turn. The Labor Party is intent on bringing employers and unions around the table. That's one thing you won't see from this government. You won't see them bring together people representing business and workers around the table to talk about the structural challenges of this nation, because they are so obsessed with trying to destroy organised labour.
The amendments proposed by the bill unduly interfere with the free and democratic functioning of organisations, with no true objective other than political gain. This government should stop trying to interfere in industrial organisations and should realise that, if they were serious about improving the trade union movement, they should be doing everything they can to address and increase member participation rather than introducing draconian laws. The minister will say that unions do not respect the rule of law. She will say that the only way to pull lawless unions into line is to support the measures outlined in the bill. All the while, the minister knew of her own regulator's breaches of the Fair Work Act for almost a year, and yet he remained appointed as head of the ABCC. It was quite remarkable, having listened to the lectures from the Minister for Employment in relation to regulating the building industry, to find that the regulator had knowingly given the wrong advice to employers in the building industry and that the government had done nothing about it. Indeed, the government then allowed him to continue to be employed so that $400,000 of taxpayers' money would be spent on the legal defence of Mr Hadgkiss.
Big difference: Hadgkiss resigned.
I'm hearing interjections from those opposite. I assume that the member who's intervening supports the fact that Mr Hadgkiss will be given $400,000 to pay for his legal costs when he knowingly broke the law. Mr Hadgkiss knowingly broke the law. The minister was aware of the fact that he broke the law, left him in that position for a year and, once it was reported and disclosed, left him in that position for an extra two weeks to indemnify him against the costs of legal expenses so that the taxpayer has to foot the bill of $400,000, which would not have had to be paid if he'd accepted the fact that he knowingly misrepresented the law and intentionally did so to mislead employers and unions in the building industry. We hardly need any lectures from the government about the law when they have a regulator intentionally giving misleading advice on the law.
As I said, there will be more questions for the minister to answer. We haven't finished with that matter, I can assure you. But let me just say this finally—and this isn't left until last because it's the least important but perhaps because it's a crucial point to finish on. There's a real potential that this bill contravenes international law in that it contravenes ILO core convention 87: Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948. Even the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised serious questions in this regard and has requested further information from the minister regarding the compatibility of aspects of each of schedules 1 to 4 of the bill. We ratified that convention. Every Labor and conservative government has upheld that convention. That ILO convention provides that, article 3:
And article 4:
Workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.
Article 7 says:
The acquisition of legal personality by workers' and employers' organisations, federations and confederations shall not be made subject to conditions of such a character as to restrict the application of the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 hereof.
Significant concerns in this regard have been raised by the Parliamentary Join Committee on Human Rights in its Human rights scrutiny report, No. 9 of 2017. No responses to those concerns have yet been published, and the committee has not yet published a concluded finding. No-one should think for a moment that the government cares for this convention or its breach, but it is an important matter that should be placed on the record.
It is for these reasons that we oppose this bill. This bill is in its breadth and depth quite remarkable in terms of its attempts to undermine the ability for registered organisations and unions to conduct their business in this country. I have seen previous conservative governments, certainly with the introduction of Work Choices, take on conditions of employment in a pretty savage way. With the introduction of Work Choices we saw that writ large, but I'd have to say the combination of proposed laws by this government—the Turnbull government—is, in terms of the extent and nature of proposed legislation to undermine the capacity for working people to organise and be represented effectively in work places, probably the most I have ever seen. I don't think there is any equivalent to the scale of this.
As I have said very clearly, this legislation goes well beyond the recommendations of the Dyson Heydon royal commission, which in itself should ring alarm bells. The fact that we had a discredited royal commissioner hand down recommendations when it was clear that he had an appearance of a conflict of interest at the very least, and that this government has chosen to exceed those recommendations, is of great concern to Labor, and it should be of concern everyone who believes that unions do have a right to represent working people in this country. Any country without a lawful union movement is a dictatorship. Really, to the people on the other side: I know you are not best friends with the unions, but you might want to consider what it would mean if you do not have a sufficient right to represent workers in work places. It would mean that the character of this country was changing for the worse. It would mean that we were not a democratic civil society. And it would mean that working people who are suffering now as a result of their wage growth being at its lowest in a generation would have an even harder time to properly advance their interests when engaging with their employers.
Labor wants to see a greater level of collaboration and cooperation in work places. We want to see unions and employers work with government to tackle some of the structural challenges of this nation. That cannot happen if all we continue to do and continue to see in this parliament is a government that's at war with working people and their representatives.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
I am a Queenslander. Only recently at Glencore's Oaky North mine were there protests by the CFMEU where they, among other vulgarities, threatened the rape of children.
No-one has been charged.
And here we have the suggestion that bills such as these that address the issue of the integrity of the union movement are actually opposed by the members opposite. It saddens me deeply, as a member of this House, that such activity takes place and there is no condemnation from those opposite. In fact, there was an interjection then that implied almost defence.
Now, we know that the Labor Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the union movement. It is the worst-kept secret in Australian politics. It's of no surprise, therefore, that the member for Gorton himself, like so many opposite—a former union official—will stand in this House and oppose any measure that the union movement disagrees with. The main line of argument from the member for Gorton was that corporations law has problems and that the measures here to address unions should be applied to corporations, yet he gave no examples whatsoever. This is a person who was a senior minister in former Labor governments, who had ample opportunity to rise in this House and address any flaws in the Corporations Act, but failed to do so. Yet he anchors his entire rebuttal of this bill today to some apparent flaws in the Corporations Act.
I rise today in support of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017, and I want to start by informing the House how shocked I was, quite frankly, when researching for this speech, to find that Australia ranks 13th on the latest international Corruption Perceptions Index. We're behind the UK, which is at 10th; Canada, which is at ninth; and well behind New Zealand, which ranks at No. 1. We've fallen by six spots in the last five years, dropping out of the top 10 in 2014. Why is this? Why has Australia dropped so far in its international ranking on the perception of corruption? Well, the widespread misconduct as identified by the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, involving embezzlement and fraud of Australia's unions, certainly hasn't helped. Integrity is at the heart of this issue. I underscore the word 'integrity', for is there any better word in the English language? 'Integrity' is defined as:
… consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one’s actions.
It conjures images of nobleness, of strong moral ideology and a consistent framework of principles. These are words that do not typically describe many unions or employer associations. Nor, might I add, do they typically describe today's opposition.
This bill will help restore such principles by bringing back the faith and trust that all Australians should have in their workplace representatives. Unions are often said to be fighting for the integrity of their members, of the system. But the problem is that they have given very little thought to their own integrity. That is why this bill is so important—essential, in fact. This bill is a commitment that the government gave to the Australian people in 2016, a commitment that is backed by recommendations of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. That's right: this bill enacts core recommendations from that royal commission.
There are four key measures in this bill, four improvements to Australian law to restore integrity to Australia's registered organisations. Firstly, the bill outlines the Federal Court's ability to disqualify an officer of a registered organisation from holding office. Why is this important? Because it relates directly to someone's character and suitability to hold office in a registered organisation. It goes to the heart of their integrity. Not only does this bill automatically disqualify a person from holding office if they have committed an offence, which is punishable by five years imprisonment, but it also gives the Federal Court the power to disqualify officers for a wide range of offences, such as OH&S infringements and breaches of the Building Code. I would have thought everyone would agree that criminals should not be allowed to hold these privileged positions within Australian unions and employer associations. Australian workers deserve far better than that. The opposition has a contrary view.
Secondly, the bill details the ability of the Federal Court to cancel the registration of organisations. The bill proposes that the Federal Court have the ability to deregister or sanction a registered organisation on the grounds of noncompliance, obstructive industrial action or corrupt conduct. The opposition disagrees with that. This bill will ensure that the court can cancel registrations where an organisation or its senior officials have repeatedly broken the law, breached their duties or failed to put their members first. The court can also apply this cancellation standard to one or more parts of an organisation.
Thirdly, this bill considers the circumstances under which the Federal Court can send dysfunctional registered organisations into administration. This bill provides clear steps for the Federal Court to ensure we don't encounter the problems experienced when the Health Services Union went into administration in 2012. This clarity is missing under our current legislation, and this bill closes the loopholes. The bill proposes that the court can appoint an administrator to all or part of a registered organisation when financial misconduct has occurred or its officials have repeatedly broken the law or breached their duties. Yet the opposition opposes such measures. Again, these are fundamental measures expected by all Australians, measures that are appropriate and consistent with modern community standards.
The fourth and final proposal in this bill is arguably the most important, I believe. It provides for the Fair Work Commission to consider whether an amalgamation between two registered organisations would be in the public interest. This measure creates a public interest test to be applied by the Fair Work Commission. It broadens and, more importantly, strengthens the Fair Work Commission's ability to consider the impact of a proposed merger between registered organisations. Many registered organisations have significant assets, enjoy tax-exempt status and have the power to greatly influence policy and markets. This privileged position requires careful scrutiny, especially when two or more organisations consider a merger. It also helps to realign an inequality of regulation that currently exists between corporate Australia and the union movement. Just as measures apply to companies when they seek to merge, these proposed changes apply a set of principles to ensure all matters associated with the merger are taken into account. This includes the organisation's history in complying with the law and any potential impacts on industries and the economy as a result of a merge.
This government is committed to strengthening and fortifying Australia's integrity. This bill complements a multi-faceted approach to stamp out corruption and shore up integrity. It includes reinstating the Australian Building and Construction Commission and creating the Registered Organisations Commission, the AFP's fraud and anticorruption centre and Australia's first open government national action plan. This approach also includes recently introduced fair work amendments such as the protecting vulnerable workers bill and the corrupting benefits bill.
I have no doubt that the opposition will argue against these measures. They will argue that it's an attack on fair play or workers' rights. Workers' rights, surely, means that what Australian workers should have is a right to fair and honest representation by people who can be trusted, by people with integrity.
Let's not forget that more than 40 individuals and organisations were referred for further investigation as a result of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. This bill and other amendments to the Fair Work Act are an ideal opportunity for the opposition not to oppose us but to join with us, to join with the government, to instil some integrity and trust back into the union movement. If anything, the opposition should be delighted with this bill. We are handing it to them on a silver platter. It may even stem the decline in union membership. It is long overdue reforms such as these that will help make the lawlessness of the trade union movement a thing of the past. Bullying and corruption have no place in modern day Australia, have no place in today's work place. Our workers expect and deserve better. Surely all members of this chamber agree with that.
I support this bill, and I commend it to the House, because I believe it will help ensure that those who are charged with representing Australian workers will act in their best interests, in the interests of those workers.
If the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017 is passed it will basically mean the end of democratic civil society in this country. This bill targets the Australian union movement—the right to organise, the right to come together and the right to vote on who you want to represent you. This bill tears apart the very notion of those rights. As the shadow minister said, this bill breaches international conventions. It will basically let the government and the minister of the day dictate and decide who is a fit and proper person and who can be the leaders of our unions. Australian society have every right to be sceptical of the minister having such power given the contributions of the previous speaker, the member for Fairfax, and I am sure of other speakers to come.
The member for Fairfax talked about something that happened at Oaky North mine, but we have discovered that that did not happen. Threatening rape of a child is serious—it is a crime. Raping a child is serious and a crime. It is so disappointing that those opposite, in a bill about integrity, would stand up here and cite rumour. Queensland Police have confirmed that they are not investigating this matter. Even The Australian paper, which is no friend of the union movement, has confirmed that Queensland Police are not investigating this matter. Yet those opposite, in the pursuit of their politics, in the pursuit of passing this bill, will cite any rumour to sensationalise the issue.
I want to say a couple of things about the Oaky North coalminers. I have met them and their families a few times, and they are good people, hardworking people who have been locked out for 100 days because their employer, Glencore, wants to pay workers less. They are using labour hire, bussing people in to do these jobs. They are purely and simply trying to kill the town of Tieri, forcing the workers to be drive in, drive out or fly in, fly out. I have met with the wives and partners of many of the people working at Oaky North, people who love their town, and they are having surveillance and security officers follow them to their kids' schools. The government is not talking about what is happening to the workers or the people who have been locked out at Oaky North. In this integrity bill, they are not talking about the behaviour of Glencore and the way in which they are bullying people. No, instead they refer to something that there is no recording of and which the Queensland Police aren't even investigating.
It doesn't end there. This government's hatred for unions and working people knows no bounds. You would think that a bill that was about ensuring integrity would mention trying to tackle wage theft, trying to focus on the shonky operators, the people involved in labour hire scams, the sham contracting or the cases of modern slavery that have been exposed that are going on in the horticulture industry and going on in food processing. But no. This government is not interested in what is happening to working people and what is happening in some parts of our sector. Instead, the only thing that unites them is beating up on the union movement and on people's right to organise.
This bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017, does everything but ensure integrity. It proposes a fit and proper person test to hold office of a registered organisation and mechanisms for disqualification from office. This comes from a government who, in their own Liberal Party in Victoria, have one of their former directors sitting in jail for fraud. This comes from a government where the Liberal Party's own opposition leader in Victoria is famously known for the 'mobster lobster' scandal. Yet we're supposed to believe that they can bring forward a bill that talks about integrity, new grounds for deregistered organisations and mechanisms for placing registered organisations into administration.
You cannot fault the community for being sceptical of this government when it comes to placing organisations into administration. The government's new tests for doing that include: because organisations organise protests, because they get workers together, and because they dare to let off a siren and get on a megaphone to talk about the wage theft going on in their workplaces. This government seeks to shut down civil society in our Australian democracy, starting with the union movement.
Democracy in our society exists everywhere. Football and netball clubs have an election every year, as do school councils. It is a big part of who we are as a country. For as long as we have had Federation, we have had workers come together to organise, to have elections and to decide who they want to lead them. That is freedom. That is democracy. This government and these Liberal-National Party members are so far away from that in this bill, they can hardly call themselves the Liberal-National Party anymore. I thought the Liberal Party was about liberal individual rights and freedoms. This bill is everything but that, because it says to a group of workers: 'You don't have the right to elect who you want to represent you. You don't have the right to decide if you wish to amalgamate. We are going to introduce this new draconian system to stop you from coming together and organising collectively.' For a party and a government that claim they prefer small government over big government and claim to be about cutting down on red tape, this bill does everything but that. It puts roadblock after roadblock in the way of people wanting to collectively organise and workers wanting to stand up for themselves.
This bill only targets workers, largely. It does not crack down on wage theft, which is now not only a hashtag in this country but a growing phenomenon. It does nothing to deal with the shonks, particularly those in the building industry. An example of that is what happened in my own electorate at the Bendigo hospital. Asset Interiors use a combination of visa workers to work on the building site, particularly on the plastering. There were workers who would come and go. There were 457 and 417 visa holders and people who were here not on working holidays but on tourist visas, and they just disappeared. The company went into receivership and then into liquidation. Small businesses in our electorate that supplied them lost out. The CFMEU organised a protest out the front of the Lendlease office to basically say, 'Lendlease, you need to take responsibility for this; you need to clean up this mess.' After a few protests, the CFMEU said: 'Okay, we will sort it out. We will pay these workers out.' Some of them lost $16,000 in back pay.
This bill doesn't do anything to correct what happened there. It doesn't do anything to stop this from happening in the future. Instead, what it does is make it harder for that union to protest. It makes it harder for that union to stand up for those workers who lost $16,000 and were working in unsafe conditions and for those small businesses who lost money because this company went under. The CFMEU, because of the ABCC, is being pursued for holding those protests to ensure workers got what they were owed. This is the focus of this government. They will fine a union official who fails to give 24 hours notice before stepping onto a workplace $50,00—for the simple, administrative failure to give 24 hours notice. But they will not go after the company that phoenixes. They will not go after the company that rips off workers. They will not go after the company that puts people in unsafe working conditions.
Take, for example, what happened in Perth. A backpacker fell to her death. She didn't have the experience. When she signed up for the job she thought she would be doing traffic management—turning the stop-slow sign. Instead she ended up who knows how many storeys up without the proper training and fell to her death. On that workplace, the employer didn't stop work. It took an ABC journalist calling the police and the police turning up before work on that job stopped. Yet this bill doesn't go after that employer, doesn't go after the conditions under which a person fell to their death. No: it goes after the union—the union that walked on-site to say, 'This work needs to stop.'
This is what this government cares about. It doesn't care about working people. It doesn't care about your rights at work. It doesn't care about workplace health and safety. This government just wants to stop any opposition to its government rules—any opposition from people who might speak up against its mates in big business. This bill does not crack down on the exploitation of temporary workers or modern slavery. This bill does not address the fact that we have guest workers who are here in this country living in the most unsafe, awful conditions. It doesn't address that issue at all.
One of the other speakers mentioned the HSU. Under current laws, there was an issue within that union, the HSU. Those people are going through court proceedings as we speak. This bill wouldn't have changed the fact of what happened in that union. People inside that union stood up to that, and those people were dealt with through the current legal system. This bill, though, doesn't help the Dorevitch workers, who've been locked out and now reinstated. Dorevitch is a company that earns millions of dollars from the taxpayer. People here may have been to them. They are a blood collection agency, basically. All the money they make is essentially from the taxpayer, from our pathology. People who work for Dorevitch on a Saturday are paid $21 an hour to collect blood. They are going through enterprise bargaining at the moment, and they can't get a fair deal. Yet this bill won't help them get a decent day's pay for the work they do. It instead targets their ability to organise.
And it's also about what's happening in construction. This bill will not help all the unemployed construction workers in Perth, many of whom have been locked out of jobs because labour hire companies there are using 457 visa holders. This bill doesn't help them get a job back. This bill doesn't help the 700,000 workers who've lost their penalty rates—United Voice SDA members, people who work hard in hospitality, retail and pharmacy. This bill doesn't restore their penalty rates. This bill also doesn't help the Bupa aged-care nurses who are fighting for decent ratios—the ANMF. This bill doesn't help to ensure safe standards in our aged-care facilities—that there are enough nurses on every shift to ensure quality care for all of the aged residents in these facilities. This bill doesn't help them. This bill doesn't help the AMWU, the AWU and the ETU locked-out workers at the Esso Longford plant. At a time when we're talking about a gas crisis in this country, at a time when we're exporting more gas, at a time when we have a real issue when it comes to energy prices and when it comes to gas, this bill doesn't help those workers who've been locked out, who do not want to accept a massive pay cut.
This bill basically and fundamentally goes after workers' rights to organise. It contravenes ILO core convention 87, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948—in particular, schedules 2 and 3 in this bill, where a union can be deregistered or put into administration because of certain actions taken by two or more officials. This is what this government's doing. This is something you'd expect in countries where they do not have a proud history of freedom of association and democracy. This is what you would expect from countries like Cambodia. This is not what you expect in Australia. In Australia we have always had the right to organise, the right to stand up and the right to protest. This bill goes to the heart of that because it allows one or two officials, the minister of the day or an employer who doesn't like a bit of union pressure to make a complaint that could result in an organisation being deregistered. It says 'fit and proper person'. Again, it is being designed by a government whose own Liberal Party in Victoria have officials in jail and been confronted with headlines referring to 'lobster mobster'. They have ongoing issues.
This is a government that doesn't really care about workers. This is a government that, for all of its preaching, does very little to crack down on the real issues in the work place, like wage theft, like breaches of occupational health and safety and like what is going on in so many of our sectors when it comes to stagnant wage growth. If you truly believe in a liberal society and in freedom and democracy you will vote against this bill, because it is basically a big step towards destroying our democratic civil society that we have always been so proud of in this country.
I was in the building industry for 30 years in a past life as a carpenter, joiner, builder and building construction barrister. I have seen pretty much the best and the worst of what goes on in the building industry. I can say, without any shadow of a doubt, that I too was subjected to union thuggery. Back when I was 19 years of age and a first-year apprentice, I was being so productive on my first day of work on a building site in Melbourne that I was told to slow down by these two big, burly BLF blokes as one drove his finger into my chest. I would have been about 70 kilograms dripping wet. It's a bit different these days, unfortunately! That was just one occasion where I was personally subjected to thuggery on a building site in Australia.
The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017 seeks to return integrity to the building industry. Unlike what those opposite might believe, on this side of the House we are not against unions. In fact, a previous speaker on behalf of the opposition, the member for Gorton, talked about how we are against unions and against workers. That is totally false. We are not against unions; we are not against workers. We support workers. What we are against is unions that break the law—nothing more, nothing less. There are good unions and there are bad unions.
The CFMEU is a bad union. I will come to the evidence of that now. This is not Andrew Wallace, the federal member for Fisher, saying this; this is Justice Jessup. In July 2016, he said:
The CFMEU's record of noncompliance with legislation of this kind has now become notorious … That record ought to be an embarrassment to the trade union movement.
Judge Jarrett in the same month said:
The CFMEU has an egregious record of repeated and wilful contraventions of all manner of industrial laws.
Justice White in April 2016 said:
The CFMEU's compliance with industrial legislation generally has been poor.
You might think that's the understatement of the year, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta. He said that the union's prior history:
… bespeaks an attitude by the CFMEU of ignoring, if not defying, the law and a willingness to contravene it as and when it chooses.
Judge Vasta said:
It would be apt to describe the behaviour of the First Respondent—
namely, the CFMEU—
as "sheer thuggery". Such thuggery has no place in the Australian workplace. Contraventions of the FW Act that involve such thuggery cannot be tolerated.
We've heard the ACTU Secretary, Sally McManus, say on national television that she supports unions that don't want to follow the law but want to break the law, that if they disagree with the law they should be entitled to break it. Those opposite—some of those opposite, in particular those who were in some parts of the ACTU—have got no concept of the rule of law. One of the fundamental principles in our democracy is that no-one is above the law. That includes unions, workers and everybody. No-one is above the law, and unions have to abide by the law whether they like it or not.
This bill arises out of the royal commission into union corruption. It is part of a suite of bills that have been put and passed by the parliament, including the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act and the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Act. There would be no-one, even on the other side, who could reasonably argue that we on this side, the government, are not trying to protect and do the right thing by all workers. That's why we introduced the corrupting benefits bill. We on this side of the fence understand that for every corrupt payment that is received someone had to write the cheque. In those instances where companies write a cheque for a corrupt benefit, they should be held to account, and they will be held to account under the legislation brought by this government—unashamedly so, because we believe in the rule of law.
This bill does four things. This bill will strengthen the provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act in four respects. Firstly, it deals with the issue of mergers. The bill will ensure that the Fair Work Commission can consider the public interest in its existing role of approving mergers of registered organisations. There is some talk—we've all heard it—that the Maritime Union of Australia and the CFMEU want to merge. Why anybody would want to jump into bed with the CFMEU is beyond me, but, be that as it may, if those two unions, two of the strongest unions in this country, ultimately merge they should be held to a public interest test just like any merging corporation. But at the moment there is no public interest test. If a corporate merger will substantially lessen competition, the Australian Competition Tribunal can approve the merger only if it is in the public interest. All we are looking to do is align those two comparisons. Interestingly, those opposite, who oppose this legislation, are happy to oppose corporate mergers when they feel it's appropriate but don't oppose mergers when it comes to the union movement. Under the changes in this bill, these are exactly the kinds of issues that the Fair Work Commission would be able to consider in the context of merging registered organisations, and Labor has not made clear why it holds a view that is different for corporations and unions.
Secondly, this bill deals with the grounds on which a registered organisation can be disqualified. The bill adds new grounds for disqualification to the existing grounds. These new grounds will apply standards for the disqualification of officials that are similar to those that apply to company directors. It will also implement recommendations of the Heydon royal commission. The bill will ensure that disqualification is available where officials commit serious criminal offences, such as blackmail and extortion. Time and time again we have seen officials, in particular officials of the CFMEU, brought before the courts and convicted. Why any organisation would want to have a convicted criminal as part of their organisation, or a leader of their organisation, is beyond me. This bill looks at who's involved in the organisation and seeks to set up a test as to whether someone is fit and proper. If you want to be a builder—
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Fisher will be given an opportunity at that time to conclude his contribution.
In the parliamentary break, Parramatta Mission hosted its annual interfaith prayer service to mark the International Day of Peace. I was invited to light the peace candle and I now would like to acknowledge the people of faiths who came together to pray for peace. Thank you to Pearl Wymarra from the first people of Australia; Nishan Basmajian from the Armenian Apostolic community; Satu Hessar-Amiri from the Baha'i community; Margaret Parker from the Brahma Kumaris community; Thubten Chokyi from the Buddhist community; the Very Reverend Father Robert Bossini from the Catholic community; Pandit Jatin Kumar Bhatt from the Hindu community; Neil El-Kadomi from the Islamic community; Bhupinder Jain from the Jain community; Kati Haworth from the Jewish community; Ganzibra Professor Doctor Brikha Nasoraia from the Mandaean community; Manjinder Singh from the Sikh community; Reverend Keith Hamilton from Parramatta Mission and the Uniting Church; and Dr Pheroza Daruwalla from the Zoroastrian community. A special thanks also to the students from Arthur Phillip High School, who contributed not with a prayer but with a haka; Dr Gorur Krishna Harinath for giving the occasional address; and Reverend Dr Manas Ghosh for presiding over the event. I live in a great community that is incredibly diverse, and it's important to champion our diversity of faiths and be thankful for our freedom. Let peace fill our hearts, our world and our universe.
On 19 September this year, tragedy unfolded in my electorate of Mackellar. An Avalon mother, a hairdresser and valued member of our community, was tragically stabbed to death by her own son. Rumours of drug use—particularly ice—ran rabid, sparking many discussions around the rise of ice use on the Northern Beaches.
Unfortunately we are becoming all too familiar with this epidemic and the damage ice addiction is inflicting on our communities. What can we do? It is a question I am asked over and over again. What is the government doing? We are spending $10 million to spread the message about the severe risks around ice use to would-be users and to let them know where they can get help. You can help too—help spread the message that it's okay to seek help, and where it is available. We can fund rehabs, treatment facilities and medical institutions all we want, but it won't make a difference if we can't get the people who need treatment there. In the wider North Shore area alone, groups like ACON, the Sydney Drug Education and Counselling Centre, Odyssey House and New Horizons provide counselling and rehabilitation treatments. I will be putting all this information on my website and Facebook page, and I encourage everyone to spread the information and help make our area healthier and safer for all.
I rise to send my sincere condolences to the family and friends of those affected by the horrifying terrorist attack in Mogadishu, Somalia on the weekend. On Saturday two deadly car bombs were detonated in a crowded street in the middle of a traffic jam in Mogadishu. Information is still coming through, but at the last count 276 people were killed in this attack and over 300 people were injured. This is the worst terrorist attack in Somali history, one of the deadliest attacks in the Horn of Africa and one of the most lethal in the world. President Mohamed Abdullahi 'Farmajo' Mohamed declared there would be a three-day mourning period for Somalia and stated:
We will observe three days of mourning for innocent victims, flags will be flown at half-mast. Time to unite and pray together. Terror won't win.
This was a cowardly, cruel attack designed to intimidate everyday Somali people. The terrorists wanted to disrupt the lives of ordinary Somalis, to scare them and to bring chaos to that nation. As we have done in the face of terrorist attacks around the world in recent times, we must stand united in solidarity with the Somali people in the face of these cowardly attacks on innocent people. Australia is home to many Somali Australians who have fled violence and conflict in their country of birth to start their lives anew in our country. I offer my thoughts and condolences to them too as we face this common scourge together.
On Saturday, I had the pleasure of attending the Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club's open day and season launch. We were blessed with beautiful weather, which made a great day even better for the hundreds of club members in attendance. I would like to congratulate the club president, Andrew Chandler, and his committee for the wonderful work they do. Seacliff have pioneered the Beach For All access mat, which allows people with disabilities to access the beach. For many, this is the first time in years or in their lives that they have been able to get down onto the sand. Seacliff's dedicated young and not so young volunteers give thousands of hours over summer to keep our beach users safe by watching people swimming along the coast and by saving lives when they get into trouble.
Senior club members teach younger members the importance of volunteering, beach safety, exercise and teamwork. They also help keep our community strong by supporting one another and having a bit of fun at dinners and at the very popular Sunday afternoon live music sessions. I have tried to do my small part to support the Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club and was proud to secure several election commitments to help these wonderful volunteers. The coalition government is providing $150,000 to replace Seacliff's old surf-life-saving tower, and the plans are almost finalised. We are also providing a grant for solar panels, to help reduce electricity costs so that Seacliff can stop worrying about their power bills and instead focus on what they do best: keeping us all safe at the beach.
Last week, on my second visit to Norfolk Island, my final for this year, I met with the Banyan Park Playcentre management committee to discuss the challenges they are facing on the road to a regulated facility, accredited educators and also, most importantly, child-care rebates. Unlike on the mainland, families on Norfolk Island are paying full fees for child care, without any rebate. This is having a significant impact on the productivity of the island, particularly for women. Women are not returning to work because they can't afford child care. The cost is too prohibitive. Thanks to the tireless efforts of the fearless women on the management committee, the centre has secured $900,000 from the Building Better Regions Fund program, for upgrades to the facility. But that is going to take around 12 months, and the centre needs action on two fronts, right now. The New South Wales government needs to step up, take responsibility, and introduce the necessary framework to allow the Norfolk Island community to take the next steps on the road to the child-care rebate. That is, getting the facility regulated, and that needs to happen yesterday. The Turnbull government also needs to legislate for Norfolk Island to be included in the relevant framework so it can receive the child-care rebate, and that needs to happen before March next year. Ideally, it should have happened yesterday. If we are serious about equity for the Norfolk Island— (Time expired)
For many years, our country communities have been suffering because of the chronic shortages of doctors in the bush. Country people know there is an abundance of doctors in the cities, and they are acutely aware of this divide and this inequality between the city and the bush. The Murray Darling Medical School aims to fix this problem by training doctors in the bush for practice in the bush. Charles Sturt University knows that country students who train in the country are far more likely to live and work in the bush after they graduate. For example, 75 to 80 per cent of CSU's country allied health graduates stay in regional areas. In pharmacy, 92 per cent of on-campus country students find work in the regions, and CSU's philosophy of training and building our country workforce is now having a positive effect across a range of professions. For example, 70 per cent of accountants in inland New South Wales are CSU graduates.
On Friday, we officially opened the new engineering building at Charles Sturt University, which is training the next generation of engineers, who will literally build country Australia. The Murray Darling Medical School will tailor its medical degree to prepare graduates for practice in country Australia. Eighty per cent of places in the Murray Darling Medical School will be quarantined for country students, and we know that it works. James Cook University has pioneered this model in North Queensland. No-one has been able to land a glove on the case for the Murray Darling Medical School. Country communities now want it delivered, the real thing, with no ifs or buts. The time for the Murray Darling Medical School has come.
Thiha is from Burma and Hussein is from Iraq, and they are mates. They are students at Woodridge State High School, and they are change makers. Their journey and friendship is one of a number of truly remarkable stories in a documentary launched last week in my community. The Change Makers Project is a collaboration between the University of Queensland journalism school and some of the students and staff at Woodridge High School, which is smack, bang in the middle of my electorate. It is a beautiful, uplifting response to the sneering, sensationalist rubbish that is often presented about our local area. These are our stories told our way. They are stories of hope, pride and inspiration. They are stories of coming together.
I can't adequately convey here just how meaningful this project is to my community. You need to watch it for yourselves at changemakersproject.com. To the students involved, I want this Australian parliament to know how moved our community was on Thursday when watching your work come together after 18 months of dedication—not a dry eye in the place—how grateful we are to Scott and Chrissy Downman and Principal Sharon Schultz and her team for leading the students through this work, how incredible you are and how proud I am to know and represent you and to try and make change with you.
On behalf of the community, I wish to commend Mayor Troy Pickard for completing 11 years of dedicated service as mayor of the City of Joondalup. Mayor Pickard was first elected in 2006, following the suspension of the council and the appointment of commissioners to administer the city. During his three terms, he has provided stable and visionary leadership in local government and contributed to both the economic and the community development of our city.
With a population of 161,000 residents, the city of Joondalup has been transformed over the past decade by more than $2 billion worth of commercial construction in the Joondalup CBD alone. Through urban planning initiatives, the city has developed into a vibrant metropolis, balancing suburban environments with vibrant district and activity centres. Mayor Pickard has supported a range of local community groups, sporting clubs and service organisations. In addition, Mr Pickard has served as President of the Western Australian Local Government Association and as President of the Australian Local Government Association.
May I take this opportunity to recognise in parliament the exemplary service of Mayor Troy Pickard to the community of Joondalup and to local government nationally. I wish him and his wife, Felicity, all the best for their future endeavours.
You would think that, with housing out of control in Melbourne and over 35,000 people stuck on waiting lists for public housing, governments would be building new public housing on the scale that we did in the 1960s; but, instead, the Victorian Labor government wants to sell off public housing land in the inner city to private developers. Developers stand to make big profits but public housing residents stand to lose out. By the time they finish turning the Flemington estate, which is around the corner from me, into a Docklands-style area, there will be 20 new social housing units and 820 new private developments. Residents have been kept in the dark and are facing huge insecurity. The Labor government is even stopping my office from delivering information about the redevelopment to residents. When the government decides what citizens can read about the future of their own homes, we are in scary territory. This plan isn't about increasing public housing stock on the scale we need; it is about money.
Liberal governments have long looked at inner city public housing land and seen dollar signs—we expect that—but Labor should be better. If Labor sells this public land, we will never get it back and Melbourne's public housing and Melbourne's housing crisis will only get worse. But residents are fighting back. Yesterday, the state Greens MP Ellen Sandell and I joined hundreds of residents and supporters in Flemington to say no to the sell-offs. The communities stopped the sell-offs in Richmond and Fitzroy five years ago when the Liberals tried to do it, and we can do it again with this Victorian Labor government.
On Saturday, 7 October, I had the pleasure of attending two important events on the Canning agricultural calendar: the Live Lighter Perth Hills Festival and the Waroona Show. The Live Lighter Perth Hills Festival, formerly known as the Karragullen Expo, is an annual exhibition showcasing the northern hills of my electorate. What started as a machinery field day has evolved into a local attraction for orchardists, producers, growers, hobby farmers and families alike, and it welcomes thousands of visitors each year. Events like these don't happen without the tireless work of the community. So thanks to Bruno and Brett DelSimone and the volunteers from the Hills Orchardist Improvement Group for another great event. Likewise, my congratulations go to the people of Waroona for yet another successful Waroona Show.
The Waroona Show goes from strength to strength each year, and with over 15,000 people through the gates this October it is not hard to see why it has been crowned the biggest one-day show in Australia. Highlights from the day included celebrating 50 years of De Rosas Highway Motors as one of the major exhibitor and presenting awards to Patricia Hillary-Nheh and Barbara Sturges for their outstanding cakes. I note that Barbara has taken out the Yarloop CWA trophy for most points in a cake competition for the fourth year running. Well done, Barbara.
Again, this event wouldn't be possible without the 100-odd volunteers who give up their time or without the hard work of the Waroona Agricultural Society. A special thanks to President Maree Ellis, Senior Vice-President Eric Walmsley, Junior Vice-President Donna Walmsley and Secretary Alison Birch for their hospitality. (Time expired)
I rise today on behalf of the Parliamentary Friends of Netball to congratulate the Australian Netball Diamonds on their clean sweep in the Constellation Cup across the last two weeks. After a disappointing final in the Quad Series, the Australian Netball Diamonds went back to training and came out fighting, with that true Australian fighting spirit, to take a clean sweep of the Constellation Cup. I would like to congratulate Lisa Alexander, our national coach, for doing an amazing job with the team and I congratulate Caitlen Bassett on the terrific leadership she showed as captain throughout the series.
It was great to see it live on television. Women's sport in Australia is taking great strides. It is fabulous to see netball up there in the public eye, across the word, as a leading sport for women. It was fabulous to watch this great competition with our friends from across the ditch. Commiserations, of course, to New Zealand, to the Silver Ferns, for what must be for them a disappointing series. But good luck to them in their preparation, and we will see them again on the court at the Commonwealth Games in April in Brisbane. Go Australian Diamonds! This country is well and truly behind you and your campaigns for confident girls. I finish by saying that the Australian Netball Association are leaders in this world. I note their position on marriage equality and thank them for that position.
Yesterday was a great day of celebration when I joined local residents in Moggs Creek, a beautiful hamlet between Aireys Inlet and Lorne on the Great Ocean Road, to celebrate the announcement of another $50 million of road safety works for this magnificent iconic road. These works include a new bus stop for Moggs. For the first time, the people of Moggs Creek will have a bus service and public transport. This came about because of the many people who came to me advocating for improvements and who attended our Great Ocean Road summits. There will be a new pedestrian bridge and intersection upgrade at Skenes Creek. The people of Skenes Creek will be absolutely delighted. There will be pedestrian improvements at Kennett, Lorne and Apollo Bay. The Apollo Bay war memorial roundabout will be upgraded. The works also include the Lavers Hill intersection improvements; turning lane upgrades at multiple lookouts, including at Urquart Bluff; Wild Dog Creek Road intersection upgrade; new parking areas at Grey River; upgrades at Eastern View and Castle Cove; and some access improvements at the 12 Apostles entry, which is of course a world-famous tourist attraction.
In contrast to the previous federal Labor government which did not back this road, I'm incredibly proud of the $100 million we are now delivering in partnership with the state. Tourism infrastructure is not adequate. More needs to be done. That's why the Shipwreck Coast master plan must be funded by Labor.
I am very pleased to join the member for Lalor in congratulating the Australian Netball Diamonds on their four-nil clean sweep of the Constellation Cup after a convincing 16-point win over the New Zealand Silver Ferns, 58 to 42, in Sydney. This is the Diamonds' first Constellation Cup clean sweep in four years and only their second since the annual home-and-away test series against New Zealand, our fiercest rivals, was launched in 2010. A shout-out to MVP, wing-attack Liz Watson—a real team player—on an outstanding match. Aussie captain Caitlen Bassett said post match that the squad wanted to make a headache for coach Lisa Alexander and the selectors—and they have—leading into next year's Commonwealth Games.
As a kid who grew up playing netball at Baker Park in Wyong and a very proud patron of the Wyong District Netball Association and the Central Coast Heart—the only regional club in the Netball NSW Premier League—I would like to thank Netball Australia for the opportunity to be courtside in Sydney. I would also like to acknowledge Rodney Watson and Louise Sullivan, directors of Netball NSW—your passion for our game is palpable. The future of our game in New South Wales is in good hands.
Our female athletes are leading the world—the Matildas, the Opals and the Australian women's cricket team—and these female athletes deserve recognition and support to participate and complete, from grassroots to internationals. Congratulations to the Aussie Diamonds.
This Saturday will mark a major milestone for the South Grafton Public School. The school turns 150. The committee, teachers and students are preparing for a wonderful day of celebrations. I would like to acknowledge the committee—Janelle Buckley, Kim Lavery, Mark Newman, Jolene Rouse, Naomi Heyman, Emma Streader, Carmel Small, Andrew Tapp, Lisa Mason and Sue Winters. Congratulations to the principal, Peter Hickey, and the vice principal, Kevin Jones. Also, a special thank you to the P&C members who have helped—Kelly Vickers, Lance Mahy and Judy Preston, who was a teacher for 30 years at the school.
The school has had many students excel in different areas—Troy Cassar-Daley, the Australian singer; Matthew Colless, the director of the Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the ANU College of Science; Jeff Harding, the Australian National Boxing Hall of Fame inductee; and Kara Sutherland, the New South Wales and Queensland representative cricketer, just to name a few.
This Saturday will be a wonderful acknowledgement of a great public school which has provided continuous opportunities to students in our community for over 150 years. Happy birthday and well done to everyone involved.
For the last four weeks while parliament has been in recess, the Leader of the Opposition has been working hard to shine a light on the incompetence and inadequacies of this Prime Minister—but that's enough about the member for Warringah! The Leader of the Opposition has also been working very hard to show how the government is failing on the things that matter for the people of Australia.
I've been working with and I've been focusing on the NBN. Right around regional Australia, from Yass to Townsville, from Rockhampton to Nowra and all the way across to Bunbury, people are saying the same thing—we shouldn't spend $50 billion on a phone system only to see services go backwards and prices go up. It is not good enough. The story is the same—bungled installations, slow speeds and endless games of NBN ping-pong where you try to get your phone issues resolved and nobody takes responsibility. Hours and hours and hours are spent by small businesses on the phone trying to get their problems fixed only to get no resolution. Thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in revenue is being lost by small businesses. I was up in Rockhampton last week, where I heard of a florist who had their phones go down on Valentine's Day, and motorcycle companies are losing thousands and thousands of dollars every week because their phones won't work. It is not good enough. Stop fighting amongst yourself and deal with the problems of Australia.
I'm here to speak on the Deception Bay Dragons Football Club and the Lions Recycle For Sight organisation in Redcliffe, who have both benefitted from the Australian government's solar grants. I recently visited both community groups and checked out their new solar systems.
I want to thank the Deception Bay Dragons Football Club managers, James and Kim Dean, for the great work that they have done. Since taking over the club in 2008, they have significantly increased membership and have made a great number of improvements at the club. Their new 60-panel, 15-kilowatt system saves them over $4,500 per year in power bills, allowing them to reinvest their savings to ensure membership fees stay low and to save for additional upgrades, such as installing netting behind the goals to stop the balls being kicked out onto Old Bay Road.
I also want to highlight the great work that Lions Recycle For Sight do. Last week alone, they shipped off over 69,000 pairs of glasses and other medical supplies to the Philippines. They have now installed a six-kilowatt lithium ion battery as well as a 23-solar-panel system. This system generates enough electricity to power their daily operations and reduces their power bills to almost nothing. The battery backup allows them to operate at night as well. I'm proud to be part of a Liberal/National government delivering reliable, adorable and renewable energy.
Last Monday night's airing on the ABC of Four Corners gave visual representation to the volume of PFAS-laden firefighting foam that was allowed to leach into my community's aquifer and earth. It revealed that the Department of Defence knew the dangers of it years before they let on to my community. This contamination and contaminant continues to leach into the properties of the people I represent and, even today, the technology and equipment in place is inadequate to deal with the situation. It is a lot like, I'm feeling, the government response is at the moment—totally inadequate.
The value of people's properties has been decimated. Their livestock, their eggs and their produce are unsafe for consumption. The soil and water beneath them are tainted with this persistent chemical. This pollutant is in their very bodies—in the blood of their children. Through no fault of their own, many people in my electorate of Paterson have lived a nightmare for the past two years that has touched every facet of their lives.
I implore the government and the member for Sturt, whom I have a good relationship with: Minister Pyne, come to Williamtown, bring the Prime Minister and the defence minister. Come with a decent solution. We are tired of it, we are angry, we need your help. (Time expired)
Whilst being back in the electorate of Swan, I caught up with Christopher Turner and his mum Alex to hear about his trip to Canberra in August. Chris is a year 8 student at Aquinas College. He loves sport. He enjoys school and hanging out with his mates, and he had a great time on Rottnest Island during the school holidays. Chris also has a Cochlear implant. At just 17 months of age, Chris was diagnosed with a hearing loss. After his family moved to Perth six years ago, Chris enrolled in the Telethon Speech & Hearing School Support (Outpost) program at Aquinas. He has continued to excel ever since.
As I said, Chris and his parents came to Canberra as part of the Power of Speech event. Chris delivered a fantastic speech on the topic of ensuring the future for people with hearing loss to a number of parliamentary colleagues. Chris was just one of the six Australian and New Zealand young deaf people invited to speak at the event. He spoke confidently on the challenges that he has faced and the opportunities ahead of him in the future. Chris and his mum called into my office during the school holidays. It was great to be able to hear about his big trip to Canberra. Chris, you're a remarkable young man and a credit to your parents, Alex and Michael. I know you have a very bright future ahead of you. I also thank Aquinas College for running such an important program with the Telethon Speech & Hearing group.
Yesterday, in the city of Elizabeth, the Holden Dream Cruise was held. Thousands of Australians came to pay their respects to an industry that provided employment for generations of workers and created truly Australian motoring icons—the EH, the Monaro, the Torana, the Commodore. It was a bittersweet moment for the community. They have immense pride in Holden's achievements in the postwar era and immense pride in a workforce that, right up until the very end, made Holden Elizabeth the No. 1 GM factory in the world for quality—unheard of in a factory facing closure. These workers were defiant up until the end. They look to this parliament for economic leadership and they know Bill Shorten and Labor came to South Australia, had a policy and provided leadership on jobs. But where was the Prime Minister? He was kayaking around Sydney Harbour—'Mr Harbourside Mansion' himself paddling in his pond and making speeches to seagulls!
The member for Wakefield will resume his seat. The member for Wakefield will refer to members by their correct titles. The member for Wakefield has the call.
Well, for the member for Wentworth, it's not too late. This Friday, don't go kayaking; come to Holden Elizabeth, watch the last Australian-made car go off the line, apologise for your predecessor and the damage that this government has done. You're all guilty men and women. You've shut the car industry. You've cost thousands of jobs.
I would like to raise some concerns that have been expressed to me by constituents in my electorate of the Therapeutic Goods Administration decision to change codeine from a schedule 2 to a schedule 4 good by February 2018. This would actually require that any drug that currently contains codeine no longer be available directly from a pharmacist. It would require someone to go to their doctor to get a prescription. Now, it is true that nobody disputes that there are many risks associated with products that contain codeine. However, what we have to consider are the unintended consequences of such a ban. It will see greater pressure on Medicare and on our healthcare system, and many constituents in regional areas will have to go to their doctor and will have to pay the gap fee. So I would hope that both sides of politics here, rather than nitpick, can discuss this issue with the states and work with the Pharmacy Guild and with the medical professionals to see if we can solve this problem. We don't want the drugs sold over the counter. There is a way that the drug can be dispensed through the pharmacies with real-time monitoring, which will be just as effective but much more cost-effective than the system that is being proposed. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That further statements on indulgence on the death of Dr Evelyn Ruth Scott be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
My questions to the Prime Minister. On 9 June the energy minister stated: 'The Prime Minister said it very clearly in his press conference: there are a number of virtues for the clean energy target. It is technology neutral and it lowers electricity prices.' So why is the Prime Minister caving in to the member for Warringah by abandoning the clean energy target, a target which would save Australians money on their power bills?
I'm surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would open up with a question on energy prices on the very day—in fact, within not many minutes—that the Senate passed the abolition of the Limited Merits Review. This is a coalition government initiative, an initiative of my government, which the ACCC has said in its report will bring down the cost of energy in the future. Let's read what the ACCC said about our initiative: 'The ACCC welcomes the move. Reviews sought by network operators have added billions of dollars to the cost born by electricity users. The ACCC considers that the removal of this avenue of appeal will help ensure network pricing is moderated in the future.' That's the action we have taken. We have also taken action to ensure that retail costs come down. We've gone out to the retailers and ensured that they deliver the best deals to their customers. And thousands of Australian families are paying less for electricity now—saving hundreds of dollars a year in many cases—than they were before.
Of course, the single biggest factor in pushing up electricity prices in recent times has been the price of gas. Why's that? Well, the Labor Party in government allowed gas to be exported from the east coast of Australia without paying any attention to the need to protect the domestic market. We took strong action and we delivered a commitment—a contractual commitment—from the energy companies to supply more gas. As honourable members would know, wholesale prices have been coming down as a result.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The question only referred to the clean energy target. Both the quotation and the question were specific to the clean energy target, and the prime minister is talking about everything but the clean energy target.
Whilst the quote had many aspects in it, it did refer to the clean energy target. But I refer the Manager of Opposition Business to my earlier rulings on the subject matter, and the Prime Minister is speaking about energy. The Prime Minister has the call.
The Leader of the Opposition has been in favour of an emissions intensity scheme; he's been in favour of a clean energy target. The only thing they've got in common is that he doesn't understand how either of them works! He doesn't know the difference between a renewables target and an emissions reduction target—one slogan after another. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: we will deliver a careful energy plan based on engineering and economics, designed to deliver the triple bottom line of affordability, reliability and meeting our international commitments. And that is in stark contrast to the ideology and the idiocy that have been inflicted on us for years by the Australian Labor Party.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on what the government has done to ensure that energy is affordable and reliable for hardworking families and businesses, including those in my electorate of Robertson? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for her question. Mr Speaker, let me start with the alternative approaches, because we know what the approach has been from the Labor Party. We do. We know what their approach is: no engineering and no plan; massive investment in renewables, with no regard to the fact that the sun doesn't shine all the time and the wind doesn't blow all the time; and force-feeding a massive amount of renewables into the South Australian market without any backup or storage whatsoever, driving out reliable power to introduce variable power—an extraordinary example of incompetence that resulted in South Australia having, as we know, to the great cost of South Australians, the most expensive and the least reliable electricity in Australia. This was a situation entirely created by a state Labor government that went into it with eyes open, proudly claiming this was a bold experiment. Well, it was an experiment, and what it demonstrated was that Australians need to know that, when they flick the switch, the lights will come on, and they need to be able to afford to pay the bill. That's what they managed to establish.
Now, what we've done since we came into office is systematically deliver policy that is based on fact and on engineering, and we have delivered lower prices for thousands of Australian customers of electricity.
Opposition members interjecting—
Honourable members over there say no, we haven't. Oh yes, we have. Talk to your constituents; they'll tell you about the better deals they're getting. They're getting better deals. And what about all those businesses that depend on gas? They'll tell you that the wholesale price of gas is coming down. Why is that? Because of actions we took; that's why.
What about the biggest single cost in a retail customer's electricity bill? It's the cost of the network—the poles and wires. That's about half the bill. That cost has been going up year in, year out because the energy companies have been able to game the system and rush off to the courts to appeal against the Energy Regulator. Did we ever hear the Labor Party call for that to stop? Never. The only thing we saw when the energy minister did his best to persuade the states to agree to this was steadfast opposition from Labor governments, who did not want to see their own energy assets—in Queensland, for example—being prejudiced. We've delivered that now. Labor kicked this bill off to a committee. I'm glad it emerged and it has now been passed. So, that's what we're doing: bringing downward pressure on electricity prices, based on sound policy, facts and engineering— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. In his presentation to the coalition joint party room, the energy minister confirmed 'a clean energy target lowers prices'. Given the energy minister told the government's own party room that it would lead to lower power prices, why is the government caving in to the demands of the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, by abandoning the clean energy target, which would save Australians money on their power bills?
I thank the member for Port Adelaide for his question. He comes from a state which has been run by a Labor government for nearly 16 years and has the highest prices and the least reliable energy system in the country. The member for Port Adelaide should know that in his own electorate Adelaide Brighton had to book a major loss as a result of the lights going out. That was in his own state and his own electorate.
The clean energy target was one of 50 recommendations from the Finkel review. We have said we will respond to the clean energy target as one of the recommendations. But we have also accepted 49 of the other recommendations, recommendations which will help deliver lower prices and a more reliable system. They include reforms like greater notice of closure, so large thermal generators like Hazelwood, or Northern in the minister's own state, cannot close with just a few months notice but with a minimum of three years notice; that intermittent sources of power, wind and solar, which Labor governments and the federal opposition have welcomed into the grid without the necessary back-up storage, will now be required to provide that storage; putting in place an energy security board to help implement the Finkel recommendations; importantly, developing our gas resources on a case-by-case basis using scientifically proven methods, not the blanket, mindless bans and moratoriums that the Labor Party has supported in many states and territories. If only the Labor government in the Northern Territory or Victoria developed their gas resources, people would have lower prices.
One thing we won't do on this side is we won't tell lies to the Australian people like the member for Port Adelaide did! Like the Leader of the Opposition did in the last sitting fortnight, when they came to the dispatch box and said that power prices have gone up by $1,000. You won't hear them repeat it anymore, because the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission, in correspondence tabled in this House, have directly contradicted the claims from the Labor Party. So stop making things up. Stop making bogus claims. I say to the Opposition: repeat it in this House, have the courage of Braveheart, walk up to the dispatch box and repeat your lies of the past. You won't, because you know that it's misleading the Australian people.
The minister will return to the dispatch box and withdraw that unparliamentary term.
I withdraw that, Mr Speaker, but I do say—
No, you can resume your seat. You've finished. Is the member for Port Adelaide seeking to table a document?
I seek leave to table a PowerPoint presentation headed Clean Energy Target lowers prices from the energy minister.
Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the release of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's preliminary report on retail electricity prices? Will he explain how the government is working to put downward pressure on energy prices, not just for the people of Petrie but for all hardworking Australian families and businesses?
I thank the member for Petrie for his question and for the hard work that he and all members on this side of the House are doing to ensure the government is putting downward pressure on electricity prices for their constituents, and for their passion and commitment to get the right deals for the consumers in their electorates. I know the member for Petrie would agree with the chairman of the ACCC, who said today, 'If you want to get cheaper electricity, then you've got to focus on what's caused electricity to become more expensive.' That was the message from the chairman of the ACCC today, and that is what I asked him to investigate back in April as part of the government's broader package of measures which is designed to put downward pressure on rising electricity prices. The commissioner has come back today with his draft report to get those facts. He has prised open the books of the electricity and energy companies, as he was empowered to do, and he's come back with some facts. He has commended the government on the action we've been taking to get this job done. The first finding, amongst many, is he has concluded that Labor's carbon tax drove up prices and, as a government, we were right to get rid of it. He concluded that Renewable Energy Targets are about subsidising investment in renewable energy to create a renewables industry with scale, not about bringing down prices, and he found they hadn't; in fact, they'd been pushing prices up. The customers have been paying for that, as he said, smearing costs right across the spectrum.
Labor wants a bigger Renewable Energy Target. They're not satisfied with the price increases that are being driven by the current one; they want one of up to 50 per cent, just like they want an emissions reduction target of 45 per cent that would require you to wipe out the emissions of the entire electricity industry. That is the plan of the Leader of the Opposition to drive up electricity bills. He's also found that, when you blow up coal-fired power stations, which the Labor Party cheered on, it pushes up prices, particularly when you have no plan to replace it with dispatchable base load power like this government has when it comes to Snowy 2.0. Blowing up coal-fired power stations with no plan is no plan at all, as we saw in South Australia. They also found that the big poles and wires companies, while state Labor governments stripped dividends off them and allowed them to gold-plate their infrastructure, drove up prices more than anything else. We have kicked out of the park this free kick that was provided to those companies, public and private, to do that. As the Prime Minister remarked, it has already passed in the Senate today. He found that the power retailers had been not treating their loyal customers well and had been mystifying their customers. The deal we put together with the electricity retailers was about ensuring those customers got a better deal, sitting down, getting the deal done, as we did with gas, delivering on our plan. (Time expired)
I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer, where he claimed he had obtained—
If the Leader of the Opposition could just start again—I'm assuming you're directing your question to the Prime Minister.
Yes, the question is to the Prime Minister; I'm sorry. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer, where he claimed he had obtained contractual commitments from the big gas companies to supply more gas. Given that this is a contractual agreement, can the Prime Minister confirm what penalties will apply to the big gas companies under this contract, and will he table the contracts in the parliament?
The agreement that the gas companies entered into is a public document, and honourable members can peruse it at their leisure, but the reality is we've secured that agreement, and that is a very significant move. It is, in short, an agreement. It's an agreement as a contract.
Opposition members interjecting—
Of course it is an agreement; it's a contract. You can use whatever semantics you like; the bottom line is this: we had the character and commitment to bring those gas companies to Canberra and get them to do the right thing by the Australian people, and the Labor Party did nothing. The Labor Party allowed gas to be exported from eastern Australia without doing anything to protect Australian consumers. Then the member for Port Adelaide told Barry Cassidy that they had no warning. 'Nobody told us; it all came as a bolt from the blue,' he said, 'How could it possibly happen that allowing all of this gas to be exported would affect the domestic market?' That's what he said on Insiders back in April, and then finally he had to fess up and tell the truth. The truth, very bluntly, is this: they were warned. They were told that allowing gas exports from the east coast without any protection for the domestic market would put upward pressure on prices and tighten supply, and that's exactly what happened. We, about to become the world's largest exporter of LNG, got to a point where businesses were looking at shutting down on the east coast because they couldn't get the gas they needed, and so we had the commitment to threaten to impose export bans on gas and negotiated with the companies and secured their commitment.
Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?
I have.
I would like to inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Ross McLean AM, former member for Perth. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. After the government scrapped the carbon price, pollution went up. It went up in 2015, again in 2016, and this year too, making climate change worse. Over that time, wholesale electricity prices have doubled too. Prime Minister, instead of letting the climate deniers dictate your energy policy by legislating to ensure coal-fired power stays in the system longer, wouldn't it be better to reregulate electricity prices, introduce an energy storage target and increase the Renewable Energy Target so that we cut pollution, cut power bills and keep the lights on?
I hate to remind the member for Melbourne that, when they were in coalition with the Labor government when they were last in power, power prices increased by 100 per cent. That was the Greens legacy. The confected moral outrage from the Greens when it comes to climate policy is amazing. When members on this side of the House were dealing with their constituents who were dealing with Cyclone Debbie and when members on this side of the House were dealing with their constituents who were dealing with the fires in Sydney, who was out there on their soap box blaming climate change? The member for Melbourne, and that was disgraceful. That was absolutely disgraceful. It might be an inconvenient truth for the member for Melbourne that emissions in Australia are at their lowest level in 27 years, in terms of GDP and per capita—the lowest level in 27 years. Even electricity sector emissions have been falling in the last two quarters.
The member for Melbourne refers to storage. It was this government, the Turnbull government, that for the first time put the issue of storage at the top of the policy agenda. What did the Labor Party in South Australia do about storage? Nothing. Now they have to spend $110 million on diesel generators that don't work when it's hot. They have to take more coal than before from Victoria across to the Heywood interconnector and they have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money building a new gas-fired power station. What did the Labor Party ever do about storage? What did the Greens ever say about storage? That is why, on this side of the House, we've invested more than $200 million in a vast array of projects on storage and we're investing in Snowy 2.0. At the end of the day, if the lights don't stay on, there's no point in reducing emissions. Our focus is on reliability and affordability while staying true to our international commitments. That is why we've commissioned expert advice from AEMO and from the ACCC, and it's on that advice that we have been acting to lower people's power prices.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to ensure hardworking Australian families and businesses like those in my electorate of Dunkley have a secure and affordable gas supply? Are there any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. I know he is deeply committed to lowering the power bills of his constituents and ensuring a more reliable supply. That is why we've taken action on a number of fronts, recognising there is no single silver bullet to lower power prices. As the Prime Minister mentioned, we have been successful in passing through the Senate the abolition of the limited merits review process. In Labor's own election document in 2016, they said, 'Power bills have skyrocketed and this has been a result of massive investments in networks, poles and wires.' But what did they do when they were in government? Absolutely nothing. That is why we have now abolished the limited merits review process. The work we have done with retailers can save a household a thousand dollars or more, by simply changing retailers or changing contracts. Investment in storage is another important reform in order to reduce the volatility that has been driving up power prices.
When it comes to gas, the Labor Party did nothing when they were in office. The member for Port Adelaide has now admitted that they knew power prices would rise as a result of the tight supply on the east coast due to setting up the export of large amounts of gas without the necessary supply for the domestic market. So we spoke to AEMO and we spoke to the ACCC, and we received their advice about what would be required to ensure that there are no domestic shortfalls in 2018 and 2019. We were told that there could potentially be a shortfall of 107 petajoules in 2018 and 102 petajoules in 2019.
As a result of the work we did, we were able to secure agreement from the gas companies to ensure that there won't be those shortfalls in those years. But the long-term solution is to get more gas out of the ground. That will occur only if the states develop their gas. The Northern Territory is sitting on 200 years worth of supply. The Andrews government is sitting on 40 years worth of supply. In New South Wales, if Narrabri were developed, it could provide up to 50 per cent of New South Wales's gas. And the Chief Scientist himself has made it very clear that you can develop unconventional gas resources in a scientifically proven and environmentally sustainable way on a case-by-case basis.
So I say to the Labor Party: use your good offices with your Labor comrades in the other states. Get their support for lifting these bans and moratoriums. But they're only costing jobs and they're only sending prices higher, and as a result of our interventions in the market—
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
Member for Whitlam!
we are doing more every day to secure lower gas prices for Australian families and businesses.
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The member for Whitlam will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that a clean energy target would 'certainly work', that 'there is no question it would work'. Does the Prime Minister stand by that statement or has the member for Warringah been drafted to lead the government in developing a new energy policy?
I thank the honourable member for her question. There are many approaches to energy policy that can work. The question is about ensuring that you adopt the best. That's the task of government: to get beyond the slogans and the three-letter acronyms that honourable members opposite don't understand and to have a policy that works—and have the one that works best. That's our commitment—engineering and economics, not three-letter acronyms and terms that honourable members opposite can laugh about but do not understand.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House steps the government has taken to alleviate energy prices that threaten the ongoing growth in the agriculture sector? And is he aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for his question and understand the concerns he would have on alternative policies, such as a 45 per cent emissions reduction target—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.
which would actually put blue-collar workers out of a job, and such as the 50 per cent renewable target by the Labor Party which would put blue-collar workers out of a job, and this ridiculous process of net zero emissions by 2050. There'll be net zero jobs by 2050 under the Labor Party! I can understand how the member for Parkes would be standing up for his people—the people of Cobar, the people of Gilgandra, the people of Wilcannia, the people of Dubbo, the people of Bogan—
Opposition members interjecting—
I can understand why they would start making fun of Bogan, because they've turned their back on all the working class people. They now think working class people are a bit of a joke, something to be made fun of. That's the sort of people they are. They've also turned their back on the people of Blacktown, the people of Ipswich and the people of Geelong. And the Leader of the Opposition turns his back on this parliament every day. But we have a plan, for the honourable member for Parkes. We believe there should be better transferability between retailers. We brought that process into effect. The Prime Minister, the energy minister, the Treasurer and I brought that into effect.
We believe in coal-fired power. We really do. We believe in coal-fired power more than the member for Hunter, who has given up on coal workers and power workers, and more than the member for Shortland. I've seen your polling—your polling's gone through the floor. I've seen what happens to the blue-collar workers. They know that the Labor Party no longer represents them. The member for Herbert just sits back idly as jobs go off. She doesn't stand up for the people of Townsville. She no longer believes in the people of Townsville. They've given up on Augathella for Annandale, Bourke for Balmain and St George for St Kilda. They only have one idea: they want rebates.
The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, you know our view on whether he should be speaking at all. If he's going to speak, he should be relevant to the question.
The Deputy Prime Minister is being relevant to the question.
The reality is that we need cheaper power for irrigation and we need cheaper power for meat processing. We still believe that blue-collar workers deserve a job. The Labor Party now believes that blue-collar workers are politically incorrect. We see the Labor Party come forward and talk about targets that are going to put working men and women out of a job, shut down the manufacturing industry and put more people out of a job. We are doing everything in our power to try and keep these people. You can either have cheap power or cheap wages and no jobs. We believe in cheap power and we're going to bring it about.
My question is to the Prime Minister. On 10 August the Prime Minister promised to conduct an investigation into whether Bruce Billson had breached ministerial standards by lobbying MPs on matters relevant to his previous portfolio. Can the Prime Minister verify this letter, posted a few minutes ago by 7.30, that the investigation did not speak to any ministers, did not interview any current MPs and did not even review the public documents, which are tabled in this parliament? Can the Prime Minister confirm the investigation involved Mr Billson simply giving an assurance that he had complied with the code?
I will take that question on notice and I will respond in due course when I have advice from the secretary.
The Manager of Opposition Business.
Given that answer, I seek leave to table the relevant letter from the secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the government, as part of international efforts, is working to peacefully resolve tensions arising from North Korea's illegal nuclear and ballistic missile program?
I thank the member for Berowra for his question and I commend him for recently hosting a forum that was attended by well over 100 Korean Australians and others at which I spoke and addressed a number of these issues, which are of great concern to all Australians. North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear weapons tests are provocative, threatening to other nations and illegal in that they are in direct defiance of numerous UN Security Council resolutions prohibiting such tests. Australia has joined with other nations including South Korea, the United States, Japan, China and others in a collective strategy whereby we are maximising diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea in a peaceful campaign to compel North Korea back to the negotiating table.
On the diplomatic front, an increasing number of nations are making it clear that North Korean ambassadors are no longer welcome in their capitals. We have seen nations including Spain, Mexico, Peru, Kuwait, Egypt, the Philippines and others expel their North Korean ambassador. Indeed, there hasn't been a North Korean ambassador in Australia since 2008. On the economic front, we support the tough, comprehensive set of sanctions that has been implemented by all of the Permanent Five, particularly China and the United States, and we urge all countries to abide by the UN Security Council resolutions on sanctions.
Last week the Minister for Defence, Senator Marise Payne, and I attended the regular two-plus-two South Korean meeting with our counterparts, Minister Kang and Minister Song. We also met with the director of the National Intelligence Service in South Korea for a lengthy briefing. We travelled to the DMZ and met with UN Command, as I know the Leader of the Opposition has recently. We met with General Brooks, who is the commander of United Nations Command; US Forces Korea and ROK-US Combined Forces Command. We reiterated our solidarity with South Korea and our support for even tougher sanctions against North Korea because it must be deterred from its illegal tests and compelled back to the negotiating table so we can achieve a denuclearised Korean peninsula.
North Korea's belligerent and threatening response will only strengthen our resolve to find a peaceful resolution to the rising tensions on the Korean peninsula that have been caused entirely by North Korea's provocative and illegal behaviour. The Australian government—and I'm sure we're joined by the opposition—urges North Korea to abandon its illegal tests, to return to the negotiating table and to direct its resources and energy into alleviating the suffering of the North Korean people.
My question is to the Prime Minister. NBN Co has recently revealed that it spent $177 million of taxpayers' money buying over 15 million metres of new copper. Why is the government still investing in 20th century copper when Australia needs a 21st century National Broadband Network?
The honourable member might reflect on the fact that the NBN Co is activating more customers every 10 days than the Labor Party did in six years—quite an accomplishment. Fifty-one thousand paying customers in six years—that's what Labor had. Had we persisted with Labor's failed project, it would have taken between six and eight years longer and $30 billion more. Right now, the project is on track—
Ms Owens interjecting—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The level of interjections is far too high. The member for Parramatta is warned, as is the member for Wakefield. The Prime Minister will resume his answer.
Right now, the project is on track to be completed by 2020. It is on track. It's on budget. The rollout is proceeding on a scale never before seen in Australian telecommunications.
I want honourable members to understand that the government recognises that there have been concerns among customers about not getting the speed that they were advertised by their retail service providers. That has been a consequence, as the company has made clear, of the retail service providers, such as Telstra, Optus, TPG and dozens of others, not buying sufficient bandwidth from NBN Co to support their customer base. The company is taking steps to ensure that there is full transparency on that point—as, indeed, is the ACCC.
The NBN was one of the greatest train wrecks created by the Labor Party, and that's saying something. It was a shambles. What we have done is turn it around. We're getting it built and getting it completed. We are hearing honourable members stand up and somehow or other say that copper is bad—I mean, really! The honourable member, were she doing her homework, would know that right around the world telcos are rolling out broadband infrastructure on a multi-technology basis using fibre, copper and a combination of them. I really would expect the Labor Party to do better than this. They should focus on the real objective, which is to get every Australian connected. NBN Co is well on the way to doing that and to ensuring that customers get the service they order on the terms they are paying for. That's what we're seeking to do. Honourable members opposite would do well to abandon this Conrovian rhetoric of years ago and focus on the technology issues of today.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important that leaders of unions and employer organisations act in a way that promotes integrity and respect? Is the minister aware of reports about intimidation, threats or harassment of Australian workers and their families by members of registered organisations?
I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. In the last fortnight we've seen some of the worst examples of bad CFMEU behaviour that we've seen in a very long time—in fact, probably more than we've ever experienced before—at the Glencore picket at Oaky North in her electorate. The threats being shouted by the CFMEU at the Glencore workers are, quite frankly, beyond the pale. They would shock most members of this House—calling out to employees legitimately going to work that they wish they would have head-on collisions on their way home from work, but even worse than that, saying that these CFMEU workers would rape the children of the workers at Oaky North at the Glencore precinct. I know that the Labor Party's prepared to put up with most stuff from the CFMEU. They're prepared to tolerate almost anything, but there are many people in this House with children and probably with grandchildren. How could anybody in this House imagine a threat being made by a union official to them, going into their workplace, that anyone would rape any one of our children, because we were going about our business? I would ask the Labor members to simply pause for a moment and imagine how horrific that is for the father or mother of any child. These are real threats. I've seen the videos. I've seen the Facebook posts.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo continues to defend the CFMEU in this place. When is enough going to be enough for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up to the CFMEU? We know that he has taken $8 million in donations from the CFMEU since he became leader of the Labor Party. It's time for the Labor Party to say no to any more donations from the CFMEU. It's time to get the CFMEU off the national conference, the state conference, the preselection processes, the policy fora of the Labor Party. Bob Hawke had the backbone to stand up to the BLF; it's time this leader of the Labor Party had the backbone to stand up to the CFMEU, because it goes to a question of: 'If this Leader of the Opposition's not prepared to stand up to the CFMEU, despite all their heinous crimes, how will he stand up for Australia's national interests on the overseas stage? How will he stand up for Australia's national interests in Australia and beyond if he's not even prepared to say "Enough is enough" to the CFMEU?'
My question is to the Prime Minister. We are now in the fifth year of this Prime Minister's mismanagement of the NBN. Is the Prime Minister aware that students at the Central Coast Rudolf Steiner School in Fountaindale can't connect to the NBN, even though Fountaindale has supposedly had the NBN since September last year? What sort of incompetence means that the cemetery behind the school has an NBN connection but the school doesn't?
I thank the honourable member for her question. I'm certainly happy, if she's able to raise the specific customer's details with me, to make sure it goes to the minister and to NBN Co. What I can say, if honourable members care to pay attention to the NBN's weekly rollout report, which I do—an example of transparency on the part of my government which had no counterpart under the Labor Party, I might say—is that every week the numbers go up, and there are currently over six million premises that are able to connect, and just under three million have services that are connected. So the rollout is going at great pace, and I'm sure the matter that the honourable member has raised will be able to be dealt with.
I will take the opportunity now to respond to a question from the member for Watson. He asked me, in respect of the complaint he'd raised about Bruce Billson, whether the secretary of my department had interviewed any ministers, as opposed to former ministers. The answer is, I'm advised, he did not, and I table the letter that the secretary of my department wrote to me on 4 September.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to protect—
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Chisholm will resume her seat. The member for Grayndler and the Leader of the House will cease interjecting. I'm trying to hear the member for Chisholm. The member for Chisholm will begin her question again.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to protect Australian families from criminal gang members? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I want to thank the member for Chisholm very much for the hard work that she's doing in her community and the support that she provides to the government's program to cancel the visas of people who are in Australia who have committed serious offences against Australians. Now, the government have been very deliberate in saying to people who have come here on visas that abiding by the conditions of those visas is a condition of their presence in our country, and, when they break the conditions of those visas—that is, when they commit criminal offences against Australians—we cancel those visas.
I'm pleased to report to the House that the number of cancellations under section 501 of the Migration Act is now over 3,000, and it includes the cancellation of 154 outlaw motorcycle gang members. What we know of outlaw motorcycle gang members is that they are the biggest distributors of ice and amphetamines in our country. They import, they manufacture and they distribute it, and they are otherwise involved in serious crime, including providing muscle for the CFMEU on building sites around the country.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Labor Party scoffs at this. But we know that the price of a unit in Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane is up by 30 per cent because of the involvement of the CFMEU. Does the Leader of the Opposition have any regard for that whatsoever? No, he does not, because this Leader of the Opposition will always stand up for the union bosses over the union workers.
We saw recently, only on 6 October, an incident that occurred at a mining site in Queensland where the CFMEU was on strike, and there was this tirade of abuse, as the Leader of the House mentioned before, from CFMEU members to family members of workers that were working on this mine site. It was absolutely disgraceful, the language and the intimidation that took place. The police had warned the CFMEU members about this. But who do you think should turn up to provide moral support to the CFMEU? It was the godfather of the union movement in this country. We refer to him as the Leader of the Opposition in this place. The godfather of the union movement turned up to provide moral encouragement to the criminals within the CFMEU membership. They have provided $3 million from the CFMEU to the Labor Party since he was elected Leader of the Opposition. No wonder Australians look at this Leader of the Opposition and recognise that he does not have the moral fortitude to become Prime Minister of this country. It is clear that this man supports the criminals within the CFMEU—not one word against the conduct of those people. It just shows that the character of this Leader of the Opposition is absolutely lacking. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Elizabeth and her family live in Warnervale in my electorate. Is the Prime Minister aware that her whole street can't connect to the NBN, even though her suburb has supposedly had it for years? The communications minister promised that Elizabeth's street would have an operational NBN micronode back in February, but eight months later she's still waiting. Given we are now in the fifth year of this Prime Minister's mismanagement of the NBN, isn't it clear that Australians are suffering with a second-rate NBN because this Prime Minister is so out of touch?
I do thank the member for her question. With over six million premises now able to connect to the NBN, the rate at which the NBN is being rolled out is unprecedented. Some 35,000 customers are connecting to the NBN every week. After Labor was in power for four years, they had achieved barely 50,000. In four years, all they could achieve was 50,000. We are rolling out this network at 35,000 premises a week.
The member was not here—the member was lucky not to be here—to see the rank incompetence of the Labor minister who was responsible for dreaming up this scheme without any concern at all about how it was practically going to be implemented. In the typical Labor way, when they left government, when they shuffled helplessly out of government, they'd spent $6 billion, and a mere 50,000 premises around the country could connect. It was a chaotic, incompetent mess. Virtually nobody on the board knew anything about telecommunications. We had to make very significant changes to the board and the management team. And we're now getting on with delivering this network, with rolling it out by 2020. This rollout is on track to be delivered. That is an extraordinary achievement, and it's no thanks to this incompetent rabble from whom we inherited a project that was in chaotic disarray.
Of course, in any rollout of this scale, there will be customer experiences that are not what we want. That's why there's a lot of work going on to understand those specific situations and to deal with them. If the member wants to give me specific instances, of course we'll look at it. But remember this: when we came to government, the NBN was in disarray. There was no plan to get it done. We're getting it done. Every year, we're meeting the targets, getting it rolled out. Six million premises are now able to connect. That is delivery.
My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister update the House on measures the government is taking to protect our community from shocking crimes, and are there any threats to these reforms?
I thank the member for that question. In this session of parliament, the parliament is going to have to deal with two very important issues in relation to community safety. First, it's the toughest crackdown on child sex offenders that we have seen in this country in a generation, including mandatory minimum sentences for the worst offenders. We also need to deal with illegal firearms trafficking. The government plans to crack down on it, and we'll be putting legislation back before the Senate for the fourth time, again including minimum mandatory sentences for people who smuggle guns in this country.
When we introduced the first tranche of legislation dealing with child sex tourism, the Leader of the Opposition stood up in parliament within two hours and pledged the Labor Party's support. We announced the toughest crackdown on child sex offenders last month yet the Labor Party still have not decided where they stand on this issue. Seriously, what is there to prevaricate about? We want paedophiles off the streets, and we believe this legislation deserves bipartisan support.
Everybody does.
Everybody does—well, why can't you say you support it now? Stand up and say you support it—is it really that difficult?
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Yes, Mr Speaker. Of all the personal claims that can be directed at members of parliament across the chamber, what the minister is claiming now—
Government members interjecting—
The minister will cease interjecting—I am trying to hear the point of order from the Manager of Opposition Business. Manager of Opposition Business, I'd like to know what the point of order is.
It relates to making reflections on members. The minister specifically pointed to members along the front bench of the chamber and made specific allegations about their view on whether or not paedophiles should be locked up. When you are pointing at people like that and you are talking about their position on an issue like this, that is a personal reflection and the most vile sort of accusation someone can make in this place.
I have listened very carefully to the Manager of Opposition Business, and members will appreciate I extended significant latitude to him to make his point. I'm very concerned about reflections on members. I was listening very closely to the minister. He is talking about legislation that is before the parliament—and I don't need interjections agreeing with me, frankly, when I'm trying to address the House—and he is talking about the aims of the government's legislation in that regard. In that sense, strictly, he is in order but I do say to him that I would like him to take care with the language he uses in his answer.
The allegation I was making is very clear, Mr Speaker, and that is that it is a month since we introduced this legislation and the Labor Party still cannot say if they support it or not. That is just a statement of fact. If they want to get up now after my answer and say whether they support it or not, I'm sure the government will facilitate that opportunity. That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition did when we introduced our largest crackdown and took passports off paedophiles—he pledged their support within two hours of our announcing that legislation.
This is a very important point about the government's priorities. We believe it is vitally important that the most serious sex offenders serve time in prison. We believe that people responsible for gun smuggling serve time in prison. Yet the Labor Party don't know what they think about the first proposal and they actively oppose the second proposal. Three times we have introduced into the Senate legislation relating to illegal firearms trafficking and three times in a row the Labor Party have joined with the Greens to block it.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney is warned.
They have a choice to make in this session of parliament.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney has been warned!
Will they prioritise community safety? Do they believe that people who smuggle guns should serve time in prison or not?
An opposition member: Yes we do.
Well support it then. It is incredibly straightforward. These are decision points for the Leader of the Opposition. What does he prioritise? Does he want to join with the government on this important piece of legislation for community safety or does he want to prevaricate, not knowing where he stands, and actively impose the other?
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that because of his mismanagement of the NBN Australia has now slipped to 50th place in the world for internet speeds, behind even Kenya, Russia and New Zealand? How are Australians expected to compete in a global digital economy with second-rate broadband? Isn't it clear that Australians are suffering with the second-rate NBN because this Prime Minister is so out of touch?
I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this particular misleading question, because we are told by the Labor Party that apparently there is some problem—according to the fact that under an internet speed survey conducted by the company Akamai, Australia is doing worse than Kenya. Our speed is slightly less in average speeds, in megabits per second, than Kenya.
There is one small fact that the Labor Party has neglected to mention in pointing out this report! Approximately two per cent of the population in Kenya can connect to broadband—two per cent. We've got one country where a small number of private sector providers provide a high-speed broadband service. We have a network which is now available to six million premises and will be available to 10 million by 2020. We are providing a high-speed network that is broadly available to the entire population, and the speed which is available on NBN is materially faster than on other networks and, as the percentage of people on NBN increase, the average speed is going to increase. This is a very good example of the highly misleading kind of commentary we have from the Labor Party choosing and deliberately distorting a report and failing to point out the most obvious point—ours is a network which is designed to serve the entire population and they compare it to another country.
I want also to look at what is happening in the electorate of Dobell, because we had a couple of questions from the member for Dobell earlier today. How many premises were connected to the NBN in Dobell when the Labor Party left government? Was it 10,000?
Government members: No.
Was it 1,000?
Government members: No.
Do you know how many it was? It was 191! I'll tell you something else. After these geniuses had been in charge of the fibre rollout for four years, zero were on fibre. All of them were on satellite. You people are a hopeless incompetent rabble. You know nothing about broadband. You should keep your heads under the desk.
The member for Greenway is seeking to table a document.
I seek leave to table the extracts from the State of internetQ1 2017report, which shows global rankings for Kenya at 43, New Zealand—
Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how the coalition's prudent economic management enables the government to list vital drugs which save and improve lives, and how does this compare with other approaches?
I want to thank the member for Goldstein, who has been a strong advocate for the listing of new drugs, such as Kalydeco, Entresto and Stelara, which have helped people with many different conditions.
In order to do this though, of course, there has to be a very solid approach to economic management. There are two fundamentals to the way in which we have been able to do this. Firstly, there is the way in which the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and other members of the government have been able to deliver strong jobs growth and strong economic growth—this year predicted to be 2.75 per cent. In addition to that, we've been able to make a fundamental agreement with Medicines Australia to ensure savings of $1.8 billion in medicine costs, which will be reinvested fully to allow us to list new medicines in a timely manner. This has been a unique agreement which has brought together medicines, economic management and patient care.
In that context, last week the Prime Minister and I were fortunate to list a new drug, ibrutinib. Ibrutinib is a drug which supports patients with leukaemia and also with lymphoma. What that means is that we have a drug which otherwise would have cost patients $187,000 a year available for $38.80, or $6.30 per script—a dramatic change to bring this literally lifesaving drug into the reach of all Australians who qualify and require it.
It follows on from what we were able to do not long ago with the listing of OPDIVO. OPDIVO is an extraordinary immunotherapy. It's part of the new wave of immunotherapy which is bringing the opportunity of life to people around the world. On that occasion the drug was available for lung and kidney disease. For a cost of $1.1 billion, 4½ thousand Australians are able to access a drug which, for them, would have been over $130,000 per annum.
So that's one approach. That's about listing all of the drugs which are recommended by the PBAC. The alternative approach, when you don't manage the economy properly, is what we saw under the previous government, where they deliberately deferred—extraordinarily—drugs for schizophrenia, asthma, pulmonary disease and IVF which had all been approved by the PBAC. If you want a definition of good economic and health management, that's what we're doing; if you want a definition of bad economic management and nothing more than medifraud, it's their approach, on that side, to listing drugs. On our side we're doing real things to help real patients. (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes, I do.
The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.
In question time today the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection made allegations in relation to my visit to the Oaky North mine. As I said last week, I do not condone unlawful or disrespectful behaviour whoever does it.
Then why do you turn up to support it?
The minister!
As a father, I can tell you that I find that sort of language disgusting and abhorrent. If it is true it must immediately be reported to the police. These workers have been locked out by a multinational company until they accept cuts to their pay and conditions, but there is never an excuse for this type of language.
Give back the money!
The minister will cease interjecting.
Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 105(b), I ask that you write to the Minister for Social Services seeking reasons for the delay in answering questions in writing. The relevant questions appear on the Notice Paper as Nos 748, 749, 750, 751 and 752 and relate to health care card eligibility for sufferers of chronic disease.
I thank the member for Indi. I will so write this afternoon.
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 the Parliamentary Services Act 1999, I present the annual reports for 2016-17 of the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services.
I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2017-18 entitled Audit report No. 8, Administration of the Freedom of Information Act 1982; Audit report No. 9, Management of the pre-construction phase of the Inland Rail Program; Audit report No. 10, Design and monitoring of the National Innovation and Science Agenda; Audit report No. 11, Australia Post's efficiency in delivering reserved letter services; and Audit report No. 12, Management of the contract for telephone universal service obligations. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual report 2016together with the minutes of the proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—At its public hearing on 16 August this year, the House Economics Committee scrutinised the ACCC, which outlined its main responsibilities as Australia's competition and consumer regulator under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The committee scrutinised the ACCC on its performance and roles across various markets, recent activities and priorities for the coming year.
One of the very important aspects of this hearing concerned the ACCC's new Financial Sector Competition Unit. This unit was established in response to a recommendation of the House Economics Committee in its review of major banks. One of the things that the House Economics Committee identified was a gap in the regulatory system at the moment and a lack of regulatory supervision of competition issues related to the banks and, in particular, in relation to the pricing of interest rates. So the committee was very pleased when the Treasurer announced in the budget that the ACCC would be empowered to set up a new financial services unit, with about $13 million of funding over four years.
At the hearing, the committee heard that the ACCC's work on competition in the banking sector has already begun. Indeed, at our hearings with ANZ and Westpac last week, both chief executives of those banks confirmed the new ACCC competition monitoring unit had already required the banks to provide documents to the ACCC in relation to the setting of interest rates, and that is a very positive development. It is an important reform because it will require the banks to fully and transparently account for their interest rate decisions. If bank executives are making misleading statements about interest rate movements—for example, if they were to misleadingly attribute price increases to a cause that was not in fact accurate—the committee expects this will be identified by the ACCC unit and the banks will be held accountable.
The committee notes the new Financial Sector Competition Unit, under the leadership of Mr Marcus Bezzi, has been requiring the banks to provide documents. In a recent statement the ACCC noted that it would contest the banks' contention that the lending limits imposed by the prudential regulator were to blame for the recent rate rises. The committee looks forward to the outcome of this detailed scrutiny.
In addition to its new role in the banking sector, the ACCC has been given new powers to enforce a ban on excessive payment surcharging by Australian businesses and is poised to take enforcement action if businesses continue to charge inappropriate fees on credit, debit or pre-paid card payments. The ACCC is also monitoring broadband performance to inform consumers about fixed-line broadband services delivered under the NBN. The hearing also discussed the ACCC's investigation into pricing in the electricity sector, and the committee notes the publication of that report today.
The committee also discussed with the ACCC the Takata airbag recall, which has resulted in more than 2.3 million Australian vehicles being recalled due to serious safety issues dating back to 2009. The committee notes that the ACCC is monitoring the voluntary recall to determine whether a mandatory recall is necessary to address safety risks for consumers, and the committee notes further developments from the government since that hearing. Given these new roles and powers, the ACCC must remain vigilant in monitoring and protecting Australian consumers against anti-competitive behaviour and breaches of consumer law in Australia's markets. The committee will continue to scrutinise the performance and effectiveness of the ACCC's operation. On behalf of the committee, I thank the chairman of the ACCC, Mr Rod Sims, and other representatives of the ACCC for appearing at the hearing on 16 August. I commend the report to the House.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 174: IMF new arrangements to borrow; scientific cooperation USA; science research innovation NZ; technological innovation Israel.
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 174.
The report contains the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' review of four treaty actions, the New Arrangements to Borrow for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and three agreements on scientific cooperation with the United States of America, New Zealand and our great friend Israel.
The renewal of the New Arrangements to Borrow for the IMF is intended to help the IMF maintain resources to prevent or resolve crises in the balance of payments and reserve positions of IMF member states.
The IMF derives its resources from funds obtained through quota based contributions from members, supplemented by agreements to borrow additional funds from some members. These agreements make up nearly half of the funds available to the IMF.
The borrowing arrangement is one of those supplementary agreements.
Australia is a founding member of the borrowing arrangement.
The renewal of the borrowing arrangement is for a period of five years from November 2017 to 2022 and will continue our commitment of up to $4.15 billion.
The committee identified three issues in relation to the borrowing arrangement.
Firstly, we are concerned that the borrowing arrangement, which has been in place since 1997 and renewed on a number of occasions, has not been previously referred to the committee for oversight of this parliament, despite being a binding treaty action.
I can report that the Treasury has now identified this as a significant oversight, and has moved to rectify the problem. All credit goes to the Treasurer and the Treasury for this work, considering it's been going on for twenty years with little parliamentary oversight. Well done, Treasurer.
Secondly, due to the timing of the referral, the treaty action became binding before we have had a chance to examine it. This means the committee cannot make a useful recommendation on whether binding treaty action should take place prior to it going into place, but, of course, can look back retrospectively.
Finally, the Treasury did not originally provide sufficient information about our overall commitment to the IMF, which, in addition to the borrowing arrangement, includes a loan agreement and quota contributions to the IMF.
This information was provided on request, and the Treasury was been very timely in doing that. We are very appreciative of that at the committee level.
The IMF plays an important role in maintaining international financial and monetary stability and the committee takes Australia's ongoing support for the organisation very seriously.
Likewise, three science agreements with the United States, New Zealand and Israel are designed to enhance scientific cooperation between Australia and these three great friends of our nation.
In the current global world, innovation and technology are driving productivity and these types of agreements provide important benefits for Australian businesses.
The treaty action provides a formal legal framework to encourage cooperation and collaboration in scientific activities. They are expected to boost Australia's innovation system, attract investors and promote commercialisation in the global market.
We recognise the benefits of such agreements and recommend that binding treaty action be taken for all three agreements. The committee notes especially the great work that the innovation hubs are doing in Israel, and some of the outstanding successes Australian companies are having working with the great state of Israel through these innovation hubs.
On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
() (): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled The rollout of the National Broadband Network 1st report of the 45th Parliament
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—In making comment today about this report can I acknowledge the strong contribution by the previous chair, the member for Robertson.
The member for Robertson was the chair of this committee from September last year until June this year—and so led much of this committee's work during its 12 months of operation.
This included writing to individuals and organisations, inviting and continuing to accept submissions right up until August.
In this way the information the committee received was continually updated throughout the year.
As noted in the report, ours was very much a 'live' inquiry about the rollout of the NBN as it was happening around us.
The committee received 191 submissions from a range of individuals and organisations and staged 15 public hearings, taking evidence from every state and territory including regional areas.
Much of the committee's focus was on the experience of consumers in migrating their telecommunications services to the NBN, as well as the quality and reliability of this service once connected.
As was noted when the report was first formally presented to the Speaker and President on 29 September, the bulk of the report contains the views and recommendations of the other side of this chamber.
And just on comments made in relation to the date when the report was presented to the parliament, on the eve of a long weekend and before major football finals, several media outlets decided this must be the work of the government seeking to somehow hide the findings.
May I make the point that it was the Labor members of this committee who delayed the original recommendations from myself as chair.
Not only did we end up with a highly politicised overview of the committee's work, we ended up with a further 18 separate recommendations.
One thing I believe still resonates, despite Labor's efforts, is the common-sense decision by this government to deliver the NBN through a multitechnology mix.
Yet what was the very first recommendation adopted by the Labor Party and the crossbench? Let's toss out all the work the NBN has undertaken. Let's go back to Labor's plan A, developing the entire rest of the network using fibre-to-the-premises or, at a minimum, fibre-to-the curb technology.
Labor had their plan A when they were in government, and it flopped!
There were numerous cost overruns, delays in meeting their own rollout targets and the interim satellite services they introduced was a shambles.
So what do Labor members want? To do it all again—to take another six to eight years longer to complete the build of the NBN, slug taxpayers an additional $29 million and push up people's internet bills by at least $40 a month!
The committee did recognise that the government is committed to completing the network and ensuring that all Australians have access to very fast broadband as soon as possible at affordable prices and at least cost to taxpayers.
As both the chair of this committee and a local member of parliament for a regional area, I recognise that not everyone is experiencing a smooth transition to the NBN.
NBN's own surveying indicates that 85 per cent of end users are finding that the service is meeting or exceeding their expectations.
In terms of complaints, when you have a committee inviting submissions from people who are experiencing challenges, we're obviously going to hear mainly from those who are unhappy or where the service is not what they had expected.
Sometimes it is an unforeseen technical issue; sometimes it is equipment provided by the retail provider—or one of a hundred other possibilities.
The clear message the committee received was that there needs to be a better way to fix those problems more quickly when they arise—and to keep the customer informed.
NBN knows this and is already taking steps to make it happen.
It's also why recommendations from our side of the House sought to strengthen the customer experience.
The non-government members of the committee have come up with exhaustive commentary—most of it political argument rather than conclusions drawn from evidence taken by witnesses in submissions and public hearings.
Their recommendations include new audits, new regulations, new reference groups, new regulations and—as usual from Labor—a lot more taxpayers' dollars!
Government members of the committee believe the smarter approach is to boost the powers of our existing agencies and authorities to work more closely with the NBN to deliver the broadband that Australia has come to expect, and will receive, from this government.
Measures are already in place to call NBN and the RSPs to account if they don't deliver the speeds consumers have signed up for.
We want to put the customer experience front and centre and focus on measures that need to be in place to further resolve their issues when they arrive.
I thank the committee chair for her report and the work that she has put into it—not an easy job running interference for the NBN in the current environment. I want to speak to the recommendations of the majority of members of this committee. But, before I do, I want to make the observation that for 12 months members of parliament of this place and the other place have travelled the country listening to the stories of consumers, the stories of businesses who've been struggling to have their connections improved and to have their broadband services fixed. We've heard stories of loss, of woe and of problems from one end of the country to the other, so to say that everything is going well simply beggars belief. I recommend to the Prime Minister that when he comes into question time tomorrow he shows a little more humility to those hundreds and thousands of households and small businesses around the country who've lost thousands and thousands of dollars worth of revenue and thousands and thousands of hours out of their lives because the Prime Minister's NBN project is not working.
The joint select committee has come up with 23 hard-hitting recommendations on how to get the project back on track. We should not as a country be spending $50 billion on the largest infrastructure project we will see this century only to see service standards and quality go backwards, and yet that is the experience of too many consumers. It is a very rare proposition where we see the Greens, Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, the Nick Xenophon Team, Independents and the Labor Party on the one page supporting a series of recommendations. That fact alone should have made government members sit up and say, 'There is something to see here'. There are 23 hard-hitting recommendations on how to get the project back on track, and yet the government members of the committee have not supported them. There have, of course, been a couple of honourable exceptions. The member for Mallee, a man who is obviously in touch with parts of his community, was willing to come out and say, 'You know what, some of these recommendations would make a hell of a big difference in my electorate. They should be looked at.' If only there were more members of the National Party and the Liberal Party who were willing to stand up in defence of their electorates as the member for Mallee was in defence of his.
On the 23 recommendations, we agree with the chair that there is an urgent need for new consumer and supplier rights which provide protections, wholesale service levels and remedies for service failures. You might ask why we need a new raft of consumer protections and consumer rights. We currently have a universal service obligation and a customer service guarantee. I'm sure it'll give all members who are present in the chamber and members of the public in the gallery today great comfort to know that the universal service obligation protects their right to a phone booth but not to a decent standard internet service. In this century, it's more attention that's needed to the broadband service than to the phone booth.
When something goes wrong, if you are a small business—like the small businesses I spoke to in Rockhampton last week whose internet service went down not only on Mother's Day but on Valentine's Day as well, or the motorcycle store owner who was watching, on a daily basis, people leaving thousands of dollars worth of goods on the counter to walk out because the EFTPOS service wasn't working—you need a little bit more than the sort of condescending response that we got from the Prime Minister today. You need service standards and guarantees that your problems are going to be fixed, and fixed in a timely manner. It's also why we need the introduction of new business-grade products specifically geared towards small business. I'd have thought all of those members who pretend to represent the interests of small business would have got behind this Labor proposal, this Independent proposal, this Greens proposal—the proposal supported by all of the non-government members—and say, 'We need to do more for small business by introducing business-grade products that have service level standards within them.'
We have recommended an overhaul of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman because it is well and truly overdue. It might surprise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to know that we've got a telecommunications industry ombudsman that doesn't even have the power to request the NBN to attend a mandatory meeting and to talk to the consumers and the phone companies when they have caused a problem. What is the worth of an ombudsman if they cannot even do that basic thing? We are recommending in this report that these issues get dealt with as a matter of priority.
Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, you represent a regional electorate. You will know that there is a lot of discontent in regional Australia about the NBN. They are very, very concerned that they are being left behind. They are seeing the rollout of superior technologies in the cities while their services are being delivered on out-of-date technology. Whether it's the copper or the Sky Muster service, it simply isn't meeting their needs. They raise their issues with their local MPs, but it doesn't seem to be getting through. It is for this reason, and to champion the interests of regional and rural consumers, that the majority in the committee are recommending that the government require the establishment of a reference group for the NBN, advising the board on rural and regional matters.
Now, I can't for the life of me work out why members of the National Party aren't saying, 'Yes, me too,' on this. Where are the members of the National Party, when you've got advocate groups across the country, from Broadband for the Bush Alliance to the National Farmers' Federation, saying, 'Yes, this is exactly what we need'? Where are the members of the National Party who are willing to stand up and say, 'We need our voice being heard from rural and regional Australia in the places where the decisions are being made'? They're certainly not being made in the coalition party room. That's why this recommendation's got a lot of work to do.
It's disappointing that these recommendations haven't been accepted. It's very disappointing that these recommendations haven't been accepted. For the last two months, I have been travelling around the country with many of my colleagues, holding forums with businesses and with consumers throughout regional Australia. They are all saying the same thing. They are saying, 'We need a broadband service that is going to work. We shouldn't be spending $50 billion on a project only to see service levels go backwards; and, if we live in regional Australia, we shouldn't be paying twice as much for a service that is half as good as the one that people in the city take for granted.'
I'm pleased to be speaking on the tabling of this report. I ask all members of the National Party to rethink their position and all members of those regional Liberal Party electorates to rethink their position. Do the right thing by your electorates. Take the recommendations into your party room tomorrow and demand that your minister and your government implement the recommendations of this review.
The debate is adjourned and 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.
I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, entitled Provision of hearing services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was presented on 14 September 2017.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
It is anticipated that approximately 16,000 to 20,000 people with hearing impairment as their primary disability will join the NDIS by 2019-20. This represents a small cohort within the scheme—less than three per cent of NDIS participants. However, the introduction of the NDIS has undoubtedly had a disruptive effect on what is broadly recognised as international best practice in the support provided to the deaf and the hearing-impaired. Some extremely concerning issues have emerged and need to be resolved to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing people continue to receive world-class services in this country.
In March 2017, the committee delayed finalising its report, pending release by the National Disability Insurance Agency of (a) key operational guidelines or access criteria to the scheme for deaf and hard-of-hearing people, and (b) baseline reference packages to guide plan development for early intervention services. The NDIA indicated to the committee that it would release the guidelines and the packages by the end of April 2017. While the NDIA released guidelines for access criteria on 1 September, the early intervention packages remain outstanding. Without definitive information about the early intervention packages, the committee cannot report and make considered recommendations. This is a cause of great concern for many families, for the hearing sector and, indeed, for this committee. The committee has therefore decided to release an interim report while it awaits the release of the packages.
The interim report focuses on the access criteria to the scheme and the issues pertaining to access and delivery of early intervention services. Until now, there has been a lack of clear access criteria to determine eligibility to NDIS services for deaf and hard-of-hearing people. This has caused great uncertainty for future access to services and supports for deaf and hard-of-hearing people, especially for newly-diagnosed infants and children. The committee is relieved that clear guidance to determine access to the scheme has finally been articulated and publicly released by the NDIA. However, the committee is frustrated that it has taken so long. Based on the evidence received to date, the recently released access criteria for early intervention requirements for deaf and hard-of-hearing people aged nought to 25 appear to be technically consistent with the current practices of Australian Hearing and are, therefore, broadly welcomed by stakeholders. With regard to the access criteria for those aged 26 and older, the committee is concerned that the requirements may leave some people not eligible for the scheme, despite their need for reasonable and necessary supports.
The committee is also concerned with the disruptions to early intervention services that have occurred since the introduction of the NDIS. The NDIS is failing to streamline intervention services from referral pathways to access and funding of services for newly-diagnosed participants. Guided pathways to ensure families could engage as early as possible with services that meet their needs have been lost. I will say that again: these guided pathways have been lost. It is a clinical fact that timely early intervention for deaf and hard-of-hearing children produces optimal results, yet evidence of delays to access therapies is mounting. Confusion, absence of guided advice and lack of choice and control over access to services are regularly reported by families and carers. Inadequate and underfunded NDIS plans are commonly awarded to children. As a result, opportunities for children to be taught to communicate as well as any other child with spoken or sign language are being lost. The committee believes it is critical that the NDIA addresses these issues as a matter of urgency. The introduction of guided referral pathways is necessary to ensure that there is no delay between diagnosis and commencement of therapies. Appropriately designed and funded early intervention reference packages must also be implemented.
Accordingly, the committee has made a number of recommendations in relation to the matters discussed in this interim report. The committee intends to release its final report once the NDIA has introduced its early intervention reference packages. In addition to discussing the appropriateness of the packages, the final report will also discuss the other issues raised during the inquiry but not reported in the interim report. The committee will continue to consult with the hearing sector as required, until the committee completes its inquiry.
I am very pleased to be able to support the remarks of the member for Menzies on the interim report on the provision of hearing services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I want to thank the member for Menzies, the chair of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the NDIS, and all the other members and senators as well as the staff of the committee secretariat. The committee has been conducting a large number of inquiries, and the members of the committee and the secretariat have been taking a lot of time in listening to submissions from stakeholders and, of course, members of the public. I do want to particularly thank those people—the service providers and families—who came along to all the hearings that we had for this very important inquiry, for giving evidence and for making sure that we do understand the issues that the member for Menzies has just highlighted. Although it is the case that only around 20,000 Australians will be part of the NDIS as a result of their hearing impairments, we also know that early intervention, especially for babies and small children with hearing impairments, is absolutely imperative, and we are extremely concerned about the delays that have been occurring.
The committee has made a number of recommendations so far. As this is only our interim report of course there will be further recommendations but I just want to highlight a few today. Recommendation 2 is that the National Disability Insurance Agency reviews immediately the cases of people with hearing impairment who were previously found ineligible and tests their eligibility against the revised guidelines. Recommendation 4 is that Australian Hearing be formally appointed as the independent referral pathway for access to early intervention services under the NDIS and funded appropriately to take on this new role. Recommendation 5 is that the NDIA ensure that the early intervention packages take a holistic approach to the needs of participants. We do want to make sure of funding provision for additional services beyond core supports, depending on need, and that retrospective payment of the costs borne by approved service providers for the provision of necessary and reasonable supports between time of diagnosis and plan enactment is made. The sixth recommendation is that NDIA urgently finalise, publish and introduce the early intervention reference packages. This is, as I say, extremely important for babies and small children with hearing impairments and it is of great concern to the committee that this has been delayed so long. It is because of this delay that the committee decided to do an interim report and we urge the NDIA to finalise the reference packages as quickly as possible so that the committee can get on with finalising this very important inquiry.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Before the interruption we were talking about the fit and proper person test that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill will apply to people who are office-bearers in registered organisations. The member for Gorton and the member for Bendigo talked about how unfair it is that this bill would enable the executive, the government, to take away a union's right to choose who will lead it and take away a union's ability to organise merging. I know that the separation of powers is a difficult concept, and I know that some people opposite don't understand that the government is separate from the Federal Court, but it is the Federal Court that decides whether someone should be disqualified or whether two or more unions should be able to merge. Similarly, it is the Federal Court that should determine whether a union should be deregistered, which is the third aspect of this important bill.
The bill will ensure that the existing power of the Federal Court to deregister an organisation extends to situations where the organisation has repeatedly broken the law, has acted corruptly or has committed serious criminal offences. It is not the government that makes this call. I'm sure that you would know the difference between the government and the Federal Court, but sadly those opposite don't appear to understand that distinction. It is a very important distinction to make, because this is not the executive government saying that we will make those decisions; we are empowering the Federal Court to make that decision where it considers it appropriate.
The existing deregistration provisions in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act have never been utilised under the current law. The last deregistration of a union was by former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke in 1986, when he had the guts and the intestinal fortitude to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation. The leadership of the Labor Party under Bob Hawke is a far cry from the Labor Party's current leadership under the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition stood up today after question time to say that he'd been misrepresented. He still did not have the willingness to stand up and condemn the atrocious behaviour of CFMEU members telling workers at the mine site that they would rape their children. Not only did he not have the guts to condemn that behaviour but he went and supported them that week.
On I make a point of order: my colleague's misleading the House. The Leader of the Opposition stood up and made a statement at the end of question time in relation to that very point. Perhaps, if the member stayed in the House a little longer instead of scurrying away after question time, he would've heard the explanation.
Mr Wallace?
I was in the House at the time and I stand by my comment. The Leader of the Opposition did not condemn it. He continues to take money from the CFMEU—$3 million since he was appointed as the leader of the Labor Party.
Reluctant as I am to call a point of order, the member—inadvertently, I think—is suggesting the Leader of the Opposition is somehow personally taking money. I think he is referring to campaign donations that the CFMEU may or may not have made to the Labor Party. I don't know the facts, but I will at least ask him to clarify that.
Yes, thank you; I accept that. I did not intend to suggest that he has personally received $3 million, but $3 million has been donated to the Australian Labor Party, under his leadership, since he has become the leader of the ALP. There's absolutely no denying that the ALP is wholly owned, under this Leader of the Opposition, by the CFMEU, when the ALP has received $3 million under his leadership, and received significantly more than that over the last 10 years. This Labor Party owes their political fortunes to the CFMEU, and that is why they continue to refuse to call out this absolutely appalling behaviour. If they won't do it, we have to introduce this bill to enable the Federal Court to call out this atrocious behaviour from time to time. Not all union leaders do it, but those union leaders who commit and will continue to commit criminal offences should be disqualified if the Federal Court considers it to be an appropriate course of action to take. I commend the bill to the House.
I also rise to speak in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017 debate. As you no doubt appreciate, Labor will be voting against this bill, because this bill is a continuation of the anti-worker, and anti those who support workers, legislation. Labor will hold this government to account. We will not let the government get away with their savage attacks on workers and those who have the interests of workers as their core business. Trade unions have been a part of this country for many, many years. Trade unions are significant in organising our workplaces. I have even heard Bob Katter, the Independent member for Kennedy, give a dissertation on this in this place. I can't remember what the debate was about, but he said, 'If anyone here thinks that the conditions that we enjoy in the workplace are not a derivative of the actions of the Austrian trade union movement, they have rocks in their head.' There might be very few occasions on which I agree with the member for Kennedy, but on that point I think he is right.
It appears that little has changed since this government have come to power. Bear in mind that they should have learnt under the former Howard government from WorkChoices. WorkChoices is a very interesting piece of legislation which made legal, for the first time in this country, to pay workers below the award rate of pay. They weren't doing that to help workers; they were doing that with the view, 'This will generate more jobs and growth in the economy.' How? It was by paying workers less. That is the role that they took—allowing individual contracts to be made that could reduce workers' take-home pay and reduce workers' ability to demand and ensure proper conditions of work.
I feel somewhat personally affected by this debate. I put it on this basis: I have three children. One is a high school teacher. Then of my two sons one is a carpenter-builder and the other is an electrician. I know the difficulties they can have on their worksites. I know how dangerous it can be in the construction industry. As a matter of fact, my older son, Nicholas, a sparky, returned home from Western Australia one time from a fly-in, fly-out operation after the person he was working with was crushed to death. It is somewhat ironic. I was talking to him only a couple of days ago when he was on another job in New South Wales. He said a formworker fell through the formwork and is currently in a coma. These things are happening now. Through the trade union movement there is an extra set of eyes being focused on workplace conditions and ensuring the safety of workers. I would have thought that was a good thing, not something to be discouraged and not something that this government would put all its energy into trying to thwart the role of the Australian trade union movement.
As I say, I think we could all be somewhat personalising this. I'm not sure those opposite have kids working in the construction industry, but for those of us who have kids working out there we want the best for them. We want to make sure that they go to work and come home safely. Any organisation that can assist in that regard is, I think, a good thing. As I say, I would have thought they would have learnt from the Howard government's experience that, if you attack workers and working conditions, we on this side of the House will certainly arc up. We will stand up for workers every time.
In saying that, we will always support appropriate measures and appropriate regulations that ensure that there aren't criminal acts taking place in workplaces. During question time and during the last speech, we heard allegations made of criminality on a building site. I don't know where those opposite would go if they saw crime, but I personally would go to the police. The government want to set up a new form of regulation such that you can bypass the police and go and do something else. If crimes are being committed, that is what we have our police force for. That is what law enforcement is about. But, no, they don't want to do that. They want to set up this ideological attack on the Australian trade union movement, weakening workers' rights by weakening those organisations that stand up and support them. This is not about regulatory change to get some benefit in the industry; it is purely and simply an issue of ideology.
The bill comes at a time when the government has passed a raft of legislation aimed at undermining working conditions for Australians. You will recall the legislation passed in this very place, not long ago, cutting penalty rates for Sunday work. The government has been able to turn a blind eye to the fact that we now have the lowest wage growth in living memory—record low wage growth compared to gross domestic product. Every credible economist is saying that one of the key aspects of the Australian economy at the moment is the fact that we have record low wage growth. It is hardly surprising when this government does everything to undermine enterprise bargaining and to undermine those who can drive enterprise bargaining, including trade unions. It also comes at a time when we have stubbornly high unemployment and over 1.1 million Australians underemployed—Australians who want more work and can't get it.
This bill is just another example of the government's anti-union, anti-worker agenda. But I have heard them say good things about trade unions in the past. You might recall that the minister used to call Kathy Jackson, who used to be one of the leading lights in the Health Services Union, a hero for the cause. She was 'a lion of the trade union movement'. Well, Kathy Jackson had adverse findings made against her in the trade union royal commission and is now under prosecution by Victoria Police for her role in the trade union movement. Her partner, Mr Michael Lawler, who was a deputy president of the Industrial Relations Commission, showed us on an ABC TV program how to illegally tape phone conversations. He made no bones of the fact that he was taping other judges, and he did this courtesy of an ABC Four Corners report. By the way, Mr Lawler was appointed to the Industrial Relations Commission by none other than the member for Warringah. He was hand-picked. He went there, a conservative barrister put on to do I'm not sure what. He shows us various things in terms of the Health Services Union; but he also comes out and shows us how to illegally record telephone conversations of fellow judges. These are the people that they thought were heroes of the trade union movement, standing up for workers.
Tomorrow the new leadership of the Health Services Union is meeting here in Parliament House. I would invite any of those opposite to come out and talk to them. The organisation is now growing because they have refocused their energies on supporting low-paid workers—the cleaners, the orderlies in hospitals, people working in aged care, people working in palliative care. They're out there doing something constructive. They're supporting low-paid workers and they have an organisation that's growing; but not a peep out of those opposite now. Nothing like what they used to do, talking about Kathy Jackson and extolling the virtues of the way she ran the trade union movement. They haven't said anything about the fact that she's now before the Victorian courts under prosecution by Victoria Police either.
In terms of this legislation, I think the Australian Council of Trade Unions got it right when they said succinctly that the measures in this bill:
… allow excessive political, corporate and regulatory interference in the democratic functioning and control of industrial organisations, with no true objective other than political gain.
I think that's right. The concern was also shared by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which raised serious issues about the bill's compatibility with the International Labour Organization's treaties, particularly the core convention 87, which enshrines freedom of association.
This bill is an overarching attack on trade unions, having no mandate but going beyond the recommendations of the Heydon royal commission—the same royal commission that adversely reported on Kathy Jackson. But that was some 18 months ago, and now this government brings this forward, mainly because it needs to take the spotlight off other inadequacies that it's been confronted with, particularly in relation to power prices in this country. The government claims that the bill will place registered organisations and corporations on the same footing. That sounds good until you go and have a good look at it. It's a false premise. Corporations and unions are not the same. They're not in the same business. They don't operate the same way. It is a completely false premise.
Before I move to schedule 1 of this bill, I will just put in perspective the rights of delegates for a trade union, who are elected to their positions and can be unelected by their very members. But if you are a director of a company, you can take out indemnity insurance to protect you against making adverse decisions that might cause loss to a company. However, if you're on a committee of management of a trade union, that's just not possible. Schedule 1 of this bill expands the basis on which an officer of a registered organisation, in this case a union, may be disqualified. The formulation in the bill has the parochial effect of setting the onus on the defendant to prove why it would be unjust for the court to disqualify a person once a specific ground has been made out. So, if we make an allegation against an officer of a union, it falls on that officer to prove or run the argument—the onus is on him or her—as to why they should not be disqualified. This is certainly different from the current regime in the Corporations Act. If an allegation is made against a company director, the onus of making out the claim is on the person making the allegation. And it certainly goes a lot further than the recommendations set out by the Heydon royal commission.
Furthermore, an application for disqualification of an officer is extended in this bill not only to the Registered Organisations Commissioner but also to the minister or a person with sufficient interest. I just wonder: could a person with sufficient interest be a boss on a particular site who's negotiating with the union and wants to get the upper hand and so makes the allegation against the union official? It may be claimed that that person has sufficient interest to set aside a person—a union official—and have an influence over enterprise bargaining negotiations taking place regarding a particular industry or a particular site. From what I read in schedule 1, it provides no safeguards against frivolous or vexatious claims. Again, as I said, this goes beyond the recommendations of the trade union royal commission. But certainly in this case I think it is a blatant disregard of convention 87 of the International Labour Organization.
I did want to go on to talk a little about section 2, because it talks about the cancellation of registration of organisations themselves, but I will do that on another day. I think at this stage we should focus on why the government has brought this legislation forward at this stage. What is the purpose of it? The purpose can only be read as to weaken the bargaining strength of the Australian trade union movement.
If this government were serious about ensuring integrity, as it professes to be by bringing forward a bill with this name—the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017—we would have a national independent commission against corruption that would be able to look without fear or favour at wrongdoing by companies, including some of the biggest companies in Australia, by unions, by public servants and by politicians. If the government were serious about it, they would give an organisation that had the confidence of the Australian people the legislation and the power and the resources it needed to go and look behind every closed door and to lift up every rock to see what was lurking there. If the government were prepared to do that, you might have some faith that, when they bring legislation forward that they say is about accountability, they might mean it.
If ever you want to know why we need a national independent commission against corruption that can look without fear or favour, you only need to look at allegations that were made a little while ago but that were aired again today in question time that we had a former minister in this place taking up a job as the head of a lobby group while he was still sitting here drawing a parliamentary salary and then going out and lobbying to defeat one of the government's bills. If that doesn't raise question marks for people in this place, then I don't know what does, because it raises question marks for the public.
When you look at what a corruption commission has done in places like New South Wales, where people on the Labor and Liberal sides of the political fence have been held to account and prosecuted and sentenced where they have done the wrong thing, you can see the effectiveness of it and why people want it. You ask yourself: is it really the case that there's nothing going on at the national level, or is it the case that we just haven't had a watchdog that's been able to come in and find out whether it is going on? So, if the government wants to ensure integrity, come and talk to the Greens about establishing a national independent commission against corruption, a national watchdog, and we'll have that conversation. We have a bill in parliament that we've prosecuted over many years, and so far it's failed to get support from either Labor or Liberal. If there is this great new-found concern about integrity, let's make sure everyone across the board—whether a union or an employer, whether a politician or a judge—is able to be held to account. But, of course, the government is not interested in that. So they bring forward a bill that they call one thing but that is really about doing another thing. You only have to listen to all the speeches from the government and their continued references to the Leader of the Opposition to understand that this is just a nakedly political attack. This is about Liberal beating up on Labor rather than about doing anything to improve democracy in Australia or to improve integrity or accountability.
When you delve into the detail of some of the provisions in this bill, you understand just how scary it is. For example, imagine if, in your workplace, you thought that someone got sacked because they were standing up for people's rights, or maybe you thought they got sacked because they were a woman and you had a discriminatory boss. Let's say everyone in the workplace then decided: 'We're not going to stand for this. We're going outside and we're not coming back in until this issue is resolved.' Those kinds of disputes happen every day in Australia. We've got the Fair Work Commission and the Industrial Relations Commission, which are meant to be charged with resolving those disputes. They might say, 'No, you can't walk out,' or, 'Yes, something's happened that's bad there,' and they are meant to be able to fix it. They don't have the powers they need to have, but let's put that to one side. Under the bill that's being put forward, if you've done that then your union can be deregistered, can be wound up, can be liquidated. If you take industrial action that's not sanctioned under this bill by law—if you stage a walkout because you are worried about someone being sacked or you want to improve conditions at work, and you are back in again the next day when a deal is done—within a very narrow period of time, you expose your union to being deregistered.
This is an attack on people's right to come together and organise in a way that they see fit. We already have bodies that regulate what happens if someone takes so-called unlawful industrial action, bearing in mind that Australia's laws have been criticised many times by the International Labour Organization for putting restrictions on people's right to bargain. It's much, much harder in Australia to exercise your right to bargain than it is in many other countries. But putting that all aside, we already have a body that deals with all of that. And now, under this bill, if you do something like that—bang!—your whole union could be gone. Then the government says, 'No, there are other things in this bill that are important. We want to stop mergers between unions.' Well, why is it this government's job—why is it any government's job—to say that people aren't allowed to organise and choose what union they want to represent them? If they want their union to merge with another union—perhaps because their industry is changing, there is technological change, or they understand it is better to work together—why on earth shouldn't they be allowed to do it? Again, when you look into the provisions in this bill, you understand why.
What the government is saying is, 'Actually, one of the things that has to be taken into account now is what the employer wants—what the employers in the industry want and whether or not it's going to be good for them.' If you just think about that for a moment, that's the equivalent of a company being able to say, 'No, I don't want my workers to be able to join the union they want because then they might come and ask for a pay rise and it will affect my economic interests.' Well, under this legislation, affecting the economic interests of your employer by asking for a pay rise becomes a reason to say that two unions can't join together if they want to. This is not at all about doing anything to do with integrity; it's about increasing the imbalance of power that currently exists and making it even harder for people to stand up for their rights at work.
Imagine if you had two environment groups in this country saying, 'Well, we actually think we're going to be better able to tackle pollution if we join up together and work together.' It's the equivalent of saying, 'No, you can't go and do it unless you ask a coal company first.' That's what this law is saying. This law is saying that in civil society in Australia groups can't work together and join together unless the people on the other side of the fence approve it first. That is astounding. Imagine if it was the other way around. Imagine if two companies couldn't merge, or one company couldn't sell themselves to the other company without the union agreeing. Imagine if that was the case. The government would have kittens! The government would tell us it's the worst thing they've ever seen. But they're prepared to do it the other way around because it's not about evenhandedness and integrity; it's about tipping the playing field in favour of one side over the other.
Then the government comes along and says that this is partly about putting unions on the same footing as corporations. I tell you what: when it comes to the day that every corporation has to publish its full accounts on websites, including private corporations, when it comes to the day that people are able to front up and say, 'I want to join that particular corporation and have a vote as to who the managing director should be,' maybe the government might have something going for it. But the government isn't interested in giving people more control over corporations and democratising corporations. No; it's about putting further red tape on people who choose to come together and form unions. There's no public interest or fit-and-proper-person test existing for corporations in the same way as proposed in this bill; it's much, much harsher.
Unfortunately, this probably isn't going to be the last of these bills that the government will drag up, because the government is behind in the polls and has been consistently for some time. It's no surprise, when they preside over a rise in pollution, when they're happy to preside over an economy where wages growth is stagnating and, in some instances, going backwards and when they double wholesale power prices by making sure that no-one understands what the heck is going on in the energy system, they're on the nose. It's no wonder they're on the nose, and what do you do when you're on the nose? You do the favourite thing that conservatives always do, which is to find people to beat up. They've done their best to try to beat up refugees, and they'll continue to do that. They are still saying they want to beat up on people who can't speak English and change the citizenship test. They are on a hiding to nothing with that. What else do they do? We will beat up on unions and beat up on people who are trying to organise at work.
I expect we will probably see a bill like this every week from now until the election, because the government's got nothing better to talk about. At the same time as the Reserve Bank governor says, 'We have a problem, which is that wages aren't growing fast enough in this country,' and at the same time that we hear about how much power bills are going up because the government doesn't have the guts to step in and re-regulate power prices, they are wanting to make it harder for people to organise to exercise their rights at work. If this bill passes, aside from the assault on democracy that it is, it is not going to lift wages; it is going to decrease wages because people will have less bargaining power. They will have less rights at work to negotiate for higher pay or for better wages and conditions, and it will lead to people feeling more insecure.
At the moment, we have a massive problem with rising job insecurity in this country, as well as the declining wages, and people are worried that we are at a tipping point where we are going to leave the country worse off for the next generation than the country that we inherited. For the first time in a very, very long time, we run the risk of leaving the country worse off for young people who are following us than when we inherited it. What is the government's response? It is not to come in and say, 'Let's invest more in education, let's build renewable energy and let's find ways of bringing people together so we can cooperate to make our country better.' No. It is just to pull out the conservative playbook and beat up on refugees, beat up on welfare recipients and now beat up on unions as well.
The Greens won't be having a bar of it. This is a very, very bad bill that is just out-and-out politically motivated. And the government speakers in favour of this bill don't even pretend that it's to do with anything other than beating up on the Leader of the Opposition. You would have thought they might have their speaking notes in order and talk hand on heart about how we need reform in the area. Instead, they all get up one after the other and say it is all about so-and-so getting campaign donations. If you want to fix that, let's reform campaign laws. Right? Let's reform campaign donations. Do you have an appetite for that, government? Do you have an appetite for a national ICAC? Do you have an appetite for getting the money out of politics, full stop? No. Absolutely not. Of course not, because that is not the motivation. They probably would have done better to have gotten their speaking notes in line before they got up on their tirades. But they have. They have belled the cat and made clear that this is all about politics and nothing to do with transparency or integrity. For that reason, this bill should be opposed.
On Friday, I had the pleasure, if that is the way to describe it, to stand outside the HMAS Albatross base on the outskirts of Nowra to draw the public's attention to the fact that under the Liberal-National Party, 70 jobs were set to be stripped from that naval base in regional Australia—70 well-paid permanent jobs in a town which struggles with unemployment. In some categories and in some suburbs it is double the national average. At a time when the Liberal and National parties have been running around the country talking about the importance of decentralising jobs out of Canberra, you saw an example where the same government and the same parties are removing jobs from regional Australia and sending them back to Canberra.
Of course, the member for Gilmore denied this was occurring, but we have very credible evidence that these jobs are indeed slated for removal from Nowra, and that there could be more jobs in the firing line from that base. This comes after figures released by the Australian Public Service Commission revealed that since 2014 over 890 ongoing jobs have been ripped out of regional Australia. That includes 760 roles in New South Wales, 180 roles in Queensland and 320 roles in regional Western Australia. You'd think that against this background the priority for any member representing a regional town and a regional electorate would be to come into this place, or go into their party room, and advocate for laws and policies which attract jobs to regional Australia and protect jobs in regional Australia.
Of course, the people who do that are so often not the political representatives of those constituencies but the people who represent those workers in those workplaces. They are the unions. In this case it was not the local member who assisted in this information coming to light about jobs being slashed in regional Australia but the union representing those workers. I am of course talking about the CPSU, a very good union representing government and public sector workers, often workers who sit in the advisers' box over there. If anybody needs a collective organisation representing their work and their job security, it is workers who work for the government, because they have nowhere else to go.
Strong unions are what we do about job cuts in regional Australia. And the single purpose of the legislation before the House today is to reduce the power and influence of unions and their capacity to organise and to protect the jobs and conditions of their members. In question time today we saw the peripatetic puppies on the other side frothing at the mouth, as they often do, when the subject of industrial relations comes up. They were citing examples which, if they were true—and we have no way of knowing whether they are true—would be condemned by every member of this place, regardless of their political stripe. We do not condemn the behaviour and the existence of every corporation and every director in this country because of the atrocious behaviour of a company like James Hardie, which acted atrociously and unconscionably and did things that no decent director would approve of and no company could conscionably do. It would be wrong of us to judge the behaviour of every company and every director in the country by the behaviour of that one company, or companies like it. Neither should we judge the behaviour of every decent unionist, every decent workplace representative, by behaviours that every normal, right-thinking person would condemn. Strong unions are what we do about regional job cuts, because strong unions fight for the existence and the conditions of the jobs in those regions. We need more of them, not less of them. If we're going to save the jobs of those 70 workers in Nowra and of many, many more workers that are also under threat, we'll need a strong union in the workplace advocating for their rights. The CPSU does a very good job, I know, of advocating for the rights of workers in regional areas, and we'll need that right around the country.
I want to talk about inequality, because we've had some more evidence confirming that the gap between the haves and the have-nots is growing in this country. In my own electorate, median total household income is around $1,300 a week. The rate of unemployment in regions like mine is much higher than it is in Malcolm Turnbull's electorate and much higher than the national average. Having a job in the Illawarra region is more than twice as difficult as it is in Malcolm Turnbull's electorate. So, when we see legislation like the bill we have before the House today, we cannot but draw the conclusion that the people conceiving of this legislation and the people voting for this legislation simply do not get what life is like for the rest of Australia. Those people are finding it more than two times harder to find a job in regional Australia than they would if they were searching for the same job in Malcolm Turnbull's own electorate or many of these other inner-city electorates that don't know how hard it is to struggle to find work. They understand that legislation like this is not legislation conceived of or drafted in their interest.
I would like to make an important announcement and inform the House that we have joining us in the chamber this afternoon a delegation from Ireland, led by His Excellency Mr Michael Higgins, the President of Ireland. That delegation includes Ms Frances Fitzgerald, Tanaiste. I extend to you and the rest of the delegation, on behalf of the House, a very warm welcome.
Can I join with you, Mr Speaker, and express warmest regards on behalf of all Labor members. Unfortunately, our leader can't be in the House at the moment, but I'm sure if he were he would be expressing his warmest regards to the delegation from Ireland and talking about the very strong links that exist not only between this parliament and our friends in Ireland but between the Australian Labor Party and our friends in Ireland. It's lovely to have you here today.
I was talking about the important role that unions play in creating equality in this country. Unions are essentially what we do about inequality in Australia, because if you look at the difference between those countries that have narrowed the gap in inequality and those that have increased the gap between the haves and have-nots there is one thing in common: it's their industrial relations system and the existence of strong, responsible unions. It matters a lot in electorates like mine, where employees earn less than the national average—certainly a lot less than the average they earn in the Prime Minister's electorate. And they think that the Prime Minister and those who serve him simply do not get what life is like for them.
I spend a lot of time travelling throughout the regions in my portfolio responsibility, and the thing that is brought home to me from town to town, from workplace to workplace, is the deep concern that people have about insecure work—whether it's the casualisation of work in their workplace, or whether it's the fact that they were once a permanent employee and they lost that job and they are now working maybe two or three days a fortnight in very precarious employment arrangements. Maybe they are described as an independent contractor with their own business. But when, in fact, they have no control over their working hours, their terms and conditions or their tools of trade, they are an employee by any other name. It is a problem right throughout regional Australia—precarious employment, insecure work, people wanting more hours than they have, people wanting a permanent job. People want a secure job so they can go to their bank manager and say, 'How about that loan application so that I can buy my home?'; so they can go to the bank manager and say, 'I need to get a replacement car because this one isn't doing it anymore'; so they can restructure their credit, so they are not continually on the credit treadmill.
Unions are what we do about insecure work. Unions in the workplace and unions in the industry are the people who are bargaining for secure work, bargaining for greater control over outsourcing of work and bargaining for a say over how labour hire is used in a workplace. Too often we see a responsible negotiation between a union and an employer being secured on a Monday and before the ink is even dry on that agreement workers are being sacked within the workplace and replaced by labour hire on lesser wages and conditions. This is not conscionable behaviour. This is what drives inequality and drives insecure work, and decent responsible unions are what we do about this. It is what we do about this.
There's been a lot of talk about the need for an injection of wage growth in this country. Australia, in short, needs a pay rise. Instead of grasping this challenge and putting in place the policies and structures which are going to be able to ensure that workers are able to bargain for and get the pay rise they deserve and the economy needs, the government is introducing legislation such as this, which drags us backwards and makes it harder for workers to be represented and to bargain for that pay rise that we need. It makes it harder for them to defend conditions that they already have. You may be aware that about 700,000 workers are likely to be affected by the Fair Work decision to remove certainly penalty rates from their wages and conditions. Cutting penalty rates will see a pay cut of around $77 a week for low and middle-income and working-class families. At the very same time that everyone from the Reserve Bank—the minister on some days and not on other days—is saying that Australians need and deserve a pay rise, they are supporting these changes. One member even described it as a gift to workers. They are supporting these changes that are making it harder for workers to make ends meet.
So, we do need some changes in our industrial relations laws. We need some changes that are going to make it easier for workers to bargain for and secure a pay rise. They deserve it, and the economy needs it. We need laws that will ensure that workers and their representatives will be able to bargain for job security, to bargain to put in place measures to do away with insecure work in their workplace, so that they can have decent, secure jobs wherever they live, wherever they work. We need to put in place laws that will enable unions, workers and their representatives to protect jobs in regional Australia so that the sacking of workers in these 70 jobs that are earmarked to be taken from Nowra, only to be transferred here to Canberra, can be stopped. A strong union in a workplace like that would ensure that those job cuts do not go ahead.
So, I implore all those members opposite, instead of coming in here and voting for this legislation today, to do the right thing by their electorates, to ensure not only that these laws do not go ahead but that we do something to protect the jobs of those people I've identified—particularly in the case of those Nationals members who'll bang the drum and talk to anyone who'll listen to them about the importance of decentralising work. Well, the first step in ensuring that we have more jobs in regional Australia is to protect the ones that are there at the moment. For these and so many other reasons, this bill should be rejected.
I concur wholeheartedly with the contribution of the member for Whitlam on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017, and if I had time I would reiterate everything he just said. I'd like to share a story of a steward on a passenger vessel who, at the age of 49, died at sea, coming into port—a strong union man of the Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen's Association, which not long after his death amalgamated to form the Maritime Union of Australia. This man left behind a wife and two twin children. That wife was my mother, and those children were me and my brother. What I remember from that time was what the union did for us. The union was there from the beginning, from that tragic day, and for many, many months afterwards, supporting my family as we went through one of the most terrible times anyone could experience.
This bill is an attack on workers and on unions. It has no regard for the support unions provide workers and the ability for unions to step in when workers are facing some of their darkest days—the prospect of losing their jobs, their livelihoods and their families. We on this side hear it and see it all the time. If those opposite just went and spoke to the many, many workers who have lost their jobs through unscrupulous practices by companies, they would understand this, instead of attacking it. I suggest that they speak to the seafarers of the MV Portland. They lost not only their jobs but also their homes and their families. These are longlasting legacies of companies basically screwing them over. And this is also because of this government, which favours multinational companies over Australian workers. This bill makes false claims that will ensure equal footing for corporations and unions. This is nothing but a fallacy and a guise to deflect attention from this government's disdain for working Australians.
This is another way this government is ensuring that the balance of power in the labour market is skewed directly towards the interests of big business and big profits. By doing that, this bill imposes obligations on registered organisations and officers in excess of what is imposed on corporations and company directors. For example, schedule 2 imposes a framework for cancellation of registration of an organisation that is more expansive than that for winding up companies and corporations. In fact, there is nothing in the Corporations Act that would allow for a company that has a history of noncompliance with the law to be wound up, as is the case in this bill, which will give the ability to wind up a registered organisation such as a union for acting in this way.
But why doesn't this government concentrate its efforts and attention on ensuring that noncompliance in the labour market is dealt with? I hear about it and see it all the time—workers being screwed over by companies who are not complying with their legal obligations. What is this government doing to ensure workers are not being ripped off, or to stop companies and employers from stealing wages from their workers?
I'm going to tell another story, of a cleaner in Queensland who realised that she wasn't getting paid the penalty rates that legally she was entitled to receive. She went to her union because she thought, 'This is strange; why am I not getting penalty rates while other workers doing the same job as me, in the same building, are getting paid penalty rates?' What happened was she was penalised by her employer for raising this with the union. She was taken off many, many shifts and given a minimal shift one day a week. But what the union found was that it was not just this one worker that was getting ripped off; it was hundreds and hundreds of workers in the state of Queensland that were getting ripped off. What is this government doing to ensure that does not happen to any other worker? They are doing nothing—nothing. It is unions that are out there ensuring that our workplaces are compliant, and they only have small resources to do that. But this government doesn't seem to care.
If we put this example of noncompliance in the context of schedule 2 of this bill, that company should be dissolved. Yet it can continue to trade after a little fine, a slap on the wrist, and paying some back pay to those affected workers. But, if those workers took unprotected industrial action against that company for stealing their wages, this schedule would allow for that union's registration to be cancelled. This is not equal treatment under the law.
I go to schedule 1 of this bill, where the provisions say that orders to disqualify an officer can be applied for by the commissioner, the minister or 'a person with a sufficient interest'. This schedule does not provide for protections against vexatious claims, and goes far beyond the recommendations of the Heydon royal commission. If a person is facing disqualification, the schedule requires a reverse onus of proof, where the person must prove to the court why it would be unjust to make an order for disqualification. Yet, under the Corporations Act, there is no such onus on a director. Heydon made a recommendation, No. 38 in his report, that an application for disqualification be given to the registered organisations regulator, for which there is an equivalent provision in the Corporations Act. But, again, this government wishes to treat unions and their members very differently from corporations and directors.
This bill breaches international law. It breaches the International Labour Organization's Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87), which we, Australia, are signatories to. I want to read out article 2 of this convention. It says:
Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.
Article 3 refers to the right of unions to draw up their own constitution and elect their representatives in full freedom, and organise their administration and activities and programs. Article 3.2 says:
The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
Article 4 says:
Workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.
Article 11 says:
Each Member of the International Labour Organisation for which this Convention is in force undertakes to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the right to organise.
I make the point that a union is a collective of members and officials elected by its members, and what this bill proposes is that a third party be allowed to suspend or dissolve the rights of its members. Thus this bill is in breach of international law.
This bill also interferes in the rights of members to join an organisation which they may elect to amalgamate. The government claims that this bill ensures unions are treated the same as corporations. Yet does the government interfere in the corporate world of mergers and takeovers based on a pure public interest test, as proposed to be imposed on unions? No. There is no general public interest test for mergers; basically, it's competition only. And there is no test on whether corporations should merge based on previous wrongdoing or behaviour.
I just want to make a point about a former state secretary of the Liberal Party of Tasmania who then went on to become state secretary of the Liberal Party in Victoria who committed a number of fraudulent actions. Does that mean that the Liberal Party branches of Tasmania and Victoria should be dissolved? I think those opposite would say, 'That's a stretch.' But that is basically what this bill could apply to unions. If a company steals wages from employees or has a history of unfair dismissals or poor safety records, should they then not be able to merge because the coalition government says so? No. No-one on this side condones anyone in any sector of society breaching any law and they should be dealt with accordingly, as happens now. There have been a number of examples of that.
I also want to point out that the member for Sturt in his second reading of the bill proclaimed that unions and employer associations have a privileged position in the workplace relations system and the economy more broadly. I reject this statement. Unions and employer associations have a right to exist that is enshrined in international law and that is one of the pillars of the society of this country as it exists today. But this government is hell-bent on eroding this right in this place, day after day. It is day after day because this government feels the need to distract from its own dysfunction by attacking unions and thus attacking workers and everyday Australians.
This bill will do nothing but divide our society by skewing the balance of power in our labour market to favour big business. It is ideologically driven and will drive class warfare at a time of low wage growth and the cuts to penalty rates that the government support. There has been plenty of opportunity not to support it, but they are quite happy to cut the take-home pay of hundreds of thousands of Australian workers. There is increasing noncompliance by employers and companies. You just have to go and talk to a bunch of workers anywhere in this country to find that out, and it is growing and growing.
I want to make the point that the member for Whitlam made: companies across Australia are allowed under this government, who seem to like to turn a blind eye, to replace permanent workers with labour hire and contract labour. This is destabilising our society. These workers who are being hired by labour hire companies do not have the conditions that those of us who are in permanent employment enjoy. They cannot get a loan. They do not get sick pay. They do not get any annual leave. They do not get the things for which Australians have fought for decades. People such as my father fought to get better working conditions and better pay, and this government thinks it's okay to have a Labor market that is full of casualised work and insecure, unstable work. Communities, particularly in regional Australia, will have to face the impacts of what that actually means. This government is sitting by idly and watching it happen before its eyes, and it is happening more and more with every day that passes.
What we're also seeing is that companies are reducing the ability of workers to associate and organise. This government wants to make sure that unions don't exist. I'm sure that that is what it is planning to do if it is in government in this place for any longer than it has to be. Our union movement, our labour movement, has been an integral part of Australian society. This is what this country is built on. It is built on the fight that our forebears had fought for many decades, and this government wants to make sure that everything those people fought for is lost, gone forever, and that we can never, ever get it back. It's just that this government doesn't love our country in a way that ensures all Australians can have a fair go. This bill is an attack on the fair go. It is nothing short of that. It is nothing short of ensuring that workers in this country continue to get screwed over by companies that put profit before people. But, more than that, this government is never, ever going to stop while it is in a state of dysfunction. The thing that surprises me most about this government is it is prepared to breach international law. This will be a shameful day for this country if this bill passes. I implore those in the Senate to make sure it doesn't, because we cannot have a country that does not allow for the free rights of people to organise and be part of associations. We need to make sure that the relationship between employer and employee is a balanced relationship not one that is skewed in favour of big business and big profit.
Labor will always consider legislation on its merits, and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017 has none. It is simply the latest salvo in the Liberals' long-running war on unions, and it exposes a rotten core of hypocrisy that lies at the heart of this wretched, hollow government. If only this government tackled corporate malfeasance with the same ardour that it reserves for unions—dodgy finance planners who rip off retirees, dodgy employers who make workers return half their wages, crooks who don't pay their workers superannuation, dodgy banks that ruin small-business people and lives. No, this bill doesn't tackle any of that, because they are the big Liberal donors, the untouchables. This government and this Prime Minister, an alumnus of Goldman Sachs, would rather run a mile than take on their friends in big finance. This bill instead targets unions: democratic organisations formed by workers to pursue fairness in the workplace, organisations that campaign for better pay, for safer workplaces, for workplaces that do not discriminate on the grounds of gender, religion or sexuality. This bill targets organisations that give workers a voice in the way that workplaces function.
This bill doesn't stop dodgy corporate directors from staying in business, but it does restrict the ability of union members to choose their elected union representatives. This bill doesn't give the Federal Court the power to wind up a corrupt business, but it does hand judges the power to shut down a democratically organised union. This bill doesn't demand that a corporate amalgamation be in the public interest, but it does demand it of unions. Hypocrisy and the Liberals' deep-seated ideological hatred of unions lie at the heart of this bill. In recent months this government has exposed its inability to function in the 21st century. It's failing to back the science that proves the reality of climate change. It's failing to support the principle that every Australian deserves equality under Australian law. It's failing to roll out the best technology that money can buy for Australia's broadband. With this bill, it is failing to support Australian workers and their right to organise for better pay and fairer workplaces.
The Liberals have never liked unions, but the rabid hatred is somewhat new. The founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies, even represented the Waterside Workers Federation as a barrister. He'd be run out of the party these days. As Paul Keating remarked in 2007, there was no repugnancy of trade unionism for Menzies. But the Liberal Party in 2017 does not just hate trade unions, it fears them; and it is most afraid of unions that are the most effective at securing fair pay and safer worksites for their members. The CFMEU and MUA are tough unions with tough members who work in tough industries with tough employers. The industries that these unions' members work in are hazardous places where poor safety can lead to serious injury and death. Before unions organised, mining, construction, forestry, energy and seafaring were death trap industries. Workers died by the score, year after year, until workers said, 'Enough!' They organised themselves into unions to demand better pay and better safety.
But unionisation never came easy. Much blood has been spilled in the past 200 years, the vast majority of it belonging to workers and their families—murdered by corporations and their militias in a relentless attempt to prevent workers standing together. In the United States, between 1850 and 1959 more than 1,000 workers and their families were killed by authorities at various events including strikes and rallies. From 1877 to 1915 another 25 union men were hanged, only to be either posthumously declared innocent or to have the cases against them exposed as shams and political circuses. One of the most egregious injustices was against the Molly Maguires, the striking coalminers of Pennsylvania, in 1877 to 1879. The mine corporation they were striking against initiated an investigation using a private detective agency that it employed. A private police force arrested 20 men, and private attorneys—not state prosecutors—prosecuted the men, who were then hanged. One hundred years later in Pennsylvania the governor said, 'It is impossible for us to imagine the plight of the 19th century miners in Pennsylvania's anthracite region. We can be proud of the men known as the Molly Maguires—those martyred men of labour.'
This is not all ancient history. Similar struggles are being waged right now, this very day, across developing nations, and for the same reasons: workers simply demanding safer workplaces and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Those of us on this side of the House know that this is a never-ending struggle: that whenever we relax our guard, the corporations and their lickspittles in this House will be there to put profit before safety. The Prime Minister and the right-wing rump that runs the modern Liberals are focused on destroying Australian unions at a time when Australia has a wage crisis, record low levels of wages as a share of the economy, rising inequality, stubbornly high unemployment and more than 1.1 million Australians who desperately want more work but can't get it. Industrial disputation in Australia is at record lows and unions have been working as hard as anyone to be constructive in the face of pressures from automation and globalisation.
The fact is that when unions are weakened, safety suffers. When unions are locked out, workers suffer lower wages and poorer conditions. Workers across these industries—across all industries, but these hazardous industries in particular—need strong, robust unions that stand up to bullies in government and corporations. According to the International Labour Organization there were more than 2.3 million deaths worldwide last year as a result of occupational accidents or work-related diseases. To put that number in perspective, across the world 167,000 people died in armed conflict in 2015—2.3 million people die at work from accidents or diseases arising from their employment compared to a fraction of that in armed conflict. It beggars belief. This is why unions exist: to bring those horrendous rates down.
Unfortunately, rather than working cooperatively with unions to achieve shared outcomes that are in the best interests of both workers and shareholders, as similar industries do across Europe, employers here have in the main adopted the American adversarial system: treat unions as an enemy to be defeated, because every extra dollar in a worker's pocket is a dollar less for a shareholder and every new safety regulation pushed by a union comes off the balance sheet. Little wonder then that a delegation of 30 mining, oil and gas barons made their way to Canberra in August to have a quiet chat with their trained poodles in the ministerial wing, demanding that the government stop a proposed amalgamation of the CFMEU and MUA into a national construction maritime union. No matter that the proposed amalgamation is lawful; no matter that the members of these democratic organisations have voted to pursue it.
This government will go to any lengths to stop workers advocating on their own behalf, and we see that in the creation of this bill. This government is so scared of workers standing together that it is actually legislating to keep them apart. Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary, Sally McManus, says this bill is antidemocratic and means that it will be big business deciding who can represent workers and not workers themselves. She says the only people who should be deciding whether there is a merger between two unions is the members of those unions—not the boss nor the representatives in the Liberal Party, but the workers. When people lose the right to choose who runs their union, we are living in an authoritarian state.
Those opposite claim this bill puts unions on the same footing as corporations. It simply doesn't; it goes much further. If this bill passes, unions and union officials will be subject to requirements that do not apply to corporations and directors. While persons can be disqualified from being a company director following conviction for various Corporations Act and Crimes Act offences, there is no equivalent to the 'fit and proper person' test. The fit and proper person test in this bill is a list of unacceptable behaviours including fraud, violence and any other event the court considers relevant, which do not have to have been committed in the course of or in relation to the person's duties and obligations as an officer. There is no general public interest test for mergers of corporations and no express bar to corporate mergers based on previous wrongdoing.
The penalties in this bill exceed those for arguably equivalent offences in the Corporations Act. The proposed penalty for the offence of a disqualified person continuing to influence a registered organisation is double the penalty in the equivalent provision of the Corporations Act. This was recommended by the discredited Heydon royal commission, but there is no evidence for why it is necessary or justified. An application for the disqualification of an officer can be brought by the commissioner, the minister or a person with sufficient interest. There are no conditions or safeguards against frivolous or vexatious claims. There is no justification for the minister or those who claim a sufficient interest to have standing. It goes beyond the recommendations of even Heydon. Under these provisions, once a ground is made out for disqualification, the onus is on the officer to prove to the court why it would be unjust to make an order of disqualification. This bill reverses the onus. Under the Corporations Act, there is no such onus on the director. There is no maximum term of disqualification. It is open to the court to determine.
So, first, this bill goes much further and, second, corporations and unions are vastly different organisations with different objectives. Corporations exist to create a profit for shareholders—and good on them; that's what they exist for. They exist solely to further their own private interest. Unions exist to drive better pay and conditions for workers, both in terms of their direct membership and workers more generally. They exist solely to further shared interests. The expectations on the shoulders of a CEO are to create profit. The expectations on the shoulders of a union organiser or a union secretary are to deliver fair pay and conditions for members—something those on the other side should remember. The harder you push workers, the harder they push back. Unions know how to stand up and defend themselves from attack. It is what they have been doing for more than 200 years. And I should add that no-one on this side of the House has a problem with ensuring that unions act in the best interests of members and with the highest level of integrity. No movement is perfect—not unions, not the Labor Party, certainly not the Liberal Party, not the Catholic Church, not the Salvation Army. Anywhere we look, good movements can be let down by the poor and even criminal behaviour of individuals within them. Just recently—today, in fact—we have heard allegations of terrible things being said on a picket line that cannot and should not be defended. Importantly, allegations should be referred to the police so they can be dealt with appropriately rather than be misused for political purposes in this place.
Labor has no problem with rooting out the crooks in the union movement and letting them face the full wrath of the law. Michael Williamson and the Liberals' best friend Kathy Jackson are cases in point. If anything, we despise these people more than most because every dollar they pocket is a dollar taken from union members and their families—the people we on this side represent. People like Williamson and Jackson have been dealt with or are being dealt with under existing law—the bill before the House has little to do with ensuring better standards of integrity and much more to do with grinding down workers' ability to organise. For every union official caught with their hand in the jar there will be more CEOs doing much worse—Domino's, 7-Eleven, ANU, Caltex, George Calombaris and McDonald's all underpaying staff wages or super. There are no demands from those opposite to clean up corporate culture; there is no outrage about workers' wages and superannuation being ripped off. This government is so incompetent that it can't even manage its own attacks without fumbling. I refer to Nigel Hadgkiss, who had to resign in disgrace. This bill does not deserve to pass this House. It is an egregious attack on workers and unions and should not pass.
It is well-known that the binding purpose of the Liberal Party, the coalition and its forebear parties has been to oppose the Labor Party and the labour movement. True to form, this bill isn't about improving the functions of unions, it isn't about helping workers and it isn't about good and proper regulation—it is about undermining industrial organisations and the Labor Party. Trade unions have been a central feature of Australia's industrial, social and political framework since Federation and they remain so today. At a time when wage growth is at record lows, workers are facing penalty rate cuts and high levels of underemployment. This government seems hell-bent on destroying the organisations that work to support those workers. This bill is about politics and not policy. The Prime Minister and his government are set on destroying unions at a time when they are needed most. Perhaps the government should be focusing more energy on the issues that matter more to Australians, like dealing with the wage increase crisis, with record low wages as a share of GDP, rising inequality, stubbornly high unemployment and high rates of underemployment, casualisation and uberfication of the workforce.
This piece of legislation even defies international law. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the bill. Half of the committee membership is from the government, but it noted that the measures proposed by the bill will impact on a number of recognised human rights, including the right to freedom of association and the right to just and favourable working conditions. Members of the committee pointed out that those rights are informed by various International Labour Organization treaties to which Australia is a party. They include the right of workers to autonomous union processes without interference, organising their administration and activities without interference and formulating their own programs without interference. Various ILO treaties also protect industrial organisations from being dissolved, suspended or deregistered and protect the rights of workers to form organisations of their own choosing. Indeed, Australia has for many decades condemned other governments in other countries from doing just these sorts of things. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted that various measures contained in the bill would limit the ability of unions to govern their internal processes and therefore limit those rights. It queried whether the legislation pursues a legitimate objective.
Once again, through this legislation, we are seeing the incompetence of this government to properly legislate. We have seen it with the BEAR scheme, which everyone agreed was a good idea but then it fell flat when the government put forward proposals to industry without any adequate consultation at all. We saw it when it came to crowd-sourced funding for start-ups, when the government, having consulted, failed to pay any attention to what industry asked for and pushed through legislation despite being told there were problems with it, and now we come back for this session and they are bringing forward new legislation to fix up the problem they created in the first place, after they finally listened. Of course, then it comes to superannuation. The government has jumped all over the place, criticised from all quarters because of its changes and flip-flops in superannuation. Most recently, it came forward with further proposed reforms to governance—changes for which the minister was literally laughed at by the industry.
This bill has nothing to do with sound public policy and everything to do with the government's anti-union, anti-worker agenda. The government keeps talking about corporate regulation for the industrial area. But that's not what this is. This is a gross political overreach. The government claims that this legislation will align the obligations placed on unions with those already imposed on corporations. However, this assumes that unions and corporations are the same and that industrial organisations don't already face sufficient levels of regulation. Indeed, under the proposed legislation, low-paid workers who are members of a union could have the registration of their union cancelled or have their rights to take protected industrial action suspended based on the conduct of their democratically elected officials—that conduct occurring without their knowledge—which would then leave those workers unprotected. Compare that with the executives of some well-known corporations, like banks, and you'll see that the obligations the government wants to impose on unions are far greater than they ever imposed on corporations. Clearly, the government's approach is not based on need.
The government claims that the bill will put corporations and unions on even footing. However, this notion is based on the false premise that they are the same. The bill will impose an obligation on registered organisations and offices that actually exceed those that would be placed on a company and its directors. The Corporations Act contains a number of provisions that provide for the disqualification of directors, including an automatic disqualification for criminal conduct, disqualification by a court and disqualification by the regulator, ASIC, in limited circumstances. However, none of these processes allow a minister or a shareholder or another stakeholder to take action to disqualify a director.
In contrast, the regime that is proposed in schedule 1 of this bill will enable not only the Registered Organisations Commissioner but the minister or a person with sufficient standing to seek a court order to disqualify a person from being an official of a registered organisation. Indeed, if we turn to the term 'having sufficient interest' we see that it has been interpreted as an interest beyond that of any ordinary person and includes those whose rights, interests or legitimate expectations would be affected by the decision. This brings in a large group of people who apparently should have standing to bring claims for disqualification of the people running a registered organisation when a similar group would never have standing to be able to seek disqualification of a director of a corporation. The government talks about equal footing, but it is clearly going much further in this legislation. Instead, this is a blatant demonstration of how the government wants to damage the union movement and leave Australian workers unrepresented and unprotected.
The effect of the amendments in schedule 2 is that the federal court can cancel the registration of an organisation when certain grounds are established. Those grounds have been greatly expanded. In addition, the regime for cancellation of registration is far more expansive because it allows for—instead of looking at what the Corporations Act does, which was provide standing to a specific limited group, being shareholders, liquidators, creditors and ASIC, to seek that a company be liquidated, each having a very clear connection to the ownership, administration or regulation of a company, for unions it's proposed that merely a person with sufficient interest will have standing to bring an action. For a union this could include another registered organisation or an employer group. It could be an employer themselves. It could be an employer party to an enterprise agreement being negotiated with that registered organisation. Or it could be the minister. It may even be a state government. The amendments regarding cancellation of registration, interestingly, were not recommended by the Heydon royal commission. There is no policy explanation as to why they are appropriate or any evidence as to why they are good policy.
The bill also significantly expands the existing regime for the administration of what are called dysfunctional organisations. The government claims that this provision of the legislation was modelled on similar provisions in the Corporations Act. Again, if you look closely, you will find that is not the case. They are far more intrusive. Under the Corporations Act, neither ASIC, the minister nor shareholders generally have standing to initiate proceedings to place a company into voluntary administration; only a board of directors can do that. In contrast, the regime proposed by schedule 3 of the bill will enable not only the organisation itself but also the commissioner, the minister, a member of the organisation or any other person having what is called a 'sufficient interest' to seek a court order to place the organisation into administration. It would appear to allow members of a party that are affected by the actions being taken by the organisation to apply for orders to disqualify an official, to seek to have the body deregistered or to have an administrator appointed to it, which are completely antithetical to the proper negotiation and administration of the rights between workers and employers. It gives an ancillary mode of attack to attack the organisation that is there to protect the interests of those workers.
Then we have the public interest test for amalgamations. The Heydon report made no recommendation to amend the legislation in relation to the amalgamation of organisations. Corporations may merge if it is agreed by their members. The current provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act provide a simple procedural process for amalgamations to give effect to the wishes of the respective organisation's members as conducted through a democratic ballot by the Australian Electoral Commission. This is in fact more onerous and has a higher level of integrity than those merger ballots undertaken in the case of shareholdings for a company. This is appropriate, and it should remain so.
Unions may wish to amalgamate for a number of reasons, including to reduce overheads, increase efficiencies and better serve the interests of the workers that they represent as their members. However, the provisions of this bill relating to amalgamations are blatantly aimed at the proposed amalgamation between the CFMEU, the MUA and the TCFUA by imposing this new public interest test, which has apparently come out of nowhere. There is no reason for it, there is no policy justification for it, and it is quite clearly aimed at a particular potential merger of unions. Why legislate for a particular group of unions at all? The Prime Minister wants to deny those union members the right to determine their own representation, to determine their own structure and to determine how they come together, because the concept of solidarity and workers coming together to protect their own interests seems to be an anathema to those on the other side.
The bill requires the full bench of the Fair Work Commission to determine whether a proposed amalgamation of two or more unions is in the public interest before approving the amalgamation. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted that the proposed public interest test engages and limits the right to freedoms of association and particularly the right to form associations of one's own choosing—something you would think that a Liberal Party would be all about. The current amalgamation regime is consistent with the emphasis in international law on the self-determination of industrial organisations, and that is reflected in the current legislation.
The amendments in schedule 4 are an outrageous interference with the internal affairs of industrial organisations. It would be amazing if we were to propose that similar steps be taken in corporate Australia. Indeed, the only place in which we can see anything getting close to this in corporate Australia is when we look at the reviews conducted by FIRB: they are only reviews and they are for the very essential purpose of protecting the national interest in foreign transactions—something that is miles away from what we are talking about here.
The government's intention through this bill is clear. It is an attack on the union movement. It is an attack on working Australians. It is an attempt to reduce their bargaining power. It is the government trying to protect the vested interests of its mates and not thinking about what is in the national interest. In fact, what we need is the opposite. This legislation is the next in a long line of legislative attacks from the early 20th century through to the creation of the ABCC, WorkChoices and beyond. The government says that this is a pro-worker regime, that it is there to protect the rights of workers. We all know that it is not. The bill goes far beyond the recommendations of the Heydon royal commission and beyond anything that the government had previously announced as election policy. It has absolutely no mandate to pursue this path. For that reason, and for all the other reasons, this bill cannot be supported. It is quite clear from this legislation that only Labor really stands for ensuring that we have well-functioning and effective union representation for ordinary Australian workers. Again, it is clear that only the Labor Party will stand up for Australian workers.
I thank the member for Burt for his contribution on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017. One of the many fallacies that are perpetrated on this House by the other side is the fact that on this side of the House we are all ex union representatives. And, of course, at the moment we have two current lawyers speaking about this very important legislation, how it is bad law and why it should not be passed. I'm very pleased to speak on this bill so that I can make the point that it is purely about politics; it's not about policy. But that is not of itself surprising, given that this government has form in preferring the interests of the big end of town over those of ordinary Australians, just as it prefers tax cuts to properly funding health and education and supporting lower-paid workers.
Labor will not be supporting this bill. The bill is nothing but a political attack on unions, which the government sees as its political enemy, despite the fact that we've seen the Treasurer call for wages growth to help drive growth in the economy. Only a distorted and misguided political agenda will fail to see that a functional, effective union movement is important—yes, important—to the protection of the interests of lower-paid workers and the economy as a whole. This bill is another plank in the government's anti-union and anti-worker agenda, building on the attack against the union movement represented by the Heydon royal commission.
The government claims that this bill will put corporations and unions on an even footing. First, this notion is based upon a false premise that corporations and unions are the same and should be treated accordingly. Second, it is completely inaccurate—a misrepresentation. This bill imposes obligations on registered organisations and officers of registered organisations that are significantly in excess of those imposed on corporations and company directors. In reality, the government's intention throughout this bill is to attack the union movement and to take workers away from the bargaining table. This bill goes beyond the Heydon recommendations and beyond the government's election announcements. The government has no mandate for these changes or for its attack on unions and union members.
This legislation is based upon politics and ideology. It is focused on destroying unions at a time when we have a wages crisis—record low levels of wages as a share of GDP—and rising inequality, stubbornly high unemployment and over 1.1 million underemployed Australians. The government pursues this attack because it can, not because it is right and not because it's proper. The government ignores any sense of proportionality and attention to process and good governance, even by reference to corporations that purport to form the justification for this legislation. Specifically, this bill amends the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009—the RO Act—to introduce, firstly, a fit and proper person test for holding office of a registered organisation, an RO, and mechanisms for disqualification from office; new grounds for deregistration of an RO; a mechanism for placing an RO into administration; a new test and procedural requirement for amalgamation of ROs; and minor and technical amendments.
Each of these provisions is fundamentally flawed, which demonstrates this government's shallow and base political agenda against the union movement. In its desperation to introduce this bill, the government has failed to consult, and the result of that failure is an ill-considered piece of legislation—legislation that Labor opposes and legislation that absolutely deserves to be rejected. Schedule 1, for example, allows for an application for the disqualification of an officer to be brought by the commissioner, the minister or a person with sufficient interest.
There are no conditions or safeguards against frivolous or vexatious claims. I have heard the member for Burt's contributions with respect to the issue of standing. Those contributions are most important. A competent government would not leave the issue of standing at large except, of course, if the object of this legislation was to permit each and every frivolous, vexatious and untested claim against a union to be stand to expose the respondent to unnecessary cost and inconvenience, and expose the public purse to unnecessary cost. In other words, this government is prepared to swamp the Federal Court with unnecessary, vexatious and frivolous claims upon any complaint about the deregistration of a registered organisation.
There is no justification for the minister or for those who claim a sufficient interest to have standing. It goes beyond the recommendations of the Heydon royal commission. It goes beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the public and, again, exposes the government's political agenda. This unfair agenda is also emphasised by the fact that unlike a director subject to a disqualification application, a union official subject to the equivalent application bears the onus of satisfying the court that it would be unjust to make an order of disqualification. I'll say that again: if an application is made to the court for an order for disqualification of a registered organisation's officer, the onus is reversed. The officer needs to establish that it is unjust for that order to be made. No such impediment faces a director who has the benefit of the ordinary onus resting upon the applicant rather than the respondent. In other words, an application made by ASIC or by any other interested party—and a party entitled to make an application to the court for an order of disqualification—simply needs to satisfy the court that it's appropriate for the order to be made. It's not the case that the director needs to satisfy the court that it shouldn't be made.
Similarly, the regime for the cancellation of the registration of an organisation contained in schedule 2 of the bill is far more expansive than the regime for the winding up of companies in the Corporations Act. There is no equivalent provision in the Corporations Act that specifically and directly allows for companies to be wound up due to a history of noncompliance with the law from members, be they directors or shareholders in the case of companies. A company can repeatedly put workers' lives at risk or refuse to pay employees proper wages or entitlements and not be wound up, whereas a union could have its registration cancelled if a group of members takes unprotected industrial action.
These examples are particularly relevant to the question at issue in this legislation, particularly where the government claims equivalence—that is, a false equivalence—between corporations and unions. It is possible that in response to a company's unlawful conduct in connection with a union member's wages or conditions—in this case, clearly unlawful conduct of the most serious type where it relates to unsafe working conditions, exposing workers to the possibility of death or serious injury—a union would be subject to sanctions far exceeding those applicable to the offending corporation. Again, in circumstances where there's an unsafe workplace, a union may be properly required to bring that to the attention of the public. It may be properly required to bring that to the wider attention of the media. If this is unprotected action, the union may be subject to a striking off or a disqualification application, whereas the company that exposes its workers to death or serious injury will bear no such sanction.
This really underlies the unfair political agenda that underpins this legislation. Where is the concern for workers exposed to unsafe working conditions that might amount to breaches of a director's obligation to ensure a safe workplace? Where is the concern about the conduct of corporations and directors amounting to wage theft or the phoenixing of companies? There is an inherent unfairness in this bill trying to put corporations and unions on an even footing, where in practice they are two entirely different entities as matters of principle.
Schedule 3 of the bill significantly expands the existing regime for administration of 'dysfunctional organisations', as it describes them. It introduces mechanisms for placing unions into administration because of certain actions taken by two or more officials. Imagine placing the Commonwealth Bank of Australia into administration on the basis that Commonwealth Bank directors and executives failed to take steps to prevent breaches of anti-money-laundering legislation. The true position is that this legislation is an attack on unions and union members. Journalists who are members of the MEAA could lose their union protection, without any default on their behalf, due to the actions of two or more officials of that union. Similarly nurses, low-paid cleaners or firefighters could lose the protection they are entitled to, because their democratically elected union officials have acted without their knowledge.
What happens to the company shareholder where two or more directors have acted without their knowledge? There should be no suggestion that the CBA, ANZ or, for that matter, any public company should be wound up in response to merely unlawful conduct, even when that conduct is repeated. The answer is to enforce existing legislation and to ensure the penalties are proportionate to the offence or offences. The suspension of an organisation's rights is the suspension of the rights of its members. The free and democratic functioning of unions and employer organisations without regulatory, political or industry interference is recognised in international law. This bill fundamentally contravenes the ILO core convention 87: Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948.
Schedule 4 of the bill is of particular concern. It is blatantly aimed at the proposed amalgamation between the CFMEU, the MUA and the TCFUA. The current provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 provide a simple procedural process for amalgamations to give effect to the wishes of respective organisations' members as expressed in a ballot conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. It is entirely appropriate as a matter of law and, I must say, as a matter of principle. This government dishonestly claims that the competition test applied to companies seeking to merge is like a public interest test, similar to the public interest test that this bill imposes on organisations seeking to amalgamate. However, the competition test imposed upon company mergers takes into account only whether the effect of the merger would have the effect of substantially lessening competition in any market. The public interest test that this bill imposes on organisations takes into account the organisations' record of complying with the law, as well as the impact on employers and employees in the industry or industries concerned. A corporation can have an extensive record of not complying with the law, including wages theft or a poor safety and OH&S record, and will not be prevented from merging. This is a double standard which, again, confirms the government's flawed political agenda.
Let me be clear: Labor will not stand for corruption or for dishonest behaviour. We do not oppose the taking of measures to ensure that unions and officials act properly and in the best interests of their members. It is to the provisions of this bill as a mechanism for achieving that end that we look, and it is flawed. It has been made clear that we would support legislation that is properly drafted and appropriately applies to both companies and registered organisations equally. However, this bill is not well drafted. There has been no genuine consultation. The legislation is purely an attempt to attack and undermine the union movement. As I said earlier, this is at a time when we have record low wages growth and we have some within our economy, such as the Governor of the Reserve Bank, exhorting the union movement to press for increased wages. We have this government attacking the union movement, because it's on a political crusade.
Labor opposes this bill and the attempts of this government to undermine the right of all working Australians to representation in the workplace. There is no evil in the union movement; in fact, there is much good in the union movement. Nothing that this government has put up in the arguments put before this place suggests this legislation is appropriate or proportionate. It does not deserve the support of this House, and I would urge that this piece of legislation be opposed, if it please.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017. Up-front, I declare that I'm a proud member of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, and I have received the support of many unions and their members over the last decade or so as a member of this parliament, including the CFMEU; United Voice; my old union, the Independent Education Union; the QNMU; the Queensland Teachers' Union; the CPSU and the mighty Meat Industry Employees Union, to name but a few. I'm proud to be connected with the men and women of the union movement.
This bill is yet another attack by the Turnbull government on hardworking Australians. It is a further attempt to shackle the union movement and prevent workers from taking their rightful place at the bargaining table, where employees and employers work out their working conditions together. This Turnbull government has been relentless in its attacks on unions. Those opposite fundamentally do not understand the role of unions in Australian society. I feel it necessary to remind the chamber of how different the working lives of Australians would be but for the advocacy of the union movement over the last two centuries, both here and abroad. Urban Australian workers in the early 19th century were working very long hours for very low pay. The first organised unions were formed to address that unfairness. Midway through the 19th century, stonemasons won the right to an eight-hour week, when their society forced the issue by giving an ultimatum to employers. It was not until 1920 that all Australian workers enjoyed that right of an eight-hour day.
Queensland especially has a proud history of unions fighting for workers' rights. The 1894 shearers' strike, though unsuccessful, was a turning point for the union movement in Queensland and saw the formation of the labour movement's political wing, the great Australian Labor Party. The strike, in response to the Pastoral Employers' Association agreeing to lower the wages of shearers, extend their working hours and retain the right to withhold their wages until the end of the shearing season, culminated in the conservative colonial government sending in more than 1,000 armed soldiers and special constables. After some of the strike leaders were arrested and sent to St Helena Island, and with the real threat of bloodshed, the unions called an end to the strike.
But this was the turning point for unions and the working class—the point at which they realised they needed a voice, they needed to have the working man's voice and later the working woman's voice heard in politics, so that Australian laws reflected not only the pastoralists' interests but the interests of every Australian. Just five years later Queensland had the world's first Labor government. Sadly, Anderson Dawson's government only lasted six days, from 1 December 1899, while the Tories sorted out their infighting. But it was a great start, and the labour movement has come a long way since then.
Unions are still vitally important for Australian workers. Even workers who are not members of a union benefit from the conditions fought for by union members. Unions are responsible for the precious working entitlements that we all take for granted, such as annual leave, sick pay, workers' compensation and health and safety standards, to name a few. Unions represent over a million workers in Australia but benefit millions more. Unions are just as important today in advocating for the rights of workers as they were in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The job of unions is never complete. Sadly, there will always be unscrupulous employers who will exploit their workers. Sadly, they can sometimes create a race to the bottom: the rogue outliers, the bad bosses, can create an uneven playing surface for their good boss competitors. We don't need to look too far to see modern examples of exploitation by well-known and respected companies. For example, Myer, where cleaners were paid well below award wages, denied penalty rates and superannuation and put in circumstances where they had no occupational health and safety protections. There was the case of 7-Eleven, where a Four Corners investigation showed evidence of gross underpayment, doctoring of pay records and threats of deportation. There was Pizza Hut, where delivery drivers were paid as little as $6 an hour. These are modern horror stories in the digital age. You don't have to look into too many dark corners to see modern slavery-type abuses and worse. Sadly, examples like these of exploitation of workers are not mentioned by those opposite. Unions have an important and continuing role to ensure that Australians can go to work in workplaces that are safe, that they can earn an honest day's wage and safely return home to their families and loved ones. In this economic climate the protection that unions provide to workers is even more important.
Australian workers are doing it particularly tough under this out-of-touch Turnbull government. Their wages are stagnant. Wages are at record low levels in terms of the share of GDP. Inequality is rising. Unemployment is still high and over 1.1 million Australians are underemployed. And then, to Prime Minister Turnbull's eternal shame, on his watch some of our lowest paid workers have had their take-home pay slashed through cuts in penalty rates. All of these factors combine to put Australian workers in a weakened bargaining position with their employers. It is particularly at times like this that union advocacy is vital to ensure that workers do not get exploited, that workers receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, that workers get the entitlements they deserve and that inequality is not being driven up by economic conditions and opportunistic employers or, worse, immoral employers, as we've heard with the phoenix company type activities—not illegal, but certainly immoral. Sadly, we also need to be aware of the criminal behaviour of some employers.
Labor has always said that it will not stand for wrongdoing or corruption in unions. We heard the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, say that again today after question time. He's said it many times. Where there is wrongdoing, it should be investigated and punished. I stand by this and personally repeat that position, particularly if a union official is exploiting their vulnerable members. Nothing makes a union supporter's blood boil more than seeing some low-paid employees being ripped off by somebody.
The Heydon royal commission into trade unions resulted in a single Queensland referral of a union official. That is a long way from the widespread and deep-seated misconduct in the union movement that Justice Heydon referred to in his report. Of course, even one referral of a union official is one too many. But we should also note that in Queensland the Heydon royal commission actually recommended more charges be laid against building industry executives than against anyone else. Yet bad bosses don't attract the ire of 'Mr Harbourside Mansion' and his caucus cronies. To put the number of referrals from the trade union royal commission into perspective, there are a total of 93 referrals across Australia relating to 45 persons or entities. Let's contrast that with the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, a royal commission called for by Prime Minister Gillard, which made 2,393 referrals to authorities. Now, that's a royal commission that we absolutely needed to have, and I'm very proud that it was a Labor government that made it happen.
Labor will always support legislation on its merits, but this bill has absolutely no merit at all. This is simply power politics. It is devoid of anything even resembling policy. This is a desperate government pursuing its ideological obsession with destroying unions, as the pressing weight of 21 bad Newspolls in a row signals the imminent end of Mr Turnbull's time at the Lodge. This is according to his own published criteria. This bill actually breaches international law. It contravenes International Labour Organization core convention 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, 1948.
Under the provisions of this proposed bill, registered organisations and officers will be faced with obligations far in excess of those faced by corporations and company directors. The measures in the bill exceed any recommendations of the Heydon royal commission. From a legal perspective, there are extremely concerning provisions in this bill. For example, an application for disqualification of an officer can be brought by anyone with sufficient interest. There is no other requirement for standing necessary. Once a ground for disqualification has been made out, the onus is on the officer to prove that it would be unjust to make the order for disqualification. There is no maximum term of disqualification; it is open to the court to impose any term.
The provisions of this bill impose much more onerous conditions on registered organisations than the comparable provisions of the Corporations Act impose on companies and their directors. For example, if a disqualified person continues to influence a registered organisation, the penalty is double the penalty of the equivalent provision in the Corporations Act. The regime for cancelling the registration of an organisation is far more expansive than the regime for winding up a company. The Corporations Act has no equivalent provision to allow for companies to be wound up due to a history of non-compliance with the law by its directors or shareholders.
The inequality that this bill would impose on registered organisations compared to the treatment of corporations under the Corporations Act is no more obvious than in the provision in this bill that would allow a union to have its registration cancelled if a group of members took unprotected industrial action, especially if something like a workplace death occurred and people were outraged. Contrast that to a corporation that can repeatedly treat their workers appallingly by non-payment of wages or entitlements, and even put lives at risk, but cannot be wound up for that behaviour. There is already a simple procedure for the amalgamation of registered organisations under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act. It requires a ballot of members and is conducted under the fair watch of the Australian Electoral Commission.
This bill proposes to amend these already appropriate provisions in relation to amalgamations. It is obvious that this is a direct attack on the proposed amalgamation of the CFMEU, the MUA and the TCFUA—the sailors and the textile and clothing workers. This proposed provision ignores the fact there are often great benefits to members for their union to amalgamate with another union. Amalgamations can reduce rent and utility payments, increase administrative efficiencies or better represent the interests of the union-member workers. This bill imposes unfair and onerous requirements on registered organisations who want to merge. It requires a public interest test that will take into account the organisation's record of complying with the law and the impact on employers and employees in the industry. These provisions are in sharp contrast to those for companies, which can merge with just one test imposed on them: that the effect will not substantially lessen competition in any market.
Labor supports tough penalties for those who break the law. Labor's 2012 amendments tripled the penalties for breaches of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act, as well as requiring education and training to be provided to officials of registered organisations about their governance and accounting obligations. We also required the disclosure of officials' remuneration and pecuniary and financial interests. We also enhanced the investigative powers available to Fair Work Australia, including the power to provide information to agencies, such as the Federal Police or state police. All that happened under a Labor government.
It is clear what this government's priorities are. They are not to support Australian workers or to support the importance of the unions who represent them. What this government is attempting to do with their legislative agenda is to destroy the ability of trade unions to organise and to bargain collectively. Even for this ideologically obsessed Turnbull government this bill is an overreach. It goes far beyond the recommendations of the Heydon royal commission, and it goes beyond the government's own election announcements. I give a cautionary word to those opposite. I remember the 2004 election, when a bloke from my home town of St George got elected, a senator from Queensland called Barnaby Joyce. When he became a senator, that gave John Howard the numbers in the Senate to bring in Work Choices legislation. That was John Howard's Waterloo—or if you'd like another piece of military history, John Howard's 'bridge too far'. This piece of legislation will also spell the end for Mr Harbourside Mansion, as far as I can see. It goes way too far. It is extreme and dangerous. Prime Minister Turnbull has no mandate for this bill. He has only one agenda: to keep a hold on power. This will be his undoing. I do not support this legislation.
It seems as though in every sitting week this big-business government marches out some new policy that attacks workers and their unions. It's a weak move and it shows a blatant contempt for the pay and conditions of Australian workers. Economic inequality is on the rise. We know that. We know the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. A government that cared about its people would do something to address this. It would take steps to even out the playing field, but this government does not care about people. This legislation, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017, is undeniably about politics. Nothing more. This is about politics. It's about removing power from the trade union movement and workers here in our country.
This has been the goal of the LNP for many, many years. They have sought to chip away at workers' rights whenever they can. Whether it's the malign Work Choices program, which Labor brought down 10 years ago next month, or the decision to strip away the penalty rates of hardworking Australians—700,000 Australians—which the government made in July, the actions of the Liberal and National parties show just how antiworker they are. Where their priorities lie is blatant, absolutely blatant. They've cut the take-home pay of workers and then given big business a tax cut—that's how blatant they are. They've cut millions and millions of dollars from vocational education and training at the same time as establishing the PaTH program, which encourages casualisation of an already vulnerable workforce. Now here they are once again, Mr Deputy Speaker—with the support, mind you, of Pauline Hanson and her band of anti-battler One Nation senators—proposing legislation that attacks the very movement that protects vulnerable workers and their pay and conditions.
It wasn't very long ago that the Reserve Bank governor, Philip Lowe, declared that Australia was in a wage crisis following the prolonged period of low wages growth that has plagued our country under this Prime Minister's leadership. Lowe's British counterpart, Andy Haldane of the Bank of England, made a similar observation but attributed this crisis to the 'divide and conquer' techniques that have been utilised to lessen the workers' bargaining power. Effectively, he recognised that the attacks on unions are the direct cause of a sharp decline in wages growth—or, as a Sydney Morning Herald headline said recently, 'Tough rules on unions have stifled Australians' wages'. This is so very true. It's true that the more this government attacks unions, the more it attacks the working people of this country.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you just have to look at the industrial dispute that the workers at CUB, Carlton & United Breweries, were forced to endure at the end of last year and into this year. They were a unionised workforce, members of the Electrical Trades Union and the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. They had their contracts terminated by CUB. Hardworking Australians getting their kids off to school, going to work, doing what they needed to do to raise their families had their contracts terminated so that they could be rehired under a labour-hire program with significantly lower pay and conditions. This government did absolutely nothing to support those mothers and fathers, who were absolutely shafted by this awful deal. Do you know what? Only their unions stood up for them. I didn't hear any member of the government—I didn't hear the Prime Minister—standing up for those workers. There was not one peep. It was their union that banded together with non-union people in grassroots community style support to hold CUB to account. And they were successful. Fifty-five workers whose contracts had been terminated were reinstated with full pay and conditions. Do you want to know what workers do for their members? That's what workers do for their members, Mr Deputy Speaker. That was a clear example of how the union movement directly protects the wages and conditions of working people.
Meanwhile, on the other hand, we have Malcolm Turnbull and his government's attack, which is directly hurting the wages and conditions of working people and having a negative effect on our economy. Yet the government keep blindly flailing in the direction of the unions, not caring what they take down with them—not caring that they take down the wages of hardworking Australians, not caring that they take down the employment conditions that people work under, not caring that they take down the economic stability of this country. The government are willing to take down the economic backbone of this country, the working class. And for what? It's all for a poorly calculated political witch-hunt. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to gain from these measures except to further increase the already ballooning profits of big business and send millions and millions of dollars offshore.
This government, though—let's be very clear here—are also leading the way in demonstrating how to be poor employers as well. They are meant to be prime examples of how to be good employers but time and time again they have proven to be just the opposite. Just recently it was announced that, instead of employing local people in local jobs, they are contracting out Centrelink call centre work. They are contracting it out. They are cutting jobs of Australian workers and sending them overseas. This is sensitive, personal work that would benefit Australian call centre operators but, as everyone knows, this is a government that thinks about short-term monetary gains without ever thinking of the consequences. There are people in communities, including my community, who need work, are ready to work, getting up every day looking for work, going to their jobactive providers, knocking on doors and sending resumes; they are looking for work and here they have a government that is selling jobs offshore. Absolutely disgraceful.
Australia's anti-union laws have already gone too far—and this is not just a personal opinion. Australia's current laws on industrial action sit well below recognised international norms. The United Nations declares strike action to be a right and has done so since the early days following World War II. The restrictions imposed on Australians then put our country at odds with international standards. Yet this government wants to take things even further. Through this bill, the Prime Minister seeks to further breach international law just to satisfy his anti-worker agenda. That's right—to carry out his anti-worker attack, Prime Minister Turnbull is looking to contravene International Labour Organization core convention 87, the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention of 1948. To absolutely ignore international convention—to defy these laws that were negotiated with our friends and allies—to pursue a personal vendetta demonstrates absolute arrogance. It is complete arrogance not only to ignore our international allies but also to ignore the Australian people.
For 21 consecutive weeks Australian people have been telling the Prime Minister they are not happy. Surely he can't be oblivious to this. For 21 weeks that's what the Australian people have been telling this Prime Minister. They are sick of taxpayer-funded witch-hunts against unions, against working people. This will be this Prime Minister's downfall, let me tell you. The government tries to justify this legislation by claiming that it's based on recommendations from the Heydon royal commission, which, let's be very clear, was another failed LNP witch-hunt against unions that cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars—another failed witch-hunt that cost lots of money that could have been spent elsewhere.
We all know the justification for this legislation is blatantly false, and any semblance of a mandate is absolutely non-existent. Heydon recommended that the RO commissioners be granted standing to make applications and submissions to the Federal Court. This bill seeks to allow any interested party—like big business, employer organisations, a disgruntled former member or competing members in internal elections; it could even mean a business in a supply chain that isn't even in the same industry—to make application. It's a measure that is absolutely ripe for exploitation and, do you know what? That's what this government is counting on. The more time that unions are fighting baseless attacks by an interested party, whoever it may be, the less time they can be fighting against this government's attacks on workers. If a union is exhausting all of its resources fighting some disgruntled interested party, whoever that may be, they'll have less resources to fight against this government when it seeks, for example, to cut the take-home pay of vulnerable workers.
I'd call it clever political manoeuvring, of course, if their intentions weren't so blatantly obvious and their goals so unfair and so short-sighted. But, as it stands, I'll call it out for what it is: it's an act of spiteful desperation from a weak government that hates being called out for its antiworker policies. Unions are already heavily regulated—more heavily regulated than corporations and charities. This of course is due to continuous attacks from the Right. The government's claim that the provisions of this bill are equivalent to laws governing corporations is just another falsehood. For example, while a person can be disqualified from their role as a company director following a conviction for Corporations Act or Crimes Act offences, there is no equivalent to the fit and proper test that this bill seeks to introduce. So, the question really is: why are unions going to be held to a separate set of rules? Why?
Similarly, there is no public interest test for mergers of corporations. Let's be very clear about what this test is. It's been conjured up solely to make it more difficult for unions to collectively bargain. I'm a really proud trade unionist. I worked with United Voice for many, many years before coming into this House, and I stand really proud as a trade unionist. I fought for some of society's most vulnerable workers in this country. I know just how important unions are. I've stood up beside early childhood educators, beside brewery workers, beside security guards and cleaners, beside teacher aides and beside paramedics. I've stood beside a lot of those workers and stood up for their right to collectively bargain. It's with that experience of being somebody who stands up for the rights of people, the rights of workers—somebody who is proud to be a trade unionist and will be until the day I die—that I absolutely, wholeheartedly reject this blatant and callous attack on workers and this government's absolutely pathetic attempt to malign the trade union movement under this piece of legislation. Thank you.
I rise to oppose this legislation, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017. It was American novelist Norman Mailer who said:
Obsession is the single most wasteful human activity, because with an obsession you keep coming back and back and back to the same question and never get an answer.
That's exactly what sits at the heart of this legislation—the coalition's obsession with undermining trade unions at any cost, a distraction for a government that has lost its way, a government obsessed with obliterating collective bargaining, with eroding human dignity and hurting working families by subjecting workplaces to the law of the jungle.
This bill is presented in the guise of improving productivity and cracking down on illegality. But the bottom line, now and throughout Australia's history, is that the conservative forces just don't like unions. They just don't respect the fact that working people, due to the nature of the workplace and the power imbalance that is inherent in production, join together to bargain with employers. Their antipathy for unions is so extreme, though, that it blinds them to just a bit of common sense, and it blinds them to community standards. Even at a time when we have declining real wages and declining living standards, which have been recognised by the Reserve Bank of Australia and by the business community as a handbrake on economic growth, we have a government that is determined to drive those wages and conditions down further. This is the sort of ideology that brought Work Choices to the parliament of Australia on the first occasion on which those opposite had the numbers in both houses. And, with that Work Choices legislation, they destroyed themselves. It should give them pause. They should think back to how clever they thought they were when that Work Choices legislation, with its Orwellian name, passed the House of Representatives and the Senate. It led to their demise as a government. It led to division in Australian workplaces and in the Australian community. In the same way, they're waging a war against penalty rates. They seem completely oblivious to the fact that so many families in their electorates rely upon penalty rates to pay their mortgages, to pay school fees for their kids, to put food on the kitchen table and to pay for the essentials of life. They don't get it.
This legislation is just another example of their obsessive attacks on the trade union movement and its very existence. It purports to impose upon registered organisations and their officials the same level of accountability that applies to company directors. But it doesn't do that. It goes much further than that. It even goes beyond the recommendations of the Heydon royal commission, it goes beyond the government's undertakings in the last election campaign and it contravenes the International Labour Organization's convention 87—the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention of 1948. But they just can't help themselves.
Our nation faces a range of serious challenges that require government attention. Many of them could be the subject of cross-party consensus in the national interest, not the least of which delivering on infrastructure that builds jobs and creates economic growth. We could be using our time usefully working together on such matters. But what we have over and over again from this government are attacks on working people, attacks aimed at undermining the trade union movement, attacks which are ideological and attacks which are against the fair go that Australians hold dear.
In general terms, this bill seeks to increase accountability measures for registered organisations and their office holders, including making it easier to deregister them. It also imposes a new public interest test on proposed union mergers. I've got no problem at all with people who break the law or act inappropriately being prosecuted, as they should be. But my overriding concern is that deregistering trade unions because of inappropriate behaviour by a single official attacks union members who have nothing to do with that bad behaviour. The fact is that it is a punitive approach. It's short-sighted. It's the equivalent of deregistering a company because one of its directors broke the law rather than simply prosecuting the director. Take the various corporate scandals that have occurred, not the least of which were in the banking sector recently. No-one's proposing that those companies be declared illegal and wound up because of the fact that some of our major financial institutions have been financing activities that are completely illegal. Wrongdoing by one official does not justify the denial of industrial representation for an entire workforce.
In his second reading speech, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment went to great lengths to assert that these changes would bring the administration of trade unions, employer organisations and their officers into line with the laws concerning the administration of companies. But, as you go through the provisions, it is clear that it's just not true. The bill allows for disqualification of an officer of a registered organisation to be brought by the commissioner, the minister or what is defined as 'a person with sufficient interest'. There are no safeguards there to prevent vexatious claims. There's no description of how a person qualifies to have sufficient interest. Once a ground is made out for the disqualification of an officer under this provision, the onus of proof is placed upon the officer to establish why disqualification would be unjust. But the equivalent provision under the Corporations Act places no such onus of proof upon company directors facing disqualification. The bill provides no maximum period of disqualification, leaving the matter to the discretion of the court. It also creates penalties for the offence of a disqualified person continuing to influence a registered organisation. But the penalty provided here is double that provided in the Corporations Act.
Similarly, this bill's regime for cancelling the registration of a union is far broader than the Corporations Act's equivalent provisions relating to the winding up of a company. A company, for instance, could repeatedly be found to have put at risk the lives of its workers or to have repeatedly not paid proper wages, but it would not face a wind-up order. By contrast, this bill says a union can be deregistered if some of its members take unprotected industrial action.
The new provisions relating to union amalgamation are way out of whack with the law relating to company mergers. Under the current Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, it is a simple matter for unions to amalgamate if members vote for amalgamation under a ballot conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. That's a commonsense provision. It's democracy in action. It's workers being organised on the basis of the views of those workers themselves. That is why those provisions are currently there. No argument has been put by those opposite about why this change is necessary. This bill is deliberately aimed at making it harder for unions to amalgamate. It's clearly aimed at the CFMEU, the MUA and the TCFUA. That's what this is aimed at. It's special legislation that's an attempt to abuse political power and to impose the will of the coalition parties on how unions, specifically, should choose to organise themselves.
It's an extraordinary proposition if we were going to go down this road. It creates a public interest test that the minister claims is the equivalent of the competition test that applies to company mergers, including whether the unions concerned have a record of complying with the law. The test also takes into account the impact an amalgamation would have on employers, employees and the industry concerned. It goes a lot further than the competition test for company mergers. Indeed, companies could have an extensive record of breaches of the law, including the underpaying of wages. That doesn't prevent that company from merging with another company. It should be dealt with on the basis of any breach of the law, just as any breach of the law by unions should be dealt with. When there's a breach of the law the response should be the same whether it's unions, employer organisations or companies.
We shouldn't have the attitude of those opposite, which is to come into this chamber and attempt to engage, essentially, in industrial relations by legislation in order to fulfil the obsession that those opposite have with undermining unions. We on this side of the House want an industrial relations system that punishes wrongdoing, whether by employees, trade unions or employers. You never hear those opposite talk about what's happened with the underpayment of the wages of 7-Eleven workers. You never hear those opposite stand up and talk about industrial accidents and how many people lose their lives on building sites and in the construction sector, the mining sector and other sectors. You never hear those opposite talk about the pressure that transport workers are put under. Indeed, this government came in and undermined the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, a mechanism established after long consultation—with support from major employers—and aimed at producing safe rates, after a parliamentary inquiry that was bipartisan and unanimous in its recommendations. It took years to work through to get a system whereby people weren't pressured into driving practices that weren't safe in order to secure their employment, that it wasn't either/or, and that you had a system whereby throughout the supply chain you had safe practices. It was a measure that had an impact on truck drivers, but also had an impact on all of us who share the roads with truck drivers—a road safety measure that hasn't been replaced with any measures at all by this government.
We've seen again in the transport sector the next tranche of legislation, aimed at removing Australian seafarers from work around our coasts on ships that have the Australian flag on the back of them, paying Australian wages and conditions, and having them replaced by foreign workers being paid foreign wages and working under foreign work conditions. It is extraordinary that the government has been prepared to go down this road. That is why this legislation should be rejected. This is a government that is producing legislation that's all about its ideology. It's not about jobs. It's not about national economic growth. It's not about the national interest. It's not about the interests of working families. It's just about its obsession with the trade union movement. In doing that, it undermines itself, as it did with Work Choices. That's one of the reasons this government is being rejected by the Australian people.
I rise to put my grave opposition to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017, which is before the House tonight. Let's be clear from the start: Labor does not support corruption or misconduct of any kind from anyone, whether they hold a position of power in a union, in a bank or in a kindergarten. We do support appropriate penalties for those who do the wrong thing. But this bill isn't about ensuring integrity, as its name might attempt to suggest. It's just the latest dirty volley in the Turnbull government's relentless war on unions.
The measures in this bill are neither appropriate nor fair. They are an outrageous and egregious imposition on the ability of unions to undertake their important business of protecting workers in Australia. The provisions in this bill are heavy-handed and they set the stage for unprecedented interference in the democratic functions of registered organisations. They dramatically and unfairly expand the ways that a registered organisation can be placed into administration. They open the door to big business, the minister or even lobbyists to influence whether someone is able to hold office in a union. They interfere with the fundamental right of workers to determine the structure of the organisations they choose to represent them. They very likely contravene important international treaties on human rights. For all these reasons, they represent a very real threat to the health of our free democratic society.
The government has fundamentally failed to make the case that there is any sort of systemic problem to justify the sorts of draconian measures it is proposing in this legislation. Of course, those opposite like to pretend that they are merely faithfully implementing the recommendations of the royal commission into trade unions. However, we need to recognise that the royal commission was thoroughly discredited as a political exercise on the day it was revealed that the man who headed up that royal commission had accepted an invitation to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser. Regardless of that, this legislation goes well beyond what was recommended by the royal commission.
The Turnbull government will also tell you that this bill evens up the scales and imposes the same rules on unions and their officials which companies and their directors are required to adhere to. For a start, we should recognise that unions and corporations aren't the same in their nature, purpose or resourcing, and they shouldn't be treated as though they are. But, even if they were, the government's claim of legislative equivalence is demonstrably and unquestionably false.
Let's look at a few examples. Firstly, there is the disqualification regime proposed in schedule 1, where an application to disqualify someone from holding office in a union can be placed by the minister or anyone with 'sufficient interest'. What does 'sufficient interest' mean and who could satisfy the criteria? Conceivably, it could mean that an employer, an employer organisation or even a lobbyist could bring an application to disqualify someone from holding a union office. This is a serious infringement on the right of members to choose and democratically elect the people who will represent them, and it opens the door to claims being lodged for purely political reasons. This far exceeds any measure in corporate legislation. It won't surprise you to hear that the government has failed to include any safeguards against frivolous or vexatious claims. The government's hypocrisy here is breathtaking. Yet again, it is a case of one rule for unions and another for the government's mates in big business. You only need to look at the hands-off approach that the government has taken to the terrible instances of corruption in the recent Commonwealth Bank scandal to see where its loyalties lie.
Schedules 2 and 3 of the bill fundamentally change the rules around defining and administering so-called dysfunctional organisations and placing them into administration or deregistering them. Under the proposed legislation, members of a union could see their union disbanded based on the conduct of their officials, even if that conduct happened without the members' knowledge. In the corporate sector there is no equivalent. A company cannot be shut down because of the actions of a corrupt director, and nor should it be. Union members will be forced to pay the price for the actions of a person, which they knew nothing about and had no power to change.
The rank double standard continues with the proposed public interest test around mergers. This is a blatant political response to the planned amalgamation of the MUA and the CFMEU. Coincidently, I understand this bill was released the very week after the government met with 30 oil, gas and mining executives, who reportedly called for a stop to this merger. The current provisions of the Fair Work Act already provide clear process for amalgamations to occur. Having no legitimate basis in the existing legislation to shut down amalgamations, the government had to make something up. Here we are discussing the proof of the Turnbull government's unfailing obedience to its big business masters. The government is trying to pretend that this is the same test that is applied to corporations that want to merge. Again, this is not true. The test imposed on company mergers looks solely at competition, which is clearly irrelevant to unions. In contrast, the test the government poses looks at unions' records of complying with the law. Corporations can have appalling records of not complying with the law and still not be prevented from merging.
The fact that this measure is retrospective reveals beyond a shadow of a doubt the government's true agenda: to shut down the merger of the MUA and the CFMEU by any means possible. Yet again, we see evidence that the government believes in one rule for the unions and yet another for everyone else, just as all the other measures in this bill are transparent attempts to limit the ability of unions to undertake the important work that they do. Make no mistake: we're getting into dangerous and disturbing territory here. We need to be very wary of the combined impact of the Abbott-Turnbull government's ongoing assaults on unions and the impact that's having on the fabric of our society and the health of our democracy.
Despite the deceitful smear campaign those opposite have engaged in ad nauseam, unions perform a critical role in a free and fair society. They provide a check against the power of corporations and they help to even the inevitable power imbalances between employees and employers, particularly for vulnerable workers and those on low incomes. They help to ensure that workers get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and, in doing so, lift the conditions for the whole workforce. A recent International Monetary Fund study found a decline in union membership is a significant factor in the share of national income that employees receive, which in turn is inextricably linked with inequality. Greater inequality threatens growth for the entire nation. Countries with free and active union movements also have more transparent and representative forms of government. But of course the Turnbull government have proven again and again that they don't care about transparent, fair governance, and they clearly don't care about addressing inequality, what with their $650 billion handout to big business, which is funded by ripping services away from the most vulnerable Australians. What they do care about deeply, however, is making it as difficult as humanly possible for unions to function effectively. At every opportunity, those opposite impugn and vilify unions while they use every dodgy trick in the book to shackle their operations.
But there's something much deeper and much more malignant going on here. To view this as just a war on unions misses the point. The government doesn't hate unions, per se; it just hates what they do—which is to fight for fair pay and conditions. The war on unions that is visible for all to see disguises the government's real target, and that is Australian workers. Of course, unions are often the last line of defence to support workers and help them fight for their rights. If workers can't unite to advocate for their own interests, it makes the government's job of driving down pay and conditions a whole lot easier. The real enemy is workers and the real motivation is to weaken their rights, slash their pay and smash their ability to fight back by organising.
This is a government that is actively hostile to Australian workers at every opportunity. Of course, the government have ruthlessly gone after unions, but that's just the beginning. They also put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission arguing against increasing the minimum wage. They support cuts to Sunday penalty rates for up to 700,000 low-income workers. They have actively fostered a shifting balance of power in industrial relations, which has emboldened too many employers to avoid their workplace obligations. They delayed superannuation increases and froze compulsory superannuation contributions, which were legislated to increase steadily to 12 per cent but are now stuck at 9.5 per cent. They savagely cut staff from key frontline government agencies, reducing services and leaving thousands of remaining workers waiting for a pay rise more than three years on.
The Turnbull government's war on workers isn't just cruel; it's also economically reckless. Wages growth is now at record lows, but the government is obsessing on legislation that will undermine workers and stall wages growth even further. Even the Treasurer himself has publicly recognised the dire implications for our national economy of our stagnating wages. But, staggeringly, he's chosen to continue on the very path that has contributed to this appalling situation.
While the explanatory memorandum for the bill promised to 'promote democratic governance in the interests of members of registered organisations', it does exactly the opposite. In fact, there are very real concerns about whether this legislation contravenes Australia's international commitments, which Australia's been a signatory to for decades. In its Human rights scrutiny report: report 9 of 2017, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights raises serious concerns about the human rights implications of this bill. The committee said:
The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017 (the bill) contains a number of schedules which impact on the internal functioning of trade unions.
The right to freedom of association includes the right to form and join trade unions. The right to just and favourable conditions of work also encompasses the right to form trade unions. These rights are protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
The interpretation of these rights is informed by International Labour Organization (ILO) treaties, including the ILO Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (ILO Convention No. 87) and the ILO Convention of 1949 concerning the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining (ILO Convention No. 98). ILO Convention 87 protects the right of workers to autonomy of union processes including electing their own representatives in full freedom, organising their administration and activities and formulating their own programs without interference. Convention 87 also protects unions from being dissolved, suspended or de-registered and protects the right of workers to form organisations of their own choosing.
A number of measures in this bill, by limiting the ability of unions to govern their internal processes, engage and limit these rights.
The report goes on to outline some specific concerns with many of the measures contained in this bill. Let's be clear: the human rights committee is not prone to making frivolous claims or acting on a political agenda. These are no small matters: in fact they are very grave incursions, which we in this place should take very, very seriously. If the government really cares about acting in the interests of Australian workers, it should protect their rights by pulling this bill and stopping the vicious attacks on the organisations that represent them.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017. It gives me no pleasure to speak in this debate, because we shouldn't be having it. This piece of legislation should not be in front of the Australian parliament. It's an insult to all of us. As many of you will know, I live in the Northern Territory, and over many years I've seen the value and importance of organised labour to my community. Many of you will know that my electorate is named after Vincent Lingiari. Vincent, for those of you who don't know, led the walk-off on Wave Hill station, which started a strike which went over a number of years for wages and conditions for Aboriginal pastoral workers and, ultimately, for the recognition and return of Aboriginal land to its original owners.
You can imagine the enthusiasm with which employer organisations around the Northern Territory, and across the country, met this sort of proposal. It's very clear that the way in which this great series of events in Australian history came to a conclusion for the benefit of Aboriginal people was in large part because of the support and work of the trade union movement around this country—in particular, the Maritime Union of Australia, which is disparaged by this government on an ongoing and continuing basis. Now they're opposed to the proposition that this union should amalgamate with the CFMEU, and it is the very target of one aspect of this piece of legislation.
The other particular union was the North Australian Workers' Union, which morphed into the miscellaneous workers union in the Northern Territory. Its workers and organisers and volunteer workers from the Northern Territory and across Australia raised funds and provided material to sustain these strikers over the long strike. Without their assistance, I very much doubt that we would have got the result we did. You would think, the way this piece of legislation before us has been framed, that somehow or another advocates involved in the trade union movement are all criminals and they should not be recognised and their positions should not be taken seriously, but, more importantly, they should be excluded from organising, excluded from making representation, excluded from being advocates for their organisations and excluded from engaging in political activity. That's the purpose of this legislation. It's not about industrial relations; this is purely and simply about politics, coming as it does after that dreadful, dreadful, dreadful royal commission—the Heydon royal commission—set up by this government effectively to interrogate the Leader of the Opposition. That's what it was about—for no outcome, of course. This government could use the recommendations from that royal commission by Commissioner Heydon as the basis for making this legislation.
The government alleges that there's a plethora, a large cohort, of corrupt union officials around this country. There are no facts to support that claim. If corruption or illegal activity exists, then that should be a matter for the criminal courts. Instead, what we're seeing here is a specific piece of legislation targeted directly at the leadership of the trade union movement of this country, the purpose of which is to break the back of their political opposition to this government. Let's be clear—this is nothing more than validating just another plank in this government's anti-union and anti-worker agenda.
According to the Bills Digest, this bill amends the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act to include serious criminal offences punishable by five or more years imprisonment or more as a new category of ‘prescribed offence’ for the purposes of the automatic disqualification regime, which prohibits a person from acting as an official of a registered organisation. What is that about? It is nothing more than targeting and discriminating against the representatives of Australian workers in this country. That is what it's about. We don't have similar requirements for the directors of large corporations in this country. We can't have them being treated the same way as we treat trade union officials—God forbid! We will protect the interests of those from the top end of Phillip Street or Kent Street, whatever you call the financial centre of Sydney, or in Melbourne. It is because they are concerned about the increasing importance of the messages coming out of the trade union movement in this country about the absolute disarray of this government and their disillusionment with this government over the rights of Australian workers that those in the financial centres say to the government, 'We support this piece of legislation; we think it's bloody fantastic.' Well they might. But they shouldn't. If they were fair and reasonable they would know that this legislation should not be supported.
This legislation will allow the Federal Court to prohibit officials from holding office. It will be an offence for a person, once disqualified, to continue to act as an official or in a way that influences the affairs of an organisation. It will allow the Federal Court to cancel the registration of an organisation on a range of grounds. It will allow applications to be made to the Federal Court for other orders, including suspending the rights and privileges of an organisation, an individual, a branch or division of an organisation. Why do we need this? There is no tangible explanation from this government. The trade union leadership across this country have said that where there is illegal and inappropriate activity we should root it out. If there is a problem with criminal offences, if people have made such allegations, that should be taken to the police. But, of course, we know that these are hollow objections about the way in which the trade unions work in this country.
This piece of legislation absolutely stinks. This legislation stinks. Unions are already more highly regulated than corporations and charities. Increasing this regulation even further would only serve to allow the government of the day, the employers, the business lobbyists or anyone with a sufficient interest the power to commence onerous, costly and unreasonable legal proceedings against unions and union leaders. Why would you do this? What is it about Australian working people that annoys you so much? What is it about organised labour that upsets you so much? I'm a proud trade union member and have been all my working life. I say to people: we wouldn't have the country we've got now if it weren't for the trade union movement. That's very clear. Of course, I reckon, given the way that the government have treated penalty rates, if they had been around when the eight-hour day was proposed they would have said: 'We're opposing that. There'll be no eight-hour day. And, by the way, we don't mind sweatshops.' That's what you would do. Why would you do that? 'Because it makes profits. If you make profits, people will invest more. It'll create more sweatshops. They're a great idea!' The basis of the approach from this government is to deny Australian workers access to their representative organisations, who advocate on their behalf and do the things that they want them to do.
This bill does not put corporations and unions on an equal footing. There is no question about that. It's clear that the obligations on registered organisations and their officers are significantly in excess of those imposed on corporations and company directors. Why not do the same? Why don't we have equivalent legislation dealing with company directors and corporations? We know that the government's intention through this bill is to attack the union movement and take workers away from the bargaining table. That's what they really want. 'We can't have you bargaining. We can't have you talking about your rights at work. We can't have you talking about what you're doing at work or what your wage rates are, even though we know that we're facing record low wages growth, rising cost of living pressures and insecure work.' We have 1.1 million Australians looking for more work. This is a government that supports cuts to the take-home pay of those lowest paid Australians. Why would you do that? Why would you target the lowest paid people in this country for the way in which they are trying to make a contribution to themselves and their families when you protect the top end of town? As I said, you look after those with the financial heartbeat, those people who make sure your coffers are full. You protect their interests but not the interests of Australia's lowest paid workers.
We know from the work of the parliament that this piece of legislation is not something which should attract the support of people who are concerned about the rights of workers and our international obligations. I know that my friend the member for Newcastle just spoke about the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and its attitude to this piece of legislation. Why is it that this government sees it as okay to address it in a way which is against the rights of Australian workers, against our international obligations and against the conventions of the International Labour Organization? Why is this okay? How can it be okay? Nothing stops this government, with their extreme right-wing claptrap, bringing into this parliament a piece of legislation which is totally politically motivated and is designed to victimise Australian working people.
This legislation is inconsistent with international law and is totally against the rights and autonomy of workers' organisations. It allows excessive political, corporate and regulatory interference in the democratic function and control of organisations through the expanded standing provisions and grounds for court orders. The cancellation regime proposed by the bill is unsupported by a policy and is not genuinely equivalent to the regulation of corporations. These are the views of Australian trade unions. They don't matter to this government, because this government has effectively said to the Australian union movement across this country, 'Your views don't count. It doesn't matter that the people you represent want you to express those views; your views and, by that very nature, their views are of no importance to us.'
The proposed changes to the amalgamation processes are directly aimed at the CFMEU, the TCF and the MUA. That's all it's about: three organisations wanting to come together to improve their possibilities of representing Australian workers and advocating on their behalf. That's a threat to this government. We can't have advocates, either industrial or political, coming out of the Australian union movement, because they're offensive to us. They're offensive to the way we work, they're offensive to the way we think and they're offensive because they absolutely don't go with the political direction we want to go with in this country. We should condemn this legislation and oppose it.
I want to thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017. This bill will protect workers and union members from the culture of lawlessness within some registered organisations that were identified by the Heydon Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption.
The Heydon royal commission identified numerous examples of officials breaking their duties; engaging in blackmail, extortion, coercion and secondary boycott conduct; abusing the rights of entry; acting in contempt of court; or failing to stop their organisations from repeatedly breaking the law. The royal commission found that a culture of lawlessness existed in various organisations where such conduct was rampant and officials were unwilling or unable to institute the change necessary. That is why we committed, at the last election, to implement the changes in this bill to ensure that members can trust that their organisations representing them act with integrity and in their best interests.
I turn now to some of the matters raised in the debate. There has been some discussion that the bill imposes harsher or higher standards on registered organisations than on corporations. The bill takes existing provisions of workplace and corporate laws and adapts them for the nature of registered organisations. There is nothing unprecedented about the provisions in the bill, and they don't impose higher or harsher standards on registered organisations than on corporations.
There has also been some discussion that the bill imposes onerous standards on registered organisations that will somehow discourage volunteering within those organisations. This argument is a fallacy. In fact, the bill does not impose any additional obligations at all on officials, voluntary or otherwise, but, rather, it applies consequences for organisations or officials who break the law or breach their duties to members. In addition, just like corporate regulation, the bill does not exempt volunteer officials from consequences for wrongdoing—just as they are not currently exempted. Officials are trusted by members to act in their interests and, of course, to obey the law, regardless of whether they are paid or not.
There has been some discussion that the bill expands the range of people who have standing to a point where government and businesses can supposedly interfere with a registered organisation's affairs. This is, again, another fallacy. The standing rules in the bill are based on provisions that already exist in the Fair Work Act and Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act. They give standing only to those parties with a genuine and sufficient interest. However, importantly and significantly, it is only the independent umpires, the Federal Court and the Fair Work Commission, that have the power to make orders to address law-breaking behaviour. The bill does nothing to change this existing status. The bill will not encourage frivolous or vexatious claims, which can already be dismissed and costs imposed by both the Federal Court and the Fair Work Commission.
The suggestion, again, that the bill does not comply with Australia's international legal obligations is incorrect. The ILO convention on freedom of association provides workers with the freedom to join unions but also requires that unions comply with the law of the land. This does not diminish the right to join a registered organisation, but it does require compliance with existing Australian laws, and this is wholly consistent with the convention.
There has also been debate about whether the bill targets the CFMEU. The bill is not targeting any particular official or registered organisation. What it targets is law-breaking behaviour. The provisions apply equally to any official or organisation that continually flouts the law, breaches duties or fails to put their members first. That the CFMEU is consistently raised in the context of this bill says more about its behaviour than the measures in the bill.
There has also been debate about the need for the public interest test for mergers introduced by the bill. I would remind all members that a public interest test previously applied until the introduction of Labor's Fair Work Act. Prior to this time, the public interest needed to be taken into account when the predecessor to the Fair Work Commission was performing its functions in relation to registered organisation matters. The public interest test in the bill will ensure that organisations with a culture of lawlessness cannot seek to expand their influence and their operating model through mergers. In addition, when companies seek to merge, they must first satisfy a regulator—in that case, the ACCC—that the merger won't, in that instance, damage the public interest by substantially lessening competition. Such a merger can only be approved by the Australian Competition Tribunal if it would be in the public interest—again, consistent with the approach in this bill for registered organisations.
Finally, there has been some discussion about consultation on the bill. Consultation was undertaken on the draft bill before it was introduced as part of the standard consolation process on industrial legislation. The bill also responds to the findings and recommendations of the two-year long royal commission, which had 189 days of hearings, heard from 505 witnesses, and conducted public hearings all over Australia. In addition, the amendments in the bill have been government policy since June 2016, when we committed to them before the last election.
I'd like to thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for their inquiry into this bill, and those individuals and organisations who have contributed by preparing written submissions and giving evidence at public hearings. I note that the committee made no recommendations for amendment to the bill, and I therefore, commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Gorton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Labor Party will oppose this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. In typical fashion for this government, the government claims, in naming the bill in their Orwellian fashion, that this is a measure to reduce pressure on housing affordability. But this is actually a poor excuse for a government that is incapable of coming up with a housing affordability policy, a poor excuse that actually will make housing affordability worse and undermine the retirement incomes of Australians. That's the best this government can come up with.
We were promised a comprehensive plan—a holistic, substantial package. We were promised that it was going to be huge. We were told that the budget was going to be breathtaking in its scope when it came to housing affordability. What we got was a grab bag of a collection of half-baked ideas—thought bubbles—many of which will actually make the situation worse. And this is all to cover up the fact that the government refuses to use the one big lever at its disposal. This government is singularly incapable of reforming negative gearing—the most important thing that can be done at the federal level to help first home buyers. We have the most generous property tax concessions in the world. We give more taxpayer support to somebody to buy their fifth, sixth or seventh home than we do to somebody to buy their first, and this government says that's okay. We have investor rates at record highs and first home owner rates at record lows, and this government says that's okay. We have the situation in which 50 per cent of negative gearing goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners and 70 per cent of the benefit of capital gains tax concession goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners, and this government says: 'That's just fine. We're just going to keep it, just going to leave it in place. We don't care that it's unfair. We don't care that it worsens housing affordability. We don't care that it's bad for the budget. We're just going to leave it in place.'
Instead, we get these ridiculous measures, particularly the first schedule of this bill, which undermines the retirement incomes of Australians and makes housing affordability worse. This is part of a long line of attempts and attacks by the Liberals and Nationals, over generations, to undermine Australia's universal superannuation system, which the Labor Party introduced in the 1990s over the vociferous opposition of the Liberals and Nationals—vociferous opposition. We hear a lot about bipartisanship and how it should be more like the nineties. Well, just as they opposed Medicare, they opposed universal superannuation. They keep finding any opportunity to undermine superannuation. Any idea out there, they say, 'Yeah, let's use superannuation money for that.' At their core, they do not believe in universal superannuation. At their core, they do not support the universal superannuation system as it was introduced.
Superannuation accounts are meant to be a locked box to generate retirement income—not to be used at the whim of governments of the day but to be set aside for the very important task of providing every Australian with a dignified retirement. In time it will take pressure off the age pension, that is true, but it also provides every Australian with a dignified retirement. That's what superannuation is for. Yet this government will find any opportunity to undermine it. We saw it with the previous Treasurer—the then member for North Sydney—who came up with this thought bubble of allowing access to superannuation for housing. The response from the superannuation sector was, correctly, outrage that a treasurer did not understand the importance of superannuation for Australians' retirement income. And this Treasurer is no better. In fact, he's worse. This plan would mean that first home savers, who make voluntary contributions in the superannuation system, can withdraw those contributions, up to a certain limit, and an amount of associated earnings, for the purpose of purchasing their first home. The concessional tax treatment would apply to amounts that are withdrawn under the scheme.
It's ironic because this government is putting forward this measure that undermines the objective of superannuation, which they are attempting to legislate as we speak. The government has legislation before the parliament to say that the objective of superannuation should be to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension, whereas this legislation undermines that objective. We don't entirely agree with that objective. The Murray inquiry recommended that the objective should be bipartisan. The government has not engaged in that good-faith negotiation with the opposition to get a bipartisan agreement. I've made crystal clear time and time again that we would be prepared to do that. This is the legislation before the parliament for that objective, and yet over here, in this legislation, the government is undermining their own objective for superannuation, because they would not provide, through this, a mechanism to allow income and retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension, because some of it will been gone—used up for a housing purchase.
I understand that some people will find this superficially attractive. I understand that some people would say, 'I can get the money now; I can use it for a house now.' I can understand this. But this comes to our second point. This will actually make housing affordability worse. It's pretty basic economics.
Mr Howarth interjecting—
The member chortles. They don't understand basic economics over there. They don't understand that if two bidders, for example, at an auction—because this would be available to more than one person—come to that auction and said, 'We've got access to our superannuation, so we're going to bid higher', they're going to bid against each other, and they're going to bid the price up. The only winner in that scenario is the vendor, who can get more for their house. The actual person who purchases the house, having used some of the money that was set aside for their retirement income, is no better off. The person who missed out on the house is no better off. The person who is better off is the vendor, and that is making housing affordability worse. Whether it's an auction or whether it's just sold in the normal fashion through a real estate agent, the laws of economics are the same. Honourable members opposite just don't understand the basic law that if you actually stimulate the amount of money people have there it will drive up demand. This is more evidence of the 50 years of policy failure that Saul Eslake talked about—when governments, devoid of any other plan, just think, 'Oh well, we'll just stimulate more demand by this short-sighted mechanism'. But this one is actually worse! This one is actually the worst of the bunch, because at the same time it undermines superannuation.
We will oppose this strongly. We will oppose this vociferously because we are the party that supports superannuation. We're also the party with the comprehensive plan to deal with housing affordability, which the mob opposite just simply hasn't had the wit to come up with. They absolutely refuse to reform negative gearing—the one big thing that they could do. The one big reform they could embrace—to reform negative gearing and put first home buyers on a more level playing field, making our tax system fairer and having a positive return to the budget. They just won't do it—singly incapable! Instead we get this rubbish legislation put before the House. It's an insult to the intelligence of the House, an insult to the intelligence of young Australians trying to save for a first home and an insult to all those who think that they can dare to dream of having a dignified retirement and home ownership. This government says that you can choose—you can have a dignified retirement or you can have home ownership. You can't have both.
There are a number of other reasons why we will oppose it, but I can tell that you, Deputy Speaker Hastie, are very keen to get onto the adjournment debate, so I'll reserve my remarks for a later day.
Debate interrupted.
Since I was elected to parliament four years ago there has been rarely a week in my electorate office where we haven't received complaints about inadequate television reception. I have been actively campaigning for improved communication services in the Lake Macquarie and Central Coast regions, and I have continually called upon the Minister for Communications and the government to help me in resolving this issue. However, the people of Shortland have been continually ignored. These residents are right to expect decent television reception, as television provides us access to news and a connection to our community with locally produced content from regional broadcasters. It's particularly important for people who are elderly or isolated, as free-to-air television remains the most accessible form of telecommunication.
Inaction by the government prompted me to launch a digital television survey to gain further feedback on the state of television services in Shortland. I received 227 responses, which provides a small snapshot of the area. However, hearing these stories has been overwhelming. So many people have told me they are frustrated and angry, and many have exhausted all their options. I found from the survey that the transition to digital has seen a large decline in satisfaction. The proportion of respondents who were satisfied with their television service developed from 83 per cent with analog to 54 per cent with digital since the transition. That's a drop of 30 percentage points. Of the respondents who had a technician out to improve their service, more than half saw little or no improvement.
One example is Mrs Flanagan from Belmont, who has had several technicians out to try and improve her reception since the switch to digital. Nothing has helped. She looks after her grandchildren and is unable to access ABC KIDS for them because of the poor reception. I can attest to the value of ABC KIDS. Mrs Flanagan applied to the Australian government to receive access to VAST—viewer access satellite television—to resolve the issues, but was rejected because of the new transmission tower at Belmont North. However, multiple technicians have explained to her that the new tower offers her no improvement.
Another example is Mr Hedley from Caves Beach, who has digital reception so bad that he's had to pay for VAST equipment to be installed. The ability to watch television came at a considerable expense to him. I do not believe it's reasonable or fair that these residents are forced to invest in a satellite service simply to replace what has been delivered for free for nearly half a century. Due to the nature of satellite television, Mr Hedley is now excluded from accessing local news content from NBN.
The government has been aware of these issues for years, as they were first raised in 2014. In the years since, the government's response to my attempts to resolve this issue has been appalling. I have asked both the former and the current Minister for Communications to refer the digital television issues to the Australian Communications and Media Authority for field testing and for the government and the regional broadcasters to start working together to find a solution to these problems. This has not been done. In an act of political opportunism, half a million dollars of federal funding was allocated to upgrading the television transmitter near the nearby Paterson electorate in 2015. The minister at the time, the current Prime Minister, had to drive through my electorate to go to Paterson to announce this investment. I had hoped that the communications minister would do the same for the people of Shortland, but instead they were ignored.
The people I represent deserve better than that. Many people might think that television reception is an issue that is a luxury; but in fact, in the modern world, in a developed nation, it is still the primary means that many people use to get information on current affairs and news events and to inform their decisions about who they will vote for in elections. It's actually an important part of the democratic process for people to have access to free-to-air television.
To conclude, whilst recognising that the Minister for Regional Communications has recently responded to my representations, her reply is totally inadequate. She does not seem to understand how serious the problem is in Shortland. She gives some vague advice about tuning and antennas. I can tell her that my constituents are well aware of how to tune their televisions. Many have spent hundreds of dollars, if not thousands, on new antennas and technicians, with no improvement whatsoever. Access to basic services like free-to-air television in areas less than an hour and a half from Sydney, a larger city, is a basic right in a developed nation. It is a right that should not be politicised. To my constituents, I say: I will continue to campaign for greater telecommunication services, including television reception. I will not rest until we get the services we deserve from this unsympathetic government.
As the sun rose on 31 October 1917, 40,000 Allied troops charged towards the small town of Beersheba to fight in what would be later known as one of Australia's greatest victories in the First World War. This month marks the centenary of the Battle of Beersheba. One of the men who fought in this battle was my great-grandfather Sylvester Henry Browne, a commercial traveller. He served in the 1st Australian Light Horse Regiment at the Battle of Tel el Saba as part of the greater Beersheba campaign. A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade report on the history of Australia and Israel relations states of my great-grandfather that 'he proudly claimed to have been the first Jewish soldier of the British and Imperial forces to enter the ancient land of Israel'.
Beersheba was a heavily fortified town in the Negev desert, anchored at the end of a defensive line which stretched all the way from Gaza on the Mediterranean coast. The origins of the name Beersheba go to the Bible. 'Beersheba' refers to the Hebrew be'er, meaning 'well', and sheva, meaning 'seven', referring to the seven wells dug by Abraham and Isaac. The town was a strategic Turkish stronghold. After two unsuccessful frontal attacks on Gaza, the Allies decided that the capture of Beersheba would allow their forces to outflank Gaza from the south-east.
The strategic aims of the British and Australian forces in Beersheba were twofold: firstly, to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war—the Ottoman Empire was in a gradual state of decline, having lost most of its North African territories and almost all of its European territories; and, secondly, to defend their control of the Suez Canal, a vital naval passageway to transport troops and supplies. The challenge of fighting in the desert was the lack of water for men and their horses. Therefore, to maintain hydration, Beersheba had to be taken in one day.
A successful attack on Beersheba required, first, the capture of Tel el Saba, a smaller strategic town three kilometres to the east that protected Beersheba's eastern flank. Enemy resistance at Tel el Saba too had been stronger than expected. It took about nine hours of intensive fighting for the Allied Forces, including the 1st Australian Light Horse, to capture the town. With time running out before dark, Lieutenant General Sir Harry Chauvel ordered the 4th and 12th Australian Light Horse Brigade to charge at the Turkish trenches around Beersheba in one last hopeful attempt. The Australians faced a thousand Turkish riflemen with unrelenting machine gun and artillery fire. Before the men embarked, Australian Brigadier William Grant proclaimed: 'Men, you're fighting for water. There's no water between this side of Beersheba and Esani. Use your bayonets as swords. I wish you the best of luck.' The shock value and the sheer speed of the successive waves of horsemen saw them break through the Turkish defences in less than an hour, securing water and over 700 Turkish prisoners. Unofficial reports propose that after days without water, the horses could actually smell the water within Beersheba and galloped over the trenches to the source.
The fall of Beersheba enabled the Allies to outflank the defensive line, with Turkish forces eventually abandoning Gaza on 6 November 1917. Jerusalem also fell to the Allies in the closing days of 1917 as Christians and Jews gathered together to reclaim the Holy Land. My great-grandfather wrote of his joy in being able to celebrate Passover the following year, 1918, in Jerusalem, stating: 'I consider myself very fortunate at having the luck to be here as this thing is now history, never to be wiped off the slate, but can carry on forever and ever.' The battle was not without its casualties. Of the 800 men who rode in the charge, 31 light horsemen had been killed.
Unlike Gallipoli, which was a famous defeat, Beersheba marks a victory for the Australian troops and is hailed in history as the last successful cavalry charge. While there is no doubt that this battle was an iconic military victory, Beersheba has a much broader significance. It provides a shared piece of history for Britain, Australia and the Jewish people more widely. The Battle of Beersheba marked a new beginning for Israel and the Jewish people. The following day, the Balfour Declaration was released by the British government, proposing the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine.
Later this month, I will travel at my own expense to Israel to attend the centenary events commemorating the Battle of Beersheba. It will be a privilege to retrace my great-grandfather's footsteps. Like my great-grandfather, the light horsemen of Beersheba came from all over Australia—mainly from small towns—and demonstrated great courage, conviction and horsemanship. The sheer grit of the Australian Light Horse, as in Gallipoli, was demonstrated at Beersheba. Beersheba is not as famous as Gallipoli, but hopefully these centenary commemorations will help draw the attention of a new generation of people to the heroism of our troops.
In the worlds of Nelson Mandela:
Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice. Like Slavery and Apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings.
Mandela's words capture the spirit of a remarkable organisation in my electorate called the Australian Health Humanitarian Aid, which goes by the acronym AHHA. AHHA is made up of a team of dedicated doctors, optometrists, dentists and volunteers who work in collaboration with the Rotary Club of Liverpool West and regularly visit Vietnam and Cambodia to treat the poor and those who are unable to obtain medical assistance.
Following extensive planning and fundraising, in August this year a team of 120 AHHA volunteers travelled to Phnom Penh to perform medical procedures for disadvantaged people in various villages throughout Cambodia. With the help of their in-country partners, the Khmer Sight Foundation, treatment was provided to hundreds of patients who, due to poverty or remoteness, had not been able to receive appropriate medical or dental attention. Screening in Cambodia had been carried out in advance, with those patients selected being mainly the elderly, orphans, and children with special needs. The AHHA team faced a new and rather unforeseen setback in the form of major flooding and monsoonal conditions. While this made it difficult for patients to be transferred from outlying areas, the AHHA team remained optimistic, committed and worked tirelessly to provide the much-needed assistance. The eye and dental teams operated from the local hospital and university. Patients came from far and wide. Waiting rooms were full of patients being prepared for eye surgery or dental procedures.
The AHHA team also travelled to remote villages to provide medical examinations and treatment. The remote villages were mainly occupied by stateless people, who are not recognised by either the Cambodian or the Vietnamese governments. The conditions in these villages were dire and resembled, as we would perceive them, refugee camps.
In addition to the medical and dental treatment, special humanitarian assistance was also rendered. It has always been a key aspect and main motivation of the AHHA's field trips over many years to be able to improve the living conditions of the poor and disadvantaged. Knowledge transfer was also a significant part of the focus of the 2017 AHHA field trip. Local doctors and students worked alongside AHHA volunteers in surgical theatres, as well as in consulting rooms, learning how to use new medical technologies and procedures and gaining hands-on experience to improve patient outcomes and care. Seminars were conducted by the AHHA team, where they provided information on the latest medical and dental procedures to university students and members of the local medical profession. It is hoped that the benefits gained by the university students and local professionals from these seminars will be passed on to their colleagues and applied in the future treatment of patients. Due to the dedicated AHHA volunteers and the Rotary Club of Liverpool West, many Cambodians now have a new lease on life and a real future. They can once more be an active and productive member of their local villages and communities, but, more importantly, they have regained their sense of self-esteem.
During the 2017 mission, AHHA provided 354 eye surgeries, 1,362 dental procedures and 800 GP consultations, and distributed 200 prescription glasses and over a thousand sunglasses. The humanitarian aid team have also provided 600 water filters in Cambodia and 1,176 water filters in Vietnam in addition to the distribution of food parcels and financial donations.
Although we are not immune to health issues here in Australia, most of us are fortunate to have the information and resources that allow for early detection and effective treatment. Many people around the world are less fortunate. I thank Dr William Trinh and his dedicated team. They are truly making a difference for the better in our world.
Tonight I rise to pay homage to a good friend of mine, Graham 'Butch' Lenton, the Mayor of Winton, who tragically lost his fight against cancer on 1 October this year. Winton is a small outback town of around a thousand people. Butch was Winton to the core. He was born and bred in Winton, he was educated there and he started his own business there, Central Motors. He was a keen mechanic. After getting an apprenticeship with the Winton Shire Council 30-odd years ago, he was able to start his own business and employ local people. He was a keen motorbike rider; in fact, he raced motorbikes and rode one across the Simpson Desert.
Butch was all about community. He was president of the Diamantina Devils rugby league team for 22 years, proudly representing them and his community. He believed in the future and people of Winton. Butch was somebody that everyone trusted and looked up to. For someone in a small community, he punched above his weight. He was a man who believed in his community. When he became a councillor back in 1997, then deputy mayor, then mayor in 2012, Butch gave everything he had for his community because he believed in it and he believed in his people.
Butch faced much adversity while he was the Mayor of Winton. He saw fires and drought. In fact, he saw the Waltzing Matilda Centre burn down in 2015. It was Butch who fought fiercely for the rebuilding of the centre. It was Butch who proactively looked for an alternative power supply through geothermal. It was Butch who saw the future in the outback quite uniquely in film and created his own film festival in Winton. He was a man of great vision and pride. He was a man who believed in his community and what he did.
I was fortunate enough to meet Butch two years ago, and it was at that point that I realised this man transcended all political boundaries. He was not about trying to be on one side or the other. Butch had respect from everybody not because he ranted or raved but because he led his community with pride and conviction. He understood his community and led them in a way that was inspiring to those people, who had faced so much adversity. They understood that he was there to drive the community to a better place despite what befell them. He never let them become victims. He never let them feel as though they'd been hard done by. Instead, he inspired them to be something they always wanted to be. That is something I will always take with me: as a leader you have to inspire your community to bring them with you—not make them victims or pull on those things that are hard in life but look for the opportunities ahead.
Butch rang me only about four weeks ago, after he'd been to a specialist in Townsville who told him that the cancer he'd been fighting for some two years was terminal. Butch's words were: 'Dave, mate, I had a bit of a bad week this week. It's going to be a bit tough from here on in. But she'll be right, mate; she'll be right.' That a man facing mortality saw only what he could do for the people of Winton in the rest of his time on this planet, thought only about the things left undone, the things he felt he hadn't achieved, I find inspiring. Seeing over a thousand people turn up to Butch's funeral and the absolute respect across the political divide for what this man had achieved and the lives he had touched is something I will never forget.
I was fortunate enough to meet with Butch one last time, about a week before he died. I raced out to Winton and had an hour with him. We talked about all the things that he believed he'd done and all the things he wanted to do, with frustration in his voice about what he wanted to achieve. In the outback we don't often touch one another, but, one last time, I was given the opportunity to give Butch a hug, and it is a hug that I will never forget, not for the rest of my life. I say to Ros and all the family: you should be so proud of this man; you should be proud of everything he's done. He's a true outback legend. He's a leader of our times. I will never forget Butch Lenton. Thank you.
I commend the member for Maranoa for his brave speech this evening. It is really quite synchronistic that he spoke about cancer and that he spoke about unfinished business, because in the last 15 years, along a five-kilometre stretch of rural road—we're not talking about a heavily populated or densely populated area—over 50 people in my electorate have passed away from cancer, and we're in the throes of investigating why that is so.
I rise again to speak about the plight of the people of Williamtown and surrounds—people whose lives have been turned upside down by a toxic legacy unleashed by the department that is charged with their very defence; people who were not informed of known risks and unwittingly remained in the path of a biopersistent chemical that contaminated their very bodies. Not one more day should pass before we hear of the plan that has been spoken of by Senator James McGrath, on behalf of the Prime Minister, for an out for these people of Williamtown; the people of Oakey, and I note the member for Groom in the chamber this evening and I thank him for his friendship and bipartisanship on this issue; and, also, the people of Katherine.
The people in the red zone in my electorate of Paterson are angry, as am I. To be blunt, they feel completely done over by their own government. It is a national disgrace, as was so graphically portrayed on Four Corners last Monday night. Defence has admitted it should have acted three years earlier, at least, to notify my community of the danger of these chemicals. I strongly condemn that delay.
I also condemn Defence's cavalier attitude towards the use of this chemical throughout the 1980s and 1990s, when they were specifically warned not to pour it onto open earth—that it did run the risk of contaminating waterways. They knew. They had manufacturers' warnings about this. However, it was not treated with the respect it should have been treated with. How different the situation that we find ourselves in today might be if they had heeded the warnings. The danger was well known, and Defence showed total disregard for it.
I have been fighting for the people of Williamtown since my first day in this place and, to be honest with you, even before I was elected. Let me tell you, it is tough going for my community.
Senator James McGrath is the head of the prime ministerial PFAS Taskforce. I am hoping that he is going to cabinet very shortly, and I am hoping that the cabinet of this government, of this country, pays heed to what he says. We need to do something for these people, beyond wringing our hands and saying, 'Yes, it's terrible.' Seriously! You are the government, and I am reaching out to you, saying, 'Come on; let's do something. Let's put this shameful wrong to rights.' I wrote an open letter to the senator, spelling out my outrage and disgust, and I urge my constituents to do the same.
The Newcastle Herald this week published a letter from Cain Gorfine of the Williamtown and Surrounds Residents Action Group; Nick Marshall, who was featured on the ABC the other night because he owns his home and his property outright but couldn't get a $20,000 loan to renovate his kitchen—just think about that—of Salt Ash Community First group; and Mr Lindsay Clout of the Fullerton Cove Residents Action Group. These gentleman made a simple yet heartfelt plea to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull; to Marise Payne, the defence minister; and to James McGrath. Their request: 'Fix this mess and let us get on with our lives.'
The Williamtown community is heartsick from what they have been through, but more to the point they're heartsick by the inaction. To quote their letter to the government and Defence, 'Your handling of this crisis has betrayed public trust.' And what a betrayal! Let us not forget that Defence had known for years, even decades, of the dangers of these chemicals as biopersistent substances. They knew that PFAS had the potential to leak into our waterways, and now it has. My community have earth that's contaminated, water that's contaminated, bodies that are contaminated and babies that are contaminated. (Time expired)
Nauti-Craft has just won a prestigious 2017 Maritime Australia industry innovation award. Nauti-Craft are a research and development company based in Dunsborough in my electorate. They designed and developed the Nauti-Craft marine suspension system. It is patented technology that separates the vessel's hulls from the deck and superstructure via a 'passive reactive' interlinked hydraulic system, which of course provides increased levels of ride comfort, control and stability. Whole body vibration is reduced by up to 75 per cent, which provides unparalleled levels of shock mitigation.
This is a practical example of an innovative and groundbreaking R&D business in rural and regional Australia—my South West. It's innovation by Chris Heyring, a local of Dunsborough, who previously worked on advanced suspension cars. He adapted the same shock-absorbing technology for vessels. Chris's idea led to Nauti-Craft's advanced designs, which are providing outstanding stability and sea-keeping capabilities as well as significantly increasing passenger comfort. It's truly a great example of Australian ingenuity and common sense, using advanced technology.
The history of Nauti-Craft is quite remarkable. Chris started thinking about this over a decade ago, trying it out on small sailboats to test the basic concept. Those tests showed promise, so he developed a radical eight-metre quadmaran that basically looked like an F1 car on water. Then an 8.5-metre Nauti-Craft prototype catamaran was built in 2013. It has undergone extensive sea trials and fine-tuning in the waters around Cape Naturaliste. This prototype has been used as a demonstration vessel in Australia and the UK and it continues to serve as an important platform for ongoing research and development. Chris and his local team are doing a great job. The business has the potential to be a very important Australian export to the world from Dunsborough. Just consider the possibilities! This suspension has the potential to be used in the military, Border Force, sea rescue, crew transfer vessels for the oil and gas industry, passenger cruise liners, hydrographic survey vessels—the list is endless.
The technology is a hydraulic suspension system for multi-hulled vessels, separated so the hull reacts rapidly to wave inputs and conforms to the ocean surface, without transmitting high forces and accelerations of the hulls to the deck and to the superstructure. What this means in practice is that there is far greater operability, comfort and safety through the reduction in jarring and slamming by the boats. It reduces the roll and pitch and has been an absolute bonus to those of us who suffer from seasickness. The vessels can also achieve higher speeds in rough sea conditions, and smaller vessels are able to do the same job as a larger one because of the improved sea-keeping.
The possible applications are significant. They cover all forms of maritime industries, all around the world. When you look at the wind farm market, you see that there are over 1,200 offshore wind turbines and more planned. Given the servicing requirements, Nauti-Craft vessels are well placed to be part of this market. The recreation market is another significant opportunity for Nauti-Craft, and boaties are always looking for a smoother ride. As well, the suspension provides greater stability during embarkation and disembarkation by passengers and crew and when the vessel is at rest or stationary. The technology can be applied to boats, from one- to two-person boats right through to large luxury cruising vessels, offering ultimate levels in smooth cruising.
I congratulate Chris Heyring and his Nauti-Craft team. They are doing a fantastic job in Dunsborough. It is a wonderful credit to rural and regional Western Australia and, in particular, to my electorate of Forrest in the South West.
House adjourned at 20:00
I rise today to speak to the chamber about my very good friend Meg Oates and to congratulate her for serving on Campbelltown City Council for 30 continuous years—a remarkable achievement. Having first been elected to our city's council in September 1987, Meg has spent the past 30 years tirelessly fighting for our community. Throughout her 30 years as a councillor, Meg has served as the mayor of Campbelltown for four terms, and she is currently serving as our deputy mayor.
Arriving in Australia from England in the 1970s, Meg and her late husband, John, settled in the Macarthur region and have never looked back. Since then, Meg's passion for her community and for the betterment of services for our local residents has been apparent in all aspects of her life. Whether it be Meg's dedication to the education of future generations throughout her career as a high-school teacher, her tireless efforts in fighting to preserve our Scenic Hills, her determination to see more women in public office or her constant efforts in fighting for the provision of adequate services and infrastructure to meet our city's needs, our city owes a great debt to Meg for her undying advocacy and generosity of spirit.
Similarly, throughout this time Meg has been a stalwart of the mighty Australian Labor Party, and I can't thank her enough for her service and contributions to the Labor movement. After years serving in innumerable branch, state and federal electoral council positions and having been preselected as a Labor candidate for the 2004 federal election, it was only fitting that Meg received a life membership of our party at New South Wales Labor's recent annual conference. The party, too, owes a great deal to Meg for her dedication and undying service; it has been made all the better by her contributions. There is not a meeting that we go to in my electorate that Meg is not at and providing some sort of service, from the most menial to the most difficult, and in the most complicated policy areas.
After her 30 years of hard work and dedication to the people of Campbelltown, people could certainly be forgiven for expecting Meg to relax and slow down; however, nothing could be further from the truth. Those people certainly wouldn't know Meg that well and would surely be taken by surprise. It's apparent to all the new members and to all the young people of our electorate that she has boundless energy. Since being re-elected at the local government elections in September last year, Meg has showed no indication of any intention to take it easy, and has continued to fight for local infrastructure and for the betterment of our community. Under her stewardship and that of Mayor George Brticevic, Meg has recently spearheaded a fantastic project which is the key to revitalising our city's CBD and night-life. I wish to take this opportunity to thank Meg and to thank her family for giving up their time with Meg so she could provide such a wonderful service to our community. I thank her.
Last week I was introduced to some small business owners with an exceptional story, right in the heart of Mandurah, in Canning. Their business was brought to my attention by Mandurah's Employment Facilitator, a new role for our region—delivered by the Minister for Employment—that helps network employers with employment and jobactive agencies. The business is Calming Moments, started by Mark and Cherisse Spray. They are ordinary hardworking Australians who decided to make the most of a tough situation. Mark and Cherisse have a son with high-functioning autism. They were struggling with the sometimes tough and disruptive lifestyle that this brings, when one day someone suggested they buy a weighted blanket. A weighted blanket creates a snug, calming sensation for the user. The blankets have helped people with anxiety, sleep disorders, autism and sensory issues by bringing relief, comfort and a better night's sleep.
Mark and Cherisse liked the blanket but not the price tag—it was over $400—so they decided to make their own. People said they were crazy, but the design worked. Then they decided to try selling them online for $99. Within a week, orders were coming in faster than they could produce the blankets. Five years on, and they are just about the No. 1 weighted blanket company in Australia. Mark calls it a 'journey in baby steps'. What started out as a couple in their living room is now a full-time business, leasing commercial space, employing five local people and manufacturing a custom-designed product using Australian materials. They've also invested in their local community.
At the beginning, Mark and Cherisse committed to give five per cent of their sales to the Autism Association. They've since supported the Peel Autism Network, which provides support for families in the Peel region. Most recently, they decided to help provide job opportunities to people with autism. Maryanne Baker, Mandurah's Employment Facilitator, put them on to Forrest Personnel, who connected Mark and Cherisse with Jason Harris. Jason is now an important part of the team, using his attention for detail to weigh the material for the blankets, which must be 10 per cent of the client's body weight. He says the job 'helps with all the autistic clutter going on in my head'.
Calming Moments are an Australian success story with international potential that's grown up entirely in Mandurah. In the words of Maryanne Baker, it shows:
There are always solutions locally. This is a company born out of having a son with autism, to running a business that feeds back into the disability sector, making a product for autistic children and adults, which then employs back into that region as well.
In a community struggling with unemployment this is fantastic example of how the best solutions are always found locally. I'm incredibly proud to represent people like Mark and Cherisse, and I wish them and their staff every success into the future.
I rise today to acknowledge and thank the many dedicated people who run and volunteer in our community centres in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. It is the time of the year where many local community centres are having their annual general meetings and reflecting on the year that was. There are many community centres that offer many opportunities for local residents to get involved in a range of things. They provide a central, familiar location for people who receive important programs, services and activities. Community centres in the south provide services such as adult leaning classes, playgroups and support groups as well as health and fitness programs.
When you look at the quality and range of services offered by community centres across my electorate, there are so many examples of people going above and beyond to improve the lives of others. One example is the Participate and Learn Skills or PALs program, which is offered at a number of local centres. PALs focuses on building life skills and promoting community engagement with primary school-age children. The program is aimed at children who are at risk of disadvantage, such as children with learning difficulties, children from difficult family situations and children with a disability. There are important assistance programs offered at the centres as well, such as the breakfast club that runs out of the Hackham West Community Centre. The program involves picking children up from their homes before school and bringing them to the centre to have a healthy, nutritious breakfast.
Even more than the service programs and activities offered, community centres are safe and welcoming places where everyone can feel a sense of belonging. They are a place to meet other people and to socialise. Particularly for disadvantaged members of our community, these centres play a vital role in pulling people out of social isolation and making them feel connected with the broader community.
Throughout my years as the member for Kingston, I have met countless numbers of volunteers at these centres. These centres are run by volunteers. These centres have volunteers involved in every aspect of their day-to-day running, so I would like to particularly thank those people. There's the Aldinga Community Centre, Christie Downs Community House, the Cove Civic Centre, Elizabeth House and Wakefield House, Hackham West Community Centre, Reynella Neighbourhood Centre, Seaford Community Centre, Trott Park Neighbourhood Centre, Woodcroft Morphett Vale Neighbourhood Centre and the Neporendi Aboriginal Forum. These are just some of the amazing community centres that offer great social support and services our community. I would like to thank sincerely all of those who play a part in making these community centres great.
I have reflected in this parliament before on the extraordinary community I have the honour to represent. Our beautiful harbour-side location has shaped the character of our area, but it is the people who have made it such a strong and vibrant community. Recently, I had the opportunity to acknowledge some of these incredible people at the North Sydney Community Awards, which we organise each year to celebrate the contribution of local volunteers. The awards brought together an outstanding collection of individuals and organisations who selflessly give of their time to enrich other people's lives and make our area a better place. It was heartening to see the sheer volume of nominations and to know that compassion and giving back are notions that are alive and well in the North Sydney community.
I want to acknowledge some of the people who received an award. Sadly, time does not permit me to list all of the recipients but each was equally deserving. However, I can mention a few to illustrate the depth of volunteerism in our community. For example, Ada Belcher has volunteered at the Crows Nest St Vincent de Paul shop since 1968. Ada has dedicated almost 50 years of her life to managing the store and all of the welfare requests who come through the door, providing food, clothes and blankets to disadvantaged people in the community. Francesca Timar, the North Sydney Young Person of the Year, was nominated for her community work through Monte Sant' Angelo Mercy College, one of my great local schools. Francesca has encouraged active involvement and engagement with Aboriginal issues by, for example, participating in a cultural immersion program and helping to paint a mural at a local childcare centre. Francesca has continued her work with the group despite finishing school last year. Organisations such as Sydney Community Services, our Community Group of the Year, provide such incredible support to senior residents and those with a disability, particularly in the Lane Cove and Hunters Hill areas. I also particularly want to mention Gig Buddies, which works across New South Wales but has its home in my electorate, in Chatswood. It provides an incredible service by matching people with a disability to those with similar musical or other interests to provide them with experiences they otherwise might not have had.
The Community Awards are also a time for us to acknowledge outstanding sporting achievements. Mina Ferguson ranks in the top 50 in the world for sailing, and Tully White is the open women's national longboard surfing champion, having already been the junior national champion for two years in a row. I was also pleased we could honour some of the volunteers at the Crows Nest Centre: Kerry Hammond, Elizabeth Kirkby, John Seala and Bernadette Dattatreyan. There are people who share their love of sport by working with local teams, like Paul Tout from the North Shore Rowing Club and Graeme Priddy from the Lane Cove Rugby Union Football Club. Even community radio is delivered to us predominantly by volunteers such as Chris Blower, Maureen Meers, Jacqui Axford and Susan Ping Kee, who all donate their time to Fine Music 102.5 FM, the pioneer of community radio in Australia.
I thank all nominees across the categories for their valuable contribution to our community. We are a better place because of your work.
Can you imagine growing up without a mum or a dad and never meeting your brothers or sisters—never even knowing that they existed? Imagine being alone in a big orphanage and being neglected, hurt, abused and monstered by the people who were supposed to look after you and protect you? This is not a Charles Dickens story. This is what happened here in Australia. Hundreds of thousands of Australians were neglected and abused in homes and orphanages, many of whom are still with us today. Over the last decade, their stories have slowly come out of the shadows. First there was a Senate inquiry and then there was an apology by this parliament. More of what happened to these helpless boys and girls has now been revealed in the chilling evidence that has come out of the testimony, the oral and written evidence, provided to the royal commission.
The royal commission has done an extraordinary job of shining a light on a dark and terrible part of our past. I hope that this week the government will finally introduce legislation to establish a national redress scheme. It's a key recommendation of the royal commission and one that's long overdue. No amount of money can properly compensate for the brutality that many of these children suffered or repair the damage that was caused to them, but it will help. That compensation should be paid for by the governments and by the organisations that ran the places where they were harmed. But some people will still struggle to get access to the scheme because the records of their time in an orphanage have been destroyed. For some people, the only way to prove that they were ever there are the police records that show that they absconded—that they ran away—and that they were picked up by police and brought back to the place where all of the harm was happening.
These records are in police gazettes. Some states and territories provide access to these gazettes but others don't. One of those that do not provide access is New South Wales; you can't get access to the police gazette until 70 years have passed. The practical impact of this is that some people can't get access to the sorts of services offered by the New South Wales government—things like counselling services, help with family reunions or help finding their own parent's grave. I've written to the New South Wales police minister, asking him to make the police gazette available, but he has said no, and I think that's appalling. We're talking about kids who were flogged and raped and ran away, and they can't prove they were ever there, because police won't provide the records that show it. I ask the New South Wales government to please reconsider this genuine request. Given everything that's happened to these poor people, I think it's the very least that we can do.
My 100-kay walk for the Leukaemia Foundation set off last week in Sydney. We're only six days in, but already it's been a heartwarming event full of characters' stories of survival and, of course, incredible generosity. Over the next two weeks, I'll be using my speaking opportunities in the House to share some of the heartwarming tales of the walk, and I'd like to start with the events over the last three days.
We started on 6 October, at the North Ryde Oval, with a local leg of the Light the Night walk. Now in its 10th year, Light the Night is a unique event bringing Australia's blood cancer community together to remember and reflect during a moving ceremony and a short lantern walk. The North Ryde event was put on by my office and was just one of over 150 Light the Nights across the country. Those attending raised money beforehand to help give local families facing blood cancer the emotional and practical support that will light the way forward.
Light the Night fundraisers all receive a coloured lantern to carry as darkness falls and celebrate what they'll achieve to help people with blood cancer. They hold gold lanterns to remember loved ones lost to blood cancer, while fundraising to help others facing a similar challenge. Those who carry a white lantern have been diagnosed with blood cancer themselves, raising money to make a better future for those who may have to follow in their footsteps. Blue lanterns are raised high by the community that surrounds us all, funding the life-saving support services that their families or someone they know may need one day.
It was a great event made possible by the help of the wonderful North Ryde community. Local radio star Geoff Moxham—I don't think he's a star, but he told me to use the word 'star'!—generously acted as our MC and was very funny. We were especially lucky to have two cancer survivors telling their story and explaining how we can help those who are going through this difficult time. I would like to pass on the community's thanks to blood cancer survivor Robert Domone and current cancer patient Lee; you are an inspiration to everyone.
Having shaken the tin vigorously at that event, the walk started in earnest the next morning. One of my first stops was Gladesville Public School. Rudely, I had told Gladesville Public that I would be there within the first two hours of their first day back after the school holidays. I was prepared for them not to be ready for me, but what a surprise I got. They had arranged a mufti day in support of the Leukaemia Foundation, and presented me with a mound of gold coins and notes. Once they were in my tin, I needed two hands to lift it—gold coins weigh a lot. This is incredible work. Congratulations to everyone at Gladesville Public School for their selfless generosity; they are leading the chance to shave my head.
Who'd have thought we'd be seeing yet another Berejiklian state government land grab in Western Sydney and, once again, in Parramatta Park—this time, close to a quarter of the park. Parramatta Park isn't just any park; it was Governor Macquarie's domain, which surrounds UNESCO World Heritage listed Old Government House. The domain was granted to the people of Australia in 1857 as a gazetted public park, the oldest in Australia. It's an extraordinary place full of history and a sense of place. It's lost bits of land before for a railway line, a golf course, a football stadium, an RSL club, a leagues club and a memorial pool.
Recently, the state government decided to demolish the memorial pool to build a bigger stadium—a move rejected by local residents, but a move that saw even more public land lost. The pool saga now includes the most outrageous land grab of all. The state government originally said they'd partly fund a new pool to replace the one they took from us in the Parramatta parklands, south of the railway line. It requires about 1½ to two hectares. To excise land from Parramatta Park Trust you need legislation, and it's only because of the legislation that we have any inkling what this state government is up to. The bill that passed the New South Wales lower house last week didn't excise two hectares to build a new pool. It excised 20 hectares of an 85-hectare public park: close to a quarter of the oldest public park in Australia and the original Governor Macquarie Domain. The 20 hectares includes all of the park south of the railway line, from the Mays Hill Gatehouse—the original main carriage entrance to the park, which led to the World Heritage-listed Old Government House—all the way down to the railway line. What's more, it is proposed to give commercial interests 50-year leases over this land. The bill says that a lease can be for any purpose associated with an aquatic leisure centre, including gymnasiums, sports courts, public amenities, cafes, spectator seating, BBQ areas, health and wellbeing facilities, ancillary administrative areas, associated car parking facilities, and outdoor recreation and leisure spaces—one quarter of the oldest public park in Australia going to 50-year commercial leases. In defending the government's land grab, the spokesman for the environment minister Gabrielle Upton said, 'the aquatic centre will only occupy a portion of the Mays Hill site'—a portion of it for the aquatic centre, the rest of it is a pure land grab.
I would like to acknowledge the work of Suzette Meade and the North Parramatta Residents Action Group for their continued work in protecting our heritage and the green spaces in our region. I would also like to acknowledge the work of New South Wales MPs Lynda Voltz and Julia Finn in scrutinising the bill and making its contents public.
It's not too late to write to your New South Wales MP to tell them to stop this. Public park means public park. Public pool means public pool. Stop these land grabs in Western Sydney.
I rise today to commend the efforts of the Mayor of Manningham, Councillor Michelle Kleinert, to bring headspace programs to the municipality. I had the pleasure of being at the annual mayoral ball last Friday night, and that ball was to raise funds to extend these programs into the municipality. Since headspace started, which is 11 years ago now, it has provided almost two million services to young people through a variety of programs including online and phone counselling services; over 355,000 young people have used headspace centres and eheadspace; and headspace now has 100 centres and two funded outposts across Australia. It is the desire of the Manningham Council, and the mayor in particular, to work with headspace Hawthorn—a locality nearby—to extend the services into Manningham.
Why is this important? We know that one in four young people are living with a mental health disorder; Mission Australia's youth survey in 2016 indicated that something like 25 per cent of young people have a mental health disorder. From chairing the National Disability Insurance Scheme committee in this parliament, I can say that we've had evidence from right around Australia of the prevalence of mental illness, and therefore of the need for these types of services. Suicide accounts for one-third of all deaths of young people in Australia—a truly shocking statistic, which we must continue to address.
In the 2016-17 financial year, headspace School Support has provided services for almost 1,500 schools throughout Australia and, with 7,429 occasions of service, headspace School Support has helped schools strengthen and empower their communities to manage and respond to the impact of suicide. Since it started in August 2016, the headspace Digital Work and Study Service has helped 220 young people with their work and study challenges. These are real needs in communities—not just mine, but communities right across Australia—particularly for young people and, as those data suggest, there are many young people in need of such services. The more these services can be provided throughout the whole of Australia, both in the metropolitan areas and in regional and rural Australia, the more likely we are to prevent some of the problems that could otherwise occur, and to make the lives of young people right across Australia much more fulfilling than they might have otherwise been.
I rise today to recognise the incredible wealth of young sporting talent in my electorate of Newcastle. Newcastle has a proud sporting history and a culture that embraces a healthy outdoors life. But competing at an elite level can hit family budgets hard. That's why the former Labor government established the Local Sporting Champions program to give sporting stars of the future help to cover costs of getting to and taking part in major sporting events. Winners can put the $500 grant money towards the cost of travel, accommodation, uniforms or equipment when competing, coaching or officiating in national state or international competitions.
I was recently pleased to meet a number of these young winners in the latest round of the Local Sporting Champions grants. But I would like to recognise all of the winners here today. They were: Ryan Walker for the 2017 Georgina Hope Foundation Australian Age Swimming Champions; Daniel Villani for the Cadet European Judo Cup; Thomas Dever for the New South Wales PSSA swimming state championships; Yasmin Popovic for the NSW CCC football championships; Oscar Cathcart for the NSW PSSA primary football boys championships; Emily March for the Pacific School Games in swimming; Lachlan Graham for the NSW PSSA primary football boys championships; Annabelle Cleary for the World Youth Championships in sport climbing; Amali Fitzhenry for the New South Wales PSSA netball state championships; Kate Kingham for the under-16 girls national basketball championships; Kelsey Van Eldik for the Pacific School Games in swimming; Benjamin Cashen for the Pacific School Games in swimming, also; Jonathan Naude for the New South Wales state IRB Championships for surf lifesaving; Claudia Boyle for the Helloworld 2017 under-14 girls club basketball championships; Ella Wherrett for the Australian club championships in basketball; Imogen Davies for the Australian under-14 club championships in basketball; Keely Mclean for the Australian under-16 national championships in basketball; Lleyton Richards for the 2017 New South Wales Combined High Schools Sports Association boys tennis championships; Thomas Enright for the New South Wales IRB Championships for surf lifesaving; and Tia Jackson for the under-14s national championships in basketball.
The new round of Local Sporting Champions grants is now open. I encourage all eligible young sporting stars, aged between 12 and 18, to consider putting an application in over the Christmas break.
I have spoken often in this chamber about the wonderful natural attractions in my electorate of McPherson on the southern Gold Coast, with not the least of those being our world-famous beaches. With the weather now warming up as we move into spring, the big crowds are returning to spend a day at the beach. Today, I would like to acknowledge the work of an organisation that makes sure everyone gets the chance to enjoy our beautiful beaches and a day in the surf, regardless of their circumstances.
The Gold Coast Disabled Surfers Association was established in 2004 to support individuals and families to give them the sort of day out the rest of us may take for granted. Physical and intellectual disabilities and mental illness often make it difficult for people to venture into the water. Sadly, some families with people with a disability find it difficult to get to the beach because of the special assistance their loved one needs in the water. But the Disabled Surfers Association is there to help. The Disabled Surfers Association was formed because no-one who wants to have a day at the beach should be excluded from doing so because of a disability.
This Sunday, 22 October, the association is hosting its first Let's Go Surfing Day of the season on the Gold Coast, at Flat Rock Beach in Currumbin. Like many organisations doing things in our communities, the Disabled Surfers Association relies very much on volunteers to provide the people and equipment needed to provide this service. I have personally had the pleasure of spending some time joining them on a day out, with a couple of young friends of mine, and I would like to acknowledge them here today. My two special friends are Ernie and Terrents. I am pretty sure that Ernie will be at the beach this Sunday, and I am hoping to catch up with Terrents as well while they are there. The look of enjoyment on their faces as they enjoy a rare day at the beach is absolutely priceless.
I congratulate the Disabled Surfers Association for all that they do to help those who need assistance in the water and the families of those people. I commend and thank them for that work they do, because it is extremely important.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the:
(a) last three years have seen an unprecedented global coral bleaching event which has had a devastating impact on many coral reefs ecosystems around the world, including our own Great Barrier Reef (GBR); and
(b) World Heritage Committee:
(i) met in early July in Poland and expressed its 'utmost concern' regarding the 'serious impacts from coral bleaching that have affected World Heritage properties' ; and
(ii) noted that the most widely reported impacts were on the GBR and called on all States Parties to undertake ' the most ambitious implementation of the Paris Agreement' ;
(2) recognises that:
(a) the World Heritage Centre released the first global scientific assessment of the impact of climate change on World Heritage coral reefs;
(b) the assessment found that it is a well established conclusion of international peer reviewed literature that limiting the global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre industrial levels provides a chance of retaining coral-dominated communities for many reef locations around the globe;
(c) the assessment also found that the GBR will start to experience severe coral bleaching twice per decade by 2035, a mere
18 years away; and
(d) this frequency of bleaching will not allow coral reefs to recover, putting the survival of the GBR in danger along with the 64,000 jobs that are dependent on it; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) urgently adopt a clean energy target that is fully consistent with Australia' s obligations within the World Heritage Convention to protect the outstanding universal value of the GBR World Heritage area; and
(b) abandon plans for a $1 billion loan through the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility to Adani to help establish one of the world' s largest coal mines.
Coral bleaching is a significant problem for the Great Barrier Reef and therefore for my state of Queensland, our nation and the world, given the international significance of the Great Barrier Reef. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware there have been back-to-back severe bleaching incidents across the Great Barrier Reef, one in 2017 and one in 2016. It's unprecedented for there to be back-to-back severe coral bleaching episodes on the Great Barrier Reef. We also had significant episodes of bleaching back in 2002 and in 1998.
The ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, based at James Cook University, has noted that, with only one degree Celsius of warming, we have had four bleaching events over 19 years, so it is a very concerning challenge ahead of us when it comes to responding to climate change. The back-to-back incidents are particularly worrying because the reef needs cooler water in order to be able to survive. With the heating episode and then the bleaching, what needs to happen for that coral not to die is for the algae to be able to recolonise the coral. But it can't do that if the water temperature doesn't drop. Back-to-back bleaching incidents are particularly concerning. The centre of excellence has said that we have now had bleaching affect around 1,500 kilometres of the Great Barrier Reef. About two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef has been impacted. The centre has described huge tracts of the Great Barrier Reef being affected by this coral bleaching episode.
Of course the key driver of this bleaching we're seeing is climate change. It's the warming of the planet. It's very important that, as a parliament, we come together and work towards responding to climate change. That means getting serious about fossil fuels. It means getting serious about renewable energy, and, of course, it also means getting serious about policies that are aimed at dealing with climate change and not aimed at denying climate change.
That's why so many of us were gravely disappointed when the former Prime Minister the member for Warringah addressed the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate denialist organisation. He turned up and not only engaged in the climate scepticism that is their stock and trade but also suggested that perhaps global warming might be a good thing, because 'cold snaps are bad for people.' It is just gobsmacking that we have someone who previously led the Australian government as the Prime Minister now openly engaging with the denialists and arguing that perhaps global warming is a good thing. It's not a good thing. It's categorically not a good thing, and we need to get serious about responding to it.
In Australia, one way that we can get serious about responding to climate change is of course to address the record amount of tree clearing that has been happening in Queensland. The Queensland Labor government, the Palaszczuk government, has sought to take action in respect of tree clearing. You would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that tree clearing started with abandon under the previous Newman Liberal National government in Queensland, and we are now seeing vast amounts of tree clearing. I've got the Gabba in my electorate, and an area of that size is being cleared on a regular basis throughout the day. This is something that I think most Queenslanders and most Australians would be horrified at, yet the Queensland parliament—and of course the Labor government is a minority government in Queensland—stopped the Queensland government's moves to put the brakes on tree clearing. It's going to take a majority Labor government in Queensland to respond to tree clearing. That's why I'm so keen for people to get behind the Palaszczuk government, so we can deal with tree clearing.
I also think it's important that we as a nation look at where we put taxpayers' money when it comes to investment. There's a lot of discussion about whether the Liberal government might invest $1 billion of taxpayers' money in the Adani project. I have said publicly, and I say again: this is not a project that should receive one cent of public funds. Public funding should not be going to subsidising the Adani project that this government is considering supporting. It absolutely should not do that. The government should instead be investing public money in mitigating climate change. It should instead be investing public money in doing something about the Great Barrier Reef bleaching that we're seeing. It certainly should not be encouraging coalition conservative governments at the state level to allow rampant tree clearing.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
This motion really does contain some fine sentiments. I share some of the member for Griffith's concerns about recent bleaching events. Sentiments are fine and they do have their place, but sometimes actions and outcomes are what matter more. Anyone who genuinely cares about the Great Barrier Reef and has been following its health and its progress for many years will know that it seems to get put on the UN watch list when Labor is in government and taken off the UN watch list when the Liberals are in government. It happened recently. When the coalition government took office in 2013, the Great Barrier Reef was on the UN World Heritage Committee's watch list, basically because Labor was proposing four sites for the dumping of dredge spoils. When we took office we put a stop to the dredge sites and the Great Barrier Reef was taken off the UN's watch list.
I'm glad the member for Griffith referenced the World Heritage Committee's recent session because in that session they congratulated this government on its work to help protect the reef. Specifically, they mentioned their considerable appreciation of the efforts of this government in the creation and implementation of the Great Barrier Reef's long-term plans. That sort of track record extends back decades for Liberal governments. After all, it was a Liberal Prime Minister who set up the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority all those years ago. I'm very proud to say that more recently this government has directed record amounts of funding towards the Great Barrier Reef. The Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, the Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Action Plan, the Reef Guardian stewardship program have all been initiated and funded under this government. Let me put that another way. Rather than expressing mere sentiments, this government has done more—put more money on the table, made bigger commitments and put in place more programs—than any other government of any persuasion in Australia's history.
Some of the sentiment in this motion is about linking the health of the Great Barrier Reef to achieving our commitments under the Paris agreement. That's good and fine. Of course, the answer to that is that Australia will meet its commitments under the Paris agreement under this government, just like we met and exceeded our targets under Kyoto. Given Australia's size and place in the world, the bigger risk to the reef is other nations not meeting their commitments. That's where more of our sentiments and, indeed, more activist efforts should be directed.
One line in this motion really grabbed my attention. It's the one about the possibility of a loan to Adani for a railway line. This is where it ceases to be just a sentiment for Labor and moves into a place where Labor could do something, actually take action, if they meant it. The Adani Carmichael mine in Queensland is going ahead because the Labor state government approved it. Let's not get distracted by sentiments or words here. If you don't like the Adani mine, you should go straight to the government that approved it, that gave it its licence, that set the environmental conditions and that laid out its transport plans.
The mover of this motion, the member for Griffith, has an electorate that entirely overlaps with that of the Deputy Premier of Queensland, Jackie Trad. She is the deputy leader of the Labor government that approved the mine. Popular rumour has it that Jackie Trad calls the shots inside that government and tells the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, Anthony Lynham, how high to jump. If the member for Griffith really wanted to take action to stop the Adani mine, she should start with them. She should talk to her Queensland Labor counterparts, including those in her own electorate, and she should be leveraging her influence with them on George Street, not grandstanding in Canberra.
The final reference to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is probably the most misleading and ill-advised sentiment of all. Let's be clear here: there's an application for a loan because the Queensland Labor government arranged for that application to be submitted. The Queensland Labor government's proposal is for an application for a NAIF loan. Their names are at the top of the paperwork. Their approvals will require Adani to build community rail not private infrastructure. They will require Adani, through their transport conditions, to build infrastructure to benefit the entire community through that area. In other words, because they've asked Adani to build infrastructure not for their own private purposes but for the benefit of the entire community, it is therefore a project that becomes eligible for a NAIF loan. Let's not forget that, if the loan goes ahead, the Queensland Labor government will get the money in their accounts before passing it on. The Labor Party is saying one thing to the people of inner Brisbane about Adani and is saying another thing to the people of regional Queensland. They need to be called out on it.
I'm proud to rise and speak in support of this excellent motion about supporting the Great Barrier Reef with concrete actions. The Great Barrier Reef, besides being inherently naturally beautiful and a great piece of this country's heritage, employs 64,000 Australians—64,000 Australians whose livelihoods depend on a healthy Great Barrier Reef, a legacy that we hold in trust for future generations. If we're serious about preserving the Great Barrier Reef, we have to be serious about keeping global warming under 1½ degrees Celsius. The last speaker talked about the government's 26 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030—a target that is woefully inadequate and a target that is consistent with a three-degree warming scenario, not a two-degree let alone a 1½ degree warming scenario. It is a target that has been universally derided as inadequate by climate change scientists and experts. That is why I'm proud that Labor's target is 45 per cent—a target that is endorsed by the Climate Change Authority.
What is worse is this government has zero chance of hitting its 26 per cent reduction target. They have zero chance, because they don't have any mechanisms to deliver it. They achieved Kyoto through accounting tricks around carryover units from the first Kyoto period, where we achieved our targets through a combination of the carbon price being in action for a couple of years and Peter Beattie and Anna Bligh's visionary restrictions on land clearing. They talk about being opposed to banning land clearing, but that's the only reason this government hit the Kyoto targets. Today, a submission is being taken through cabinet that will presumably kill the clean energy target—the last best hope to get a bipartisan climate change and energy policy that will set us on a path of decarbonising our economy. Why will it be killed? It is because we have a jelly-backed Prime Minister in search of a spine—a Prime Minister who is now at the beck and call of the conservative elements of the coalition party room, rather than the old Prime Minister, the old Malcolm, who in 2009 said, 'I will not lead a party that's not committed to taking action on climate change.' That member from Wentworth is a mere memory. What is he walking away from? He's walking away from a review commissioned by this government in which the Chief Scientist recommended a clean energy target and said that it will lower power prices, drive new investment and put us on a path to reducing emissions—a clean energy target endorsed both by the Prime Minister as recently as two months ago when he said it would work and by the Minister for the Environment and Energy, who said it will lower power prices.
This is a sad day for the nation in that the government is walking away from its last best chance of actually setting us on the path to meeting its inadequate 26 per cent emissions reduction target. This will imperil the reef. The last speaker talked about the need for concerted international action, and he's absolutely right. To help save the reef, we need international action to decarbonise the global economy. No other country is going to take us seriously if we don't meet our commitments, let alone meet meaningful commitments, and that is what this government is doing.
On Adani, the global seaborne trade for thermal coal has declined every year since 2013. It's declining each year as other countries shift to more investment in other power sources. So we've got a declining market, and this government is proposing a $1 billion subsidy to set up a competitor in a declining market to my coal mines. They're imperilling the 18,000 coalmining jobs in the Hunter region and the thousands of jobs in the Bowen Basin if they go ahead with this subsidy. I'm not anti-coalmining, but I'm anti subsidies into a declining market that don't make economic sense. This is a direct threat to the 18,000 coalminers in my electorate, to our environment and to the Great Barrier Reef—and for what? According to the government's own figures, it is for 1,400 jobs—at best—while imperilling 64,000 jobs on the Great Barrier Reef.
If this government was serious about saving the reef, it would take concerted action on climate change, commit to a 45 per cent emissions reduction target and, more importantly, put in place a mechanism that would actually put us on that path, rather than being a jelly-back Prime Minister who is junking the clean energy target as we speak.
This far-reaching gibberish that the member for Shortland has just extended was actually originally put by the member for Griffith. It is ironic, because it was in fact her predecessor who had the opportunity—on two occasions, may I say—as Prime Minister to do something about what he proclaimed to be the greatest moral challenge of our time before he dropped it like a hot brick.
Every element of this motion is ideological claptrap laced with pseudoscientific hyperbole. The core proposition, the mover asserts, is that if Australia would only adopt a clean energy target in line with our obligations under the World Heritage Convention and stop the development of a single coal mine in Queensland, which is much hated by Labor's left, then we will save the Great Barrier Reef. This is preposterous stuff!
Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions were 1.3 per cent of the total global average in 2013, which was the last year for which we have reliable data. That equates to 580 million tonnes of CO2. The United States was 6,280 million tonnes. China was 11,735 million tonnes. By the way, in that one year of 2012-2013, China's growth in CO2 was 504 million tonnes, almost the same as Australia's total. So here we have just one country's annual increase in CO2 equating to almost Australia's total annual emissions. Our 1.3 per cent contribution therefore is miniscule. Any suggestion that what we do or do not do here in Australia is going to have an enormous impact—that by shutting just one coal mine in Australia is going to have an impact on the state of the Great Barrier Reef—is complete rubbish.
The extent to which there's an impact on global warming—an impact on emissions—is, in fact, by ensuring that our relatively cleaner coal is used and extracted from Northern Queensland through the Adani mine. It is better for the environment because the hundreds of millions of people in India who still do not have electricity are ultimately going to be using something, and we know for a fact that, if they do not use the cleaner coal from the Adani Carmichael mine, then they are going to be using poorer quality coal or other substitutes, which will have a net adverse impact on the environment.
There is no environmental ground to be opposing the Adani mine, as those opposite like to claim. At the end of the day, we should also be reminded the Great Barrier Reef has periodically faced challenges, from cyclones to crown-of-thorns starfish and other bleaching events, but there is no evidence to suggest that any of these events are due to man-made carbon dioxide, let alone coal. Vast sections of the Great Barrier Reef have been written off before and yet have recovered. Despite all the doom and gloom from those opposite, the Great Barrier Reef is not on the World Heritage Committee's in danger watch list. In stark contrast to Labor's own hapless record while they were in government, the Turnbull government continues to invest record funding to help protect the reef, including the joint $2 billion Reef 2050 Plan. Here we have the current government in defence and protection of the Great Barrier Reef, while those opposite are prepared to do anything to tear down the possibility of the Adani mine—a mine that is 300 kilometres inland from the Great Barrier Reef and a mine that promises not only a net environmental positive for the globe, because of the substitutes, but also enormous boon for the Queensland economy.
We are incredibly blessed in Australia to have such natural beauty spread right across the country. For eons, the Indigenous people of Australia have shared an intrinsic link with the land, its forms, its flora and fauna, and today we continue to share that connection with our natural environment. Every year, Australia's natural environment is shared with millions of tourists. The Great Barrier Reef, on its own, attracts two million visitors, supports 64,000 jobs and generates between $5 billion and $6 billion in tourism each year, and that is a very large sum of money.
As well as supporting tens of thousands of jobs, the reef supports an incredibly rich and diverse ecosystem. Stretching 2,300 kilometres, the Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest living structure and one of the seven natural wonders of the world. It's so large that you can see it from outer space, and anyone who has been to that natural wonder is in awe of the living structure that is the Great Barrier Reef. I've had the opportunity of snorkelling up there—the first time was with the late Chancellor Helmut Kohl and a visiting German delegation, and the word on their lips, time and time again, was 'schon, schon, schon.' I have also had the opportunity to go up to Lizard Island to snorkel there, which is just amazing and a miracle. Anyone who has snorkelled or scuba-dived or been to the reef knows that this is, understandably, one of the seven natural wonders of the world.
There are 600 types of soft and hard corals, more than 100 species of jellyfish, 3,000 varieties of molluscs, 500 species of worms, more than 1,500 types of fish, 133 varieties of sharks and rays and more than 30 species of whales and dolphins, and all of them call the reef home. Sadly, this incredible ecosystem is under threat. NASA ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica and tropical mountain glaciers show that the earth's climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Their records also show that last year was the hottest year on record. The first global assessment of climate change impacts on coral, released by UNESCO, shows that, if current trends continue, global warming will increase by 4.3 degrees by 2100. As the assessment states, if we continue on this path, future generations will never get to see the great wonder that is the Great Barrier Reef.
This natural wonder is literally disappearing under our watch. Already the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority says that global coral bleaching over the last two years has led to widespread coral decline and habitat loss on the Great Barrier Reef. Two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef has been bleached. During this period the reef faced above-average sea surface temperatures and the combined effects of climate change and a strong El Nino. Fortunately, the UN's assessment found that limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels gives a chance of retaining coral-dominated communities.
If the government is serious about protecting the reef, it will adopt a clean energy target—the topic du jour at the moment. That is fully consistent with Australia's obligations within the World Heritage Convention to protect the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef narrowly avoided being listed as 'in danger' by the United Nations World Heritage Committee, as we've heard. The government, breathtakingly, has declared this announcement as a success, but we all know that the government has to agree with the committee before the reef can be put on the list in the first place. This means absolutely nothing if we don't act. Now is not the time to sit back as there is still so much to do to save the reef.
At a time when we should be taking real action on climate change, the Turnbull government is considering a $1 billion loan, through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, to Adani to establish one of the world's largest coalmines. The coalmine is a significant concern for members in my community, as is the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. I have received hundreds of letters on the Adani coalmine, and I have also received nearly 1,000 letters on the Great Barrier Reef. It's clear that my electorate isn't the only one concerned about Adani. With strong opposition from the community, the government is breathtaking in its arrogance that it is even considering a $1 billion loan of taxpayers' money to a company that is owned by a billionaire.
I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion on coral bleaching, as a Queenslander who has worked and lived in coastal Queensland, and especially as one who has worked specifically on Great Barrier Reef initiatives, but this motion, unfortunately, presents a confusing amalgam of what are no doubt individually important points: those of global coral bleaching, clean energy target discussions, and the Carmichael mine and Adani. Since 2014, of the 29 World Heritage reef properties around the world, almost three-quarters were affected by bleaching, and the Great Barrier Reef, of course, is no exception.
Australia will meet and beat our Paris 2020 targets in relation to those sorts of challenges. Our 2030 target of a 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction represents a halving of per capita emissions from 2005 levels. On this metric alone, Australia's target is amongst the strongest of any G20 country. Our government is leading the way in actively pursuing further action in relation to pressures affecting the reef. We've asked the Reef 2050 Plan Independent Expert Panel and the Reef 2050 Advisory Committee to provide advice on how to best respond to unprecedented pressures of all kinds. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority continues to focus on building the resilience of the reef at the same time, so the coalition is leading action to protect the reef. Together with the Queensland government, we've committed to spend over $2 billion protecting the reef over the next decade. This includes up to $1 billion through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to assist businesses delivering clean energy outcomes alongside other benefits for the reef; the establishment of the $210 million Reef Trust, predominantly focusing on water quality improvements by reducing sediment and nutrient run-off into reef waters—an area in which I've worked in the past; the culling of coral-bleaching crown-of-thorns starfish, through our $22.1 million investment in surveillance and control programs; $95 million in the National Landcare Program for Reef 2050 Plan implementation; and an additional $124 million over 10 years to strengthen the management of the reef through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. On 5 July the World Heritage Committee unanimously endorsed Australia's Reef 2050 Plan and our progress in implementing it. They no longer have the reef on their in-danger watch list, and that certainly recognises the Reef 2050 Plan.
When Labor left office after six years, including three years in partnership with the Greens and Independents, five massive dredge disposal projects were being planned, and of course the reef was considered by the World Heritage Committee to be in danger. The coalition came into power, took unprecedented action and removed the plans, and hence we were removed from the endangered list.
On the theme of clean energy targets, the simple facts are that, following the Labor-inspired debacle in South Australia, the COAG Energy Council commissioned a study by Dr Alan Finkel. He provided 50 recommendations, 49 of which were accepted immediately, and that in relation to a clean energy target is being considered by the government. Those and other numerous moves by our government are evidence that we are focused on an affordable and reliable energy system.
The Adani project has received environmental approvals at both the state and Commonwealth level. The project is situated, as my colleagues have mentioned, approximately 300 kilometres west of the Great Barrier Reef, and mining will not have any direct impacts on the reef itself. On 14 October 2015 the Carmichael mine received federal approval. Subsequently it received state approvals, and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility received an application from the Queensland Labor government for the Adani mine to receive concessional loan funding for the North Galilee Basin Rail project, which is being considered independently.
The simple facts are that the government has led the way in guidance of the Great Barrier Reef into the future. We have assessed Adani properly at both a federal and state level, and this promises a great deal for the future of Queensland, in particular.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) applications are now open for Round Three of the Stronger Communities Programme (SCP);
(b) the SCP has:
(i) invested in thousands of worthwhile projects applied for by small community groups and organisations which would often not have received funding another way; and
(ii) had a positive impact on the lives of all kinds of Australians, supporting youth sporting clubs, community halls and clubhouses, surf lifesavers, aged and day care facilities among many more;
(2) welcomes the funding allocated to all successful projects under Rounds One and Two of the SCP, including the Caloundra Woodworking Club’s grant of $15,000 to enable the construction of an extension to their building and the grant of $8,700 to Caloundra Surf Club which enabled the purchase of an inflatable rescue boat;
Last week we celebrated Mental Health Week, a time when many different community groups gather in their communities and people like us, politicians, help them to celebrate it. We live in a world that is so interconnected through computers and mobile phones and yet where we are so dissociated from each other, our families and friends, and I think that is a sad indictment of us all as a society.
However, one thing that is a shining light, which helps build communities, is the federal government's Stronger Communities Program. As everyone knows in this place, the Stronger Communities Program provides grants of between $2,500 and $20,000 to community groups throughout our various electorates for capital projects. Eligible projects include new buildings and equipment; scoreboards; computers; upgrades to community halls; clubhouses; equipment for aged-care and day-care facilities; art works; rescue boats; generators and many more. In total, the Turnbull government has spent $45 million on the program between 2015 and 2017, and we are spending a further $22½ million in 2017-18.
In my own electorate of Fisher, we have seen the huge benefits that this program can deliver. Caloundra Woodworking Club has more than 110 members and offers not only great equipment but also a community focal point for its members. This is what I am talking about with the significance for, particularly, mental health. It is about bringing communities together. The one thing we all want as human beings is to belong. Whether it is to a footy group, a woodworking group or a soccer club—it doesn't matter what it is—we all desire to belong to something or someone.
The Caloundra Woodworking Club have regular teaching sessions and sharing of knowledge and help members to develop their skills and bring new people into the craft. The club has deep links with local businesses, like Bunnings, and other community groups, like the Caloundra RSL. Members make everything from cheese boards to intricate sculptures, fine furniture, harps and guitars. The Caloundra Woodworking Club received a grant last year for $15,133. This has allowed them to complete an extension to their existing building for an expanded machinery work area and external housing for the dust extractor plant. The club are now looking into how they can use their extended facilities to produce a wider range of work and to introduce new programs to encourage more men and women to get involved.
Organisations like the Caloundra Woodworking Club really personify what the Sunshine Coast and the Stronger Communities Program are all about. Although we are a growing community, the Sunshine Coast is still in some ways like a small country town. We recognise the importance of looking after each other. At the Caloundra Woodworking Club, people don't just work with wood; they provide a service to each other by offering a listening ear and a community of spirit to belong to. As Lola Kerlin, the club's president, said. 'It's not just about a better work environment for them; it's actually going to make them a lot happier too.'
They're not the only organisation that has received funding from the Stronger Communities Program. The government has already funded 27 projects in Fisher, with hopefully another 20 to come in the current round. The many and hugely varied projects that the government has funded include upgrades to the bathroom facilities at C&K Childcare in Mooloolaba; a new inflatable rescue boat at Kawana Waters SLSC; and the building of benches, chairs and a new cafe floor for the Gateway Care Community Hub in Caloundra.
The government should be commended for its vision in understanding the role that these small community projects play in enriching lives and improving mental health for all Australians. It should be commended further for extending this program for another year. Applications for round 3 of the Stronger Communities Program are being assessed as we speak.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
It was interesting to see the member for Fisher raising this motion today and once again patting himself and his government on the back for some pretty extreme altruism and philanthropy. If I didn't know better, after listening to him speak I would think that we had a government that really cared about communities. But I do know better and so do people in Australia. I, of course, absolutely welcome any funding to our communities, particularly in regional and low-income areas like my electorate of Longman. We absolutely welcome any funding at all to our communities. I would never, ever turn my nose up at additional funding for the types of groups and organisations in the electorate that need help, but I do take issue with anything that puts that money in a greater position than those without money.
Deserving community organisations in my electorate that do really incredible work in our community have been unable to apply for this community grants program. The reason they have been unable to apply is that they couldn't afford to. In low-income electorates like Longman, people have to make do with what they have got. Typically, that means providing support or a service without much money in the bank at all. It can limit the capabilities of the organisations and constrains the amount of good work they can do in the community when you don't have much money in the bank to begin with. Government grants are really meant to counter this. They are meant to help our communities and to provide funding to those who need it. When those community organisations have to already have money in the bank to apply for these grants, it puts the poorer community groups at a real and significant disadvantage. Labor is about equity and an even playing field. So it really pains me to see those with the least, those who need funding the most, being ineligible to apply.
It really isn't fair, but it is typical of this government—and it is what we have come to expect from this government—to help those with money. We don't have to think back very far about the government helping people with money; there was the $16,400 tax cut it happily bestowed upon millionaires while everyday Australians are struggling to get by. They are struggling to get by, of course, because energy prices have skyrocketed under this government. Those people who had their penalty rates cut earlier this year—a cut to their take-home pay, the pay that puts food on the table—are struggling to get by because this government has refused to roll back its unjustifiable freeze on Medicare, which it seems to want to extend forever. It's still there. Medicare is still frozen in a lot of parts. The inequality is just getting worse. It is getting worse under this government, and they are doing nothing but exacerbate it.
I would say, though, that the Stronger Communities grants program has been a great catalyst for my office to build a community committee that represents Longman. The committee was established to review those expressions of interest for the grants, but we have plans to continue this committee and help our community, where possible, through the work it does. This committee consists of people who are a true representation of the electorate of Longman. There is someone who represents the seniors of our community and someone who represents the veterans of our community. There is also a health representative and an education representative—a local primary school principal—and a local business owner in King Street, the main street of Caboolture. We have also have one of the student leaders at Dakabin State High School and an Indigenous elder who represents both the police and his Indigenous community. So it is a really grassroots committee that is determining those expressions of interests.
There were 18 worthy expressions of interest passed on to the department for selection, and I am really hoping that each one is approved. They are all very worthy and deserving. Longman needs and deserves every single bit of government funding that it can get. I want to make it clear that I can't wholeheartedly support any measures that discriminate on financial status, when we are looking at government funding, but what I can say is that every single one of those 18 community groups which have applied for funding is needy and deserving of that money.
It is a pleasure to stand up and talk about so much important work being done by community based organisations in the Goldstein electorate, particularly as a result of the Stronger Communities Program. We have recently made recommendations for funding under this program for many important community organisations. You just need to look at some of those who are doing fantastic work, like the Beaumaris Sports Club, where an independent panel recommended an extra $20,000 be provided to Banksia Reserve to establish an LED scoreboard. I know under the earlier version of the Stronger Communities grants, funding was provided in Brighton East for the Hurlingham Park facility for a similar scoreboard. An enormous amount of work is being done by bowls clubs across the Goldstein electorate to make sure they have sufficient resources, including $20,000 for the conversion of new greens. We also have recommendations for funding for the Bentleigh Early Child Education Co-operative, particularly for the upgrade and expansion of their cooperative centres. There is a similar recommendation to support and assist the Bentleigh Recreational Tennis Club—$15,000 for an upgrade in its facilities.
Goldstein is a particularly sporty electorate, where people like to enjoy the benefits of Port Phillip Bay but they also like to live a healthy and active life across the board. We have tennis and sporting clubs all through the electorate, and all of them are doing important work in ensuring that people, at all stages of their life, live healthy lives. We also recommended that $20,000 for Bayley House, one of the great community support organisations for people with a disability, for a new performing arts and multipurpose space. If you ever get the chance, Deputy Speaker, you should get down to Bayley House to see their end-of-year concert, which is absolutely hilarious. They did it last year at Brighton Grammar and my hope is that, with the funding they need for a performing arts space, they might be able to do more regular activities within their existing facilities.
Separately, we made a recommendation for $5,610 for the Allnut Park toddler's playground upgrade—a critical piece of infrastructure in the city of Glen Eira. It is an important park that many people around the McKinnon and Bentleigh areas come to and enjoy, particularly at this time of year as the trees blossom and the sun comes out. It's a perfect environment for children and community engagement. Similarly, recommendations have been made for funding for the Half Moon Bay Surf Life Saving Club—one of many of the lifesaving clubs across the Goldstein electorate. They provide support and assistance when people are vulnerable at critical times of need. We all know the importance of lifesaving clubs and how they can lead to protecting and helping people. A lot of visitors and tourists come to Goldstein. They might come to look at the Brighton beach boxes. Often there are issues around people's capacity to swim. Port Phillip Bay doesn't always have treacherous waters, but, at the same time, if people can't swim, they can get themselves into dangerous circumstances. It's not just the Half Moon Bay Surf Life Saving Club; all lifesaving clubs play a critical role. They will use those resources for new rescue boards, a barbecue and website redevelopment so that they can properly engage with the community.
One of the most exciting proposals put forward as part of the Stronger Communities Program is for MESAC—the exploration and feasibility study for a new marine science centre in the southern part of the Goldstein electorate, recognising the marine sanctuary that sits around Beaumaris at the existing sailing club. There is potential for MESAC to work in partnership with universities and local schools to expand scientific research in Port Phillip Bay, but it can also support and assist in other activities in education, which is very exciting. If they were to secure that funding, it would make a huge difference for that feasibility study to lead to the development of MESAC into the future. Similarly, the Sandybeach Community Co-operative Society had recommendations for new facilities, particularly around their kitchen, which is an important piece of community infrastructure in the Sandringham area, just around the corner from where I live. It is particularly important for people with a disability but also important for the ageing population in order to make sure they have an opportunity for community engagement. The Stronger Communities Program provides that opportunity and that's why we support it.
I'm delighted to rise in support of the member for Fisher's motion. Applications for the Stronger Communities Program closed last Thursday. I'm pleased to be able to announce that one of the organisations that submitted an application has already had their grant approved. The Kersbrook Men's Shed is currently being built and, through the Stronger Communities Program, they will receive $10,000 to help with the tools in their shed. I've spoken in this chamber previously about my strong support for men's sheds and the benefit they already provide to our community. Kersbrook is a town nestled in the Adelaide Hills with a population of just over 1,000 and a median age of 45. It's one of the oldest communities in the Adelaide Hills and suffered quite badly in the Sampson Flat fires. A men's shed in a town like Kersbrook functions as a community hub. Not only does it provide service to the older members in our community but it also creates avenues for younger men in the community to come together and share in bonds of support and mateship. I'm thrilled that the Kersbrook men's shed has had their grant application approved and I can't wait to visit the shed once construction is complete.
This round of the Stronger Communities Program operated a little differently than previous rounds. It's required MPs to invite applicants to attend. I want to say now that I thoroughly enjoyed this process. It allowed me to read over 50 applications that were sent to my office from organisations throughout Mayo. I can say with all honesty, hand on heart, that every application was deserving of funding. The Mayo Community Consultation Committee consisted of myself and representatives from all of the local councils in the electorate. The committee was tasked with the challenge of whittling the applications down to just 20. I would like to thank the committee for giving up their time to come together. The homework that they did after hours to ensure that they had thorough knowledge of all of the applications was just tremendous. Some of the selected applications included football and netball clubs seeking to upgrade their facilities and others included local town halls looking to improve their heating and cooling or to install an entertainment system so they could host movie nights for their local community. All are incredibly worthwhile causes and I wish them all the best of luck with the final application process.
The Stronger Communities Program is a genuine initiative that benefits local communities Australia-wide. A strong community is the lifeblood of the Australian way of life. My electorate of Mayo is unique in that it consists of dozens of small, tightly knit communities rather than one major population centre. We have a high rate of volunteering, which will ensure that that $150,000 builds so much more. Each of our communities is different in so many ways. Whether it be the German heritage of towns like Hahndorf or Lobethal, the surfing towns of Middleton and Port Elliot, or my hometown of Birdwood, where car aficionados come to visit the National Motor Museum, each of our communities has an identity that brings people together. There is no doubt that the residents of Mayo understand the true value of a tightly knit community, which is why the Stronger Communities Program is so important to our electorate.
I would like to take the opportunity to applaud the government for this initiative and I would encourage them to announce further rounds of this program—and certainly, a little bit more than $150,000 for an electorate, particularly for one as large as Mayo, would be very welcome. In closing, I hope that all of the other applicants from Mayo are successful—and, indeed, all those across Australia—and I look forward to visiting each and every one in my community in the near future. Congratulations to the government for the Stronger Communities Program. I hope it is repeated, because our communities are everything.
A number of community organisations in the Moore electorate have already benefited from the first two rounds of the Stronger Communities Program, and there has been strong interest in the third round. An independent assessment panel consisting of community representatives Mr Nick Trandos OAM and Mr Bill Marwick OAM, both Freemen of the City of Joondalup, and Ms Gaelle Gouillou, CEO of The Spiers Centre, met to assess the applications and make a recommendation to the department. Cumulatively, the three rounds of funding will provide up to $450,000 for minor capital projects, which must be matched dollar for dollar by the respective organisations. This demonstrates commitment and co-contribution from the recipient organisations, multiplying the purchasing power of the federal government's grant.
Ocean Ridge Junior Cricket Club applied for a grant of $2,900 to purchase equipment for under-10s practice and matches. Northside Community Church applied for a grant of $5,000 for equipment for a youth group, which will provide an incentive for youth to meet in a safe, drug and alcohol-free environment under the care of qualified adults. Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club applied for a grant of $14,465 to purchase a new inflatable rescue boat and motor, replace three roller doors with new automatic doors for the club, and replace existing patrol and athlete tents, which will assist the club in providing an important community service. The Christian City Church of Hepburn Heights applied for a grant of $3,500 to run a community program which provides low-cost or free health and fitness options to the local community and encourages people to be active. Beaumaris Primary School P&C applied for a grant of $10,000 for new environmental carpet to be installed in the undercover area where community and school gatherings are held. Joondalup Primary School P&C applied for a grant of $7,500 for a robotics and coding program. Poynter Primary School P&C applied for a grant of $10,000 to resurface the basketball courts, which will improve conditions for many sporting activities in interschool competitions. Whitford Catholic Primary School P&C applied for a grant of $5,000 to upgrade playground facilities at the school oval; in particular, to include nature-based play equipment for all age groups, which will benefit both the school and the wider community. Connolly Primary School P&C applied for a grant of $9,135 to purchase Promethean interactive LCD displays, which will connect the real world to the classroom and prepare students to be citizens of the 21st century. Davallia Primary School P&C applied for a grant of $10,000 towards creating a nature playground that allows teachers to extend the traditional learning space of the classroom, fostering imaginative and creative learning opportunities. Padbury Primary School P&C applied for a grant of $10,000 towards the acrylic surfacing of the sporting facilities, which would give students and community teams access to first-class sporting facilities.
The City of Joondalup has also applied for a number of grants, totalling $45,000, for a range of projects, including: upgrading the Whitford Senior Citizens car park to be compliant and prevent potential trip hazards for elderly users of the senior citizens centre; the installation of drinking fountains at parks to provide the local community with access to drinking water while they are participating in recreational activities; a bike skills track suitable for all ages and biking abilities; upgrades to the Sorrento Football Club's rooms; and upgrades to the Otago Park toilets and club rooms. I look forward to receiving confirmation from the department that these projects are approved once they have been assessed for compliance.
I would like to thank the member for Fisher for this motion today. Like the member for Longman, I am a bit sceptical about his grandstanding, coming in and announcing all this money for our communities. I do welcome any opportunity to help our hardworking organisations, predominantly the not-for-profit organisations, that deliver real benefits to my wonderful community in Lindsay. I know I say this all the time and everyone is probably sick of hearing me say it, but I do have the best people in my community. They are the salt of the earth and they are incredibly hardworking. They put up with long commutes and limited public transport options. They have significant healthcare concerns, but live with the most under-pressure hospital in the state. Under this government every single one of our public schools is seeing funding cuts, and our university—the only university—is about to lose $98 million. We have a three per cent higher cost of living than those living in Sydney. It is skyrocketing under this government. Wages are flatlining and up to 1,200 of my people have less to spend on their family, bills and groceries thanks to the penalty rate cuts—all while this government gives big business a $65 million handout. So I am sceptical, and those are the reasons why.
Like me, though, the people in my community don't beat about the bush. If they're not happy with you, they'll let you know. But, if someone needs help, they will absolutely be there. Many of them are already doing it tough. As I often say about my community, they would give you a spare rib if they needed to. As such, our not-for-profit organisations frequently are called upon to provide services to people in our community with very little financial backing. They have to be creative; they have think outside the box. In many cases they are providing services for people who have been failed or let down by government.
I think this is a massive cost-shifting exercise. Our community and our community groups end up paying the price. This is why I welcomed with open arms the opportunity to help some of these organisations financially through the Stronger Communities Program. I spent much of my adult life advocating and fundraising for community organisations and I know firsthand the struggles that they face. With the guidance of my volunteer community selection panel I was able to recommend 13 individual community-building projects for 50-50 funding under round 3 of the program. I would like to run through just a couple of them and give a bit of background as to why each is valued and important.
Members in here will have heard me speak about the wonderful work done by the Penrith Women's Health Centre and its CEO, Jane Gold. It provides a safe, one-stop shop for women's health, counselling, education, self-help, advocacy and referral services. Ninety per cent of their work is for women who have been facing DV. I know firsthand that they have saved many women's lives in my community, so I was pleased to support the recommendation that they receive a grant to buy a new interactive whiteboard for the education components of their courses. This upgrade to the technology will be of great benefit to the women who utilise the services.
The NMA has been helping the CALD community in my electorate since 1989. They support the settlement of newly arrived migrants and refugees for up to five years. Laura Sardo and her team, like many community based organisations, struggle to meet the demand for their services. The NMA is planning to purchase a 12-seater bus, which is a significant but necessary expense to ensure vulnerable community members are not left isolated. I was pleased to support their nomination for a $20,000 Lindsay Stronger Communities grant.
Recently I had the incredible honour and pleasure of again opening in my electorate the gala ball of the Australian Foundation for Disability, AFFORD. If we want to talk about inclusion and promoting vibrancy in our community, this is one organisation that lives and breathes it. It has been nominated to receive funding under round 3 of the grants for massage chairs for its Penrith Disabilities Resource Centre. This will be a resource for many of their clients and carers, as well as local community groups, to relax and unwind after the many pressures associated with living with a disability.
We all know the mental and physical benefits of owning a pet—and I'll give a shout out to my own dog, Doggo, who's my son's assistance animal. I was very pleased to support the residents of Glenmore Park, led stoically by Dee Kerr, with their campaign to have an off-leash park provided in our community. Penrith council have combined, and their application for a $20,000 grant under round 3 will see this valuable space in Glenmore Park recognised if that grant is a success.
This weekend I attended the annual presentation night for the biggest sporting association in my electorate, the Nepean Football Association. The NFA provides competitions, facilities and education and training for its 31 member clubs and 12½ thousand players and supporters, including the Nepean Dragons, which is a special-needs soccer program that allows everyone to be included. As I looked around the room, I couldn't help but be in awe of the people who put in hours and hours each week to keep the organisation going, including the operations manager, Linda Cerone, and president, Frances Refalo. Upon my recommendation, we've supported a $10,000 for grant those people as well. (Time expired)
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the important contribution that the Australian food, beverage and grocery industry and its workers make to the Australian economy including:
(a) creating over 300,000 Australian jobs;
(b) contributing over $125 billion in turnover; and
(c) exporting over $30 billion of products; and
(2) encourages the Government to work with the Australian food, beverage and grocery industry to ensure its continued success.
This week is a tragic week for South Australians, with the closure of Holden this Friday. It's a situation we didn't have to face. It was thrust upon us by the Abbott-Turnbull Liberal government, who didn't appreciate the value of Australian manufacturing jobs. We now need to look to the future to find the jobs our nation needs. We need strong and stable national leadership on jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs. That's one of the reasons I tabled this motion.
The food, beverage and grocery industry is one of Australia's key employers and drivers of economic activity across both metropolitan and regional areas. The businesses and the workers of this industry make a critical contribution to the Australian economy. At the national level, the Australian Food and Grocery Council passionately represent their industry in this parliament. I thank them for their ongoing engagement with my office and look forward to seeing them at their corporate affairs committee breakfast this week. Today they released their ninth annual industry snapshot, State of the industry 2017, which covers two years, due to some reporting issues. In 2015-16, the industry's turnover was $127 billion, which was relatively flat, but the capital investment of $2.7 billion was an increase of 4.7 per cent, and direct employment was 320,302 people, which was an increase of 7,317 people. In 2016-17, the industry was made up of 30,748 businesses and the international trade totalled $68 billion, which was a decrease of 8.1 per cent. We have strong employment growth and increasing capital investment, which are encouraging signs for this industry, but we also have flat turnover and reducing exports, which show that we can't be complacent. There is a role for government in ensuring the ongoing strength of the industry.
Labor has always supported industries like the food industry. At the beginning of last year, Senator Carr and I held a food round table in South Australia with Food South Australia and a number of small food and beverage manufacturers. We listened to those industries—their concerns about operating with very thin margins, the inability to access finance for capital investment and high energy costs. Members of the Labor shadow ministry have been meeting with the industry all over Australia and hearing similar messages from manufacturers right across the country.
We've listened, and Labor in government will act. That's why, on the weekend, Bill Shorten came to the Labor Party conference in South Australia and announced a billion-dollar boost for advanced manufacturing jobs through an Australian manufacturing future fund. It's all about backing businesses that manufacture in Australia and create and support Australian jobs.
This fund will finance manufacturers to invest in job-creating plant and machinery that support productivity and efficiency. This is particularly important when we consider that, all through the period when we had the high dollar, there was an opportunity to investment in plant and machinery, and often companies could have availed themselves, through the currency rate, of that opportunity to purchase plant and machinery at a relatively cheaper cost than they would face now, with the currency depreciating. They could have emerged from what we had—a currency crisis—far more efficiently than they did, had such a facility been available. Small manufacturers often find it difficult to access finance through banks, and they will now be able to access finance through Labor's Australian manufacturing future fund. Make no mistake: that will create jobs all over the country.
The food, beverage and grocery industry is supporting jobs, over 300,000 of them. I congratulate that industry and I look forward to engaging with them in the future, developing well-thought-out policies and well-considered policies, and providing stable and consistent national leadership—a national leadership that the current government have been unable to provide because of their division and because of their rotating ministerial line-up. The future Shorten Labor government will provide consistency, stability, predictability and the Australian manufacturing future fund.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
It's a great privilege to be able to get up to speak directly about the importance of Australian food manufacturing and exports in the food, beverage and grocery industries, which provide a critical part of the Australian economy; they always have, they always will, and may they continue to do so—because these days there's a lot of disconnect between how nations create wealth and where jobs and economic opportunity come from. It's primary industries that provide the wealth and opportunity to grow manufacturing businesses, which also provide jobs and opportunity, which then go on to provide the service-based industries to support them.
As part of a supply chain for delivering food, goods and services to the world, agriculture in particular has always been critical to Australia's success, particularly as a nation that cannot consume everything it produces. In addition to that, it provides us with the export opportunities to make us a more prosperous nation, and it provides security and opportunity, particularly food security, for the world. It's an incredibly important industry, and one which is very dear to my heart as part of my general interest in Australia's trade opportunities. Exports sit at the heart of how Australia will continue to be engaged with the rest of the world and continue to grow the economic opportunities of the 21st century. The strength that Australia has is that it is a clean, green environment, enabling quality goods to be produced that are going to be consumed, increasingly, in parts of South-East Asia and North Asia to feed the growing middle class in those regions. It's something we should be enormously proud of. It touches on so many different job opportunities, particularly in a sector where we're incredibly innovative as a nation.
Just outside of my electorate, there's a business called RollsPack. RollsPack is a company that invests in packaging arrangements, particularly for processed foods that then go on to be exported throughout the world. In particular, they own the technology to create square, flat-bottomed packs so that products can stand up on supermarket shelves. They're the only ones that have that technology in Australia. But they can't use the advantages of that technology, the investment that it creates, or the jobs that it provides if they don't have the produce to go in it. And so having a vibrant and successful food, beverage and grocery industry is critical, not only to meet local domestic needs but also to meet the needs of a growing middle class in parts of South-East Asia and North Asia.
It goes across the board: it doesn't matter what product you're seeking to provide these days, there are export opportunities for Australians and Australian industry to shine. We're able to leverage the potential we have around quality, and around making sure that we provide goods that people want to buy at prices they're able to afford. We know full well that there are some sectors where it's very difficult for us to compete on scale. It's difficult because of not only higher energy costs, rising energy costs—something the Turnbull government is very committed to tackling—but also labour costs and skills. We have to take advantage of our natural assets to provide for the industries of the future that will always be in demand, that provide sustainable jobs. And that's where the agriculture sector, delivered through supply chains through to exportable products, is so critical.
We know full well the huge economic benefit that comes directly from the growth in these sectors. Exports alone are worth $32.6 billion—the food and beverage sector contributes $26.4 billion as part of that; grocery manufacturing contributes $4.6 billion; and fresh produce is $1.6 billion. At each stage, the sector provides opportunities for new investors and new incentives for people to invest, build jobs growth and provide products, goods and services in demand.
One of the great myths that permeates modern Australian economic discussion is about manufacturing being in decline. There are certainly some manufacturing industries which traditionally operated in Australia that no longer operate but, where we have our economic advantage and potential, manufacturing still remains very strong. And we have a lot of that in the Goldstein electorate, particularly around Moorabbin and Braeside as well as down the south-east corridor towards Frankston. Where there are businesses that provide and take advantage of Australia's natural wealth and potential, you find viable industry that can meet global need. In fact—and I only discovered this recently, I concede, and I can understand why they keep it secret—most of Victoria's wine is bottled in the Goldstein electorate, in a factory in Sandringham. It stunned and amazed me, and I think it stunned and amazed a lot of constituents when I told them—because some of them were thirsty! However, the potential that can be provided from this sector into the future is exceptional, and that is why we celebrate them.
I commend the member for Wakefield for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. This is indeed an important matter, as the State of the industry 2017 report from the Australian Food and Grocery Council points out, with the statistics the member for Wakefield alluded to earlier. I just want to repeat a couple of those, because they are critical statistics: a $127 billion industry with some 320,000 people employed directly in it. You have 30,700 small business—small, medium and even large businesses—around Australia, a $67 billion trade business with, I understand, nearly half of that being exports out of Australia to overseas destinations. That's the magnitude of the industry that we're talking about. But it's important because it's an industry that can and will continue to grow. In fact I see it as one of the areas we could, with a fair degree of confidence, invest in because it has not only grown year after year for many years but the potential for growth is indeed there. And not only can it grow; it, in turn, means that there is potential for additional employment in the industry at a time that it is badly needed in Australia. This can literally happen now. It's not an industry where we have to wait years or decades for it to come on board and reach fruition. It's an industry that already exists and the opportunity for growth is there. When I speak to people within it, which I have done continuously since I've been in this place, I see the opportunities are unlimited.
Just as importantly, it's an industry that will provide employment for people who don't have university degrees but who are, nevertheless, committed workers who develop unique and needed skills and become specialists in what they do. It is an area that we should be focusing on as much as any other because, as I said a moment ago, not everyone wants to or can go to university, for a whole range of different reasons. One young person I spoke to, who had the intelligence and the academic achievements to go to university, simply didn't want to. He wanted to actually work with his hands in an industry where he could do some physical work. If we're going to talk about diversity in this country, diversity shouldn't just be about the national identity of someone or their religion; it should also be about people's characteristics, their personal make-up and what they want to do in life. That is what true diversity is about.
Australia has an opportunity to grow this industry, because Australia's clean, green image is out there, whether we're exporting fresh food or processed food. In both cases, there is a demand for Australian food, as we saw with the demand for infant formula in China. It was a good example of the demand being there when something is made in Australia. Indeed, when we went through the 'made in Australia' inquiry in this country, we heard that that very term—'made in Australia'—is a term that is sellable because it has a value attached to it. When people know that food is grown or processed in Australia, they have confidence in the way it is made.
In my own region, we have many local food producers. I won't go through them all but I want to touch on a couple. Whether it's Coopers Brewery, Bickford's, Ingham's Chicken, Vili's pastries, Haigh's Chocolates or National Foods, they are good examples of industries that have not only grown but employed people in large numbers in the region. And I could go on. I'm pleased to see that Bickford's, in fact, only the other day bought out Vale Ales as part of their growth in the state. I've watched their growth over the years. I have to say it's a terrific example of someone who is on a journey forward with their particular industry sector.
As the member for Wakefield has quite rightly said, GMH is going to close because of the incompetence and the short-sightedness of the Abbott-Turnbull government. That will mean there will be thousands of people unemployed. There will be 950 people who will stop work on Friday, and there will be thousands more in the supporting industries to car making in this country. It's a shame that, after 69 years of car making, the brand name Holden will no longer be made. Those people need work and they need it now. They don't need it in two, three or four years time. The food, beverage and grocery sector is one area where, with a little bit of government support, the growth is waiting to be taken up.
Labor has committed to a $1 billion futures fund to assist manufacturers in this country. That would be a terrific start if we form government. But, again, what is this government doing? It's not doing enough. It's not doing enough to support the growers. It should take note of the importance of this sector within our industries.
I'm delighted to have this opportunity to talk about the food, beverage and grocery industry in our seat of Calare. It's thriving in many different respects—the people it employs, the small business that it supports and the tourism that it brings to our region. It is very important. Indeed, it is the cornerstone of many regional economies in New South Wales and across Australia. Calare is blessed to have some outstanding primary producers growing the food that feeds Australia. We're certainly proud of the work our farmers undertake in producing our beef, lamb, pork, venison, poultry, and our vegetables and grains. Also, there are our orchards. We have a very strong orchard industry in Calare. Their contribution to our local economy is huge.
In addition to our wonderful fresh food, Calare produces some of the best wines in Australia. The cool climate regions across the central west are becoming world famous. From January to June 2017, Australian exports of bottled wine to China grew by 86.1 per cent to $252.4 million in value—just showing how popular Australian wine is. Besides our excellent wines, we have some well-known brands manufactured in our electorate of Calare, including Ferrero Rocher and Nutella—that iconic brand, members will be interested to know, is actually manufactured in Lithgow. Also, Australia's iconic Chiko Rolls are manufactured in Bathurst—the home of Chiko Rolls. Indeed, if you go into the factory you will see the sign that says, 'Welcome to Simplot in Bathurst, home of the Chiko Roll'. I would like to congratulate the manager, Ivan England, for his great work and all that he does for our local economy.
There's great work going on right across the electorate. One person that I need to mention is Herb Smith, who has founded Dreamtime Tuka. Herb is a Wiradjuri man. He has decided that he will take Dreamtime Tuka to the world—and he's doing it. He launched the company in 2013. He employs two staff members in Wellington, but it has already been picked up by Qantas domestically. He's hoping to get Dreamtime Tuka on international flights, as well. Herb is famous for his rainforest plum chocolate slices. They're very popular. That's an example of a great local entrepreneur who is taking our local product to the world.
I also want to mention Ashcroft's Supa IGA. They are a locally owned grocery enterprise. The owners are Ian and Rochelle Ashcroft. They have a program called Let's Make Better. Their team is Nerida Noon, Jessie Blizzard, Kristy Mansell and Bree Selwood. The Ashcrofts opened their first store in Peisley Street in Orange in 1988 and now have a second store in the Orange Summer Centre. They employ more than 200 staff across both stores. So it's an enormous contribution to our local economy.
What makes Ashcroft Supa IGA stand out is their commitment to supporting the central west community. This is evident in the local product that they sell, including Orange's salad and dip brand, Fresh Fodder; Dubbo's Little Big Dairy milk; and MSM Milling's Auzure canola oil, which is produced in Manildra. They also aim to give back to the community through the Let's Make Better charity. It was established in 2016 and they have since raised $80,000 for a number of community organisations. The money is raised at their fundraising days held in store and through their rewards program and donation boxes. They also have a bonus club, which is a loyalty scheme that allows members special prices and discounts and also the choice to have some of their rewards donated to the community group of their choice. Donation boxes are located at the store counters and outside the checkouts, where cash and purchased items are donated.
The charity was recognised earlier this year when the team received the Community Group of the Year Award, with 100 per cent of donations from Let's Make Better going to supporting the community. Some of the organisations which they have helped in Orange include Housing Plus, Riding for the Disabled and the Vinnies food van. They are supporting every aspect of community life in the central west, and we commend them here today.
I thank the member for Wakefield for moving this motion, because it gives me an opportunity to inform the chamber of what happens in Western Sydney when it comes to food production. It's a story that I doubt many people know. In case you didn't know, Western Sydney is Australia's largest manufacturing region in the country. Manufacturing companies generate around $13.5 billion annually. The food and grocery sector in Western Sydney represents 33 per cent of the manufacturing jobs in the region and employs over 100,000 people in Western Sydney. So it's a major part of who we are as a region. It employs many, many people who support their families through working in the food industry. That includes the really big guys, who we all know—huge players in the food manufacturing industry like Arnotts in Huntingwood, which isn't in my electorate; Steggles in Pendle Hill, which is; and Coca-Cola in North Parramatta.
But it's not just the big ones; it's literally thousands of small players across the full range of cultures and cuisines, supported by small independent grocers, that initially service specific communities and grow to be part of our larger community. If I'm after edamame or tamarind paste, I go to the Chinese supermarket down in Church Street. If I'm after pomegranate molasses, I go to the Iranian Aria store. If I'm after dried pomegranate seeds, I go to the Indian supermarket in Victoria Road or down in Harris Park. We also have a growing number of African markets that sell African spices.
Increasingly, these niche products that are sold in this diverse range of independent grocers are made locally. You can go and buy locally made chutneys, including some by a company called Eat Me Chutneys, which makes chutneys from product that would otherwise go to landfill. It is a really interesting company. You can also buy tamarind and coconut chutneys as well as the more well-known ones, such as mango chutney. There's an incredible range of things. I happen to love an Indian street food called idli. It's made with fermented rice and split black gram lentils. I love it; in fact, I make it in my rice cooker in my office. But, not only can you buy the best idli in Sydney in my suburb, you can also buy locally made batter for dosa and idli, and now you can buy the flour, made locally, for idli and dosa from several producers in my electorate as well as in broader Western Sydney. It's a great place to eat food and it's also an incredibly great place to make food. We have a small yoghurt maker in Pendle Hill, and we have two kebab manufacturers in Rydalmere that supply meat for the Western Sydney staple the halal snack pack, which you can get right across my suburb. We produce cured meats, kebab meats and specialty Filipino meats. We've got food producers right across the community, in Clyde, Toongabbie, Granville, North Rocks and Carlingford. And we have at least two brewers that make some incredibly good-quality craft beer. If you want dim sum, there are manufacturers right across, from Granville to Carlingford.
I went to an Afghan home last year for dinner, and they were making a well-known Afghan dish called mantu. Rather than make the dumplings themselves, they went down to the dim sum and bought them there—not the pork ones but the vegetarian ones. So we had Chinese-Afghan food that night, which was very special. There are Middle Eastern sweets like baklava and lady's arms. Polvoron, the Filipino powdered milk candy, is manufactured locally, as is Turkish delight. You can't go past Parramatta for breads, whether they are Lebanese or Afghan breads or paratha. We have an incredible range of manufacturers. We have an increasing number of dairy producers. Yoghurt, labne, feta and paneer—across the different cultures, we make them all.
All these food-manufacturing businesses should be applauded for the huge contribution they make to employment and the economy—and, of course, our dinner! They are a great contributor to food diversity and innovation in diet that comes from these small, niche producers. The possibility in this diversity is extraordinary. The possibility to extend their markets from niche markets to the broader community and to export back into the cultures from which the foods come is extraordinary. The risks are also great, with the rising cost of gas and power. That's why I'm incredibly grateful to Bill Shorten and the member for Wakefield for announcing Labor's $1 billion advanced manufacturing fund, which will help support our most innovative food manufacturers in the years to come.
This is a great opportunity to stand here and talk about food manufacturing and food processing and the growers of food and milk products right throughout the electorate of Murray and northern Victoria. Many of Australia's biggest brands have their home in the electorate of Murray. The township of Echuca has Kagome, the largest processor of tomato in Australia, with cutting-edge science, developing products right across the food industry. Also in Echuca there's Simplot, home of the brands Birds Eye, John West, Leggo's, Edgell, Chiko and Lean Cuisine. Alongside it is Parmalat, and it has brands like Pauls and a range of yoghurts, creams and custards.
Nearby Tatura is a relatively smaller town, but it has some large industry. Unilever is one of the larger ones. Unilever has brands including Continental, Lipton, Flora, Bertolli, Jif, Lux and Pond's. Tatura is also home to Bega Cheese and Tatura Milk, and they manufacture world-class cream, cheeses, milk powders and instant formula. Nearby Shepparton, the home of Goulburn Valley, plays host to some of Australia's most iconic household brands. SPC, for instance, produce the best tins of baked beans and spaghetti you will ever taste as well as a whole range of fruit and tomato products, under the Ardmona, Goulburn Valley and IXL brands. Nearby, Campbell's soup is based out of Shepparton. It has produced soup forever and has also in last 10 or 15 years moved into the stock products that sit in nearly every pantry in Australia.
Murray's dairy processors, in addition to Parmalat and Bega, include some of the biggest in the country. There is Murray Goulburn, with its Devondale, Liddells and Table Cove brands. Fonterra has recently opened a $140 million cheese plant in the town of Stanhope, and its cheese will be sent to the growing Asian markets that have been the huge beneficiaries of the free trade agreements this government has put together. Ozpak wines in Nagambie have also capitalised on the free trade agreements, a great success story. They have increased their sales into China from 100,000 cases to 750,000 cases, with an expected further lift of 25 per cent in the coming year. The CEO at Ozpak is Andrew McPherson, and he attributes this work to the government's opening up of free trade agreements.
These free trade agreements, predominantly with China, Japan and South Korea, have led to infant formula in China doubling in the last year—it's up 99 per cent, an incredible boost to infant formula sales into China. This has happened through a whole raft of important programs, but, with the agricultural competitive white paper, there has been a $30 million investment to break down the technical barriers to trade, assisting more people with those issues. It is also worth looking at some of the other work that the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources has done. It is making it easier for people to work out all of the various necessary aspects of trading with our neighbours.
When we talk about the in the Goulburn Valley and the Greater Murray region, one of the things that really strikes me is that the whole food process really is from the paddock right to the supermarket shelf. It's the work that the primary producers, the farmers, are doing. It's their ability to buy and sell water, to trade water, which is why we need water at an affordable price. Then consider the transport industry, and Shepparton, per capita, would certainly be the biggest transport hub in Australia. Then look at the food-processing plants, where 10,000 to 15,000 people in the Goulburn Valley are employed. Then there is the packaging industry, which is vibrant in the region. It is making sure that this produce goes effectively from the paddock through to the supermarket shelf in a professional and large-scale way that leads the nation. I don't think there is any other electorate or region in Australia with such a comprehensive paddock-to-shelf process as the Goulburn Valley.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that trade union malfeasance has cost taxpayers around 30 per cent, and possibly more, of their investment in recent infrastructure projects, and has led to widespread harm among Australian workers;
(2) welcomes the Government's decisive and comprehensive program of measures to investigate, stamp out and punish union malfeasance, including;
(a) the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2016;
(b) the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016, which included the restored Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), and the Building Code 2016; and
(c) the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Act 2017;
(3) congratulates the Government on dealing with the scourge of union misbehaviour on Australian construction sites; and
(4) encourages the Government to continue to explore ways of eliminating unethical trade union practices and to provide all necessary legal and financial support to the ABCC in its work to investigate and punish illegality in the construction industry.
In the years before the ABCC was established, the industrial dispute rate in the construction sector was five times the all-industry average. When the ABCC operated from 2005 to 2012, that rate dropped to only twice the average—not a good rate, but still it dropped to twice the average. For the first quarter after the ABCC was abolished, in September 2012, the rate increased fivefold.
As someone who's worked in the building and construction industry all of my adult life, 30 years, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the extent of union corruption in the building industry is absolutely rife. Since 2007, the CFMEU has accrued fines for illegal activities of more than $12 million. That's a new record. On 13 September they received $2.4 million in fines for illegal behaviour at the Barangaroo site alone. If it hadn't been for the Leader of the Opposition's abolition of the ABCC, these fines would have been up to $4.8 million higher, as the proceedings commenced under the old penalty regime, which he himself had introduced, rather than the coalition government's restored ABCC.
Since 2007, the CFMEU has donated $8.1 million to the Labor Party. The CFMEU's fines have included activities on projects like the Queensland Children's Hospital, the Commonwealth Games venue in Queensland, the Queensland Institute of Medical Research and the Ronald McDonald Charity House, which accommodates the families of sick children. The CFMEU knows no bounds. It doesn't care what the subject site is. And it's not just happening in Queensland; it's also happening in Western Australia where they also disrupted the children's hospital site.
As at September 2014, there were 90 CFMEU representatives before the courts for more than 1,300 suspected contraventions. This is no surprise, as even the ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, said in March on national television that she believes that it is acceptable for unions to break laws that they disagree with. The Leader of the Opposition's response was to suggest that he would change the laws that the unions want to break.
This is not just me talking about the malfeasance of the CFMEU. Justice Jessup in a decision in July 2016 said this:
The CFMEU's record of non-compliance with legislation of this kind has now become notorious … That record ought to be an embarrassment to the trade union movement.
Judge Jarrett, in the same month, said:
The CFMEU has as egregious record of repeated and wilful contraventions of all manner of industrial laws.
Justice White in April 2016 said that the CFMEU's compliance with industrial legislation has generally been poor—perhaps the understatement of the century. He said:
The union's prior history bespeaks an attitude by the CFMEU of ignoring, if not defying the law, and a willingness to contravene it as and when it chooses.
Judge Vasta in March 2016 said:
It would be apt to describe the behaviour of—
namely, the CFMEU–
as sheer thuggery. Such thuggery has no place in the Australian workplace. Contraventions of the Fair Work Act that involve such thuggery cannot be tolerated.
Yet those members opposite, even here today, continue to support their trade union masters.
The Leader of the Opposition's policy on union misbehaviour was revealed in letters between him and the CFMEU when he was running for the Labor leadership. In an effort to attain the CFMEU's support, the Leader of the Opposition agreed to their demands lock, stock and barrel. It is absolutely a matter of fact that the Leader of the Opposition is owned by the CFMEU, and he ought to be condemned. (Time expired)
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion.
It's the first day back in parliament after four weeks in our electorates, and it's only taken a few short hours for the government member here to again start bashing unions and workers—just a couple of hours. Despite the cowardly issues caused by this government's lack of foresight, empathy or action that require urgent attention, this government would instead rather parrot their tired antiworker rhetoric. This government attacks anyone who stands up for workers, wherever and whenever they can. I understand that it's easier than standing up to corporate interests, but I won't accept this as an excuse. I'm a member of the Labor Party, and we fight for workers and we fight for what is fair. What's not fair are the conditions and the continuous attacks on workers, wages and conditions that are taking place in this country—attacks like the vicious cuts to penalty rates, the take-home pay of hundreds of thousands of workers, that this government has championed.
Those opposite act as if they are proud of those senseless cuts, when really they should be hanging their heads in shame. How can this government stand there, representing someone who is struggling to get by as it is, and vote to cut their take-home pay? How can you stand there and do that? How can this government so blatantly favour the interests of big business shareholders over those who struggle to feed their family?
The royal commission into trade unions that took place in 2014 and 2015 has recorded just one conviction. Despite there being over a million unionists in this country, the royal commission found one conviction. This royal commission was just another one of those LNP witch-hunts that was orchestrated to undermine Australian workers. It was another failure; let's be very clear. They spent tens of millions of dollars straight out of the taxpayers' wallet to prove that one bad egg in the union movement is, quite literally, one in a million. And yet, after all of this, the member for Fisher who was just here—he has just left the room, of course—still wants to waste time and money, and that's taxpayers' money. He wants to continue to waste time and taxpayers' money by attacking this unethical behaviour which the royal commission proved is all but non-existent—remember that one, 'all but non-existent'. It's truly a very pathetic attempt to malign Australian workers, and it just shows how weak this government actually are. They are a government who will denigrate vulnerable workers, time and time again, while they refuse to investigate big businesses or banks.
Why does this government continually stand in the way of a royal commission into the banking sector? I know my constituents want it. I know constituents all over this country want a royal commission—they tell me every day. They're tired of being ripped off. But, each and every day, the government are standing in the way of a royal commission into banks. To the member for Fisher, who has just left the room, my question is: why do you and your government refuse to take meaningful action against multinational companies who avoid paying their fair share of tax in this country? It's not fair that companies can operate in Australia but use unscrupulous accounting loopholes to circumvent our laws. It is the Australian people, the Australian workers, who become victims of this behaviour by multinationals.
The member for Fisher, just before he left the chamber, was speaking about the ABCC as a champion that stamps out union corruption. But last month's court hearing really proves the opposite is true. It is this government who are to blame for the blatant disregard of Australian laws. Senator Michaelia Cash and the whole of the Turnbull government have a lot to answer for. They hand-picked Nigel Hadgkiss as commissioner of the ABCC, despite being well aware of his intentional disregard for the law. It's quite amazing, isn't it, their hand-picking of Mr Hadgkiss as commissioner? How can this government claim to be a moral authority, when they have effectively condoned his unlawful behaviour? Does this government see it as okay to break these laws, so long as they disadvantage workers and unions in the process? Labor doesn't condone unlawful behaviour from anybody at all, we don't discriminate with legislation, and we do not attack workers. This government, on the other hand, has a lot to answer for.
I rise to speak on the motion put by the member for Fisher. The use of deceitful and corrupt practices in the trade union movement has meant that honest Australian workers have been lied to, deceived, and represented to a standard that would flatter Dennis Denuto. While Dennis Denuto's shortcomings can be explained by general incompetence, the poor representation of unions is the product of self-interest and greed. This greed not only leads to poor outcomes for workers, it leads to poor outcomes for Australian taxpayers. The trade union royal commission laid bare a long list of inexcusable instances of union misconduct and corruption. This included bribery, extortion, and secret corrupting payments to unions in exchange for cutting workers' entitlements and rights.
One of the worst offenders when it comes to secret corrupting payments is the Leader of the Opposition. During his time as the national secretary of the AWU, he was part of the furniture in a culture of corruption and deception. His agenda entailed advancing two key interests: his own interest and that of the Labor Party—let's face it, advancing the Labor Party was also about advancing himself. In 2005, he signed up the entire membership of the Australian Netball Players' Association to a union and invoiced them $9,000 without their knowledge. This was also—since the AWU would have more votes in Labor Party preselections—nothing but self-interest. In 2007 he donated $25,000 of union workers' money to his own election campaign. The Labor Party may call this politics. The Australian people call this dishonesty—at best, theft and, at worst, dishonest. The Leader of the Opposition has been a case in point for reform of the union movement, his actions showing its deep-seated culture of lawlessness and corruption. Despite the Leader of the Opposition having left the unions, they continue where he left off.
The AWU have doctored invoices to conceal the fact that $25,000 was used to bolster memberships and the AWU's influence on the Labor Party. Recently, the AWU confirmed that the Leader of the Opposition was personally behind the $100,000 donation to the left-wing group GetUp!–members' money, meant to support them, being ploughed into rent-seeking unions and political lobby groups.
It would be difficult to forget the instance when the Leader of the Opposition rid some of Australia's low-paid workers of their paid benefits and conditions in return for secret payments made from Cleanevent. During his reign at the AWU, Mr Shorten was actively involved in negotiating lower penalty rates for big business to benefit the unions, but he is strongly against giving the same level of benefits to small Australian businesses. The Labor Party wants to ensure that small businesses pay higher penalty rates than the big businesses that they do secret deals with.
Enabling trade unions to continue their dishonesty, theft, fraud and corruption makes the life of Australia's most vulnerable workers even harder. These workers have the right to expect transparency and truth from their union. Labor's decision to continue voting against protecting Australian workers shows the true colours and moral bankruptcy of the Labor Party. They fought against the Turnbull government's ABCC to end lawlessness on building sites. They fought against making unions accountable to their members in the same way that companies are accountable to their shareholders. They fought against ending secret corrupting payments to make sure unions can't sell off workers' rights for 30 pieces of silver. Perhaps the member for Maribyrnong would be better named 'Judas'.
The Turnbull government's crusade against union corruption from the re-establishment of the ABCC to reforms to registered organisations and eliminating corrupting payments will ensure that Australian workers come first, not the Labor Party or their mates. To the union thugs out there who think it's over: it's only just begun. The Turnbull government is now turning its focus to stopping industry super funds giving $22 million a year of your retirement savings to unions, to give to the Labor Party. This government will not stop until unions do what they were made for: protecting workers, not lining their own pockets and those of the Labor Party.
I am proud to rise in support of my comrades, because it has only ever been the union movement and Labor that have looked after the working person. It will only ever be Labor and the union movement that will protect the working person from the relentless and shameful attacks of the Turnbull government. The working conditions that workers, including members of the Turnbull government, enjoy today were hard fought for and won by the union movement. Paid annual leave was first won after a campaign by the Printing Workers Union in 1936.
The Australian unions fought an intensive campaign for paid parental leave which resulted in the victorious introduction of the Paid Parental Leave scheme by the Gillard Labor government. Superannuation is another union victory. Prior to 1986, only a select group of workers were entitled to superannuation, and it became a universal entitlement after the ACTU's national wage case. Then there was the campaign for penalty rates. In 1947, penalty rates were established. Unions argued in the arbitration commission that people needed to be paid extra money to work outside of normal hours, and the union battle rages on today to keep penalty rates.
Unions have delivered redundancy pay, meal and rest breaks, sick leave, health and safety, workers compensation, shift allowance, long service leave, uniform allowance, unfair dismissal protection, collective bargaining and awards reform. If it weren't for the unions, more than 800 workers in my electorate of Herbert would be without their fair entitlement guarantee payments after the closure of Queensland Nickel—a guarantee that was created by Labor and attempted to be restricted by the Abbott-Turnbull governments.
Workers in my electorate will not forget the disregard of this government when they needed action and protection from a greedy businessman. It was the Minister for Employment, Michaelia Cash, who was dragged kicking and screaming by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, the Electrical Trade Union and the Australian Workers' Union to release a fair entitlements guarantee, which was rightly owned by these workers.
Now more than ever, workers, Labor and unions are facing one of their toughest battles—the Turnbull government. It's a government that stands up for top hats, not hard hats. It's a government that puts big business first and the worker last. It's a government that puts profit before people. The Turnbull government, together with One Nation leader, Senator Pauline Hanson—who votes with the coalition 84 per cent of the time—are out to undermine and attack Labor and the union movement. They are determined to weaken the mighty union movement, whose aim is to save jobs and protect fair working conditions. Our next fight is to stamp out inequality—an issue that this government does not seem to understand and refuses to address. Inequality is at a 70-year high. More than 105,000 people are homeless, 32,000 unemployed people live in poverty, and wage growth hasn't been this low since the retention of records.
Since 1975, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has collected data on earnings inequality. Profits went up 40 per cent, wages less than two per cent—real wages growth of 72 per cent for the top 10 per cent. In 1975, the top 10 per cent of earners earned twice as much as the bottom 10 per cent, but by 2014 they were earning three times as much. If lower wage earners had enjoyed the same percentage gains as the highest-paid, they would be $16,000 a year better off. The richest one per cent of Australians own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent combined. For every dollar that a male earns, a female earns 82 cents. Six hundred and seventy eight corporations paid no tax; 48 millionaires paid no tax. Let's just put that into perspective: the subcontractor working on the construction of the Townsville stadium, the university student working at Zarraffa's Coffee, where penalty rates have been cut, and workers like teachers, nurses and electricians have all paid more tax than multibillion-dollar companies. And what does the Turnbull government do? It gives big business a $65 billion tax cut.
Shamefully, the Turnbull government is completely out of touch with working families. Inequality and wage growth for workers will never be addressed by this government. It is only Labor and the union movement who will fight for working people. This government knows the facts about low wage growth and inequality. But instead of working with Labor and the union movement to address these issues, this motion is put forward—the complete opposite of what is actually required. But workers, Labor and the union movement will do what we do well when we're under attack. We will stand up and we will fight.
I would like to commend the member for Fisher for putting this motion for debate before the Federation Chamber. I would like to start my contribution by reflecting on the comments that the member for Herbert made. She said, 'The union battle rages on to keep penalty rates in this country,' or words to that effect. Well, what a shame that the union battle and Labor's battle to keep penalty rates doesn't extend to its own sleazy deals. What we as a coalition government have exposed across this country are hundreds of thousands of Australians working mainly in the retail sector but also in many industries, where they are working below the award or without penalty rates as a result of sleazy deals between Labor-backed unions and large employers. This evidence was put to the Senate in an inquiry on these deals.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members opposite don't like it when we talk about this. As the inquiry exposed, for many years unions have signed enterprise agreements with large enterprises that include cuts to Sunday penalty rates, and small businesses have been on an uneven playing field relative to large businesses. I reflect on a terrific column written by Grace Collier in The Australian, 'Make ALP pay for union collusion'. She is a former union worker who saw the light. She reflects on this report and cites some of the terrible examples where ordinary Australians have been ripped off by these EBAs brokered by large employers and the union movement, where workers have, in many cases, been left completely blind as to what is going on:
So pity those who work in a bed and breakfast. They get dudded by these deals. Another example was given:
That is as a result of special deals, EBAs, between KFC, McDonald's, Pizza Hut and the union movement. One of the biggest unions responsible, of course, is the shoppies union. Yet another example was given:
As Grace Collier points out, Labor's main defences of these deals—that any losses are offset by a higher base rate of pay and that they meet the better-off-overall test—have been totally demolished. They have also been demolished by the Fair Work Commission in some agreements. It found that evidence from a number of people who work for large retailers suggested they were worse off. Worse than that, they were not informed by either the company or the union that their agreement included penalty rates that were lower than those provided for in the award.
So we have seen absolute hypocrisy from the Labor Party in terms of this so-called battle against keeping penalty rates. They are not prepared to stand up for the many hundreds of thousands of workers who have lost out with these sleazy deals, which we are trying to combat through our corrupting benefits legislation. If the Labor Party and members opposite were interested in putting all workers on a level playing field and standing up for all workers, they would back our corrupting benefits bill. But they are not doing that. There is no greater deal-maker than the Leader of the Opposition. When he ran the AWU, his deal with Cleanevent denied Cleanevent workers penalty rates to the value of $4 million, which is absolutely notorious. What we have seen from the opposition is that the Leader of the Opposition is fine with lower penalty rates when his union mates do it—when they do those big sleazy deals with big business, including the likes of Woolworths, Coles, KFC, McDonald's and Pizza Hut—and he only opposes penalty rate modifications when the independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission, makes adjustments. Shame on Labor for its utter hypocrisy.
I rise to speak on the disgraceful motion put forward by the member for Fisher, who I note is absent from the chamber. This motion is like an old vinyl record with a scratch in it. The Turnbull-Abbott government goes around and around and around on continuous repeat but says nothing. It's the song those opposite keep singing when the band stopped playing long ago. It's another feature of the government's ideological obsession with unions. I could talk about how unions have improved the working conditions of Australians for more than 100 years. I could tell you how unions are the reason that Australian workers have an eight-hour day, annual lave, sick pay, workers compensation and health and safety standards, which mean there's a good chance that employees will go home and see their family. I could talk about how cost-cutting by building companies keeps putting Australian workers, and those who use the buildings they sweat to make, at risk. Companies trying to bolster their bottom line are importing cheap building products that contain asbestos, putting at risk not only the workers but the eventual inhabitants of the homes and offices that they're building. Where there is illegality, it must be called out and punished, whether it is the behaviour of the employers, the unions or the employees.
I note that employers haven't got a mention in any of the speeches preceding mine. I say that individuals are responsible for their own behaviour. When individuals behave badly or even illegally, we must be careful not to visit their transgressions on the wider organisation that they are purported to represent. If we did that, it would be difficult not to tarnish all company directors or businesspeople with the behaviour of Christopher Skase or Alan Bond, or all movie producers with the behaviour of Harvey Weinstein, or all Queensland Liberal National Party politicians with the behaviour of the convicted criminal Scott Driscoll, an LNP MP who sits in a Queensland jail cell right now. All organisations, like all sectors of industry, have some rogue individuals who will besmirch the reputations of many good, hardworking people in organisations that make great contributions to our community.
Unions are crucial. Unions are made up of many hardworking, diligent and conscientious people whose sole objective is to make the working life of Australians better. But those opposite don't want to talk about these good people—that vast majority. They don't want people to know about the good work being done by unions, day after day. So I'm going to tell you about some of these people—people like Ros McLennan, the head of the Queensland Council of Unions, who spent 23 years empowering Australian workers. Ros has a particular knowledge and appreciation of the role of unions in regional Queensland. In 1998, she worked up in Townsville, and she spent 10 years as an assistant secretary of the Queensland and Northern Territory branch of the Independent Education Union. In 2014, Ros was elected to the Queensland Council of Unions as assistant general secretary, and in 2015 she was elected general secretary. Ros is a hardworking mother of two, married to Brad, and one of my constituents, and was also my campaign director.
Andrew Ramsay, a CFMEU workplace officer, is often called to building sites in Brisbane to inspect for breaches of workplace safety, including asbestos being on site. He's also chairman of the board of the Asbestos Disease Support Society. Crucially, he understands the harmful effects of asbestos and is particularly concerned that asbestos is still being found on building sites in Australia today. It was through the diligent work of Andrew and his team that asbestos was discovered on the Executive Building building site in Brisbane. The site was immediately shut down to protect workers from this insidious substance. Andrew helped me to get elected a decade ago, as part of the Your Rights at Work campaign, and he is a great advocate for the union movement.
Craig Wood has previously worked for the Queensland Teachers' Union as a research officer, and is now a hardworking teacher and union activist. He is a very committed teacher. Craig is passionate about education and drama, but particularly about education. He has taught children from prep right through to university. He understands the demanding role of teachers, and that they require a strong union to support them. Craig is also one of my constituents, and has worked tirelessly to ensure that the south side of Brisbane has progressive representatives.
These are just three people. I could give you hundreds and thousands more of these unsung heroes in the union movement that I've met over the years, people who are just going about their jobs, standing up for Australian workers and their colleagues every day, and standing up for Australian workers who aren't members of their union but who get the benefits of union membership. Ros, Andrew and Craig don't deserve the constant attacks being levelled at them and their unions by the Turnbull government, a government that is devoid of vision and devoid of purpose. I do not support this motion from the member for Fisher at all. (Time expired)
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the good work of the Northern Melbourne Regional Development Australia (RDA) committee;
(2) condemns the Government for shutting down the Northern Melbourne RDA;
(3) recognises that Melbourne' s northern suburbs are a significant growth area, which has not received its fair share of vital infrastructure support under this Government and that this is adversely impacting on productivity and liveability; and
(4) calls on the Minister to reconsider amalgamating the RDA committees in Victoria.
For the seventh year in a row, Melbourne has been acclaimed as the world's most livable city by the Economist Intelligence Unit, amongst other bodies. But our celebration as proud Melburnians, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, must be tempered. We must ask ourselves: livable for who and for how long? As you would be well aware, Melbourne is one of the fastest-growing cities, not just in Australia but right across the OECD. While this growth takes place right across Melbourne, it's particularly concentrated in areas of the northern suburbs, including in the electorates of Scullin, Batman and McEwen, and also in the electorate of Calwell, Deputy Speaker! This presents great opportunities for our communities—great opportunities which are being recklessly squandered by the decision-making of this government.
This government's failure to support Melbourne and its failure to consider the needs of Melburnians is presenting a massive handbrake on our productivity as well as our livability. It's impacting on too many lives. We see this in the obscene decision to allocate only a fraction of the necessary Commonwealth infrastructure spends to Melbourne. We see it in the neglect of urban policy from this government generally—no matter what the present Prime Minister might say. But all of these decisions are being compounded by the decision this motion seeks to highlight—that is, to turn the present four Regional Development Australia committees, reflecting the diverse needs of Melbourne, into one. I am particularly concerned about the impact of this in terms of all the communities of the northern suburbs of Melbourne, because it is clear that Melbourne's northern suburbs form a distinct regional economy—and a distinct community at that, comprised of more than a million people, and local government areas, such as Banyule, Darebin, Hume, Mitchell shire, Nillumbik, Yarra, Whittlesea and Moreland. There has been some fantastic work done by the RDA which covers northern Melbourne, recognising the diversity of interests here. I'd like to take this opportunity in this place to acknowledge the great contribution of Tony Coppola, who has done extraordinary work, and that of his committee.
The government has formed a series of views about how urban Australia should be treated. We saw under previous Liberal administrations the dominance of the National Party, through such discredited programs as 'Roads of National Party Importance', when it came to our national government's involvement in infrastructure. More subtly, we see the same thing play out here, under Prime Minister Turnbull, as was the case under his predecessor, the member for Warringah. We saw a series of reviews of our RDAs which really shifted a focus—showed a thinking that regions economically in Australian are defined by this government as those areas which aren't our major cities. This is short-changing millions of Australians and denying the reality that we live in Australia, the world's most urbanised nation and, in particular, the world's most suburbanised nation.
Our communities, particularly those in growing outer-suburban regions, require the active engagement of a national government. A critical part of that is establishing lasting partnerships. That has been the role of the Northern Melbourne RDA. It has drawn together local, state and national government stakeholdings and those policy priorities to build a shared vision for our region in concert with community and private enterprise. We have seen really important work done. I think about the regional plan from last year on to 2019, a framework for balancing the opportunities and meeting the challenges of our region; the Food and Beverage Growth Plan; the future workforce plan; and, of course, the vital Northern Horizons vision, a 50-year vision for infrastructure to sustain our communities and our economy. These are pieces of work that will be lost through the government's reckless decision to turn four Melbourne RDAs into one. It is a government which continues to turn its back on Melbourne—in particular, the northern suburbs. I note that no government speakers proposed to contribute to this debate. This government adds insult to injury when it comes to Melbourne's northern suburbs. It has made a decision, without due process and without due consideration, that will short-change the lives of more than a million Melburnians, for which it should stand condemned. The government needs to reconsider this decision.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. While we've been back in our electorates getting the latest updates on what's happening in the real world, the Minister for Regional Development has been finding more and more ways to snub Victorians, particularly us in the northern suburbs. The latest target is the Regional Development Australia committees in Victoria, which the government is bulldozing. For years, the Northern Melbourne RDA has been a big part of the development in my electorate of McEwen, as it has been in those seats around me, such as Batman, Scullin and Calwell. But, just as with all the good things that come our way, this government is determined to shut it down.
As of December this year, the four Melbourne Regional Development Australia committees will be amalgamated into one big mess. I say it's a mess because, whenever the government puts its hands on something, you can guarantee it's going to turn into a mess. It means shutting down the focus on the northern suburbs and the north of Melbourne and making bureaucratic chaos out of what has been, until now, a prosperous committee achieving for all of our communities. The four RDAs have catered to the diverse needs of the growing Melbourne regional population. Having four separate, concentrated focuses acknowledging the needs of smaller community based projects has been at the forefront of creating a plan for the development of Melbourne's outer peripheries.
The Northern Melbourne RDA specialised in focusing on our own unique region, ranging from rural to semirural to urban communities. The amalgamation is especially dangerous for McEwen, with a shift from focused, critical support for development in our region to a more—so-called—big-picture, blanket approach. By merging the RDAs the new committee will be overstretched and underresourced to manage and deliver such a vast development plan.
We know already that, since the election of the Andrews government, Victoria has become a boom place. Each and every day there are people moving in. Roughly 2,000 people a month move into my electorate alone. This means big stresses on our infrastructure. The state government can't keep up when this federal government is allocating only seven per cent of what we're entitled to on infrastructure. This causes problems day in and day out. Look at what they're doing with cutting manufacturing job support in Victoria. You can see why the issues are coming. The government here is either too blind to see the future or clearly doesn't care.
Projects like The Future Workforce: Melbourne's North report won't be a priority anymore. No longer will the Northern Melbourne RDA run initiatives such as leadership programs for disadvantaged young women or assist us in advocating for the full NBN rollout in Victoria. The RDA has delivered projects that have had a significant impact on my community. I've been really proud to see these projects delivered that shape the region. It has brought in major tourism with projects such as the development at Hanging Rock. It has transformed it into a venue for large events and concerts and has brought in everyone from Leonard Cohen to Bruce Springsteen—and the mighty Oils are coming shortly.
Our region, particularly McEwen, is one of the fastest growing in the country. While we continue to boom, the government again and again denies us vital infrastructure support and funding. This ongoing unequal distribution of infrastructure funding already adversely impacts on our productivity and livability, and this amalgamation is only going to make things worse. The Northern Melbourne RDA's home page states that the region is facing and will continue to face unprecedented growth. The minister could take two seconds and have a look at the page to see how unfair this amalgamation is going to be for our region.
The minister's RDA reform is supposed to grow strong and confident regional communities. Exactly how does that work? Not even she knows. All four RDAs in Melbourne have unique roles to play—something this government is determined to overlook. It's a bit like their citizenship status—they forget these things and pop it to the side.
One project that has been funded is the final stages of the Vietnam veterans walk. This is a national iconic space for our Vietnam veterans. It's something close to my heart and I've been pushing from day one to see it completed. Our deep military history in the northern suburbs is very cherished by all of us. We always remember to honour those who have fallen for our country.
We have benefited from critical infrastructure through the RDA that promotes a healthy lifestyle and provides family facilities in our community. There is the Splash waterpark, with its state-of-the-art aquatic and gym facilities in the booming community of Craigieburn, as well as a synthetic athletics track, a new pavilion and other recreational facilities that enrich our communities. It's time the ministers pulled back and actually thought about communities rather than themselves.
I begin by thanking my colleagues the members for Scullin and McEwen for bringing this motion and these important sentiments to the attention of the House. This important motion concerns the Northern Melbourne Regional Development Australia committee. Melbourne is booming faster than ever. It is now one of the 10 fastest-growing large cities in the developed world. It is growing quicker than Mexico City and New York. In the past decade declining affordability of inner-city living and the evolution from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge economy have driven massive growth and great change in Melbourne's north. We are now facing unprecedented population growth. Recent data has shown that it will become home to more than 300,000 additional persons by 2031. This means that the northern suburbs of Melbourne will soon be the size of Adelaide.
The renowned livability which northern Melbourne has always been proud of—safe, multicultural, cosmopolitan and on the doorstep of the Melbourne CBD—is at risk of being replaced by a decreasing quality of life and productivity. Population growth has placed severe pressure on already strained infrastructure, with services and new infrastructure not keeping up with the demands of new residents. We see this on our roads with traffic congestion and at our train stations.
Population growth, combined with a shift in structural change, and the growth of unemployment and underemployment have become major economic challenges in our parts of Melbourne. Recent research shows that in Melbourne's north there are some of the highest localised unemployment figures in the state, and we're well above the Victorian and national averages. In particular, the level of youth unemployment is pronounced and unacceptable. The unemployment rates of the 15-to-24-year-old cohort in the cities of Hume, Whittlesea and Darebin are three to five percentage points higher than that found in inner Melbourne.
All of the City of Darebin and parts of the City of Whittlesea are in my electorate. Northern Melbourne is a highly diverse region, with residents coming from more than 160 different countries and over 140 different languages being spoken at home. We all know how profound the impact is from long-term unemployment and disengagement from work and learning, and the impacts that can have on young people. In a region as diverse as northern Melbourne, a job is of significant importance, as it is everywhere, to a community's cohesiveness. Melbourne is burgeoning, and northern Melbourne is bearing the brunt of growth and change.
This is why I wholeheartedly welcomed the conception of RDA Northern Melbourne. Funded by the Regional Development Australia program, RDA Northern Melbourne was set up to bring together local leaders, businesses, stakeholders and state, local and federal governments to support economic development in our local community and with programs and ideas tailored to the strengths and compensating for the weaknesses of our local community. It has since carried out many initiatives, tackling issues including youth unemployment and infrastructure. I will name just a few. The Food and Beverage Growth Plan—Melbourne's North, released in 2014, aimed at creating 10,000 new jobs over 10 years. Northern JobReach has assisted over 550 jobseekers and exceeded the targets set by placing 111 people in jobs with local manufacturers. Northern Horizons, a 50-year infrastructure strategy, identified local infrastructure priorities, and in 2016 an updated version was published to ensure that the priorities identified in that document remain a true representation of the needs of our region. By engaging a variety of stakeholders and partners, both public and private, RDA Northern Melbourne was able to mobilise the community behind strategic and targeted responses to issues that affect our communities.
This is why this government's decision to shut down RDA Northern Melbourne, following a review into Regional Development Australia, came as a surprise and an unwelcome shock. But the government's action to downplay Victoria's needs should not, perhaps, surprise us at all. This government has infamously been short-changing Victoria for as long as it's been in power. We know that in the most recent federal budget Victoria received less than eight per cent of federal infrastructure funding despite having a quarter of this nation's population.
It is precisely under such unfavourable circumstances that the importance of retaining RDA Northern Melbourne must not be underestimated. I call on the government to look seriously at northern Melbourne's infrastructure, its needs and its urgent requirements for growth and to reinstate RDA Northern Melbourne. I, along with my Labor colleagues, know that the RDA committee continues to provide tailored solutions for our community, and we're going to keep needing them. We deserve a share in our capital city's growth and prosperity. RDA Northern Melbourne has a track record of delivering results that benefit our region, and we continue to need it.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 13:18 to 15:59
It's always a pleasure to rise in the Federation Chamber and share some of the great things going on in our electorates. Today I would like to thank the hundreds of people who dug deep over the weekend to support the McHappy Day fundraisers in my electorate of Forde. Australia's Ronald McDonald House Charities are well known and loved in our nation. These facilities provide a vital home away from home for families living with serious illness or an injury to their child.
This year the annual McHappy Day fundraiser was held on 14 October. I spent Saturday visiting all eight local McDonald's stores. I was put to work by eager young staff at each of the stores. They even let me serve on the drive-through for a while, but it did not last too long. At each store I was blown away by the generosity of our local families and the dedication of hardworking staff and volunteers, all committed to raising as much as possible to help sick kids. In particular I would like to recognise the efforts of Upper Coomera, Norfolk Village, Beenleigh, Holmview, Marsden, Park Ridge, Loganlea and Loganholme McDonald's stores in my electorate, who all raised around $4,000 each. The Loganlea store, which is still only half built, raised $860 in collection buckets alone in the drive-through. This was a stellar effort.
This year Ronald McDonald House Charities aimed to raise a record-breaking $4.1 million from McHappy Day. I look forward to seeing the final fundraising figures and, more importantly, the smiles that will bring to the faces of those who need it most.
I rise today to congratulate the Hellyers Road Distillery, which is in my electorate of Braddon, on their success in winning the Tasmanian Exporter of the Year Award. The Hellyers Road Distillery has an interesting background, as it was founded by dairy farmers from the Betta Milk Cooperative. In addition to winning the Tasmanian Exporter of the Year Award, Hellyers Road won the small business category award for the second year in a row. Hellyers Road started exporting overseas 10 years ago. From a small beginning of two pallets a year the business now exports a full container per year. They export to over 20 countries, including those in Europe, China and Japan, and have just recently started exporting to the United States.
Hellyers Road is also Australia's biggest-selling locally-made craft whisky. In fact, Hellyers Road produces 17 different types of whisky from single malt and aged single malt whiskies to whiskies with pinot noir or port finishes. As an added bonus they also produce the highly acclaimed cold grain Southern Lights vodka and a very smooth cream liqueur.
The successful Hellyers Road is just one example of the magnificent local produce that can be found in the Cradle Coast region. I encourage the House and the wider community to visit the north-west coast of Tasmania and sample our fantastic produce. It is some of the best in Australia, if not the world. I congratulate Hellyers Road on their success.
The National Trust and my local daily newspaper, The Gympie Times, have put together a great commemorative book—Heritage Wonders of the Gympie Regioncelebrating 150 years since James Nash made his famous discovery of gold near the Mary River. When James Nash came to Queensland in 1863 the colony of Queensland was a mess: the Bank of Queensland had closed, construction had come to a halt and the unemployed were marching down the streets of Brisbane. Nash's discovery of gold in Gympie changed all that, setting the scene for the biggest gold rush in Queensland's history and sowing the seeds of prosperity that we enjoy today. One hundred and fifty years on Gympie is still going strong.
This book showcases the best the Gympie region has to offer, with 50 stories about our culture, mining and the natural beauty of our region. It also pays tribute to the people of Gympie who have made a significant contribution to our community. Gympie, as it did then and still does, upholds Queensland's values and supports Queensland greatly. In an age when so many aren't aware of our past it's great to see our regional paper so proudly celebrate our shared history. I congratulate Bob Fredman, Abbie Grant-Taylor, the National Trust and The Gympie Times on this successful publication. I encourage everyone to make it a part of their collection.
I am incredibly proud of the vital work done by the Bubup Wilam Aboriginal Child and Family Centre in my electorate, in the suburb of Thomastown. I have spoken about their work on many occasions. The work that Lisa Thorpe, the CEO, Tony McCartney, president of the board, and all the team there do is simply inspirational. It is making a real difference for so many Aboriginal children and their families. I was incredibly privileged to be part of an important day on Friday to mark a partnership between Bubup Wilam and the Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network. Indeed, I was delighted to welcome a government minister to the Scullin electorate—a very rare privilege, as you may well appreciate, Deputy Speaker Claydon. It was great to have Minister Wyatt, the Minister for Indigenous Health, there to see the work that Bubup is doing and to see what's at stake if we don't keep this incredible and innovative service going.
While the service has been focused on early education, it is genuinely a wraparound service and gathering place for local Aboriginal people. So it was terrific to see the health benefits recognised and supported by over $840,000 worth of investment. I welcome that investment and I congratulate the advocacy of all involved in Bubup as well as the primary health network for making it happen. I resolve to continue to fight for more funding to secure the future of Bubup and the future of all Indigenous people in the northern suburbs of Melbourne.
I rise to commend the Australian government's Armistice Centenary Grants Program and to officially let people in my electorate of Robertson know that this new round of grant funding is now open. It's a great opportunity, with $50,000 of funding available across the electorate of Robertson. I strongly encourage all community groups interested in commemorating the 100th anniversary of the armistice to apply. The Armistice Centenary Grants are one-off grants ranging between $3,000 and $50,000, aimed at supporting local community groups with funding for activities or projects that commemorate the end of the First World War.
This week I will be reaching out to all of our veteran groups, schools, museums, historical associations and ex- service organisations across our region to let them know how they can get more information about how to apply. The process includes completing an expression of interest form to apply for the grants. To be eligible, community commemorative projects must link directly with the centenary of the armistice or commemorate the end of the First World War. Some of the great project ideas that I've heard so far include the publication of wartime histories, educational projects, war memorials, preservation of wartime and military memorabilia and public commemorations. Expressions of interest close on Friday, 17 November.
I commend the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the member for Wannon, on this very important program, which is part of the wider Anzac Centenary program. I know that community groups around my electorate will welcome this funding, and I look forward to helping our community mark this significant occasion.
This week marks National Carers Week, this year running from 15 to 21 October, with events being held across Australia. Once again this week, all Australians will be given the opportunity to raise their awareness of the role and importance of the 2.7 million unpaid carers and the great work they do across Australia. Carers Australia's vision is for an inclusive Australia that supports and celebrates the contribution that carers make, both to the people they care for and to the community as a whole—a truly valuable message. I'm told that, every week, these 2.7 million carers spend an incredible 36 million hours caring for friends and family members who have a disability, mental illness, chronic or terminal condition or are aged.
Last Friday I was privileged to represent the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Carol Brown at the launch of National Carers Week in beautiful Brisbane, just across the river from my electorate. I had the pleasure of meeting one of my constituents, Dr Fiona Hawthorne, General Manager of Hummingbird House, an organisation that provides support services for children with life-limiting conditions and their families. It was moving to hear about the incredible work that that organisation and so many like it do in our community. Just a couple of weeks ago, I hosted a carers forum in my office in Sunnybank for local carers, and Senator Carol Brown attended as shadow minister. Sadly, 40 per cent of carers predecease the person they are caring for. The government and the opposition need to do more on this issue.
I rise to commend my colleagues in the WA Liberal Party, particularly Kyran O'Donnell, the member for Kalgoorlie, for blocking the gold tax increase that threatened thousands of jobs in my electorate. Last week, the Western Australian opposition announced that it would vote against the increase in gold royalties and hold the state Labor government accountable for its broken promises. It's the second time in 12 months that politicians have set their sights on the mining industry as a fresh source of revenue, and I'm pleased to say that both attempts are now dead in the water.
As the member for O'Connor, I represent Kalgoorlie-Boulder, the heart of Australia's gold industry since the late 19th century. The gold industry is starting to recover after a few lean years. I've witnessed people in this community endure some really tough times in recent years and their resolve and optimism has been inspiring. Now, at a time when the gold industry is moving forward and confidence is starting to recover throughout the Goldfields, the WA Labor government saw an opportunity to increase royalties. The immediate response was a slow-down in exploration and investment. The long-term impact would have been mothballed mines and unemployed workers. The Premier, Mark McGowan, promised the people of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that he wouldn't increase royalties, and it took less than six months in office for him to break the promise. A thriving mining industry that creates jobs for Western Australia is better for the state's finances than increasing taxes for a short-term revenue lift. I thank my Western Australian Liberal colleagues for making the right decision and putting jobs first.
I rise today to talk about the drastic impacts that the federal government's reforms to higher education will have on Charles Darwin University in my electorate and the job losses that will come from it. CDU punches well above its weight, ranked internationally in the top two per cent of universities and ranked 10th out of 21 Australian universities, which is a great effort for a small regional university. It was a privilege to visit CDU last week when it was Innovation Week. The university showcased the exciting research taking place on campus. The CDU innovation evening gave Territory business and industry leaders the opportunity to talk about expertise at CDU in science, big data, social sciences, vocational education and training, engineering, health, evaluation and environment. CDU's declared intent is to explore these new ideas, create value for social and commercial entrepreneurialism and develop the marketplace in northern Australia. A good example of this is world-leading technology with LightSPEE3D's metal printer. However, all of these great innovations are at risk if the coalition government continues to pursue the cuts—$63 million across four years—which will lead to job losses, which will be no good for CDU or the Territory.
Energy policy is rightly the flavour at the moment to make sure that we can deliver reliable and affordable power to Australian households but also to Australian industry. Part of the challenge of doing so is making sure we have a policy that deals with all the challenges facing us. We have to make sure we have investor security to increase supply and we can deliver for households and business. We need to deal with the issues around reducing consumption and increasing demand management to make sure the system is efficient and we can manage peaks when they occur. We also have to look more broadly at avenues for reform to achieve efficiency. Many years ago, I read an article about Frito-Lay, a potato chip company, which you may be a fan of, Deputy Speaker Claydon, looking at their energy efficiency. Don't worry, I like Frito-Lay chips too. It's part of being a parliamentarian. They reduced their energy bill. They found that potatoes they purchased were injected with water and that increased their energy consumption. Making sure we deal with the issues of efficiency is very important. This is one of the issues that Tim Renouf from Wren Industries in my electorate of Goldstein raises with me regularly, particularly around the role of aluminium foil to reduce heat and particularly radiant heat around air conditioning ducts to make sure there is no transfer of heat when there is a high temperature in roofs. In fact, it can reduce it by up to 97 per cent. The critical thing is to look at all of these solutions as part of policy.
Yesterday, I had the honour of attending the 100th anniversary of the town of Lenswood in the Adelaide Hills. Today, Lenswood is synonymous with apples and horticultural innovation. Most of South Australia's apples are packed at the Lenswood cold store and sent around Australia and, indeed, the world. Lenswood is a close-knit community whose self-reliance harks back to their settler history and timber cutting in the region known as Forest Range. Connectedness lies at the heart of the creation of Lenswood, because it was the desire for news of loved ones fighting in World War I that led to the community successfully lobbying for a new post office and recognition of the township. Sixty men from Forest Range enlisted to be soldiers; 15 of them didn't return. Families were eager for news but it wasn't easy getting to the Forest Range Post Office. There was no electricity, no telephones and no sealed roads. Schoolchildren made the four-mile trip to collect the mail from Forest Range during rain, hail or shine. But, due to community advocacy, Lenswood and its post office were first established in June 1917. A century later, it was fitting that the children of the oldest family in the district, the seventh generation of the Coulter family, were given the honour of cutting the 100th birthday cake at the centenary picnic. It was a wonderful day, and I thank the people of Lenswood for including me in their celebrations.
I had a fantastic Saturday night at the Dandenong Ranges Feeding Group's annual fundraiser. They organise catering for the 15 brigades in the Dandenong Ranges and for all emergency services personnel, including police, ambulance and the SES. Because they take care of 15 brigades, it's easy to think that they feed emergency services mainly during the bushfire season, but, in actual fact, throughout the year—which ends up being their busiest time—they attend many jobs, including chemical spills, car accidents and, of course, other fires. Once a year they have this amazing fundraiser that supports the 15 brigades which include Upwey, Belgrave, Belgrave South, Selby, Clematis, Menzies Creek, Narre Warren East, Emerald, Sassafras-Ferny Creek, Kalorama, Silvan, Monbulk, Olinda and Kallista.
They raised an incredible $5,000 on Saturday night, and that money goes, as it's done in the past, for, say, satellite phones or radios or things that the local CFAs and emergency services need. I thank their chairperson, Sarah Krumins, for her work; Sue McLaughlin, secretary; Sharryn Pert-Milnes, treasurer, and Lucy Ryan, fundraising coordinator, and, of course, the 75 people from the DRFG who do such a fantastic job helping emergency services in the electorate of La Trobe.
I don't know whether it's arrogance or incompetence or a bit of both, but it is really highlighted by the issue about recent changes to flight paths at Hobart airport. The flight path moved over the sleepy suburbs of Kellevie, Bream Creek, Copping, Marion Bay, Boomer Bay and Dunalley on 14 September in my electorate, and nobody was told. Not even my office was told that these changes were on the way until two weeks later, and the residents certainly were not told that these flight paths would be going over their country community. What's happened since? A website's come up, driven by the local residents. David Patman from Dunalley is leading this fight. The organisation is called Just Plane Wrong. They've got a petition running. When they rang the minister's office, they were certainly told that he wasn't interested in getting a petition from them, but they're ignoring that, of course. They've put a petition out—at JustPlaneWrong.org—to highlight this issue. They also want to make sure people know that they can make their thoughts known to Air Services Australia and the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman.
The process behind this has just been absolutely disgraceful. We all know that the airport is getting busier. We welcome that and we welcome the trade. We know that flight paths sometimes have to change, but where is the consultation? Why haven't they asked people what they wanted? Why haven't they sought to inform people before these changes came through? It is arrogant and incompetent and should not be accepted.
I rise today to acknowledge the retirement of Judith Felton, a remarkable educator who has served as principal of Hunter's Hill High School for almost two decades. Ms Felton's passion for her students' education, her work with parents in the community, and her strategic and teaching skills have all shone brightly. Ms Felton's early years at the school were a baptism of fire. Literally so when the school's hall was incinerated just before students were due to sit the HSC. After calmly finding alternative accommodation for students, she was faced with an even greater battle: for the very existence of the school itself, which the state government announced would be closed. A massive campaign saw the decision reversed and, under her leadership, the school has grown and flourished. Despite its prime real estate beside Lane Cove River—always a tempting target for finance officials—I'm sure no state government will ever again contemplate the school's closure. Today, Hunters Hill provides a vibrant learning environment with great facilities, including the multipurpose hall which replaced its charred predecessor, its impressive kitchens for food technology and hospitality classes, and its refurbished science facilities.
As a son of a school principal, I know good teachers don't ever really retire. Their advice and mentorship will be frequently called on, and the progress of past students will be watched with interest. Yet there is no doubt that Judith Felton will be missed by the Hunters Hill school community. She can be exceptionally proud of all that she has achieved for those thousands of students who have come through the school gates on her watch. I wish her well for the future.
A lot of media reports highlight that government rebates have failed to keep pace with increasing childcare costs. That's forcing many working families to pay full fees. Parents are not able to afford the early learning services they need for their kids. Data from the Department of Education and Training's Early childhood and child care in summary report show that hourly fees at early learning facilities have risen by an annual average of 5.4 per cent since 2013. The means-tested fee subsidy, known as a childcare benefit, has increased by only 1.7 per cent. The obvious pressure that this puts on working families who rely on early learning services has been regularly echoed to me on the many visits I've made to childcare centres in my electorate and by the many parents that I speak to. Access to early learning is about more than just giving flexibility to parents; it amplifies children's development, improves school results and boosts long-term social and economic outcomes. It's an investment in our nation's future.
Labor is committed to taking pressure off family budgets, to making access to early education and care more affordable, and to supporting parents to return to work. Before the last election, this Liberal government promised to make child care more affordable for Australian families. But what's actually happened? It has failed miserably. There has been no follow-through. As my constituents are left to watch costs go up year on year, it begs the question: how much longer will families across Australia and in my electorate of Wills have to carry the load for the lack of vision and the empty promises of this rabble of a government?
I rise to thank the Prime Minister and the premiers regarding the updated Intergovernmental Agreement on Australia's National Counter-Terrorism Arrangements reached at COAG and, in particular, the approach to questioning in custody—either under preventive detention or pre-arrest—when it comes to those being arrested for terrorism offences. This is something that I've pursued for so many years, even under the Howard government. It's so difficult for law enforcement when it comes to dealing with those involved in terrorist-related activity. Comparing it with, say, a drug bust, the police always have the luxury of allowing the drugs to pass hands, to those who, in return, exchange money. When it comes to terrorism, law enforcement just does not have that opportunity.
This recent announcement at COAG will ensure police are now on the same level playing field as our counterparts in the United Kingdom, who have suffered so badly at the hands of terrorists. It will ensure—and I'm absolutely positive of this—that there will be more convictions when it comes to those who are arrested for planning terrorist-related offences. It will also ensure that, if someone is in custody under preventive detention or pre-arrest questioning, police can get information to prevent other terrorist attacks. I wholeheartedly congratulate Prime Minister Turnbull for putting this on the agenda—something that is so important for Australian safety.
On Saturday, 21 October, from 2 pm, Veterans off the Streets Australia, VOTSA, will kick off Veterans' Health Week 2017 by hosting a community sleep-out at Strand Park in Townsville. I will be participating in the sleep-out with my family and staff, as I understand the importance of raising awareness of veterans' health issues. Townsville is the largest garrison city in the country. This is our opportunity to support our veterans and ex-service personnel and their families. I have started a Go Fund Me page which members in the community can visit and donate to: www.gofundme.com/supporting-our-adf-community. All funds that I raise will be donated directly to the Townsville branch of Veterans off the Streets Australia and will go towards assisting our veterans, ex-serving personnel and their families in times of crisis.
VOTSA is a registered for-purpose charity. It was created by veterans and ex-service personnel who saw a need to assist other veterans and their families who were at risk of homelessness. In Townsville, there is a lack of emergency and affordable transitional housing options for those that are struggling financially or suffering mental health injuries. I will continue to fight for our veterans and ex-service personnel. I encourage our community to support the community sleep-out at Strand Park on Saturday, 21 October, from 2 pm. It's a family event, and everyone is welcome.
I rise this afternoon to commend the Manningham Interfaith Network on the series of activities they organise each year within the municipality. Yesterday morning, a beautiful spring morning, I had the pleasure in Melbourne to attend the annual Respect soccer match which is organised by the Manningham Interfaith Network. Teams from various faith traditions were there for their version of the world game, and a very successful and enjoyable day was had by all.
I congratulate Paola Chen and all the committee members of the Manningham Interfaith Network for their organisation, not just for the Respect soccer match but also for a series of other events during the year in Manningham. We believe in Manningham. We have one of the most harmonious communities in Australia. We have people drawn from all parts of the world, with large ethnic populations from various places that have made Manningham their home, and events like this help to contribute to the ongoing harmony within the area.
I'd also like to commend the members of Victoria Police who were there yesterday from both the Doncaster and Forest Hill stations, the members of the Doncaster Rovers Football Club, and of course the Rotary club that provided catering on the day. It was a very enjoyable event for all.
On 11 October 1817, the foundation stone for St Matthew's Windsor Anglican Church was laid. At Sunday's service to mark the bicentenary of this Francis Greenway-designed church, it was noted that the foundation stone was actually laid three times. As was the tradition, Governor Lachlan Macquarie had put a holy dollar beneath the foundation stone but, when the official party retired for drinks, the money was stolen. Two days later, the party returned to the site with the governor and re-laid the stone. Again, another holy dollar, but a few nights later that coin was also stolen. It seems that the third and final time the stone was laid, there was no coin used and the stone has stayed in place ever since.
I was honoured to be part of the three days of celebrations and pleased to represent the Leader of the Opposition at yesterday's service. The church cemetery tells a story of ex-convict farmers, merchant rivals and successful astronomers. It has the remains of Andrew Thompson from 1810, the most prominent ex-convict citizen in the district and the first ex-convict in the colony ever to be raised to the high office of magistrate. He has a town square named after him, which is under threat. Governor Macquarie personally placed the monument on his grave in 1813.
Rector Chris Jones and the team he put together to make sure this milestone was inclusive and community-focused deserve high praise for what they've achieved. They've allowed the whole community to be part of this historic event.
After a highly successful 100-kay walk around my electorate in 2015, I have again returned to the streets, this time walking 100 kays in aid of the Leukaemia Foundation. I started this walk on 6 October to raise money and awareness of this condition. I didn't expect such success so soon: on my third day, news came through that the government has started subsidising Imbruvica, a new breakthrough leukaemia drug. The icing on top is that the company that makes this drug is Bennelong's own Janssen, one of our great local innovators. Imbruvica treats the most common form of leukaemia, which almost 1,500 Australians are expected to be diagnosed with this year alone. It is used when the cancer has progressed or has not responded to first-line treatment with chemo-immunotherapy. The people who will benefit from this drug have, in many cases, already exhausted all options.
Imbruvica would normally cost $190,000 on average per course of treatment, putting it beyond the reach of most patients. From 1 December, it will cost a maximum of $38.80 cents per treatment and just $6.30 for concessional patients.
Especially heartwarming is the news that Janssen has already treated over 900 Australian and New Zealand patients through a patient access program which has seen those who could not wait for this listing already treated with the drug. Thank you to Janssen and the health minister for this listing. It will make a huge difference to cancer sufferers— (Time expired)
Recently it was my pleasure to receive the Fenner Community Climate Petition from a delegation from Daramalan College, in my electorate. I thank teacher Andrew Digan and students Sarah Thomson and Emma Slaven for compiling this important petition. Twenty thousand people around Australia have signed petitions, coordinated by Micah Challenge, to urge Australia's leaders to do more to tackle climate change.
Climate change is a serious challenge for Australia. In January this year, NASA and NOAA announced that for the third successive time the planet had experienced the hottest year on record. Global warming can be seen in air temperatures, water temperatures, atmospheric temperatures, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and the 205 temperature records that were broken in Australia's most recent 'angry summer'. It has been estimated that the cost of unchecked climate change could be more than $8 billion a year to Australia.
Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has argued that global warming has led to conflict in Sudan, Somalia, Cote d'Ivoire and Burkina Faso. It has been referred to as 'the mother of all risks to national security'. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has warned climate change will threaten financial resilience and longer term prosperity. Australia has the highest emissions per person in the advanced world. We must do more, and I commend those who have brought together this important petition in my electorate, which I now table.
The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration. It will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders.
Chisholm is one of Australia's most culturally diverse electorates, where over 100 languages are spoken, and different community groups celebrate cultural events and enjoy together their different migrant heritages. In Chisholm, there is a significant Asian community. The Asian community, through the history of Australia, have made significant contributions in the business and the community world—all of which go to make Australia the most successful multicultural nation on earth.
Recently I've had the privilege of attending a number of events with Chisholm's Asian communities. I was honoured to represent Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull at the 2017 Melbourne Chinese Moon Festival, which draws thousands of people to Box Hill and is celebrated as a vibrant and warm event. I also attended the 20th anniversary of the Taiwanese School of Melbourne, where the young language students danced to traditional songs and celebrated their cultural heritage with their parents and grandparents. Congratulations to the school on such a significant milestone. The welcome dinner for Chinese star Yang Liping and the Under Siege review cast was magnificent and was hosted by the Australian Yunnan Society and the Australian Swan Wine Group.
I also attended a reception in celebration of the 106th year of the Republic of China, or Taiwan, superbly hosted by Ms Elaine Chen, Director General of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Melbourne. My sincere congratulations to community leaders who ensure that the important cultural celebrations and traditions are passed down through generations of Asian Australians. I'm so proud to represent such a wonderful community in Chisholm.
Last week I was on Norfolk Island, which is in my electorate, for my second visit this year and my last for 2017. Fifteen months into the reform process, it was great to see the new pathology lab and the new kitchen at the hospital—everyone has been sweating on the kitchen. There are new learning spaces, an upgraded library and a new technology centre at the school. All of these improvements are very much appreciated by the community and have been very much needed.
However, I'm concerned by the fact that we still have a whole range of issues that are impacting accessibility and equity for Norfolk Islanders. Since my visit in April last year, we are still dealing with the same issues. I've written not once but twice to the minister and government agencies to get these issues fixed, but they are still not fixed. My messages seem to be falling on deaf ears. The community still can't call the mainland without being charged for an international call; they still can't fly to the mainland without taking an international flight. Mail takes two weeks or longer to arrive. Centrelink won't accept Norfolk Island driver licences as ID and the systems won't accept the Norfolk Island phone numbers or addresses. People are being asked to attend meetings in Gunnedah from Norfolk Island! Norfolk Island is over it, and I'm over it. I've been calling for these basic issues to be resolved for 15 months. Some of them needed to be dealt with yesterday. These are impediments to the equity of the community of Norfolk Island.
The electorate of Mallee produces wonderful things. One of the great things we produce is our young Australians—but it doesn't just happen; we have people who care about them. Recently I had the privilege of talking to a group of young Australians who were working with adult mentors and hiking the Kokoda Trail. These are people who society has probably let slip through the cracks a little bit, so that mentor relationship really works with them. They were going to visit Bomana cemetery, where there are over 3,000 Australians who gave their lives. I was able to share a story from when I was a young man working in a shearing shed. When you work in a shearing shed, you stop for afternoon smoko and have a bit of chat, and I shared the story of working with a guy called Ron. Ron was in the 39th Battalion. He was rounded up and sent—without guns, I might say—up to Port Moresby and into Kokoda and was part of the people who fought in the Kokoda battle.
It is so encouraging for me, when I think about the future of Australians, to see two things: to see these young Australians hiking and remembering the sacrifice that Australians made at Kokoda and to see the community members who rally behind these young Australians. They sometimes help fundraise for them and also march beside them and encourage them. It says to these young people: 'Being an Australian is something to be proud of. Life might have thrown you some curve balls, but we will be your mentors and we will walk the Kokoda Trail together.' There is a symbolism that you can overcome obstacles in life and contribute. Well done to these young Australians from the Mallee.
Last week I received a package from The Hills School that contained an invitation to meet students in Canberra, two packets of spice mix—Italian seasoning and piri-piri—and a recipe for risotto. At the beginning of the year, students from The Hills School began a work enterprise called Gili Spice to finance an excursion to Canberra. Gili is the Dharug word for 'shine' and also the name of their class. The students travel to Sydney Markets to purchase bulk spices, which they package into smaller packets for sale. This enterprise has not only allowed the children to travel to Canberra but has also helped in the development of communication, social and safety skills.
The Hills School caters for children from kindergarten to year 12 who have a moderate or severe intellectual disability, which may include physical disability, sensory impairment, or autism spectrum disorder. Students travel up to 25 kilometres to attend the Northmead school, but many live in my electorate of Parramatta. Next month, students will travel to Canberra with teacher Paul Hughes and a few parents on a three-day excursion to visit the Mint, the Australian War Memorial, Questacon and Parliament House. It is a shame I will miss the students on their trip to Canberra. For some of these year 7 students, it will be the first time they spend a night away from home. I hope they have an excellent trip to Canberra. I thank them for the spices and wish them all the best for the future.
On Saturday there was a very important function at Leongatha, which I will talk about another time when I have more time. But at that function was the South Gippsland Shire Brass Band. They were such an integral part of the day that I thought, 'Gee, if you want to look back 100 years, you'd only have to go to the activity statement of the brass band, who were there at every important function that was held in the community through all those years.' I realise there's one at Wonthaggi, one at Pakenham, based around the Cardinia Shire, and one at Warragul and South Gippsland. I have a particular affinity with the bands, because my great-grandfather was the leader of the Bairnsdale brass band. This family connection led me to think, at a really important function the other day, that the brass band was central to the whole celebration.
Right across our electorates and across Australia, there is a history of these brass bands going back 100 and more years, and they have been consistent all the way through. I just want to pay tribute to those who are in bands today and their forefathers and mentors who have been in the bands before them. Especially I want to pay tribute to all the young children who have been able to enter into the world of music through their local brass band. I am watching that happening in South Gippsland, and congratulations to every one of you. We praise you for what you do.
I have to say that it was pretty exhausting sitting in question time today, when we were all subjected to repeated claims by the Prime Minister that his rollout of the NBN has gone ahead without a hitch. Either this government has avoided the news for the past few years and avoided listening to any of the constituents they represent and are surrounded by, or they are basically lying to the Australian people. It has to be one of the two. To call this rollout anything less than disastrous would be an understatement. That is why so many members in my community have banded together recently for our My NBN Sucks campaign. We've held NBN events in Caboolture, Bribie, Woodford and Narangba. Every single one of these events has been attended by countless people who are absolutely furious with the mismanagement of this ill-conceived rollout. I had the shadow minister for regional communications, Stephen Jones, up to visit Longman last weekend to speak to people about the NBN and to hear firsthand about the network and how it's putting small businesses at a very serious competitive disadvantage. But, further than that, it's putting lives at risk. There are many, many people who live with MedicAlert devices in Longman living in mobile blackspot areas that this government refuses to address. Their lives right now are at risk. Something needs to be done. We need a strong government to do it, and that is why we need a Shorten Labor government.
I rise to celebrate the success of some of the young sportswomen and sportsmen of my electorate. Congratulations to the Wright recipients of round 1 of this year's Local Sporting Champions grants program. I recently held a ceremony to present our local sporting stars with their awards, and there are a heap of them. I say to our local sporting champs: I hope with this money you will continue hopping, skipping and jumping to pursue your sporting dreams. The starter's gun has gone off and you are chasing your sporting dreams. I know that you're on track to a brighter future. You are an inspiration to other local sporting champions and a shining example of the calibre of sporting talent in our entire region. I want to make particular mention of Jasmine Barry for soccer; Bray Bowden for motorcycling; Jacob Cutler for jujitsu; Kya Foxwell for baseball; Chelsea Gatti for equestrian; Eithen Leard for wheelchair basketball; Rieanna Noga for hockey; Hugh Pfitzner for tennis; Jayden Crighton and Daniel Ost for indoor cricket; Mollie and Sophie O'Callaghan for swimming; Cruz Lemming, Sebastian Millard and Jacob Reid for rugby union; and Megan Jones, Harrison Leonard, Camryn Newton-Smith, Sarah Thorpe and Sam Windsor for athletics. Congratulations to all of you. You're the stars of the future. You make an enormous contribution to our electorate. We look forward to seeing you in the future.
Where is the fair go for the west? I proudly represent my home town and I am prepared to fight every day for what's fair. My community are being taken for a ride by the Berejiklian and Turnbull Liberals. The Liberals talk about how much they love Western Sydney when it's election time, but their rhetoric come normal time doesn't match that at all. Next Saturday, 21 October, our community will see a rally like never before—a group of people who care so much about the area they'll be standing up and fighting back. They will rally against the new not-so-new M4 toll—a toll we already paid for and saw off is now back for another 43 years on a road that is little more than a moving car park during our peak hours. They will rally against the world's largest incinerator, dumped on the doorstep of a local school and 800 metres from homes' doorsteps, operated by a shonky businessman who's already had his fair share of environmental infringement notices. They will rally against a 24-hour airport that has no infrastructure plan or jobs plan for locals, but we keep getting told that it is the only thing we're worthy of having, that it is good for us and that we should just accept it. Well, if this government was prepared to be more transparent about it, maybe we would. They will rally against the WestConnex; as the name describes it, it's a con and will see investment in public transport for our region starved for an entire generation. I'll be rallying for Nepean Hospital, which has seen no increase in clinical funding. They promised us $550 million, but we need $1 billion. I say to the Liberals making plans for Western Sydney: unless you're prepared to come in and give us what we need and what is fair, you can take your incinerator, your airport, the most under pressure hospital in the state and your toll into your own communities and see how long you last.
Not all terrorists strap explosives to themselves to prove their political point or to force governments to meet their demands; some activists threaten lives, including their own, by standing in front of a bulldozer or chaining themselves to critical infrastructure, such as a railway line. Such action meets the definition of terrorism in the Criminal Code. In addition to foreign influences that are wishing to do us harm, we now have people living in the country—and even people inside this parliament—who want to destroy our economy and hold the country to ransom. I note the leader of the Greens on the weekend vowed to ramp up protests against Adani's Carmichael coal project. He said:
If we can't stop it in the parliament, we'll stop it by standing in front of those bulldozers.
He said he was prepared to stand in front of bulldozers and get arrested himself. In 2013, his fellow extreme Green activists revealed an 'over our dead bodies' campaign that would see protesters lying on railway lines in cardboard coffins. This Adani project's been approved by state and federal governments. It's seen off every legal challenge that the ecoterrorists have been able to throw at it. Instead of facing facts, these petulant toddlers are throwing a tantrum and chucking their toys out of the pram. They are worse than toddlers. Not only are they threatening to break the law, disrupting legitimate business operations; they are putting lives and livelihoods at risk. I hope these law-breakers are arrested, charged and convicted of offences, especially the one in the Senate, with a penalty exceeding a year's imprisonment.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises:
(a) 14 September 2017 marks the 70th anniversary of Australia' s involvement in international peacekeeping; and
(b) the important and unique role peacekeepers and peacemakers provide in the transition from conflict to peace;
(2) notes that:
(a) over 70,000 Australians have been involved in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations since 1947; and
(b) Australia has had peacekeepers in the field with the United Nations continuously for over 50 years, through which:
(i) peacekeeping has involved members of Australian Defence Force, civilians and Australian police;
(ii) since 1964, Australian police have served in Cyprus and places as widely separated as Cambodia, Haiti, Mozambique, Bougainville and Timor; and
(iii) peacekeepers are often at the centre of dangerous conflicts and are exposed to the impacts of war;
(3) recognises those who are on peacekeeping missions at the moment, as we assist the United Nations with its mission in the Republic of South Sudan and looks forward to their safe return;
(4) congratulates all those who have worked hard to deliver the new Australian Peacekeeping Memorial Project on Anzac Parade; and
(5) remembers and pays tribute to all those who have served Australia in peacekeeping operations, those who have been wounded and the 14 Australians who lost their lives whilst on peacekeeping operations.
This motion recognises Australia's 70 years of involvement in peacekeeping. Australia has a long and proud history when it comes to our peacekeeping efforts around the world. This is especially the case given Australia's involvement started in Indonesia in 1947 as the very first group of UN military observers anywhere in the world and the first in the field. In the early years, Australia's involvement in peacekeeping was generally as unarmed military observers, promoting peace in areas of conflict. This unique role has developed over the years to include multinational military-based interventions into areas of conflict. While not always able to end such conflicts, our peacekeepers and peacemakers are often responsible for minimising the effects of conflict and building bridges between communities.
Australia's role in peacekeeping has seen the involvement of ADF personnel, Australian police and civilians. The size and scope of Australia's peacekeeping operations have developed over the years, with over 70,000 Australians involved in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations since 1947. For the past 50 years, Australia has had peacekeepers in the field with the United Nations. This has included operations in Cyprus, Cambodia, Haiti, Mozambique, Bougainville, Timor and many more. Involving themselves in the middle of dangerous conflict zones, our peacekeepers have worked tirelessly to improve conditions for communities that find themselves impacted by war and conflict. The efforts and self-sacrifice of our peacekeepers go a long way in providing greater comfort and stability for those men, women and children in these regions who often feel helpless in the environment which surrounds them. Whether it is providing talks between communities, greater stability, humanitarian aid or medical assistance to the men, women and children on the ground, Australia's peacekeeping efforts have provided greater peace to these previously embattled regions.
Peacekeeping missions present a wide variety of stresses, and I think it is important that we note that they also have short- and long-term effects on the health, and in particular the mental health, of those involved. Missions may involve experiences not unlike combat deployments, with personnel encountering numerous stressful and potentially traumatic events such as delivering humanitarian aid in volatile environments and coming under fire while witnessing atrocities. It was Australia's involvement in Rwanda in 1997 which highlighted the dangers in which our peacekeepers often find themselves. In their efforts to provide stability to a region in the midst of civil war, atrocities beyond imagination resulted in a genocide in which an estimated 800,000 to one million Rwandans were killed in just a hundred days. Stories of the atrocities committed are disturbing to hear. To think our peacekeepers lived and worked through such difficult times reminds us that not only are those who live in that country deeply affected, but those trying to bring peace, stability and harmony to the world can also be affected. These dangers were mimicked again in Timor, where a multinational operation was led by Major General Peter Cosgrove. It was known as INTERFET, the International Force for East Timor, and was organised under UNAMET, the United Nations Mission in East Timor. This operation was closer to home and saw Australia contribute 5,500 personnel to help those families who had been displaced from their homes or forced to leave under the threat of violence.
Australia's efforts in providing greater peace around the world have not come without sacrifice. It's important that we recognise those who have lost their lives whilst on peacekeeping missions; it has been revealed that the number of Australians who have died while peacekeeping is now 16. We must also think of those who have not been the same since and who have come back with injuries, whether they be physical or mental. We remember the men and women who have worked towards a peaceful nation. I would also like to recognise those who have worked very hard to create the Australian Peacekeeping Memorial, which was unveiled on Anzac Parade in Canberra. This was a long-term project and I would like to congratulate the Australian Peacekeeping Memorial Project for their tireless work. This is an important element to our contribution. Lest we forget.
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
On 14 September, we celebrated the 70th anniversary of Australia's first peacekeeping mission in 1947. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Dan Tehan, along with current and former peacekeepers, their families and members of the public gathered together to honour Australian peacekeepers at a national service held at the new Australian Peacekeeping Memorial. The Australian Peacekeeping Memorial is a permanent reminder to pay tribute to those who served, those who were wounded and those who lost their lives. More than 70,000 Australians, military personnel, police and civilians have played important roles as part of peacekeeping and humanitarian operations since the beginning. They are well respected for their work, their relationship building and their dedication in places such as Indonesia and, recently, East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan.
We should never lose sight of the fact that our brave and dedicated peacekeepers are often at the centre of dangerous conflicts and are exposed to the impacts of war. In addition, we recognise those currently serving in the Republic of South Sudan and we look forward to their safe return. Last year, the United Nations published a report, The challenge of sustaining peace: report of the Advisory Group of Experts: for the 2015 Review of the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture. The report emphasised that sustaining peace required coherence, engagement and coordination, including the important role that effective and responsive leadership in country operations can play in bringing together a common strategy for sustaining peace. Importantly, women's leadership and participation was noted for their role in preventing and resolving conflict as well as building peace. The United Nations also called upon member states and United Nations organisations to increase meaningful and inclusive participation by young people in their peace-building efforts. These align closely with local community perceptions and to regional expectations.
In the last three weeks, I have been privileged to meet women parliamentarians from the Pacific region while visiting the Solomon Islands and then, in Sri Lanka, to chair the general assembly of the Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population Development and hear the same message of concern about world peace. The women attending the Pacific Women's Parliamentary Partnerships group believe we are not doing enough around the world to get more women engaged in the field of politics, nor are we managing to sustain those women who, once elected, then lose their seats. I might add that this applies to our own nation as well. Yet we are looked on as a political role model and a leader in our region. We have the responsibility of balancing the gender divide in Australia and our surrounding regions. The women from Papua New Guinea are determined to continue to encourage women into leadership and elected positions. I commend Julie Soso Akeke, Kessy Sawang, Loujaya Kouza and Rufina Peter as the frontrunners to gender empowerment in their country, as we collectively co-develop strategies to get women into parliament and keep them there.
In Sri Lanka, I was privileged to meet some dynamic young people who are demonstrating their willingness to take on a challenge, both in civil society and via the challenge of parliament. Anuradha Ekanayeke is a social services student in Colombo who will be working in the field of people with a disability. Sahinda Dulanja, who is a speaker of the Sri Lankan youth parliament, and Yashodha Gunathilake, who is the deputy minister for international youth affairs in the youth parliament, are both inspiring and passionate about developing a stable and peace-loving nation. Yashodha spoke of increasing the number of women entering the political world.
I am inspired to develop a youth parliament, even if we only begin in Gilmore. The world is developing programs and strategies to enhance peacekeeping through youth initiatives and women's empowerment. I wonder how we will celebrate our international peacekeeping contributions in another 70 years.
In the same way that we celebrate our efforts in world peacekeeping, we must absolutely stand by every woman and man in our Defence Force. Currently, we have around 58,000 Australians serving in the ADF. The average service time is 8½ years, and our annual loss of personnel is 5,200. Transitioning to civil life can be a challenge for some veterans, particularly the 1,400 or so who leave the ADF involuntarily. We have introduced the early management model to reduce claim-processing times and to allow more support to be provided for things like filling in forms, requesting mental health appointments or applying for a rental property. ADF members will no longer be discharged before their Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation and DVA claims are processed. All medical and training records will be released on retirement and immediately. An individual career coaching service and assessment during transition for up to 12 months will be provided.
Since the launch of the 'Defence Force experience desirable' flag on jobactive in September last year, more than 1,500 positions have been advertised and employment connections made. This is all part of honouring our veterans and making sure we look after them. I agree with Amanda: lest we forget.
It is my pleasure to rise to support the motion moved by the member for Kingston. Australia has performed peacekeeping roles since the newly-formed United Nations saw the first peacekeeping operation deployed to Indonesia in the independence struggle in 1947. The UN believes that peacekeeping has proven to be one of the most effective ways to assist countries to navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace at the earliest opportunity. This was the first instance of Australia's now 70 years involvement in international peacekeeping, a period that has seen many great Australians serving to assist the shift from conflict to peace in countries and regions around the world.
This international awareness assisted the Indonesians in gaining independence from the Netherlands, protected the South Koreans from invasion by the north, helped to placate some of the worst tensions in Kashmir, and ensured peace prevailed upon the agreement of the ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq war in 1988. Australian observers and peacekeepers played a major role in dealing with all these conflicts. Peacekeepers have also included non-military personnel such as Australian police officers assisting in Cyprus since 1964, bridging differences between Greek and Turkish communities, and medical staff who assisted locals and the UN overseas in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Australians have not only served with distinction but made significant differences in other regions around the world, in places as diverse as Korea, Israel, Congo, Kashmir, Lebanon, Namibia, Somalia, Kosovo, East Timor, Bougainville, Solomon Islands and so many more places.
Peacekeepers from all over the world play a unique and important role in supporting the transition in areas which have seen significant civil unrest, and often violence and other disturbances. Today's peacekeepers are called upon to not only maintain peace and security but also facilitate and maintain the political process, protect civilians, and assist in the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants. They support elections, human rights, and the restoration of the rule of law in places where the civilian population has been struggling without democracy and services for some time.
Over 70,000 Australians have performed with distinction and honour as peacekeepers around the globe. They are guided by three basic principles: consent of the parties, impartiality, and to only use force when required for self-defence. To be successful, they must be seen as legitimate and credible, and promote ownership of the process in the host country. Australia's peacekeepers come not only from our military services but also from the ranks of serving police officers and civilians who use their expertise to assist countries with rebuilding efforts and to support the civilian populations in war-torn areas. Australians have been called to lead these multinational operations since 1950. Amongst those who served are now Governor-General Major General Peter Cosgrove, who commanded the international force in East Timor in 1999, and several others who served with distinction and ensured that the objectives of the operation were met, as much as possible.
It is right to acknowledge that peacekeeping is a dangerous activity that unfortunately has resulted in the death and injury of Australians while serving overseas. Sixteen Australians have died while on peacekeeping operations—three in the last decade: Protective Service Officer Ronald Lewis in 2010, Craftsman Beau Pridue in September 2011, and Sergeant Brett Kinloch in February 2012. On 14 September, the Australian Peacekeeping Memorial was opened in Canberra. The memorial joins others on Anzac Parade and recognises those service personnel, police and civilians who have put their own safety at risk to support the objectives of the United Nations and help end the conflict and return areas to functioning democratic countries. The memorial has been planned for the last decade and was completed with donations and grants from the Australian government, some Australian companies, veterans organisations and other nations. The most recent donation was from Timor-Leste, where our peacekeepers have proved to be very helpful in the last few years.
I would like to thank all Australian peacekeepers for their bravery and selflessness in making the world a better and more peaceful place. I especially acknowledge the families of our peacekeepers. Without their support, our peacekeepers would not have been able to be so effective. I acknowledge those who made the supreme sacrifice for our safety, and I commend the motion to the House.
It is a great pleasure to rise in this House and support the member opposite, the member for Kingston, on her motion recognising the 70th anniversary of Australia's first peacekeeping mission. As one of three or four peacekeepers in the House—a couple each side, which was tremendous to see—I have great pleasure in speaking on the motion and noting that Australian peacekeepers have served for 70 years. Over two million Australians have served in uniform since Federation. Of those, 70,000, or seven per cent, have served in the peacekeeping field in peacemaking, peace monitoring, peace enforcing and the full gamut of UN operations.
Our peacekeeping operations go back a long way. I have just gotten back from the Middle East—having been there far too many times—and I again touched base with our UNSTO forces. We've had peacekeepers on the three borders—to the east, north and south—of Israel for a long, long time. We have been guarding the peace, after the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Accords, in the Sinai Peninsula, where right now we have a whole bunch of Australian soldiers in Camp North, some 15 kilometres south of the Gaza Strip. We have 11 or 12 peacekeepers as part of the UNSTO, the UN Supervisory Truce Organization, monitoring the technical fence on the Golan Heights and north on the Lebanese borders. We have just withdrawn peacekeepers from RAMSI in the Solomon Islands, and, of course, after so many decades in Cyprus, the peacekeepers have come home. We continue to have 25 soldiers in the Sudan and soldiers, sailors and air men and women in other points right across the world.
We are a heavy-lifting nation when it comes to monitoring peace, especially when it comes to the Middle East. On 25 April 1915, when we stormed the beaches at Anzac Cove, a very small group of flyers had left Bombay en route for the Middle East and in June they landed at Basra in southern Iraq. In July 1915, the Mesopotamian Half Flight was in combat operations in the Battle of Baghdad. For 102 years we have had soldiers, sailors, air men and women, both permanent and reserve, in combat operations and peacekeeping in the Middle East.
Shortly, we'll celebrate the 100th anniversary of the charge of the 4th Light Horse Brigade at Beersheba, on 31 October. I have just come back from Israel, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration on 2 November 1917, which of course led to the liberation of Jerusalem on 11 December 1917. The Balfour Declaration would not have been possible without the Australian Light Horse. The liberation of Jerusalem at the end of the third battle of Gaza would not have been possible without the Australians. The move of the British mandate which would lead to the foundation of the state of Israel, I argue, would have been severely hampered without the work of the Australian Light Horse. So, for 102 years we have operated in the Middle East and we do so now, continually, through our peacekeepers.
My service was in Bougainville. Others in the House served in East Timor, Afghanistan and Somalia, respectively. It's a long chain of service men and women who have served their nation and served here in parliament, but today in the House—and I thank the member opposite for her motion—we rise as one to mark the 70th anniversary and salute the 70,000 of our finest men and women who have served and will continue to serve. The government that we replaced, this government and the government that will replace this government—governments of all persuasions—have always held dear the notion that we are part of the international community and that we will step up and do our part in the service of peace. We struggle for bipartisanship, but for this government—not more than those that came before or those that will come after—this is one area we can truly embrace, and we acknowledge the service that has been done and the service that will come.
I rise in this place to speak on the motion by my friend the member for Kingston, which acknowledges the incredible work and dedication of Australia's involvement over the past 70 years in international peacekeeping. Australian peacekeepers and peacemakers have played a pivotal role in the transition from conflict to peace in a number of operations, with over 70,000 Australians having been involved, as we've heard, in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations since 1947. In particular, I acknowledge and pay my respects to the 14 men and women who have had their lives tragically cut short while serving in peacekeeping missions.
Australian peacekeepers have been deployed in missions all over the globe, including operations serving in Cyprus, Cambodia, Haiti, Mozambique, Rwanda and Timor. During the 70 years of international peacekeeping, Australia has had peacekeepers in the field with the United Nations continuously for over 50 years. As we have heard, in Indonesia in 1947 Australians were part of the very first group of UN military observers anywhere in the world. We were, in fact, the first into the field. In more recent times, the 1990s proved to be the busiest decade in the history of multinational peacekeeping. For the first time, the Royal Australian Navy ships took part in a peacekeeping operation, enforcing UN imposed sanctions against Iraq, both before and after the Gulf War. For a period in 1993, Australia had over 2,000 peacekeepers in the field, with large contingents in Cambodia and Somalia. In 1999 Australia led a peace-enforcement operation which dwarfed all of its previous peacekeeping efforts, as East Timor achieved independence from Indonesia. To this day, Australia remains the largest contributor of personnel to the peacekeeping mission, with between 1,500 and 2,000 personnel, as well as landing craft and Black Hawk helicopters.
Australia has always been there to lend a helping hand and we continue that tradition today. Australian peacekeepers are currently serving in the Middle East UN Truce Supervision Organization, the UN peacekeeping force in Cyprus and the UN Mission in the Republic of South Sudan. I was fortunate to see the work of the Australian Defence personnel and peacekeepers firsthand earlier this year when I had the opportunity as part of the ADF Parliamentary Program, alongside the member of Fisher, to spend time with members of our Defence Force serving in the Middle East. This included spending time at bases in the Middle East and Afghanistan with the men and women of the ADF to see, in person, the amazing work they do. This experience left me with an even greater respect for our Defence Force and peacekeeping personnel and the incredible sacrifices they make to serve our great country.
Currently, there are about 1,700 ADF personnel deployed in the Middle East region. Our troops are not only doing an incredible job representing our country but are also working side by side with the local forces to train and equip the Afghan army. This includes working with Afghan mentors and interpreters to better train the local army. Above all else, the professionalism and commitment of our serving personnel was clear to see 24/7. Our troops and peacekeepers are the best in the world. They are incredibly dedicated to serving our country. In the local community that I represent, there are many ADF families. It must be tough to be separated from loved ones while they serve. The reputation of the ADF and peacekeepers extends beyond our borders to accompanying nations that also have personnel serving in the region. I note that the member for Kingston congratulates all of those who have worked hard to deliver the new Australian Peacekeeping Memorial Project on Anzac Parade. The work undertaken by those from the Australian Peacekeeping Memorial Project respectfully honours all Australian peacekeepers and operations which Australia has taken part in.
Peacekeeping missions involve experiences not unlike combat deployments. Personnel may come under fire, and many witness traumatic events and atrocities whilst delivering humanitarian aid in volatile environments. I want to say to all the men and women of our peacekeeping services across the world: thank you for your service. You do our country proud, and we thank you for the sacrifices you make to make the world a better place.
I rise to speak on this motion by the member for Kingston. I want to pay tribute to Australia's peacekeeping efforts around the world over the past seventy years. We should be very proud of the efforts of the men and women who've done such strong work on behalf of Australia to promote peace, stability and freedom in an often troubled world. It's important to comprehend the real difference that Australia's international peacekeeping efforts have made by contributing to a better world. The peace and stability that we support in so many areas has assisted some of the most vulnerable people on our planet to lead better lives, including people from developing economies and developing democracies. We have also contributed to efforts to support prosperity, trade, and people impacted by natural disasters. A few months ago, I moved a motion in this House paying tribute to the great work of the Australian Federal Police, who've contributed to Australia's peacekeeping efforts for many years alongside some of our closest friends and neighbours in the Pacific, such as the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. That's just one example. Australia has played a strong role in supporting peacekeeping efforts right around the world, and we continue to do so.
A few weeks ago, I had the huge honour and privilege of visiting Iraq and the Middle East, where I saw the contribution that Australia and the Australian Defence Force is making to end conflict and bring about peace in the Middle East. The visit was part of the ADF Parliamentary Program, which has provided many members of parliament before me with a unique insight into the day-to-day workings of our Defence Force, both at home and abroad, over the past 15 years. I wanted to say how humbling I found the experience, and how proud I am to be Australian when I reflect on the efforts of our Defence Force. I didn't just get to witness the diverse capabilities of our Defence Force in action; I was able to freely engage with serving men and women across all levels of our Defence Force, and I got to experience some of the challenges and the rewards of service life. I dined in the same mess halls, I bunked in the cabins, I sweated in my camos, and I participated in some of the same training, including some very confronting medical emergency training, with tourniquets and wound dressing, as well as training for chemical, bio and nuclear attacks, with gas masks and other equipment.
The Australian troops currently serving in the Middle East are working with our other coalition partners on land, at sea and in the air to contribute to better stability in the Middle East region. We're contributing to international efforts to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and as part of the NATO-led team that's training, advising and assisting in Afghanistan. We're also contributing to the maritime security and stability in the waters around the Middle East.
I want to take a moment to inform the House of some recent progress that I witnessed in Iraq. As has been well publicised since the Iraqi government and its army reclaimed the city of Mosul some months ago in fairly impressive style, ISIS is now on the back foot. Put frankly, the Iraqi government is winning, with the assistance of coalition forces, and it's winning much faster than was predicted. Other towns, cities and regions which ISIS had heavily fortified are being secured in mere days, and the main message, especially in the context of future peacekeeping efforts, is that ISIS may be defeated—in the military sense—in as little as the next six to 12 months. And that would be a notable success, both for the Middle East and right around the rest of the world, if it means that we get to expose and defeat the terrible ideology behind ISIS, and to reveal those insurgents to be the losers they are, in every sense of that word. The question of what happens next, after ISIS is defeated, is a live one, and the answer, I want to suggest, should be informed by our own successes over a long period of time in our international peacekeeping efforts. We don't want to suddenly disperse, and leave a power vacuum that allows other insurgents to arise. Sustaining peace doesn't necessarily come for free and it doesn't happen automatically. Yet when we start to consider the investments we've made in the Middle East over many generations, it reinforces the importance of what should happen next.
One senior ADF officer I spoke to in the Middle East told me that he doesn't want his children to have to go into Iraq and Afghanistan to redo what we've already sacrificed so much to achieve in this generation and previous generations. I found that argument especially compelling. As part of a broader effort around the world, I believe Australia should seriously consider making a contribution to help set up countries like Iraq to succeed into the future. I want to thank everyone I met in the Middle East for their frank, honest and revealing conversations about their experiences and the Iraqi commanders I got to meet for their feedback and appreciation for Australia's contribution. In closing, I pay tribute to the efforts of Australia's international peacekeeping forces over the past 70 years and I salute the sacrifices made by those who did not return. Lest we forget.
I commend the shadow minister for this motion. I rise in this place today to honour those who have served or have in some way been involved in international peacekeeping activities. On Thursday, 14 September 2017, Australia marked the 70th anniversary of our involvement in international peacekeeping and peacemaking. Australia first sent military observers on the United Nations Consular Commission to Indonesia in September 1947 and, over the intervening 70 years, over 70,000 Australians from military and civilian operatives have served around the world. Peacekeepers and peacemakers play an important role in providing support and assistance to victims of conflict, often in unstable and dangerous locations.
Australian peacekeepers have been engaged as military observers and have provided logistical support and monitored ceasefires. They have been involved in landmine clearance operations, supported democratic elections, facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid and assisted in the repatriation of refugees. We must recognise the valuable work that our Australian peacekeepers and peacemakers do in order to assist in the transition from conflict to peace. The work that these men and women do is not easy, and they are often placed in very dangerous situations, especially in relation to human conflicts and natural disasters.
In the early years, Australia's peacekeepers were generally unarmed military observers, promoting peace indirectly by ensuring that neither side in a conflict could violate a ceasefire or commit atrocities without the knowledge of the United Nations and the world community. Over time, the nature of peacekeeping and peacemaking has evolved, requiring peacekeepers to manage more complex and multidimensional issues, such as those which emerged in the Middle East and Africa. Australian state and federal police forces have also had a long involvement in peacekeeping operations, beginning in 1964 with the first deployment to Cyprus, a peacekeeping commitment that continues to this very day.
Today military observers with a peacekeeping operation are more impartial and can use their military training to assess the situation more accurately, whilst allowing the media to play a role in reporting the situation. Australia's most recent peacekeeping role was as part of RAMSI, the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, which ended earlier this year. At the request of the Solomon Islands government, 15 countries joined in partnership to assist the Solomon Islands to lay the foundations for long-term stability, security and prosperity. RAMSI is now solely a policing mission, working in partnership with the Royal Solomon Island Police Force to build a modern, effective and independent police force that has the confidence and support of the community. Australia leads the mission and contributes 95 per cent of its funding.
Australia has been actively involved in peace operations for 70 years and, through this time, has provided military and police personnel to more than 50 United Nations and other multilateral peace and security operations nations since 1947. Australian police have also served in Cambodia, Haiti, Mozambique, Bougainville and Timor. This tradition and duty continues to be carried out today, with Australians serving in peace and security operations around the globe. We currently have Australian peacekeepers serving in the Middle East in the UN Truce Supervision Organization, the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus and the UN Mission in the Republic of Southern Sudan. I look forward to these peacekeepers' safe return home to their families, friends and loved ones.
On Saturday, 23 September 2017, the Townsville branch of the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans' Association, in collaboration with the Vietnam Veterans Association, held a 70th anniversary commemoration service at Deep Creek Retreat in Clare. I was privileged to be invited to participate in this commemoration, where we paid our respects to those who have served and to those who did not come home. We paid special tribute to those who are living with the memories of trauma and tragedy. The impact of the trauma was confirmed when I spoke to the men, women and families who attended. I will always fight to ensure that we provide services that assist them to address the trauma, feelings of loneliness, and isolation. We must recognise that those on peacekeeping and peacemaking missions are often in the centre of dangerous conflicts and are exposed to the atrocities of war. I pay my respects to the 16 Australians who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations. I honour these brave men and women and extend sincere gratitude for the work they have accomplished during their missions.
Without a doubt, the role played by our peacekeepers and peacemakers has left our world a much better place. In times of turmoil, we turn to those courageous men and women and ask them to put their lives on the line for the benefit of our country and for the good of all nations. Lest we forget.
There being no further speakers for this debate at this time, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures one in five Australians report having a mental or behavioural condition, while the prevalence is highest among people aged 18 to 24; and
(b) data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare suggests that 54 per cent of people with a mental illness do not access treatment;
(2) congratulates the Government for its engagement with the mental health community and for its measures to support mental health in Australia including:
(a) additional investment of $170 million in mental health programs in the 2017 budget including $80 million to maintain community psycho-social services for people with mental illness who are not eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, $11.1 million to prevent suicide in specific locations where it is a frequent occurrence, $15 million to support mental health research initiatives such as the Thompson Institute on the Sunshine Coast and $50 million for mental illness prevention and support for serving Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families; and
(b) investment of:
(i) $9.5 million to expand mental health first aid training in 14 high risk communities; and
(ii) $9.1 million to support rural telehealth services for mental health and the appointment of the first National Rural Health Commissioner;
(3) encourages the Government to continue this focused work and to seek additional ways to support the mental health of Australians; and
(4) further encourages anyone who believes that they might be suffering from a mental illness to seek immediate help from their General Practitioner or a qualified mental health practitioner.
Last week, we celebrated Mental Health Week in Queensland, including World Mental Health Day. I'm very proud to be part of a federal government that places such great importance on the mental health of all Australians.
The government has invested an extra $367.5 million in mental health and suicide prevention over the past year. The Minister for Health and the Prime Minister have prioritised an awareness of mental health. They have spoken publicly and written about the importance of mental health very, very consistently, on occasions such as R U OK? Day and, just last week, at the World Mental Health Day event held by Soldier On. The government has responded to stakeholder concerns by investing $80 million to maintain community psychosocial services for people with mental illnesses who don't qualify for assistance through the NDIS scheme. The government has invested $15 million to support mental health research initiatives. These include Orygen's National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health in Melbourne and the Centre for Research Excellence in the Prevention of Anxiety and Depression, led by the New South Wales Black Dog Institute and the Hunter Institute. Indeed, in my own electorate of Fisher the federal government has provided $5 million for research and clinical treatment in relation to dementia, suicide prevention and youth mental health at the Thompson Institute.
Cutting-edge research is critically important, but smaller-scale practical changes can also make a big difference. That's why the government is spending $11.1 million on crisis-help signage, and infrastructure such as barriers to deter suicide attempts at locations where they repeatedly occur. I think that we can do much more in the electronic space as well; I'll have more to say about that in times to come.
Rural and regional mental health is a particular challenge, and one that's very important for me. The federal government has committed $28.9 million to open an additional 10 headspace centres in regional and rural communities, including in Gympie, in the member for Wide Bay's constituency. We have invested $9.5 million to expand Mental Health First Aid training in 14 high-risk communities. The federal government has committed $9.1 million to support rural telehealth services for mental health, to overcome the challenges in getting access to services.
The mental health of our veterans is vitally important to us all. The federal government commissioned a National Mental Health Commission review into suicide and self-harm prevention support available to serving ADF members and veterans. The government responded to that report with a comprehensive package of measures to offer better support. In 2016, the federal government made treatment for depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and drug and alcohol misuse free for anyone who had served a day in the full-time ADF. In 2017, the federal government invested $33.5 million to expand that program to cover all mental health conditions, regardless of whether they were related to the veteran's service.
The federal government invested a further $8.5 million to expand eligibility for the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service to the partners and children of our contemporary veterans and many former partners of ADF personnel. We also are providing $9.8 million to pilot new approaches to suicide prevention and improve the care and support available to our veterans, and there is a $6 million investment for Phoenix Australia to improve our understanding of mental health challenges and develop better treatment for our veterans and the wider community.
One issue about mental health that is not spoken of enough is that of eating disorders. Only a couple of weeks ago, the federal government announced a $3 million package for a crisis care call centre for people suffering from eating disorders. I know firsthand that eating disorders are an insidious disease. Diseases like bulimia and anorexia have the highest mortality rate of any psychosocial issue or illness, and I am very proud to be part of a government that is trying to do its best in resolving those issues.
Is there a seconder for this motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I rise to speak of the four million Australians experiencing mental health issues. Due to stigma, many will not seek the treatment they need and, if they do, they may not be able to access the treatment they urgently require. One in five Australians are affected by a mental health issue during their lifetime and the annual cost to our community is estimated to be around $20 billion. Last year, the number of Australians who died by suicide is 2,866 and 15- to 24-year-old suicide accounted for over one-third of those deaths. We need to do more to prevent the tragedy of suicide and the impact on family, friends and the community who are left behind. Sixty-five thousand people attempt to take their own lives every year in Australia, which is about 180 each day. These statistics are just heartbreaking. We need to do more to promote acceptance of mental health issues and encourage people affected by mental health issues to seek treatment and reduce the stigma associated with it.
I welcome the awareness programs that promote mental wellbeing. Last month, I was proud to attend the R U OK? Day hosted by Samuel Terry Public School, a primary school in my electorate—the only primary school to take on such an initiative. I commend principal Mr Lockley and parent Natalie McPherson, who is a mum at the school. They wanted the kids at Samuel Terry to ask their family and friends 'Are you okay?' in a meaningful way, and to let the kids know that it's okay not to be okay and where to go for help when they are not okay. There were great guest speakers, including Julie Graham, the crime prevention officer; Linda Baumgartner, the youth liaison office at Penrith local area command; and Shafee, a student from Cranbrook high school, who composed a song that he rapped to for all the students, along with former NRL player, Joe Galuvao.
World Suicide Prevention Day asked everyone to take a minute to change a life, asking Australians to speak up, to take time and to listen. Headspace Day, which we recently celebrated, supports one in five young Australians and asks us to share what we do when we're not feeling great and to share a tip for a healthy headspace. I am into dancing in my socks in the kitchen—you get a lot of good movement around your kitchen floor in socks—and I listen to loud music or go for a run when my knee is up to it. For anyone looking for tips, I commend those. Headspace operates within my electorate and has a youth early psychosis program. On average, 66 people per month over the last four months have sought treatment and help. This program offers full clinical support, including psychiatric services, and supports 15 per cent of at-risk young people.
There are many worthy community-based organisations, such as beyondblue, the Black Dog Institute and the Butterfly Foundation just to name a few. Proudly, on 28 October, as the member for Fisher alluded to, I will be attending a Butterfly Foundation event to be run by Lilly Joyce that will seek to spread awareness of eating disorders through the 'Walk for Hope' along the Nepean River. Almost one million Australians are battling an eating disorder and 20 per cent of them will end up losing their lives. This is the highest mortality rate of any mental illness and these community-based, awareness-raising events are commendable.
I would like to thank both of the men's sheds operating in my electorate. The men's shed in Orchard Hills, with Tony Hudson at the helm, and the Penrith men's shed in Caddens, with the Reverend Neil Checkley, have a combined membership of about 150 men currently. One of the secrets to the men's sheds is that they are not overt in the way they provide mental health services and supports. Their members attend for a number of reasons, and it's a great way for men to come together with the opportunity to do something, reach out and talk to someone and be distracted from anything that is overwhelming them. Once again, we're seeing community organisations rising to the challenges.
Labor established the National Disability Insurance Scheme, with unprecedented support for people living with serious mental illness, and the National Mental Health Commission and the Primary Health Networks. But mental health is a massively underfunded area of medicine in this country, particularly in Western Sydney, where 575,000 kids are affected by clinically significant mental health problems. Our kids are experiencing mental health disorders such as ADD, anxiety, depression and conduct disorders, and no-one wants these kids to go without being able to access the treatment they need.
I want to go to a story that came across my desk. In my electorate, a young constituent, aged 13, presented to the Nepean emergency department accompanied by one of his parents. He was referred to the mental health unit. His parents sat with him in the waiting room, and he was sat next to somebody in their prison greens and a shifty guy who kept looking at this young man. He'd been brought in there because he'd written a suicide note to his parents. He'd been withdrawing from school for some time. Two months after he first presented to my local hospital, he was still on the waiting list to receive services. We have no clinical psychiatrists for any young people in my electorate, and waiting lists for those that are there are beyond two months. We have a problem in Western Sydney when the doctors are telling people to go to a different hospital. (Time expired)
I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Fisher and acknowledge his strong promotion of good mental health. It's often said that mental health is a collective responsibility—for individuals, for our community and for society in general. We need to look after ourselves and each other, and the government needs to ensure there's adequate funding for programs that support and improve mental health and care for those who need support.
As noted in the motion, one in five Australians reports having experienced a mental or behavioural condition, with the highest prevalence being amongst those people aged between 18 and 24. What's also concerning is that research from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare suggests that 54 per cent of people suffering from a mental illness do not access treatment. It's in everyone's interest to work to improve our nation's mental health statistics, and it's certainly everyone's responsibility.
In the last 50 years, our knowledge of mental health conditions, their causes and how they can be treated has emerged from what can only be described as the dark ages. In this time, we've come from a world where only the most complex and serious cases of mental illness were recognised, and they were treated with rudimentary treatment and, usually, institutionalisation. This treatment fed a perception in society that any form of mental illness was a life-long condition that robbed a person of the ability to cope with the normal stresses of life, work productively and make a contribution to their community.
Today, we are much better informed and absolutely know this is not the case. We have a much better understanding of the very broad nature of mental health, both in type and severity. We understand how damaging the negative stigma associated with mental illness is and we need to prevent it. We understand that prevention and early intervention are key to improving the mental health of our nation. We know that today in Australia more than a million people are experiencing depression and more than two million people are experiencing anxiety related conditions. We know that one in six women and one in eight men will experience depression in their lifetime. These numbers increase when we talk about anxiety, as one in three women and one in five men are likely to experience anxiety in their lifetime.
A recent Deakin University study estimated that the cost of high-prevalence mental health conditions, such as depression, anxiety and substance abuse, stands at $12.8 billion per year in health and social costs.
I'm sad to say that Wide Bay has an over-representation when it comes to both suicide and poor mental health. But I am pleased the government has recognised this and is taking action to deliver the funding and initiatives needed to tackle these issues at the local level. In Wide Bay, the National Suicide Prevention Trial is being delivered by the region's Primary Health Network, and will focus on Gympie and Maryborough, with a particular focus on men. The PHN is receiving $1 million per year from 2016-17 to 2018-19 for suicide prevention trials. The PHN has been engaging with local communities to better understand current services and to identify opportunities for service integration. Community forums have been held in Gympie and Maryborough; suicide prevention action plans are being developed for the area; and a working group comprising local service providers, community representatives and people with a personal understanding of suicide has been established to inform the trial.
I'm also pleased to confirm that the coalition government will fund a new headspace service in Gympie, which is expected to be operational in July 2018. headspace is an incredibly valuable service which assists young people with mental health issues. The PHN has received $366,000 in 2017-18 to establish Gympie's headspace, and will receive another $350,000 in 2018-19 and each year thereafter for service delivery. The PHN will commission Gympie's headspace service through United Synergies, which also runs StandBy—Support After Suicide, a suicide postvention program which helps people bereaved by suicide.
We all need to do everything we can to lower suicide rates in this country and eliminate the stigma associated with mental health.
I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Fisher. According to the Black Dog Institute, one in five Australians will experience a mental health condition in their lifetime. Mental illness touches every Australian family, whether it be a father, an aunt, a daughter or a son. One in two people do not access any treatment. Mental illnesses are the third leading cause of disability burden in Australia, accounting for an estimated 27 per cent of total years lost from the workforce due to disability. Approximately 14 per cent of Australians will be affected by an anxiety disorder in any 12-month period. One in 50 Australians will experience some kind of eating disorder in their lifetime, with women nine times more likely than men to experience eating disorders. Around one in 20 Australians will experience substance abuse disorders in any 12-month period, with men more than twice as likely as women to have substance abuse disorders.
We know that the prevalence of mental illness decreases with age, with the prevalence greatest among 18-to-24-year-olds. The transition from high school to further education or the workforce is one of the greatest transitions a person will face, and so it comes as no surprise that young people struggle with mental health conditions and with anxiety around that move. What does come as a surprise is this government's response.
Instead of looking to strengthen mental health support services, this government has sought to cut funding. I note that the member for Fisher made reference to the government's budget commitment of $80 million to maintain psychosocial services for people with mental illness who are not eligible for the NDIS. In my discussions with mental health groups, including the Mental Health Coalition of SA, it is clear that the National Disability Insurance Scheme will only support 58,000 of the 489,000 Australians who suffer with a severe mental illness. That's just 12 per cent of those diagnosed who will be supported by the NDIS, which means $80 million has been set aside to support 88 per cent of Australians who have a severe mental illness. It is just not enough; the numbers do not add up. Some of the programs that are being defunded as the NDIS rolls out are: Partners in Recovery, which has 12,500 participants; Personal Helpers and Mentors, also known as PHaMs, with over 20,000 participants; Day to Day Living, with more than 8,000 participants; and, significantly, Mental Health Respite: Carer Support, which has over 40,000 participants. That is more than 80,000 participants—in programs that will no longer be funded.
Today I met with Catholic Social Services, who were particularly concerned about how people with mental health issues will be supported once these programs cease. They and I are deeply concerned for people living with serious mental illness who would not be supported in an NDIS package. Catholic Social Services believe those living in regional and remote Australia will feel the loss of services the most. Again, it is a concern I share, and I think every member who looks after a regional or rural electorate must share those concerns.
My electorate office is in a town called Mount Barker. It is a rapidly growing area. It has lots of young families, and so I see firsthand when services are not there. Recently Young Mayo worked to gather signatures for a petition for a headspace centre in Mount Barker. As you know, headspace provides support services for young people aged 12 to 25. The need for a headspace in Mount Barker was one of the first issues raised by Young Mayo with me, and they have gathered over 500 signatures in our community.
While yet to be allocated a full headspace centre, we were thankful to secure an outreach service from headspace Murray Bridge, which will provide support services for young people five days a week. Such is the demand for services that they've already been booked up years in advance and they're not advertising. This seems to be a deliberate strategy so they don't have longer waiting lists. Clearly, we have a great demand, and this demand is not being met. I'll continue to advocate for Young Mayo and all of the young people across the Adelaide Hills and Fleurieu who need a fully supported headspace centre.
While I join the member for Fisher in encouraging the government to seek additional ways to support mental health for Australians, I do not believe the government is doing enough at the moment. This government needs to get real when it comes to mental health, and the $80 million promised is really a drop in the ocean compared to what's needed.
Funding for mental health saves lives. This is not something that should be tacked onto primary health. It is just as critical as primary health, and GPs in my region should be able to get people to a psychiatrist, when needed, as easily as they can refer someone to a knee surgeon. This is not happening at the moment. GPs are highly stressed talking to me about this. We are failing our community every day this government does not act to do more for people with mental illness.
I thank my team Queensland colleague, the member for Fisher, for the motion he has moved today—a motion that both congratulates the Turnbull government on its record of mental health funding and encourages all governments to do more. By any measure, this government is prioritising mental health. This government is prioritising the very real mental health needs of many vulnerable everyday Australians, including our Defence Force veterans and those isolated by distance.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimates that 45 per cent of Australians will experience some form of mental health disorder in their lifetime. That's 7½ million Australians—69,000 people in my electorate alone. More disturbingly, 54 per cent do not access treatment.
Today I join with my colleagues to congratulate the government on its highly focused and targeted approach to mental health funding in the 2017 budget to broaden the scope and accessibility of mental health services and help to address this disturbing figure. This government has consulted with the sector, asking those delivering mental health services on the front line where the service gaps are. And now we're addressing them—an additional $80 million for mental health services for those not eligible for the NDIS; an additional $11.1 million to prevent suicide in the very locations crying out for more help; $50 million to assist our Defence Force members, veterans and families; $9.5 million to expand mental health first-aid training in communities that need it most; $9.1 million to support rural mental health services and the appointment of the first National Rural Health Commissioner; and an additional $15 million for mental health research benefiting organisations like the Thompson Institute—to which my colleague, the member for Fisher, also referred—which is in our home region of the Sunshine Coast.
The Thompson Institute will provide a better understanding of the underlying neurobiology of mental health disorders, leading to the development of treatments for disorders and not just their symptoms. This is essential to the holistic and multifaceted approach to dealing with mental health in Australia. And the government is acting—it's acting fast.
The National Mental Health Commission's final report into suicide and self-harm prevention services available to current and former serving ADF members and their families was delivered in March this year and received over $50 million in funding in the budget. There are approximately 3,200 veterans and their families living in my electorate of Fairfax. All are set to benefit under this initiative. Mental health disorders account for the third most prevalent burden of disease or cause of premature death in Australia, just behind cancer and cardiovascular disease. I commend the work being done by organisations such as headspace, R U OK, the Black Dog Institute and men's sheds. They all work tirelessly to educate the community and help end the stigma surrounding mental illness. The work of organisations like these—thousands of them registered right across Australia—stand to benefit from funding announced by the Turnbull government. In fact, all Australians benefit.
Better understanding as well as targeted and early treatment of mental health disorders reduces the burden on the health system and helps prevent the slide into homelessness, poverty and substance abuse which so often goes hand in hand with untreated mental health disorders. But it can't stop here. We must continue our support, funding crucial research and funding specialist prevention and support services for those with mental illnesses. We must continue to ask, 'Where can we do more? How can we do more?' It's easy for the stresses of life to overwhelm us all at times. No-one in this country, no-one in this building or this chamber, should ever feel that there is nowhere to go. I urge all feeling this way to reach out, because help is available.
I would like to echo the comments of the previous speaker in relation to support that is available for people should they need it. I have to thank the member for bringing this motion forward, because it's an issue that is very close to my heart. In saying that, I have a dream in relation to mental health services and support in this country. It's probably a bit of a utopian dream, but it's something that I think we should all strive to achieve in order to support our fellow Australians when they need support for mental ill health. That dream is to ensure that every Australian, regardless of where they are or their background, can access psychological support and counselling support anytime, anywhere and that it is affordable and accessible. Far too many times I hear that people in my community have to wait to get psychological support, and that is not good enough. It is totally not good enough. If you're feeling anxious or depressed and you are reaching out for support, you need that right away; you cannot wait on a waiting list to receive that. That's just not good enough. I want to see this country invest in mental health to ensure that no-one has to wait.
I think we need to look at it as an investment. We look at health in some respects—preventive health in particular—as an investment in the economy of our country. The impact of mental ill health in our workforce has a huge impact on productivity. I welcome the work that the Tasmanian Minerals and Energy Council have put in place to ensure that mental health for their workforce is supported. They have developed a blueprint for that, and I know there are other people within the mineral and energy sector in the country that are also having a focus on mental ill health in their workforce. TMEC, the Tasmanian Minerals and Energy Council, acknowledge that mental ill health has a huge impact on workplace productivity through absenteeism and presenteeism, and increases the rate of accidental injury in the workplace—something that we should all strive to ensure never happens. It has a huge impact on families, and I'd like to acknowledge those families that may have someone they love within their family who is suffering mental ill health. It is Carers Week this week, and we should not forget those people at all.
It's great to see the commitment of the minerals and energy sectors in Tasmania to ensuring that their workforce is healthy and safe, but we need to do much more to realise my dream and in particular to reduce the stigma of mental ill health. I note the funding the government has provided in this year's budget, particularly the inclusion of funding for veterans' mental health, which is absolutely welcomed. Veterans are suffering from PTSD and from the trauma of being in a conflict or in peacekeeping times even. We have for far too long forgotten this group of people. We need to be there to support them in every way we can. We need to acknowledge that as those veterans transition into civilian life. Even for everyday Australians' mental health, the support that should be provided is not something that we should shy away from.
It's also pleasing to note the number of Labor policies in this space that the government has adopted. There were election commitments made for additional headspace centres—and I welcome one in my electorate in the city of Devonport in my home town—and 12 suicide prevention sites, which the state of Tasmania very much welcomes as well. But the government has fallen short in relation to its claim during the last election to make mental health a pillar of its national plan and it has failed to deliver in this year's budget. The budget has fallen well short in meeting the needs of our community and certainly in meeting what my dream is.
Unfortunately and sadly, completed suicides are increasing in this country. We need to do far more about it. We need to also ensure that the suicide prevention trial sites are extended well beyond 30 June 2019 because in my state they have only just announced the target group. We're a year into those trials. We need to ensure that those trials are extended for a further duration of time so that we can collect the necessary data from that. I thank the member for bringing this motion forward.
I'm pleased to rise in support of the member for Fisher's motion and to recognise the contribution so far of other speakers who have also spoken about this very important issue. The statistics outlined in the motion are truly worrying and are worth repeating—that one in five Australians report having a mental or behavioural condition, especially those aged 18 to 24, and that it is also believed that over half of all people with a mental illness don't actually access treatment. With these figures it's important that the government continue to act to support the mental health of Australians. We can do this, of course, through funding, including the $170 million in mental health programs in the 2017 budget and the additional $367.5 million since the election. Overall this year the government has invested more than $4 billion in mental health services and driving reforms to support the mental health of every Australian no matter who they are, where they live or the nature or stage of their illness. I do commend these initiatives, but I also want to place on record how mental health can often be about more than headline funding figures.
Mental illness is often complex, personal and unpredictable. For young people in particular it can be hard to know when and who to turn to. We are fortunate to have services such as Lifeline offer anyone experiencing a personal crisis access to 24-hour support and suicide prevention services. I urge anyone listening who may need to reach out to call them on 131114. I also urge young people, particularly those on the Central Coast, to consider walking into a headspace centre if they feel they do need some help. A key focus of this government's reforms on mental health is to put the needs of individuals at the centre of our mental health system with localised services. That's why I'm pleased that we are expanding headspace, the youth walk-in centres, taking the total number of headspace centres to 110 by 2019.
Partnering with headspace we're committed to reducing suicide rates through regional trials, research and flexible models that work in our local communities. One of these trials is happening right now at headspace in Gosford. Around 12 months ago we launched the individual placement and support trial, known as IPS, which is a new initiative aimed at better supporting young people with a mental illness to find and to keep a job. Recent trials have found that people with mental illness are three times more likely to secure a job when supported by the IPS approach. I've already been told that there are some great results. While it took some time for sites to recruit the right vocational specialists to deliver the employment support, I'm advised that by July this year there were over 360 trial participants across Australia, including many in Gosford, and these numbers are growing significantly.
I'd like to end with a few remarks about the importance of supporting our veteran community. Next week, from 21 to 29 October, is Veterans' Health Week, and the theme will be physical activity. This week is an opportunity for veterans, war widows, widowers and current and ex-Australian Defence Force members and their families to improve and maintain the health and wellbeing of themselves and their friends. I met with many of our veterans representatives on the Central Coast recently, and I'm pleased to see that there are many local events taking place, many of which have been registered through the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
The week kicks off with a barbecue on Kincumba Mountain on the 21st, starting at 10 am, organised by the National Servicemen's Association working closely with the Vietnam Veterans, Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Association on the Central Coast. It's open to everyone. There are plans for walks in the surrounding bushland and group activities like yoga, social cricket and badminton. Activities will be organised for all levels of ability. The Terrigal-Wamberal RSL sub-branch is organising a veterans bike ride on Thursday, 26 October at Long Jetty, cycling up to Chittaway Bay. The sub-branch is then heading to the gym at the Crowne Plaza at Terrigal on 25 October for a guided tour of the fitness facilities, followed by a light lunch. Woy Woy RSL Krait Day Club plan to take a walking tour of the many pathways along Barangaroo.
It's great to see that, on both a national and a local level and for youth and our older veterans, the Central Coast is acting to support people with a mental illness. As somebody who suffered greatly as a result of very severe and sustained bullying in my early 20s as a result of a workplace situation, I know the importance of reaching out early and I know how difficult it can be to do so. I commend the services that are available to young people, in particular, these days, and I commend this motion to the House.
I'd also like to thank the member for Fisher for raising the important issue of mental health and its significance across Australia. It was only last week that we recognised Mental Health Week, with World Mental Health Day on Tuesday, 10 October, a day for global mental health education, awareness and advocacy. The theme for this year's global day was mental health in the workplace. World Mental Health Day was first established on 10 October back in 1992. Since then it's been an important event that highlights mental health education, awareness and advocacy.
The numbers are stark, as we've heard, when it comes to Australians living with mental illness or disorder. A recent national survey of mental health and wellbeing found that one in five Australian adults have had a mental disorder in the last 12 months and that almost half the total Australian population would experience a mental disorder at some time in their lives. This is the reason why it's so important we address the issue. It affects so many Australians, particularly young Australians. One in four young people are living with a mental health disorder, with suicide the cause of one-third of all deaths of young people. That's why mental health services like headspace are so critical to communities across Australia.
Last week, on national headspace day, like many of my colleagues I had the pleasure of visiting a local headspace centre in Inala. I'm proud to have had a long association with headspace in Inala, since they first opened their doors in our community around five years ago. As the inaugural chair of the headspace committee, I was really pleased to go back and see the amazing work that is happening. It is one of 21 centres across Queensland that provide this important service. Headspace first began operations in 2006. Over 350,000 young people have used headspace centres to seek help. All the staff at headspace Inala, led by the centre manager, Tim, and the community development coordinator, Amy, perform the invaluable role of supporting our young people when they need someone to talk to. I congratulate them and thank them for their tireless efforts, and I look forward to working to support them well into the future.
Whilst I'm happy to acknowledge and support the government's continued investment in headspace centres, I'm afraid I have to inform the House that this has not always been the government's position.
It was only 12 months ago that we saw the CEO of headspace leave the role in frustration at what he described as the government's bizarre decision to stop funding headspace directly and, instead, hand control to 31 primary health networks over two years, which, it is suggested, would effectively mean its demise. The decision at the time meant that the national headspace office budget was scheduled to go from $19 million to $8 million per annum and $5 million the following year. It was also part of the Turnbull government's decision to cruelly cut funding to early psychosis intervention services by up to 70 per cent over the next two financial years. Former headspace CEO, Chris Tanti, said these changes effectively meant that headspace's national office would no longer have oversight of clinical standards, hiring of staff, consistency of care or even which centres remained open. The funding cuts meant that six early psychosis centres, which support hundreds of young people with psychotic disorders, were told that their budgets would be cut by 25 per cent on 1 July 2016 and by 70 per cent the year after. This decision casts serious doubt over headspace's successful early psychosis programs, with very little time to prepare the young people who use the services or the staff who work with them. Despite the health minister defending the decision for months after it was announced, the Prime Minister was dragged to table by the public outcry and publicly overruled his health minister on Q&A by agreeing to protect headspace centres and to finally restore funding to early psychosis centres.
Fast forward to today and we see the member for Fisher wanting to congratulate the government for its engagement with the mental health community and its measures to support mental health in Australia. Whilst the $170 million investment in mental health programs is, of course, welcomed, it does come with the government's normal approach of cutting first, reinstating and then asking to be congratulated. The government needs to be consistent in its approach to mental health funding and not threaten to undermine the incredible work that services, like headspace and all the spaces in Queensland, have already done. I witnessed that firsthand: the failed experiment of the Newman government. After being in government for a short time, it made horrific decisions affecting mental health patients, including the closure of the Barrett Adolescent Centre in Wacol, in my electorate, which has been found to have caused tragedy. There was no apology from the former government. Thank goodness that terrible experiment is over. While I'm pleased to debate this issue today, we must all remember that more can and must be done when it comes to support for mental health in this country.
I rise today to support the motion from the member for Fisher, who has been a strong advocate for people with mental health issues in his own electorate but also across Australia. People have worked long and hard to remove the stigma of mental health and mental illness and bring it into the national conversation about health and wellbeing. This is slowly happening with the assistance of organisations such as headspace, Beyond Blue, Soldier On, the Black Dog Institute and many others. Last week, we marked both headspace day and World Mental Health Day, acknowledging the importance of keeping yourself in a positive headspace and looking after your mental health at work and beyond. People today work in an increasingly stressful and fast-paced 24-hour environment. While we are perhaps more willing to discuss mental health, it is often our mental health that is neglected in the demands of our day-to-day lives.
Funding for mental health is more important than ever, particularly in headspace's target demographic of 12-to-25-year-olds. I note in particular that headspace's figures suggest that one in four young people experience mental health issues every year, making their services and support resources critical to the wellbeing of our communities. I am extremely proud of the government's support for mental health care in Dunkley, including increased funding for a number of key support services and guaranteed ongoing funding for Frankston headspace, including an additional $240,000 to enable them to be a mental health lead site. I have seen the fantastic outcomes from Frankston headspace's programs, including, for example, the Learn Engage Connect Young Parents Program that I spoke about last year and that I will be attending again in the coming weeks. Another fantastic program about to launch in Dunkley is a partnership between the Chisholm Institute, headspace, Tomorrow Man, Wesley Mission and the Life is Worth Living suicide prevention program. It will help Mornington Peninsula tradies build emotional muscle. In 2015-16, 25 per cent of all suicides in Frankston and on the Mornington Peninsula in the 12-to-25-year-old range were by people who were studying a trade and felt that they were in limbo after leaving school, lacking support networks that a lot of us take for granted in office-based workplaces.
The Change Your Brain program will help young men and women better communicate their emotions, learn to reach out if they need help, and provide support for those at risk. Another program launched in Dunkley through our federally-funded local drug action team will work with 95 peninsula sporting groups to engage them, to not only help prevent drug use but greatly assist their mental health. These programs keep vulnerable young people engaged locally and help them retain or recover normal lives following disruptions and changes in their lives that can derail an individual's confidence and belief in themselves to pursue their goals.
Local mental health services are a critical part of the health and wellbeing fabric that we're building on the Mornington Peninsula. Our community is constantly working to increase the personalised support and care available to secure the best outcomes for each individual who finds the courage to reach out for help. Doing so can be one of the toughest things to do when someone is experiencing mental health issues, so we owe it to our young people or, indeed, any age group to provide whatever care, support and resources they need.
Prior to the 2016 federal election, I was also proud to jointly announce with Minister Hunt the coalition's commitment to strengthening mental health care for individuals and families across Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula, including for veterans, young people, seniors and other demographics affected. Funding in addition to the resources committed by the government in its first term means that additional suicide prevention trial sites are established, that funding is secured for youth early psychosis services, and that targeted research and evaluation for Primary Health Networks is supported by this government's focus on looking after the mental health of not only Dunkley residents but all Australians. This has been continued and reinforced during this year's federal budget, as well as in initiatives like the Muster for Mental Health, which has been given federal government funding and which was started through Australian Rotary Health. Australian Rotary Health was itself initiated by Mornington Rotary in my electorate of Dunkley.
Support can only be provided to individuals who speak up or accept offers of help from those who can provide it. The national campaign to increase awareness of mental health issues highlighted last week did not stop after headspace Day and World Mental Health Day. I urge people to look after their mental health as they would their physical health. If you're not in a good head space, I urge you to speak up and to reach out. You are not alone.
I am pleased to support this motion. One of the things that struck me about the inaugural speeches of the class of 2016 was how often the phrase 'mental health' came up. I haven't done the figures, but it was certainly used more often last year than it was by the new members of the 34th Parliament in February 1985, which was the first group I listened to. That is because we now recognise the magnitude of an issue that was, 30 years ago, rarely spoken of. We know that one in seven young Australians experience a mental health condition, 75 per cent of mental health issues emerge before the age of 25, 54 per cent of people with a mental illness don't access treatment, and suicide is still the leading cause of death for young Australians, accounting for more deaths of young people than car accidents.
Last month, the Bureau of Statistics revealed that 2,866 Australians died by suicide last year. We all know that figure represents an enormous loss to 2,866 families and their communities. What this shows us is that we have a lot of work to do, particularly for young Australians. The statistics demand our attention. Our personal experiences demand attention. They both warrant urgent action. I welcome any investment by this government, but I also recognise that we do need to do more.
I particularly welcome the bipartisanship on display today but, I must say, I find it hard to reconcile the fact that the speakers on the government side today, who are clearly very proud of the work being done in the mental health space, are also members of the same government that supported a postal survey that is—in the town square of Springwood, and on the screens of many a phone and tablet of my constituents—causing distress to people who thought they had conquered, or at least had under control, their feelings of self-doubt and anxiety about their sexuality and their place in this country.
Sadly, as we speak here today, more homophobic ads are aired, more unnecessary attacks occur, and another young person is made to feel like they don't belong—like they don't matter. We all know that $122 million could have been much better spent supporting these young people, not marginalising them. A responsible government, a strong government, a Labor government, would not have allowed that to happen. I certainly encourage the government to continue to seek additional ways to support the mental health of Australians, but we know that things have to happen at all levels of our society to tackle the challenges of poor mental health. Within my community, there are many local initiatives. Hawkesbury City Council, for one, deserves congratulations for its new efforts towards addressing mental health issues within the community. Simon Griffin, a young man from Bligh Park who has lived experience of mental illness, is working hard to raise awareness and share his insights with our PHN. Our PHN has just released some terrific new programs. I also acknowledge Peter Webb's efforts, as part of the Western Sydney Suicide Prevention Network, and of course there are many others.
For peri-urban communities like mine, a huge hurdle is access. The Hawkesbury, for instance, while based on the outskirts of Western Sydney, doesn't have quality public transport nor an abundance of services. The Blue Mountains, while there is a train line, are in a similar situation. The closest place to get emergency mental health care and ongoing treatment for anyone under 18 is Nepean Hospital in Penrith or services further to the east of the city. The Hawkesbury stretches out beyond Bilpin to Mount Tomah, up the Putty Road towards Singleton—that's the Hunter Valley—and north beyond Wiseman's Ferry, and it is largely rural. If you google Colo Heights to Sydney or St Albans to Penrith and opt for the public transport route on Google Maps, you're met with a 'no route found' message. There is no way for people to access the services they need, unless they are fortunate enough to drive a car and are in a headspace to drive a car. We clearly need to allow people to access crucial services in peri-urban environments.
I want to congratulate an online mentoring group that's just been launched, StartOut Australia, which recognises that people of diverse sexualities and genders are overrepresented when it comes to mental health issues like depression and anxiety. I was at the launch; there were messages from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I want to congratulate co-founders Adam Dent and Brendan White on the research and energy that has got them to a point of coming up with something that may help peri-urban areas access great mental health support.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the scientific consensus about climate change, and particularly the role of human activity in driving it, is undeniable;
(b) the case for real and immediate action on climate change has never been stronger; and
(c) renewable energy, when combined with storage, is the most economical method of creating new and reliable power;
(2) recognises that the:
(a) decisions we make now concerning environment, climate and energy policy will have lasting and profound affects for the future; and
(b) transition to a low carbon economy wil1 provide significant opportunities for regional development; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) commit to:
(i) utilising the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility for investments that deliver real benefits to communities in Northern Australia, now and into the future; and
(ii) a considered and integrated energy policy in Northern Queensland that actively supports the transition to a low carbon economy; and
(b) recommit to protecting Australia' s marine resources, like the Great Barrier Reef, from modern and evolving threats, to ensure their economic benefits can be borne by future generations.
In recent months the debate about climate change has once again consumed many occupants of this building. We should absolutely debate the best ways to address, respond and adapt to our changing climate, but the time to debate the very existence of human-induced climate change has well passed. Without courageous action taken right now, my two young boys or their children won't have the time to debate the existence of climate change; they'll be too busy dealing with the disastrous consequences.
There will be more environmental disasters, droughts, cyclones, floods or the destruction of Australia's greatest treasure, the Great Barrier Reef. There'll be more economic and community shocks like those still being felt in Central and Northern Queensland, following tropical cyclones Debbie and Marcia. There'll be more displaced people, particularly from our own region, where many island communities will be forced to seek sanctuary from rising oceans.
It genuinely saddens me to have to say this, but it is the reality. The Prime Minister has failed to unshackle himself from the climate deniers in his own party and those floating on the Senate crossbench. He's failed to address climate change, even though we know that he once believed passionately in it. History does not remember kindly good people who are defined by inaction. Labor is ready and willing to work with the coalition government to create a sustainable environment and energy plan for Australia. We've been leading this policy area in the parliament since the crossbench destruction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme nearly 10 years ago in the Senate. Back on the day when I saw two Liberal senators cross the floor, we actually saw the member for Wentworth vote for Labor's CPRS. Let's get back to those times when Labor and Liberal had a bipartisan consensus about the imperatives to act on climate change for the sake of future generations. Let's get this done.
If the Turnbull government is not prepared to work with Labor in opposition, a Labor government will be ready with credible policies for immediate implementation once elected. The case for real and immediate action on climate change has never been stronger. Since the Abbott-Turnbull government repealed the carbon tax we have seen more pollution and higher electricity bills—a real double whammy, especially for Australian manufacturers. Labor understands that building the energy capability of the future means more renewables and less coal-fired generation. In fact, renewables in combination with storage is the most economical method of creating new and reliable power.
Without certainty on public policy in this space, we cannot and will not attract the economic environment required for investment. Labor has just announced more new policies to boost renewable energy generation and storage, create new jobs and put downward pressure on power prices. We will modernise the energy market rules to give more power to consumers and create renewable energy zones, as recommended by the Turnbull government's own Chief Scientist. This will drive investment and jobs in the sector. We will change the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's investment benchmark so it can invest in more generation and storage projects.
Our transition to a low-carbon economy will provide significant opportunities for regional development. We have the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to support this—to create future-proof critical infrastructure for our regions. That is what the fund is for. It is certainly not for lining the pockets of the huge multinational Adani corporation. The NAIF was announced more than two years ago and we are still waiting for the government to allocate a single dollar from the $5 billion fund to build job-generating infrastructure in northern Australia.
The only matter before the Commonwealth, before federal Labor and the federal government, is whether or not taxpayers should loan $1 billion through the NAIF to this huge multinational company, Adani. My federal Labor colleagues and I, especially shadow minister Butler, are steadfastly opposed to taxpayers' money being given to a multinational company to fund their private sector operation. The Adani project will ultimately live or die on its own, but it certainly has a lot of work to do to convince my fellow Queenslanders and Australians that it will meet its environmental obligations, already signed off by the federal government, and, very importantly, that it also stacks up economically.
Instead of a handout to a billionaire, Labor has committed to use that $1 billion to fund long overdue tourism infrastructure projects. These local Australian businesses employ locals and bring so much to the Queensland economy through the growing tourism market, both domestically and internationally. It is critically important to act on climate change to protect the reef and ensure that its wonder can be enjoyed by locals and tourists and my grandchildren long into the future.
It is also critically important to ensure that our energy market respects the need to transition to a low-carbon economy. No country on this earth will be immune from climate change—big or small, mountainous or flat, ocean frontage or landlocked, it does not matter. It is the government's responsibility to act now. To do otherwise would demonstrate complete moral and political cowardice.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
If you visit my Parliament House office you will see a wide range of products made on the Northern Beaches. One of these is a red grill made by Roband, a leading commercial finance manufacturer in Cromer. Roband's energy costs have risen by more than 50 per cent over the past year. For any business, this is a massive cost. But, in a tightly competitive market, where made in Australia is competing against cheap, overseas imports, this is disastrous. Australia, which once boasted some of the cheapest energy, now has some of the most expensive energy. While debates around the existence of climate change are fading into history, the real and substantive issue around the family kitchen table is how to pay the quarterly energy bill or whether we can afford to put the heater or air conditioner on. The bottom line is that renewable energy can only flourish when the public have faith and trust in the market to deliver affordable and reliable energy.
The experience last summer in South Australia saw blackouts become the norm. While I am sure that this was of benefit to the Australian film industry, as many people headed to the cinema, that hardly counts as a long-term solution. This was not market failure; this was regulatory failure. In an advanced economy, keeping the lights on cannot be a question dependent on public pleas for moderation or on the shutting down of large energy users in industry.
Of course, chief among the policy failures has been the separatist, go-it-alone approach by various state governments who, by legislating their own renewable energy targets, have put politics and ideology ahead of families and lower prices. More detrimental than this are the economically damaging, reckless, unscientific and irrational moratoriums on gas development in Victoria, the Northern Territory, New South Wales and Queensland, which have driven up wholesale gas prices at a time when gas-powered generation is vital to the energy sector to provide synchronous, stable generation capacity as coal generation capacity declines. For the states which are floating on centuries' worth of gas to be shunting responsibility to Canberra, demanding export restrictions and price controls, clearly indicates the absurdity of any party that takes up this position on energy. Innovation and technological development is rapidly lowering the cost curve for new renewable plants. While mature technologies have plateaued, the cost of wind and solar photovoltaic generation has more than halved. The missing link that enables renewables to provide truly reliable, dispatchable power is storage technology which smooths variability.
Jay Weatherill can hold as many Hollywood-style press conferences as he likes to boast about a 100-megawatt lithium-ion battery—but the Turnbull government's Snowy Hydro 2.0 will produce, in one hour, 20 times that amount and can deliver it constantly for almost a week. As the largest pumped-hydro scheme in the Southern Hemisphere, it will create over 5,000 jobs during construction and will spur investment in new renewable technologies. This is why the Turnbull government's approach to energy stands in strong contrast to that of Labor and the Greens. Not only did Julia Gillard's carbon tax wreak havoc on our economy, but her state comrades with their ideological obsessions against natural gas and existing coal generation are creating a climate of malaise where investment has stalled.
An opposition member interjecting—
I am asked about New South Wales. Ian Macdonald was very good at starting new coalmines; it's just that you had to be a former union official to get the licence. The Finkel report presents a—
Opposition members interjecting—
You still want to ask more questions? Labor has more questions on coalmines in New South Wales. Please, come forward! The Finkel report presents a road map for reducing prices by providing certainty to regulation that enables providers to make new investments, increasing supply and bringing down prices. The Turnbull government has made important and significant commitments at the Paris climate accord that will see our emissions reduce over time as part of an international agreement. This is critical, because Australia only produces— (Time expired)
I want to, first of all, record my thanks to my colleague the member for Moreton for putting this particular issue on the agenda. I just want to take a bit of time to go through the points that the member for Moreton has made in his motion to the House, and talk about why I think they are so significant. I also want to report to the House on some very significant activity in my own electorate on these very issues in the few weeks during which we have been away from this place.
The member for Moreton's motion, first of all, notes that the scientific consensus about climate change, and particularly the role of human activity in driving it, is undeniable. I find it extraordinary that we actually have to make such a statement in this place at this time. But, given some of the national debate that's going on, it is clear that we do still need to—sadly—reaffirm that climate change is real and that human activity is a significant contributor to it.
I have been in this place for various iterations of this debate but I'm very conscious that at the end of the Howard government era we actually were moving towards a consensus in this country across the political spectrum about those two issues—that climate change was real and that humans were contributing to it. Indeed, at the end of the Howard era, former Prime Minister Howard had moved to a position that said that, as a nation, we had an international responsibility to take action on climate change. Not only that, there was an agreement that there was great benefit to this country in moving towards more sustainable development and more sustainable energy options so that we, with the ingenuity and the natural resources that we had, would actually become world leaders in responding to climate change. Well, sadly, that bus has well and truly passed us. Now we are actually far behind the pack internationally in terms of these issues.
The member for Moreton's second point is that the case for real and immediate action on climate change has never been stronger. That is absolutely the case. As I report some of the conversations that happen in my community, members will see why I believe that is the case. Thirdly, renewable energy, when combined with storage, is the most economical method of creating new and reliable power.
What is really sad in this space—and it's where we find ourselves in the political debate at this point in time—is that we're actually led by a Prime Minister who used to have very deep and, we were led to believe, very sincere beliefs in the importance of this policy area. The current Prime Minister wasn't the Prime Minister at the time, but he crossed the floor to support Labor in taking action on climate change. In fact, he made comments that he would never lead a government that wasn't dedicated to action on climate change. Now we see a government mired in indecision, floundering on the policy front and doing things like getting our Chief Scientist to go and do a report and then—apparently this week—being in convulsions about whether they are actually going to take action on it.
In my area, people care very deeply about these issues. I met with the Australian Youth Climate Coalition branch from Wollongong. They brought to me a petition that they had been collecting around the issue of the Adani coalmine. We had a talk about that. I made it very clear to them that Labor is very strongly of the view—and our position is—that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund should not be used to provide $1 billion to Adani. We are absolutely determined that that will be the case. Quite a group of young people came along to talk to me. I just want to acknowledge those young people, because they're very dedicated. They were Amy Fairall, Sarah Munelly, Mitch Grande, Liv Panozzo and Maddy Yerbury. I thank them for talking to me and for presenting their petition.
Last week, the Wollongong Climate Action Network had a forum on climate change organised by Tom Hunt and the team. Over 200 people attended that evening. We heard from a range of professors and doctors from the university across bushfires, marine biology, atmospheric science, urban planning, building and energy. All talked about the need to take action and to become a country that takes its responsibilities to the international community, as well as to our local community, on climate change seriously.
This motion coming from the member for Moreton, who has clearly bought into the loony left's position on climate change and renewables, unfortunately suffers from an eternal lack of idea—completely void of reality, unfortunately. It is difficult, given the bland repetition of all of the usual motherhood statements and mantras, and with the usual lack of specifics, to get a handle on exactly what it is that the member for Moreton is actually asking for. It is very difficult—beyond, of course, his loyal abidance with Labor rhetoric.
Reading between the lines, it seems to me that this motion is the twin of an earlier motion put by the member for Griffith, but she at least told the chamber what she wanted, as nonsensical as it was: a big, new clean energy target and the end of the Adani coalmine. If we do these things, so it seems to the Left, then the Great Barrier Reef will be saved and, along the way, the planet will also be saved. Hallelujah! Apparently it's all that simple, but, as we know, the energy debate indeed is not that simple. Picking up one of the elements of the member for Moreton's motion, dealing with storage, demonstrates why the massive challenges we confront in relation to energy are anything but simple and why Labor's position is, yet again, so opportunistic.
Storage of renewable power has now become a central part of Labor's threadbare position; it never used to be. This is all very new for Labor. Previously, for Labor, wind and solar were standalone propositions—omnipotent, in fact. They were the perfect energy alternative—but, sadly, they're not. At least that particular penny has finally dropped for Labor. In countries where renewables constitute a significant part of the energy mix, desperate measures are underway, as we speak, to try to boost conventional backup to counter their intermittency and unreliability. That's as true in the UK as it is in Germany, in the US and in Australia—particularly in South Australia. Wind and solar have universally failed, in this regard, to deliver reliable power; to do so, they demand fast backup on hand all the time—24/7.
Storage in batteries has become Labor's plan B for wind and solar backup, based almost entirely on the South Australian Labor government's experimental construction of a 100-megawatt battery storage system at the Hornsdale Wind Farm, with a price tag for the taxpayer that's still top secret. Labor, both in Adelaide and Canberra, want to believe that this battery is the answer to keeping South Australia's lights on, in the face of the grave threat to grid security posed by an overreliance on wind this summer, but it's not. You only have to look at what Jay Weatherill is doing with the remainder of the half-billion-dollar-plus panic package he's desperately putting in place to see where the real grunt in the effort to keep the lights on and the air conditioners running in South Australia for the next two summers is actually coming from. Do you know what it is? Diesel. Next to the dusty desalination plant at Lonsdale, in the old GMH factory at Elizabeth, he's installing 276 megawatts of diesel generators—nine diesel units. How that squares with the platitudes and the call for immediate action from the member for Moreton is anyone's guess.
This motion, unfortunately, seems to be more mindless nonsense from the Labor Party. They simply cannot face the reality when it comes to meaningful, sensible, responsible action on climate change or the delivery of secure and affordable power. As we know, the Turnbull government is getting on with business. We are putting the reliability, security and affordability of energy at the top of our agenda—that's for families across Australia and for businesses across Australia. It does no family or business any good to have these sorts of foolish motions debated in this chamber.
I thank the member for Moreton, my great friend, for raising this motion which brings together the issues of the problem of getting acceptance of the science by some members of the coalition and the challenges and opportunities presented to rural and regional Australia. It's interesting, too, that we're doing this debate in the shadow of the comments by the member for Warringah, which were treated with the derision that they deserved. They were bizarre. We know that the member's had a varying array of positions on this issue over the years, but, within the one speech, he was breaking a new record: on the one hand denying climate change was happening but on the other hand saying, 'But it's going to be good for you.' He said, 'Fewer people die in the heat than they do in the cold.' We know that, with climate change, people expire not only in extreme heat but in extreme weather conditions. Of course this is leaving aside the huge numbers of people who are badly affected, health-wise, by the toxic emissions from fossil fuels. It's why many European countries, China and India are all committing to getting off fossil fuel powered vehicles by either 2025 or 2040 and why the UK is shutting down its coal-fired power. The proportion of coal-fired power it is now generating has dropped to a tiny percentage.
All I'm asking the coalition to do on this is read their own Finkel review. I've read all 212 pages of it. It's their report; he's their Chief Scientist. In the report, they highlighted the fact that households would save $90 a year on their electricity bills, or up to $1,000 over the decade to 2030, by implementing a clean energy target. The Finkel review said that there were things that had to be done at the six-month mark, the 12-month mark and the three-year mark. At the zero-month mark—that is, in last June—it said we needed an immediate decision on a clean energy target. That was because we needed to get the investment flowing on the capacity we need to prop up the system after four years of neglect. The plug was pulled on the investment flow that was happening prior to that.
The benefits of that investment flow land principally in regional Australia. This was another highlight in the Finkel review. The benefit of distributed energy resources offered a huge opportunity for rural and regional areas. We could save $16 billion on transmission costs. It also highlighted that there would be $400 of savings per year for rural and regional businesses and for domestic users of electricity—this is in the Finkel review. I'm not making this up. You wanted me to cite specifics; I'm citing them. Just read your own report.
The Finkel review highlighted the benefits from the point of view of costs for consumers, but we also know about the potential economic benefits. The real projection of jobs for Adani is vastly overshadowed by the potential jobs in renewable energy for rural and regional Australia. If you want to see specifics on that, I point you to the Climate Institute's study on the potential job and economic benefits for rural and regional Australia of investment in renewable energy in particular. They said it would create something like 34,000 new jobs by 2030. But there are also the benefits to our farmers. The Carbon Farming Initiative—which was part of our other policy back in 2013—was going to provide enormous benefits to farmers from activities like getting brokerage on reforestation or partial reforestation of their properties, which they could have traded in, and we were setting up a regime to approve methodologies on other opportunities in boosting farm economy.
We also know from the recent ANU study that there are up to 22,000 sites suitable for pumped hydro across rural and regional Australia. There are at least 8,600 sites in New South Wales and 1,770 sites in Queensland. These sites would provide, overwhelmingly, what we need to back up our renewable energy transition. We also hear the coalition talk about Snowy Hydro 2.0. I'll keep telling the community and the public that the coalition had nothing to do with this project. The Snowy Hydro team, under the leadership of Paul Broad, made the submission for the feasibility money in February this year, months before Malcolm Turnbull discovered it and came along and photobombed it. That money came from ARENA, a body that the coalition tried to destroy. The government provided no money for the feasibility study, which was an independent process under ARENA, and the financing for the construction—Snowy Hydro tell me—will be raised by them. It will not be provided by the government, because the business case will stand up. This project has been on the books for 30 years of development. It would have been further advanced by now if we had kept the policy framework that propped up that investment.
I'd like to begin by saying that I have reservations about the way some of this motion has been worded. A problem can come from that wording because, I think, it necessarily leads to some misrepresentations in the debate around the science of climate change and the economics of climate change, in making sure that we can properly address the issue. For starters, the motion starts with the words 'notes that the scientific consensus'. This is not a pedantic point. Science doesn't work on the basis of consensus. 'Consensus' is political language, not scientific language. I don't think using political language is a sensible way to have a dialogue and a conversation about scientific matters. In the end, the logic of science for climate change is quite straightforward. There is a natural greenhouse effect that's caused by the capturing of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases, you will get a warming effect. Humans are contributing more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, so you will get a warming effect. Once you go beyond the fundamental physics of it, it becomes much more speculative in terms of modelling and different trajectories. When you talk about using the political language of consensus, you actually hamper the discussion and the debate and not in a constructive way.
The second point that I raise is a concern with (1)(c), which talks about the role of renewable energy. It says:
renewable energy, when combined with storage, is the most economical method of creating new and reliable power ...
That is a political statement as well. It actually doesn't reflect market practice. In some circumstances, that can be right; in lots of other circumstances, it can't, whether it's centralised or decentralised. The heart of this motion, which is designed to do nothing more than support the political objectives of the opposition, is fundamentally flawed. I want to make it clear: in some circumstances, renewable energy with battery storage can be economical and competitive and beat all other alternatives, but that isn't universally the case. At the heart of this motion is political language and political dialogue to try to trap discussion, when we're supposed to be having a sensible discussion about how we're going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as part of a package of delivering reliable and affordable power to Australian households and, critically, to Australian businesses as well so we can continue to be internationally competitive and drive the jobs growth that this country needs. This sort of language does nothing to engender that as a process.
We're going through a transition in the energy market. Natural tension, sovereign risk and carbon risk come as a consequence of international commitments that the federal government has signed up to and as a consequence of public concerns around the environment, around what people will reasonably pay on their household bills and the expectations, particularly of people on lower incomes and fixed incomes, of reliable and affordable power. It requires a multitude of solutions to make sure we can provide the energy that is the core source of our greenhouse gas emissions in this country. To label it as solving it through renewable energy misleads and deceives the public and doesn't improve the outcomes for their lifestyle because we know full well that we will continue to rely on fossil fuels as part of our core baseload reliable energy mix. That's going to continue into the future, beyond any announcements made on energy policy in the next couple of days or even the potential of a future Labor government. We know full well that coal and particularly gas play an important part during peak periods. In addition to that, renewables have an important place.
I'm a great optimist about the role of renewable energy in the market. In fact, I wrote papers about the opportunity of renewable energy and why we have to encourage it and incentivise it, dating back to the early 2000s. In the end, this technology, as it matures, particularly with battery storage, provides the opportunity for energy generation, particularly decentralised energy generation, across our great country, harnessing the potential of the earth's natural forces. So I'm a great optimist about it, but I'm also not naive. I'm also not disconnected from reality and I say that it can serve some purposes but not others. It can't power to the volume you need for aluminium smelters and it can't be used to the extent necessary for many mining projects to extract the energy that we need for other purposes. So we have to look at the policy setting holistically, which recognises the challenge we have in delivering reliable and affordable power to Australian households and Australian industry. We also have to make sure that it's anchored in the reality of how we generate energy to deliver it to the people and set that against the backdrop of an honest discussion around the science of climate change, making sure that we're doing actions proportionate to what is appropriate for this country in the future.
I'm pleased to support the motion moved by the member for Moreton, because it is critical that this parliament and, indeed, the world act on climate change. We know that 2014, 2015 and 2016 were the hottest years on record. We know that heatwaves are starting earlier. Tragically, we know that storms, hurricanes and cyclones are becoming more frequent and intense. We know that the Great Barrier Reef has had two bleaching events over the last 18 months. We know that we've just had, as a country, the warmest winter on record; average maximum temperatures around Australia reached nearly two degrees Celsius above average. The nation also experienced our second driest June on record. Indeed, more than 260 heat and low-rainfall records were broken during the winter months. Australia's average winter temperatures have increased by around one degree Celsius since 1910. Last summer, Sydney had its hottest summer on record, with a mean temperature 2.8 degrees Celsius above average; Brisbane had its hottest summer on record, with a mean temperature 1.7 degrees above average; Canberra had its hottest summer on record, with daytime temperatures and recorded temperatures of at least 35 degrees Celsius on 18 days. Adelaide experienced its hottest Christmas Day in 70 years, at 41.3 degrees Celsius. Moree in regional New South Wales experienced 54 consecutive days of temperatures 35 degrees Celsius or above, a record for the state.
When you have all of that evidence on top of the scientists telling us that we need to act on anthropogenic climate change—climate change caused by human activity—then I find it extraordinary that you wouldn't act, even if you question all of it, under the precautionary principle, for the same reason that you take out insurance. And yet where the government's at was exemplified by the person who appears to be leading it on climate change, Tony Abbott, who went to London to argue that higher temperatures might even be beneficial because far more people die in cold snaps. It was an extraordinarily arrogant statement to make. And what the science tells us isn't that every extreme weather event—like Hurricane Katrina or the disaster in Puerto Rico or the increased number of cyclones that we've seen in North Queensland—is because of climate change. What you can say, though, is that, when you have them occurring more often, with the intensity being stronger, then there's something going on here.
That is why this motion is so important. It calls for action. It points out that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility shouldn't be used to subsidise a venture such as Adani, that that is a distortion in the market, that it is an intervention, that it is an admission that the project doesn't stack up commercially. That's what that is. We know that the future is in renewables, like the Kidston project in the old Kidston Gold mine or like the Kennedy Energy Park or like the pumped hydro I visited with the member for Kennedy. There are 537,000 solar panels in the first stage of the Kidston project—an exciting project that will produce jobs and provide 24-hour supply because of the pumped hydro. Australia's future is in renewables.
It's a pleasure to respond to this motion on climate change, because we need to dispel one of the worst entrenched myths and accept a fundamental truth. The myth of a 97 per cent consensus was widely and thoroughly debunked long ago. The figure came from a research paper so discredited that it should stand as an example for how science should not be conducted. The paper classified published research according to alleged support for anthropogenic global warming. But, when contacted, researchers confirmed their papers did not support the warming theory and were falsely classified. Associate Professor Dr Nir J Shaviv, of the Racah Institute of Physics, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said:
Nope ... it is not an accurate representation.
He also said, and this is particularly telling:
Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct.
There was once a consensus that the Earth was flat. More recently, the consensus around cholesterol and heart disease was forced to change. Many parents would know that consensus on the treatment of nose bleeds changed. When confronted with data refuting their theory, some climate scientists have failed to change that theory—beyond changing its name from global warming to climate change.
That brings me to the second point of this motion, that 'the case for real and immediate action on climate change has never been stronger'. We are told by activist scientists that we have 10 years to act to avoid catastrophic climate change. But, actually, we were being told 10 years ago that we only had 10 years to act. In 2009, Australia's then Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, infamously warned that the planet had just five years to avoid disastrous global warming. Ten years before that, we were told we had only 10 years to act to avoid catastrophic global warming. And nearly 30 years before that, we were being warned of an impending ice age.
The difference is this: when scientists in the 1970s were confronted with data that did not support their impending ice age theory, they changed their theory. The drive to protect a false theory was evident in the 'climategate' emails where scientists were advised to fudge results to ensure they complied with the acceptable way of thinking. And that is not an isolated case. Dr Judith Curry, a world-renowned and academically honoured climatologist and former chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, described how she had been the subject of attack by climate alarmists because she questioned the consensus and its use as a tool. Dr Curry says she was 'thrown out of the tribe' for suggesting climate science needed greater transparency. She said:
On balance, I don't see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming. {Humans do} influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don't think it's a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.
That balance is prohibited from the discussion while the railroaded science of alarmism is driving much of public policy around the world. The result is the false belief that, if some nations, in particular, butchered their own economy to meet the Paris agreement, everything would be all right.
Dr Curry and many others have recently pointed out the folly of staying in the Paris agreement. Even if every country met its Paris commitment, the difference would be negligible. But the economic damage would be a major setback for humanity. Two of the most highly respected economic reformers in Australia also advised pulling out of Paris last week. Keating government advisor, Fred Hilmer, and the inaugural Productivity Commission chairman, Gary Banks, advised dumping the Paris agreement and offered a sobering assessment of renewables. Professor Banks was quoted as sympathising with Australians who were 'bemused' about rising power bills amid claims of a low-cost, renewable-energy future. He offered this reminder of a fundamental truth:
The notion that there's a trade-off, that we can't have it all, that there's no free lunch, that's not been made clear to the public. In fact when you look at it, we've ruled out all the least-cost ways of transitioning to a low-emission economy … we've ruled out nuclear and essentially ruled out gas too.
It's time that we as a nation accept that climate science has been railroaded and is far from settled. It's time that we accepted that renewable energies do come at a cost, at a real cost—a cost that actually costs jobs and a cost that impacts on the poorest of Australians through rising electricity prices. If that real cost of renewables became transparent, I guarantee you one thing: that people would be demanding an exit from the Paris agreement.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
It gives me great pleasure to make a contribution to the private member's motion from the member for Dawson. I'm going to outline what the motion speaks to. There are five parts to it. The first talks about the long-term global predictions for coal usage and how that fits in with baseload power and what the alternate energies look like. The second talks about the record-high electricity prices in Queensland in January 2017 at around $14,000 a megawatt hour and the effect of that. The third speaks about the high cost of electricity in North Queensland and the effect that has had on business investment and sentiment. The fourth says that Australia has an abundance of high-quality coal. The fifth says that Australia should utilise its natural advantage.
It would be right for anyone to ask: why would a member from South-East Queensland whose electorate has no power stations and no coalmines have an interest in coal? I'm not on the coast, so I'm not a protector of the Barrier Reef, as such. But my electorate of Wright has the largest take-up in the country of solar power on constituents' roofs. I suggest that they are not installing solar panels on their roofs because they are large supporters of the green movement. To the contrary, they have them on their roofs because they are very close to being able to make ends meet and it's a way of trying to bring down pressures on the household.
I want to go to the issues in this motion that talk about North Queensland. In Queensland we all pay the same price per watt for electricity. There's a service obligation. Whether you're in Cairns or on the Gold Coast, everyone pays the same kilowatt an hour, except if you are a business and the further you are away from the power station, the more you pay. That is the part of this private member's motion that I want to speak to. I'd love to be part of an LNP state team that lobbies this government to look at some of the new HELE power station technology and set that up further to the north. Our government has an agenda to build and develop northern Australia. I remember a small community that was built some 70 years ago, and it really kicked it. It is called Gladstone. We dropped in a couple of power stations there and that place took off. Power stations need power and they need fresh water. The government has already committed to dams in Northern Queensland and northern Australia and it has given that commitment to the state government, pending their approvals of those dams.
If we could take some of the baseload demand off the south-east corner by building some power stations, or at least one, and get the ball rolling in the north, the key would be high-efficiency, low-emission technology. We've got the coal up there. We've got the natural resources. We've got a labour force. We have Collinsville, Moranbah, Tieri and Middlemount—all places where you could buy the entire street for a tuppence if you were looking for cheap real estate. These are towns and communities that have flourished off the back of 150 years of a resources sector boom, and I don't think we'll see that again.
Coal continues to be the backbone of global electricity production and it makes up about 40 per cent of global electricity input. The coal industry in Australia is the second-largest export earner and was valued at around $40 million last year, with coalmining contributing 1.2 per cent of Australia's GDP. Coal is a major driver of economic activity and job creation. Around 44,000 people are employed in coalmining, with the mining sector as a whole employing around 228,000. If I do have coalminers, they are fly in, fly out. The biggest contributor to GDP in my electorate is agriculture, without a doubt. But if we can build a power station, a HELE coal-fired power station, it would provide energy security for my electorate into the future. I commend the motion to the House.
The coal industry in Australia has a very bright future, and that will remain the case for many decades to come. Our coking coal will remain in heavy demand amongst the Asian countries that are making their way out of developing status, and our steaming coal will continue to displace dirtier coal produced in other countries.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 19:00 to 19:21
I was talking about the very bright future of Australia's coalmining industry, both in coking coal and steaming coal. It's a critical sector to the Australian economy. In my region alone, in the Hunter, it's worth around $15 billion to the regional economy. It employs, directly and indirectly, around 90,000 people. I don't need people to lecture me about the importance of the coalmining industry. I invite them to come to my region, to drive on the roads and see the traffic caused by the sector; to walk into any pub or supermarket and identify the high-vis work gear everywhere you go; to go to the local kids' footy and see that the sponsorship for the football jumpers comes from the coalmining industry; or to go to the Cancer Council's office in Singleton to learn that there wouldn't be a Cancer Council office in Singleton without the support and sponsorship of the coalmining industry. It's very important in my part of the world.
The problem with this motion is it's not really about coal generation; it's about the National Party versus One Nation. This is about the concern of the member for Dawson and others in Central and North Queensland about the creep of One Nation into their electorates. The member for Dawson—'Here we go; we'll build a coal-fired generator in North Queensland. That'll save my seat in Dawson, surely.' Well, it's a little bit more complicated than that, I suggest. The member for Dawson hasn't identified who is going to build this coal-fired generator. He hasn't identified who is going to fund this coal-fired generator. He hasn't told us whether it's going to be a high-efficiency, low-emissions generator or a standard coal generator. He hasn't talked about capture and storage. We're just magically going to have a new coal-fired generator in North Queensland.
We know that what this really produces is false hope for people. It's simply designed to win the National Party votes in Central and North Queensland. While we're on the subject of false hope, let's look at the most recent example in my own electorate, Liddell power station—a generator that is now 45 years old. It was set to close in five years time, and one day the Prime Minister wakes up with an idea: he's going to extend it another five years; he's going to insist that AGL extend it another five years. That was an argument that lasted two days. The word 'Liddell' dare not ever leave the lips of the Prime Minister or his energy minister any longer, because they were found out. They duped the people of the Hunter region. They led those power generator workers at Liddell to believe that they could extend their workforce for another five years, and it was never, ever true. What we need in this country is an energy mix. Many of our coal-fired generators, thankfully, will be with us for many years to come—for example, Bayswater, in my electorate, across the road from Liddell, will hopefully be open for at least another 15 years. But as time moves on, investment will cease to go to coal-fired generators. The member for Dawson hasn't identified an investor, because he knows there are no investors. We certainly won't get investors in coal-fired generators while we don't have a mechanism for pricing carbon. This is why we've had an investment drought for five years. Ever since the member for Warringah promised to deconstruct our carbon architecture, investment has dried up. That drought continues. Until the member for Dawson and others get on board and join us in a bipartisan approach to the pricing of carbon, we won't get investment flowing back into any form of generation in this country. Without further investment in generation in this country, we will continue to have rising prices and we will continue to see reliability undermined. And the losers under that scenario are, of course, Australian people, generally, in their homes, but of course Australian industry, as well, in particular our manufacturing sector.
Queensland's high energy prices are a huge issue in my electorate of Fisher, as they are in many other electorates around the country and, in particular, in the state of Queensland. The Sunshine Coast is known for its tourism and hospitality industries, but we also already have an established and growing base of high-tech and traditional manufacturing businesses on the Sunshine Coast. These include organisations and businesses like HeliMods and Eniquest, Australian Off Road, Ocean Craft and even a company called My Teddy.
Growing industry is critical to our region's future. It's critical to its economic success, which is why I've been working so hard to develop the Fisher defence industry initiative. This manufacturing on the coast will not grow and provide us with the jobs of the future unless we have reliable, secure and affordable power. Even our traditional industries of tourism and hospitality need affordable power to keep the lights on and the ovens running. Profit margins in these businesses are often low and income is seasonal. Many hospitality businesses are doing it tough. Queensland's astronomical energy prices are driving some business proprietors over the edge.
We must not and will not pursue any emission reduction policy at the expense of security, reliability or affordability of the electricity supplied to Australian households and businesses. As we honour our international agreements, we must also put Australian jobs and consumers first. Australia's emissions per capita and per unit of GDP are currently at their lowest levels in 27 years. Australia is on track to beat its 2020 target of five per cent below 2000 levels by 224 million tonnes. This is better than the 755 million tonnes by which Labor was estimated in 2012 to fall short.
Renewable energy is a part of the problem. However, renewable energy and the latest generation of clean coal technology must work together to deliver secure and affordable power while meeting our emission reduction commitments. The Australian power generation technology report, published in November 2005, concluded that new efficient coal generation is one of the lowest-cost options for maintaining secure and reliable baseload power in Australia. If Australia's current fleet of coal-fired power stations were replaced with ultrasupercritical coal-fired power plant technology available today, total coal-fired emissions would be 21 to 27 per cent lower than what they are now. If replaced by the next generation of ultrasupercritical coal-fired power, advanced ultrasupercritical generation emissions would likely be reduced by up to 34 per cent.
If integrated with carbon capture and storage technology, coal-fired power generation, including high-efficiency, low-emission plants, can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 90 per cent. While the development of carbon capture and storage technology was slow to begin with, its development time frames are now comparable with renewables. As occurred with renewables, the cost of CCS is also expected to fall as more research and development and deployment are rolled out. The government is already investing to help that process along. This includes projects such as the Gorgon Carbon Dioxide Injection Project and CarbonNet in Victoria.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting .
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 :30