I wish to make a brief report to the House on the 24th Conference of Speakers and Presiding Officers of the Commonwealth in the Seychelles between 8 and 11 January this year, which I attended with the Clerk. Held every two years, CSPOC, as it's known, is a valuable opportunity to meet and discuss issues of shared interest with over 50 presiding officers from the national parliaments of Commonwealth member states.
The agenda for this year's conference included keynote addresses on strengthening parliamentary democracy, the use of technology to support members and house business, strengthening parliamentary research capacity and emerging security issues for parliamentarians. The keynotes were followed by useful workshop discussions, including one led by me on security. It was most interesting to hear from Commonwealth colleagues about security issues they're facing in their parliaments and the steps they're taking to address them.
I also met with the Speaker of the National Assembly of Mauritius to discuss strengthening links between our national parliaments and with Australians living in the Seychelles who assist our High Commission in Mauritius with consular matters on a voluntary basis. I visited the Bel Ombre school, a primary school that's twinned with the Nerang State School on the Gold Coast for the Commonwealth Games.
Following CSPOC, I travelled to Mauritius for a three-day visit marking the 50th anniversary of Mauritian independence, which falls this year. Mauritius will celebrate its national day in this special anniversary year on 12 March, next Monday week.
It's a pleasure to welcome the Mauritian High Commissioner to Australia, Her Excellency Ms Christelle Sohun, to the chamber today and also the foreign minister, who's here to meet with her. My visit to Mauritius was the first by an Australian Speaker. Our countries enjoy a longstanding, warm relationship based on shared values, democracy, the rule of law and an interest in developing commercial ties. Australia's the home to a large Mauritian diaspora of over 2,000 students. Two-way trade between Australia and Mauritius stood at more than $400 million last year, and over 100 Australian companies are operating there.
Whilst in Mauritius I was delighted to have the opportunity to meet both the President and the Prime Minister, who spoke warmly of the relationship between our two countries. I also visited the Dukesbridge preparatory school, founded by Australian Ms Shannon Briggs and her Mauritian husband, and the school is also twinned with a school on the Gold Coast in the lead-up to the Commonwealth Games. I also had the pleasure to meet with the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly and the chair and two members of their Public Accounts Committee to discuss the work of their committee and ours, and attended a high-level business round table organised by the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
I was also pleased to meet with Mauritian based representatives of the Indian Ocean Rim Association and the Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub to discuss issues relating to environmental sustainability initiatives and the ocean economy. I also met with the vice-chancellor of the University of Mauritius and gave a presentation to staff and students on democracy and the role of the Speaker, after which I attended the reception hosted by the Australian high commissioner to celebrate Australian-Mauritian links.
I also paid my respects at the grave of naval bandsman Arnold Partington, an Australian serviceman who died during World War II and is buried in the Commonwealth war graves section of Phoenix Cemetery, after which we toured a world heritage site, a museum commemorating the arrival of indentured labourers on Mauritius during the 19th century. I then met with representatives of Austral Fisheries, an innovative Australian company specialising in sustainable fishing operating out of Port Louis. We then visited a women's halfway home outside Port Louis, operated by African NGO Gender Links, and presented a cheque equivalent to over A$14,000 raised by local supporters, including the Australian High Commission.
Your Excellency, please accept the congratulations of the House and convey our best wishes to the government and people of Mauritius on this significant anniversary. We look forward to further strengthening our parliament-to-parliament links as we move towards the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Mauritius. I'm pleased the Minister for Foreign Affairs is here to meet with you in a minute or so. While she's here, I also wish to record my appreciation to the Australian High Commissioner to Mauritius, Ms Jenny Dee, and her staff for their work in developing the program for the visit and for their very able assistance while I was there. Foreign Minister, Jenny and her team did a fantastic job and made the visit the success it was. I thank the House, and I thank the foreign minister for coming here this morning for this statement.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I present a corrigendum to the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Energy entitled Powering our future: inquiry into modernising Australia's electricity grid, together with the minutes of proceedings.
As required by resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 21 June 2017 to 27 February 2018.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing And Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017. Homelessness is a destructive and growing social and economic problem. It is unacceptable that in a country of wealth and opportunity such as ours many of our fellow Australians have nowhere to call home. Having an affordable, secure and appropriate home with reasonable access to services is essential to financial, social and emotional wellbeing.
I've spoken often in this place about the damaging effects of growing inequality in our communities. More than 74,000 Tasmanians live below the poverty line. As housing costs rise, low-income Tasmanians find it increasingly difficult to access affordable housing. Lack of affordability is a major cause of homelessness and a barrier to pathways out of homelessness. There is no greater example of inequality than people having to sleep on the streets, to couch surf, or live in overcrowded and unacceptable housing conditions, whilst others live in unimaginable luxury and privilege.
The causes of homelessness are varied: lack of affordable housing, loss of employment, family breakdown and domestic violence, mental health issues, substance abuse, and transition from care or custody. These are all potential reasons why a person might find themselves without suitable accommodation. On any given night in Tasmania, for example, there are approximately 1,500 people experiencing homelessness. This could mean sleeping rough, couch surfing, spending time in supported accommodation or making do in other dwellings like a car or a tent. Indeed, in the last two weeks it's been brought to the attention of my office that within 100 metres of my electorate office there are people sleeping homeless in one of the laneways within the CBD of Launceston.
Young people and children are the fastest growing cohort of homeless people. Thirty-three per cent of all people seeking housing support are under 24 years old. This is of particular concern, because we know that children who experience homelessness have an increased risk of becoming homeless in later life. We are now in the shameful situation where we are seeing third-generation homelessness in Australia. This is the result of a failure to invest long-term in people for whom housing is unaffordable and inadequate, and who are at risk of homelessness.
According to Shelter Tasmania, in the 2015-16 financial year homelessness services in Tasmania assisted 7,859 individuals, an increase of 19 per cent over the previous two years. Even more concerning, there was a 20 per cent increase in unassisted requests in the same year. Currently, on an average day in Tasmania, around 18 requests for housing assistance cannot be addressed because of a lack of available accommodation.
This is not to downplay the critical work being done by support services providing social housing and crisis accommodation. In northern Tasmania, there are several organisations working tirelessly to support people experiencing homelessness and those who are at risk of becoming homeless. For example, a small community organisation called Launceston Feeding The Homeless is a volunteer-run group set up by local woman Kirsten Ritchie. Anyone who is experiencing homelessness or is in need of a decent meal is welcome to attend their daily barbeque, which is held at a local park. The group also provides basic necessities such as swags, blankets, clothing and toiletries to those who are in need.
I have also worked closely recently with Karinya Young Women's Service, a specialist service based in Launceston. That service recognises that homelessness is not only not having a home; it's also when you don't have a safe home to go to. Karinya provides short-term crisis accommodation, meeting the need for safe, confidential accommodation for young women in the Launceston and Greater Northern Tasmanian region. I must also recognise the work of organisations such as City Mission, St Vincent de Paul, Colony 47, Anglicare and others.
I know from many conversations with constituents that the demands for these services are ever increasing and resources are often stretched to capacity. Of course, this is not by any means a problem confined to Tasmania. Recent figures indicate there are approximately 100,000 Australians experiencing homelessness on any given night. A further 394,000 Australian households currently reside in social housing and around 288,000 Australians access specialist homelessness support services every year—not to mention that pressure on housing affordability and markets means that, for many Australians, the dreams of ever owning a home would likely never become a reality.
The legislation that we have before us today represents the government's response to this critical issue of housing and homelessness in Australia. This bill seeks to legislate aspects of the proposed new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, the NHHA, as announced in the 2017 budget. The agreement combines the National Affordable Housing Agreement and the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness into a single agreement from 1 July 2018. Under the new agreement, a total of $4.6 billion over three years from financial year 2018-19 is provided. Of this funding, there is slightly more than $1.4 billion a year for housing related purposes, provision from the ongoing funding in the budget for the National Affordable Housing Agreement. There is also $375.3 million to be provided over the forward estimates to fund ongoing homelessness services. This funding, which is indexed, is intended to be matched dollar for dollar by state and territory governments. The matching fund requirement is sought to be legislated in this bill.
At this point, I might note that this bill was introduced last year, on Wednesday, 25 October. This was a full two days before state treasurers and housing ministers were supposed to meet with their federal counterparts to negotiate the contents of the agreement. Treasury has since confirmed that states and territories were not consulted about whether the tied funding arrangements which are provided for in this bill would be legislated. Neither did they receive legislation prior to its introduction into parliament. It speaks volumes as to the priorities of this government that they would seek to bring to this House a bill for a national agreement on housing and homelessness before any deal had state and territory approval. It is, in my view, pure arrogance that those opposite think that this is the way to negotiate with states and territories on national reform in this critical area. For such a critical matter, you'd think that the government could at least get this right. Rather, all we have is another example of the chaotic and dysfunctional way in which this government operates.
The government announced its intention to negotiate a new NHHA as part of its 2017-18 budget measures. Those opposite talked up the measures as a comprehensive plan to improve housing affordability, although it soon became abundantly clear that that was simply not the case. Mr John Daley, CEO of the Grattan Institute and an acknowledged expert in the field of housing policy, has said that he could not see any reason why this budget would make any discernible difference to housing affordability or to the ability of a number of young people to buy a house.
The organisation Homelessness Australia noted the budget was 'not fair' because it failed to fix a broken housing system—a system that encourages investors to own more than one house, while 105,000 Australians haven't any home. Mission Australia quite correctly pointed out that the budget contained insufficient assistance for people in rental stress who remain one step away from homelessness, with rents increasingly unaffordable for young and old Australians alike, with those on Newstart and the age pension struggling to find a home within their means. Richard Holden, a professor of economics and a fellow at the University of New South Wales, summed it up perfectly, saying that the housing measures in the budget involve 'not much more than tinkering' by the government, with the 'biggest disappointment' being the total absence of any measure to address negative gearing and capital gains tax exemptions for rental properties.
It is almost universally agreed that any credible national housing affordability plan must include reform of negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts. During the inquiry into this bill by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, the issue of tax reform came up time and time again as being absolutely essential. Peter Windsor, the executive director of the Community Housing Industry Association, told the committee:
… as a point of principle I'd say that we would think that that's capital gains tax and negative gearing distributions should equally benefit the whole of the community, not just those on high incomes, or those who are in a position to accumulate wealth through property.
Mr Adrian Pisarski on behalf of National Shelter made similar comments, bringing to the attention of the committee the disparity between the effective subsidy of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discounts provided to private market rental housing and the depth of subsidies provided to social housing. He also emphasised the very different standards of accountability and transparency the government demands from each sector, saying:
There is a double standard for the Commonwealth where it is perfectly prepared to hold the states accountable for a billion dollars' worth of spending but for some—I think the figure is $14 billion or $17 billion worth of tax expenditure that goes to support the private rental market—there is no accountability—none at all.
In fact, the Senate inquiry into this bill highlighted several issues with the legislation and the government's housing strategy more generally. These were discussed in some detail in the additional comments by the Labor senators in the committee's report. Firstly, there is a concern from this side of the House that the input controls placed on the states and territories as a condition of funding will not necessarily contribute to improved performance against housing and homelessness outcomes under the NHHA. Rather, a more effective way to improve outcomes would be to build mechanisms into the agreement to provide a clear basis for outcomes.
As I indicated in my outline at the commencement of this speech, the issue of housing and homelessness is something which will not go away without direct, concrete action. That means that this government needs to put before this House legislation which deals with the issue of homelessness and housing affordability in a proper strategic manner. Unfortunately the government has done nothing which fulfils that objective. What it has put forward are a series of budgetary measures which have been extensively criticised by the community organisations that operate in this field.
This is something which affects people from across society. Every community in Australia is beset by the scourge of homelessness. It is simply not good enough that within 100 metres of my electorate office in a regional town like Launceston in northern Tasmania in a wealthy First World country like Australia that we have people sleeping rough. We have people sleeping rough in every town and every major city in this nation. It is simply not good enough that we fail to adequately resource the many organisations that are in a position to provide proper shelter for our homeless people.
We know the evidence shows that people who are suffering homelessness are more likely to present at our public hospitals. They are more likely to have multiple issues with mental health and poor physical health when they attend the emergency departments of our hospitals. We need to do more than simply sit by. We need to invest in the future of these Australians that are presently either experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. In my speech, I also made reference to the people that are affected by domestic violence. In closing, I would urge this government to put more money into addressing the scourge of domestic violence because people that need to leave the safety of their own home because they are fleeing from domestic violence need to have safe housing accommodation.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill of 2017. I want to make a quick note about the last comment of the last speaker before I get into this. Whilst I agree we do need housing for women who are victims of domestic violence, I actually believe it should be the other way around: rather than the victim having to leave the home, there should be better state laws to move the person who's doing the victimising to move out of the home. So there is a bit of flip on that circumstance, and that's a state government thing and they need to get their act together.
The government is introducing a new housing and homelessness agreement with state and territory governments to increase the supply of new homes and improve outcomes for all Australians across the housing spectrum, particularly those most in need, those who will find it hardest to buy their own home, those who are looking at being turfed out of a rental home. The 2016 COAG report on performance confirmed that three of the four benchmarks that had been originally set and were being adopted by the National Affordable Housing Agreement had not been achieved despite the government providing the states with over $9 billion since 2009. From that period up until 2016, growth in the size of social housing stock didn't change and the numbers on the waiting lists have actually increased. This causes any commonsense politician to question why there has been no change in the number of houses built or why there isn't a reduced number of people on the waiting list.
Clearly, there is a need to change the foundation stones of this particular funding. The government aims to deliver more affordable housing and build more homes—unlike the previous funding model, where only one of those four benchmarks was actually achieved. Originally, there was an expectation of a 10 per cent reduction in the proportion of low-income renter households who experienced rental stress. There is no evidence that that progress has been made. The trend actually shows an increase of more than seven per cent of people who are experiencing rental stress. There was supposed to have been a seven per cent reduction in homelessness, but there has been a 17.3 per cent increase. There was supposed to have been a 10 per cent increase in the proportion of Indigenous Australians who own their own home. There is no evidence of any increase there. The one benchmark that is on track for a positive outcome is the 20 per cent reduction in the proportion of Indigenous households living in overcrowded conditions.
The new agreement makes sure the funding level is maintained and ongoing. It is being kept at the current funding level of over $1.3 billion per year, provided under the National Affordable Housing Specific Purpose Payment—which clearly didn't work; it only met one target out of four. The new national agreement will have a requirement for concrete outcomes to build more homes, and make sure there are housing outcomes across the entire spectrum. It will include specific funding for homelessness and provide greater certainty to providers on the front line of those who provide homelessness services directly to those people. I know that those in my community who have been working so hard with this group of people will be very welcoming of that comment, that statement, that connection so that they have got funding that's guaranteed all the time.
This bill reforms housing related payments to the states and territories by establishing a requirement for greater accountability and transparency for the Commonwealth funding received by the states and territories. In the end, the states and territories are responsible to every tax-paying Australian to make sure they get the best bang for their buck when they are building these houses for the people who need them most and for trying to keep the homeless off the streets.
These amendments provide for certainty and clarity around the conditions for payments in relation to the primary and supplementary housing agreements. They reflect concerns raised by stakeholders, including all the states and territories. None of the amendments change the original intent or effect of the legislation. The amendments to the National Housing and Homeless Agreement will allow the states and territories to receive funding provided they are party to the agreement for that financial year, and allow some administrative flexibility when there are genuine reasons for the states not meeting the strict requirements for payments. An example might be where a website outage means the state's strategy is not publicly available. On all other matters, they should be accountable.
It will also clarify the expectation that state housing strategies must not only contribute to meeting the aims but wholly meet any housing supply to meet the projected demand. We know we are going to have an increasing demand. We know we need to meet this. We know that there are people out there living rough, and we need to address it. It's not just the federal government who should be parking their energy here. The states and territories are equally responsible, and so they should be meeting that demand.
Currently, funding is provided under the Transitional National Partnership Agreement on Homeless, and this is due to cease on 30 June this year. Last year, when the bill was introduced, the states and territories raised concerns about some of the applications. The amendments that are provided here add additional certainty and clarity concerning the conditions for payments in relation to the primary and supplementary housing agreements.
The legislation enables payments to be made to the states and territories under the conditions set out in the bill, and the agreement will move the states and territories to a tied funding agreement, which is a source of sensitivity, as funding under the previous situation was not tied. Personally, I can't fault this aspect of tied funding. In fact, it was that statement alone that made me feel so strongly about this legislation. We must have financial responsibility from the states and territories to account for the Australian taxpayers' dollars which are being invested in this field. To have $9 billion invested over a seven-year period and very little to show for it is pathetic. So if we actually get some tied funding here which says to the states and territories, 'We're going to give you this much, and we expect you to do this, this, this, this and this, and we expect outcomes from you; if you don't get your act together, you're not going to get any more taxpayer dollars,' to me that is absolutely essential. Too often the federal government disburses taxpayer dollars to the states and territories and there is little or no real accountability.
The publication of housing and homelessness strategies will increase public awareness and confidence that all levels of government are making a sincere effort to help solve these problems. The establishment of a single new agreement will provide ongoing and indexed funding. This will give certainty about the funding for many frontline homeless service providers, as I said before, and they need that. They need to know that they've got a certain amount of dollars coming in every month and every year so they can do projected ideas and budgets, get the right staff in, get the right volunteers organised and provide good service.
A series of roundtables have been held with the key stakeholders, including these very same homelessness services, plus community housing providers, plus housing industry representatives and also academics. I do hope they also have some of the people who are the very aim of this project, who are those who don't have a roof over their head at this moment. Too often, I've been told that a person on the street can't be put into a single-bedroom unit because they've got too many other things going on, or that a young mum who has three children and is living rough in the car can't have the three-bedroom house that's vacant three doors down from my office because each one of those children, according to the rules, must have their own bedroom. What that mother wouldn't give to have that house! She's quite happy to put double bunks in one of those bedrooms.
We need to be realistic and have common sense. There needs to be a really good solution strategy for this, because too often I have people coming into my office who need fuel for their car so that they can go from place to place. They can't get into a house because the rules say there are not enough bedrooms, but all they want is a roof over their head and security. I spoke to two girls who were camping up at the showground. One of them had an opportunity to get into the backyard of another person's house and live in their garage, which had been made into a makeshift flat. She couldn't go because she had a dog. So she was living rough up at the showground.
Unfortunately, women in those circumstances are more vulnerable than they are in any other space or place. These girls were both victims of domestic violence. They both had a roof over their head and the perpetrator was still living in the house! For goodness sake, states and territories, get your act together. Stop victimising the victim and making it worse for her. Leave her in the home and move the perpetrator out of the house. That's all part of the problem of homelessness. We need to get our act together. This is a good foundation and a great start—and tied funding is absolutely essential.
You might remember the lead-up to the 2017 budget last year when the newspapers were trumpeting that housing was going to be the centrepiece of the budget, that the Treasurer was going to stun us with initiatives and that we were going to finally deal with the housing crisis that is enveloping the nation. That went on for a week or two until obviously something happened in the cabinet and they had one of their little scrag fights and they realised that they actually weren't prepared to do any serious reform and deal with the demand side of the equation—which, as we know, is the key issue within the federal government's province. And then there was nothing. Well, actually, not nothing; there was a series of tiny little measures which really won't do very much at all to address the problem—it certainly wasn't a budget centrepiece—and this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017, is one of those.
I think the government's political strategy or parliamentary strategy—or maybe both—seems to be that, if you scatter around the Notice Paper enough teeny-tiny bills with 'housing' in the title, maybe people will think that you're doing something about housing. This is one of those bills. You can tell what they really want to talk about and what they just hope will kind of disappear and not get remarked upon by the number of speakers listed. So we've had in the last half hour the circus of having no government speakers and then we were served up one honourable muppet to read out some stuff that the minister's office has given them.
Deputy Speaker, that was unparliamentary.
Maybe frivolous.
To call a colleague a muppet is unparliamentary.
That word has been used before, and I actually questioned it myself and the Speaker let that through. So I will follow the Speaker's ruling, and the member for Bruce will continue.
Okay; I will check that.
It is not unparliamentary to call someone a muppet when you get up and read stuff that you clearly don't understand. But that follows on from the member for Gilmore's fine contribution in the Federation Chamber when she told us all that it's an outrage that universities have a surplus and that's why we need to cut their funding. It obviously escaped her at that time that the point of a surplus for a university is to use it to build capital. So we're not going to get any new stuff at universities—but, anyway, that's another digression.
This bill seeks to legislate bits of the proposed new national housing agreement. It combines the previous NAHA and the NPA. It's a mix of housing related funding and a little bit for homelessness. The payment of the dollars is to be in accordance with the primary agreement. That sounds fine, except that it's not actually going to do anything to address the housing crisis in Australia. We are still a nation that is amongst the least affordable in the entire world to buy or rent a house in our major capital cities. You only need to talk to any young people trying to get into the housing market—I was out at university o-weeks in the last couple of weeks—to know that young people despair at their prospects of ever cracking into the housing market.
It was only a few decades ago that you used to need about four to five times average weekly earnings to buy a medium house. That's was a fairly constant feature. But over the last couple of decades we've seen that blow out in Melbourne and Sydney, in particular, where you need 10 to 11 times average weekly earnings to have a crack at getting into the housing market. Nothing that the government are doing is addressing those fundamental issues. They're fiddling around the edges. They have had three policies. We had the 'get rich parents' policy of the Prime Minister. Then we had the Treasurer's policy of 'get a well-paying job'. And then we had the former Deputy Prime Minister's policy of 'get rich mates'. That will get you a house in Armidale, apparently. None of that is going to deal with the fact that we have 195,000 people on the social housing waiting list across Australia.
We have a homelessness crisis. There were 288,000 people who presented in 2017 to homelessness services across the country, and we are seeing a growing crisis with older woman in particular. As the Grattan Institute said in relation to this bill, 'You would need an electron microscope to discern any possible impact that this bill may actually have.' So let's be clear: all the government are doing is reorganising a bunch of agreements with states and territories, with no few funding, to a bunch of different agreements. That's it. It's administrative change; it's not policy and it's not actually dealing with the housing crisis. They are reorganising the administrative agreements.
No single level of government in this country can alone deal with housing. They can't. The federal government controls a range of the levers, particularly in relation to demand: the tax settings, migration settings and so on. The state governments have primary responsibility for supply, as in making sure enough new houses are built to meet demand. Local governments have a key role in that, particularly with planning and development approvals and so on. You would think that, if you recognised the reality of our system of government, you'd sit down with the states and territories in a cooperative fashion and work this out.
Instead, with this government we have no minister for housing. There is no minister for housing whatsoever. You can't find one. There's not a single minister sitting on that side or in the Senate with 'housing' in their title. They have no strategy and no plan. We heard the previous speaker try to explain to us that this bill requires the states, in return for any money, to have a strategy and a plan. That's okay, except that it's one-sided. There's no requirement on the Commonwealth to have a strategy or a plan for housing, but they're going to turn up and say to the states, 'You've got to have a strategy and a plan,' when all the big levers sit with the Commonwealth, as we know.
We also heard the member for Bass remind us that this bill was introduced on 25 October, two days before they even sat down with the states and territories to try to negotiate some changes. I think the government is making a reasonable point. We should always expect the best value for taxpayer dollars—there's no disagreement there—but, if there are issues, as COAG identified, with the previous performance framework under the Rudd government's agreements then sit down, work it out and improve them. Instead, you're putting all your effort into reorganising the agreements, scrapping some and putting others in place. It doesn't actually deal with the problem.
Reading the Senate inquiry and the report is instructive. It's another example of how completely out of touch and loony the Turnbull government is when it comes to policy development. They're in another universe. Treasury officers celebrated 'the spirit of cooperation and constructiveness' in the Senate inquiry transcript surrounding their negotiation with the states regarding the bill, yet the states themselves are extremely unsupportive of the bill. In fact, the state treasurers have actually now given up and set up a board of treasurers that doesn't include the Commonwealth Treasurer to come up with a housing plan. They haven't even got the Commonwealth at the table. I'd hate to see what the government thinks is a hostile environment.
The states also suggest that the broadened scope of the legislation threatens to spread a limited amount of funding across too many expenses, which threatens crucial services on top of the uncertainty that's already making the non-government organisations so uneasy in the first place. The Liberal Party says that the bill will:
promote better outcomes for the Commonwealth's housing and homelessness funding … without jeopardising the funding of crucial services …
That's what the minister told us in his second reading speech. But if you actually talk to the non-government organisations—the community organisations all around the country who every hour of every day are actually dealing with the homelessness crisis—they say that all this bill will do is create obstacles. It doesn't create any solutions. It amounts to 'moving the deckchairs around on our Titanic'. It represents 'a progressive, protracted diminution of effort'. When you look at the funding outlook under these new agreements, the Commonwealth is going to be putting less effort into homelessness, despite the growing crisis.
I commend the Andrews Labor government, who have at least recognised that they can't wait around for the Commonwealth to come up with a grown-up plan, to get a minister or to get a strategy. They announced in mid-January—it was a fantastic kick-off-the-year announcement in Victoria—$45 million of new money for dealing with the homelessness and rough-sleeping crisis, which includes parts of my electorate down in Dandenong in particular.
The Liberals say that their bill will secure improved outcomes. All the experts who work in the field—not the geniuses who occupy the government benches over there—say that the entire bill is premature in the absence of an urgently needed national strategy. There's no strategic vision. It's fine to introduce bills and rearrange administrative agreements, but you still don't have a plan or a strategy to deal with the housing crisis or 'the tsunami of Australians facing homelessness or insecure housing'. Again the government's perception of reality contrasts with that of the people across the nation who are actually at the coalface trying to deal with the homelessness crisis.
It's also at odds with the interests of everyday Australians who simply want to return to a time when their children and grandchildren had some hope—just some hope—of getting into the housing market without having rich parents to give them a hundred grand or two hundred grand for a deposit. That is the key point. It's one-sided. There's no coherent strategy. They're ignoring the advice of experts, and, indeed, on capital gains tax or negative gearing, as we've now learnt in the last few months, they're ignoring the advice of their own Treasury, which said, 'You really need to look at the reform of tax concessions.' They are fiddling around the edges, making some payments conditional, restructuring some payments but not actually doing anything to formulate a Commonwealth strategy.
It's an illustration of a theme that many of us have touched on before: the distinction between being in government—and being in government in here means you sit on the opposite side of the chamber, you get to be the ministers and you get the great privilege and responsibility of having the Public Service to work with and to advise you in making decisions—and actually governing, which means you actually need to look at problems and make decisions. Governing, to my mind anyway, means you get a strategy to deal with a problem. Being in government apparently just means that, like a bunch of demented bureaucrats who happen to have been elected, you rearrange the administrative agreements.
The government has also totally ignored the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, which said the federal government has to do more to work with the states in the spirit of Australian federalism. Yet the government tabled this bill without even talking to them. The Productivity Commission also recommended that the government—and this is important—not seek 'reform … through control of payments'. In fact, out of all the policy options identified, that's the least effective and the least preferred one. Yet, here we are debating a bill where that's all they're doing.
The bill will achieve nothing. It's a drop in the ocean, and I note the Grattan Institute's comment about needing an electron microscope to be able to see any impact this bill will actually have on house prices, on homelessness and on the crisis in social housing across the country. We're always being lectured by those opposite on how we apparently don't know anything about economics, so I would also make the point that it's about the basic laws of economics: supply and demand. We were told that the budget had an initiative about supply. The Commonwealth government was going to release Defence land to help boost supply. The centrepiece of this was the Maribyrnong Defence land in Melbourne. The only problem with that is that it was announced about 12 years ago, so it's not a new initiative at all. Of course, the reason it hasn't happened is that it's covered with explosives and contamination. If fully developed, at a really incredible density you might get 10,000 houses—it will probably be more like 6,000—which goes almost no meaningful way to addressing the supply issues which we're told need to be addressed in metropolitan areas, despite the fact the Victorian government has the nation's leading supply and demand forecasting by way of the Urban Development Program, where every two years they sit down with developers and councils to identify all the development sites across Melbourne. It's entirely unclear what this bill is actually going to do that's not already being done, at least in my home state of Victoria.
Finally, there are the tax concessions. You can't credibly get up now to talk about housing policy in this country without reminding the government that nothing serious will happen until they accept the fact that the levers the Commonwealth have in relation to demand go to the tax settings. We exist in a country now where, as a high-income earner—and we're well paid in here; apparently, the government thought it was not well enough, so we were the priority to get a tax cut in this budget, which says a lot about their own priorities and predilections—the most rational thing to do on a Saturday morning when you have a bit of spare cash in your pocket is to walk down the street to an auction and bid up the cost of an existing house, because you'll get a great big tax kick. On the other hand, of course, a first home buyer, a young person trying to get into the market, gets nothing. It's easier now, with the tax settings in this country, to buy your 13th property than it is to have a crack at getting your first one, and that has to change.
It's a pretty fair and simple proposition. Overwhelmingly, tens of billions of dollars of tax expenditures in negative gearing and capital gains tax exemptions go to the people who have the most. They go to the top income earners, the people who already have the most wealth and capital. Of course, your ordinary everyday Australian simply does not benefit from that. You may wonder why this is. Let's be honest. Let's be clear. When you strip back all the fine words and all the nonsensical dot points that they send the odd backbencher in to read out—cannon fodder that they are—the Liberal Party is the party of wealth and capital. That has always been its historic purpose; that is its purpose today. Those who already have wealth and capital will do well out of this government. They will get tax cuts. They will get enormous tax concessions. Multinational companies will get a tax cut. Yet nothing meaningful is being done to address the needs of everyday Australians who don't already have wealth and capital and who are simply trying to get by, get a pay rise and maybe get a tax cut—but they're not the priority under this government.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017 deals with some of our most disadvantaged people. Homelessness is a huge disadvantage for anyone. The first step to getting your life back on track—I suppose you could call it normalising whatever existence you have—is through having a place of residence where you feel safe, that you know is your abode and where know you can return to.
Very sadly, there are thousands of people around the country who currently don't have a safe haven or house to live in and call their own, or a place where they can just be themselves. In order to change this and ensure that we bring down the numbers of homeless, you really need to have a commitment to this area. You really need strong policies with a focus on getting people back on track. But it shows the lack of commitment of this government that we don't even have a housing minister to oversee something so important to Australians.
For many years we in this nation used to pride ourselves on having one of the highest levels of home ownership in the world. It was something that every young couple or every young person could look forward to—leaving school, getting a job, getting an apprenticeship or going to university and knowing that, very soon, they would be able to save a little bit of money, put it down as a deposit and buy a house. That was every Australian's dream. It wasn't that long ago when most Australians could do that. As I said, we had one of the highest levels of home ownership in the world, which shows what a great nation we are, what a great lifestyle we have—and the way that this country has been run, by governments of all persuasions.
Unfortunately, the last few years have seen a massive increase in homelessness and the inability of people to buy their first home. That's not surprising when you look at the gap that's starting to grow, and which is increasingly growing, between the haves and the have-nots. It's very sad that, in a country like Australia, we're seeing at present approximately 105,000 people around the nation who are doing it tough and sleeping rough and who are unable to say that they have the right to a house. As members of parliament and as human beings, we should be doing all that we can to assist those people.
Homelessness is a significant indicator of disadvantage in a community. In Australia, as I said, in a rather wealthy country when we compare ourselves to other nations around the world, it's not acceptable, and it shouldn't be acceptable to us in this place that we have so many people who are homeless. As I said, there are 105,000 people who are homeless. What is very sad is that out of those 105,000 there are 17,000 children who, through no fault of their own, are homeless. We know that to give a child a good foundation in life the first thing you can do is give them some regularity in their life in a place where they feel safe. As I said, it's a combination of events that have led these people to such a situation, and in most cases it is not their choice.
The rate of homelessness is approximately 49 persons for every 10,000 people, or one person for every 200 people. One person in every 200 people is homeless. Also, 42 per cent of the homeless population, nearly half, are people under the age of 25, and 25 per cent are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders—a quarter of that population. We know that homelessness is a very complex issue. Each person has a story to tell, and most of the time it is not their own fault that they are homeless. But it's nothing significant to list these horrific statistics on such an issue, as these statistics do not truly illustrate the cycle of adversity.
As a nation we must move away from the view that all of those who are homeless sleep rough on the streets. The first image you get of a homelessness person is someone sleeping on a footpath or in a park, but there can be many other types of homelessness. It can be a severely overcrowded dwelling, where, for necessity, you are living with a whole group of people because you cannot afford to get your own place. It can be supported accommodation, where you are given some sort of assistance to live in a place out of an emergency or you are given a place which is to assist you for a short time. There are boarding houses. You might be living temporarily in other households or couch surfing. We hear of people who stay with friends and then move on, because they cannot afford to put the money together for a bond or for rent, or they cannot actually find a landlord who will give them a property because of their situation, for instance, if they are unemployed, have health issues or are disabled in some way or another.
We also need to recognise that one of the biggest factors of homelessness, one of the areas that makes a lot of people homeless, is domestic violence. Domestic violence and a lack of affordable housing are the two largest contributing factors to homelessness. We need to put more resources into domestic violence. As I said, another one of the largest factors of homelessness in Australia is a shortage of housing for people on low to moderate incomes. We are currently seeing the lowest wage growth in our history. Big multinationals and big businesses are growing in profits, yet wage growth remains at its lowest. This is a contributing factor, because if the price of housing, the price of goods, the price of energy, the price of food, the price of bills that you are paying are constantly going up and your wage is not, that will contribute in a big way to whether or not you pay your rent, you pay your mortgage, or you put a deposit together to buy a house. It's no surprise that on the other side we see a government that doesn't want to tackle penalty rates. In fact, they put up their hands to not support the opposition in ensuring that we give weekend workers their penalty rates. This is a government that doesn't want to deal with low-income earners through low wage growth but, at the same time, it wants to give away a $65 billion tax cut to the top end of town—a $65 billion tax cut—when we have over 100,000 people who are currently homeless.
We also have a government that is hell-bent on seeing housing as an asset, not an abode, not a place you live in, not a place that is your own, but as an asset. We give away millions of dollars of taxpayers' money towards negative gearing. As the member for Bruce said, it is not uncommon to see very wealthy people turn up at auctions as a pastime on Saturday mornings and bid just on the off-chance that they might get a bargain or buy their second, third or fourth property. We know that, out of all the homes that are currently being sold in the market, only one out of seven goes to a first home owner, leaving the other six to people who are buying their third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, 10th, 15th, 20th or 100th home, with a massive tax break for doing so. This pushes prices up on houses and makes it less affordable for those who are putting together a deposit and struggling to buy their first home for the family. As I said, it wasn't that long ago when we had the highest rate of home ownership in the world, and it is sad to see us spiralling downwards. This is a crisis. It is a shame that the government has overseen the lowest rate of home ownership in six decades. We have the lowest rate of home ownership in 60 years. As I said, one out of seven houses being sold every week is to a first home buyer—only one goes to a first home owner—and the other six go to someone who is buying maybe their 10th or 15th house, with a massive tax break of negative gearing to go with it.
The reality is that the government solution to housing affordability is one of two things, as we've heard previous Treasurers say in this place: get your rich parents to help you, if they can afford it, or get your rich mates to give you a job or whatever. This is just unacceptable. As I said, the reason for this is that on the other side a house is seen as an asset. On our side it's seen as a place to live. This is arrogance that, as I said, reduces the likelihood of young people and families in Australia ever owning their own home. That is very sad.
As I said, we shouldn't see houses as assets. Houses are a place for people to live, and we should be doing all that we can, through policies and through good forward thinking, to ensure that, first of all, we assist those who are homeless and are doing it really rough and, second, to ensure that people have the ability to get into the housing market.
It is because the government sees houses as assets that it remains incapable of addressing the issue and is leaving hundreds of families in housing distress. The ever-increasing cost of housing also increases the problem of rental affordability, and rents are far outpacing income growth. It's the policies of this government that are actively contributing towards this wage stagnation that we see at the moment, which is a contributing factor to everything from homelessness to problems with first home ownership. As I said, we see the government continually looking after the big end of town, continually giving the $65 billion tax breaks to those big multinationals—much of which will go overseas—and putting massive tax breaks into ownership of 10th homes et cetera, while someone struggling to get into the housing market will continue to struggle because of low income, low wages and other issues that are taking place.
On this side of the House, we know that something that will go a long way for housing is reforming negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount in order to put that dream of homeownership—a dream which all Australians had for many years but which is quickly disappearing—back in the reach of families and all Australians. We need reform.
The other issue that we had during the 2016 election was that one of the ways was the construction of new homes—approximately 55,000. This would also boost the employment of people, with 25,000 new jobs per year for every 55,000 homes that are built. This is one way that governments can actually pull the levers of the economy as well, by putting money into the housing sector. You're creating jobs at the same time you're alleviating the housing shortage.
Housing affordability has never been about people who are interested in buying a home either. More than one-third of housing occupants are renters. Often they're left out of the discussion of housing affordability, and their needs need to be considered as well. If we compare it to a decade ago, renting now is much more unaffordable, for the reasons that I gave earlier, including the lowest wage growth in our history. The associated rental stress of spending more than 30 per cent of household income on rent is taking its toll on individuals. If you're earning approximately $650 a week and you're spending 30 per cent on rent—which would be a priority, one of the first things that you put money into—and then your bills, then your food and then other expenses, there's not much left to save to be able to buy your first home, if that is your dream. As I said, not that long ago that was a dream that the majority of Australians could achieve. More than half—53 per cent—of low-income households that are renting privately are experiencing rental stress. These are families that can't afford their rent.
These are all contributing factors to homelessness. Low-income earners often find themselves priced out of the housing market, as precious few properties are considered affordable. As I said, the fact that this government gives massive tax breaks to those who are buying their 20th or 30th house contributes to that.
The other area that I wanted to talk about in the last few minutes that I have is domestic violence. As I said, it's one of the biggest contributors to homelessness. Family members escaping violence is a dreadful thing, and many people have no chance to plan and save money to go into a different housing opportunity where they are safe. Usually these things happen very quickly, and you often find families—mums with kids—homeless overnight. We know that domestic violence is a massive issue here in Australia. There have been investigations and reports about the links between homelessness and domestic violence, and it's been found that 36 per cent of people who accessed homelessness services had done so because of an existing situation of domestic violence at home.
If this government wants to commit itself to doing something about homelessness, one of the first commitments they can make is to ensure that they have a housing minister. Such a minister currently does not exist.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing And Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017. Housing affordability drives growing inequality in Australia and in my community in regional New South Wales on the Central Coast. People deserve an affordable home. People deserve a secure home. They deserve a home that's close to services. All Australians have the right to a secure and affordable home throughout their lives. People also deserve a genuine chance to live near good jobs. This is essential but is out of reach for so many Australians, particularly in regional communities like mine. For too many people, the housing pressures are getting worse, not better. Australia has a housing crisis: a crisis of supply, a crisis of affordability and a crisis of suitability and sustainability.
I remember my parents telling me about their first home. My parents had been searching for a home and for a loan. Finally, my dad met with a local bank manager, and he said: 'I'm going to give you a chance. I'm retiring and I want to give a young family a start.' Not all people now have that same start. Too many don't. It is unacceptable that in a wealthy country like Australia so many Australians have nowhere to call home. There is a no greater example of increasing inequality than many Australians sleeping on the streets, couch surfing or living in overcrowded and unhygienic housing.
Before I came to this job, I had the privilege of working in Wyong Hospital. I worked in the mental health unit there for just under 10 years. I saw large numbers of people come to the mental health units who were grateful that it gave them a secure place to stay, a place where they could take a shower and a place where they knew they would have a meal. That situation shouldn't happen in Australia today. It shouldn't happen in regional communities like mine on the Central Coast. The government must do something about it.
I would like to change the direction of this speech a little and talk about an organisation that does understand homelessness, and one that has worked in my community for almost three decades. I would like to share the story of Coast Shelter. It is not-for-profit charity based on the Central Coast, and it has been working to make a difference for the most vulnerable people in our community for more than 20 years. They have refuges located across the Central Coast, and they provide homes and support for young people, men, women and families in crisis. At their Coast Community Centre in Gosford, breakfast, lunch and dinner are served to almost 150 people each day in their restaurant. I was really pleased to be able to spend a day in their kitchen with my team to help serve lunch at Christmas, when people are often most in need and feel really isolated and alone. The facility has shower and laundry facilities available, and also free legal advice from the Central Coast Community Legal Centre. Coast Shelter gives swags, sleeping bags and blankets to people sleeping rough, and helps provide for essentials such as medicines, food and fuel.
The previous speaker mentioned that family violence leads to considerable homelessness and to families in crisis. I was able to visit Coast Shelter's Rondeley Domestic Violence Program, which provides critical support for women and children fleeing family violence. I met with their program manager, Nicole, and she let me know about some of the work they are doing, and also about some of the challenges that they face and the unmet needs. On the day when I visited recently, I met with Laurene, who spoke to me about fleeing her own violent relationship only a week before. She was there with her young child. That conversation that I had with Laurene that day will stay with me. In that crisis, the one thing that Laurene said had helped her was this Rondeley program and knowing that she was now safe. Overall with the program, they have worked with over 600 women and children in the last year alone and have formed really well respected and great working relationships with local law enforcement and community groups. But they need funding to extend this work, and they need the government to back them with policies that let them do their best work and not get in the way.
In the last financial year, Coast Shelter provided 64,000 overnight beds in 10 refuges and 72 outreach properties. Around 800 men, women, young people and children were accommodated, mostly aged between 15 and 17 years. Of those, the highest number of presentations were from people experiencing family violence and family breakdown. Close to 50,000 meals were provided to people in need and more than 1,500 food hampers were donated by generous community members and businesses. Close to 400 people used their showering and laundry facilities and 105 people were able to access their no-interest loans for people in crisis, which came to a total of more than $85,000. Over 500 people were assisted with paying their medical prescriptions. As a pharmacist, I know how critical it is that people get timely and affordable access to the treatment they need. With the rising costs of energy, 302 people were helped with assistance to pay energy bills. There were 73 people provided with free legal advice and 15 swags were given to those who were sleeping rough.
Despite the generosity of the local community, and business and government support, one in five people seeking help from Coast Shelter is turned away. I am privileged to work closely with Laurie, Shayne, Charles and the team at Coast Shelter but they urgently need additional federal resources to provide housing and homelessness services in my community on the Central Coast.
Today, however, I would like to place on the record my gratitude to the chief executive officer of Coast Shelter, Laurie Maher AM, who has just this week announced that he will retire in July after 26 years in this role. Laurie has been a stalwart in our community. There is no-one who has done more locally to raise awareness of the issue of housing and homelessness and also do something practical about it. I commend him for his work and wish him all the best in his future endeavours.
Another Central Coast organisation that understands homelessness is the Shoebox Revolution, a charity that collects perishable foods, toiletries and essential items packed in shoeboxes and distributes the goods to people in need on the Central Coast. It is a labour of love for sisters Bec and Sheridan, who saw the lack of housing options contributing to the need in our community. They started off in their garage, with social media and a whole lot of energy, and set about launching this charity which has grown to have seven collection points across the Central Coast and delivered thousands of shoebox packages to local people experiencing hardship. I spent time at their family fun day in The Entrance last year marking anti-poverty week, helping to raise awareness of the causes and consequences of poverty and hardship, and encouraging people to take action to address the problems.
While this work helps to address the problems of housing affordability and homelessness in our community, it is being led and driven by volunteers at a local level. Whilst we know community led projects are the most effective, what is the government doing at a national level to help? I'm really disappointed. This government has no comprehensive housing plan. This government has consistently failed to take any meaningful action to tackle Australia's housing affordability crisis. It seems that they look at it as a number on a ledger, not a person in a home.
The government announced its intention to negotiate a new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement as part of the 2017-18 budget measures. The government described the measures as a comprehensive plan to improve housing affordability, which they thought would be well received. But there were problems. The package announced in the budget wasn't well received. It was criticised as being unlikely to make any real difference to housing affordability. And it was criticised, rightly, for failing to deliver the big-picture solutions needed to end homelessness. I would like to quote James Toomey of Mission Australia. He said:
Disappointingly, the Budget contained inadequate assistance for the many people in rental stress who remain just one step away from homelessness. Rents are becoming increasingly unaffordable for older and younger Australians alike, with those on Newstart and the age pension struggling to find a home within their means.
I work very closely with the two state Labor members, and David Mehan, the member for The Entrance, said to me recently—and it's a conversation we have had many times—that the biggest issue he deals with every day in our community is housing and homelessness, and one of the big contributors on the Central Coast is rental stress: being able to get a bond and being able to find a rental in a really competitive rental market is out of the reach of so many people.
I know I've said this before, but it has just stuck with me. I was at a mobile office in a park and I met a young family. The mum showed me a drawing that her child had done, and in the drawing was a house with a garden and a dog. They hadn't been able to keep their dog because they hadn't been able to keep their home. For this child, that had changed his life, and he was then having to start at a new school because they were in a new community—and this was something that had happened again and again. This can't continue to happen. We cannot have more young people like him whose start in life is so tough. We need to do something, and there is an urgency about it. The government doesn't seem to understand that this is urgent, that these aren't numbers on a ledger, that this isn't ticking a box to say, 'We've got a policy,' or 'We've put forward a bill.' These are real people, and this is about them having homes to live in.
I've mentioned that I worked in mental health at Wyong hospital, and one of the things we would do in our multidisciplinary teams was planning people's transition into the community when they were able to leave the hospital. I'll always remember the social worker handing a phone book to one of the patients and saying, 'You need to start calling real estate agents.' In this competitive rental market, where rents are out of many people's reach, how is someone going to be able to get well and stay well with that financial stress of not being able to leave the hospital to go to a safe and secure place to live? Much evidence provided to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee argued that the 2017-18 budget measures fall far short of a comprehensive housing strategy, and the Commonwealth lacks a credible national housing plan.
Putting that to one side, let's have a quick look at what this bill does. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 to repeal the current national specific purposes payment for housing services paid to the states and territories, and replace it with new funding arrangements under which payments to the states and territories will be contingent on their being party to primary, supplementary and designated housing agreements. The National Housing and Homelessness Agreement will provide $375 million over three years from 2018-19, maintaining the current $115 million of annual homelessness funding provided under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness—and I note that the current annual funding level of $115 million still reflects the $44 million funding cut in the Abbott government's disastrous 2014-15 budget. This funding will be ongoing and indexed to maintain and provide funding to frontline services that help Australians who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. To ensure that the funding for frontline homelessness services is preserved, the agreement will separately identify the indexed funding to be matched by the states that relates to the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness.
There is a big problem with this, and that problem is that the bill as drafted actually places housing and homelessness funding at risk. It jeopardises this funding. Many of the submissions received by the Senate economics committee, and evidence provided at the public hearings expressed strong criticism—and rightly—of the conditionality the bill places on the payment of housing and homelessness assistance to the states and territories. In its submission, Melbourne City Mission, which is Victoria's largest funded provider of youth homelessness services, said:
Homelessness Australia also expressed strong concern about the immediate risk the bill poses to the payment of housing and homelessness funding to the states and territories:
Should funding to states and territories for housing and homelessness services be cut, the 394,000 Australian households who currently reside in social housing would be put at risk of homelessness, and services to the 288,000 Australians who access specialist homelessness support in a year would be reduced.
Labor agrees there is a need for greater accountability and transparency in expenditure of Commonwealth assistance payments, but the bill does not adequately address this issue. The Turnbull government does not have the comprehensive housing strategy that is necessary to address the country's largest and growing crisis of housing affordability and supply for low- and very-low-income households. The Abbott-Turnbull government have had four budgets in which they have had the opportunity to reform negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, and they have failed. The measures in the budget tinker at the edges but will do nothing to put first home buyers back on a level playing field with investors or take the heat out of the housing market. The housing affordability measures announced in the budget fail the fairness test and don't come close to the budget centrepiece the Treasurer and his junior minister had been promising for months. This is quoted as being a centrepiece without a centrepiece. However, we do not believe that this bill should not be passed, because should it fail to pass the homelessness support that is dependent on this bill passing would be placed in serious jeopardy.
I quite regularly have the privilege of standing here in the chamber and in the Federation Chamber to remind the House that I am the member for the fantastic electorate of Longman. Longman is the north side of Brisbane and the southern end of the Sunshine Coast. I quite often get on my feet to remind the House of that, because it is a real privilege to be elected the member to represent that area. I have lived in Longman for 30 years and had my children raised and go to school in that area for those years. Listening to the member for Dobell prior to me, she clearly is very proud of her electorate as well. Longman is truly a wonderful place, but there is one aspect that we can't be completely proud of. It is truly no fault at all of the good people who live there, including my family and friends and people that I've worked with. That is the high incidence of homelessness.
The 2011 census gave us an indication of around 300 people in Longman living without a home. The 2016 census still hasn't been released. My fear is that number hasn't reduced at all but, in fact, what we will find when it does get released is that that number's grown. That is of genuine concern. When we look at the average median personal weekly income in Longman, we're talking $580 week. That falls about $82 short of the national average weekly income. At the same time, our median rent is around $320 a week, which is only slightly less than the national average of $335. You can see there's a real disparity there.
As I said, I have been a local for nearly 30 years now, so I know the area quite well. I worked in the education system in the area. You get to meet lots of families that live in the area with you. So I've seen a fair share of people who live on the streets. As a teacher aide at Dakabin State School I saw my fair share of families being affected by homelessness. Having four sons that went to the local school, I've heard the story of their friends and their housing situations. You don't need to go too much further than Caboolture Community Action on a Tuesday or Saturday night to hear of the housing situations—not just of single people, but of families, families who quite often are employed but also may be underemployed. They are in situations where there's enough money to put fuel in the car to get to work, there's enough money to just pay the rent, but there's nothing else left.
In my whole working life, and now as a representative of the great people of Longman, I promised that I would stand up for vulnerable people in our community; vulnerable people that this government has simply forgotten. They are people living on the streets, or living just one unexpected bill away from losing their home, whether the car's broken down and needs to get fixed to get to work, whether you've had an unexpected medical bill and a couple of the children are unwell and need antibiotics. Just one bill can make or break whether you have got somewhere to live.
Everyone has a right to a safe and affordable place to live. I don't think anybody can deny that. That is why we need a strong and comprehensive piece of legislation to ensure that that happens—people have somewhere to live. We cannot afford and we cannot allow people to fall through the cracks. But, just as the case with many other portfolio areas, we have seen no comprehensive housing plan from this Turnbull government. For goodness sake; we've got driverless cars now. How can we have the situation where people do not have a roof over their heads in this day and age?
Just before the 2017-18 federal budget was announced we saw Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar teasing that the government's housing package would be an 'impressive package'. He also said it would be a 'well-received package'. Unfortunately on budget night what the Treasurer unveiled was not impressive—it was quite the contrary—and so, fittingly, it wasn't well received at all. Homelessness Australia said:
… the Budget fails to deliver the big-picture solutions needed to end homelessness.
They went on to say:
This budget is not fair, because it fails to fix a broken housing system that encourages investors to own more than one house while 105,000 have no home at all.
This bill seeks to legislate aspects of the NHHA, or the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, which makes up a significant part of the Assistant Treasurer's very disappointing housing package. The bill combines the National Affordable Housing Agreement and the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness into one single agreement. Under this agreement, a total of $4.6 billion over three years from 2018 to 2018 is provided.
Being such a very important piece of legislation, of course, this was referred to a Senate inquiry to collate submissions from individuals, organisations and peak bodies. It won't come as a surprise to many that a number of those organisations, individuals and peak bodies lambasted the government's plan—or, should I say, lack thereof. In its submission to the inquiry, the Council to Homeless Persons noted that, despite the policy responsibility that the government has, they have failed to deliver a plan and instead are shifting the blame 'to the states and territories for outcomes that are primarily driven by federal policy drivers'.
It has come to be quite expected for this coalition to attempt to shift blame. I think I'd personally be able to fund this agreement if I had a dollar for every time we've heard this government try to blame Labor for something. But, after five years in government, the government have learnt that pointing the finger at a prior administration is growing pretty stale. So we've seen the coalition adopt a new strategy, and that is throw their hands up in the air and attempt to absolve themselves of any responsibility and ask the states and territories to clean up their mess. It's typical behaviour, but it is just not good enough. Throughout the inquiry a number of stakeholders explained very clearly that, to address housing affordability, there needs to be a joint effort at the Commonwealth, state and territory government levels. There needs to be true cooperation and not the shifting of blame that the coalition have adopted as, to be quite honest, their standard operating procedure.
The bill, as it has been drafted, represents a clear and unacceptable risk to ongoing housing assistance to the states and territories. It is worth noting that many of the submissions received during the inquiry expressed strong criticisms against the bill placing conditionality on payment of housing and homelessness assistance to the states and territories. In its submission, the Council to Homeless Persons noted:
Should funding to states and territories for housing and homelessness services be cut, the 394,000 Australian households who currently reside in social housing would be put at risk of homelessness, and services to the 288,000 Australians who access specialist homelessness support in a year would be reduced.
These organisations know this, and they know this from experience. They have felt the cuts before. In Queensland, we felt these cuts under the Newman LNP government. So we know exactly what these cuts feel like. And, federally, not all that long ago, $44 million was cut from the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness in the Abbott government's disastrous 2014-15 budget.
It is clear that Australia is facing a housing crisis, a crisis of supply, a crisis of suitability and a crisis of sustainability, so more needs to be done. This crisis has been going on for far too long. As Associate Professor Lisa Wood explained in her evidence to that inquiry, we now have third-generation homeless people in Australia. This is nothing short of heartbreaking. It's not just that this has become an intergenerational problem; it's a devastating cycle that plagues thousands of Australians. It's also a heartbreaking issue because, across the three generations I spoke of, not enough has been done for society's most vulnerable people.
Many homeless people have experienced trauma in their childhood; many of them live and suffer with mental health issues. It makes sense that we should be investing more in helping these vulnerable populations to—as Professor Lisa Wood noted—try and lift them up to anywhere near the standard the rest of us enjoy every day. Instead, what we're seeing is this government seeking to increase the inequality by increasing taxes for low- and middle-income earners while cutting taxes for millionaires and gifting $65 billion in handouts to big business.
Even this government's so-called housing affordability measure of allowing people to deposit extra money into their superannuation accounts to go towards purchasing a home actually further increases the divide rather than closes it. Not only does this measure completely undermine the superannuation system—the system that is there for support in retirement—it also completely avoids helping people who need it the most. If you're already struggling to pay the rent, if it's already a struggle to put food on the table then how can you be expected to skim some money from your pay cheque and contribute to this measure? How can you possibly be expected to find that money?
This government's reasoning for this measure just beggars belief. This measure only helps those who can afford it, not those who truly need it. And down the line, when people have chipped away at their superannuation to buy a home, what is going to happen then? We're going to be faced with another problem, aren't we? This package is a short-sighted solution to help only those who can afford it. In the simplest terms, this package is a complete sham. These measures fail the fairness test. It is, instead, just a grab bag of unrelated measures that will not address the key drivers of housing unaffordability that are within the Commonwealth's control.
To counter this government's inaction, Labor has a plan. Quite often I hear people asking me, 'Well, what's Labor's plan?' When I was campaigning during the federal election people kept asking me about what I would do about homelessness, and I committed and I continue to commit to having a consultative approach, to having a collaborative approach to dealing with the issues and the social issues we face. Labor's plan is to address housing unaffordability and homelessness within a broader context of inequality. Under a Shorten Labor government stronger reforms to negative gearing and capital gains concessions will be instated. We will limit future negative gearing concessions to new housing and reduce the capital gains tax discounts from 50 to 25 per cent. These changes will moderate the huge growth in house prices that we've seen under this current government, re-direct those generous tax concessions to where they are needed the most and see the greatest investment in new housing. This will put downward pressure on housing prices, making it easier for low-income earners to enter the housing market.
Importantly, Labor will reinstate a minister for housing and homelessness. The remit of the minister for housing and homelessness will be to coordinate all aspects of federal government housing policy and to strengthen Commonwealth policy in this area following the coalition's neglect over many years. No policy area is as important as this.
The minister, I will happily say, will not act alone. We will establish a national housing supply council that will act as an ongoing independent advisory body on boosting housing supply, and we will develop a national homelessness strategy at COAG. It is truly a significant and ambitious measure, but Labor will halve homelessness by 2025. That's our target. We expect to achieve it. It will be no mean feat, but it will be worth it, and we are committed to that. Labor takes housing and homelessness very, very seriously. People are struggling to get a roof over their head in this country.
So I'd say to the Prime Minister that this bill isn't enough. I believe it should be passed, but only because, should it fail, the homeless support that's dependent on this bill passing would be placed in serious jeopardy. So I will support its passing. I hope I get another opportunity to be up on my feet and to stand up for a similar bill in the very near future, to ensure we reach that target of dealing with homelessness and housing in this country.
I commend the government's commitment to continue housing and homeless funding through the new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, but let's be real: we can do more. This core funding will provide a critical floor for housing and homelessness services across Australia, and it is funding that the states could not have easily replaced. The funding will provide support for emergency and transitional housing and homelessness services across my electorate.
Services delivered in my electorate that provide homelessness support include Centacare in the Adelaide Hills and Junction Australia, which provides support on Kangaroo Island and across the Fleurieu Peninsula. Centacare and Junction Australia do great work in my electorate with our most vulnerable people. Junction Australia provides support to people who are experiencing or facing homelessness, including adults who are living in the southern Adelaide region. People possibly don't think when they look at my electorate that we would have homelessness, but we most certainly do. The Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island Homelessness Support Services are outreach services operated by Junction along the southern Fleurieu. It's quite an isolated community. If people find that they are without a home and they don't have a car, they have very little option to move or go. These services are available to anyone aged 15 years or over who is experiencing homeless or facing potential homelessness, and they really help people pick up the pieces.
The certainty of continued funding is critical to this sector and to organisations like Junction and Centacare. As somebody who has worked in the sector before, I know that, when we get close to funding deadlines, staff naturally start to move; they need to be able to pay for their mortgages too. So funding certainty is essential for multiyear interventions to be sustained and also to ensure that we can keep good staff in this sector, because it is a very difficult area to work, and people are very passionate and committed to it.
I do not rail against the conditions contained within the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017 in relation to the federal component of funding. Some level of conditionality on how the money should be spent and tying funding to outcomes does provide increased accountability and transparency for taxpayers' money. We've got to remember this is not our money; this money belongs to the taxpayer. However, I do not want to see conditionality meaning that funding could be withdrawn from core services, as it's supposed to really be about managing and creating genuine outcomes. In this vein, while I appreciate that the federal and, particularly, state governments might prefer greater flexibility, I can also understand where the federal government is coming from. I do believe, however, that the parliament should have greater insight into the funding conditionality that may be applied and, at least, a framework of expected outcomes fleshed out in this place under the proposed legislation. I can't see any excuse or reason for why more detail is not provided in this legislation.
I've spoken at length before in this place about housing affordability, or lack of affordability, and homelessness, but I want to take this opportunity to elaborate a little further about my concerns around youth homelessness. We've yet to receive the data series on homelessness from the Australian Bureau of Statistics from the 2016 census; however, the 2011 census showed us that an estimated 2,397 young Australians—people under 24—were homeless and, of those, 944—nearly 1,000—were children aged under 12 who were homeless. Nationally, as at 2011, there were 44,000 young people under the age of 24 who were homeless and, of those, nearly 18,000 were children. They had no place to call home. They were sleeping in cars. They were in a room, normally with mum, on a blow-up mattress. Perhaps they were getting a cheap dodgy hotel for a couple nights from an organisation. How can we expect children to learn and have the foundation of a happy childhood under these circumstances? This is a national shame. This is our shame.
In my state of South Australia 1,400 young people from 12 to 24 will be homeless tonight. That is teenagers and young people. We often talk about numbers in this place, but every number is a person. Those young people are tired, afraid and hungry. They have a sense of hopelessness. They're sleeping on a couch. They are normally young women. They are often trading for that couch and doing things with their body that they never thought they would need to do just to have a place to sleep.
I know that often it is young people coming from absent, neglectful and abusive parents—homes that they just can't stay in. Sometimes there is drug and alcohol addiction involved as well. That is not so much a cause of homelessness but certainly an effect of homelessness. I do not seek to detract their share of responsibility from families, who really should be taking a greater role of support; however, we know that not all families have that capacity. Young people shouldn't be penalised because they don't have parents who provide a loving home.
Too often these people come from households where there is domestic and family violence. There can be many different kinds. It can be intimidation, coercion, isolation, emotional, physical, sexual or financial. We know that young women aged 18 to 25 are twice as likely as older women to experience physical or sexual violence. Estimates show that the likelihood of young women aged 14 to 19 experiencing physical or sexual violence is quadrupled. The great challenge is often people don't see that as domestic violence—'That's something that happens to mum; that's not something that happens to me.' But it does, indeed, happen to them.
I think our society's role is about ensuring that we have a safety net that can help pick up the pieces, particularly for our most vulnerable people, because it benefits all of us. That is what our society is about. I was fortunate to recently attend a briefing by the Home Stretch initiative. The Home Stretch campaign is backed by a variety of not-for-profit social services organisations. One of the key lessons for me is that the research in Home Stretch shows that two-thirds of homeless young people have a state care history—that is, they have been guardians of the minister for a period in their life.
The Home Stretch initiative seeks to make a national partnership to extend out-of-home care for young people from 18 to 21 years of age. This is something America does. America has a national partnership between the states and the federal government that ensures that this group of incredibly vulnerable young people continue to receive the support of the state in a parenting role until they are 21 years of age. We know that young people's brains don't even finish developing cognitively until they're in their mid-20s, so the idea that we would push young people out at the age of 18 and assume that they have all the capacity of an adult is really just a furphy. We know young people who are former guardians of the minister of state will in the first 12 months after leaving state care generally have about five places where they sleep at night.
So that is something I will be very keen to pursue in this parliament. We note that, if we can address that issue, we can largely address the issue of homelessness for young people in Australia. It goes without saying that we need to do more about youth homelessness and the prevention of it but, equally so, we know that, while young people make up the largest cohort of homeless, the fastest growing group of homelessness is actually older women who do not have superannuation and assets behind them. They are in an incredibly vulnerable state, particularly because very often they have a very limited likelihood of finding employment.
I will close by saying that I do support this bill, but I think we need to provide greater leadership in this place on meaningfully addressing homelessness. This is not something we should push to the states. This is a national issue and we should all take responsibility for the problem because we have a great opportunity in our nation. We're a nation of great wealth and we can address homelessness meaningfully.
Every human has the basic right to a roof over their head. Access to affordable, secure housing and reasonable services is essential to the financial, social and emotional wellbeing of human beings. But unfortunately in Australia over, in particular, the past three or four years housing has become more and more unaffordable to the extent now that we have a full-blown housing crisis, particularly in the capital cities of Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney. As a result of that housing crisis and the unaffordability of housing we're seeing a dramatic increase in homelessness.
It's unfortunate that the Turnbull and Abbott governments have chosen to sit on their hands about housing affordability and homelessness in the period since they were elected in 2013. Basically, the view of the Abbott government was that this was a matter for the states and that the Commonwealth shouldn't be involved in providing funding for it or the development of services associated with homelessness. Thankfully, the Turnbull government has sought to act, albeit too late for many who have been waiting for housing for many, many years. But it hasn't acted on the principal problem that exists in Australia around housing affordability, and that is the generous tax concessions that exist around negative gearing and capital gains tax. The government are refusing to act on that because they've got so many mates in the development lobby throughout the country who've been lobbying them for many, many years now, saying: 'No, don't touch negative gearing and capital gains tax. We want those generous tax concessions to continue.' Because they haven't acted on that, we have this full-blown housing crisis. Australians know that they're not fair dinkum about tackling housing affordability. Nonetheless, these measures are welcomed and they are an improvement on the Abbott government's refusal to act on this issue.
This particular bill amends the Federal Financial Relations Act to repeal the current national specific purpose payments for housing services. These will be replaced by new funding arrangements under which payments to the states and territories will be contingent on their being party to primary, supplementary and designated housing agreements.
Of course, having an affordable and secure home, as I mentioned earlier, is essential to financial, social and emotional wellbeing. Housing is a basic human right that every Australian citizen is entitled to. They are entitled to a roof over their head. Unfortunately in Australia homeownership is at a 60-year low, and it's not hard to understand why. Homeownership rates for ages 25 to 34 have collapsed from around 60 per cent to less than 40 per cent in the last 30 years. These are the formative years in people's lives when they are trying to start families, get on their feet and establish themselves. What we've seen over the last 30 years is the rate of homeownership in that age bracket fall from 60 per cent to 40 per cent.
Rental stress is on the rise, with the proportion of low-income households in rental stress now at more than 40 per cent. If you add to that the cost-of-living pressures associated with rising electricity prices, private health insurance contributions going up year after year, the cost of education services—particularly childcare services, which are ever on the rise—households are under a lot of cost-of-living stress. When you factor in the fact that wages haven't increased in line with inflation for many years now and that real wages have been falling behind, with the wage price index data still stuck stubbornly at around two per cent, it's no wonder that many Australians are feeling the pressure and aren't feeling the so-called joy that this government says exists with the economy at the moment.
For Sydneysiders, particularly those in the electorate that I represent, the housing affordability issue is causing a hell of a lot of distress. Many young people fear that they will never be able to afford a home in the Eastern Suburbs, the area they grew up in, around family, friends and social networks. They just won't be able to afford to live there anymore, and many more of them are staying at home with their parents for longer periods or are being forced to move out of the area or to rent. In the three years from 2014 to 2017, the price of homes in the suburb of Malabar, around the corner from where I live, grew by a whopping 46 per cent. In that short period of time, up to $2 million was added. The value of a home increased by about $630,000 over that period. That equates to an increase of $580 every single day. In that suburb, the cost of housing is going up by $580 every single day. Up the road in Coogee, average prices have increased by $592 every single day, to an average price of just under $2.4 million. In the suburb where I live, Matraville, house prices increased by 16 per cent in one year. That was over the course of the last year.
With such high prices, the availability of subsidised affordable housing is leaving many Australians with nowhere to go and no secure accommodation, and that's why we're seeing an increase in the number of people couch surfing, living in their cars and living on the streets. Currently there are over 100,000 Australians without proper accommodation. It's estimated that 1.3 million households are in a state of housing need, whether unable to access the market for housing or in a position of rental stress. This figure is predicted to increase to 1.7 million by 2025. The waiting list for social housing in New South Wales has ballooned in recent years, reaching 60,000 people early last year, and less than one per cent of private rentals in Sydney are affordable for people on low incomes.
Not a week goes by—Deputy Speaker, you'd know about this—where we don't get a call from a constituent who's homeless and on the list waiting for access to public housing in our respective electorates. Unfortunately—and I have to tell people this when they ring up about it—the waiting list in the area that I represent is eight years long. If you ring the department and say that you want to access public housing in Kingsford Smith, they'll tell you, 'We'll put your name on the list, but you're going to have to wait eight years.' If you're in a domestic violence situation and you've left home with nothing more than the kids and the clothes on your back and you've got nowhere to live, how do you think you'd feel if you were faced with that phone call and you were told that? Of course, we have crisis accommodation services, but unfortunately they've been under much greater stress in recent years because of the increase in homelessness and because of the incidence of and the increase in domestic violence, and the system simply isn't coping.
The notion that the Abbott government had that this is a matter for the states and that the Commonwealth shouldn't be involved in it is quite simply a disgrace, because homelessness and lack of access to housing isn't confined to a particular state and territory. It's a national issue. It's a national crisis that a national government should lead on and should be involved in.
The Abbott-Turnbull government have had four budgets in which they've had the opportunity to tackle this issue—to tackle negative gearing and capital gains tax, to put funding in the budget to support the construction of additional public housing or provide incentives for affordable housing and new rental agreements. They've failed to do it. All they've offered is some new measures around superannuation for young people to save for a house deposit up to the value of $30,000. They've got this scheme by which you can get a tax concession through your superannuation fund if you put aside a total amount of no more than $30,000 to save for a first home deposit. In the area that I represent, $30,000 won't buy you a window pane, let alone a deposit on a house. So it's basically useless for many people seeking to enter the housing market in our area. Study after study has proven that the schemes that actually increase demand, whereby you're giving incentives for people to put more money into their pockets to buy homes, actually push up prices. They have the reverse effect of pushing prices up, because you're creating more demand in the market.
If you're not tackling that overly generous tax concessions around negative gearing and capital gains tax, you are not fair dinkum about housing affordability. That's why Labor is the only party that has a fair dinkum housing policy. If we are elected at the next election we will restrict negative gearing and capital gains tax. This element of this package demonstrates that this government is really not fair dinkum about this issue. It using the budget to tinker around the edges. They've done nothing to put first home buyers back on a level playing field with investors and take the heat out of the housing market. They're a grab bag of unrelated measures that won't address the key drivers of housing unaffordability. That's the Commonwealth's ability to wind back negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts.
In the context of budgets gone by and approaches of other political parties, when Labor was in government we had a national leadership plan to ensure that we were tackling this issue of housing affordability. There were a number of elements related to stimulus after the global financial crisis and encouraging the development and building of new public housing and affordability schemes. In the 2008-09 budget, in a broader package to address housing supply pressures as part of the stimulus package in response to the GFC, it was Labor that introduced the National Rental Affordability Scheme. Under this scheme the Australian government provided an annual incentive to investors for up to 10 years as a refundable tax offset for them to construct affordable housing. This was augmented by state or territory annual contributions, which took the form of cash grants, concessions on stamp duty and the provision of discounted land over the same period. Properties developed under the scheme were made available to low- to middle-income earners at a 20 per cent below market rate for each of the 10 years for which the NRAS incentive was received. Initially the NRAS was to provide $622 million over four years from 2008-09 for the development of up to 50,000 affordable rental properties across Australia by mid-2012, and the government was to deliver a further 50,000 properties from 2012 onwards. Of course when the Abbott-Turnbull government came to office, they stopped the program. They stopped the good work that was being done to improve rental affordability throughout the country, taking the view, as I said earlier, that this was an issue for the states.
It was the Labor government, when we were in office, that also took the following incentives to address housing affordability. We produced The road home, a white paper on homeless, and developed national strategies to target reducing homelessness. Labor committed to housing help for seniors, a pilot program that was working well very. We provided $6 billion to the states and territories for affordable housing. We negotiated the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, which saw Australian state and territory governments provided over $1 billion for reducing homelessness. We established the National Housing Supply Council. Finally, we had a dedicated person in cabinet whose responsibility it was to deal with this issue and advocate on behalf of Australians—a dedicated minister for housing and homelessness. It's something that's missing from the frontbench under this government. There is no minister for housing and homelessness under the Liberal government, and that says everything about this government's commitment to making housing more affordable and providing support for those who are homeless in Australia at a federal level.
In conclusion, whilst there are some positive elements in what the government is doing, it's simply not enough to arrest the increase in homelessness throughout the country and take a bit of heat out of the housing market. You need to be serious about tackling negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts, along with the other measures that Labor has announced like the uniform vacant properties tax and increased payments for foreigners seeking to invest in our housing market. Only with those measures in place will you turn down the heat in the housing market, and then provide incentives for people to increase supply and make housing more affordable in Australia.
I think I'm moving house next week. I'm not 100 per cent certain, because it's a new build so I have to wait till I get the appropriate council approvals. But it's been 4½ years since I lost my house in the bushfires in Winmalee in 2013. I had lived in that home for 22 years. I built it, and I'd never left it. I raised my family there until I had no choice but to temporarily relocate, very unexpectedly.
When I reflect back on that home, we originally moved to our part of the Blue Mountains outside Sydney because it was affordable. It was affordable for us as a couple about to start a family, and we were able to be there and survive on one main wage for a few years. It's what a lot of people were able to do in the nineties. They were able to move to the Blue Mountains and establish their families. We were lucky. We look back now and go, 'We were lucky to be able to do that.' We could have an affordable, secure and appropriate home for our family. Yes, we had a long commute, but that was a choice that we were able to make. We had reasonable access to services. All the research tells us that those basic things—those conditions to have housing that is affordable, secure, appropriate and within reach of services—are actually essential conditions for financial, social and emotional wellbeing.
It isn't that easy these days for people to have those things, even in the Blue Mountains, a long way outside Sydney—even when you go higher up in mountains, so that your commute is a couple of hours, not just 1½ hours. But all Australians, no matter where they are, have the right to secure and affordable housing throughout their lives. That's something that this government doesn't seem to be taking seriously. For too many people, the pressure now is worse than it has ever been. In my entire electorate of Macquarie—the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury—prices are high. For young people on a regular income—if they're lucky enough to have permanent, full-time work and not be in casual and casualised work—the costs are extraordinary.
We're seeing a huge increase in homelessness. It's a really visible increase in homelessness. I don't have any question with using the word 'crisis', because I do think that there is a crisis. There's a crisis of supply, there's a crisis of affordability and there's a crisis of suitability and sustainability, and these are things that this government had a chance to address. They had a chance to address them in this bill. But, sadly, what we have here and what we find ourselves having to support—because we don't want to make things worse—is something that is barely going to make anything better. This is much less than the comprehensive package of measures that this country needs—that its citizens need and that every person in Australia who doesn't have somewhere to live right now needs.
I want to talk about some of the problems with this bill. I want to talk about the process of this bill, because that, in itself, highlights one of the deep flaws that this government has. This area of homelessness and housing is one that we know needs to involve every state and territory. It's not just a federal government issue; it goes across the tiers of government. Yet this bill was introduced into the parliament before the Commonwealth and state treasurers had even met to agree to the detail. That was already in the legislation. Is it any wonder that there is difficulty getting agreement when you have the arrogance, the high-handed arrogance, of the Treasurer presenting something to the state treasurers and saying, 'Here you are; take it or leave it'? That's the sort of thing that is not going to solve the crisis that we face. It isn't the way to do it. It's certainly not the way we operated when we were in government, when we did start to see so many small hopes and gains around housing—which have been undone by this government. I have to say it was total hypocrisy from the Treasurer to take this approach, given that, only a day before, while he was championing a Productivity Commission report, he'd said:
The Commission is principally saying that as a Federation we need to work together better, to play nice …
I'd say to the Treasurer, if he were in this chamber, that his actions speak louder than his words, and we won't get a good result until some respect is shown to the states.
What else is wrong with this bill? There are a couple of things that I think I can probably turn my attention to! In terms of the numbers that are involved, the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement will provide $375 million over three years, so it just maintains the current $115 million of annual homelessness funding provided. But in our budget, Labor's budget, in 2013-14 annual homelessness funding under the NPAH was $159 million, so this is taking us backwards. Maybe inflation hasn't done what inflation normally does? I don't think so. What is happening is that, in hard, cold numbers, we are going backwards. Of course, it was in the Abbott government's disastrous 2014-15 budget that $44 million a year was slashed from the NPAH. So the numbers are a problem, but that's not the only problem with this bill.
I'm going to run through a few of the key themes in the very good work that the committee senators were able to do. Some of the comments go to the need for there to be a holistic national policy on this, and I did like the comment by Adrian Pisarski of National Shelter, because he summed up exactly what the issue is. He was talking in fact about the 2017-18 budget, when we had great expectations that there would be this really solid housing and homelessness package. We were led to believe that by various members of the government. Mr Pisarski described it very appropriately as 'a centrepiece without a centrepiece' That's how satisfying this legislation is that we're seeing as a result of the great big plan that failed to eventuate from this government. As Homelessness Australia described it:
This Budget is not fair, because it fails to fix a broken housing system that encourages investors to own more than one house while 105,000 haven't a home at all.
What we have is not something that is going to reduce inequality; it's going to blow out inequality. That's the danger that we face. Mission Australia, well known for its work on homelessness across Sydney and certainly in my electorate, said:
Disappointingly, the Budget contained inadequate assistance for the many people in rental stress who remain just one step away from homelessness. Rents are becoming increasingly unaffordable for older and younger Australians alike, with those on Newstart and the age pension struggling to find a home within their means.
That really goes to the core of the issue that we are failing to address.
I've been lucky to have a very steady rental property for the last 4½ years. Within a couple of weeks of my house burning down, I was offered a rental property. It's small, it's compact, and I'm very lucky it is very affordable, especially for someone on my salary—and I recognise that. We are very privileged. But we've also had the gift of being able to stay in one place for 4½ years.
I look at my children, who get churned through their rental properties in Sydney. Two days before Christmas my 23-year-old son, who'd been sharing a place in the inner city for a couple of months, got a call from an agent to say, 'Sorry, you're not going to be able to renew your lease in January, because the owners have decided that they want the property back.' That was two days before Christmas. That is pulling the rug from under a young person who might be just about to stop their casual work to spend a little bit of time with family. They had a few weeks to find somewhere to live. I'm fortunate that my children are resilient, resourceful and well connected. Thank goodness for Facebook and social media to help our young kids find things fast. But I saw what that did to my son. Just when he thought he was getting settled and steady, suddenly the world was turned upside-down. That's someone who's young, single and resourceful. When that happens to a mum who's struggling with her part-time jobs and is possibly juggling work, study and getting her children to school—having to find a house in the way that it happens—I can't imagine how that dislocates your life.
We've failed to even look at these issues, and on our side we certainly know that it's something that matters. The problem with this whole package is that it is just tinkering. There is the salary-sacrificing measure that is there. Ms Bree Marr was quoted on ABC 7.30 as saying, 'It wouldn't even cover your stamp duty.' It certainly doesn't cover your deposit, even to live in an outer Sydney area like mine. The problem with the superannuation initiative is that you're undermining something that, at a different stage of life, provides you with the hope of some financial security. You really can't slice and dice this in a way that is going to work out better for women. Women, in particular, are going to be impacted by anything that encourages them to take from their superannuation.
There are a couple of areas that this package doesn't even come close to touching. Some of the most recent data about youth and children from the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth, which brought its report card out this week, highlight concerns about housing. The percentage of households spending more than 30 per cent of their gross income on housing is now 17.3 per cent. That's up from five years ago. Things are not getting better; they're actually going in the wrong direction. The most recent data that they produced shows that the homelessness rate for nought- to 24-year-olds is 59.5 people per 10,000. So that's a high percentage of young people being impacted. Of those accessing specialist homeless services in the past year, 43.8 per cent were under 25.
They also note that the percentage of families with dependent children living in overcrowded housing is seven per cent. These statistics matter because living in adequate and stable housing, along with having adequate clothing, healthy food, clean water and the things you need to participate in education and training, is what's vital for young people to transition effectively to adulthood. This package does nothing to address those issues.
I also want to talk about another group of young people who are at huge risk of homelessness: those who are in out-of-home care. A 2015 study by Swinburne University of Technology found that 63 per cent of homeless youth had been in state care. So 63 per cent of the young people who were homeless have had an experience of state care. That tells us which group we should be focusing on.
One of the key issues those young people face is that their support gets switched off at 18. A whole lot of countries have realised that this is not the way to support people in out-of-home care. In the United Kingdom, in New Zealand, in Canada and even in the United States, that support continues to 21, and I think this is an issue we really need to look at. I'm not the only one who thinks this, I have to say. Eighty-seven per cent of people who were recently polled about this believe that young people deserve a safe place to call home until they are at least 21. I would hazard a guess that everyone in this chamber would be very reluctant to throw an 18-year-old out of their home. I'm sure that most 18-year-olds who are children of the people in this chamber are probably still very dependent on their parents—and, I certainly know, well into their 20s. I wouldn't dream of taking away support that young people need to help them transition to a successful adulthood.
Dealing with the issue of children in foster care could make a huge difference to the number of young homeless people we see. But, of course, this amendment bill does nothing in that regard. It does nothing to change the future for someone who might be couch surfing. It does nothing to address crippling rents for students or for women who don't have enough superannuation. It does nothing to address the myriad issues that need addressing. It does nothing to address tax reform. The government have had four budgets to address the issue of tax reform, capital gains tax and negative gearing. It's only Labor that are going to do that, and we need to do it soon.
Of course, Labor will support the passage of the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017, because we don't want to hold up homelessness funding to the states. There are a number of design flaws with this legislation, and certainly there are profound flaws in this government's response to the issues of housing affordability and homelessness. I think I can boil down the problems with this bill to more red tape, no more funding, and very one-sided obligations. This legislation promotes obligations on the states and territories with no corresponding obligation from the Commonwealth government to say what it would do about reducing homelessness in this country.
We've had continued, year-after-year funding cuts. The member for Macquarie was talking about the original $44 million a year cut that has continued, year after year, from this government when it comes to homelessness, and that has particularly affected the funding of new build for homelessness services. When we were in government, we saw the construction of a number of new homelessness services. That has pretty much stopped with these funding cuts. There was $88 million of capital funding cut from the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness and then year after year there has been a lower funding level for that agreement. The government have killed the National Rental Affordability Scheme. They've defunded housing and homelessness NGOs. The people who used to stand up for the rights of the homeless and people who were marginally housed have had their funding cut away from them. There's no minister for housing and there's no certainty about housing policy or homelessness policy. I don't think anybody could imagine for a moment that there is any comprehensive vision from those opposite when it comes to housing affordability and homelessness.
On the other hand, we are prepared to tackle issues of homelessness and housing affordability. We've been prepared to take the big step of reforming negative gearing because we know that is critical to issues around housing supply and housing affordability in Australia. The Liberals, in contrast, want to continue to give unsustainable tax handouts to property speculators so they can buy their 10th or 20th or 30th home, while all this time not really doing anything for first home buyers, for renters, for people who are living in caravan parks or sleeping rough. It is imperative that, if we as a nation are serious about housing affordability, we address the issues around the taxation of housing in this country. It's been disappointing in the extreme to hear member after member opposite say that the solution to housing affordability is to get rich parents, to move to Armidale. I guess moving to Armidale does make housing more affordable if you're living in the home of a rich mate. But telling people in my electorate or the Blue Mountains or Western Sydney that they need to leave their jobs and families and networks to move to the country isn't really a solution for housing affordability.
When we were in government we saw some of the biggest investments in housing and homelessness that this country's ever seen. During the life of our housing policies—the new building of social housing and the National Rental Affordability Scheme—we saw about 60,000 dwellings built. The National Rental Affordability Scheme alone was responsible for around 37,000 new dwellings. As I said, the first tranche of that scheme was 50,000 dwellings. It stopped at 37,000 because those opposite killed it when they came to government. We had already committed to a second tranche of 50,000 National Rental Affordability Scheme dwellings. What a difference that would have made to people on low- and middle-incomes in Australia.
We also saw through that National Rental Affordability Scheme the building-up of the community housing sector in this country. That's a really important contribution that we could have made—a structural change to housing affordability and availability in this country. As those community housing providers built up their portfolios of housing, they could have borrowed against them, they could have leveraged and they could have done their own building. Again, that was stopped in its tracks by those opposite. The National Rental Affordability Scheme was a program that had the support of organisations that support the interests of low- and middle-income Australians, including ACOSS, Homelessness Australia, Mission Australia, Anglicare Australia and St Vincent de Paul.
We saw through our social housing stimulus package the building of almost 21,000 new social housing dwellings and long overdue repairs and maintenance on another 80,000 homes around Australia. Some of those had been uninhabitable before these repairs. We did that at a time when that work was necessary to keep people in the building industry in work during the global financial crisis. The Social Housing Initiative provided 9,000 full-time construction industry jobs during the global financial crisis.
There were so many great measures when Labor was in government. There was A Place To Call Home—$150 million over five years to make available 600 homes and units across Australia for families and individuals who are homeless, with the states and territories to provide matching funding for that. We undertook a white paper on homelessness called The road home. We adopted the target of halving the rate of homelessness by 2020. Yes, that was an ambitious target. I wanted us as a nation to stretch ourselves, because it is completely unacceptable that a country as wealthy as Australia still has people sleeping rough and being turned away from emergency accommodation. We were very proud of the work that we did through that homelessness white paper process and so disappointed to see that, when we handed other the reins to those opposite, the momentum in this area completely dissipated.
If we had stayed on the trajectory that Labor set for reducing homelessness, if we had maintained our effort, if we had protected the programs and policies that we developed through the white paper, I'm convinced that we would be on track to halving the rate of homelessness in Australia by 2020. The government haven't just given up on the policies and programs; they have even given up on the ambition of halving the rate of homelessness in this country. How sad is it that they can't even sign up to this ambition of halving the rate of homelessness? They just gave up on it.
I still visit and stay in touch with a lot of the homelessness services that we funded and supported when we were in government, such as the fantastic and absolutely beautiful new construction for Common Ground in Melbourne, Common Ground in Brisbane, Common Ground in Adelaide, Annie Green Court in Redfern and Common Ground in Camperdown. All over Australia you can see that during this period we built beautiful new homes for people who had previously been sleeping rough. In the case of Annie Green Court in Redfern, they were frail, aged homeless people, many of whom had been sleeping rough for years.
There is a fantastic service in Melbourne, in Victoria, which I visited a number of times, called Wintringham. They have 1,800 people over the age of 50 who are waiting to get housing. If you are talking about frail, aged homeless rough sleepers, these are some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Their health is so very bad. Wintringham is essentially a nursing home. It's funded mostly through aged care funding. What we did for organisations like Wintringham, Annie Green Court and others that were funded through aged care funding was pay a supplement for people who had been homeless. They were people who were more expensive to look after because their health was more complex, and also their behaviours were sometimes more complex. They were very difficult to find places for in mainstream aged care services. The supplementation hasn't kept up with the cost of looking after these people, and because of that you see these growing and growing lists of frail, aged homeless people who need accommodation, and services are unable to offer them that accommodation.
We saw not just more roofs over people's head but programs that were designed to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place or to reconnect them to housing—fantastic programs like Reconnect, which assisted more than 67,000 young people to reunite with their families and return to school or training. We helped address unemployment as a cause of homelessness and placed 175,000 homeless job seekers in jobs, and about 35,000 of them were young homeless people. We worked on an approach of 'no exits into homelessness'—so, working with psychiatric institutions, hospitals, jails and out-of-home care to make sure that people weren't exiting state care into homelessness, straight onto the streets. We introduced a vulnerability flag on people's Centrelink records so that, if they weren't answering Centrelink's correspondence because they were sleeping rough and didn't get the letter, they wouldn't automatically be cut off their benefits. We established a home organisational management expenses advice program.—we called it the HOME Advice Program—which helped stop families from becoming homeless.
I remember visiting one of these programs in Melbourne that we ran with NGOs, and they told me the story of a refugee family who had finally made it safely to Australia—mother and children. This family went to the beach one day and one of the children drowned at the beach. The mother had made a decision to pay for the child's funeral, but that decision meant that she didn't have money for rent. The family were facing homelessness because they had decided to pay for the funeral of the child, the brother or sister they'd lost. A little bit of help at a time like this, keeping a roof over the heads of this family, by making them a small loan for a few weeks to help them pay the rent meant that they didn't become homeless. It is about preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place.
We invested $5.5 billion into the remote Indigenous communities programs to build houses in remote communities. This program is due to expire this year, and we still have no indication from the government about whether it will be extended or not. Are we going to give up building and maintaining homes in remote Indigenous communities? We don't know. We established the Assistance with Care and Housing for the aged program. This is a program for older people who are in insecure housing arrangements or who are homeless to help them find a home and keep a home in the community. We assisted 4,200 people to remain living in their homes through that program. There are so many things we can do, so much help we can give, and so much of that lost since the change in government.
We've had all sorts of fantasies from those opposite about what our negative gearing tax changes would do to housing in this country. It is supposed to push house prices both up and down, according to those opposite. What the Treasury actually say is:
Overall price changes are likely to be small , though the composition of ownership may shift away from domestic investors.
What they mean is: to first home buyers. Well, that's a pretty good thing, really—if we have more first home buyers able to make it into the housing market. It is worth remembering that over 50 per cent of the benefits of negative gearing go to the top 20 per cent of incomes and the top 10 per cent of incomes receive nearly 75 per cent of the benefits of the capital gains tax concessions when it comes to investment in housing.
We want to continue to offer real support to people who need it. It was devastating for me when last year a fantastic homelessness service in Darlinghurst closed after 40 years of operation because those opposite couldn't find $900,000 a year to keep it open. The Haymarket Clinic had to close its doors. It was a service that looked after homeless people. It looked after their health and referred them to housing providers. We have the opportunity to do much, much better in the area of homelessness—and we should. This bill doesn't do that.
I'm glad for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill, which the opposition is prepared to support because it stands, in some part, to at least maintain the funding that's currently provided through the National Affordable Housing Agreement and the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. But it is very disappointing that it fails to do much more than that. It fails to be more than a kind of continuation of the status quo. It fails to do more than just keep us in a holding pattern, when there is a need for national leadership and reform in this space. The remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Sydney, really pointed to how that failure has real and acute impacts in our communities. This bill, while belatedly giving some certainty around the continuation of the funding that was previously provided by those two other agreements, doesn't move us forward in addressing the acute shortage in affordable housing, doesn't move us forward in trying to improve homelessness support services, in partnership with the states and territories—and I'll come back to that sense of partnership—and it fails to show national leadership.
This bill establishes the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, which I guess we'll call the NHHA, and it essentially continues funding of $1.4 billion per year from the Commonwealth to support affordable housing—that is what occurred previously through the NAHA—and about $125 million a year to support homelessness services, which was previously provided through the NPAH. But there is no growth funding. There is no increase in overall funding, there is no national strategy or set of targets, and there's been no meaningful consultation with the states and territories. But we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that this is an area where the Commonwealth should blithely abdicate its responsibility, because the country does face a very big challenge when it comes to affordable housing and homeless services.
Homelessness Australia pointed out in its submission on this bill that, last year 195,000 Australian households sat waiting for social housing. There is a shortfall of 458,000 affordable homes across Australia, and yet this bill provides no additional funding and no growth funding to support social housing growth, which is desperately needed. We know that each year nearly 300,000 Australians attend homelessness services for help. Homelessness support services in my electorate are provided by St Patrick's Community Care Centre. I've been there to see and to assist, in my not very skilful fruit-chopping ways, in the preparation of breakfast for people who come in first thing in the morning having spent a night out, particularly a winter night. It's a reminder when you see a person come in a bit wet and a bit worse for wear and they're waiting out in the dark for the doors to open at the first possible moment to come in a grab a fresh towel and go and have a shower and have something to eat. You do get a sense, even just in a tiny snapshot, of what that's like and how different it is from the experience of those of us who don't have to worry about where we're going to spend the night.
Nearly 300,000 Australians attend homelessness services for help each year. The number is growing. Last year 66,000 people were turned away from homelessness support services. And yet, just as there is no growth funding to support social housing growth, there's no real growth in funding to help address the acute need for homelessness services. In fact, it has been pointed out that while there's no growth in funding, it appears that there's some change to the scope of the way funding can be applied under this reform, so that what used to be focused on public housing for people on low incomes, isn't necessarily going to be the focus of funding under this agreement. The NHHA isn't really clear. The scope appears to cover housing affordability in the broader residential property market. So there's a potential here for the existing flat funding to move into areas that don't represent the most desperate and acute needs.
In Western Australia, just to paint that picture, Western Australia does have more people sleeping rough. It's almost double the national average. If you look at the proportion of people who are homeless, state by state, the national average has six per cent of people sleeping rough. In Western Australia it's 10 per cent. More people are living in overcrowded dwellings in Western Australia, and half as many people are in supported accommodation.
In the absence of growth funding and consultation with the states and territories, and after nearly five years of doing not very much, the government comes out with the NHHA as a kind of ultimatum to the states and territories. We speak on this bill here today not knowing what the states and territories are going to do. This government has essentially said that if they want to continue to receive their current levels of funding they need to comply with some new conditions. They need to provide a strategy on affordable housing, social housing and homelessness on a state-by-state basis, with some reporting around that. The Commonwealth is not proposing to show any strategic leadership. It's not taking any responsibility, putting out a set of targets or identifying the kinds of evidence based mechanisms that should and need to deliver change in this area. As we know, and as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out, this government is not prepared to look at sensible reform in a range of areas in addition to direct funding for affordable housing and homeless services. It's not prepared to look at wider reform that would make meaningful change. Instead, the task of setting strategy and responding to this problem, gathering information, is being pushed onto the states. That's not the way reform should occur. It's not in keeping with the responsibility of the Commonwealth to show national leadership and take national level responsibility. The Productivity Commission has observed that in many areas, but in this area in particular, we need more, not less, cooperation and genuine partnership between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. It has also observed, quite rightly I think, that reform shouldn't be pursued through funding control or funding ultimatums, with effectively a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. Yet that's how this is proceeding.
It's enormously disappointing that the government has no interest at all in broader responsible policies and programs in the housing and homelessness space. If you look at the record since 2013, it's a record of retreat. It's a record of damage, deconstruction and taking away from the work of the former Labor government. This government abolished the Housing Help for Seniors pilot. It closed the National Rental Affordability Scheme. It defunded homelessness and community housing peak bodies. It abolished the National Housing Supply Council.
Labor took on what is a serious problem in our society, a problem that enables unacceptable circumstances to persist for some of the most vulnerable Australians. There were some areas where we made really significant progress, there were some areas where we began to make progress and there were some areas where the progress was not as fast as you would like. But, if you are a responsible government, you pick up the baton and move forward—you don't set about wrecking the joint, and yet that is what has occurred. There isn't even a housing minister in the current government. It is a record of abject retreat and abject policy and program abandonment.
Labor take a very different approach. We're proud to take a very different approach that is in keeping with our values. We're not going to turn away from this challenge. We take the view that the federal government, the national government of Australia, has a role to play in providing proper funding, but proper funding isn't the be-all and end-all of it. It's also about providing leadership on reform and policy innovation.
We know Australia's tax investment settings have an influence on the cost of housing. We know that urban design and transport infrastructure have an influence. The government just doesn't seem to get that. I'm glad that the Reserve Bank Governor understands it. I was in a hearing with the Reserve Bank Governor the previous week and he noted:
… we have made choices as a society to give us high housing prices, on average, and that goes with high debt. … we've underinvested in transport, so we've restricted the supply of well-located land. And we've got a liberal financial system and zoning restrictions. If you asked anyone how a country would deliver high housing prices, you'd find we've made all those choices: live in fantastic coastal cities, most of us; underinvest in transport; have a liberal financial system; and not want high density. We've done all that, so there are high housing prices …
Labor is prepared to look at some of those factors. We should all be prepared to look at some of those factors and do something about it. We funded smarter cities planning in the past. In the last Labor government we invested more in public transport than all previous federal governments had invested. We're prepared to look at tax reform when it comes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. We're also prepared to boost funding for homelessness services. We went to the last election with a policy for an additional $88 million through a safe housing fund. We're committed, in keeping with our legacy of policy and program action in this space, to re-establish the National Housing Supply Council and reinstate a dedicated minister for housing.
Homelessness Australia's submission on this bill really summed up the wide and pressing gap that the bill doesn't address. It does present a holding pattern. It does essentially continue with flat funding and business as usual. Homelessness Australia observed:
They noted that the last serious investment in social housing growth was the investment by the former Labor government in response to the global financial crisis of 2008-09. In turning their attention directly to the question of national leadership and strategy they noted:
Without safer and affordable housing, everything else is contingent and at risk. Until you've had some experience of that, you might be able to live your life without a proper appreciation of just how bleak and disabling those circumstances can be. I can't say that I've experienced them in an acute form. I grew up in a single-parent household. We rented house after house after house. Sometimes we got very short notice from a landlord that it was time to move on, and my mum would get out the cardboard boxes and the packing tape and we would put everything in them and go again. I was lucky to live in Fremantle in the 1980s and 1990s, when rents in Fremantle were relatively cheap. That's not the case now.
Until you've had some passing experience with what homelessness and insecure housing really means, perhaps you could think that it's not the problem of the national government. It is the problem of the national government. A national government should do more. It should ensure that people have housing so that they can turn their mind to the next-order things—health, education, employment, social inclusion and participation—so that they have the opportunity to breathe out, to sleep without fear, to plan for the future, to love and be loved, and to escape a fraught, dangerous, unhealthy edge-of-survival experience.
It is a pleasure to follow my colleague and friend the member for Fremantle. I commend his heartfelt address on the importance of homelessness and tackling that scourge.
The three key pillars of our great Australian society are: dignity in work and retirement; the universal provision of health care; and access to quality education. But another key element is what many call the great Australian dream, which is really a fundamental human right: the ability to access quality and affordable housing. That's why I rise to speak today on the housing affordability and homelessness crisis that so many Australians are facing right now.
This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017, amends the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 to repeal the current National Specific Purpose Payment for housing services and replaces it with new funding arrangements under which payments to the states and territories will be contingent on their being party to primary, supplementary and designated housing agreements. On this topic, I should note that in Labor's last budget annual homelessness funding under the NPAH was $115 million. In the Abbott government's disastrous 2014-14 budget, however, $44 million a year in capital funding was cut from the NPAH. This bill, unfortunately, maintains the current levels of funding, meaning many service providers will continue to operate at less than their potential or not at all. However, opposing this bill would put in jeopardy programs that rely on the current funding provided, and that is an unacceptable risk. As a result, Labor will not oppose the passage of this bill.
This highlights the serious issues in our housing sector, which I will turn to now. There can be no doubt that there is a massively increasingly level of unaffordability in our housing market. The ratio of housing prices to average household disposable income has moved from around three in the 1990s to well over five. This shift has coincided with a very significant change to our taxation system. This increase in unaffordability of housing has been much higher in large capital cities. I regret to stay that Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth are now in the top 20 most unaffordable housing markets in the world, with Sydney second and Melbourne fifth. We have seen in the same period a big shift to an investor share in the housing market. In 1985, just nine per cent of home loans by total value were held by investors. It's now over 43 per cent. At the same time, we have seen a big decline in first home ownership. In the second half of the 1990s the average share of first home buyers in the share of total home buyers was 22 per cent. Now it's floating at around 14 per cent. We've seen a significant fall in those aged under 34 being able to buy a home. So we've seen declining first home ownership and younger people being shut out of the market.
At the same time, we have seen low- and middle-income earners also being shut out. Between 2002 and 2012, we saw the share of middle-income earners able to buy their homes decline by 19 per cent, and for low-income earners there has been a 15 per cent fall. This has been associated with increasing inequality in our society and the rise of insecure work, making it much harder for low- and middle-income Australians to buy their first home. At the same time we've seen a very significant fall in the share of housing loans going to new housing stock. In 1992, 18 per cent of home loans were for new housing. It is now around six per cent. This is despite a very big increase in the investor share of home loans, as I alluded to before.
So we've seen increasing housing unaffordability and young people, poor people and first home buyers being shut out of the market at the same time we've seen a very big increase in investor home loans. These trends are very worrying, and they're principally being driven by two factors. The first is the normalisation of low inflation and hence low interest rates. The second is the decision by Peter Costello and John Howard, some of the laziest economic managers we have seen in this country, to introduce a massive 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax.
The interaction of negative gearing and the 1999 capital gains tax discount has driven the rise in housing unaffordability and has shut generations out of the housing market. Before 1999, on average, rental income in this country was positive—that is, housing investors paid tax because they made a profit on their rental properties. In 1999-2000, for example, there was about $150 million of rental income that was positive and paid tax. Since that change to capital gains tax, we have seen a massive collapse in net rental income. Each year, recently, rental losses have run between $5 billion and $8 billion—that is, landlords in this country have claimed in net terms about $5 billion to $8 billion in rental losses that they then reduce their other taxable income against. Expenses claimed as a percentage of gross rental yield increased from 98 per cent in 1999 to 123 per cent. That means each landlord, on average, is claiming $5 in expenses for every $4 of gross rental income they receive, and that is a very worrying trend.
Why is this occurring? It's because of the negative gearing for taxation treatment interacting with capital gains. So what we now see is a very large number of landlords happy to lose money on their annual returns for their rental property. They are speculating that they will, in turn, get a significant capital gain that will then receive a 50 per cent discount when they sell that property. The Reserve Bank, in its testimony to a House economics committee inquiry into housing affordability a few years back, said that there is no doubt that this is a factor in the massive price explosion post 1999 and that that there was a case—these were their words—'for reviewing the treatment of negative gearing and the interaction with capital gains tax'. Most experts in this sector who are not in the pay of the property sector agree with this analysis. You just have to look at the fact that rental yields, on average, are well below share yields. If a rational investor saw a gap between how much they would make with rental property and how they would make from investing in shares, they would flow their investments to shares as the better asset class. They are not doing that, because of the capital gains tax and their long-term speculation.
Let me make it clear: there is no economic justification to privilege capital gains over other income streams. There is simply no economic justification. They are all forms of income. They should all be treated equally. It demonstrates the inbuilt class bias of the conservative parties in this parliament. This is the real class warfare, where they reward the owners of capital over workers, who receive income in general for their labour rather than as a capital gain. Who benefits from this? The discount on capital gains tax costs taxpayers $4 billion a year, and 75 per cent of this benefit goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners. Seventy-five per cent of this $4 billion a year cost goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners. Negative gearing costs $3.7 billion a year, and 50 per cent of this goes to the top 20 per cent of income earners. This is clearly unaffordable and massively inequitable.
By contrast, Labor's developed a sensible policy to tackle housing unaffordability, principally by limiting negative gearing to new housing stock. Investors should be welcome to negatively gear if it increases the housing supply by investing in new housing, and this is obviously something that's very relevant for low-income people renting and for the massive number of people who are homeless. We will reduce the capital gains tax discount to 25 per cent, which effectively deals with real capital gains rather than nominal capital gains through inflation. Importantly, we'll grandfather existing investments so that we do not change the tax treatment for people who have made decisions already. This is sensible policy directed at tackling housing unaffordability, unlike the view of the Liberal coalition government.
I would like to deal with a few myths that are being perpetrated in this debate. Firstly, there is the myth that negative gearing and the capital gains tax concession are driving new housing supply. This is patently wrong. As we've seen, new housing has fallen from 18 per cent of home loans to six per cent. Secondly, there is the myth that the experience in the mid-eighties when negative gearing was abolished somehow led to a massive rent rise. This is absolutely wrong. Treasury in their evidence to the House economics committee confirmed that there was no case for someone to make that conclusion. When negative gearing was abolished in the mid-1980s, rents went up in Sydney and Perth because of the finance and mining booms, but rents fell in Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide. Rental price increases roughly track the general price increase. Thirdly, there is the myth that the benefits of negative gearing disproportionately go to low-income earners. That, again, is very, very wrong. I've already outlined the distributional benefit, and the RBA testified to the economics committee that most of the people, if not all of the people, with a very low taxable income who claim negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts are actually wealthy retirees, who have most of their income exempt due to another decision from Peter Costello.
So, any debate about housing affordability in this country must be grounded in tackling those twin distortions in the tax system—the negative gearing aspect and the 50 per cent discount for capital gains tax. Both of those things have fuelled a massive speculative boom in this country that has put home ownership out of reach for most young Australians and most low- and middle-income Australians, sadly. That is one aspect of tackling the housing affordability crisis in this country.
Other key components of Labor's policy have been to facilitate a COAG process to introduce a uniform vacant property tax across all major cities. Again, a House economics committee inquiry in 2014 saw considerable evidence about foreign investors buying properties in this country as a way of offshoring their savings—putting their savings somewhere safe and secure, away from governments that, let's just say, probably have a more unconventional view about property rights. That's understandable from their point of view. Usually these properties are bought off-the-plan and are supposedly adding to new housing stock, but often they're left vacant, and that means that they're not adding to new housing stock in this country. So we've committed to a new COAG process to introduce a uniform vacant property tax across all major cities. We've committed to increasing foreign investor fees and penalties, and we will limit direct borrowing by self-managed superannuation funds. This was another aspect of the housing inquiry that was quite worrying.
We saw a very significant rise in direct borrowing by self-managed superannuation funds to make speculative investments in property. Not only is this driving a bubble that is making housing unaffordable; but it undermines, I think, the stability of our superannuation system. If there is any significant correction in our housing market—and we're seeing flat prices at the moment but we haven't seen a dramatic fall anywhere outside of a few areas of the economy dependent on resource booms—if there is a whole, widespread price correction, we could see a lot of people's self-managed superannuation funds completely wiped out. Not only would this force a very rapid downselling of these properties, which, again, would add more properties to a declining market, therefore, making the cycle even more vicious and dramatic; it would also undermine the retirement incomes of hundreds of thousands of Australians. So it's a very sensible policy to limit direct borrowing by self-managed superannuation funds. These are all sensible and practical reforms that have been developed over the last few years and that will have a tangible impact on housing affordability and homelessness.
The housing sector is yet another victim of the coalition's inability to come up with a comprehensive and effective plan for the future of Australia and the thousands of vulnerable who are being left behind because of their inept approach to policy. We're not the only ones who think so. In response to the most recent budget, Homelessness Australia said that the budget fails to deliver the big picture solutions needed to end homelessness. James Toomey of Mission Australia was also disappointed by this government's inaction, claiming that rents are becoming increasingly unaffordable for older and younger Australians alike, with those on Newstart and the aged pension struggling to find a home within their electorate. In my own electorate Nova for Women and Children helped hundreds of people struggling with homelessness last year. They stated that the three main reasons people sought their assistance were domestic violence, the housing crisis and housing affordable stress. Labor has concrete policies to help tackle all three.
Homelessness and housing remains one of the great unsolved policy challenges at the federal level. It requires a cooperative policy across all three levels of government, but ultimately it requires a government committed to nation building, committed to repeating the great investment in housing stock that we saw under successive Labor governments, the Curtin and Chifley governments most notably, but even with the Rudd government's commitment to the National Rental Affordability Scheme. We need a government committed to doing that again. Unfortunately we have a government committed to doing the opposite.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017. Homeless in is a huge issue in my electorate of Herbert. I have never met a person who said one of their life goals was to end up homeless at any point in their life. This is a very complex situation. According to the Queensland Council of Social Service report in 2014, there are more than 1,200 people homeless in Herbert. I'm aware of an elderly woman who lives on Palm Island, on Butler Bay, who has sugar diabetes. She has no water, no electricity, and relies on people to bring her fuel for her generator so that she can keep a small fridge running to keep her insulin cold. Otherwise it has little to no effect. I have also seen the impact of homelessness in my previous work in mental health. The issue of homelessness linked to mental ill health is a major concern in my community, as is the issue of the growing trend of homelessness for older women. In some cases elder abuse is also a factor.
The organisation that I led before being elected to this place provided support for people living with mental health conditions across north and west Queensland who are at risk of becoming homeless. This state funded program was highly successful. In my current role as the member for Herbert, I have met with numerous people and community organisations, and the outcome of every discussion has made it abundantly clear to me that homelessness is having a devastating impact on my community and that homelessness does not discriminate, because anyone can become homeless at any time.
Homelessness isn't just about having a roof over your head. Surely every citizen in our communities around this nation has the right to a place to live that is safe. It is extremely difficult to maintain employment, raise a family, or contribute positively to your community when you don't have a home or a job.
There are many financial and social issues that lead people to a state of homelessness. I know that housing affordability is a huge problem in both Sydney and Melbourne, but housing affordability in the electorate of Herbert is also a huge issue, although the reasons are very different to those in Sydney and Melbourne. The majority of housing in Herbert is not being sold for millions of dollars, like the houses in Sydney. However, Herbert has a huge issue regarding people actually being able to afford to enter the housing market. As I have already mentioned, mental health issues are a problem. Rental stress, financial stress, unemployment, under employment, low wages and the cost of living are huge burdens for many people and families in Herbert. That is what is preventing a large majority of people in Townsville from entering the housing market.
Just last week, I met with my Townsville defence community reference group, a group that consists of 25 ex-serving personnel organisations. One of them is Veterans off the Streets—VOTSA. The VOTSA coordinator, Floss Foster, shared with the group how the recent Christmas period had been a very busy period for them. During that period alone VOTSA assisted more than 18 people, provided $800 in food provisions, $600 in fuel and $4,806 in accommodation.
Last year my work colleagues, my family, including my grandchildren, and I participated in the VOTSA sleep-out. I don't think the majority of people truly understand what it is like to be homeless. The VOTSA sleep-out provides an opportunity for community members to experience one night of sleeping rough where you are sleeping in exposed conditions—although, I must say, we did have some cover. It is not until you're exposed to sleeping rough that you can comprehend how tough it is. It was raining that night, so none of us got much sleep. The ground was rough and wet, and the glaring street lights certainly didn't help either. But it was the safety of people who live rough or on the streets that was of serious concern to me, because every other night of the year I have the honour and privilege of being safe in my home with my husband, as do my grandchildren with their parents. That is what really hit home to me from that experience.
I have heard the personal stories of how organisations like VOTSA and Wounded Heroes are on the front line, providing emergency assistance for many veterans in need—like the veteran family in Townsville who, the day before Christmas, received an eviction notice. Seriously, why would you give someone an eviction notice the day before Christmas? It seems be very cold-hearted to me. But, because of mental health issues and financial stress, this veteran family found themselves, within a few days, with no place to live. If it wasn't for the work of Floss and VOTSA, who provided the emergency assistance that was needed, this family's Christmas would've been a complete disaster. It is a national shame that right now we have veterans who are homeless and living on the streets, that there are people who fought for our country and risked their lives to protect our freedoms who do not have the safety of their own home. It is abhorrent and, frankly, it's a national shame.
Then, of course, we have a youth homelessness issue. A few weeks ago I met with Queensland Youth Services. Do you know how many beds there are currently in Townsville to house youth without a home? Three. There are currently three beds in Townsville for youth who are homeless. This is disgraceful and completely unacceptable. When I hear the stories of how someone as young as 13 is homeless, once again social issues like family violence, drugs and alcohol arise. Children as young as 13 feel that they are safer on the streets than in their own homes. Surely we can do better than this. There are numerous reasons why a person might find himself or herself homeless. No-one should ever be judged for being homeless, because it can happen so quickly. It can happen to anyone at any time, as I have already said.
If we are to truly address this problem and get serious about tackling Australia's homelessness rate then we must get serious about setting targets—and we must be aspirational; we must set good goals. Unfortunately this bill does none of that. It tinkers at the edges, changes the name, and the package is a complete sham. People are fed up with governments that just throw money at problems, without having any idea of how, if or when the homelessness problem will either start to decrease or be solved. If we are to do better, we must start doing something. If we're to achieve any hope of success, we must set aspirational targets for ending homelessness in Australia.
There is a need for greater accountability and transparency in the expenditure of Commonwealth housing assistance payments. This has been a longstanding position of Labor. The question that this bill does not answer is: how will we measure accountability and transparency? The Turnbull government does not have the comprehensive housing strategy that is necessary to resolve the country's large and growing crisis of housing affordability and supply for low- and very low income households. Simply putting a roof over someone's head will not resolve homelessness because homelessness has many facets and complexities. This bill does not address the vital wraparound services needed to end homelessness once and for all, and I have seen personally how those services are very effective and do prevent homelessness. It does nothing to address the impact of poor mental health on the issue of homelessness, it does nothing to address financial stress and it does nothing to address rental stress. I believe that Ms Jenny Smith, Chair of Homelessness Australia and CEO of the Council to Homeless Persons, said it best regarding the concerns in the public hearing on this bill:
… the legislation doesn't include … a federal plan, the plan we need to end homelessness. That plan would need to bring together policy on the security and adequacy of welfare payments, family violence and mental health, as well as for specialist homelessness service delivery and social housing provision.
These are the things that this bill must include and address. Until the Turnbull government stops tinkering around the edges and takes our homelessness crisis seriously, nothing will be achieved in addressing this critical social issue that impacts across the generations in our community. Let's set aspirational targets now, and let's end Australia's homelessness.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017. Deputy Speaker, you may be aware of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, as depicted in a diagram of a pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid, you need to fulfil very basic needs—nutrition, shelter and safety. These are the key things before you can accomplish anything as a human being, before you can go up the pyramid towards self-actualisation. As we've heard from previous speakers, a central issue in this debate is that of housing affordability—basic shelter. More precisely, housing is actually unaffordable for most ordinary Australians. The many homeless people in our society are not even able to get to that basic need as a starting point.
Many young people in my electorate of Wills struggle to get into the housing market and to own a home, and they also struggle with rent. According to a CoreLogic report commissioned by the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, the median house price in my electorate is around $1 million. So it's little surprise that the rate of home ownership amongst those aged between 25 and 34 has plummeted from 60 per cent to 48 per cent in recent years. Many of those people have written off the idea of buying a home; it's become completely unrealistic to the majority. Of course, the casualisation of the workforce has a role to play in this regard. And, despite the sage advice of the former Treasurer—I'm being sarcastic—it's not as simple as getting a high-paying job. People end up in unstable rental properties and get stuck in an endless cycle of leasing. It makes it extremely difficult to save enough to afford a home loan and, on top of that, the expenses that living out of home comes with. So there is an urgent need to get a system in place that ensures sustainable renting while also dealing with the bigger overall issue of housing affordability.
Having an affordable and secure home with reasonable access to services is essential to people's financial, social and emotional wellbeing—their ability to go up Maslow's pyramid of the hierarchy of needs to achieve and accomplish things in their life that are actually about helping others. All Australians have a right to secure, affordable and appropriate housing throughout their lives. Having a genuine chance to live near job opportunities is essential for Australians' social and economic participation. But, for too many people, the housing pressures they face are getting worse, not better.
We know Australia has a housing crisis—a crisis of supply, a crisis of affordability and a crisis of suitability and sustainability. We are all familiar with the fact that the debate on housing affordability has been both fierce and well documented. I understand how out of reach buying a home can seem for many in this climate and how rent is so high. Negative gearing and existing capital gains tax concessions are making housing affordability worse by providing a large tax subsidy to investors, giving them an unfair advantage over first home buyers. This policy needs to change. Labor has a strong policy on affordable housing.
My family were fortunate. We grew up in a housing commission house in the seventies and eighties in inner-city Melbourne, so we were given access to affordable housing, as well as access to universal health care and access to education. These things came out of Labor governments—the Hawke and Keating governments in particular. When I reflect on that opportunity that was given to me and extended to my family, I feel especially fortunate as I see the current state of affairs being so difficult for young people. Rates of homeownership have fallen at the same time that rental stress experienced by low-income households has actually risen to 40 per cent. Levels of homelessness are also rising.
We heard from some of the previous speakers what a destructive and growing social and economic problem homelessness is. It's no coincidence that public housing stock has dropped from six per cent of total stock to just under three per cent over the past 25 years. It's unacceptable that in a country endowed with wealth and opportunity that many of our fellow Australians still have nowhere to call home. It should be an inalienable human right for all Australians to have access to safe and affordable housing. There's no greater or starker example of increasing inequality than many of our fellow Australians having to sleep in the streets, couch surf or live in overcrowded, unhygienic and unacceptable conditions while many others live in luxury and privilege by comparison.
The key purpose of this bill is to amend the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 to repeal the current national specific purpose payment for housing services and replace it with new funding arrangements under which payments to the states and territories will be contingent on them being primary, supplementary and designated housing agreements. The National Housing and Homelessness Agreement will provide $375 million over three years, from 2018-19, maintaining the current $115 million of annual homelessness funding provided under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. I note, though, that Labor's 2013-14 budget provided annual homelessness funding under the NPAH of $159 million. In the Abbott government's disastrous 2014-15 budget, $44 million a year in capital funding was cut from the NPAH. It was the view of the Abbott government that dealing with the scourge of homelessness was the responsibility of the states and not a matter for the federal government. Homelessness is clearly not defined to any state or territory. It's not geographic in that sense. It is a national issue, and I think it's a pretty simple proposition that it warrants the involvement of the Commonwealth.
The current Turnbull government has walked back from that Abbott premise and announced its intention to negotiate a new NHHA as part of its 2017-18 budget measures. In doing so, the government has described these measures as a comprehensive plan to improve housing affordability. However, the government's supposedly comprehensive package of reforms has not been received at all well. That is not just by us on the opposition benches but by experts in the field. Mr John Daley, the chief executive of the Grattan Institute, said:
I can't see any reason why this budget is going to make a discernible difference to housing affordability; a discernible difference on the number of younger people that buy a house.
James Toomey, from executive operations and fundraising for Mission Australia—and they are on the frontline—said:
Disappointingly, the Budget contained inadequate assistance for the many people in rental stress who remain just one step away from homelessness. Rents are becoming increasingly unaffordable for older and younger Australians alike, with those on Newstart and the age pension struggling to find a home within their means.
This list goes on. There have been scores of criticism of the government's performance on this front. You just need to take a look at the evidence given to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill to see that.
Many of the submissions received by the Senate committee expressed strong criticisms of the conditionality that the bill places on payment of housing and homelessness assistance to the states and territories. When the subject of tax reform comes up—and it was raised during the public hearing and in the submissions—the universal view is that Labor's policy of reforms to negative gearing negative and capital gains tax discounts should and must form part of any credible national housing affordability plan. Unfortunately, we know the Turnbull government has painted itself into a corner on tax reform, as with so many other issues, due to the weakness of the Prime Minister. The Treasurer, Scott Morrison, who was reportedly rolled in cabinet when he tried to curb what he called the excesses in negative gearing, has also ruled out any changes to capital gains tax concessions, despite calls from his own back bench to make some.
Labor, on the other hand, took reform of negative gearing as a key policy to the 2016 election. That element of our policy proposal would also create more jobs in the building industry, because negative gearing could be continued on newly constructed properties. So we know that there are positives to negative gearing when it is well regulated and the policy adequately reformed, as we have suggested. While reforming negative gearing policy is an excellent start in taking on some of the elements of this issue, it's just the beginning. There are some areas of competing interests that will need to be rebalanced in favour of the thousands locked out of affordable, secure homes.
We'll always be unapologetic in advocating for those that now see the housing market as unattainable. Housing unaffordability drives growing inequality in this country. There are many policy areas where there are opportunities for the entire community to be better off. I believe, as I think most people do on this side, that Australians have the right to secure, affordable, and appropriate housing throughout their lives, with a genuine chance to live near job opportunities, which is essential for Australians' social and economic participation. All it takes is a government willing to listen and to act in the interests of all Australians. Unfortunately, this government is merely tinkering around the edges in what is a very important policy area. I believe that the goal of affordable and secure housing can only be achieved through a future Labor government.
Here we are, nearly a year later, actively contemplating the establishment of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation announced in the budget last year. Housing affordability has been a massive issue for the last few years, as a result of Labor's advocacy about the need to tackle this issue directly, particularly in relation to matters that I will reflect upon later in my contribution to this debate. We've been saying for some time that this is a big issue that is putting pressure on low- and middle-income families in this country and needs to be tackled seriously.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017, as I said, will finally, after all this time, effectively breathe life into an idea that was suddenly floated by the coalition in the early part of 2017, which was that they would provide for affordable housing bond aggregators, which would be administered through a National Housing Infrastructure Facility. It was intended that it would bring together lending requirements of different community housing providers and finance those requirements.
We support this because—surprise, surprise!—yet again in the housing affordability debate, where Labor has championed particular avenues for reform, it has been the coalition that has had to then come in and follow. We announced in April last year, for instance, that we would establish a bond aggregator to help increase investment in affordable housing. So you'd obviously expect, as a result of that, that we won't oppose the measures put in this bill—and we will not. We announced the aggregator because we recognised it would help people access cheaper finance for new affordable rental housing, which is very important.
The issue of affordable rental opportunities is one that's starting to emerge quite strongly. People are concerned, particularly in the part of the world that I come from, Western Sydney, about rental opportunities. Obviously, a lot of people are also concerned about buying their own homes, but having a roof over your head is absolutely critical. As the member for Wills reflected upon in his contributions to this debate, it's one of those threshold needs that people obviously have—the need to have a roof over their head and feel secure about the type of accommodation that they have.
While I've said that we will support this particular proposition being put forward by the government, we have expressed concerns about the extent to which the facility will contribute to increasing housing stock, particularly affordable housing, as opposed to just facilitating greenfield development of new owner-occupied housing or private market investment or retail housing. We've put that on the record, but we're happy to work with the government on that.
It is also important to note again that, while a bond aggregator is one step, we think that there needs to be significant reform to the taxation incentives that exist at the moment that may drive up the price of housing. We're not the only ones to say this. Last week, the International Monetary Fund released their latest article IV consultation with Australia, and it's noted in there that the IMF have endorsed, in effect, the opposition's policy on negative gearing and capital gains concession impacts on housing. The IMF believes that Commonwealth housing tax settings favour leveraged housing investments in upswings that might encourage excess demand for housing. This is what the IMF is pointing out. That's why we've been arguing for some time for reform of the taxation concessions that impact on housing demand. We believe that does need to be pursued. Pursuing these types of propositions that are being debated by the House will help in one part, but do you need to have a comprehensive view and a strong set of reform principles that we have been advocating for some time on housing affordability.
When it comes to housing affordability, particularly in the area of social housing, in my part of the world in Western Sydney, particularly around Mount Druitt, we have many tracts of land that were converted over 50 years ago to public housing. At that time public housing was pushed to the urban fringes, because—I don't think I'm the first to reflect on it like this—it was out of sight, out of mind for policymakers back in those times: if they just created those public housing estates with cheap access to land, and then not provide the social support mechanisms, that would be satisfactory. Clearly it wasn't, and it caused a lot of concern. One of the big issues I get through my office is still people's concerns about the quality of social housing. There have been some not-for-profit operators who have been able to leverage themselves and provide social housing and new stock, and they were boosted by some of Labor's commitments during the GFC, where we provided for an injection of funds to see more social housing created, to get people off extensive waiting lists and also, importantly, provide funds for maintenance, because in many instances people in social housing are waiting for ages to get simple things repaired through state government instrumentalities. It is intolerable that people are forced to live in some of the conditions I've seen in our area. It is a big issue. Finding more options for people on low and middle incomes is very important.
The whole issue of housing affordability is also a reflection of the way that cities are planned. Before he was vaulted to greatness, Philip Lowe, now the governor of the Reserve Bank, many years ago—nearly five years ago, off the top of my head—talked about the interconnectedness, the fact that transport infrastructure plays a vital role in housing affordability, because more often than not people move to the outer fringes of our cities attracted by the fact there's less competition for housing, but the reality is that all the services and all the infrastructure required is not there. So people have to make a big decision that says, 'If I'm going to buy a house, I have to move to the furthest part of the city to do so, and I'll have to put up with the fact the roads aren't there, the rail's not there, the hospitals aren't close by, the schools haven't been built, all the services and amenities required are pushed off to the never-never, and that's why it's more affordable.' That forces people to live for long periods without services they rightly would expect would be there earlier. Not right at the same time; there's an understandable pressure on state and local governments to provide certain services; but people would expect that those services would come in time.
I note the presence of the shadow minister here. He and I have discussed the issues in my part of the world, and he's visited in Sydney's west—areas where we have been talking about finding a new, more comprehensive way to get people movement improved in our part of Western Sydney and the outer suburbs. This will require longer term vision, backed up by a longer term commitment in terms of financing. In terms of public and private transport, right now there are bottlenecks that are driving people nuts. The long commute that people have from the west to the east, not just going from Sydney's west to the CBD, but anywhere nowadays, is a struggle. As I have said to the House previously, I have stood on railway station platforms in Sydney's west, seeing rows of people five deep. They will stand for over an hour in a packed train, going from one part of the city to another. It's not any better on our roads either. Congestion on our roads, particularly on motorways—they once used to be called freeways in Sydney—every minute you put a new motorway up, there's a toll bucket on it. This is a big issue for Western Sydney as well. Every time you want to put in a road that alleviates some of the congestion, they're hit with massive tolls, and people in our area are getting sick of that imposition as well. It is becoming intolerable.
I note that one of the self-appointed voices of western Sydney—there are a number of them—is David Borger. He's from the Western Sydney division of the Sydney Business Chamber. He managed to get a piece in The Sydney Morning Herald, which I'm a big fan of. I do love The Sydney Morning Herald, though on occasion I refer to it as the 'Eastern Suburbs Herald', because of its focus on issues involving anything other than the other half of the city.
A government member interjecting—
They do talk about housing issues. It does talk about issues, but not enough about Western Sydney. But David Borger managed to get a piece into The Sydney Morning Herald this week, talking about Liverpool as the escape route for frustrated commuters. Apparently it took David Borger to see a Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics study that showed that congestion was a big issue in Western Sydney. I do credit him for the fact that he does live in Western Sydney, but this has been a big issue for some time. And there are problems with thinking that Liverpool, for example, will suddenly open up as a potential new part of Western Sydney that will provide people with the ability to get jobs close to where they live and affect housing affordability in the longer term.
In a lot of the CBDs in Western Sydney—Liverpool, Parramatta, Blacktown, Penrith and Richmond—we are forcing modern living on colonial grids that do not suit the times. It is too hard to move around these CBDs. In fact, I often say, 'If you're upset with a friend, force them to drive to Parramatta.' Any time you have to go into Parramatta is an exercise in self-loathing if you're using a car. I love the city, but it is near impossible to move around in. The same will be experienced in Liverpool. David Borger knows this because he relates it in in his story. This is the same David Borger, mind you, who, when I raised the opportunity for south-west growth centres to have a rival CBD within Sydney, described that as the stupidest idea he had heard. That was David Borger.
What was his option? His option was not to put a new CBD area in the south-west growth centre. He thinks revitalising Liverpool will be the saviour—that it will open up new jobs and ensure that people can move more easily across Sydney. But there is all the money that then has to be devoted to the acquisition of property in the Liverpool CBD and the re-routing of traffic within the Liverpool CBD. Why couldn't that be better used for other things in that area, one might ask.
Again, we need to have a much more far-sighted view about what happens in Western Sydney than we see in some of the propositions being put forward by some of the self-proclaimed voices of Western Sydney. We need to actually improve people movement, and, connected to that, housing affordability. But we have these types of people like David Borger, who manage to get one or two pieces published to assuage the conscience of The Sydney Morning Herald, which thinks it doesn't focus enough on Western Sydney—which it doesn't. This not good enough. Some of the people who push these ideas—from David Borger to Chris Brown—certainly do not represent Western Sydney, and their comments should not be taken as gospel on issues such as housing affordability and people movement in our area.
Big projects are going begging. There is the upgrade of the Western Sydney line, the M9, which needs to happen much faster than is occurring right now. Not enough money has been dedicated to this to connect Western Sydney to the Illawarra and open up new paths of transport and people movement, that, in time, would help people who are stuck out on the urban fringe. Those people have had to pursue cheaper housing lots in Western Sydney, out on the urban fringe, because that's the cheapest they can get. But the infrastructure is not there. This is not good enough anymore.
Again, things need to happen: the M9; a public transport plan for Western Sydney that will help actually alleviate the types of pressures being experienced by commuters from Penrith through to Blacktown; and investment in the train stations themselves so people can actually park their cars close to a train station and get onto public transport instead of being stuck on the roads. These are other thing that will help the people living on the fringes of the city with people movement and, again, with improving housing affordability. This needs a lot more than one or two op-eds in a Sydney newspaper. It requires genuine commitment from all levels of government, and business, to ensure that this becomes a reality.
I too want to make a contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017. This bill is another example of the government's inaction when it comes to housing affordability. I happen to represent a very colourful, very vibrant area. It is one of the most multicultural areas in Australia and there is much to be proud of there. But it is certainly not a rich community. In Western Sydney, in my community of Fowler, housing affordability is one of the most dominant issues. Mums and dads work hard to put their kids through school. They talk to me about education and the importance of health. But they're also very worried about what will happen for their children when they leave home. A consequence is that many kids aren't leaving home at the moment—a great strain on the modern family—and I suppose that's apparent to most members here. The home ownership rate at the moment is at a 60-year low. We have people unable to get into the market in the first place. This is not just young people. This is people from various backgrounds, many of whom I represent, who can't afford repayments, let alone actually trying to get together enough funds for a deposit for housing in my community—and, as I say, mine is not a rich community.
We need to have a comprehensive housing plan, not a one-size-fits-all plan, not a bandaid here and a couple of adjustments there. We need to move in a way that has a clear impact on housing affordability. When the previous member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, on departing this place, gave his valedictory speech, he spoke about the need to review negative gearing and capital gains tax—what Labor is trying to do, oddly enough. As the then Treasurer, he said this was well overdue. By the way, this view was echoed by the then head of the Reserve Bank.
These are matters that will make a difference. But, clearly, those on the other side have no stomach when it comes to actually addressing those real issues. Housing affordability is going to be a critical issue for all of us—I assume that most on the other side are impacted by this too—and that's why we are not going to oppose this bill. But that's not to say that this bill is all that's needed to address the issues in the market. Simply put, if this bill doesn't pass, the homelessness support that is dependent on this bill would be put in serious jeopardy.
We have just heard the member for Chifley speaking about homelessness in Western Sydney, and I certainly know the level of homelessness in my electorate in Western Sydney. It's not necessarily just the people you see that might be sleeping rough or under bridges. There are people who are couch surfing or sleeping in cars, and they are finding it very difficult to make ends meet—and not just for themselves; the really regrettable aspect is that it involves their kids as well. These things are not hypothetical; they're occurring on our watch.
It is all well and good to give $65 billion to big business if you can afford to, but there are some real issues that we should be addressing. This government is putting all its hopes in the trickle-down theory of economics. They are still maintaining their belief in this theory even though, while average company profits last year were 20 per cent, wages rose by only 1.9 per cent, barely keeping pace with inflation—for those lucky enough to have a job. There are many out there who cannot get employment. We need to do more to generate employment and we need to generate employment closer to where people seek to live. Hence, the issue of Western Sydney and the development of Badgerys Creek airport is, hopefully, going to be one of those generators of employment opportunity for many people in the west. If it's not, I think we're all in dire straits out there.
This is not just about providing affordable and secure opportunities for people to buy into the housing market. The idea of having secure housing is essential for the social, financial and emotional wellbeing of people. People come to me on a regular basis—and I imagine it would be the same for many members here—thinking, 'You're a member of parliament; you can do lots of things.' I get asked regularly, 'Can you help us into housing?' I hear all the difficult stories we have out there: people who are trying to get their kids to school but who can't secure housing; people who have temporary housing but then have to move and, as a consequence, have to take their kids out of one school and try to get them into another school. It means social dislocation for families that are doing it tough.
Quite frankly, too many people are feeling these pressures, and it is getting worse. In our own case, my daughter and her family live with us. I know that, for the sake of his family, we helped my son get into his place. I hate to give some credit to the leader of the government for saying that children need parents with some substance—or, as he said, rich parents—to help them into properties. Certainly, we did put our house on the line to help my kids secure a place in the housing market. But this is not the way it's supposed to work. We're supposed to be able to assist people, particularly people in need.
As I started off by saying, mine is not a rich area. I certainly have an area that is heavily dependent on welfare assistance. There is another issue that I'm even more worried about. More than 50 per cent of the police work in my area is associated with domestic violence. Only this morning I was talking to Bonnie Support Services, which provide immediate assistance for women and children who are subject to domestic violence. They said that one of their basic issues is their need for access to crisis accommodation. Many of the public housing providers are withdrawing houses from the market. They simply are not in a position to refer women to crisis accommodation, because of the lack of affordable accommodation. These are issues that certainly are not theoretical. These are issues that need to be addressed, and addressed now. I hope those opposite can understand why we take umbrage at the fact that they want to trot out a signature policy of giving massive tax cuts to big business and multinationals whilst we still have such pockets of need in our respective communities. I believe that this is repugnant to any modern-thinking person who actually believes in community and the wellbeing of community.
This bill, in effect, seeks to repeal the current national specific purpose payments for housing services and replace them with a new funding arrangement under which payments to the states and territories will be contingent upon their being a party to the primary, supplementary and designated housing arrangements. Whilst we agree that there is a greater need for accountability and transparency in this space in respect of all expenditure of Commonwealth funds, particularly in relation to the Commonwealth housing assistance payment, this bill, quite frankly, just does not adequately address the need. I know the minister at the table, when he addressed Sky News and spoke about the agreement, told us that the housing package would be extraordinarily large and would be far-reaching. He said it would be an impressive package and would be a well-received package. Well, I hate to burst his bubble on that, but it has not been quite as well received as he might have thought.
I note that John Daley, the Chief Executive of the Grattan Institute and someone I regard as an expert in the field of housing, said, 'You'll need a scanning electron microscope to see an impact on prices,' and that you won't see a discernible difference in the numbers of young people who buy houses. Like him, we are not impressed. I also would like to refer to the comments that were made by Richard Holden, a professor of economics at the University of New South Wales. He said that the biggest disappointment in the budget was 'the absence of any measures whatsoever to address negative gearing and capital gains tax exemptions for rental properties'. This simply makes it a pointless exercise. As I said, for the reasons that I've advanced, we will not be opposing the bill, but clearly more needs to be done in this space.
I don't want to hark back to things of two weeks ago, but we had a Deputy Prime Minister who wanted to give gratuitous advice to people living in Sydney and Melbourne who might be affected by housing affordability. He came up with a very simple solution: why don't you sell up and move to Armidale? I don't think he meant they'd get the same deal in Armidale as he got, but that was his solution. Maybe he had his mind on other things, but one of the things he forgot was that it's not just the people who own a place who want to improve and buy a more expensive place or who are struggling with repayments; we are talking about people just getting into the market, first home buyers. There are also people who need socially assisted accommodation. The people at that end of the market are in particular need of assistance. Having said that, Labor will support the bill. But I simply indicate that much more work is needed to be done in this space.
Firstly, can I thank all the members who have taken the time to contribute to this debate. As has been said, the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017 reforms housing related payments to the states and territories, setting up a framework for payments upon meeting conditions and supporting implementation of one of the measures announced in the government's 2017-18 budget housing affordability package. This is part of the government's commitment to improve access to secure and affordable housing.
We know that housing affordability is an issue affecting many Australians. Access to secure housing is a driver of social and economic participation and promotes better employment, education and health outcomes. It's clear though that more must be done to reduce and prevent homelessness, reduce the number of low-income or disadvantaged households experiencing rental stress and improve the availability of safe and affordable housing for all Australians. This is why improving housing affordability across the housing spectrum must be a key policy goal for governments at all levels. The Commonwealth and state and territory governments must therefore work together to reduce pressure on housing affordability and to assist Australians who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
Sadly the current approach under the National Affordable Housing Agreement is not delivering and has not delivered the outcomes desired. Current arrangements lack transparency and, most importantly, accountability. The 2016 COAG performance report indicated that three out of the four benchmarks under the NAHA have not been or are unlikely to be met. This is notwithstanding the Commonwealth government having provided the states and territories with over $9 billion in additional housing related payments since 2009. This is why the government's negotiating a new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement with each of the states and territories. The key difference from the status quo is that the bill provides a mechanism for the Commonwealth to require the states to meet certain conditions before payments are made. These include making public the housing and homelessness strategy of the state, matching Commonwealth funding on homelessness and committing to improved data and transparency. This approach will secure improved outcomes, but in a way that's achievable for the states without jeopardising the funding of core social housing and homelessness services.
Currently, the only requirement for the majority of Commonwealth funding for housing and homelessness services is that it be spent on the sector and only the additional funding in the NPAH is tied to achievement of some outcomes. The new approach, in contrast, is intended to provide greater transparency and accountability in relation to Commonwealth funding provided to the states and territories for housing and homelessness. But, more importantly, it will deliver better housing outcomes for all Australians, particularly those in need.
The Commonwealth believes that all levels of government have a shared responsibility for housing and homelessness and that no one level of government is able to solve all of the issues we collectively face in the housing and homelessness space. The government is working with the states and territories to agree on objectives and outcomes that we'll jointly aspire to achieve under the new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. It's important to note that, whilst these changes are about better outcomes for all Australians, the government has for the first time committed to ongoing and annually indexed homelessness funding. This will provide greater certainty to the states and frontline service providers dealing with homelessness issues.
In summary, this bill will facilitate a new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement with the states and territories that will include specific requirements to improve transparency and accountability and to improve housing outcomes across the housing spectrum, especially of course for those most in need. This is part of the government's broader comprehensive housing affordability plan and will improve the standards of living for all Australians. I, therefore, commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask for leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (7) on sheet HV237 together.
It's unfortunate that this government can't get it right the first time, but, because we're in a generous mood, leave is granted.
Leave granted.
I move:
(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 18), omit "for", substitute "in relation to".
(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 21), omit "for", substitute "that relates to".
(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (lines 11 and 12), omit "the financial year", substitute "the period ascertained in accordance with the primary housing agreement or the supplementary housing agreement".
(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 16), omit "will be implemented to meet", substitute "contribute to meeting".
(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 21), before "make", insert "so far as is reasonably practicable to do so—".
(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (lines 24 and 25), omit "the financial year", substitute "the period ascertained in accordance with the primary housing agreement or the supplementary housing agreement".
(7) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 34), before "make", insert "so far as is reasonably practicable to do so—".
This bill, as we know, reforms housing-related payments to the states and territories by, importantly, requiring greater accountability and transparency of Commonwealth funding received by states and territories. A new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement will be created through a primary housing agreement and supplementary housing agreements, as defined by the bill. These amendments provide for certainty and clarity around the conditions for payments in relation to the primary and supplementary housing agreements.
The concerns of some stakeholders, including, most notably, the states and territories, have been listened to and responded to in these amendments. The amendments will allow states and territories to receive funding under the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement provided that they are party to the agreement just for part of the financial year. The amendments also allow some administrative flexibility when there are genuine reasons that the states have not met the strict requirements for payments, such as circumstances where a website outage means that the state strategy is not publicly available. These changes complement the government's other housing affordability measures announced in the bill and just clarify some aspects of the bill. I, therefore, commend these amendments.
Question agreed to.
I move:
(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (after line 17), at the end of section 15C, add:
(9) The following are matters for the State:
(a) the accuracy (or likely accuracy) of the level of housing supply indicated in the housing strategy mentioned in subsection (5);
(b) the quality or effectiveness (or likely quality or effectiveness) of the reforms and initiatives included in that housing strategy;
(c) the quality or effectiveness (or likely quality or effectiveness) of the reforms or initiatives included in the homelessness strategy mentioned in subsection (6).
This is a government without a housing strategy which insists that, to get funding, the states and territories have to have a housing strategy. This is a government which doesn't have any meaningful policies when it comes to housing affordability but brings in legislation trying to blame the states for the lack of a housing strategy. And the states, led by that well known socialist Dominic Perrottet, the Treasurer of New South Wales, complain so much about their treatment at the hands of the federal Treasurer that they've created a new organisation of state treasurers at which the federal Treasurer is not welcome to attend. That's how angry they were about their treatment in this legislation.
This amendment makes it clear that the quality or effectiveness of state or territory housing strategies and homelessness strategies and the accuracy of the level of housing supply in state and territory housing strategies are a matter for that state or territory—not a matter for the Treasurer, who can't even get his own housing affordability plan in order. These amendments address the concerns that states have raised—not just Labor states but conservative states as well. I thank all states for their interactions with me and the opposition as we have dealt with this matter. I commend the amendment to the House. I understand the government will support the amendment; even they know that this has to pass.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Tomorrow, the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games baton relay will travel through Darwin and Palmerston. I want to acknowledge the baton bearers that have been selected to participate: Floss Roberts, a driving force in the prevention of drowning in the Northern Territory for more than two decades; Tejinder pal Singh, who, after enduring a racist tirade of abuse while driving taxis, has for the past four years dedicated the last Sunday of each month to feeding poor and needy locals of northern Darwin; Anita Newman, the 2017 Palmerston Citizen of the Year, a dedicated teacher at Palmerston Senior College, an instructor for Air Force cadets and coach of the Palmerston Senior College debating team; Tony Burns, the CEO of Helping People Achieve, a not-for-profit organisation which offers support, employment and accommodation to Territorians living with disabilities. Congratulations also to Tony and his partner for becoming parents recently. Finally, there is Mark Munnich, the recipient of the 2017 NT Young Achiever Award, currently a law student at Charles Darwin University and also a community legal educator for the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and a Youth Week ambassador—not bad for a 25-year-old. Many others have done so much, but I want to acknowledge those baton bearers who will tomorrow carry the baton.
I want to thank the CWA in Western Australia, who recently marched on state parliament to protest against the $41 million of sweeping cuts to regional education. One of the most blatant and ill-conceived cuts is the cash grab of taking 20 per cent of funds from the Agricultural Education Farm Provisions Trust. Every year, year upon year, Labor is taking funding away from our agricultural colleges and the Esperance farm training school. These AEFPT funds are earned and generated by the colleges themselves from selling their own produce. The Harvey ag school in my electorate will lose at least $50,000 every single year, and these are the funds that the ag schools use for farm machinery, for developing the farms, for repairs and replacement of fences, the constant recurrent costs, as well as constant improvements in innovation that they need to provide quality education. Labor is cutting hundreds of thousands of dollars from these regional agricultural schools. There is no doubt that agriculture is critical to the WA economy, worth over $8.2 billion last year to the WA economy alone. Our future great young farmers need the best possible education with the most current innovation and training technologies, machinery, tools and trades equipment.
Seventy-six years ago today, the HMAS Perth and the USS Houston were both lost to the sea in the Battle of Sunda Strait. Three hundred and seventy-five Royal Australian Navy sailors of the HMAS Perth lost their lives. Six hundred and ninety-six sailors and marines serving on the USS Houston lost their lives. Of the survivors taken prisoner by the Japanese forces, 240 souls perished as prisoners of war.
The Sunda Strait connects the Java Sea to the Indian Ocean and lies between the Indonesian islands of Java and Sumatra. The Battle of Sunda Strait is among the most significant events in the history of the Royal Australian Navy. It is commemorated at the Rockingham Naval Memorial Park, where we are reminded of the sacrifices made in the defence of our nation and of others. A simple plaque reminds us of those souls that still are on watch in Sunda Strait. If you stand at the Naval Memorial Park in Rockingham and look to the west, you can clearly see Garden Island. It's about five kilometres off the coast of my home town and hosts HMAS Stirling, the largest base of the Australian Navy. You can see the ships of our Navy. Twelve fleet units, including the Anzac class frigates and the Collins class submarines, and the naval clearance diving team are some of the 70 units based at HMAS Stirling. The crews of all these units of the Australian Navy and of Stirling are the current guardians of the Australian naval tradition, and they're the proud successors of those that served and died 76 years ago.. Lest we forget.
Last week, I joined Westpac at their South Perth branch in my electorate of Swan for a morning tea to present Sports Challenge Australia with $10,000 from the Westpac Foundation. Sports Challenge Australia uses the medium of sports to help at-risk children to reach their full potential. Sports Challenge Australia is a Perth based organisation and was established in 1992 by Dr Garry Tester. Dr Tester created Sports Challenge as a world-first experimental mentoring program, using sports and problem-solving activities to encourage children and teenagers to use more of their full potential in all areas, with peers, family, friends and their broader communities.
The program begins with a questionnaire completed by the whole school, which evaluates things like peer interaction, confidence, ability to achieve and family interaction. Once this is completed, students are selected to take part in the Sports Challenge program. These children then take part in mentor sessions and training programs to assist their development in a wide range of life skills. I congratulate Dr Tester for receiving the grant. It is very well deserved.
I'd also like to thank Westpac regional general manager Gordon Hill and South Perth branch manager Matthew Sawyer for a fantastic morning tea, and also all the members of the local community that attended the event. In line with Westpac's 200th anniversary, they awarded 200 community grants like this to organisations that improve the lives of many Australians, 22 of which were awarded to organisations in the great state of WA.
I rise today to express my deep concern and anger—speaking also on behalf of the member for Werriwa—about the statements that were made by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, who is due to arrive in Australia in mid-March for the ASEAN summit. We welcome Asian leaders coming to Australia for these important discussions, but we have to acknowledge also that Hun Sen's regime has a long history of human rights abuses during his 33-year rule of Cambodia. Hun Sen has now threatened to bring these violent actions to our shores. Hun Sen has stated that, if there are demonstrations against his regime during his visit to Australia, he will pursue the demonstrators to their homes and beat them up. A foreign leader is threatening violence against Australians who will be merely exercising their democratic rights. These are outrageous statements, and the Turnbull government is doing nothing about it.
They are not empty threats, because this regime does have a history of violence. Unionists have been shot in the street, Kem Ley was assassinated in broad daylight in Phnom Penh, and the opposition leader in Cambodia has been put in jail for a speech he made in Melbourne, in my electorate. We cannot pretend that we have no responsibilities here. We are living in this beautiful democratic country. Those rights need to be extended to all Australians, including those of Cambodian descent.
Although members of the Labor Party might think it boring that there have been 400,000 new jobs created in the Australian economy, it's something we should celebrate. In the electorate that I represent, Hughes, the unemployment rate is down to just 2.7 per cent. But we cannot take this for granted. There are grave risks to Australia's economic prosperity, and one of the gravest risks comes from the duplicity of the opposition leader over the Carmichael mine, telling Queensland miners he is pro coal while telling the extreme green left that he will revoke the mining licences if a Labor government is ever elected. What disastrous message does this send to international investors, when an investor can go through years of environmental approvals and tick every box, only to have a Labor government revoke a lawfully obtained mining licence?
No-one will ever be able to compute the damage that the Labor opposition leader has done, through his duplicity, to Australia's reputation as a safe place to invest. The editorial in The Australian today got it exactly right:
Rarely, if ever, has a major Australian political party had a leader whose main priorities were not strengthening the conditions for industry, jobs and exports to flourish. In the past few days, Bill Shorten has been exposed as such a leader.
Rank and file party and union members should be ashamed of him. (Time expired)
Earlier last month I attended one of my favourite events the year, the Halal Expo at Rosehill Gardens. The Halal Expo has been running for four years now; I've attended each year. It's the only halal trade show and international halal conference in Australia. This year academics, religious leaders and small business owners travelled from all over the world to be involved in the event. There were over 150 local, interstate and international stalls and over 20,000 visitors. The shopping and the company were great, and I replenished my stocks of black seed soap, camel milk feta cheese, South Indian chutneys and pickles, halal lipsticks—which means no animal products—and modest clothing, which I sometimes like to wear.
An opposition member: Or not!
Or not—that's true! The conference was also a real opportunity for local and overseas players in the halal industry to meet and share knowledge and resources and to develop really important trade relationships in a fast-growing region of the world and in a very fast growing sector across the world. It was also a chance for non-Muslim Australians to get a deeper understanding of halal practices and lifestyles. There are over 600,000 Muslims in Australia, but there is still a lack of understanding of halal. Events like the expo are a wonderful way of creating a greater sense of understanding of halal practices. I thank the director of the Halal Expo, Mr Syed Atiq ul Hassan, who works incredibly hard to present this event every year. I look forward to his next event, the Chand Raat Eid Festival on 14 June.
Like every outer metropolitan city, Redlands struggles with increasing population and threats to the local environment. The Redland City Council has just approved a $1.2 million bridge that connects two suburbs through bushland, but you wouldn't believe the coalition of opponents to this very simple idea of taking people off the roads and getting them to use their feet and their bicycles a little more. Non-motorised infrastructure is utterly critical in outer metropolitan areas to get people exercising and to get us off our roadways. But they managed to almost kill off this project, and I'm very disappointed that our local newspaper likened the notion of a bush track and pedestrian bridge to a chicken-poo-incinerating biomass incinerator that was knocked back by the council in the last 12 months. They're fundamentally different things, in case I have to point that out so literally.
But, at the same time, we have Chef's Inc being approved. This is a dining-under-the-stars concept that you may find in any city, but I'm utterly delighted for it to be in an outer metropolitan location like Cleveland. Imagine 12 places; their modified shipping containers. We've got Oliver Findlay, who is the driving force behind it. You pay your two bucks and can go in there and dine in a way we haven't been able to before in our city. Obviously, that puts a bit of pressure on our local restaurants, but it's about pulling into our civic area new people who haven't been there before and trying something a little more cosmopolitan.
Well done to the council for having that vision. Five out of 10 to the newspaper for not quite getting it right. I want to make it really clear that from now on, in our city, we have a countergroup that will stand up to these environmental groups that try to block everything. We are looking after people; we can protect the environment at the same time.
I want to give a shout-out to some of our amazing volunteers and supporters who are powering our campaign to turn Batman green. We're not a party of big corporate donations. Instead, our power comes from amazing supporters who pull on their Greens T-shirts and, night after night, weekend after weekend, volunteer to help transform politics in this country. It's people like Bree, who spends every moment she can supporting the campaign, organising teams in Reservoir, recruiting volunteers or campaigning outside pre-poll booths, making sure every voter knows that only a vote for Alex and the Greens will be a vote to close the camps and to stop Adani. It's people like Julie, who has been installing hundreds of placards on front fences across Batman to help spread the word about Alex and her campaign, or Martin, who is going to spend both Saturday and Sunday morning and night doorknocking across the electorate. And it's people like Michael, who is waking up at sparrow's every morning to talk with voters at train stations.
These are just some of the hundreds of volunteers who are powering this campaign. To all of you who are busting your gut and giving everything you can from Northcote up to Reservoir: your efforts are inspiring and you make us all so proud. There is so much at stake at this election. This is our chance to remake politics in this country, and I can't wait until Alex Bhathal is the next member for Batman, joining me in parliament to hold this government to account and stand up for what matters.
I was saddened earlier this year to learn of the passing of one of the kindest gentleman I have had the pleasure of knowing, John Christie. John was born in 1947 in Sydney and moved to Rockhampton in the early 1990s to work for Australian airExpress. John was not only a strong advocate for the Rockhampton community but a stalwart of both the Nationals and Liberal National Party for over 20 years. John was vital to the operation of the Rockhampton and Capricornia committees for a long time, taking on the rarely desired roles of treasurer and secretary for a number of years. John was a huge supporter of mine in my first attempt for the seat of Capricornia in 2010 and then again in 2013 and 2016. Nothing was ever too hard for John, who was always there doing the nitty-gritty roles that nobody else desired.
Although politics was a consuming passion for John, his wife, Faye, step-daughter, Kaylene, and grandchildren, Liam and Jaydee, were his life. John married his cherished wife, Faye, 19 years ago and loved her with everything he had until he passed away, never failing to get her breakfast in bed, even when he was unwell. Sadly, as happens too often, cancer caught John before his time. John battled with this ugly disease for a number of years but never let it get him down. John sadly passed away on 9 January and will be sorely missed by everyone who had the pleasure of knowing him. Rest in peace, John. We will not forget you.
Less than 20 kilometres from Parliament House, in the nation's capital, in 2018, Canberrans are battling with upload and download speeds of less than one megabit per second. In some parts, it is less than 0.5 megabits per second. In some parts they don't know what it is because they can't do a speed test. This means Alison in Isabella Plains has to tether her personal hotspot from her mobile to run her small business, which has sent her bills through the roof.
Canberra was only one big blank space on the rollout map until about this time last year. We rejoiced at finally making the grade after years of campaigning. We were, however, less than thrilled that most of Canberra would receive fibre to the node, but we were looking forward to the NBN finally, finally, finally rolling out, only to get the news in January this year that the rollout was going to be delayed by another six months to later this year, and only to then get the news, less than two weeks later, that the rollout was going to be delayed a further six months, for a total of 12 months, to 2019.
So we are not happy—we are very not happy—with the news this week that the Lodge is getting fibre to the curb and it's getting it this year, while the rest of us in Canberra have to content ourselves with fibre to the node in years to come. It is unacceptable, and it shows the government's complete and utter disdain for Canberra. (Time expired)
We all know how competitive sport can be, not just on the field but between the various sporting codes themselves. Australia has a famous tradition of inter-sporting-code rivalry, so what could possibly unite six different sporting codes in the Berowra electorate? What could unite the Pennant Hills Stags rugby club, Pennant Hills Senior AFL Club, Westbrook Junior AFL Club, Greenway Giants Baseball and Softball Club, West Pennant Hills Cherrybrook Cricket Club and Cherrybrook Senior and Little Athletics Centre? They all share a love of sport and service thousands in Berowra, but all six clubs also share Greenway Park in Cherrybrook. While they call it home, in its current state it's not the most fitting home. That's why the clubs have been talking to me about their vision for a truly great Greenway Park.
Last week, I met with representatives of the six clubs and they explained their current problems. Greenway Park sports club connects some 2,000 families and 8,000 community members, with players as young as five years old right through to her grandparents in their 80s. Despite the broad membership, Greenway Park has terrible off-field facilities, limited change rooms that discourage female participation, no shade for spectators and poor disability access and it lacks a simple shelter facility for gathering. Greenway Park also badly needs resurfacing. That's why the Greenway community sports house group has been established—to raise funds and lobby for resurfacing of Greenway Park and an upgrade to the Greenway sports clubhouse. I'll be supporting their aims and I’ll be fighting for funding to see a better Greenway Park for everyone.
Kirsty Carpenter from South Windsor is 31 and an NDIS participant. She is an osseo-integration amputee, having had her leg amputated above the knee. She has a titanium implant inserted into the bone of her leg, and this is what her artificial limb attaches to, or should attach to. In October last year, Kirsty was approved for a new prosthesis. In December, my office raised with the NDIA the delay in the approval of funding for her new leg. There was no resolution as they squabbled over cost. So while they were pinching pennies, Kirsty has been wheelchair bound, waiting for a leg.
Last week—Kirsty has been remarkably resilient—she phoned me and advised that due to work, health and safety concerns solely because of the delay in receiving her new leg and not being mobile, her employer had terminated her employment. Despite an approval five months ago, she learned only late yesterday that the funding has finally been approved, so she will soon have a new leg but she will not have a job. This is yet another example of the serious impact the delay in plan implementation by the National Disability Insurance Agency is having on people's lives, and it needs to change.
On 7 December last year, this parliament created history by passing new same-sex marriage laws. Forty years ago, Sydney created history with its first Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. It is my pleasure to inform the House that the community of Hay in western New South Wales begins its own history this weekend with the first Rainbow on the Plains Hay Mardi Gras Festival. Coinciding with Sydney's and 700 kilometres out west, we're expecting a bumper crowd of around 250.
As a tough town, more famous for being the heart and soul of the Riverina shearing industry, Hay is not known for its socially progressive attitudes. In the front bar of the Riv Hotel recently, I questioned the regulars. One said to me that they imagined a float in the parade, which would say: 'I voted No. But I'm ok with it now.' Organisers of this bush mardi gras want the event to be about inclusion and fundraising rather than pushing an agenda, with proceeds going to the Hay Can Assist—the town's local cancer support group. As one noted this week, 'We may be in the middle of "nowhere" but we are caring, loving, accepting and want to show everyone how welcoming we can be.' I hear that rainbows are decorating the main street, accommodation is booking out and country people are getting ready to do what they do best—put on a fabulous reception and party hard.
For years we have been lectured to by the Greens party, with them wagging their finger, pointing at us and saying: 'We're the party of the grassroots. We're the people who are inclusive.' Not true. Today, we've had the extraordinary event where rank and file Greens members have come out and condemned their own candidate for Batman. Greens rank and file members have publicly said the following about their candidate:
Her behaviour does not represent the Greens values and she is really quite a toxic element in our party.
Her election to the federal parliament represents a significant risk to our party.
The Darebin branch is currently dominated by a toxic factional culture that has been cultivated and led by—
this person. A further comment states:
Once Alex decided I was not totally loyal to her as an individual, her organisation within the branch sought to intimidate, harass, isolate and spread malicious false rumours about me. I have seen her do this to others.
This what is the Greens rank and file think about their candidate, who is putting their hand up for Batman.
This is about transparency. The Greens need to come out and clear this up and be honest with the people of Batman. Just who are they putting up for election? We know that Ged is an activist. We know that Ged Kearney stands up for Labor values, and we know that she will be the best representative for Batman in this place.
It's a great pleasure to update the House on an issue I have updated the House on a number of times, and that is the Willetton basketball stadium expansion project. It's a project I fought very hard for to ensure that 50 per cent of the funding was coming from the Commonwealth. I was very excited when the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, visited the stadium to look at the plans to build another four courts and improve facilities. It is a project that will mean fewer kids on waiting lists and more kids playing active team sport in my community.
I was very pleased with the Commonwealth's commitment of $5.5 million. The Canning Council put $2.2 million towards this project. We were waiting for a $2 million commitment from the state government, but they short-changed the association, with only $1.5 million. So, on Monday, when they made that announcement, we couldn't celebrate the fact that it was going ahead. But, after the Willetton Basketball Association Board had their meeting last night, they decided that they can make the stadium a reality. The board was disappointed with the shortfall in funding from the WA government, but feedback from the community means that they have confidence that they can meet that shortfall within their community.
I thank the federal government for their contribution, I thank the City of Canning for their contribution and I thank the state government for their contribution—albeit short. I look forward to working with the volunteers, the players and the entire Willetton basketball community to make sure that this project is a reality as soon as it can be.
Nine hundred and fifty older Australians on the Central Coast of New South Wales are waiting for home care packages, and some have been waiting for 12 months. They are among 100,000 older Australians waiting for home care, and that is not good enough. Many older Australians want to stay in their own homes, and home care makes that possible. But, as confirmed in Senate estimates today, this government is letting them down.
Among the constituents who have sought my help is Jane, on behalf of her mother Joan, who is 91. Joan had been doing well in her own home until just after her 90th birthday. After a trip to hospital and recuperation at her daughter's home, Joan qualified for a level 4 high-needs package so she could return home. That was in September 2016, and it took until October 2017 for that care to be approved—more than 12 months! But there was a glitch. Although My Aged Care had approved Joan for level 4 care, she was only registered with Medicare for level 2. That meant Joan was spending her allocated $3,600 a month when in fact she was only receiving $900. That left her $2,700 a month out of pocket—and it has taken 4 months to sort out!
Long waits and mistakes like this are not acceptable, not for individuals and not for their families. This government must sort out its home care debacle. As a daughter of someone who recently needed in-home care, I say that this must be fixed now.
Today I wish to speak about water for the regions. It's already there, but we just need to capture a bit of it before it goes rushing out to the reef and killing the seagrass, which then of course affects the marine animals. Water is good for the regions and it's good for jobs. It's as simple as that. Water is essential for human life, for farming and for agricultural business.
The National Party is the party that represents rural and regional Australia. It is part of our policy that we capture this water and give it to our farmers, who will then represent the agricultural industry in any way, shape or form. They have good soil types; all they need is water. The Rookwood Weir is a part of that plan. But it doesn't stop at the Rookwood Weir. There are many parts along the Fitzroy catchment area and the Burnett River area that could do with water infrastructure. We want security of water for our farmers. The Dawson and Boyne rivers in Flynn are now in flood, and at least some of this water should be captured for onshore farming.
We were outraged when this grovelling government announced that 20,000 people who received debt notices as a result of this government's reprehensible robo-debt scheme turned out to owe nothing once their debt were challenged. A significant number of these cases involved constituents of my electorate, and my office worked tirelessly to try to assist these vulnerable people who had found themselves targeted by the robo-debt scheme. I will you one example. A young man who was on youth allowance approached my office. He had received an incorrect demand notice for $12,377. We intervened and we had that debt cancelled. But that's just one example. I've seen firsthand the trauma that was inflicted on honest and vulnerable Australians by the abject failure of the Turnbull government on the robo-debt scheme.
The Senate inquiry on Centrelink's automated data-matching initiative, which is what it's actually called, is absolutely scathing. It speaks volumes about this retrograde government that they have persisted with an assault on ordinary and vulnerable Australians while leaving the big end of town untouched—but, worse than that, they're actually giving them $65 million in tax cuts. And there has been no apology from the former minister responsible. I can't see him, but, if he is here, he should do the right thing. He should apologise to my constituents— (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. All of our staff, regardless of which political party their MP belongs to, work incredibly hard and should have a respectful workplace. In Senate estimates yesterday, Senator Cash made disgraceful comments which cast aspersions on every woman working in this building. A number of Liberal MPs, to their credit, have publicly and privately repudiated these comments. Will the Prime Minister direct his minister to apologise for her statement so we can send a clear message of support to all of the staff who work in this building?
All of us should show respect to the staff in this building, and indeed we should show respect to each other—although, obviously, as we will see no doubt in the next 70 minutes, that principle can sometimes be challenged in practice. The honourable member refers to some remarks made by Senator Cash during a very heated exchange in Senate estimates, where she was being bullied and provoked by Senator Cameron.
Opposition members interjecting—
She was. She was. She has withdrawn those remarks, and withdrawn them unreservedly, and—
Honourable members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. A number of members are shouting. They will not shout, and, if they do, they will not stay in the chamber. As I've said, members expect me to be able to adjudicate on answers and questions, and members on both sides are making that job impossible. They should be the last to complain if we have a repeat of that situation and I'm unable to hear an exchange of interest.
Mr Watts interjecting—
The member for Gellibrand never misses an opportunity to have himself thrown out. He can leave under 94(a).
The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber.
Respect is absolutely essential in all of our dealings. It is why I made the recent change to the ministerial code. As I was saying, Senator Cash was in a heated session in estimates—not the only one we've seen this week, I might add; the remarks that Senator Carr directed to Senator James Paterson were disgraceful. But Senator Cash was being bullied and provoked by Senator Cameron, who was making insinuations about staff. She made a response which she has unreservedly withdrawn, and if members opposite—
Opposition members interjecting—
She has withdrawn those remarks, and, if members opposite want to mitigate any offence to the persons referred to, they would treat this matter as having dealt with by the senator in the manner that is the practice in both houses of this parliament—that is, when words that are regarded as objectionable have been uttered, they are withdrawn.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the action the government is taking to create jobs and grow the economy, including for families in my electorate of Forde? Is the Prime Minister aware of any risks to the government's approach?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Our economic plan is working and there are 403,000 jobs last year to demonstrate that it is. We know that if you want to have more jobs you have to provide the incentives for employers to invest and hire. That is exactly what we have done, with lower taxes for small and medium businesses, overwhelmingly Australian owned, overwhelmingly family owned. The businesses that are getting the benefits of those tax reductions employ more than half the work force. They are not giant businesses. These are businesses with turnovers including, from 1 July, up to $50 million a year. That's where you are seeing the jobs growth. This has created more jobs and better jobs. We are starting to see that growth in real wages, which we need, which will come from a tighter labour market, from more demand for labour. The laws of supply and demand have not been suspended, as the Governor of the Reserve Bank observed just the other day.
The alternative to a government that seeks to do everything it can to encourage investment and employment is, of course, the Labor opposition. They want to impose over $150 billion of new taxes on Australians. They want to increase taxes on businesses, the very businesses that are investing and hiring. They want to increase taxes on family businesses, on individuals. They want to drive up the cost of energy. There is no policy in their platform which would create one dollar of investment or one job. The reality is this: if you want more of something, then you've got to provide some incentives for it. If you want less of something, put a tax on it. That's why we have high taxes on tobacco, because we want less smoking. This is why, if you want to have more investment, you have to lower the tax on investment. Labor wants to increase it. All that will do is result in less investment and fewer jobs.
Of course his failure to support jobs is so amply demonstrated in his utter hypocrisy over the coal industry and the mine workers he was with at Oaky North, where he said, 'I'm with you, I support you.' He stood there with Tony Maher, who said, 'Bill Shorten is pro-coal.' He then went off on a secret snorkelling expedition with Geoff Cousins, paid for by Geoff Cousins, only revealed after Cousins went public, and gave an undertaking to cancel the Adani mine licence, threatening the jobs of thousands of workers he claims to represent.
My question is to the Minister for Human Services. I refer to a report last night from BuzzFeed News that the office of the then justice minister tipped off a newsroom so that—
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Attorney-General will cease interjecting. The Minister for Human Services will cease interjecting, otherwise he won't be answering the question because he'll be out of the chamber before it's even asked. The member for Isaacs will begin his question again. The clock will start again.
My question is to the Minister for Human Services. I refer to a report last night from BuzzFeed News that the office of the then justice minister tipped off a newsroom so that TV cameras turned up at the sites of AFP raids before the police even did. A spokesperson for the minister is quoted in that report as saying yesterday, 'Neither the minister nor anyone in his office informed media outlets prior to the execution of search warrants.' Is that statement accurate?
Before I call the minister—this is why I wanted to listen to the question carefully—I want to be fully satisfied that the question relates to the minister's current portfolio. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
In taking a point of order, Speaker, if I can quote from page 555 of Practice:
However, in a case when a Minister had issued a statement referring to earlier responsibilities, a question relating to the statement was permitted.
It's only on that basis that the question refers.
In that context, I'm satisfied the minister can answer the question.
The answer to the member's question is yes, but we will not be distracted by this enormous nonsense that you see from the Labor Party. The actual issue here, of course, is that we are talking about search warrants that were executed in relation to a raid on the Australian Workers' Union that was looking at law breaking when the Leader of the Opposition was secretary of that union. That is what we are talking about here. The allegations are that donations were made from that union in an unlawful way. They weren't properly authorised, and one of those donations went directly to the Leader of the Opposition's own election campaign.
We have the Registered Organisations Commission that exists to make sure that members' money is actually used to benefit members, but, of course, we know that the Australian union movement has a culture where members' money is made to benefit the people who run that union. That is what we were investigating here. If you had nothing to hide, of course, all you would do is cooperate with that investigation. But what has happened is that the Labor Party and that union have run an enormous amount of interference—this is just another example—as opposed to actually answering questions about the lawful administration of that union. Well, we won't be distracted. Nobody on this side of the House believes that any organisation in this country is above the law. Unfortunately, we can't say that for the Labor Party.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The member for Kingston is warned.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the importance of the National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence and the support the government is providing for this important initiative?
I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member has been an eloquent and powerful advocate of the need to educate children about the dangers of bullying. I've been with her when she has been speaking to school groups. She is as formidable in the classroom as she is in the House, and she leads by example. It is a very, very important part of all of our work. So many members here, I'm sure, on both sides are taking action with their school communities to make sure that students, parents and teachers are aware. The member for Fisher and I have been talking about these issues very recently, just yesterday, and I commend the work he's doing as well.
We live in a world bound by the cyber sphere. We all have smartphones. Our children have smartphones. This is a very recent technology. The first smartphone arrived on the scene about a decade ago. While there are enormous benefits, what it means is that the bullying that used to end at the school gate follows children home to their bedrooms. It's with them all the time. The consequences can be tragic. We're all familiar with the terrible case of Amy Everett, who took her own life, a young girl who was the victim of bullying. Lucy and I have been with her parents and her sister. It is heart rending. Every parent and grandparent in this chamber understands the challenge that we face in keeping our children safe. We need to have a change of culture in our schools and in our society to say, 'No bullying—zero tolerance for bullying and violence at schools.'
The government chose to tackle this problem head on by establishing the Children's eSafety Commissioner, and we've since expanded the role of this important agency so it's truly a national coordinating body for all Australians. The eSafety Commissioner, who is Julie Inman Grant, is doing an outstanding job. Her predecessor, Alastair MacGibbon, did a great job. But so often the online bullying is really just an extension of what you might call bad old-fashioned bullying that is going on in the schools. That's why we're supporting the National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence on 16 March.
Senator Birmingham, the Minister for Education and Training, and I have written to every school principal in the country, encouraging them to participate in this important initiative. So far more than 2,300 schools have signed up. It's time for all of us to take a stand. It's time for all of us to say no to bullying. We have a responsibility as parents and grandparents to set an example for our own children and to ensure that our kids are safe from bullying and violence at school and online, wherever they may be.
The Leader of the Opposition, on indulgence.
I wish to associate the opposition with the remarks of the Prime Minister. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the initiative of writing to school principals. Parents raise the scourge of bullying with me in all the forums I attend. Parents are concerned with not just cyberbullying but what can happen to their kids at school. A parent's worst nightmare is not being able to protect their kids. Bullying is a tremendously disempowering experience, and I congratulate him on his initiative.
My question is to the Minister for Human Services, and I refer to his previous answer. The statement from his spokesperson yesterday said that 'neither the minister or anyone in his office informed media outlets'. So why does the report state:
… the journalist said their TV newsroom received a phone call from Keenan's office on the afternoon of Tuesday, 24 October, 2017, an hour or so before the raids.
The caller identified themselves by name to the newsroom and specifically said they were phoning from Keenan's office to make sure there would be cameras outside the union offices.
Does the minister stand by his spokesperson's statement?
I just answered that exact question. Yes is the answer. I'll return to what I was saying before. The issue here is that one side of Australian politics accepts and incubates a culture where lawlessness in the union movement is completely acceptable. That is the reality, and there's evidence for this. The Labor Party is financed by union organisations that have members who are consistently before the courts for law-breaking. The CFMEU, the most notorious union in Australia—77 of its members are currently before the courts on criminal charges. This union is more like a criminal organisation than somebody who's representing the interests of workers.
The Victorian head of that union was the guest of honour at the Leader of the Opposition's election night party. I didn't have any criminals at my election night party. I doubt anyone here had criminals at their election night party. But apparently the Leader of the Opposition had a convicted criminal with a rap sheet as long as my arm.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on both sides!
This is another in a long series of distractions, running interference for the union movement, when what they should be doing is repudiating lawlessness within that union movement, not accepting money from unions that are acting like criminal organisations. But we know, under this Leader of the Opposition, that will never happen.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on both sides! The member for Kennedy has the call.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Could you advise what free-marketing has done for, or rather to, Australia? Are you aware that, because of the ALP-LNP's free-marketing, 68 per cent of the wool industry has gone—$16 billion; gas is sold offshore for 6c while onshore we pay $16—$23 billion; the motor vehicle industry has gone—$21 billion; petrol—no ethanol—$19 billion; and the Galilee coal rail line—$12 billion a year. These five items are costing us $91 billion a year. When will you and the ALP leave the fantasy land of the Sydney suits and realise you've imposed Struggle Street on Australians?
I thank the honourable member for his very wide-ranging question. Let me deal with the success of the government's policies in regional Queensland. Last year, with 403,000 jobs created Australia wide, around 123,000 jobs were created in regional Australia—
The member for Kennedy—
I asked a question about free market policies with the highest—
The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. I'm prepared to call the member for Kennedy on a point of order. I am going to finish my sentence before he starts addressing it. He can state what the point of order is. He can operate under the same rules as every other member of this House, and he is not going to shout at me. I call that member for Kennedy on a point of order.
We ask questions in this parliament—
You need to state your point of order.
and the people of Australia deserve to have an answer to that—
The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. The member for Kennedy has not raised a single point of order. He's just made a statement. I'm therefore not going to waste the time of the House. I'm simply going to call the Prime Minister.
I understand the member for Kennedy does not approve of or agree with free market economics. But I have to say to him, with respect to his views, that we here in the government believe in free markets, we believe in trade and we believe in free enterprise. I was noting that, in regional Queensland alone, 49,000 new jobs were created last year—nearly as many as in greater Brisbane. Our policies are creating jobs in the honourable member's electorate and other areas in regional Queensland. The big export trade deals are giving cattle farmers across Queensland greater to access to enter the new large markets in Asia. Our instant asset write-off is benefiting small-business people such as store owners and tradesmen in Innisfail perhaps. The honourable member would be prepared to acknowledge that.
Energy is very important. The honourable member often accepts that. The National Energy Guarantee will make energy more reliable and affordable. Of course there are also our company tax cuts, I know the honourable member comes from a business background, so he understands how important small and medium family businesses are. In fact, he's representing a family business here in the House of Representatives. The honourable member knows that those family businesses are employing more because of the tax cuts that we've given. They're investing more and getting ahead. I appreciate the honourable member does not agree with free market economics. We do. We are seeing—and he is seeing this in his electorate—the benefits of the economic leadership that the government has provided.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on recent economic data releases and how this reflects the continued strength of the Australian economy, including in my electorate of Dunkley? Is the Treasurer aware of any approaches that would risk this economic strength?
I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. I know the member for Dunkley is proud to be part of a government whose plan for jobs and growth is working in this country. As we see from the recent data releases, which we've often referred to in this House, those results include over 403,000 jobs created in the past year, with more than 1,100 jobs per day and three-quarters of those jobs being full-time positions.
I note that in Tasmania jobs growth has been running at 3.2 per cent. That's almost five times the average of the past decade. That's a great reason to re-elect the Hodgman government in Tasmania. Nationally, jobs growth has been positive now for the last six months—the longest consecutive run of jobs growth in recorded Australian economic history. ANZ says job ads are at their highest level in almost seven years. Confidence levels of consumers have risen eight per cent in the past six months. Business conditions are close to the highest level on record, and they are highest in Tasmania where, I note, business confidence is twice the long-run average. Capital expenditure expectations, according to the National Australia Bank survey, is at the highest level in over a decade. Today's capex data for the December quarter showed non-mining capital expenditure grew by 10 per cent in 2017. That's the strongest pace in three years and it's the fifth consecutive increase in non-mining investment, the first time that has happened since 2002. Overall, new capital expenditure growth of four per cent in 2017 is something that has been the result of a government that understands the importance of driving investment. It's driven by a party that is focused on growth.
But, sadly, not all political parties are interested in growth. I refer to that great tome Hearts and Minds by the shadow Treasurer. It's still available for others if they want to borrow it. I seem to be the only one. In the foreword from Paul Keating it says this: 'Not all parties embrace economic growth and instances the manifesto of the Greens in turning its back on it.' How things have changed, because the shadow Treasurer has now become the very thing he warned against in being a party, and in a party, that is more focused on the politics of envy than in the economics of economic growth. Bob Hawke is known for being able to chug things down, but if he was forced to chug down the almond-latte left economics, if he had to chug that down in the way that the leader of the Labor Party is today, he would be spewing.
My question is to the Minister for Human Services. I refer to the minister's previous answers and to the statement from his spokesperson yesterday, 'Neither the minister nor anyone in his office informed media outlets prior to the execution of search warrants.' What steps did the minister take to substantiate the claim made in that statement that no-one in his office informed the media before the execution of search warrants?
The minister has the call. Just before I call him, for those querying in a disorderly way through interjections about how it's relevant, after the minister answered that first question, it opens up further questioning on his previous answer. We've had a history of many examples of that. That's why I'm ruling the question in order.
I'm not going to be cross-examined by Rumpole of the Bailey here, who is running a protection racket for a corrupt union movement that remains in control of this Labor Party. I have no intention of doing that. The issue here is one of the national interest. There is a much broader issue than the sort of nonsense, smear and innuendo that this man specialises in dragging into the parliament. The issue is the Australian Labor Party, financed by, run by, candidates preselected by the Australian union movement, the head of which says they don't need to submit to the Australian law. We believe in the rule of the law. We respect the rule of law. I don't break the law. My office doesn't break the law. Unfortunately, you can't say that for the people who run the Labor Party.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the Liberal-National government is helping to support creation of more and better paid jobs for hardworking Australians in my home state of Queensland, and is he aware of any alternatives?
I thank the member for Dawson for his question. I live in hope that Labor might ask a question on the economy in today's question time. The member for Dawson is a strong and passionate advocate for regional issues and for Central Queensland. We heard from the Prime Minister just a little earlier: 49,000 jobs created in regional Queensland by the Liberal-Nationals government, by business creating those jobs, thanks to the good economic policies of this government.
The member for Dawson, like all members from Central Queensland and around the country, is a fighter for local jobs and local infrastructure. He is a fighter for the farming and resources sector, for his people and for regional Australia. That's what we're here for: to represent the people and focus on real issues, like taking pressure off household budgets, families and small businesses, making sure that when they flick the switch the lights come on and the bills stay down. We are fighting every single day to create new jobs: 1,100 jobs a day last year, but there's more to come.
Yesterday I spoke about the Adani Carmichael coalmine project and its related jobs. In construction it will create more than 10,000 direct and indirect jobs. In operation it will create more than 15,000 direct and indirect jobs, including thousands of workers in Rockhampton, in the member for Capricornia's seat, in Townsville, in the member for Dawson and the member for Herbert's seat, supporting remote workforces. There will be millions of dollars pouring into local economies. The member for Dawson is supporting and fighting for jobs. Is the member for Herbert? On her website it says, 'A strong voice for Herbert'. I ask the member for Herbert to use her strong voice to convince the member for Maribyrnong that these jobs are important. These coalmining jobs are vital. She should get him to get both his faces up to Queensland and tell the truth. Does he back the resources sector? Does he support local jobs in Herbert, in Capricornia, in Dawson and throughout Central Queensland? But don't take my word for it. Queensland Labor resources minister Anthony Lynham said just yesterday that the Indian conglomerates project had leapt more environmental hurdles than any other resources project. He said:
Adani has had the green light since June last year, and we support it and want it to go ahead.
The Queensland government says time and time again, let's go.
He went on to say:
All I can say is there are over 230 conditions, I have never seen a resources project so heavily conditioned than this resources project.
Mike Brunker, a former coalminer and CFMEU official who fell just 400 votes short of winning the Queensland state seat of Burdekin at last November's election, said locals were sick of Mr Shorten 'having it both ways' on Adani. He said, 'People up here believe they're being sold out by Labor.' That's a CFMEU official. They believe the Labor Party should be there to support and create jobs. That's what we're here for. That's what the member for Dawson is certainly doing, and I call on the member for Maribyrnong to do the same. (Time expired)
I'd like to draw to the attention of the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a great friend of Australia, former Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key. On behalf of the House, we extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
The Prime Minister, on indulgence.
All honourable members welcome Sir John Key, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and a great friend of Australia. As he surveys the dignified debates in the House of Representatives, I can just discern a look of relief on his face! Welcome, John. It's great that you're here.
My question is to the Minister for Human Services, and I refer to the minister's previous answers. Did the minister or his office at the time inform anyone other than the office of the Prime Minister about the raid before the execution of search warrants, including but not limited to the office of Minister Cash?
Well, Mr Speaker, I'm not going to be cross-examined by him—and neither will I be cross-examined by him. In fact, I won't be cross-examined by any of them, because they're not worthy. They sit here representing a party in this place infected by the corruption of the union movement, and this is just a continuation of that protection racket. I've answered the substance of the question. I won't be repeating it. End of story.
The minister's concluded his answer. The Manager of Opposition Business on an inventive point of order?
If the opposition can't ask questions for view of it being cross-examination, should we continue with question time ever? Surely that's the point of it.
I'm going to continue with question time. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. If the Manager of Opposition Business doesn't wish to ask questions, that's his business. We're going to the next question.
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on what recent research says about the value of the Great Barrier Reef to Australia's tourism industry? What action has the government taken to protect the reef so that Australians and visitors alike can enjoy its serenity?
I thank the member for Wide Bay for his question. We are very focused on making sure that Australia's iconic Great Barrier Reef is enjoyed by international and domestic tourists from around world and from around Australia. There are very few examples that reach the same iconic status as Australia's Great Barrier Reef. We know that people will go to great lengths to visit Australia's Great Barrier Reef, because it really is a drawcard to bring them there. I was particularly pleased there has been a whole-of-government approach to make sure that we look after the Great Barrier Reef. The minister for the environment recently announced a $60 million investment to secure the viability of the reef and make sure that we protect it in the future. I'm very pleased that it's part of our $2 billion Reef 2050 Plan, because we take very seriously the need to ensure that we protect and look after the reef, and we recognise that the Great Barrier Reef is responsible for many, many jobs. We know that this campaign is working. We are welcoming a record number of tourists, who are staying a record amount of time and spending a record amount of money.
As a coalition, we're providing record funding to Tourism Australia. As part of our Tourism Australia campaign, we're seeing that there are a lot of tourists very interested in going to the Great Barrier Reef. I took the time to have a bit of a look at some of the specials that are online. There are some great prices for tourists wanting to visit the Great Barrier Reef. For those members who are interested, you can get a flight from Melbourne to Cairns with Qantas for $285, you can stay at the Cairns Shangri-La for $205 a night, and you can't go past a visit to the Great Barrier Reef with Wavelength Reef Cruises for $239.50. But I have to say that I've found a website that offers even cheaper prices than those that I've found online. It's not Webjet and it's not Flight Centre; it's actually aph.gov.au/register. On that site you can find some links to some fantastic specials, and the Leader of the Opposition can get the best price possible for a visit to the Great Barrier Reef.
But let's not forgot that he not only got a hotel upgrade, a private jet to the Great Barrier Reef and enjoyed a personal tour of the reef; he did so at the expense of Geoff Cousins. People can rightly say, 'We know this guy didn't pay anything, but surely there was a price.' I'm afraid to say that there was a very hefty price indeed. That's the price that will be paid by the blue-collar workers in our coal industry—the people that this guy will sell out all day, every day. He gets his free snorkel at the Great Barrier Reef and his free private jet and he pretends that he's a mate of the coal workers, but the simple fact is that the Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party have sold out Australia's workers. (Time expired)
The members for Moreton and Perth are warned.
My question is to the Minister for Human Services. I refer to the minister's previous answers, particularly the last one. Did the minister or his office at any time prior to the AFP raid inform anyone other than the Office of the Prime Minister about this raid, including but not limited to the office of Minister Cash?
That is exactly the same question as the previous one that I've just addressed. The truth is an allegation has been made and—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
I have completely rejected that allegation, and I will not sit here and be cross-examined by a Labor Party that refuses to address the central issue here. The fact is that these raids were dealing with malfeasance within the union movement.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a).
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
These are the first questions I've had as the Minister for Human Services from the Labor Party. They haven't asked me about anything that's going on in my portfolio. They haven't asked me about the $1.5 billion transformation project we have to make sure that Australians accessing the social security system get the best possible service they can. The Opposition Leader issued a statement just before question time, saying that the Australian people are sick of these 'inside the Beltway' issues and they want us to return to issues of real substance, but then those opposite come in here and perform this sort of nonsense.
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Yes, Mr Speaker, on direct relevance. It's not in order for the minister to go through all the reasons that he doesn't want to answer a question.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister is in order if he's on the policy topic. I've said that ad nauseam. Has the minister concluded his answer? Yes. The member for Canning has the call
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of a strong and consistent approach to border protection? Is the minister aware of any threats to this approach?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I thank him for the great work he does as chair of the joint committee on intelligence matters, and I acknowledge the members of that committee on both sides, who do incredible work in keeping our country safe. I acknowledge in particular the work that they've done in relation to the recent bill relating to the stand-up of the Home Affairs portfolio.
It is a significant occasion that we celebrate today, and that is that it is 700 days since the last of the 8,000 children that Labor put into detention was released from detention. We are very proud of the fact that we were able to close the 17 detention centres and get the 8,000 children out of detention. We've done it in a way that hasn't allowed the boats to recommence—even though, as we've mentioned on previous occasions, in the course of Operation Sovereign Borders we've turned back some 32 boats. So the important point to remember is that the problem has not gone away. The problem has not gone away in the Mediterranean. It has not gone away across Asia. It has not gone away for us, as our nation is and will always remain a destination for people smugglers. People smugglers take money from innocent men, women and children. They don't care whether those men, women and children go to the bottom of the ocean, as 1,200 people, tragically, did—at least 1,200 people did—one Labor's watch, when Labor lost control of the borders. We have not had a death at sea, and we have been very fortunate that, given the uplift now from Manus and Nauru of people that Labor put onto Manus and Nauru, we have not seen fresh arrivals to fill those vacancies. But is all of that success at risk? Yes, it is—no question about it.
The Leader of the Opposition, as we know, has two faces. He says one thing to one audience, walks out of the room, and says the complete opposite to the next audience that he comes across because he believes that that's what they want to hear. In this area of public policy, one of the most important areas of public policy that we can concentrate on, the Leader of the Opposition looked the Australian people in the eye at the last election and said that he would not unwind the successful policies that have got those kids out of detention, that have stopped those drownings at sea and that have kept the people smugglers at bay. And yet, every day since, this Leader of the Opposition has made announcements in relation to unwinding each aspect of Operation Sovereign Borders. So, if the Australian public are asking themselves why the shadow minister—who just now wakes up—585 days into his term, has not asked a question on this, that's why: the Labor Party don't want to talk about this policy. They've abandoned the temporary protection visa policy, they have said that they will walk away from offshore processing and they don't have the mettle to deal with turning back boats where it's safe to do so. People know that this Leader of the Opposition says whatever it takes— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Human Services, and I refer to his previous answers. A moment ago, the minister said he rejected the allegation. Does he deny his office being the original source of the leak to the media about the AFP raid, yes or no?
How much clearer can I be? Yes.
My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on the importance of creating a tax setting which helps grow the economy and reduces the tax burden on hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches which pose a threat to Australian small businesses and families alike, including in my electorate of Corangamite?
I thank the member for Corangamite for her question and I applaud her for her tireless advocacy on behalf of her constituents—in particular, the more than 17,000 small businesses that have benefited from our government's small business and medium sized enterprise tax cuts. The government has in fact put in place, and worked very hard to put in place, the right settings to drive economic growth and boost jobs. We've cut taxes for small and medium sized enterprises, and we have seen the creation of 1,100 jobs every day to ensure that more and more Australians have the opportunity to work, to invest and to grow our economy. We know Australia does need to remain competitive. We have to do it with our tax system if we are to drive jobs and growth and remain competitive in a globalised marketplace. Our government will continue to fight for our enterprise tax plan that will deliver the jobs, the increased wages and the economic expansion that we require.
The Leader of the Opposition claims that he supports small business tax cuts, but he would, in fact, raise taxes for small businesses with a turnover of between $2 million and $50 million. The Leader of the Opposition has a problem with this thing called authenticity. He claims to be a big supporter of women, yet this morning we see reports that Jennie George, the first female president of the ACTU, has chastised him for being part of the boys club that is still, of course, his factional power base. In his interview with GQ,when he was asked about Julia Gillard, he said, 'I've always been a supporter of hers.' I wonder if he told her that before he stabbed her in the back.
We have seen revelations documented in The Australian this week that the Leader of the Opposition promised the millionaire Geoff Cousins at least half a dozen times that he'd kill off the Adani coalmine before he promptly suggested to the good people of Queensland last week that there is a role for mining in Australia and there is a role for coal in Australia. He is apparently an ecowarrior in inner-city Melbourne but the miners' mate when he is in North Queensland. As a union leader he froze out women, but now he wants to play 'Mr Feminist' on the pages of GQ magazine.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
He is all for reducing company tax cuts when he is sitting in the boardrooms around the country, but he is against company tax cuts when he turns into a GetUp! groupie.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
This Leader of the Opposition is completely two-faced and can't be trusted. (Time expired)
The level of interjections was too loud, as members know. The member for Perth had been warned. He was one of the louder interjectors. He can leave under standing order 94(a). It's pretty simple to follow the sequence here, but it's lost on some people.
The member for Perth then left the chamber.
My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm the government is making around 1.5 million Queenslanders pay more income tax every year while it's giving big business a $65 billion tax cut?
What I can confirm is that this government is going to make sure that the NDIS is fully funded. That's what this government is going to do. This is what the shadow Treasurer said when the former government increased the Medicare levy as a way of part funding the NDIS:
We took it to the Productivity Commission. They gave a report on how it should be done. We did have to … pay for it, increase the Medicare levy. That's something that was very controversial when we did it but I think the right thing to do because all Australians would recognise that as a decent, compassionate nation, it is the right thing to do now. It is overdue.
If it was the right thing to do then, then it's the right thing to do now.
This is the shadow Treasurer who has turned his back on everything he used to believe. He has completely wilted in the face of the pressure from the Labor Left. His own leader has forced him to turn his back on his previous positions. If he can't stand up to the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, what good is he? This is a man who used to believe something. He has been completely brought to the position of recanting humiliation as the shadow Treasurer. That's why he can't be trusted with the nation's finances. Whatever he used to believe doesn't matter, because he hasn't got the ticker to stand up to this Leader of the Opposition, that deputy leader and whatever other pretender on that side there is to the leadership of the Labor Party. He cannot be trusted to hold a position and hold to his convictions and his beliefs on the economy.
We support fully funding the NDIS. We support those people and families in Australia who are relying on this scheme. It was Julia Gillard who said, 'Everybody benefits; everybody puts in.' The Labor Party have turned their back on Julia Gillard, on Bob Hawke and on Paul Keating. They don't know who they are or where they are going. When you believe in nothing no-one will believe in you.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on the importance of consistency in energy and environmental policy, in order to attract foreign investment and create jobs for hardworking people in regional Australia? What are the risks associated with the alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Capricornia. I know that as a hardworking local member she is fighting for regional jobs in Rockhampton, in Sarina, in Pioneer Valley and in the coalfields of the Galilee and Bowen basins. The most important mining project for the people in her electorate is the Carmichael mine. That is why eight mayors—Labor mayors and conservative mayors—signed this open letter in support of the Carmichael mine. The mayors of Rockhampton, Mackay, Whitsunday and the Isaac Regional Council signed the letter. These mayors and these local communities have not waivered in their support for the Carmichael mine, despite the rigorous environmental processes, despite the legal challenges and despite the personal attacks, they haven't waivered in their consistent approach for this mine.
But I tell you what, the Leader of the Opposition has. He will say one thing to the miners in Mackay and another to the baristas in Brunswick. He will say one thing to people in Queensland and another to the people of Melbourne. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said in April last year: 'I support the Adani mine.' But, in Batman, the Leader of the Opposition says he's 'increasingly sceptical', holding out the prospect that the mine doesn't deserve to go ahead. The member for Shortland says of the Adani mine on his website:
… I welcome the jobs that it will provide in Queensland.
The Leader of the Opposition, on the other hand, says to the people of Batman that the Carmichael mine will create fake jobs—they're never going to materialise, he said. The Leader of the Opposition goes to the Latrobe Valley and says to the workers that coal has a future in Australia. At the same time, the Labor Party supports motions in this place that say coal has no future in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition tells Pauline Hanson that he supports the coal industry.
The minister will refer to senators by their correct titles.
Then the Leader of the Opposition will tell Geoff Cousins—
I was referring to Senator Hanson, actually.
The Leader of the Opposition will tell Geoff Cousins that if Labor gets to government, they will revoke the Carmichael licence. We know the importance of consistency in policy—consistency in economic policy, consistency in energy policy, consistency in environmental policy. That is why we've created nearly one million new jobs since coming to office. The Leader of the Opposition might be increasingly sceptical about the Carmichael mine, but the people of Australia are sceptical of him.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he's making over 150,000 Tasmanians pay more income tax every year, while providing a $65 billion handout to big business?
It's taken the Leader of the Opposition 54 minutes to ask a question about the economy. And this is a Leader of the Opposition who has said we should be talking about the things that matter to all Australians. I thank him for raising something that matters to every Australian, and that is ensuring that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded and paid for.
The Leader of the Opposition took great credit for the NDIS when it was set up with bipartisan support from the member for Warringah, as Leader of the Opposition in those days. It was set up with bipartisan support, and he took great credit for that, but he never paid for it. He wanted the plaudits, but he wasn't prepared to do the hard yards and make the decisions to ensure that the money would be there for parents with disabled kids, who are worried about how they will be cared for after the parents are gone. To those parents, we can say we are doing everything we can to ensure the money will be there and that security will be there for their children. We did that. We're doing that now.
Why won't the Labor Party support it? Purely politics. They complain about an increase in the Medicare levy. That is exactly the argument that we have put. It's exactly the argument that Julia Gillard put several years ago and which we in the coalition accepted and supported. We recognised that the NDIS needed to be paid for. Regrettably, the Labor Party did not fund it. They failed to do so. They've let down people with disabilities and their families right across the country. Surely the time has come for Labor to own up to their failure and recognise that we owe it to those Australians with disabilities and their loved ones and their families to pay for the support we have promised them. It's our duty. We should honour that support and that commitment. Labor should back our changes to the Medicare levy, because they know they will provide the security, the support and the integrity that Australians with disabilities deserve.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how the coalition government's record support for the South Australian health and aged-care system compares to other approaches? How will this impact on the delivery of services for people in my electorate of Boothby?
I want to thank the member for Boothby, who's been a great champion of projects such as the Flinders Eye Centre glaucoma project, a $9½ million coalition investment in research and treatment for glaucoma. More than that, though, she's been an advocate for South Australian hospital funding, and she's seen a 26 per cent increase in federal funding on our watch so far, increasing to 47 per cent over the course of the forward estimates, which compares with a six per cent increase from state Labor under their watch over the same period for their own hospitals—a measly six per cent, made all the worse by the fact that, in the last full year of funding, they cut health funding by $7½ million.
These things come with consequences, of course, when you make a cut like that. It's no surprise that they can't keep the electricity running and they can't keep the generators running either. That's why, in her electorate, we saw the Flinders Medical Centre lose power with tragic consequences. We saw Mount Gambier Hospital lose power. We saw Port Augusta Hospital lose power. We've seen the Fawlty Towers which the Royal Adelaide Hospital has become. It lost power. It shackled prisoners. It kept patients for days in the emergency department.
But all of this pales in comparison with the catastrophic outcomes that were highlighted in the findings of the ICAC report into the Oakden aged-care centre, a South Australian government run centre. What that report found wasn't just local mismanagement. It found that at the state level there were fundamental failures of management. In particular, the ICAC report found—and I quote—that the minister formerly responsible under the Weatherill government 'took every opportunity available to deflect any possible criticism of her onto others'. She blamed others for mistakes or failings whenever and wherever possible. But, even worse than that, the ICAC report found that an SA Labor minister confirmed to ICAC—and I quote—that the government:
… did not want to take on the unions three months before an election … and this was likely the reason why nothing was done …
Four years ago they knew. Four years ago they turned a blind eye on abuse. Four years ago they made a decision that their union mates were more important than patients. The conclusion is very clear: this was an abrogation of duty that should cause the Premier to resign now, not in three weeks' time, and the people of South Australia to turn out this worthless government.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Tasmanians will be among the hardest hit by the government's increases to income tax, with 80 per cent of Tasmanian taxpayers having to pay more tax every year? Why is this Prime Minister slugging over 80 per cent of Tasmanian taxpayers with more income tax every year, while giving a $65 billion handout to big business?
This question has a certain similarity to the one I just answered. I remind the honourable member that Tasmanians, like all Australians, want the NDIS to be fully funded. The honourable member has to go back to her Tasmanian constituents and tell them why she is not supporting the funding of the NDIS. She should go and see some of her constituents who are struggling with disabilities and explain to them why she will not fund the NDIS. She has to explain that.
Opposition members interjecting—
I hear from the opposition benches that it's funded. Well, it's not. Regrettably, the Labor Party failed disabled Australians right around the country, and the honourable member should hang her head in shame when she goes to see disabled constituents of hers, because she has let them down. They will look her in the eye and say, 'Why don't you support the government in making the money available to ensure they have the dignity and support they deserve?' The Labor Party is dripping with compassion when it suits them, but when it comes to the crunch they have failed disabled Australians. It's about time they did the right thing.
My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney update the House on the importance of responding to reports of elder abuse, especially in my home state of South Australia? What is the coalition government doing to respond to the issue of elder abuse, and are there any alternatives?
I thank the member for his question. As the member is well aware, the Turnbull government is the first Australian government to commit to the development of a national plan on elder abuse. That started with the PM's commitment of $15 million to ensure that we understand the nature, the extent and the prevalence of the problem and plan our responses properly. The national plan will be designed to safeguard at-risk older people, to design and institute an Australia-wide system of nationally consistent, high-standard responses to protect the safety and rights of older Australians.
As to the need for that response on elder abuse, we can highlight that need by some of the recent events in South Australia where, yesterday, families of people who suffered and, indeed, died in the South Australian Oakden facility refused to accept the Labor's Premier's apology. That is perhaps not unsurprising when you consider what the report uncovered. Multiple South Australian Labor ministers were found to be responsible. Their lack of awareness of what was going on in this facility was described as astonishing. Health officials sent numerous briefing notices to those ministers setting out the need to change service delivery models. They recommended outsourcing some service delivery to create what was quoted as 'a more suitable environment with specialist operators'. But those same Labor ministers were privately warned by union leaders that a range of unions, including United Voice, would launch a campaign against reform and had 'indicated their intention to launch that campaign'. So the reason for inaction, the reasons for the tragedies in that institution, while Jack Snelling as Minister told the inquiry that the main concern was not service delivery but that 'South Australian Labor did not want an industrial war'.
In the final insult to victims, there was a clear lack of cooperation with the inquiry. The Premier refused access to documents asked for by the inquiry, and here is how the commissioner described the evidence given by former Labor Minister Vlahos, 'She was a poor witness—belligerent, aggressive and evasive.' He also said:
Much of her evidence was inherently inconsistent.
So what we had was unions dictating Labor policy, resulting in a commission, resulting in evasive evidence from a senior Labor person. Does that ring any bells? Does that sound familiar?
Strangely, I had the occasion to look at another description, in this case by a royal commissioner, of another very senior Labor member in front of an inquiry where unions had dictated policy to Labor. The description of that witness was, 'What I'm concerned about is your credibility as a witness and, perhaps, your self-interest as a witness.' Get rid of this South Australian— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's cut millions of dollars from Tasmania's public hospitals and now wants to lock in these cuts for another seven years. Almost 6,000 Tasmanians are waiting for elective surgery in Tasmania, with one in 10 patients waiting for almost a year. So will the Prime Minister join with Labor to invest $30 million to help clear this backlog so Tasmanians can get the healthcare they deserve?
I'm delighted to take this question because, in Labor's last year in office, Commonwealth funding to Tasmanian hospitals was $300 million. This year, under us, it's $393 million. By the end of the forward estimates, it will be $440 million. Only a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister offered Tasmania an additional $403 million over and above the current five-year period for the next five-year period. So every year under this government there has been record funding for Tasmania's hospitals.
In addition to that, there was a $730 million one-off bonus with the passage of the Mersey hospital back to Tasmania. So it has not only been record funding each and every year; the largest single medical payment in Tasmania's history of $730 million was last year. So what we see is a 47 per cent increase from when we came in to the end of the forward estimates under this government.
But there's something that's very interesting. They ask about waiting times for elective surgery. I just happened to have a look at this before question time today to update myself. You know what? In 2014-15, the last year before Labor left office in Tasmania, 63 per cent of surgeries for category 1 in the Royal Hobart Hospital occurred within 30 days. Now 73 per cent, or 10 per cent better, under the Hodgman government occur within those 30 days. So since state Labor's last year in government it's gone from 63 per cent within 30 days to the Hodgman government's 73 per cent in 30 days. In other words, there has been a 10 per cent or massive increase in the on-time completion. It's also the same in the Launceston hospital. Very interestingly, when you look at category 2 there, you see in 2014-15 under the previous state Labor government that 35 per cent of category 2 operations occurred within 90 days. Under the Hodgman government, it's double that—71 per cent are done within that time. Sometimes it's better to keep quiet and let everybody suspect rather than to get up and confirm so that everybody knows. The truth is that funding has gone up each and every year under us. The truth is the Hodgman government has reduced waiting times, whether it's in the Royal Hobart Hospital or the Launceston hospital. You know what? It compares very favourably to the calamities in the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the disgrace that is the South Australian health system.
Will the Minister update the House on how the coalition government's regional jobs and investment package for North Queensland is unlocking job opportunities for hardworking Australians in my electorate of Leichhardt? How does this compare with alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. Now, as I'm sure everyone in this House would agree, when we think of tropical North Queensland we all think of a hardworking, diverse community, which has immense opportunities. The member for Leichhardt's experience is as varied as the opportunities that exist in his home city of Cairns and, of course, tropical North Queensland.
Cairns is an economy that is turning the corner. For the first time in many years, the CBD of Cairns is a hive of activity, with some six cranes dotting the Cairns skyline, undertaking development. The Cairns Performing Arts Centre is responsible for one of those cranes, which was delivered thanks to $10 million from the coalition and the advocacy of the member for Leichhardt. As the member said during my visit last week, the Cairns community has got a spring in its step and confidence is returning. The member for Leichhardt proudly said in front of Mayor Bob Manning that Cairns is a community that has got its tail up, and the tail is starting to wag. Cairns is underway.
This confidence is returning because the coalition is certainly supporting more and better paying jobs. We've provided tax cuts to small and medium businesses so that they can invest more and employ more locals. There are 21 projects creating 1,000 jobs, delivered for tropical North Queensland, thanks to the Regional Jobs and Investment Package we delivered just last week. This is generating some 400 jobs during construction and nearly 650 ongoing jobs in tropical North Queensland. No project embodies the renewed energy and confidence in Cairns like the refurbishment of the Cairns Court House, which will help unlock a whole new cultural arts centre in the centre of this magnificent city. As a $2.1 million investment, the project will go from creative vision to construction. So, nearly $40 million worth of projects have been created out of this investment.
The opposition, on the other hand, may parrot lines about wanting to create jobs in regional Australia and regional Queensland, but the Leader of the Opposition, obviously, has no credibility whatsoever, as we've seen, when it comes to creating jobs in regional areas of my home state of Queensland. He says a different thing to the Labor-aligned mayors of Townsville and Rockhampton and the Labor candidate such as the former mayor for Bowen in Burdekin to what he says to Geoff Cousins and, of course, the Green-aligned voters of Batman. Unlike those opposite, we're delivering jobs for regional Queensland. We won't shirk our commitment to do that—ever.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I have a short statement for the information of members. Members will be aware of the significant construction works currently taking place in and around Parliament House. As part of these security works, the House of Representatives entrance will be closed from the end of this week for several months. Entry to the House of Representatives wing will be through a temporary entrance, which is being constructed adjacent to the regular entrance. The members and staff car parks will remain open during the construction. However, the car park lift will no longer be operational. All those using either the members or staff car park will need to use the internal car park stairs and then exit the car parks onto Parliament Drive before walking up to and then across the slip-road to the temporary entrance. The slip-road will remain open and the Comcar shuttle will remain unaffected. Signs will be in place in the car parks to direct pedestrians, and traffic wardens will be used to assist people crossing the slip-road during peak periods. Alternative arrangements have also been made for those with mobility parking permits. Building occupants should take care as drivers and pedestrians become accustomed to the changed arrangements. I thank members and other building occupants for their patience and understanding as this important work is undertaken. I thank the House.
I have received letters from the honourable member for Kennedy and the honourable member for Gorton proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; and that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Kennedy, namely:
The failure to open up the Galilee Basin Coalfields and create jobs for Australia and particularly North Queensland, where real widespread unemployment levels are now reaching 20%.
I therefore call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Being a little bit more senior than most people in this room, I can remember the days when Australia was a coal-importing nation. Very few people know that in 1959 Australia was a coal-importing nation not a coal-exporting nation. Now how did we go from being a coal-importing nation to being a coal-exporting nation? In Queensland, we, the Country Party government, were not a government that said, 'Oh, if private enterprise wants it, then private enterprise will build it.' We were not a government that said, 'When you've got the mines, we'll build the railway line'—the chicken and the egg. The mines said, 'We're not going to open the mines until you've got a railway line.' We didn't worry about the chicken and the egg; we didn't worry about this concept that said if private enterprise wants it private enterprise will build it. No, we went out and built the railway lines. In a 29-year period, we built 6,000 kilometres of railway line. Under the ALP government in the following 28 years there was no railway line built—none, zero.
We have to ask ourselves: who is the socialist government here and who is the free enterprise government? Using traditional definitions, one would have to say that the Country Party is the socialist government and, of course, the Labor Party is some other sort of government—and there is no doubt that in Queensland they are a Greens government. There is not the slightest scintilla of evidence that would indicate that they are a Labor government. Over their 50 years in office, the Labor governments of Queensland, under the great 'Red Ted' Theodore and his governments, built the sugar mills and the dairy factories. Actually, the Queensland government built some of the mines as well.
Let us move on and ask: if you want the Galilee opened up, why do you want the Galilee opened up?
I don't know why; tell us!
This gentleman here said, 'I don't know. Why?' That is actually an excellent comment, because in this place you seriously don't know why. Well, I'll tell you. With your free market policies, you decided that you would have no manufacturing in this country, that you would slowly crush agriculture out of existence and that you would buy everything from overseas. Those of us sitting in suits in this place are in apparel that now comes from overseas. We wear boots the leather for which comes from overseas. We have a telephone that comes from overseas. Our biros come from overseas. Our glasses come from overseas. Everything comes from overseas. I say to the honourable gentleman: if you want to buy all your white goods, all your petrol, all your motor cars and everything else from overseas, well, you've got to sell something. Well, thanks to you free marketeers, we don't have anything that we can sell! There's nothing left that this country can sell!
Don't tell me about mining, because I've been mining since I was a kid. I was raised and teethed on mining. I'm a mining man and I will be until the day that I die, so don't tell me about mining. We are not a mining country. A mine is when you dig it out of the ground and sell a metal. We dig it out of the ground and sell the ground. That it's quarrying. It's not mining; it's quarrying. We're reduced now to two quarries.
Let me be very specific: the income to this nation is supposedly $364 billion a year. If you take out the derivatives and the round robins, which were only put in four years ago—namely, the selling of student visas and the selling of coal seam gas—yes, it brings in $23 billion, but, thanks to idiocy of the people in Queensland and the people in this place, it just boomerangs out again. There's no wage structure in coal seam gas. We sold it for 6c a gigajoule and we're buying it back for $16 a gigajoule. That's a free market! It's a free market run by numbskulls!
I reeled off in question time today how the free marketeers decided to deregulate the wool industry, the biggest income item for this country in its entire history, and in the year it was deregulated it was still the biggest export earner at $6,000 million—$16 billion a year, in today's money, gone; gas—$23 billion gone; the motor vehicle industry—$21 billion gone; petrol, no ethanol—$19 billion gone; the Galilee coal rail line, worth $12 billion a year to the Australian economy—no Galilee rail line. That's $91 billion a year that this government is losing because of free market policies.
Now, I praise the government fulsomely on their aggression with respect to the Galilee. But I've got to say: are you fair dinkum? If you were fair dinkum, you'd set up an authority tomorrow to build the railway line instead of some poor beggar from overseas desperately trying to build it and being the target of everyone in the world who, for one reason or another, wants to close down the coal industry.
I happen to a be a bit of an expert in this field because I was the mines and energy minister in the Queensland government in 1990 when we had the cheapest electricity in the world. How did we do that? We didn't have private enterprise build the power station; we built the power station. It was manned by about 160, 200 workers, exactly the same manning level as the Collinsville power station. Collinsville put out 200 megawatts, and Gladstone, which was the biggest power station in the world, was putting out 1,400 megawatts with the same manning levels because the coal was free—but whenever there's a free market government it's the opposite. We took one per cent of the coal, so consumers in Queensland got their electricity from free coal. That's a government that is doing its job. So, we commend the government for their aggression on the Galilee, but, please, will you get fair dinkum and set up an authority to build the railway line instead of asking some poor beggar from overseas to struggle in a situation where it is very difficult for any of us to see how he's ever going to be able to build the railway line.
Let me turn to the ALP. There is no doubt that the government is 100 per cent right on this: the ALP are singing one tune in North Queensland and they are singing an entirely different tune in Brisbane. We all know Jackie Trad runs the government, and we all know that she scraped in by two per cent ahead of the Greens. Well, it's a pity that some in the ALP didn't take a page out of Mr Albanese's book, because, when he was trailing by two per cent, he went after the Greens. Slap! He bashed them and bashed them and bashed them.
Similarly, I use the example of Mr Latham going down to Tasmania and announcing he was going to save the trees and beggar the workers—well, he said he was going to look after them, but everyone knew that was a lie. It is a little known fact of history that John Howard was going down to say exactly the same thing. Some very sensible people got hold of John Howard and talked sense into him. When he went down there, he announced that he was going to save the jobs and not the trees. The much-maligned head of the CFMEU in Australia, Michael O'Connor himself, the current president of the CFMEU, held up John Howard's arm and said, 'I direct every genuine Labor man in this country to vote for the Liberal Party.' And, of course, the polls switched 6½ per cent. Latham lost 2½ per cent when he went down there appeasing the Greens. When Howard said, 'I've really got to look after jobs—these are human beings,' he leapt up 4½ per cent and comfortably won the election.
So, if for no other reason than your own political survival—and, as the member for Dawson will endorse, this election is about North Queensland. There are seven marginal seats up for grabs. If the Labor Party and the CFMEU have told them very, very clearly, 'If you persist with opposing this rail line then you are going to be annihilated'— (Time expired)
The coalition certainly stands for more jobs, more opportunities and helping regional Australia capitalise on the immense opportunities that exist. The coalition has an unrivalled commitment to regional Australia and regional jobs. We're delivering jobs in record numbers, as has been quoted by the Prime Minister regularly—over 403,000 in the last 12 months, and I am so proud of the fact that 120,000 of those have been delivered in regional Australia. We've now had 16 consecutive months of jobs growth—the longest run of jobs growth ever recorded. Records have been kept since 1978—the year that I started high school.
When you think about North Queensland, as I said earlier in answer to a question in question time, you think of a hardworking, diverse community which has an immense range of opportunities. Only last week I was in Cairns with the member for Leichhardt, seeing firsthand how coalition policies like the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages are helping create the jobs that we're keen on and driving transformational change in North Queensland. We're backing the small and medium businesses in North Queensland with tax cuts so that they can invest more, so they can employ more.
This is great news for the thousands of small and medium businesses in North Queensland, many of them, of course, family businesses. There are 19,672 businesses in Leichhardt, over 17,000 in Dawson, almost 13,000 in Herbert and almost 17½ thousand in the member for Kennedy's own electorate. These are the lowest tax rates that we've been able to put in place for these entities in over 50 years. That's a major catalyst for more growth and better-paying jobs. We're creating that small business framework to, amongst other things, grow confidence in these communities such that people and their businesses can invest more and develop those communities. That involves, on behalf of the federal government, major infrastructure investments. There is $208 million for the Cape York Region Package, $105 million for a black spot project between Sarina and Cairns, $147 million for the Townsville eastern access rail corridor and of course delivery of the Townsville City Deal, which is underway.
I note that in the member for Kennedy's electorate we've invested huge amounts in major job-creating projects: $100 million for Outback Way, $38.4 million for the Bruce Highway between Ingham and the Cardwell Range, $40 million for the Gairloch floodway and $20 million for the Flinders Highway. Similar investments are being made right across the electorates of the member for Capricornia, Dawson, Flynn, right through to the southern areas—my electorate of Groom and that of the member for Wright as well.
In terms of opening up the Galilee Basin, which is the issue of interest here, the coalition definitely believe in miners and definitely believe in the mining industry. And we are not afraid to say that we support the coal industry and that we support miners. Adani estimate that $16.5 billion would be required to develop the mine rail project. They estimate that at project maturity the project will generate $3 billion in annual benefits to the Queensland economy. That includes generating 2,475 construction jobs and 3,920 operational jobs. The production of 100 million tonnes of coal per annum and the generation of potentially $7 billion in export revenues flows through to those local communities, and of course it would flow through to Queensland and the country at large.
We don't just talk about jobs in North Queensland; we talk about delivering jobs, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. There are already 800 staff directly employed associated with the Adani project. These are families that are investing and spending their own hard-earned income in Townsville, Bowen, and other communities across the north. The Adani project has received environmental approvals at both state and Commonwealth levels, as we all know. These approvals apply over 300 world-class conditions to ensure the protection, quite rightly, of the environment:
Yet through all of this the support of the ALP for the project has been muddled by flip-flopping by the Leader of the Opposition. On Tuesday 27 February, 7.30 aired an interview with Geoff Cousins, who referred to conversations last month with the Leader of the Opposition. That's on the record. The Leader of the Opposition said in relation to the Adani mine that he would revoke the licence if he got into government. That's proof that he says something in the bush but he says other things in order to, for example, win the seat of Batman against strong Green competition. Geoff Cousins claimed the Leader of the Opposition has given him a commitment a number of times to shut down the Adani mine. He's also said in other cases that he supports the mine. The by-election has changed that, as we well know.
The facts of this flip-flopping, this reality that we're facing up to, is bamboozling the North Queensland community. It bamboozles them because other members of the ALP are also saying things different to the Leader of the Opposition. As I said earlier, a former Queensland MP that I know, having been a former Queensland MP, the current Labor state Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, has said that his government, the current Queensland government, is serious about having the Adani mine in operation. He said, 'We want this to happen.' He said, 'These are jobs for generations to come. There will be up to 10,000 jobs, if you take an average over the 25-year lease of the mine. You're looking at 2,000 and 4,000 jobs per year.' There are stringent conditions. He recognises that there's a Labor state minister very much behind the project. The reality is that we have the Labor aligned mayor of Townsville, Jenny Hill, the Labor aligned mayor of Rockhampton, Margaret Strelow, also saying they demand that this project proceed. They want support for the project and they want to see those benefits flowing from the Galilee Basin. In my own community of the Darling Downs, we have the Wagner family, who are committed to being involved in that project. They want to be as innovative in North and Central Queensland as they have been in my home town of Toowoomba in building a privately funded internationally capable airport in recent years.
The Leader of the Opposition must be having a really tough time, trying to get his lines straight between what he says in Batman, what he says to the Greens, what he says to local Labor aligned mayors in North Queensland and of course what he has said on the public record. You start to wonder which of the multiple personalities you are going to encounter on any day of the week Which will it be? Will it be blue collar Bill, who's spewing about the IR system that he created; or is it inner-city, sophisticated Bill, the one that's the blow-fly to billionaires?
Regional Australia has long been the engine room of our national economy, and that will always be the case, based on our great agriculture and resource industries. The member for Kennedy's own home town and my wife's home town of Charters Towers, for example, is a significant North Queensland centre that is now a significant agricultural centre and a significant educational centre, but it started out as a resources town, a gold mining town. The coalition, the members on this side of the House, recognise those fundamental economic, historical facts in terms of the development of regional Australia.
We've got a strong plan to deliver on this vision for regional communities; hence our support for this project. We believe in miners and we believe in North Queensland. I think that the questions that the member for Kennedy raises today is a very important one. We won't parrot lines about possibly jobs in regional Queensland and then withdraw those lines when we're back in inner-city Melbourne. We are delivering real jobs, as we've shown through the Regional Jobs and Investment Package. The opposition leader should back off. The opposition leader should support Queenslanders in regional Queensland who simply want to develop these opportunities, to have these jobs, to get on with their lives and to support their families into the future.
There are 30,000 people currently looking for work, currently looking for a job, in North Queensland—all the way from Rocky to the tip of Cape York—and that doesn't get enough attention in this place. So I'm glad that the member for Kennedy has brought this motion forward. It gives us an opportunity to shine a light on that situation, on the chronic high level of unemployment in Central and North Queensland.
This is a government that promises very big when it comes to North Queensland. When the white paper into northern Australia was released back in 2014, the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, said that this white paper was going to make northern Australia an economic powerhouse. The former Deputy Prime Minister, the member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, said, 'We're a nation smart enough and brave enough to make the next step, and now we've got a government motivated enough to do just that.' That was four years ago. So what has happened since?
If you go to North Queensland now you will find in places like Rockhampton and Gladstone that unemployment is higher today than it was then. It's got worse, not better, since the government's white paper for northern Australia came out. In Townsville, the unemployment rate today is about 8.5 per cent—twice as high as it is in Brisbane. The youth unemployment rate in Townsville is 19.4 per cent. That's almost four times what it is in Brisbane. And a lot of people who do have a job have found that, over the last few years, their wages have gone down or have stagnated—flatlining. The number of apprentices in Central and North Queensland has also gone through the floor. There are almost 9,000 fewer apprentices across regional Queensland today than there were when this government came to power. In the member for Kennedy's electorate, there are 1,200 fewer apprentices today than there were four or five years ago, when this government came to power.
The government talk a big game—and you heard it again just then from the minister—but the fact is that they haven't delivered for North Queensland. There's no better example of that than the NAIF, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. It's the biggest promise they made, a $5 billion fund to build job-creating infrastructure in the north, and it's their biggest failure. They announced this fund 1,024 days ago, and guess how many projects they've funded in North Queensland since. Zero; nothing. They haven't funded one job-creating project in North Queensland in all of that time. This has to be the most constipated organisation in the country, and it desperately needs a dose of Metamucil. It needs a box of Laxettes, because so far it has been an abject failure. The government have promised big and delivered nothing. No wonder the people of North Queensland are so upset, so angry and so frustrated.
There's been a lot of debate here and elsewhere about the Carmichael mine. Coal is our second largest export. Of the products that we export to the world, coal is our second largest, and it will continue to be a very, very considerable part of what we export long into the future. Whether this project goes ahead depends on Adani. The ball is in Adani's court. They've got to find the money to finance it, and the fact is they haven't done that yet. I've said repeatedly, and the Leader of the Opposition has said the same thing, this is a project that has to stand on its own two feet, and the taxpayers of Australia shouldn't have to give Adani a billion dollars to make this go ahead. I think most Australians would agree with that.
As I said at the beginning of this debate, there are 30,000 people in North Queensland at the moment who are looking for a job. If Adani finds the money and this project does go ahead, it's not going to fill that hole. It's not going to give all of those people a job. If you're hanging your hat on that, you're only going to be disappointed. The best bet is that this project will create 1,400 jobs when in operation. That's what Adani's own economist said under oath to the Queensland Land Court back in 2015. We need more jobs than that. We need a lot more jobs than that, which is why we've announced a raft of infrastructure projects for Central and North Queensland.
It gives me a great sense of pride to be able to stand here and share with the room that Queenslanders, most genuinely, in and around this space have had it up to the back teeth with fly-in fly-out protesters coming to Queensland, telling us what they believe is the right position for us to have in Queensland, when really our communities are screaming for jobs. It is so disingenuous for those on the other side to come into this place and say that they support Adani, that they support these projects, when their leader has openly declared what Labor's position is both at a state and a federal level—that, if in government, they would revoke licences.
The honourable member for Kennedy proposed this matter of public importance today about the Galilee Basin. Of course, the most contentious part of the Galilee Basin opening up is the Adani mine project. We can build a railway line easily enough, but, unless there are approvals in place for companies to be able to prosper and move forward, no coal is going to go on that line. We have funding, through the NAIF, sitting there ready to go. Federally, we have ticked off on approvals for the Adani project.
The member for Kennedy made a salient point when he suggested that, in Queensland, the show was run by Jackie Trad. That is exactly the case, because I have here on record that the Premier up there, some time back, actually supported the project. In fact, there are a myriad people on the Labor side that supported the project. Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, said on ABC in April 2017:
I support the Adani coal mine so long as it stacks up. I hope it stacks up …
Anthony Chisholm said:
The only people who lose in this are the people of Central and North Queensland who are looking to this vital project as an economic opportunity for their region.
… … …
Over the last month I have had many conversations in Townsville, Bowen, Proserpine, Mackay and Gladstone—there is strong support from the community for the Adani mine to go ahead.
Up and down the coast, there are Labor supporters who are supportive of the Adani project and for the development of the Galilee Basin. Murray Watt said:
… state and federal Labor have always supported jobs in mining … we also support the Adani mining project … This is a massive project, and it's got the potential to create thousands of jobs, which'd be fantastic for regional Queensland.
The shadow minister for climate change, who is sitting in the chamber, said, 'What we're talking about isn't about stopping Adani. This is one of the issues that irritate me—all of these environmentalists protesting against Adani or coal exports.' So I look forward to his contribution. The Labor Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, said:
The Carmichael Coal mine-rail-port project has undergone a comprehensive and transparent environmental assessment process, according to State and Commonwealth legislation, and hundreds of conditions apply … My government has honoured its commitments on the Carmichael coal project and we are determined to see the project go ahead to create jobs in regional Queensland.
We know that not to be true. We know that not to be true. We know that Labor, those who sit on the other side of the chamber, will say whatever the audience wants to hear. Bill Shorten, the opposition leader, is on record with about half a dozen different opinions in this place. But the last one is the one that counts. It's the opinion that he had and the conversation that he had with Mr Cousins. I don't know why these conversations exist. We saw the opposition leader at the picket line, where you would have thought he would've been with trusted colleagues. But someone clearly leaked there. Then he had a discussion with Mr Cousins, hopefully in private. It was then leaked to the media by Mr Cousins that the opposition leader suggested that if they got into government they would revoke the mine. So, why would we be looking to build a railway line to open up the Galilee Basin, when, if Labor were to ever get in government, they would make sure there wasn't another coalmine opened up in this country?
To finish off, up in Central Queensland the Labor candidate there, one of the CFMEU bosses, proudly boasts that he's a third generation coalminer. Can I suggest that he has just enrolled in a party that is going to make sure there is not a fourth generation in his seat.
I'm proud to make a contribution on this MPI, which really goes to the future of coal in this country—in essence, that is the MPI today. I won't be lectured about support for coalminers by the coalition government—a coalition government that is happy to use them for props, but doesn't give a fig about coalminers. They are happy to use them for props—high-vis vests, hard hats—but they don't give a fig. Most of the people interjecting in this debate, during question time and everywhere else, have never met a coalminer. They are cosy up on the Northern Beaches of Sydney, people like the member for Pittwater or whatever it's called nowadays. They're talking about coalminers, but they've never met one in their life. They don't care about coalminers.
If they did care, I would see them at the northern coalfields coalminers' memorial service, a memorial service held every year in Cessnock, that commemorates the 1,800 coalminers who have died in the Northern District coalmines, aged from as young as 11 to as old as 76. It's a tragic story, a story of the 200 years of coalmining in my region. I don't see a single coalition MP at the service, despite the fact that there are several coalition MPs who have seats in the Hunter Region with coalmines, including the member for New England. There are coalmines in his region, but I never see him at the memorial service. They don't care about coalminers; they just use them for cheap props.
I didn't hear them speak out when Senator Roberts, their partner in One Nation, talked about black lung as something to be managed rather than eradicated. I didn't hear them saying that that was an awful statement and we should never accept black lung in the coal industry. I didn't see them standing up for the 115 workers at Hunter Valley No. 1 mine when Rio Tinto sacked them for having the temerity to ask for an enterprise bargaining agreement. In the end, all we get from those on the other side are weasel words and using coalminers for props down here in Canberra. When it's about real action for coalminers, they go missing.
Turning to the $1 billion subsidy proposed through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, if this $1 billion loan goes ahead it threatens 18,000 coalmining jobs in my region. Don't just take my word for it. Jonathan van Rooyen, an executive at the Port of Newcastle, the biggest export port for coal in the entire world, says that if this loan went ahead it would 'distort competition and create sovereign risk' by supporting Adani in a 'shrinking world coal market'.
The government are quick to talk about the benefits to North Queensland of this taxpayer support, but have been silent about the costs it would impose on other coal-producing regions. There's no avoiding the simple mathematics that if Turnbull, the Prime Minister, succeeds in pushing between 25 million and 60 million tonnes of subsidised coal into a flat—in fact, a declining—world market, the volume of coal mined and exported from the Hunter and Illawarra will decline.
So I will say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and through you to the people of Australia that we care about coalminers. I care about coalminers. I care about the 18,000 coalminers in my region who are threatened if this mob succeed in getting this $1 billion subsidy for the Carmichael mine. The truth is that thermal coal market is declining globally. It peaked in 2013 or 2014. The seaborne thermal coal trade has declined every year since then. Coal imports to China have declined. Coal imports to India have declined every year. It's a matter of economic logic that, if you increase supply into a market where demand is falling, you will affect prices. You will drive down prices. You will threaten existing coalmines and existing coalmining jobs, including the 18,000 in my electorate. So I say to those opposite, if they care about coalmining jobs, come up and visit some of the coalmines in my region and look the 18,000 coalminers in the face and say, 'We're prepared to do you out of a job because we want this $1 billion loan.'
Government members interjecting—
Even better—I welcome you—come up on the second Sunday in September to the miners memorial to see the bronze wall commemorating the 1,800 coalminers who have died in my community to ship out coal and produce wealth for this country. But they won't, because they don't have the ticker. They don't care about coalminers other than to use them as cheap political props for their tricks. Shame on you! Shame on the entire coalition for their lack of support for real coalminers!
It's my pleasure to speak on this MPI as the son of someone who was a coalminer, as the brother of someone who was a coalminer and whose best friends are coalminers. Australia has not opened a new coal basin since the 1960s. That will change with the opening up of the Galilee Basin. The focus for the past five years has been on the Carmichael coal project and the 10,000 jobs it will generate. Green activists who have no understanding of economy or business, let alone the mining industry, try to suggest that the number of jobs will be lower, and we heard it from the Labor Party in this chamber just now.
I had one extreme Green suggest that the Carmichael coal project would create just one and a half full-time equivalent jobs, but economic analysis puts job creation at Carmichael at 11,800 jobs—3,900 direct during operation. Construction will see the creation of 8,300 jobs and 2,500 of them direct. In addition to the mine, Adani will expand the port at Abbot Point and build a railway line to the Galilee Basin. It is these vital pieces of infrastructure that will open the door to another five projects. We've got GVK Hancock's Alpha coal project, with 3,400 jobs in construction and 3,2000 in operation; Hancock's Kevin's Corner project, a further 1,500 jobs in construction and 2,000 more in operation; Macmines China Stone project, a further 3,900 jobs in construction and 3,400 in operation; Waratah Coal's Galilee coal project, 3,500 jobs in construction and 2,300 jobs in operation; and the South Galilee Coal Project, 1,600 jobs in construction and 1,200 jobs in operation. That's how valuable the Galilee Basin is to workers, to North Queensland and to the state and national economies.
But not everyone wants north Queenslanders to have a job. The Labor Party have tried sitting on the fence on the Carmichael coal project for more than five years, but they finally fell off the fence this week. The Leader of the Opposition was pushed off the fence by someone who knows exactly what side of the fence he truly sits, and—surprise, surprise—I've got to say it's not on the side of the workers. The Leader of the Opposition has confirmed that the Labor Party do not support the Carmichael coal project, the 10,000 jobs or the $16½ billion investment. The former CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Geoff Cousins, confirmed that at a secret meeting the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly agreed on what stance he would take. This is what he said: 'When we're in government, if the evidence is as compelling as it appears now, we will revoke the licence in accordance with the law.' While the Leader of the Opposition was gifting his commitment to the greenies, they were gifting him a $17,000 holiday, cruising the reef, taking a scenic flight around North Queensland—$17,000 and a few green votes. That's the price of Labor policy now. Who says corruption doesn't pay? This lavish gift from the Australian Conservation Foundation was requested by the Leader of the Opposition and arranged by our greenie millionaire mate.
According to the House of Representatives Register of Members' Interests resolution, I note that a member must within 28 days declare any gift worth more than $750 from an official source, such as the Australian Conservation Foundation. According to the resolution, any member who:
… knowingly fails to notify any alteration of those interests to the Registrar of Members' Interests within 28 days of the change occurring … shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the House of Representatives and shall be dealt with by the House accordingly.
Member for Shortland on a point of order?
The member for Dawson imputed the Leader of the Opposition and accused him of something with a quote that ended with 'who pays'. I ask him to withdraw that imputation of the Leader of the Opposition.
I withdraw. I continue. It says they will be 'guilty of a serious contempt of the House of Representatives and shall be dealt with accordingly'. I know that some members on both sides have neglected to update the register, but this is the first instance I've seen where any MP has done it knowingly—knowingly failing to do it. It's a critical distinction. In normal circumstances it would be difficult to prove that a member has deliberately concealed that information; however, as we've seen this week, the Leader of the Opposition specifically asked to keep the $17,000 gift and everything else around the dodgy deal secret. He had to keep it secret because he was about to tour North Queensland telling a different story. Having promised to kill off the project, last week he was in Mackay, Townsville and Rocky with coalminers saying that he supported the industry. He needs to come back and tell them how he's going to destroy their jobs now, because that's what he's promised the greenies.
I'm so glad that the member for Kennedy has raised this matter today because, unlike some matters discussed in this place at this time, this is truly of public importance. The Galilee Basin offers the greatest opportunity for economic development in my region in a lifetime. It's not every day that we as national leaders get to discuss a range of projects that will provide wealth and jobs for thousands of Central Queenslanders and exploit the natural advantage that we have in that part of the world. If we do not exploit our natural advantages, we will fail as a nation and be relegated to the annals of history as the nation that wasted a continent. If we are to continue to compete and continue to be the best, we will have to grow the pie from which we all dine. We will have to grow the economy, create jobs and give people a chance.
I always enjoy my trips to Canberra because I get to witness some of the greatest acts of hypocrisy one can imagine. Those opposite have the audacity to, in the same breath almost, cry for greater funding for health and education while downplaying and outright denying projects like the Carmichael mine. It's just unbelievable. It would appear that those opposite simply don't understand where the money comes from. This is the undying problem with the ALP. Those opposite are like small children watching mummy take money out of the ATM: they don't know where the money comes from, but they know they just want more.
Money for things like schools, hospitals and bureaucrats comes from the government's holdings. Are you following me? The government gets its money by charging taxes. Are you still with me? Good. The biggest source of taxes is by garnered by taxing people and businesses when they make money. I'm losing some of you, but I will keep going. If businesses and people don't make money, there is no tax taken and, therefore, no money to spend on schools, hospitals and bureaucrats. Oh, dear, it looks like I've lost them all. The fact is that my colleagues opposite fail to understand this very point. This is why they allow themselves to be hoodwinked by the militant Greens. This is how they miss the point. They sell out their members and sidle up with the radical greenies, who would have us replace hard work for success with hard work for survival.
It's the greatest hypocrisy one can imagine to know that, while the budget of the Queensland Labor government lives and dies by coal royalties, they are happy to threaten to shut it down. Just last year Queensland Treasurer Curtis Pitt recorded a budget surplus because of coal royalties boosting to $3 billion. The Queensland government are dependent on mining royalties to keep their record-breaking program of hiring public servants going. Without said royalties, they would be forced to face the dire consequences of their drunken sailor spending spree. Without mining and its royalties we would be in big trouble.
In Central Queensland we have two major coal basins: the Bowen Basin in the east and, tucked behind it to the west, the Galilee Basin. The natural resources within these basins are immense and provide enormous benefit to the state and national economies and to the government's budget. The coal seams of the Bowen Basin provide for thousands of direct jobs and billions of dollars in domestic product. These coal seams are more than that to me though—they are the basis for thousands of families and dozens of small communities across the region. These coal seams do not just create some carbon-emitting hole in the ground; they create homes for so many Central Queenslanders. Why do Labor wish to demonise the very homes of my constituents? Surely no-one opposite would like to be demonised because of where they come for? Why, then, are they happy to do so to the good people of the coalfields in my electorate? Why is it we cannot prioritise economic advantage for rural Australians?
As a National and a passionate regional member, I have seen firsthand just how much can be achieved by pulling appropriate levers to unlock the economic potential of the people in the bush—the real battlers, the men and women of the weatherboard and iron. Why is it that we cannot prioritise bipartisan support for these people and their lives? These are the people who want to get a chance at a better life through the development of the Galilee Basin. These are the people we should be fighting for, not pillorying a project that has all the approvals it requires, more than any mine in our history. It is already employing hundreds of Central Queenslanders for preliminary works.
I say to those opposite: go to towns like Clermont and Alpha where the project is already having a positive effect and tell people there they don't deserve a job. Tell them while you are sipping on your coal powered soy lattes that their jobs are somehow immoral and must end. I know you won't because you know that to do so would be hugely offensive. Continuing the same line in parliament or in Batman is no different. If you don't have the guts to say it to their faces, don't say it in this place.
It gives me pleasure today to back the member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, in his matter of importance.
Where are the Labor members?
You're quite right, Member for Dawson: there are no Labor members here. That's why I'm—
Where's the member for Herbert? Aren't the Adani jobs in her electorate?'
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The member for Flynn has the call.
Joel is looking after his own interests in New South Wales. He won't want to speak on Queensland projects.
The Adani mine has been talked about nearly as long as the Nathan Dam was, and it's time we actually bit the bullet and got on with it. Coal is still king and it'll be around for a long time. There are four mines in my area in the Bowen Basin—Dawson, Callide, Rolleston and Baralaba North. They just announced big projects to increase the mining in those mines. There are other boutique mines, too, that, with the price of coal going up and it being in demand, are ready to start in my electorate. Adani, or the Carmichael mine, is not in my electorate, but it joins my boundaries at Alpha in the Central Highlands electorate.
With all this talk about how much it costs for a railway line, those opposite are not looking at the real issues. I've just been talking to Aurizon and other companies. Once upon a time, when Joh Bjelke-Petersen was the Premier of Queensland, the Queensland government built the railway lines. They were shared railway lines. You could be carting coal, cattle, grain or fuel. When I was a fuel distributor in Emerald, under Joh's law, I could not go to Gladstone to pick up fuel in my own tankers. I had to pay 4c a litre—it would have cost me about 2c a litre if it was in a truck—to cart fuel by rail. That was Joh's law. That's how he developed these railway lines. That's how the electrification of the railway lines came into being—because of Joh's policy. In those days, before electricity prices went through the roof, diesel was getting a bit scarce around the world. In the Bass Strait, oil was being diminished. So his idea then was, 'Let's have a look at both diesel and electricity,' and he put the electrification lines in. They were totally owned by the government, and it charged whatever price it needed to pay for those railway lines. There's a Gladstone-to-Moura railway line that was built in 1966. There's a loop line that goes from Gladstone right through to Hay Point in Mackay. That can take coal in either direction. And of course there's the Moranbah-to-Abbot Point railway line. With a slight adjustment to plans, the coal from Carmichael could be shipped either into Moranbah and down to Abbot Point, or into Capella, down to Gregory mine and then back to Gladstone. So we've got a choice, and that comes in very handy and is very efficient in logistics when there are floods. With the rainfall we have in Queensland, it's either a feast or a famine. When it's a feast, the rain does come, and it's been known to have all the railway lines underwater. That affected the Gladstone Power Station at one time a few years ago when we ran out of coal for the power station.
However, the job at hand will feed into the Indian economy. There are 250 million people who have not got electricity as we speak. Don't we owe them something? If we want to continue with our free trade agreements, it's a two-way thing, you know? So we should be looking at that too. Giving 250 million people electricity is a point I think everyone should feel pretty good about.
We all know about the jobs it will create. There are already 800 jobs there. There'd be permanent jobs for 3,700 in production. In the construction, there'd be tens of thousands of jobs, and then of course there are the custodians.
I have a question to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
A question to me?
Yes, a question to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I'm just wondering if there's something wrong. I just note a distinct lack of Labor speakers on this matter. Is there a problem there? I've never seen that before in an MPI. They mustn't care about the issue.
The member for Dawson will resume his seat.
I'll take the invitation from the member for Dawson, at the risk of making him happy. I note that when we speak on an agriculture bill, which is the next item of business, again there are no coalition speakers—oh, sorry: bar one. At least half a dozen members of the opposition are speaking on this important agriculture bill, but just one from the coalition. I noticed Mr Gee, the member for Calare, was on the list earlier, and he's somehow disappeared. How dare they come in here and feign concern and support for coalminers? How dare they? They've been sitting over there for four or five years taking every opportunity to vote with the Prime Minister on so many issues that are contrary to the interests of our coalminers. There is no better supporter of the coalmining industry in this place, and that is well known. So how dare the member for Dawson suggest he's supporting the coalmining industry? He wasn't prepared to stand up on penalty rates, by the way. He's sitting back while enterprise bargaining in the private sector is in decline, including in the coalmining industry. Contracting out in the coalmining industry is growing exponentially. Under this government, coalminers are being locked out of their mine sites in Queensland, and the member for Dawson wants to come in here with his colleagues and feign concern for coalminers. Well, what hypocrisy—hypocrisy writ large.
The discussion has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Joyce be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources.
Question agreed to.
The opposition will be supporting the passage of the Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017. The bill amends the Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989, known as the PIRD Act. It allows statutory research and development corporations governed by the PIRD Act to undertake marketing activities funded by voluntary contributions. It removes the requirement that statutory RDCs can undertake marketing only where a marketing levy is attached to the corporation. Thirdly, it expands the definition of marketing activities to allow incidental activities such as consulting about or planning marketing activities. This will allow RDCs to consult about, plan, scope and organise marketing on behalf of industry, as well as to commission marketing activities. The amendments in the bill will not alter the current process by which industry establishes a new levy, but instead will remove the requirement for a formal levy in order to undertake marketing activities.
There are 15 RDCs; however, only four of them are still governed by the 1989 PIRD Act. They are the Fisheries RDC, the Cotton RDC, the Grains RDC, and the Rural Industries RDC, which is now known as AgriFutures. Of the other 11 RDCs, nine of the 10 industry owned RDC corporations and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority can conduct marketing without reference to the source of the funding. They are governed by industry-specific legislation.
In 2013, legislative changes to the PIRD Act were made to expand the functions of the R&D corporations to include conducting marketing on behalf of industry if a marketing levy was attached to the R&D corporation. However, following the passage of the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Act 2013, some small industries indicated that the cost of establishing and collecting a statutory levy for marketing is too high. The Fisheries RDC has sought agreement from the minister to amend the PIRD Act to allow for the voluntary collection of funds to be used for marketing activities. There are a number of seafood sectors, including Southern Rocklobster Ltd, Australian Barramundi Farmers Association and Oysters Australia, who are actively considering how they will engage with the Fisheries RDC with regards to marketing. The Fisheries RDC provided further clarity to benefits associated with voluntary marketing activities. The FRDC is unique in that it does not collect mandatory research and development levies. They are collected on a voluntary basis. This voluntary arrangement has allowed the FRDC to develop a relationship of trust with industry and, in percentage terms, is over government matching caps for research and development dollars, which is a standout outcome for that RDC.
Due to this trusted relationship, it was proposed to roll over marketing funds currently held by the Seafood CRC, which closed on 30 June 2017. This bill should have been done before then to allow the funds to be rolled over to the Fisheries RDC. Sadly, though, this bill is too late. It was not passed prior to 30 June 2017 because the previous agriculture minister did not ensure it received sufficient attention and priority. Again, sadly, we know that the former minister was preoccupied with his boondoggles and pork-barrelling exercises and other distractions, rather than the interests of the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors. The Seafood Cooperative Research Centre company was facilitating the voluntary collection of marketing contributions for the Australian Prawn Farmers Association and the Australian Council of Prawn Fisheries, representing the wildcatch prawn sector. These funds have been used over the last four years for the very successful Love Australian Prawns marketing campaign.
The Seafood CRC company was going through the process of winding up and was no longer going to be in a position to facilitate the LAP—the marketing program—and other voluntary campaigns. The intention was that the Seafood CRC pass the balance of the funds it currently holds for the campaign and the Australian Wild Abalone campaign to the FRDC, which would, in turn, then facilitate the ongoing management of the campaign. Due to the poor timing of the implementation of this bill, the Australian Prawn Farmers Association, the Australian Council of Prawn Fisheries and the Abalone Council Australia have had to make other arrangements for marketing funds, as the funds could not be rolled over from the FRDC—again, because the minister didn't get his act into gear in an appropriate time and manner. This is not the only example of the Turnbull government's failure to ensure efficient use of funding. I, and on behalf of the opposition, move:
The motion was unavailable at the time of publishing.
The failure of the Turnbull government to develop evidence based policies is damaging the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors. The former agriculture minister is one of those prominent members of the Turnbull government who, time after time, ignored the evidence based policies to his own satisfaction. Even the former federal director of the Nationals, Scott Mitchell, has stated: 'The nationals must now work as a united and disciplined team for their constituents—a united team working on the substantive issues that matter to rural and regional Australians rather than populist policy issues that often have unintended consequences and fail to deliver long-term benefits. That is what is now most important. It is of secondary concern to the Nationals Leader to be a household name.' I think we know who the former national director was talking about. I'm sure you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I'm sure every member of this House knows that he is talking about the former Minister for Agriculture, who spent four years in his portfolio and did nothing but play to his political base. He did nothing but talk about pork-barrelling exercises, his boondoggles, his Regional Investment Corporation, which is a public policy disaster. The relocation of the APVMA to his own electorate was the most prominent and outrageous pork-barrelling exercise I've seen in my 22 years here. Was there any substantial policy? Of course not.
The very fact that we are debating this bill is, I think, a case in point. I made a speech in this place last week about the priorities for the agriculture sector. One of the key points was research and development. This is an eminently supportable amendment to the act, but it embraces none of the real challenges we have before us if we're going to be serious about meeting our aspirations in the agriculture sector.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
And I ask that the member for Hunter be given leave to continue his remarks at a later hour.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples be established to inquire into and report on matters relating to constitutional change, and in conducting the inquiry, the committee:
(a) consider the recommendations of the Referendum Council (2017), the Uluru Statement from the Heart (2017), the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (2015), and the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians (2012);
(b) examine the methods by which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are currently consulted and engaged on policies and legislation which affects them, and consider if, and how, self-determination can be advanced, in a way that leads to greater local decision making, economic advancement and improved social outcomes;
(c) recommend options for constitutional change and any potential complementary legislative measures which meet the expectations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and which will secure cross party parliamentary support and the support of the Australian people;
(d) ensure that any recommended options are consistent with the four criteria of referendum success set out in the Final Report of the Expert Panel on Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution:
(i) contribute to a more unified and reconciled nation;
(ii) be of benefit to and accord with the wishes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
(iii) be capable of being supported by an overwhelming majority of Australians from across the political and social spectrums; and
(iv) be technically and legally sound;
(e) engage with key stakeholders, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and organisations; and
(f) advise on the possible steps that could be taken to ensure the referendum has the best possible chance of success, including proposals for a constitutional convention or other mechanism for raising awareness in the broader community;
(2) the committee present to Parliament an interim report on or before 30 July 2018 and its final report on or before 29 November 2018;
(3) the committee consist of eleven members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by any minority group or independent Member, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;
(6) the committee elect two of its members to be joint chairs, one being a Senator or Member, who is a member of the Government party and one being a Senator or Member, who is a member of the non-Government parties, provided that the joint chairs may not be members of the same House:
(7) the joint chair, nominated by the Government parties shall chair the first meeting of the committee, and the joint chair nominated by the non-Government parties shall chair the second meeting of the committee, and subsequent committee meetings shall be chaired by the joint chairs on an alternating basis;
(8) a joint chair shall take the chair whenever the other joint chair is not present;
(9) each of the joint chairs shall have a deliberative vote only, regardless of who is chairing the meeting;
(10) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(11) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a deliberative vote only;
(12) each subcommittee shall have at least one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(13) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(14) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(15) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time, in order to progress constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(17) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples appointed during the 44th Parliament;
(18) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(19) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur.
I welcome this motion. This committee will provide us with an opportunity to come together in a spirit of bipartisanship and with the goodwill to constructively realise the aspirations of First Nations peoples outlined in the Uluru statement. It is clear that the First Nations people want a greater say, involvement and participation in the decisions that affect them. I particularly welcome the terms of reference and recognise that the committee will be established with co-chairs—one from the government and one from the opposition. We on this side of the House anticipate that Senator Dodson will be one of the co-chairs.
The establishment of this joint select committee is very important for this parliament. It recognises that there will be consideration of the outcomes of the Referendum Council and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It also recognises that we will be looking at things like the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition for Indigenous Australians.
It is important that the work of this committee has legitimacy in the Aboriginal community. Let me tell you the expectations are very high. There is great scepticism in the community about the way in which the issues of the Uluru statement have been handled, but this committee, among other things, will be able to examine that in the way in which it needs to be examined. This committee will be made up in the way in which these committees are constructed—members of the government, members of the opposition and two members of the crossbenches. The terms of reference will engage key stakeholders, both first nations peoples and other organisations, plus individuals. That's a very important place for this to be. The committee will advise this parliament on possible steps towards referendum and the chances of success. It will also have strict reporting dates, which will become evident as the work of the committee goes on. The committee will travel to communities, as well as engage, as I said, with key stakeholders from both the Aboriginal and the non-Aboriginal community.
Can I also say that the most important thing about this is that the outcomes of this committee must have broad community support. That support will be gained by the committee conducting itself in the appropriate manner, by making sure that we reflect honestly and clearly the aspirations of first nations people and, of course, the aspirations of the broader community when it comes to this particularly important topic. The issue of constitutional recognition is something that has been the aspiration of first peoples for a very long time. But I say clearly that it is also important not just for first peoples—it's important for the broader community as well. It's important for us as a nation to realise the truth of this country's history and also, as I said, to realise the aspirations of first nations people.
The committee will be beginning its work very quickly, and we anticipate that a similar motion to this will be moved in the other place as soon as is practical. Once that happens, we would be anticipating that the co-chairs of this committee would meet and work through the body of work that needs to be undertaken. I do not underestimate the amount of work that this committee will have to undertake, and I do not underestimate the complexity of this task. But the complexity of this task is something that we as members of parliament will take on board. As I say, the outcomes have to be extremely legitimate within the Aboriginal community.
This committee will also have the power to appoint subcommittees and make sure that those subcommittees are appointed in the way in which the terms of reference anticipate. Can I also say that the committee will have the power to call witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced, to conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit, to sit in public and in private, and to report from time to time in order to progress constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The committee is a joint committee, which is incredibly important, which means that all of us in this place will have a say in relation to how it operates, where it will operate, what it will examine and what its outcomes will be.
The Referendum Council's call to amend the Constitution to provide for a national Indigenous representative assembly to constitute a voice to parliament was not something the government could support. We note those opposite do support such a change, and they're free to make their case to the Australian people. After a very careful consideration, the government doesn't believe such an addition to our national representative institutions is either desirable or capable of winning acceptance in a referendum.
Our democracy is built on the foundation of all Australian citizens having equal civic rights—all being able to vote for, stand for and serve in either of the two chambers of our national parliament, the House of Representatives and the Senate. A constitutionally enshrined additional representative assembly which only Indigenous Australians could vote for or serve in is inconsistent with this fundamental principle.
Today, we seek that a Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples be established to inquire into and report on matters relating to constitutional change. We hope this parliamentary process will look for where there may still be common ground between the government and the opposition when it comes to constitutional recognition, and if that common ground accords with the rest of the Australian population. As the government has previously stated, we believe the challenge remains to find a constitutional amendment which will succeed and which does not undermine the universal principles of unity, equality and one person, one vote.
We've listened to the arguments put forward by proponents of the voice and both understand and recognise the desire for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to have a greater say in their own affairs. We acknowledge the values and the aspirations which lie at the heart of the Uluru statement. People who ask for a voice feel voiceless or feel like they're not being heard. We remain committed to finding effective ways to develop stronger local voices and empowerment of local people. Our work on empowered communities is a good example of our commitment to a place based approach to empowerment. We think it's important to examine the methods by which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are currently consulted and engaged on policies and legislation which affects them, and have asked the committee to consider if and how self-determination can be advanced in a way that leads to greater local decision-making, economic advancement and improved social outcomes.
I want to reiterate the government's firm commitment to recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have cared for this country for 65,000 years. We support constitutional recognition that can unite our nation, and we remain committed to finding a way forward, despite being given a 'take it or leave it' ultimatum from the Referendum Council.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the following reports: Review of the 'declared area' provisions: sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code; and Review of police stop, search and seizure powers, the control order regime and the preventative detention order regime: division 3A of part IAA of the Crimes Act 1914; divisions 104 and 105 of the Criminal Code.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I am pleased to present two reports today covering the committee's statutory reviews of four pieces of counterterrorism legislation.
The committee is required under the Intelligence Services Act to conduct a review of each of these provisions by 7 March 2018, prior to their sunset on 7 September of this year.
In conducting its reviews, the committee received 24 written submissions from a range of stakeholders, and held combined public and private hearings in December 2017.
The first report I have tabled is the review of the 'declared area' provisions, which were first enacted via the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act in November 2014, and the second is the review of the police stop search and seizure, the control order regime and the PDO regime.
Given the hour of the day, I won't go any further. Suffice it to say that, before I conclude, I take this opportunity to update the House on the status of the committee's review of ASIO's questioning and detention powers, which the committee is also required to conduct by 7 March 2018. The committee has completed its review and is currently in the process of finalising the report. I expect to be able to present the committee's report to the House in the near future.
I'll table the rest of my statement, given the time. Thank you very much, and I commend these reports to the House.
I rise to speak about the ongoing crisis of gas prices. The hurt to households is bad enough—and, if we're honest, we all can recount stories, which continue, of pensioners not being able to heat their houses through winter—but this crisis is smashing Australian manufacturing and is continuing to threaten thousands of jobs. The tragedy of this is Australia is about to overtake the nation of Qatar as the world's biggest gas producing exporting nation, and yet we do not have enough gas for our domestic market. We're producing more gas than at any time in our history, but it's at the highest prices. This is a nonsense, it's a failure of policy and it's insane.
This is enormously important in my electorate of Bruce. I said in my first speech to this place that manufacturing continues to be the largest single employment sector in my electorate, employing thousands of people. Two weeks ago in parliament I met with a delegation of workers brought here by the Australian Workers' Union from east coast states—New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. There was the same message from workers from Gladstone to Dandenong. They had the same plea. The crisis continues, jobs are being lost, there are jobs at risk, and we had case study after case study of doom. Once these jobs are gone, they do not come back. They're offshore. They're gone. They don't just restart if the gas price goes down.
Last September the Leader of the Opposition and I visited the Ace Metal Treatment Services factory in Clayton in my electorate. We heard firsthand that their gas bill had risen from $500,000 a year to $1.2 million a year. They can't cut any more costs. They've invested in new plants, they've become more efficient, they're using less gas, they've changed their labour arrangements, but they cannot sustain those kinds of prices. The same story is heard in numerous businesses across the east coast. When there, last September, the Leader of the Opposition formally called on the government to pull the trigger and act on gas export controls.
So, why didn't the government act? Well, there's a lot of speculation. Some of the speculation was that the then Deputy Prime Minister was a New Zealand citizen, they knew they were heading for a by-election and they did not want the decisions he made—a big decision like that—to be vulnerable to challenge in the court. Other speculation was that the Prime Minister has a philosophical objection to upsetting his mates in big business. So, what did the government do? Well, the Prime Minister got the gas companies into a room, and he waved his finger at them. He gave them a good talking to, then he shook their hands and told us, 'The problem is fixed.' Well, it's not fixed. The crisis continues.
The government's newspaper of choice, The Australianusually we get that quoted back at us—said yesterday that the Prime Minister's threats haven't worked, that the average Sydney and Melbourne wholesale spot prices went up 40 per cent last year and that the January prices in both cities, Melbourne and Sydney, are the highest on record for a January. This was reported yesterday, mind you. The gas chiefs were quoted as saying, 'That's bad luck. High prices are here to stay. Business will just have to suck it up and adapt.' Businesses in my electorate cannot sustain the current prices. They've squeezed every last drop out of their cost structure. They're close to hitting the wall.
Let's just presume that some of Prime Minister's claim was true—that we saw some reduction for some businesses in some areas, if they were lucky enough to get a deal. I rang Ace Metal Treatment Services last week to see how they're going. The handshake agreement has done nothing for businesses like Ace Metal Treatment Services that, last year, were forced to sign utterly unsustainable contracts with a gun at their head. You can't stay connected to the gas, if you're that kind of user, without a big multiyear contract in place. You have to have a contract. They were forced to sign a contract. They heard of one supplier and thought, 'Maybe the price has come down,' after the Prime Minister's handshake and finger waving. So they rang their gas company and said, 'Can we renegotiate? This is a force majeure clause, an unexpected event, a change in the market.' The gas company said, 'You can get nicked. You can you pay or we'll sue you, cut you off and put you out of business.' It's not good enough. The Prime Minister's handshake agreement puts no legal obligation on companies to increase supply. It's unenforceable. It's weak.
If the government were serious, they would have pulled the trigger on 1 November. But now they're stuck. They don't have the statutory right to do that until 1 November this year. The clock is ticking. If you don't believe Labor, if you don't believe workers losing jobs, if you don't believe businesses, if you don't believe The Australia, then I point out that the Prime Minister and Cabinet's own regulatory impact statement on the Prime Minister's handshake agreement warned 'it's likely that this option'—the handshake agreement—'would result in some users exiting the market, resulting in a loss of jobs and economic output.' This is exactly what we're seeing.
The government's one-point economic plan—cut multinational taxes for big companies and hope that something trickles down—is clearly not working. Every job lost between now and November, when they have the opportunity to act again, will be on the head the Prime Minister, and Labor will not let Australians forget it.
We live in a time when technological change is occurring at an incredible pace. The change is disrupting old industries and services but also creating new opportunities for consumers, businesses and the community as a whole. There will always be some who will try and hold onto the status quo. This is human nature. Some will look at technological change with trepidation, others with excitement and many more with a bit of both. We see this dichotomy in many areas of public discussion and policy, be it the future of energy, the development of artificial intelligence, or consumer services typified so often by Uber and Airbnb. I think for most Australians technological change leaves us in awe about the potential of the future and the ingenuity of our scientists and researchers.
One of those areas is the fast-developing changes we're seeing in the transport sector. Autonomous vehicles have captured the imagination of many, and as they develop they will revolutionise mobility. Similarly, electric vehicles will soon come within reach and reality for commuters around the world. Car manufacturers are investing tens of billions in their development, and see the future in electric or hybrid vehicles. For example, from 2019 every car manufactured by Volvo will be either electric or hybrid. General Motors has 20 electric models in development, which will reach the market over next five years. Volkswagen, Daimler and BMW are collectively investing $75 billion in the development of battery technology. Volkswagen itself, the world's largest car manufacturer, will move entirely to electric vehicle manufacturing by the end of the coming decade.
This has been matched by the decisions of governments in markets large and small to provide regulatory impetus for their adoption. The Minister for Environment and Energy was right to point to the electric future for our vehicle fleet in his comments made earlier this year. People like our Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, have long been advocates. Electric cars offer Australia obvious advantages. We're one of the biggest energy producers in the world, yet most of our fuel for transport, around 90 per cent, is imported. Much of this comes via the South China Sea. Electric vehicles provide the opportunity for greater reliance on our own energy sources, with obvious national interest and security benefits. In a nation where 15 per cent of household budgets are spent on transport, electric vehicles offer the opportunity for both cheaper running and maintenance costs. Electric vehicles also offer the potential to reduce air pollution in our cities and to reduce carbon emissions. Debates such as those current underway in my own electorate about the location of road tunnel stacks could be become redundant.
In so many areas Australians have been early adopters of new technology, be it in banking and payment products, the internet, smartphones or the use of home solar panels. Yet there are only 4,000 electric cars on Australia's roads today. This reflects a number of factors. Thirteen of the 16 electric car models sold in Australia cost over $60,000. In our vast continent there is understandable hesitation about the range of electric vehicles. This is accentuated by the absence of recharging infrastructure. Prices are coming down, and parity is expected to be reached over the next five or so years. Battery technology is quickly advancing. Ranges of 400 or 500 kilometres, more than most of us travel on a regular basis, will become the norm. DC chargers can recharge a battery in less than 30 minutes.
There is more that governments can do at all three levels to encourage the uptake of electric cars and give motorists more choice. The NRMA recently released an excellent report, in conjunction with the Electric Vehicle Council, titled The future is electric, which looked at some of the policies. Perhaps most critically, government can play a role in supporting the expansion of recharging infrastructure, particularly in regional areas. At the local and state levels our planning should look to ensuring that residential and major commercial buildings include recharging facilities, or at least the infrastructure for them to be retrofitted. This was something I pursued 10 years as a North Sydney councillor, when I urged council to amend our planning instruments to consider the future needs of an electric vehicle fleet. At the federal level, there is a role for us to support the creation of kerbside recharging infrastructure. Only 50 DC charging stations are currently available across Australia. This number needs to grow. Market and consumer forces are already driving the change to electric vehicles. With better coordination and modest investment, Australian governments can ensure we're part of this future.
I rise to talk about some amazing people in my electorate—AKA the Lindsay brag! Every time I'm on my feet in here, I get to say the people of Lindsay are the best asset to our community. Recently I had an afternoon tea to honour some amazing sporting champions. Each has been awarded a $500 grant. They're competing on the international and national stages, and they're proving that our community is full of proud, driven and extremely talented young sportspeople. Joshua Auld competed in swimming at the Pacific School Games in Adelaide. Jessalyn Brown, Ebene Montgomery and Sophie Petterson represented Australia at the Oceania confederation artistic rollerskating championships in Queensland. Laud Codjoe, Alysha Pearson and Anastasia Williams competed at the Australian all schools athletics championships, also in Adelaide. Joshua Debritt competed in touch football at the Pacific School Games. Keira Field and Arabella Rice competed in softball. Kyan Roach represented Australia at the Baseball World Cup in Taiwan, and Miracle Su'a competed as part of the Greater Sydney Rams under-15s rugby union team. Charli-Ellen Wilkes is a local basketball player who has twice been selected to play on the Sydney West basketball team and has already represented Australia at the Pacific School Games. They have all worked incredibly hard and it's wonderful to be able to assist them in achieving their goals. Elite sports often mean long days and long nights of training. I take my hat off to these remarkable young people and to their families for their support.
Desmond Harper is a shining example of somebody at the other end of the age scale in my electorate of how to stay active in your 80s. He recently visited my office, as he often does. He takes a great interest in what's happening in our community. He's a retired naval officer who served with the Royal Australian Navy in the Korean and Vietnam wars. He was awarded long service and good conduct medals in 1965. Des always marches. He is always leading the march at the Anzac and Remembrance Day events in Lindsay. He is very proud to have served his country.
At the age of 80, though, Des took up ballroom dancing. He had danced with his late wife in the earlier days of their marriage and, despite having a loving family, felt very lonely after her death. In order to reconnect with the community, Des returned to the dance floor and hasn't looked back after more than 12 years. He joined the St Marys Dance Centre and teamed up with Janelle Guff, who is his dance partner and choreographer. His most recent success was receiving an Oscar—a dancing Oscar, I am assured!—for Latin dance last year. He added this to his collection of gold and silver trophies and the silver bar which he won in 2013. His success in dancing and his continued involvement inspires people in his age group to engage in their community in their later life.
A powerful partnership of two local charities in my electorate is changing lives not here but overseas. They are Aussi Bangla Smile and Days for Girls, Emu Plains. Aussi Bangla Smile is a volunteer surgical team, founded in 2007 by staff from the already overworked Nepean Hospital. It is led by co-founders registered nurse Barbara Mitchell, Dr Hasan Sarwar and local anaesthetist Dr Margaret Buckingham. They will visit Bangladesh on 9 March to perform reconstructive surgery for cleft palates as well to treat acid burns. These volunteer surgeons, anaesthetists and nurses will pay their own airfares. They use annual leave to participate and fundraise for their equipment to use while they are there. The Aussi Bangla Smile team has treated 780 people with cleft lips, cleft palates and acid burns since they started just over 10 years ago. This will be their 8th trip.
The charity that is working together with them is Days for Girls, which is an international movement of volunteers organising to help women and girls in developing countries stay in school and work by providing them with reusable feminine hygiene products. Registered nurse and co-founder of Aussie Bangla Smile, Barbara Mitchell, set up Days for Girls, Emu Plains, because she could see that there was a need for both. It's no wonder that she was recognised with an OAM in 2015 for her service to the community of Bangladesh through humanitarian medical programs. It's hard to imagine in 2018 that girls and women all over the world drop out of school and work due to a lack of basic hygiene supplies. These simple kits that are handmade by Days for Girls can change their whole future, their worlds and their lives.
I recently joined the dedicated volunteers who gather monthly to help make kits that will change the lives of women and girls. The day I was there, we made 89 kits from scratch. That was on top of the thousands made over the past 3½ years. It was so easy that I recruited my nine- and 11-year-old children to participate. That also helped them and taught them a thing or two about what's happening in other parts of this world. These kits will accompany Aussi Bangla Smile as they travel to Bangladesh this March. These people all reinforce why I'm so proud to represent the community of Lindsay. We have the best people and, together, they have helped change so many lives.
I rise today to talk about the leaders of any organisation. The leaders are integral in defining the culture and sense of community of any organisation: any school, business or community group. Young leaders and primary school children learn leadership skills through the role models that they observe in daily life—invariably, their parents, grandparents, relatives, older siblings, teachers and school principals. That is why, for me, it is always a joy to attend the leadership ceremony at Pinewood Primary School in Mount Waverley. The ceremony is organised by Principal Karen Jenkin. Undoubtedly, in my mind, the leadership skills of Karen Jenkin and the teachers and staff members at the school are what define such a wonderful culture and sense of community, which was on display at the leadership ceremony that I attended.
At this magnificent ceremony, it was clear that the students had been empowered by their teachers to participate in the actual ceremony and, indeed, in its organisation. This, in and of itself, clearly had given the students a sense of ownership and responsibility, which is clearly what underpinned the success of the ceremony. Thirty of Pinewood's students received their badges, read an oath and signed a pledge to conduct themselves with integrity and humility throughout the school year. I'm delighted to congratulate the following students on their achievement: library captains Roksana Sedighi Sarvestani, Christopher Gourlias, Renee Bablis and Georgia Bishop; music captains Helya Saeedian, Shantel Crosher and Emily Lee; technology captains Anish Thakur, Karar Al-Zubaidy and Dhasindu Gunathilake; environment captains Jasmine Janiksela, Lucas Anthonisz, Senuli Palpita and Rachel Huang; art captains Sally Meng and Tara Mannapperuma; sport captains Thomas Jurberg and Gemma Leung; Sturt Yellow house captains Justin Yan and Sethumi Fernando; Dampier Green house captains Charlie Jurberg and Maddie David; Flinders Blue house captains Lachlan Snart and Emily Day; Cook Red house captains Brendan Joss and Teashun Sonnenberg; school vice-captains Brad Fraser and Molly Lowe; and, last but certainly not least, school captains James Valiontis and Taya Fraser.
Schools such as Pinewood Primary School are a wonderful representation of the best of our local community in Chisholm. As Chisholm is one of Australia's most multicultural electorates, it was fantastic to see how many young Australians of migrant heritage are engaged with the school communities and have been chosen for their leadership in their respective areas of responsibility, such as music, art, technology and sport. The ceremony, with outstanding music, proud singing of our national anthem and house flags on display, set the tone for this very special event. Parents and friends with iPhones and cameras in tow took photos of what undoubtedly will endure as an extremely proud moment in their education journey. The students themselves were full of excitement and anticipation, and were obviously proudly supported by equally proud teachers and staff. The event was harnessed further by the presence of the proud parents, grandparents and special people who made the effort to attend and support the students. After the assembly the students hosted their parents, families and friends in the school staffroom. It was a lovely opportunity, which was full of ambience, for the school leaders to show their gratitude to their supportive teachers, parents, families and friends who attended to celebrate this achievement with them.
Congratulations to Pinewood Primary School principal, Karen Jenkin. She leads a staff of dedicated teachers who, through the power of education and passion, are building a learning community that empowers Pinewood students in the Mount Waverley area, such as the 30 exemplary students named as captains last week, to strive to reach their full potential. Assemblies such as this are, of course, echoed across Chisholm and Australia as schools celebrate and acknowledge new leaders.
As the federal member for Chisholm, it is a great joy to visit the many wonderful schools and universities in my electorate and to witness and then participate in the spirit of joy and passion for learning that underpins our community. Attending school assemblies such as these is truly enjoyable and heartwarming. It is inspiring to watch young students accept leadership responsibilities with excitement, passion and energy. These children are learning leadership by observing their parents, family members and teachers, and are being empowered to take responsibilities at such a young age. By teaching them the values of respect, honesty and fairness, their families and teachers are ensuring that these children will emerge as the future leaders of our businesses, schools and communities as they progress in their life journeys.
Every day we are forced to witness the coalition's feast of self-congratulation. They point one way—towards jobs growth in this country—while they turn their back on the plight of the long-term jobless, and the coalition's job programs fails to do anything about this. Make no mistake, creating jobs is worth celebrating, but it should not come at the cost of ignoring the hopelessness that comes from being jammed into long-term unemployment.
It is even harder to cop when you see how much money the coalition is ploughing into failing job programs, with little sign that they care about this or that they even have a clue about how to fix this. In particular, it is worth focusing on one of their programs that has been described as a 'centrepiece component'—Work for the Dole. This program is failing young Australians in their effort to get work. It is being used to punish the jobless, instead of putting them into work. The complaints I receive from young Australians forced to take part in it, along with those who supervise them while they're in it, can't be ignored. The overwhelming majority of young people who go through Work for the Dole will not get into work. Just this week in estimates we had confirmation of this. Over 70 per cent of Work for the Dole participants are not in jobs months after finishing the program.
In their hearts, the coalition know that this is a dud program. They are slinking away from it, cutting back places and creating alternative programs to it. Consider this: halfway through the current financial year, we have seen only 21,000 participants in the Work for the Dole program. To put that into context, that is less than half of the 77,000 places allocated for this financial year. Next year, there are fewer places—10 per cent less in fact, 69,000 places. And in 2019-20 it drops a further four per cent, to 66,000 places. The program is failing to support young Australians, and the government is failing to support the program.
Worse still, young Australians are forced into Work for the Dole, a program dogged by serious safety concerns. Nearly two years ago, an 18-year-old tragically lost his life on a Work for the Dole project in Toowoomba. This week, I asked the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation to tell us what has been done since the accident to make the program safer. Bear in mind, this is a program where young people have been exposed to asbestos and where 36 per cent of Work for the Dole worksites don't meet departmental safety expectations. So what did we get from the minister? After two years, we got just over a dozen sentences. Just one sentence mentioned Work for the Dole and 12 seconds went to workplace safety, without mentioning Work for the Dole. This level of evasion on a matter so serious would be unacceptable in the private sector. So why is it okay from the government of Australia?
There was nothing from Minister Laundy, a minister who has failed to acknowledge that every day young Australians are going to Work for the Dole job sites without these assurances. Every day, parents of these young Australians are watching their kids go off to Work for the Dole job sites without these assurances. We don't get anything from Minister Laundy and we certainly get nothing from Minister Cash, whose only defence is to say that she has given me, as the shadow minister, information about this. It's not me that the minister needs to explain this to; she needs to explain it to young Australians via the Senate, through a ministerial statement. And, while the minister is at it: tell us what you will do to make this a program that puts young Australians into work instead of punishing them for being out of work. The truth is that this program under this government is not designed to help young Australians. It is an ideological plaything. It's using the jobless to satisfy a long-held coalition belief that, if you make the lives of young Australians intolerable, it will drive them off welfare.
We want young Australians in work. We want them skilled up and making a difference. We don't want them sitting on their hands. They don't want to be sitting on their hands. So let's get them working. The challenge to the coalition is this: if you don't have the wit or smarts to make this program work then get rid of it and put something in place that does work. Young Australians deserve better than a failing coalition government that talk about jobs and growth on the one hand while turning their backs on the plight of the long-term jobless on the other.
I wish to talk about some of the things that need to happen in regional Australia to make regional Australia an even better place to live, an even better place to work and an even better place to contribute to the broader economy. Regional Australia does contribute to the broader economy, and we don't emphasise it enough. So it is not unreasonable that some of the things that I will be talking about here are significant investments that will require a reallocation of funding.
If there's one thing you should be able to do if you want to run a business, if you want to have a first rate lifestyle in regional Australia, then that is the ability to make a mobile phone call. The federal government has the Mobile Black Spot Program. No other government has provided this before. We partnered with the states to do this. I believe that we should be redirecting some of the USO money from the payphones—that's about $40 million a year—towards the Mobile Black Spot Program. The other thing we should also put some thought into is the criteria around the Mobile Black Spot Program, particularly in some of the more marginal business case areas. For example, if a tower is currently subsidised to 50 per cent under the Mobile Black Spot Program, we should look at subsidising it to the tune of 65 per cent—so, a greater incentive—but make a requirement that there must be at least a co-location from a Vodafone, an Optus or a Telstra to make that business case stack up. The other thing we should look at is the Building Better Regions Fund. We need to put that on steroids. It should be $1 billion per annum. It's not unreasonable to ask for that amount of allocation to be going across to regional Australia, particularly when you consider that even my electorate contributes $5.3 billion on average every year to the Australian economy.
The communities: ultimately, we must have strong communities. The Stronger Communities Program that the federal government has rolled out is too small. It should be $300,000 per electorate, per round, rather than $150,000. We should increase the Roads to Recovery funding. There's no point in us investing in major arterial roads if we can't get a 60 tonne B-double off a farm and onto those roads—and those council roads are under significant pressure. We should also extend the instant tax write-off for small business to $25,000 rather than $20,000. That, I think, is in line with a greater commitment. Nothing has had a more stimulating effect than the instant tax write-off, and that has been very welcome.
Because of the free trade agreements, particularly with Korea, China and Japan, and now the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will be signed in San Diego next week, we have seen optimism in the agricultural sector like we haven't seen for a very long time. We should develop an agricultural work visa, because we are seeing limitations on being able to pick the products that we produce. For Australians who might be concerned that that could impact on their job, it has not been the case and it is not the case. Ultimately, we should have foreign workers come in to contribute to picking some of the fruit. That fruit then goes into a box. That box has to be transported in a truck. It has to be marketed. This creates more high-value jobs across our economy as a result. So, an agricultural work visa should be looked at.
We should also look at higher education. If you want to live in a regional town, one of the inhibiters for students is that they can't stay at home. They can't live in their own home and catch a tram and go to university. The sheer cost for a lot of people to send their children to higher education institutions means that they have to pay not only the fees and other costs associated with higher education but also the costs associated with living away from home. I think the federal government should have a look at this—and we are having a look at it, but we should look at something substantial, perhaps in the form of some accommodation on the campuses in our cities that has very, very reduced rates for country students in order for them to be able to travel to. Ultimately, this is an investment, because the country students who gain a higher education come back to the regional towns—if you look at the statistics, they do—and bring those skills. They're the ones who are going to diversify our regional economy.
The last thing is that the chaplaincy program has been very popular amongst our country schools, supporting country students. Without that, it would be very difficult for those students to have the welfare needs that they require met. I believe that we should increase it from $20,000 to $25,000. This is not to convert people. This is to actually mentor and stand by students as they go through the challenges of growing up in a country town and the challenges of adolescence. They're some things that I think are very clear policies, and I hope that we adopt them. (Time expired)
I rise to pay tribute to the 78ers, those brave gay men and lesbian women and their supporters, who, 40 years ago, marched in favour of recognition of their rights as human beings for legal equality. This Saturday will see the 40th celebration of Mardi Gras in Sydney, and it will be a celebration of the fact that we now have marriage equality. But that is only the case because of the hard yards that were done by those brave men and women, who, of course, marched into police lines and were arrested for standing up for human rights. I pay tribute to them.
The House stands adjourned until 10 am Monday, 26 March.
House adjourned at 17 : 00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 10:00.
Hallett Cove is one of the beautiful suburbs in my electorate, in Kingston, and indeed the Hallett Cove foreshore is a special community resource that allows families to gather along the Hallett Cove Beach. I have been working with the local community to look at what more we can do to make the Hallett Cove foreshore an even more attractive place for local residents. In 2015, I worked with the Lions Club of Hallett Cove, and that led to the construction of an Anzac memorial on that foreshore. There are some wonderful, moving Anzac Day commemorations that occur at that centre.
In addition, I've been working also now with Randall Wilson, the Labor candidate in the state election, to see what extra facilities and extra amenities we can secure. I'm really, really pleased that, in working with Randall, together we've been able to secure $620,000 from the state government to fast-track the council development in this area. This is a partnership with the City of Marion, and I'd like to thank them for their investment and their vision for the area. These funds will help fast-track a nature playground, a plaza area, paths, revegetation and extra shelter. This will be an important improvement to the area that many, many families enjoy.
I'd like to really recognise the work that the community has put in to have a vision for this space. We have many parks and reserves in the southern suburbs of Adelaide, but we need to make sure that they are working for local residents. I have noted in the past my concern around the City of Onkaparinga's plan to have reserves that they will potentially downgrade. In their plans, they say that they won't be doing upkeep and watering them.
I think open space is critically important. It allows families to gather. It allows exercise and recreation and really makes suburbs more than just a whole lot of houses. It makes suburbs a community. So it is critically important that we invest in our reserves, in our play areas, in our open spaces, and this is exactly what the City of Marion is doing. With the help and the advocacy of the state Labor candidate Randall Wilson and me, we will see this foreshore come to life and be even better for local residents.
I'm not angry very often, but I do get angry when there are attacks on Latrobe Valley people, residents and community when they are without foundation. Doctors for the Environment claimed that 8.5 per cent of babies born in the Latrobe Valley are of low weight compared to the Victorian average of 6.6 per cent, so just under a two per cent difference. This is very misleading. There are lots of factors that may cause lower weight babies in the Latrobe Valley, including mostly socioeconomic reasons.
The Latrobe Valley comes under attack far more often than any area in the whole of Australia. What did the recent study say? The Victorian government commissioned the recent Hazelwood Health Study, after the fire. It used medical and scientific advice to determine if there'd been any impact on mums and bubs from the mine fire and concluded that there was none, including no impact on low-weight births. Yet here we have these Doctors for the Environment coming out with a direct attack on the Latrobe Valley again.
I've had enough of the attacks on the Latrobe Valley. That very morning when that article came out, I was driving across to the Latrobe Valley. I was just thinking how pristine and beautiful it is. Yes, there was a wisp of smoke coming out of one of the power stations, but mostly what you see is steam. It is an outrageous attack on a community that has struggled over a long period of time with massive economic changes—privatisation of all the power stations. Recently there was the closing of Hazelwood, which was an old power station which was going to close eventually anyway and be replaced by another power station. I am of the view, and I've said this before, that the brown coal that has stabilised the economic powerhouse that Victoria is from Sir John Monash's time—and the great engineering that went into the Latrobe Valley—is still gold for many reasons, whether you're going to turn it into magnesium, use it for fertiliser or use it to power future power stations that will be more efficient than the ones we have today, which are 50- to 100-year-old engineering.
Leave the Latrobe Valley alone. You may want to win a by-election in Batman, Greens, but leave the Latrobe Valley alone. You have never created a job. You have never looked after the people of the Latrobe Valley. You have never worried about whether they'll get the best education they can possibly get, the best health care they can possibly get or the best future that they can possibly have. The Latrobe Valley has a great future. It is up to us as leaders to find our way through that—find a way to that place where the Latrobe Valley will once again be the focus of pride for the Australian community and not the focus of the attacks that it has been subject to in this terrible article.
Two weeks ago I spoke about a little girl in my electorate named Georgia who has autism, epilepsy and profound global development delay. Georgia can't dress herself, brush her teeth or comb her hair. She can't shower on her own. She has to wear a nappy 24 hours a day and a onesie, otherwise she will put her hands in her nappy and smear faeces around the house. Georgia can't speak, either. She's the sort of little girl that we set the NDIS up to help. Last month she had her NDIS funding cut by 70 per cent. After I made this speech, I'm glad to say that the NDIA contacted my office and promised to review the decision. On Friday they contacted Georgia's mum and advised her that they've reinstated some of Georgia's funding—not all of it, but most of it. Not enough, but it's a good start.
But Georgia's case is not an isolated one. Since I told her story a fortnight ago, other local families have contacted my office and told me that they've had the same experience. All have had their funding cut, all in the last month and all by the Bankstown NDIS office. Here's one example: Yasemin is 28 years old and lives in Yagoona with her mum and dad. She has Down syndrome, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder and is an elective mute. Last month she had her funding cut by 56 per cent—no reason and no explanation. Here's another example: Kirsten is 21, lives in Chester Hill and is looked after by her grandmother. She has cerebral palsy, cortical vision impairment and an intellectual impairment. On 30 January her funding was cut by 50 per cent. Here's another example: Andre is 10. He is from Bass Hill. He has Autism, ADHD and an intellectual disability. On 1 February his funding was cut by 51 per cent. I have a case where the family don't want their name mentioned, but it's the same story, except in this case the funding was cut by 65 per cent.
I have other cases that tell the same story with the same problem: Bankstown's NDIS office. There's something very wrong happening here. Parents tell me that they're not being listened to by NDIS staff. They haven't been given reasons for the cuts. Sometimes they're getting plans back that have details that are relevant to another child and not their own. The impact is a lot of stressed parents, kids not getting the services they need and, in some cases, parents telling me that they're thinking they have to cut back on work or give up work altogether. It's a mess. I call on the government and the NDIA to please investigate these cases and fix them just like they did with Georgia. Please have a serious look at what is happening at the Bankstown NDIS office.
Easter time is a month away. One of the great things about living in my part of the world is how beautiful it is. The electorate of Mallee, in the Wimmera, is a third of the state of Victoria and has some real highlights. What I want to say to people out there is that, amongst your busy lives, the Easter weekend is a wonderful thing to start to plan for, and my part of the world is a wonderful place to go to. Of course, we've got the Grampians, one of the great national parks. We're in the process of building the Grampians Peaks Trail with $10 million of federal money. It's a chance to get out, walk, think, breathe, see the koalas in the trees and see the kangaroos jumping around. Take your children and go to the Grampians zoo; it's quite a fantastic place.
We've got the Silo Art Trail: you can drive around now and see giant silos that have got fantastic murals painted on them, and it becomes quite a wonderful thing to drive around regional Victoria. We have the Murray River, this great icon that is beautiful and healthy. If you go to Swan Hill, you can go to the Pioneer Settlement and see the Heartbeat of the Murray laser show where they fire jets of water up in the air and lasers are fired on to them to create a giant screen. Also at the Pioneer Settlement you can learn about those who have gone before us.
You can go to Mildura, where the food is amazing. One of the great things about my part of the world is all the food that's produced. If you go to the supermarkets now you will find that if you buy table grapes—the Cotton Candy table grapes, the green table grapes and the crimson reds—they're all currently grown in Sunraysia; almost anywhere in Australia, if you go and get table grapes now, they're from my patch. By Easter time, the autumn leaves will be on the vineyards as they start to change colour, and it's a wonderful place to take the bikes and go for a ride amongst the vineyards and enjoy.
Can I emphasise to people that life is busy; life is hard; we work hard; we are often in congested cities. But getting out to regional Australia, and particularly regional Victoria, on the Easter weekend is something that Australians should value. There are so many beautiful spots in our patch. I think we get so busy in this place talking about the great challenges that we're trying to address that we don't take enough time to breathe. We don't take enough time to spend with family, do a bit of camping and enjoy some time. And we are so very blessed as a country. So get out to the Wimmera and the Mallee. Get out and eat some of the great food and enjoy some of the great culture. See the lovely silo art, the Grampians peak trail, the Murray River and the Heartbeat of the Murray laser show. It's a wonderful place to be. You'll find the people with a spring in their step and very happy. And you'll feel better for coming to my part of the world.
As we head towards International Women's Day for 2018, I'd like to talk about the global #GirlsTakeover program, which saw 17 young women with interests in a career in politics spend a day with us as members of parliament. The Plan International program coincided with the launch of the She can lead report, which showed that we have a very long way to go to get the equal representation we need in this place. Almost half the young women surveyed for the report felt that there were not enough opportunities for them to become politicians, and one in three women felt their gender was a barrier.
I was joined for the day by a fabulous young woman, Brianna Keys, who wrote some words on this very issue that I would like to share with the parliament today:
The first time someone told me they believed I had the potential to become a great leader is a memory I have never forgotten. I was only 15 at the time and I remember my utter disbelief that someone thought I could lead. I remember the sinking feeling in my stomach that I knew I could never live up to their expectations of me. That they didn't know who I really was. I wasn't confident, I wasn't hard working and I wasn't ambitious. I didn't possess any traits I thought a leader was meant to have.
Then the memories came flooding back. I remembered all the times someone had told me I wasn't good enough. I remember being told that I'd never amount to anything. That pursuing my passion in a male dominated industry was going to be too hard. That it would be such a waste of a pretty face to go into that area. That I'd never make it to university. That I was better off going with another option. That I shouldn't be so opinionated. That because I was a girl I was never going to be good enough.
One of the biggest barriers stopping women from pursuing leadership positions is their gender. The fact that I was a female stopped me from seeing my potential. The 'She Can Lead'report brings to attention the gender barrier experienced by many young Australians. It is a call to action that Australia needs to nurture young girl's leadership potential. We will no longer stay quiet and be told what we can't do. It's time to start breaking down barriers Australia.
I would like to add to the words that I've just quoted from Brianna Keys, because Brianna's experiences are especially poignant in the wake of the utterly deplorable comments from the former Minister for Women in this place yesterday. There is no room for such vile and treacherous slurs against the many hundreds of professional women working tirelessly in this building. We should condemn those comments and that minister should apologise.
For more than five years, North Queensland has been asking the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party one simple question: do you support the Carmichael coal project? For five years they have dodged the question or used wishy-washy weasel words to answer it. Well, now we have a definite answer and the answer is an emphatic no. The Labor Party do not support the Carmichael coal project. They do not support the $16½ billion investment in the construction of a mine, the expansion of a port and the construction of hundreds of kilometres of railway line. The Labor Party do not support the thousands of jobs that this project will create. We know this now because the Leader of the Opposition made a firm promise to a green activist millionaire that Labor would revoke the project's licence if Labor were to ever win government. At least it's out in the open and North Queenslanders know where they stand.
The only reason that promise is out in the open is that the millionaire greenie who made this dodgy deal with the Leader of the Opposition flushed him out in the media. The former CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Geoff Cousins, confirmed the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly agreed that the stance he would take was this. He said: 'When we are in government, if the evidence is as compelling as it appears now, we will revoke the licence in accordance with the law.' I note that the Leader of the Opposition was gifting this commitment to the greenies while they were gifting him a $17,000 holiday: a cruise on the reef and a scenic flight around North Queensland. That lavish gift from the Australian Conservation Foundation was requested by the Leader of the Opposition and arranged by his millionaire greenie mate. It is the kind of gift that must be declared on the Register of Members' Interests within 28 days of receiving it, in accordance with parliamentary rules. It wasn't declared in that time frame. The Leader of the Opposition rushed an update to the register when the secret deal was outed by the media. He wanted to keep it secret, insisting that the whole dodgy deal and secret meeting never be made public because he was about to go to North Queensland telling a very different story.
Last week, after already promising to kill off the project, the Leader of the Opposition was in Mackay, Townsville and Rockhampton, standing with coalminers and saying he supported mining. He needs to come back to North Queensland and talk to port workers at Abbot Point or the people whose jobs are up in Townsville with Adani. He needs to tell them he won't support their jobs. He needs to tell those hundreds of people in Townsville already working on the Carmichael project not to get too comfortable because their jobs will go immediately under a Labor government. If he's going to pull the rug on a billion-dollar coal project, he should have the guts to tell people in North Queensland who will be directly affected.
I lend my voice against the latest threats made by the Cambodian Prime Minister, Hun Sen, ahead of his visit to Australia in March for the ASEAN summit. With the upcoming national elections in Cambodia, Prime Minister Hun Sen has launched a broad crackdown against critical or independent voices. This includes the jailing of the opposition leader, Kem Sokha, the dissolution of the main opposition party and the closure of media outlets and NGOs that have the temerity to criticise government policies. If this weren't concerning enough, Hun Sen has now taken his crackdown a step further, intimidating Australians who engage in any type of peaceful protest against his autocratic rule. I'm appalled by Hun Sen's abhorrent and despicable threats of violence. It's not appropriate for any national leader to come to this country and say things like: 'I will have you followed home and beaten.' As Australians, we do not tolerate this type of behaviour. I don't know about those opposite, but I'm very proud of Australia's long history of political expression. It is one of the most fundamental rights that underpins our democracy and any genuine democracy around the world.
These threats have rightly caused outrage amongst Cambodian Australians in my community. Many feel intimidated, given Hun Sen's former connection with the Khmer Rouge and his unscrupulous reputation for following through on his threats. Australians must take an active role as part of a concerned community, otherwise we will be condemned as bystanders to a rather less than subtle re-emergence of a one-party state and the trampling of human rights. It is imperative, given Australia is a major donor to Cambodia and as such has a genuine interest in the Cambodian people and the health of their democracy. I say to the Cambodian Australians in my community and around the country that you have every right to engage in peaceful protest in Australia. This is a universal human right protected by our laws, and one that Labor prides itself in. The Labor Party stands with the Cambodian Australian community and condemns Hun Sen's threats in the strongest possible terms. Elaine Pearson, Australia Director at Human Rights Watch, called on the Turnbull government:
… to draw a line in the sand and make it crystal clear that … on Australian soil … the government does not tolerate harassing or intimidating protesters.
Democracy is far too precious to have it ignored.
In a few weeks, on 31 March, we'll come together to celebrate and acknowledge the 20 years during which Chris Bailey has been the commanding officer of the Air League Riverwood Hornets Squadron. Chris is a tremendous person who has done a wonderful job with the Riverwood Air League squadron, making it, we believe, one of the largest, if not the largest, Air League squadrons anywhere in Australia, with more than 100 active members. The squadron are seen in our community everywhere, with their band getting behind all sorts of community events like Anzac Day ceremonies, and they have competed successfully on the world stage at international band contests in Denmark and Japan. Chris joined the Air League in 1978 when he was 12 years old, and he has added such an extraordinary amount to our community in that time. I congratulate Chris on his 20 years as commanding officer. I very much look forward to the function on 31 March, and wish Chris and the squadron all the best for the upcoming year.
On 23 February I attended the Coolaburoo Neighbourhood Centre annual general meeting in Padstow. Coolaburoo is an absolute linchpin of the Padstow and broader Bankstown community, providing dozens of critical social services to our area. It runs home support programs, personal care visits, seniors programs, handyman services and a whole range of different activities. On the day, we learnt that the 50 volunteers at Coolaburoo had provided well in excess of 1,000 hours of volunteer time during the year, which is very much appreciated by our community. I thank the manager, Rossanna Umansky, and her team for all they do at Coolaburoo. It's a fantastic institution in the heart of Padstow. It was great to see the leader of the Pink Hammers, a home handiwork group, and people from the ladies quilting group there as well. Congratulations to Coolaburoo.
On 21 February I hosted an afternoon tea in my electorate office for the local winners of the Local Sporting Champions Grants for this year. It was great to acknowledge them. We had a number of winners, including Joshua Wilkie in open water swimming, Grace Elliot in cross-country, Eliza Johnston and Kiera Hajek in sports aerobics, Conor Molloy in rugby union, Kai Kamikura in football, Montana Kilpatrick in softball, Abbie Purvis in softball, Queenie Chan in figure skating, Lauren Carey in athletics, Hayley Rowlands in open water swimming and Kai Hammond in athletics. They all did a fantastic job and are a tremendous testament to their families, communities and schools. Congratulations to all.
There's a state election in South Australia and a non-existent Liberal Party campaign in the northern suburbs. Scrutiny is naturally starting to fall on candidates of Nick Xenophon's SA-BEST brand. Firstly we have Mr Phil Gallasch of SA-BEST running in the seat of Elizabeth. Mr Gallasch is a lawyer from Leabrook in the eastern suburbs, and has recently shared on his official Facebook page, in a poor attempt at humour, a meme that states:
Don't steal, Don't lie, Don't cheat, Don't sell drugs.
... The Government hates competition.
To which he has added, 'The caption say it all.' This seems inconsistent with Mr Gallasch's obligations as a member of the Law Society whose rule 5 states 'A solicitor must not diminish the public confidence in the administration of justice'. It's certainly an insult to the people of Elizabeth, who rely on the proper administration of justice and have an abiding interest in the confidence of that system. This is a poor attempt at humour but it's posted on his official page. It shows poor political judgement and he should withdraw it and apologise for its sentiments.
The second SA-BEST candidate is Ms Helen Szuty, the SA-BEST candidate for Playford and a former member of the ACT assembly. When last in office in the ACT, Ms Szuty advocated in the Canberra Times for higher incomes for politicians. A Canberra Timesarticle said, 'Independent Helen Szuty wants pay and car use in line with the SES,' which is a senior executive service band, and, 'Most public servants she encountered were senior executives and it did not seem appropriate that they were paid more than she was'. To be clear, the effect of this, if applied in SA, would be to increase a state MP's wage from around $190,000 to as high as $355,000, which is the top executive band currently in operation in the ACT. That's an increase of $165,000. Ms Szuty also advocated a clothing allowance for shoes, clothing and jewellery for politicians. I'm confident the people of Playford don't want massive increases in pay for politicians and I am also confidant they don't want to see an Imelda Marcos style allowance for state politicians for shoes, handbags and jewellery.
Nick Xenophon, who's made great fun of getting around in cheap suits and campaigning against politicians' entitlements, needs to pull his candidates in line and confirm that these are not the official positions of the SA-BEST party and distance himself from these candidates who obviously are out of line with the sentiments and policy of the SA-BEST party.
I rise to speak about a very exciting project that's happening in my electorate at the moment and that's the small stock abattoir at North Bourke in New South Wales. It's a $61 million project under construction by Capra Developments in partnership with the Australian government with a $10 million contribution under the National Stronger Regions Fund, the Bourke Shire Council and the New South Wales government is assisting as well. We were pleased to see last week the New South Wales government donated two buses to enable the workers to travel from Bourke out to this site at North Bourke.
Ultimately, the proposal is to slaughter up to 6,000 goats a day at this site and create over 200 jobs. I've had Bourke in my electorate now for 10 years. One of the things that some of the old hands tell me about was the glory days when the abattoir on the other side of town was in full operation and the pride that people had in having a skill, having a career and having a job in that abattoir. When it closed down, there wasn't really much that replaced it. With Bourke being in the centre of the feral goat population in western New South Wales, it's ideally placed to take advantage of this resource. But I also think we'll see, over a period of time, more of the pastoralists in that area will, rather than seeing the goats as a feral pest, start to farm and manage them. The future of the industry looks really good; exports are up 20 per cent in the last year, the prices are rising and demand worldwide for goat meat is huge.
A lot of words are said in this place about what we are doing for the Indigenous communities and the Indigenous people. I got roused on in the chamber last week because I didn't go to a breakfast and that was a disrespectful thing to do. But to put 200 jobs in Bourke, to provide 200 families with the security, the pride and the stability of having regular work will make real difference to those communities. In partnership with the Clontarf Foundation, which is working in Bourke and Brewarrina, high schools there are keeping these young people at school, giving them the framework, the skills and the motivation to step straight into the workforce and take advantage of this project. This is very exciting—the people of western New South Wales are excited about this and so am I.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 2) Bill 2018 and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Near-new Dwelling Interests) Bill 2018 give purpose to the government's announcements that were made in the 2017-18 budget regarding the foreign resident capital gains tax regime and how it applies to housing and other measures that they claim deal with housing affordability. In relation to the capital gains tax changes for foreign residents, this particular set of bills seeks to remove the entitlement to the capital gains tax main residence exemption for foreign residents and modify the foreign resident CGT regime to clarify that, for the purpose of determining whether an entity's underlying value is principally derived from taxable Australian real property, the principal asset test is applied on an associated inclusive basis. There was concern that this measure would remove entitlement to the capital gains tax main resident exemption for foreign residents who are New Zealanders and that it would affect those constituencies. However, the clarification that has been specified to state that Australian tax residents can access the exemption means that those constituencies are likely not impacted. But Labor believe that this is an issue that should be aired and clarified during a Senate inquiry process, and we've recommended that these bills go off to a Senate inquiry to clarify their operation.
The second element of the bills relates to the reconciliation payments for near-new dwelling exemption certificates. They are made to developers who sell dwellings to foreign persons under a near-new dwelling exemption certificate. This particular type of certificate was introduced in 2017 to allow developers the flexibility to sell near-new dwellings that have previously failed to settle at an auction or during a prior sale period to foreign persons. Consistent with the process of payment under the near-new dwelling certificates, the bills introduce a reconciliation payment for the near-new dwelling certificate exemptions by which developers pay additional fees for each near-new dwelling sold to a foreign person under these certificates.
The final element of the bills is capital gains tax incentives for investments in affordable housing. We all know that we need to do much more as a nation to encourage developers to increase the supply of affordable housing if we're going to take pressure off house prices and make housing more available and affordable, particularly for low-income families. From 1 January 2018, an additional 10 percentage points capital gains tax discount will be provided if a CGT event occurs to an ownership interest in residential premises used to provide affordable housing. The additional capital gains tax discount applies to investments by individuals directly in affordable housing or investments in affordable housing by individuals through trusts, including managed investment trusts.
These bills are part of the government's so-called attempts to improve housing affordability in Australia. But, time after time, economists and experts who work in the housing field have identified that the major driver of pressure on house prices, particularly in the Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane markets, has been the overly generous tax concessions that exist in Australia around the sale of and purchase of investment properties. I speak of course of negative gearing, the ability for people buying investment properties to deduct for taxation purposes the interest payments that they make when there is a loss, and of the discount that's applied for capital gains tax once the property is sold. The capital gains discount is in the value of 50 per cent.
These are the most generous tax concessions in the world. As a result, Australia's capital cities have, on the whole, probably the highest cost of housing of any nation in the world, and plenty of evidence exists to say that there is a direct relationship between those two phenomena. Yet none of what this government has done over the course of the last couple of years and none of what it is proposing deals with that core problem in our housing market—the overly generous tax concessions that exist. Not only are they overly generous, they benefit those who are well off. The benefit of these tax concessions overwhelmingly goes to people who are in higher income brackets. When it comes to the capital gains tax discount, it was recently reported that that has actually increased: close to 65 to 70 per cent of the benefit goes to the top income tax bracket earners in this country. The same applies to negative gearing. I think 50 per cent of the benefit of negative gearing goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners in this country. That's unfair and it's unsustainable. At the moment, if you're a first-home buyer, seeking to buy your first property and you go along to an auction on a Saturday, you're competing against someone who might be going to invest in their seventh or eighth investment property and who knows that they're going to get a leg up from the government and access to that tax concession and so will have an advantage over you in bidding for that property. First home buyers get absolutely nothing. They get very, very little support from the government at all.
The government recently introduced a reform to superannuation to ensure that people can save up to $30,000 through their superannuation fund on a concessional tax basis to save for their first property. But the problem with that is that $30,000 doesn't buy you a window pane in the area that I represent. It's basically useless for most people. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that these schemes that promote putting more money in people's pockets so they can buy housing actually push up the cost rather than taking the heat off. That's all it will do. So what we have seen with this government is an abject failure to listen to the experts; to understand what is going on on the ground; to listen to the Australian people, importantly; and to take action on negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts.
It's only the Labor Party that has had the courage and the guts to be honest with the Australian people and say, yes, we're going to tackle this difficult issue. Two years ago we announced a sensible policy. The housing market at the moment is akin to a pot of boiling water; our policy will turn the temperature on the stove down a bit so that some of the heat comes out of the housing market. It's not going to see house prices reduce. It's not going to see house prices fall, as the Prime Minister said, but also it's not going to see house prices go through the roof, as the minister for revenue has said, which is another example of the fact that this government doesn't know what it is doing. The Prime Minister says that house prices are going to go through the floor and the minister for revenue says they're going to go through the roof. They don't even know what is going on in the housing market when it comes to this issue. Our policy will take pressure off. It will do this by restricting negative gearing to new investment properties only. We're talking about new housing stock, off-the-plan developments. If a developer builds a new project, particularly unit developments, then you will be able to invest in that and negatively gear it, but if it's an existing house or an existing unit—and, let's face it, most new home buyers come in at the bottom of the market because they don't have as much funds available, and they buy existing housing stock. Very few first home buyers buy something that's brand new, that's off the plan. They'll buy something that's existing housing. So you're taking that competition away from the first-home-buyers market by removing that incentive, that tax concession, that exists for people who may wish to negatively gear, by restricting it to new housing development only.
We've had this policy independently costed and studied, and it's been looked at by a number of organisations. They've said that this policy will create 25,000 jobs in the housing market because you're going to see an encouragement to bring on new supply. There'll be an encouragement for people to build new housing because there's a taxation incentive around it. That will increase supply, which hopefully will take pressure off over the course of the years to come as well. It's a sensible policy.
Anyone who is currently in the system who is negatively gearing a property at the moment will not be affected at all. They will be grandfathered, so there will be no effect on people who are negatively gearing properties at the moment. They will continue to be able to do that until they sell the property. But at a point in time in the future, if Labor is elected, new developments will be the only ones for which negative gearing will be available, and that will take some of the heat out of the housing market.
The second element is the outrageous capital gains tax discount that exists for the sale of investment properties. At the moment, if you have an investment property, you negatively gear it during the life of that. When it starts to become positively geared—in other words, you don't make a loss on it anymore and you can't deduct the interest—a lot of people sell it. And what do you know? They sell it and they pay capital gains tax on that, but John Howard and Peter Costello introduced a 50 per cent discount, so they reduced the amount of tax that's paid on that by 50 per cent.
When they did that, it was unfunded in the budget. They didn't find a revenue source to fund this very generous tax outlay or tax concession that they were giving to investors in the property market. These were during the boom times, during the mining boom, and we were running healthy surpluses because the economy was ticking along quite nicely on the back of the resources boom. Yet the fiscal irresponsibility of that government is evident in the fact that they never found a funding source for that reduction in revenue from the budget from producing that 50 per cent capital gains tax discount, and we're all paying for it now. We're all paying for it in the budget deficit that we have, and we're all paying for it in the heat that's been brought into the housing market because of that very generous tax concession.
Labor have said that we'll remove some of that heat around this particular policy item by reducing that capital gains tax discount to 25 per cent rather than 50 per cent. That will, again, operate to ensure that investors don't get an advantage over first home buyers who are going along to auctions on a Saturday to try and buy their first home.
These are sensible reforms. They have been consulted on with the Australian public over a long period of time and with experts that work in this field. They've been developed in consultation with these people. They've been studied by independent bodies, fully costed and ticked off by the Parliamentary Budget Office as ones that create jobs, boost the housing supply and take the heat off house prices in this country. That is a sensible measure, and that is the Labor Party listening to the Australian people, in stark contrast to this government, which sticks its head in the sand and still remains the mate of developers in this country by refusing to act on capital gains tax discounts and outrageous negative-gearing tax concessions that exist in Australia, which are causing big pressure and heat in the housing market.
So, whilst these measures are welcomed, they don't go far enough. They don't deal with the core of the problem. Only Labor have the policy in place to ensure that we're fair dinkum about tackling housing affordability in this country.
The government, as we know, continues to dance around the issue of housing affordability while, sadly, a generation of young Australians face the prospect, the real prospect, of being locked out of the housing market. I want to spend some time today, whilst speaking about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 2) Bill 2018, to put on the record very clearly and very importantly the concerns on the issue of housing affordability as it pertains to the electorate that I represent in this place, one of the fastest growing places in Australia, the south-west corridor of Brisbane.
The bill we are dealing with today claims to address affordable housing in this country. But, as we know, it does very little to address affordable housing across Australia. Listening to the member for Kingsford Smith, I agree with his sentiments that he just delivered along with the member for McMahon, the Shadow Treasurer, in saying that any housing affordability measure that does not deal with negative gearing or capital gains tax is a sham. These are the facts: overall home ownership in Australia today is at a 60-year low; home ownership rates for people aged between 25 and 34 have collapsed from 52 per cent in 1995 down to 38 per cent a few short years ago; rates of property investments have been at record highs, whilst rates of first home ownership are at record lows. So investment into property is at an all-time high, but actually the rate of first-time home ownership is not the same but—it is going backwards. The great Australian dream of saving up for a deposit, making sure you have found the right block of land and building the home of your dreams is not happening. It is simply not happening.
The number of investors with at least five properties is growing at three times the rate of the group with just one property. Let me say that again. The number of people who own at least five properties is growing at three times the rate of the group with just one property. Over the last 25 years, young people have gone from having to pay just five times to now having to pay up to 15 times their annual income to purchase a new home. But, sadly, we see very little from this government because listening to the ministers responsible, listening to the backbench, listening to members of the government across the board, we just hear the same thing over and over again. They deny that there is anything wrong with the housing market.
The bill does not go to the heart of what is wrong with the property market here in Australia—that being overgenerous tax concessions to people owning their third, fourth and fifth homes, whilst those struggling to simply get into the property market are left the fend for themselves. Sadly, I can say that the government just do not get this. They don't see a problem with house prices continuing to rise and locking out not only young Australians but families and singles who want nothing more than to own their own home. They don't see a problem with homeowners taking on huge amounts of debt just to get into the property market. Indeed, we are now hearing warnings that many young Australians are destined to be so-called 'permanent renters' and forever locked out of the property market. Once a upon a time young people would go along to purchase a house. But now they are not only competing with far more established homeowners but also investors who also enjoy some of the most generous tax concessions in the world. Listening to the debate on this bill, we now know that Australia has the most generous tax concession in the world when it comes to dealing with home ownership and investment properties. But, put simply, as I have said, young people are being forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back when it comes to home ownership.
We know that, if we don't force this government into action, the situation is just simply going to get worse. In the meantime, we're seeing young people take on higher and higher levels of debt that, quite frankly, I think most people in this place and most Australians would understand were unimaginable two decades ago. For those who have been able to buy a home, mortgage debt among 18- to 39-year-olds doubled between 2002 and 2014, jumping from $169,201 to $336,586. This is simply unsustainable and cannot continue, which makes the government's 'raid your own super' scheme all the more crazy. I spoke on that when it came to the House. I said at the time that the government wants more young Australians to take on more debt and more risk to get into the housing market.
Indeed, listening to the reports of the time, the scheme would only see demand for housing increase, pushing prices higher and higher. I have met with and heard from people from the property sector who have agreed with me on that. They think it's a fantastic idea. They think it's good that, overall, the market will be flooded with new people who have raided their super and are trying to get into the housing market. Maybe they've taken $30,000 or $40,000 out of their superannuation, which will have a negative effect when they go to retire. That is going to push house prices up. It's great for the property barons and great for the property industry, but not great for first home owners. A recent report from the Grattan Institute highlighted the following:
Negative gearing has many undesirable consequences. It reduces rates of home ownership. It reduces the availability of long-term rentals. It increases the volatility of housing markets, increasing the risks to the Australian financial system.
The Grattan Institute summed it up best when they said:
The most obvious thing the Commonwealth Government could do is reduce the capital gains discount and abolish negative gearing. It wouldn't solve the problem but it would help.
Everybody seems to get this other than the government.
Once again, I place on record in the parliament a very direct question for the government: what will it take for the Prime Minister and Treasurer to realise that they must follow Labor's lead and act on negative gearing and housing affordability? Who can remember the smoke-and-mirrors trick that they did, saying that if Labor's policy was in it would smash the housing market, that it would destroy the housing market? They knew that that was not true. They knew that that was false. When the government's own advice was released, they had to scurry around and try to pretend that it was something else. Who can remember the Assistant Treasurer at the time, Minister O'Dwyer, saying that it was going to push prices up, and then the Treasurer saying that it was going to push prices down? All along, they were sitting on Treasury advice saying that this was a measure that would help people. They were caught out, absolutely caught out, like with everything in the chaos and dysfunction of this government. They can't seem to get through a week without blowing up internally. They can't seem to get through a week without any policy inconsistency. Over and over again, they chop and change messages all the time—chopping here and chopping there. My issue is that when it comes to the impacts of the indecision and, I guess, chaotic nature of the Turnbull-McCormack government, we're now seeing young home owners paying the price.
I once again say to the government, we on this side of the House represent middle- and working-class Australians. I represent working- and middle-class Australians in the south-west of Brisbane, who are crying out for leadership on this issue. They want to see action, and they don't believe the spin and nonsense that comes from the government with bills such as these that we're debating here today and crazy plans to raid superannuation. Tinkering at the edges with bills like that which we're debating today, looking like you're doing something when it comes to housing affordability, raiding the superannuation accounts of young Australians to increase demand and push up property prices—it's a classic example of the government looking after a tiny section of the community right at the top of the tree.
We've have heard from previous speakers that the Treasurer, when on the topic of housing affordability, said—and who can forget this classic—'You should just get a better job.' Then the Prime Minister of this country, when asked on radio about how to get into the housing market, floated the idea of getting rich parents. I wish this wasn't true. I wish our leaders, who are setting the economic agenda and are controlling the levers, didn't say, 'You know what, the answer to your woes is to get rich parents or maybe get a good job. It's all I can think of.' We're coming up to the budget season. Who could forget those great images of the then Treasurer of Australia chomping down on a cigar, kicking back and having a big laugh. It's a bit like the first budget that came in, with nothing on housing affordability. The then Treasurer cranked up on the night of the budget and said, 'It's the best night of my life,' but delivered the most savage cuts across this country. He was dancing in his office. He thought it was terrific. But we know that, once again, it's another sorry chapter of this government, which seems to be falling apart at the seams.
When I speak to local families and parents in particular, they are really worried about their kids getting into the housing market. I talk to people in suburbs like Springfield, Springfield Lakes, Collingwood Park and Bellbird Park, where terrific new housing is being developed and great infrastructure is being delivered by the Palaszczuk government to service this growing region. I am privileged, as I said in my opening remarks, to represent one of the fastest-growing communities in this nation. Parents genuinely come to me and say, 'Will our daughter or son ever be able to enter the housing market? Will they ever be able to see a clear path to having the great Australian dream, which my parents fought for and worked so hard for, of owning their own home?' I don't know where members of the government are. They're not going to the same shopping centres, post offices or coffee shops that I'm going to where people are simply saying, 'This is getting beyond a joke. This is getting way, way beyond it.' Time and time again, they must be hearing the same message. They're ignoring it. They're choosing not to listen to what the majority of Australians are telling them.
It's been over three years since the government received its financial system inquiry from David Murray. We know that the government established the Murray inquiry with a lot of fanfare and rhetoric. I want to place on record today some of the important findings in the Murray report. They're just collecting dust and remain silent. David Murray put up in big, red flashing lights that negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions are major tax distortions which 'tend to encourage leveraged and speculative investment' in housing and is 'a potential source of systemic risk for the financial system and the economy'. He recommended restoring the prohibition on direct borrowing in superannuation funds because 'further growth in superannuation funds’ direct borrowing would, over time, increase risk in the financial system'. David Murray made it very clear that tax settings for housing encourage leverage and speculative activity because of the asymmetry of housing expenses and the capital gains on housing.
So the government knows that it has been delivered warnings. In response to the report, the Treasurer said:
The biggest decisions Australians make in life—buying a home, providing for our retirement, or starting a business—are all supported by our financial system.
The government has accepted the overwhelming majority of the inquiry's recommendations, but there is no mention of housing, even though the report made direct mention of it and the associated risk that it carries with the current negative gearing settings that this government employs. Quite frankly, it is another classic case of the government just burying its head in the sand.
When you see experts like David Murray, the IMF, the Grattan Institute and the RBA warn the government that there are issues with our tax system and other areas of our financial system that could, over time, generate systematic risks, the government should listen and act. We know that a strong government that delivers in this area with real reform will see an impact that will help young people get into the housing market. That's a conversation that is going on outside of this place. It's a conversation that is happening across the suburbs of this country. I simply say, with respect to the government: start being part of that conversation, listen to what the community says and take real action on housing affordability.
This may sound odd to members who represent the sprawling and expensive cities like Sydney and Melbourne, but Tasmania also is smack bang in the middle of a housing crisis. There is so little affordable housing in Hobart that families are pitching tents on the showground.
Nat Joseph and Kodie Connors, and their four kids who range in age from 10 months to seven years, found themselves homeless when the home they were renting was put up for sale. They'd been renting in Primrose Sands, a lovely but isolated township in the south of my electorate. They simply cannot find anything for less than $380 a week, which is the most they can afford and which is well over half their combined weekly income. Nat is a carer for one of their children who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy and is non-verbal, and Kodie can't find work. Private landlords who used to advertise on Gumtree have dried up. Nat and Kodie have had to try their luck with real estate agents, who have scores of equally desperate people on their books.
The housing crisis is front page news in Tasmania, even pushing the state election off the front page. Last week, Royal Agricultural Society CEO Scott Gadd was photographed at the showground with the cars, vans, tents and trailers in the background. But it wasn't a country show. It was like a scene out of the great depression. But it's 2018, in a country and a state that we are told are enjoying economic sunshine. How can we call ourselves a country of wealth and fairness when families have nowhere to live? The Mercury newspaper reported on some of the people they came across: a couple living in a tent and car with their four children. Just stop to think about that. How have we allowed this to come about? What failures of public policy have we allowed to manifest, that a family with four children in 21st century Australia must shelter in a car? We are a better country than this.
Another man says he lives alone at the grounds, separated from his partner and daughter who'd found a bed in a women's shelter. In Gagebrook, a working-class suburb of my electorate, a modest, even decrepit, Tasmanian housing department home was sold for around $130,000 recently. A rough, back-of-napkin calculation tells me that a $120,000 loan, assuming the buyer had at least $10,000 for a deposit, would cost about $140 a week in repayments. So the investor has snapped this up, and the new owner is renting this home out to a young single mum with kids for $350 a week. Why can't there be a clause that former housing department premises must be reserved for either owner-occupiers or for affordable housing? It wouldn't be a difficult clause I think, and it would help address our housing crisis. The young woman paying $350 a week for that tiny dog-box told a Labor doorknocker recently that she was too afraid to ask for repairs to be made to the property in case she lost the lease—knowing that, despite the relative expense, there would be a line of people willing to take it. And that happens. In Westbury, in the north of my electorate, a woman asked for repairs to be done and, some weeks later when it was time for the lease to be renewed, she was told she'd have to go. The repairs are being made, but she now has nowhere to live. This really is the stuff of Steinbeck and Hugo—tenants at the mercy of avaricious landlords; a take-it-or-leave-it environment, with consumer protections so weak they are laughable.
It's now common to see 30 or 40 people at a rental viewing in Tasmania. People are applying for more than 80 homes and missing out. Rent for a three-bedroom Hobart home increased on average 14 per cent in the past 12 months, putting 8,000 tenants under rental stress. And some now hand over more than 60 per cent of their income to landlords, says Shelter Tasmania. In yesterday's Mercury, the newspaper's editorial noted that six southern Tasmanian suburbs had recorded median price growth of more than 30 per cent over the past year. That's great if you're an investor or looking to use the equity in your home to buy an investment property somewhere else, but it's disastrous if you're trying to buy a home or find somewhere to rent. Having wealth builds wealth, but, for those without, they get further behind. The gap gets bigger, when surely the job of government should be to close the gaps of inequality.
The trend for investment properties to be used for lucrative short-term accommodation such as Airbnb is also contributing to the rental squeeze. The University of Tasmania's Institute for the Study of Social Change found that one in 27 residential properties in Hobart is now listed on Airbnb, up from one in 100 just 18 months ago. When it started, Airbnb was a cute way to list a spare room on the net to rent out to tourists for a bit of cash, but now homes that could and should be used for long-term rentals are being used exclusively as suburban hotels. That's something that I think local and state governments really need to come to grips with, on the grounds of both easing the rental squeeze and ensuring fairness and equity and equality of treatment for hoteliers.
The legislation before us today is part of a federal response to the housing affordability crisis sweeping the country. This bill seeks to pull in the reins on the purchasing power and tax breaks for foreign residents—namely, those individuals who are not Australian residents for taxation purposes. I do welcome these changes, as I welcome the capital gains tax incentive for investment in affordable housing, where, from 1 January, an investor will be able to claim a 60 per cent CGT discount if they invest in affordable housing. I don't think these measures will do much more than scratch the surface, but they're a step in the right direction. Labor are not opposing the bills; rather, we'd like the House to note that, once again, the government is proposing a measure to supposedly address the housing crisis while not addressing the elephant in the room: negative gearing—a major economic distortion, as my colleague the member for Oxley just mentioned.
This government is hamstrung on policy because it doesn't want to upset people who regard property ownership in Australia as, first and foremost, an investment opportunity instead of, first and foremost, a human right to shelter—a place to live. Too often now, we seen cashed-up investors who already own multiple properties swamping auctions and pushing out hopeful first home buyers and owner-occupiers. It's the market at work at its most brutal. Those with the most money win, and it demonstrates why we need a government committed to acting in the best interests of all Australians, not just the best interests of wealthy Australians. Labor is recommending the bills go to the Senate for a full review to see whether these moves will actually improve the crisis in regional areas like much of my electorate. Affordable housing and, indeed, even available housing is increasingly an issue across regional communities. I could go into a long debate about the links between the housing crisis and the growing insecurity of work, but we'll leave that for another time.
Labor always leads the debate on housing affordability. Only Labor has a comprehensive policy to tackle the crisis that has been building across our country and which the government has been too mud-footed to deal with. Labor's plan is good for housing affordability, good for jobs, good for the budget and good for productivity. Labor's package will see the construction of more than 55,000 new homes over three years and boost employment by 25,000 new jobs a year. Labor will further help level the playing field between first home buyers and property speculators by doubling the screening fees on foreign investment and financial penalties that apply to foreign investment in residential real estate.
On the Prime Minister's watch, the great Australian dream of homeownership has turned into a nightmare. For years, this government has ignored the warnings to act on unfair and discretionary housing tax concessions and on the risks associated with increased borrowing in superannuation funds. It has simply failed to act. The Liberals' cuts to the National Rental Affordability Scheme and abolition of the Housing Help for Seniors pilot, the National Housing Supply Council and the First Home Saver Account Scheme have just made matters worse.
Closer to home, in my home state of Tasmania, the Rebecca White Tasmanian Labor team, if elected on Saturday, also has a strong plan ready to go. Tasmanian Labor has announced a $106 million housing affordability package which will assist people who are struggling to break into the rental and home ownership markets. This policy will assist 12,800 people over six years through the building of new properties and upgrading of existing public housing. Tasmanian Labor knows that for people to fully participate in our society, having secure accommodation that is affordable is absolutely necessary. This is not just about building new houses. This is about addressing the housing crisis, which requires more than bricks and mortar. There will be a particular focus on lower socioeconomic areas and people aged between 18 and 25 and aged over 55. This will help the constituents I talked about earlier. Under this plan, 900 new homes are to be built, with 433 to be completed within two years; 75 new homes are to be built in regional areas; three multiresidential developments are to be built around the state, totalling 90 units; and two youth emergency accommodation facilities are to be built in the north and north-west. The HomeShare program, which reduces home deposits, is to be expanded, and more public housing stock is to be sold. Tasmanian Council of Social Services chief executive Kym Goodes said having a safe, secure place to live is 'the most basic human right' and the state needs substantial long-term investment in affordable housing. She says Labor's policy will establish Tasmania as a national leader in targeting youth crisis accommodation, noting an increased demand for teenagers aged 13 to 16 needing a place to stay and support.
What we've seen from this government is absolutely nothing, really, on housing affordability. What we've seen from this government is a view that housing is really all about the private market, about private investment, about making money and about being cashed up. What we haven't seen from this government is action to make sure that housing is available for people who need it most: people who are poor, people who are elderly, and women and families escaping domestic violence. Where's the housing for them? They are just left bereft, and this government has no answers. It's tinkering around the edges, I fear, with the measures before the House today. Labor won't stand in the way of them, but we really don't think they'll do all that much. We've got a solid plan to go forward, if we win the next election, to deal with negative gearing, to deal with the distortions in the market, to push the investors out of the way, to let first home buyers and owner-occupiers back into the game and to give them a fair crack at the great Australian dream of owning your own home.
It's a pleasure to follow the previous speaker on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 2) Bill 2018. I think where he finished is where I would start. This is a crisis in this nation that affects people, and in this place we can often get lost in the numbers. The numbers are profound. We are now right at the top—it's not a competition we want to win, but we're right at the top—in the world now as one of the most expensive places to buy a house or rent a house. That's not where we want to be. That's not what good policy should be seeking to achieve.
We've seen change in just a generation. It used to take about four or five times an average weekly wage to get an average kind of home—that's been fairly steady, with a few ups and downs, for many decades. That's grown out of control in the last couple of decades. In Melbourne and Sydney, for example, you need between 10 and 12 times an average weekly wage just to have a crack at getting an average foothold in the housing market. It's not a situation which we should be relaxed and comfortable about, to borrow John Howard's ridiculous phrase. His aspiration for the nation was to be relaxed and comfortable—what a silly aspiration for a nation! The current Prime Minister's aspiration for the nation seems to be an Australia where he's the Prime Minister forever and his rich mates pay a bit less tax. That's pretty much the extent of it.
The other aspects of the numbers are instructive. We have 195,000 people right now across Australia on social housing waiting lists. None of the bills that the government's putting forward do anything about that. We had 288,000 people in 2017 presented to homelessness services. That is 288,000 Australians seeking help in one year. They're people, not numbers.
In response to this crisis, we were told in the lead-up to the budget—remember the headlines?—we were going to have housing as a centrepiece of the budget. It was going to be fantastic. We were finally going to confront this crisis. That lasted for about two weeks and then kind of fizzed away. I think Paul Keating's comment on the Prime Minister is apt: he's a fizzer. Big red firecracker, light it up, off it goes and then nothing.
In response to that, we have no minister, no plan and a series of teeny tiny bills scattered around the Notice Paper. If you brought them forward together, maybe it would look a little bit more like a package then, but instead I think the political strategy is to have a whole bunch of do-not-much and do-nothing bills scattered around with 'housing' in the title, creating the illusion of activity, because, if you say 'housing' in the title of a bill, maybe someone will think you're taking the crisis seriously and doing something.
The other aspect of the strategy, as we hear from government speakers on these teeny tiny bills every now and again when they pop up, is to blame the states. It's all the states' fault, you see, because they haven't put enough money in here or it's a supply problem. We haven't got enough land supply; that's the problem one week. But that is a nonsense. As we know, housing is a market. There is a housing market. There's clearly a role for government, particularly at the crisis end, for people who are desperately poor and need a house to live in. Shelter over their heads is kind of important in the scheme of things.
But there's also supply and demand in a market. Yes, there should be a focus on supply. Most of that—not all of it but most—is largely within the province of the states making sure there are enough new development sites on the edges of cities and in established areas to build houses on. That's fine. But there's also demand and, whichever way you look at it, the big levers of demand are in the Commonwealth's control. They just point-blank refuse to own up to that or do anything about it. I say to the government: every time you bring forward one of your silly little do-nothing bills that don't really address the problem with housing in the title, we will stand up, we will speak up and we will call you out for the lack of action.
Some measures in the government's little do-nothing bills are actually harmful—for example, the 'raid your own superannuation' one. Apart from the fact that it distorts the purpose of superannuation in this country, which is to provide for a decent retirement, not to get you a house to live in when you're young, all economists—but they're just economists who study these things; the government are a bunch of geniuses, of course, who know best on most matters, particularly when they don't like looking at expert evidence—say that's kind of a dumb thing to do if housing's unaffordable, because you just put more fuel on the fire. You push up prices by adding to demand and bringing more cash in.
From our point of view, most of the government's budget measures do very little. That one, as we've spoken about, is downright harmful but comes on the top of the quite offensive set of statements that we've heard from the government like 'Get rich parents.' Particularly in the major capital cities, as I've said, if housing now is 10 to 11 times average weekly earnings just to have a crack, you probably do need rich parents to get your $100,000 or $200,000 for a deposit so you can have a crack at borrowing the rest. That's if you're not in the casualised workforce which the government is hell-bent on accelerating in its own workforce of the Public Service, as we're now learning, but also more broadly. You can't get a loan. Funnily enough, if you're a casual worker for 13 years, you can't actually get a bank loan to have a crack at buying a house even if you've got rich parents to give you the deposit. Or everyone could get a $200,000 job. You could get a much better paying job and then you could have a house. We heard in the last few weeks the third leg of the three-legged stool—remember we had trilemmas and three-legged stools last year for a little while on energy policy. The third leg of the housing policy is, 'Get rich mates.' If you haven't got rich mates or you can't get a great big pay rise, that is another option. You could get a rich mate to just give you a house.
I want to make a couple of remarks on negative gearing and capital gains tax. Again, we've said we'll stand up, we'll speak up, we'll call this out every time they bring forward a nothing bill. The fact is that the current combination of negative gearing and capital gains tax exemptions fuel demand for housing. I don't think that's a controversial statement. But that's for a few reasons. Partly it's a terrible, ridiculous and unproductive use of capital. If you're a high-income earner in this country, the most rational thing to do on a Saturday is wander down the street, find an auction and bid up the cost of an existing house. You can outbid a first home buyer because you get a great big tax kick from the Australian government. The people who need it least, as usual with this government, get the most.
We hear a lot about investment at the moment. I would think that it's not a difficult thing to see that that is an unproductive use of capital. Bidding up the cost of an existing house is not actually where we want spare capital from high-income earners or those with cash in their pockets to be putting it. I'm old fashioned on this. Housing is for people to live in. Housing isn't supposed to be the preferred investment vehicle or a class of investment in the country. It's completely unproductive. I'd rather see a tax system that encourages people with a bit of spare money to invest in the share market or invest in businesses or invest in something that might grow the economy and grow jobs. Who knew? It's a very pro-business statement, I know.
But as we've also heard, the current tax concessions are enormously regressive. Overwhelmingly, the benefit goes to those who have most, the top 20 per cent of income earners, people already with capital and wealth. As usual with this government, they get the big kick along and the benefit. Every few weeks when this comes up in question time, we hear about the nurse and how somehow apparently we on this side hate nurses because we want to refocus the nurse investor. Again, it's a smokescreen and a distraction.
An honourable member interjecting—
My mum was a nurse. I have a lot of time for nurses. I love nurses. And good on anyone who wants to have a crack at getting into the market. But the data is clear that the overwhelming benefit goes to those who have most. Strip it back, that is the entire point of the Liberal Party. We know this. They're the party of wealth and capital. Own it, be up-front about it, as you are with multinational tax cuts.
The other things you have to call out about the negative gearing and capital gains tax cuts is they're expensive. We've heard a lot about debt and deficit, structural budget repair and the budget emergency. Apparently the budget emergency doesn't apply if you want to give yourselves a tax cut. Everyone earning over $180,000 in the country got a tax cut last time—no budget emergency there! There were $65.4 billion of big business tax cuts—no budget emergency there! It is entirely unclear how that will be paid for because all the pain appears in the out years. It is in years 7, 8, 9 and 10 that it really ramps up. It's only an emergency for those on welfare and for the most vulnerable people in the country so the budget emergency doesn't apply to everybody.
It is a good thing to do from a structural budget repair point of view to refocus the tax concessions. They're enormously expensive. We hear a lot about how Labor wants to abolish negative gearing and capital gains tax. That is not true. That is not our policy. Our policy is to refocus those concessions and put them to work so that you can still negatively gear and you can still have that big capital gains tax deduction on new housing. What that would do is put negative gearing to work and back to the original point of it, which was to help encourage new supply in the market. For the government that thinks it's all about supply and pretends demand doesn't exist, that would be a sensible thing to do as well. People who want to invest in the housing market could get a tax deduction because they're building new houses, bringing new supply on and putting downwards pressure on prices. That is a good thing. That is our policy.
Labor would do a positive thing for the budget over 10 years, particularly in the out years; we'd return a lot of money to the budget in a progressive way. It wouldn't hurt those who have least. It would moderate the damaging price rises we've seen. No sensible society in the world, you would think, wants to see house prices going like that. Let the Hansard say my hand went straight up in the air because that's the nature of the curve in the last couple of decades. You might want house prices to go up. They go up and down by a few per cent in a normal market environment—sometimes they go down a bit and sometimes they go up a bit. That's okay. You can have house prices going up roughly in line with inflation but you don't want to see house prices go up by five and 10 per cent year on year. That's a nonsense. It is completely distorting to the economy and it locks ordinary people out.
We hear a lot about Menzies. We had the 75th anniversary of his seminal Forgotten People speech last year—it was a big moment. He had a vision for the country as a nation of home owners. St Menzies would be appalled seeing the current Liberal Party. A nation of landlords and renters is their vision. That is unsurprising, as I said, from the party of wealth and capital.
We have a sensible plan to address the nation's housing crisis. Ultimately, it should come down to the fact that it should not be easier for someone to buy their 17th investment property with a great big kick along from the Australian government: 'Well done you. You've already got everything; let's give you a little bit more.' It should not be easier. Our housing policies should not be set up like that at the expense of people who have no chance of getting into the market.
Bringing this back together: as I said, we'll stand up every time you bring forward a nonsensical little teeny-tiny measure and pretend that it's going to do something about the housing crisis in this country. If the government were serious they would understand that we live in a cooperative federal environment, that no level of government can deal with the housing crisis alone, that you have to have cooperation between the Commonwealth government and the states and indeed local governments, particularly with the planning and development levers that they control in housing approvals. You have to actually sit down and have a national conversation and a plan. What do we have from the government? There's no minister for housing. They roll out muppet 1 or muppet 2 or muppet 3 every now and again, saying something on it, but there is no minister for housing. That's a disgrace.
We just saw one of the other silly measures, in the other chamber, about the national agreements. They're going to impose, as part of their housing policy, a requirement on the states to have a housing strategy.
An honourable member interjecting—
They're going to impose a requirement on the states to have a housing strategy.
An honourable member interjecting—
Sure, that is reasonable, but there is no Commonwealth housing strategy. You say to the states: 'You have to have a housing strategy, but we don't. We don't have a housing strategy. We have no coherent plan. We'll just come and pick off little bits and pieces. Meanwhile, let the system rip.' Those who have most can keep milking the taxpayer through tax deductions that are clearly unsustainable.
Labor senators in a number of the Senate inquiries have included the radical recommendation that the government get a housing strategy.
An honourable member: That's socialist!
Order!
Apparently that's socialist—we hear the assistant minister telling us—despite the overwhelming evidence from every expert that it would be a good thing to have a housing strategy to guide your policy, instead of little bits-and-pieces initiatives to make people think that you're doing something.
In closing, I again remind the government that it's not actually a socialist policy plot to say, 'Hey, those big tax concessions need to be reformed.' Indeed, it's a position the Prime Minister used to hold and articulate publicly—you know, him. We had a question yesterday in question time about policy consistency. If you noticed, we laughed, but we're all decrying it. Which inconsistency do we mean? We could talk about the republic, climate change, negative gearing—that's certainly up there. The IMF, the International Monetary Fund, only in the last week, said:
The capital gains discounts on housing should be reduced and other tax incentives limited.
The OECD says that. The government's own Financial System Inquiry said that. So did the Grattan Institute and ACOSS—we could dismiss them because they're worried about poor people; we don't want to know about them! The Australian Institute of Company Directors and the Treasury, the government's own Treasury, said, 'Fix your unsustainable tax concessions.' For every stupid bill you bring forward, we'll keep saying the same thing. Hopefully, we'll win the election, and then we'll do something about housing.
It was interesting listening to that last contribution from a member who is going to vote to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 2) Bill 2018, this 'stupid', 'silly' bill. He's going to vote to support it, and we welcome his support. I'll very happily see him raising his hand in the chamber supporting this bill. For those listening on Hansard, you might not have picked that up from his contribution, but he will vote for the bill. He supports this bill because it is a great piece of legislation.
As we've said since last year's budget, the government recognise the importance of additional investment to meet Australia's needs for more-affordable housing, as well as making it easier for all other Australians to get into the housing market. Housing, as we all know, is important to the wellbeing of Australians, and access to secure and affordable housing can improve social and economic participation, education and health outcomes.
This bill represents an important step in ensuring that Australians have access to secure and more-affordable housing, while continuing to strengthen the integrity of Australia's tax system. It follows the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Tax Integrity) Bill 2017 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, which have already been introduced into parliament to give effect to a number of measures that will support housing affordability for all Australians and were announced in last year's budget.
Specifically, this bill implements measures to improve housing affordability, encourage investment in affordable rental housing and, at the same time, as I said, improve the integrity of the tax system. In particular, schedule 1 to this bill delivers on the government's commitment to implement tighter rules for foreign residents owning Australian property, schedule 2 contains a technical amendment to support changes to streamline the foreign investment framework and schedule 3 delivers on the government's commitment to introduce tax incentives to boost investment in affordable housing, importantly, to create the right incentives and, ultimately, to improve outcomes for those in need.
The schedule 1 reforms, announced as part of the 2017-18 budget, to improve tax integrity and reduce pressure on housing affordability do so by strengthening the capital gains tax rules on foreign tax residents, in particular, by denying foreign residents access to the main residence capital gains tax exemption and addressing an integrity issue with the capital gains tax rules for indirect interests in Australian real property by modifying the principal asset test. These two reforms were announced alongside an expansion of the foreign resident capital gains tax withholding regime, which has already been legislated and came into effect last year, on 1 July 2017. Schedule 2 to this bill contains technical amendments that introduce a reconciliation fee on developers for dwellings sold to foreign persons under a near-new-dwelling exemption certificate. The near-new-dwelling exemption certificate was introduced through regulatory amendments that took effect from 24 June last year. Schedule 3 to this bill allows resident investors in qualifying affordable rental housing to obtain a capital gains tax discount of up to 60 per cent for those investments. The changes will provide this additional 10 per cent capital gains tax discount for investments in affordable rental housing and will increase the available capital gains tax discount from 50 per cent at present to 60 per cent for those investing in qualifying affordable housing investments, ultimately with the intention of encouraging more investment into affordable rental housing, which the sector has really been calling for.
I thank, in particular, all of the stakeholder groups, the community housing providers, other peak bodies and interested parties that contributed to the consultation on the draft legislation for these measures. Full details of the measures can obviously been found in the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
It was a pretty big day in the electorate last week. The old ordnance factory, as it's affectionately known, Bendigo Thales, came together to celebrate its 75th year of Defence manufacturing. The facility opened just after the Second World War, and since then there has been a proud and long history of Defence manufacturing in my electorate. Thales is the current owner. They have owned the facility for about 20 years. I had the opportunity to meet with and speak to many of the people either currently working there or who used to work there. If you doorknock around the facility in Finn Street, at every third house you will meet someone that got their start at the ordnance factory. Boilermakers and people who worked in heavy metal did their apprenticeships there. They have worked on a number of Defence projects for our country over the years. Many were acknowledged on the day for their 40, 50 years of service, some of whom are still working at the site.
But the facility has not always had a happy history. During the early eighties it faced shutdown. The Fraser government's razor gang tried to sell off the facility in a fire sale and shut down the manufacturing site. When we caught up last week, some of the workers reflected on the rallies they had in the heart of town when the former federal member for Bendigo refused to meet with them. It is a site where Defence manufacturing has survived because of the way in which the community, the union and the workers rallied together.
Today it is known for the Bushmaster; Bendigo designed, built and made. The new Defence vehicle coming online, the Hawkei, is another proud prototype developed, designed, built and made in Bendigo. Both of these armoured vehicles, when in full production with the Australian armed services, are credited with saving lives. The Bushmaster is credited with saving the lives of over 300 Australian troops. That is the design of the Bushmaster. We are starting to export Bushmasters from Bendigo to places like Japan, the UK, the Netherlands and Indonesia. Bushmasters are going to other countries around the world. There is hope that we will be able to export more Bushmasters into the future. Equally there is hope that we will be able to export the Hawkei, a vehicle that has similar capabilities to the Bushmaster.
To Thales, the new owners and custodians of the site, I say we would like to see investment from them in the next generation of tradespeople. From talking to many of the men and women who have worked there for decades, their greatest hope is that in another 50, 75 years their children and grandchildren will have had the opportunity to work at the facility. There is a call, as the Hawkei production comes online, for Thales to employ apprentices, giving that next generation a go. That is definitely part of Labor's policy: for any major Commonwealth contract over a certain size, one in 10 of the workforce will need to be apprentices. Unfortunately it is not the policy of the current Liberal National government, so that guarantee about apprentices was not locked into the Hawkei contract. We are very hopeful, knowing how committed Thales is to Bendigo and the Defence manufacturing facility, that they will invest in the next generation and bring apprentices onto the site.
Congratulations to all of those that fought to keep the facility alive for over 75 years. As I said, it has faced closure over the years. While the Bushmaster is celebrated today, it was a real struggle to get that contract signed and to get it manufactured. I pay tribute to the previous members for Bendigo who stood up and fought to keep the facility open and thriving.
After our time on the health committee together, I know the subject that I rise to speak on will interest you dearly, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Georganas. We worked hard on the subject I speak about today. Last weekend I, along with hundreds of other people, attended the inaugural Outside the Locker Room Tackling Suicide Celebrity and Community Charity Match, at Lathlain Park in my electorate of Swan. It was a fantastic afternoon for all involved. Players, fans, families and kids all got to enjoy a big family day out at the footy in support of a great cause. For just $10 for adults and a gold-coin donation for kids under 16, spectators were able to enjoy two quality football matches, kids' activities, a bouncy castle and food tents. All proceeds raised are going to fund the important mental health education programs for schools and sporting clubs in the Perth community provided by Outside the Locker Room and Lifeline WA.
I would like to share with the House a bit of information about Outside the Locker Room. It is a welfare and education program for sporting clubs, schools and corporates across Australia. It offers a non-judgemental and supportive process that players, students and staff can access to seek support for themselves, a friend or family member, utilising a range of different platforms, which, for instance, include a free downloadable app which gives support around the clock, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
That brings me to the Outside the Locker Room founder, Jake Edwards, who five years ago was facing a dark battle with depression and attempted to talk his own life. Jake Edwards has now drawn on his own experiences to create Outside the Locker Room. Their logo is 'More than just a game'. Outside the Locker Room provides participants with strategies on ways to combat social and mental health issues in a productive way. I commend Jake for his strength and bravery and for dedicating his life to helping others who are struggling with their own mental health realise that life is actually worth living. Jake's program has been developed in partnership with mental health and youth service experts to educate young people on the resources and organisations available for them to access. I understand the Outside the Locker Room programs now include information on suicide, depression and anxiety, gambling and domestic violence, drug and alcohol education, and LGBTIQ and inclusiveness. I commend Jake for the work he's done and continues to do. He's a shining example to Australia's young people. It was great to see him actually get out on the field as well in the celebrity game on Saturday.
Returning to the big day, it was great to see the community enjoying Lathlain Park. I must say, it's looking fantastic. In 2016, I secured $13 million of funding to go towards the Lathlain Park development, which, once completed, will include multi-use community recreation facilities, a community education centre and a specialist rehabilitation facility, and, of course, will be the brand-new home for the West Coast Eagles. It was good to see the two multi-use public ovals being put to great use with the games on Saturday. The players said it was an awesome ground to play on and the community feedback was overwhelmingly positive for the development.
Back to the game—at 3.30 pm the Youth Focus curtain-raiser kicked off with Perth Football Club and Peel Thunder going head to head. Being involved with the Demons, I was supporting the Demons, and it was disappointing to see Peel end up on top with a convincing win against the home team—but I must admit that Peel actually included 10 AFL listed players from the Dockers in their side, so it was a bit of a top-heavy game! Alas, the main game was yet to come. At 5.30, it was bounce-down for the celebrity and community match, with Team Outside the Locker Room up against Team Lifeline WA. Amongst the list of celebrities to take the field were West Coast and Freo champions Andrew Embley, Daniel Kerr, David Wirrpanda, Drew Petrie, Paul Hasleby, Sam Butler, Ryan Crowley, Shaun McManus and Dale Kickett—all former players of either the West Coast or Fremantle. Also, Hockeyroo Ashleigh Nelson and ex-Kookaburra Simon Orchard teamed up with Paddy Sweeney and Nadia Mitsopoulos, local journalists, for the big game.
It was a brilliant afternoon. A lot of hard work and organising paid off. The atmosphere was electric and it was a great fundraising effort. I take my hat off to the president, Daryle Mann, and the committee at Perth Football Club for bringing attention to this issue in sporting communities and for the great work they did in putting this match together. I also thank Greg Valles and Kristi Annear for hosting me at the game. I thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to next year's community and celebrity match supporting Outside the Locker Room.
I rise today, two short days before a state election to be held on 3 March in Tasmania and, of course, a further state election in South Australia two weeks later. Governments will be formed as a consequence of democratic processes in these two states. We, of course, in this place will be facing electors in the next 12-18 months. There is a lot of cynicism associated with politics. We see that here in Australia and elsewhere where there have been reactions against the status quo and the election of candidates who at least at first blush appear not to represent mainstream orthodoxy. What the public does not see is the day-to-day work, sometimes across ideological boundaries, always seeking to address the concerns of constituents who turn to their elected representatives for assistance with dealing with government. Even the most organised, best-intentioned elected representative cannot deal with the flood of constituent inquiries, particularly where there are issues that may generate significant publicity.
Against this background, there is the bread-and-butter constituent work, seeking to assist constituents in their dealings with government such as pensions and entitlements, immigration or simply allowing somebody's voice to be amplified so that they may be heard as part of some greater process. The role of political staffers and volunteers in this activity cannot be underestimated. People who empathise with the concerns of ordinary Australians, people who have attention to detail, people who are prepared to listen—these are the people who staff the back rooms of political offices across Australia and, quite frankly, do their best to ensure the concerns of constituents are addressed whether we are Liberal, Labor, Green or otherwise. These are the people that actually do the work.
Sometimes these people volunteer in the community because that's within their character. They sense that they should give back to the community and use their skills to assist the community. There are numerous community organisations, RSLs, bowl clubs, cricket clubs and school associations that benefit from time volunteered by these community-minded volunteers. Invariably, these people assume the roles within those organisations and also within political party branches for which there is rarely an election given the reluctance of people to put their hand up, for example, to assume the role of treasurer or secretary.
I would like to speak today of one such person—a person with an eye for detail, a person who empathised with people seeking assistance and always strived to ensure that the best was done for every constituent. Greg Philp lost his battle with oesophageal cancer on 22 February 2018. He served my good friend Michelle O'Byrne, state Labor member for Bass, as a part-time electoral officer. He was secretary of the West Launceston branch of the Australian Labor Party. His many friends and colleagues were shocked to learn of his diagnosis in early December 2017. It is always difficult to distil the essence of a person. Most of us do not know enough of our colleagues that we're able to sum them up in a few words. However, with Greg Philp there was always a very quiet, self-assured, friendly manner which endeared him to his work colleagues and made him someone who could be instinctively trusted in his dealings with others.
I am very sorry that I am not able to attend his funeral. It started at 10.30 am this morning. I'm sure that he will receive the send-off that he deserves and that all who attend will be able to provide support and love to his family, especially his wife, Deborah. Greg and I shared a birthday. We also shared a love of trivia. He fought his last battle in a quiet and dignified manner. He died surrounded by his family. His departure leaves a hole in the family which is the Tasmanian ALP. He will be greatly missed by all. I send my deepest condolences to Deborah and the family.
I would like to remind all in this place that there are many people like Greg Philp who assist us in our day-to-day work. They are often unrecognised but nevertheless are always content to remain unrecognised and working behind the scenes. They do need to be celebrated. They are all respected for what they do to enable us to do our jobs to the best of our abilities.
Oz Comic-Con is something I'm sure you have heard of, Deputy Speaker Georganas. You look like a fan! Star Wars, Marvel, Thor—I'm sure my wife wishes I had the physique of Thor! But I'm sure you haven't heard of this one, because it's new: BevCon, the beverage convention in Bundaberg. It will be held on 19 March and celebrates all of the beverages which are being produced in our local regional areas. I'm sure you would be aware Bundaberg has been the home to a number of world-renowned beverages for many years. There is one you might have heard of. Bundaberg Rum celebrated its 125th anniversary in 2013. Bundaberg Brewed Drinks was established in 1960. In a former role, I saw it everywhere around the world, from Saudi Arabia to India and China—pretty much every country. There are newer businesses, like Bargara Brewing Company, which started in 2014, and Kalki Moon Distilling and Brewing.
As I said, on 19 March the first ever Bundaberg beverage conference, BevCon, will be held to meet the makers of the products the region is famous for. It will be hosted at The Brewhouse by Bargara Brewing Company, with Bundaberg Rum, Kalki Moon Distilling, Bundaberg Brewed Drinks, Muchas Gazpacho, Bundy Juice and Ohana Winery as local guest exhibitors. I spoke to Bargara Brewing Company's CEO, Jack Millbank, and he said that the convention is a collaborative initiative to bring together licensed liquor vendors in Queensland for an opportunity to meet the makers, to discover new products and, of course, to explore our great region.
I offer an invitation to you, Mr Deputy Speaker: come on up and see the BevCon. BevCon will feature over 40 products made by Bundaberg companies. It's an opportunity for those buyers to taste, feel, touch, understand, explore, question and immerse themselves in an experience so that they can tell the story behind the product to their customers. Consumers in Australia increasingly want to understand the story behind their food and drinks. What better way to tell it? What better way to tell that story than straight from the horse's mouth?
A national economic evaluation commissioned by the Independent Brewers Association shows that approximately 65 per cent of independent brewing businesses are located in regional and rural areas, with the sector's activities supporting businesses, tourism and employment in these communities. The sector has undergone considerable growth in the past decade, from 30 businesses in 2006 to 380 business in 2016. I would have to declare a conflict: I am one of those locals. I was born in Bundaberg and actually trained as an electrician with Bundaberg Sugar who, at the time, owned the Bundaberg Rum distillery. So I myself have a long history back to the actual manufacturing of that great product. It's not just about the product itself; it is about the people they employ. They are part of our local community. Once again, I congratulate all of these businesses for the work that they are doing, employing local people, putting our locations on the map and driving tourism numbers into our region.
What a great example: Bundaberg Rum committed some $8.5 million that they invested into a tourism facility a couple of years ago. In 2017, they were named world's best educational experience and world's best retail experience in a regional centre in Central Queensland, employing local people. How good is it? Some 5,000 visitors a month, both domestic and international, come to the region to see the absolutely wonderful experience and tourism icons like Bundaberg Rum, Bundaberg Brewed Drinks, Bargara Brewing Company and Kalki Moon Distilling. That does one thing: it fills local hotels, it fills local restaurants and provides an add-on and flow-on to our local economy which we simply cannot do without.
I congratulate the organisers of BevCon. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for them to display their products right around our region and, hopefully, nationally and internationally. So I say to those operators, congratulations. It is a great opportunity for BevCon. I would like to mention one more person, and that is Kylie McPherson. Kylie works for Bundaberg Rum, the Bundaberg Distilling Company, and just last year she became the first female chairman of the board of the Bundaberg Distilling Company. I think that is a fantastic reflection on that company, which has been around since the 1880s.
That company is absolutely part of our local community. It was essential during the floods of 2013. The work that they did supporting our local community is an absolute credit to them. Once again, I'll declare an interest: I was one of those young kids running around—quite some time ago, skinnier and with less grey hair—sponsored by organisations like the Bundaberg Distilling Company for 10 years in surf lifesaving. They have been part of our local community for a long time. I congratulate them again. I look forward to BevCon. I hope to get the opportunity to attend. I invite you once again, Mr Deputy Speaker, to get up to Bundaberg and see the BevCon. It is a great event and I congratulate all involved.
I thank the member for Hinkler, and I may take him up on his invitation! Thank you.
On Saturday, 3 March, Tasmanians have a choice. They have a choice between two leaders. One is the incumbent Liberal Premier, who only trots out for the puff pieces on the good news occasions and leaves all the hard stuff to his hapless ministers. He's really been exposed by this election campaign. The biosecurity cuts he made in his first term—in fact, the first year of his government—have put our state's agricultural industry at risk with a fruit fly outbreak. It is well-known now. Tasmanian members have been speaking about the dangers of a fruit fly outbreak to Tasmania's agricultural industry for some time. But this outbreak comes hot on the heels of Norwegian Salmon being found on supermarket shelves in Tasmania, of blueberry rust and myrtle rust. It is not an isolated incident. Biosecurity cuts under this premier are not a mere accident. They are a cause, they are happenstance because he cut biosecurity funding in his first year.
Ambulances are being ramped at hospitals. It is a regular occurrence now. It is not a once-off during a flu season; it is every night, six or seven ambulances. Every night you can count the number of ambulances ramped at the hospitals. An ambulance ramped is two paramedics per ambulance, a patient in the back and an ambulance not on the road responding to emergency call outs. That is the legacy of this failed Liberal Premier. We have got bed block in our hospitals. People can't go home because they need treatment but they can't get admitted because there are no beds, so our emergency departments are filling up with people, particularly people with mental health issues, because this government has failed to invest in mental health. Everywhere you look, this Liberal premier, this Liberal government have been a failure. School funding has been cut. The state Liberals have not stood up to this federal Liberal government to ensure that Tasmanian kids get the best education they can. We know this federal government has cut $68 million out of Tasmanian schools over the next two years alone. Those funds would make a bug difference to the quality of schooling in Tasmania.
For four years, the Liberal Premier has told Tasmanians there is no money in the budget for anything, not a penny. He came in promising cuts four years ago to bring the budget into line without affecting frontline services. He said, 'We have got the make cuts to repair the budget but we won't affect frontline services.' Health workers were cut, teachers were cut, nurses were cut, park rangers were cut and biosecurity was cut. For four years this Premier told Tasmanians there was no money for anything, no money for essential services. But now we fast forward to this campaign and this Liberal Premier is rattled by the Tasmanian Labor leader, Rebecca White, who has led a magnificent campaign and who has shown this Liberal Premier for the charlatan that he is.
At last count, the Liberal promises for this latest campaign amount to a staggering $2.7 billion, a budget-busting $2.7 billion—extraordinary! But even more extraordinary is how it has never been more important to read the fine print. They are promising new beds but only a handful of the new beds will be delivered in the next four years. Most of the new beds come in after the next election. It is a con job. It is a cheek.
Everything that they talk about, you have got to check the fine print because you can't trust the Liberals. We know this Liberal Premier is owned wholly and solely by the barons of the pokie industry. The Liberal campaign has been funded by them, and the Premier is giving them exactly what they want, which is a new licence to continue to operate poker machines throughout the community of Tasmania until 2043. But we all know that if they were there until then, they would be in forever.
On the other side, we have a Labor leader in Rebecca White and she is a fantastic Labor leader. She's shown the vision that we need. She's got $2 million for biosecurity, $6 million for Bass Highway, $15 million for Cradle Mountain and $30 million to halve the hospital waiting lists because she talked to federal Labor and that is what federal Labor will deliver. She's standing up to the pokie barons. Tasmanians all know they have one chance in a generation to get pokie machines out of community venues in Tasmania—that is, vote Labor on Saturday. Vote Rebecca White for Premier. That is what we need. It is the last chance. The one and only chance is for Liberal voters to vote Labor on Saturday.
I was recently privileged as the member for Goldstein to visit a local community op shop that has been set up by a wonderful community organisation in the Goldstein electorate, Family Life, whose motto is that they're transforming lives for stronger communities. One of the things I love about Family Life is its sense in understanding how critical family is as the foundation of a great nation—that individuals coming together to form families are the foundation for community and nationhood. They've opened a new second-hand shop in Cheltenham. Family Life does incredible work across the Goldstein electorate and all the way down the Mornington Peninsula. One of their critical programs is the Creating Capable Communities program, which is a community-strengthening program developed by Family Life to assist residents of high-need neighbourhoods to overcome the social barriers associated with economic disadvantage. We know that economic disadvantage sits across all of the Australian community and there is an opportunity to do so much good work to be able to assist and help people. The effectiveness of the program over time is supported by an evidence-based approach of intergenerational improvements in the lives of parents and children. We should congratulate and welcome their approach. They do it through so many different instruments and mechanisms: Breakfast Club, Lunch for Everyone, Healthy Little Rainbows, After School Club, Supported Playgroups, Creating Capable Leaders, Community Bubs, Community Houses, and community and family events.
At the head of Family Life is its wonderful chief executive officer, Jo Cavanagh, who's worked there since 1994 and has led Family Life on a program of social innovation, evidence-informed practice and organisational learning, which has created sustained and transformative change for vulnerable communities and young people. Her ability to lead social change has been recognised by a Robin Clark inspirational leadership award and a Paul Harris Rotary fellowship. In 2014, Jo received the Australian Financial Review and Westpac 100 Women of Influence award in the social enterprise and not-for-profit space. The 100 Women of Influence Awards showcase the country's highest achieving women each year. Since November 2015, Jo has held the position of adjunct associate professor with the faculty of law and business at Swinburne University, which includes the Centre for Social Impact and the Centre for Transformative Innovation. In 2013, Jo was awarded an Order of Australia for outstanding achievement and service. She makes an incredible contribution to the community and particularly to Family Life. We thank her for it.
Of course, Goldstein really does have exceptional civic-minded citizens. One of the things that we're very proud to do is hold regular morning teas with individuals who have excelled and demonstrated to the community the type of community and country that we want to be. We were very fortunate in our most recent one, on 2 February, to have congratulated Mary O'Connor and students from the Star of the Sea College who visited parliament this week. It was wonderful to have them in the federal parliament. VCAL students Regina Hooper, Isabella Gauci, Madison Rogers and Emily Webber ran a pop-up op shop—that's quite a mouthful!—to raise money for Sacred Heart Mission, with every $4 raised providing a meal to a local homeless person. Congratulations to them and to the initiative of Star of the Sea College. We also welcomed Josette Frost, who's a new resident in the Goldstein area, and Emily Liu, who has set up the local business Think Blooms in Martin Street and won 'Shops on Show' for the Bayside City Council's store Christmas display competition.
It was wonderful to recognise a local Highett resident who has been actively involved in netball for over 58 years. We have a number of local sporting champions who have been acknowledged and congratulated as well. Lara Smith from Hampton recently represented School Sport Victoria in touch at the SSA Pacific School Games in Adelaide. Believe it or not, people sometimes want to leave Goldstein to play other competitions and sports—I can't believe it myself. Evie Standby from Beaumaris represented Hockey Victoria at the 2017 national championships. Dominique Blatherwick from Ormond recently represented Hockey Victoria at the 2017 national championships Australian under-13 carnival. Matthew Goss, a superstar from Sandringham, is to compete at the 2018 Australian Optimist championships, representing the Victorian sailing team. Scarlette Zerbe from Sandringham is to compete at the 2018 Australian Optimist and open national competition, representing the Sandringham Yacht Club. They all excel.
Ipswich and the Somerset region boast some of the hardest-working community groups and members I've ever seen. I recently had the opportunity to see a new cohort of people become part of the Australian family at citizenship ceremonies in Ipswich and the Somerset region. I also attended awards ceremonies hosted by the Ipswich City Council and the Somerset Regional Council. I want to congratulate, acknowledge and thank nominees and winners at those awards ceremonies.
A tremendous applause was heard in the Ipswich Civic Centre when Glen Smith was announced as the winner of the Ipswich City Council's Cultural Award of the Year. Glen is a well-respected member of the Ipswich arts community, having held the role of president of Arts Connect Ipswich Inc. and having been a committee member of both the Ipswich Art Awards and the Regional Arts Development Fund. He's a regular face at the top of town in Ipswich and is well-deserving of recognition.
Head of boarding at Ipswich Grammar School, John Beaumont, adds Ipswich Citizen of the Year to the list of accolades for which his students, their parents and fellow teachers have nominated him. In the 12 years that John has been there, he has been in the role of head of boarding, he has nurtured boarders 24 hours a day and he has helped them ease into life at the school—the oldest high school in Queensland. His boarders are made up of Indigenous, rural and international students who consider John as a surrogate father. Matthew Cox was runner-up for the award. Matthew jogged from Perth to Ipswich to raise funds for the children and families of the Ipswich Hospital children's ward.
Vietnam veteran Ian Dainer was named Ipswich Senior Citizen of the Year. Ian was one of the last RAAF personnel to leave Saigon in 1975 and remains a pivotal part of the Ipswich defence community. Ian continues to advocate for the health and wellbeing of returned service personnel and is a strong voice for his local sub-branch of the RSL and the Willowbank Area Residents Group, where he's served as secretary for many years. He thoroughly deserves this award.
Hannah Hyatt is Ipswich Young Citizen of the Year. She started volunteering with headspace in East Street in Ipswich—I addressed their Youth Advisory Council some time ago—and now she's a headspace employee. She's 23 years of age and continues to be a passionate advocate for improved mental health services for young people in Ipswich while completing her degree in human services at USQ. Her personal testimony and experience gives her a strong connection with young people.
Young residents such as Esk's Emily Heck, who at just 18 years of age involves herself in nearly every aspect of the community, was Young Citizen of the Year in the Esk area. She's a dedicated member of the Somerset Art Society and the RSL and volunteers for Meals on Wheels. For years she's volunteered as a steward at the Esk Show Society and assists in the judging of some of the show's competitions. Despite her age, she's been a Girl Guide for 12 years as an inspiring leader for the group's younger members. She's also a member of the Esk Community Choir, recognised as the best choir in the Somerset region. The founder of that choir, Alexis Fitzgerald OAM, was recognised with the Arts and Cultural Award for her 40 years of dedication to music in the region. The choir boasts 150 members, many of whom were there to see Alexis recognised on the day.
Also in the Somerset region, hobby arborist Peter Bevan has directed his passion towards enhancing a significant portion of the Brisbane Valley Rail Trail in Lowood. The rail trail attracts people from all over the region to explore the beautiful Somerset region on foot, bike or horseback. Peter's dedicated revival of the area using native Australian plants from his own private nursery earned him the title of the Somerset region's Citizen of the Year. I thank Peter and his colleague Jean Bray for showing me the great work they've been doing in the Lowood region. Geoff Beattie was a runner-up for the award. Geoff has a long history in the region as a member of the local water board and is a tireless volunteer for Fernvale Lions and the Uniting Church. Since the sad passing of his wife many years ago, Geoff has done a lot of work for the Leukaemia Foundation. I'd also like to recognise his commitment in terms of the Christmas lights. His whole family received an award for the Christmas lights at his property at Glamorgan Vale which enhance the life of so many people.
I congratulate Fernvale Youth Incorporated, recognised as Somerset region's Community Group of the Year. It's an organisation that grew out of the floods in 2011.
I congratulate the many dedicated members and community groups who've enhanced our region to make Ipswich and the Somerset region such a fantastic place to live and visit. I commend all of them on their achievements.
Berowra is home to the worst road in Australia, Pennant Hills Road. Pennant Hills Road is choked with trucks, B-doubles—heavy traffic that makes driving dangerous and intimidating. Last year, Pennant Hills Road was Sydney's worst road for crashes. It seemed that almost every day of the week, every week of the year there was an accident on Pennant Hills Road. Pennant Hills Road is a major source of countless hours of delay for people unable to spend time with their families and loss of productivity for people unable to get to work. In traffic on a Friday afternoon, the 6½ kilometre journey from Hornsby to Pennant Hills can take over an hour. For too long, local residents have been coping with this blight on their landscape and the serious inconvenience to their everyday lives.
That's why I'm such a champion of NorthConnex. This outstanding project is a leader in every way, from design to delivery, and will be transformative for our electorate. The federal government is funding NorthConnex to the tune of $412.5 million. It's a great achievement of the Turnbull government that NorthConnex is being delivered on time and on budget, ready for completion at the end of 2019. With NorthConnex taking 5,000 trucks off Pennant Hills Road every day, locals will enjoy safer and more reliable traffic conditions. No doubt there'll also be a significant reduction in accidents, as well as less noise and improved air quality for local residents and improved travel times for local residents between local destinations.
With NorthConnex coming online at the end of next year, New Line Road will inherit the mantle of the worst road in my electorate. New Line Road is the main road north from Pennant Hills Road to Cherrybrook and Dural, and it's a main service road for communities even further north: from Galston to Glenorie, Kenthurst, Annangrove, Arcadia, Maroota and Wisemans Ferry. Despite the level of traffic it takes, much of New Line Road is only a single lane each way.
Last month, I surveyed my electorate on the issues that mattered most to them. Above all, New Line Road stood out as one of the hottest topics in Berowra. More than 50 people specifically mentioned New Line Road, while dozens more complained about the traffic and poor level of road infrastructure across the electorate. New Line Road is totally inadequate for the level of traffic it carries. It's infamous locally for coming to a standstill at peak hour. The 18-kilometre trip from Arcadia to Pennant Hills can take over an hour in the morning. One accident or a slow truck completely blocks the road. Some of the comments in my January survey included:
The most important local issue is the widening of New Line Road from Castle Hill Road to Old Northern Road at Dural. I have been waiting 35 years for this to happen.
Widen New Line Road—just how long is it going to take?
Fix New Line Road—it's a disgrace.
Upgrade New Line Road to accommodate growing traffic issues.
That last comment really gets to the nub of the problem. Not only is New Line Road appalling as it is, but it will continue to get worse as the area develops and more residential projects are built to the north of my electorate and traffic builds. It will also be badly impacted as the new developments come online in north-west Sydney at Box Hill and Nelson and these residents use our local roads as rat runs to the north or to the city. It's time to stop failed policies of development without infrastructure first.
New Line Road is a state road, but, at the last federal election, I pledged to do what I could to see New Line Road widened. Immediately after coming to office, I wrote to my state colleagues requesting their support in approaching the then New South Wales minister for roads, Duncan Gay. I wrote to Minister Gay, reiterating the importance of widening the road. I also wrote to my colleague the minister for urban infrastructure to see what the federal government could do to fast-track a road widening. Minister Fletcher's advice was that the New South Wales government needed to prioritise the road first and put an application forward to the federal government so that funds could be considered. Next I wrote and sought a meeting with the new New South Wales minister for roads, Melinda Pavey, to encourage her to officially prioritise an upgrade of New Line Road. Unless the New South Wales government takes this critical step, we will not see this important change to our local area.
It's now clear to me that we need to show the New South Wales roads minister how important this project is to our local area. That's why I'm calling on local residents to join me in my campaign to widen New Line Road. I want to hear your stories, in emails and letters, and I will take those and present them to the New South Wales minister for roads, detailing some of the traffic problems and experiences that you have in the electorate, so that the New South Wales minister has a clear understanding of the importance of widening New Line Road and providing better infrastructure in our electorate. I promise that I will keep campaigning for the important widening of New Line Road.
I rise to indicate that, given the performance by Minister Cash yesterday and the 125 days it's now been that she has refused to answer questions in relation to her office's involvement in the raids at the AWU offices on 24 October last year, it's now time for Minister Cash to resign.
Minister Cash yesterday slurred and slandered young staff in this building. It was a horrendous thing to do and it was unprovoked. I note that Liberal ministers and members of parliament have been indicating that, somehow, Minister Cash's outburst yesterday was a response to some provocative questioning by Labor senators. That is not true. The questions that were being asked by Senator Cameron in relation to staff in Minister Cash's office were only about whether they had been working in other agencies or other ministers' offices. The reason those questions were being asked is because of the history of Minister Cash in placing staff in highly politicised partisan agencies to act, I would argue, in an improper way.
We know, for example, that Minister Cash had placed in her office a media adviser who had worked for the former Victorian Liberal state leader Denis Napthine, at the same time that a media adviser was placed in the Registered Organisations Commission. So we had two Liberal Party identities, one of whom was working directly in the Registered Organisations Commission at the time that commission sought to raid the offices of the AWU and authorise the AFP to do so. We were trying to establish whether there were more patterns of collusion and involvement of staff in what we had foreshadowed would be highly partisan agencies if they were established. Labor is on the record as indicating in our debates in the parliament that if the Registered Organisations Commission and, indeed, the ABCC were established after the election they would be used for political purposes—and they have been. The Registered Organisations Commission is a discredited commission because of its conduct, but so too is the minister's office, by its activities and conduct, and that's why we've seen the resignation of a former staff member of Minister Cash's office.
We were absolutely entitled to ask whether there were other arrangements in that office that led to any further politicisation of agencies of government. That was the only reason why Labor senators were engaging in those questions to Minister Cash. But what we got in response was an outrageous and unprovoked response by Minister Cash, slurring and slandering young women in this parliament. She should apologise without qualification and she should resign. Minister Cash shouldn't resign purely because of what happened yesterday, but, as I say, because she has hidden behind a public interest immunity defence for 125 days so as not to answer questions about the extent and nature of her and her office's involvement in the tipping off of the media about the raids on AWU offices.
This is a very serious matter, and yet there's been obfuscation, denial and delay by the minister. Indeed, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police confirmed in estimates on Tuesday that the AFP did not suggest in any way that the government should use the public interest immunity as a defence against answering questions put to the minister in the Senate. Yet that is the defence that the minister has claimed for not answering questions. Well, 125 days later there still have been no answers about the extent of the involvement. May I say that as recently as yesterday there have been allegations of a tip off by the office of the former Minister for Justice, Mr Keenan, to a TV journalist. It's an allegation only, but it's a serious allegation. Minister Keenan, now the Minister for Human Services, should respond in parliament as to the truth or not of that allegation.
I rise today to discuss the Lunar New Year, which has been celebrated across Melbourne with such energy and excitement, particularly in my electorate of Chisholm, where the Year of the Dog was welcomed by festivities throughout the community. The wonderful electorate of Chisholm, which includes the suburbs of Box Hill, Blackburn South, Burwood and Mount Waverley and which I'm proud to represent in the parliament of Australia, is home to over 23,000 Australians of Chinese heritage, with more than 30,000 residents speaking Mandarin and/or Cantonese. As such, I'm delighted to represent the highest percentage of Australians of Chinese heritage throughout the country.
Chinese New Year is a special time for families throughout our local community. The iconic Box Hill Chinese New Year Festival is a long-held tradition for families and friends from Chisholm and more broadly across Melbourne to gather and herald the new year with fabulous fun and food. I was delighted to represent the Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, at the official opening ceremony.
As the federal member for Chisholm, I enjoy having a strong relationship with the multicultural communities in our local community. From my stall at the festival and through my participation in the opening ceremony, I witnessed the fantastic warmth and vibrancy of the Asian-Australian community in Box Hill and in Chisholm more broadly, as is particularly evidenced on these joyful festive days. Strong involvement—from the dedicated work of the Asian Business Association of Whitehorse and their president and vice president, Tom Zheng and William Ma respectively, to the energetic and passionate lion dancers and from hardworking local traders to the families who continue these important cultural traditions—represents the wonderful contribution by the over one million Australians of Chinese heritage in our nation.
So too I was pleased to attend the Buddha's Light New Year first light offering and world peace blessing, superbly organised by David Yu, President of the Buddha's Light International Association of Victoria. This ceremony, for Christians and Buddhists alike, reminds us of the revitalised gifts and blessings a new year brings.
On the next day, I was honoured to join the Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull, at the awakening of the Melbourne Dai Loong Dragon and the official opening of the 2018 Melbourne Chinese New Year Festival in Melbourne's Chinatown. I'm told by Eng Lim, the president and key organiser of this magnificent ceremony, that this was the first time a Prime Minister of Australia had attended the entirety of this magnificent ceremony in the heart of Melbourne. It was a joy to be there, together with the Prime Minister, with the honour of being amongst the vibrancy and colour and warmth of this official opening.
The final Chinese New Year celebration in Chisholm was the exciting and extremely popular visit by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to Box Hill Central on the Monday following the New Year weekend. Prime Minister Turnbull was described by the local paper as a fan favourite, and he and I were greeted by hundreds of Chisholm residents who all enthusiastically showed their goodwill, joy and excitement that the Prime Minister had taken the time for this local visit in my electorate at such a special time for the Chinese community. I was honoured to introduce the Prime Minister to all the hardworking local business owners, and the Prime Minister was quick to celebrate their indelible contribution to the Chisholm community. I was incredibly proud to showcase to the Prime Minister the vibrant Chinese community in Box Hill and Chisholm, a community which represents the best values of family and the hard-work ethic and good fortune in our local community.
The attendance of the Prime Minister at the Melbourne Chinese New Year Festival in Chinatown, as well as his marvellous visit to Box Hill Central with me, signifies the truly great contribution that Australians of Chinese heritage have made and continue to make to our society. It is also indicative of the value which the Turnbull government places on Australia's multicultural community. The over one million Australians of Chinese heritage nationally are a significant contributor to making Australia the most successful multicultural nation on this earth. As such, I was so proud to have the opportunity to join the Prime Minister in celebrating the Lunar New Year period with the natural warmth, love and goodwill of the thousands of Australians of Chinese heritage who live in Chisholm and Melbourne.
I wish all Australians a wonderful Lunar New Year and extend my most sincere best wishes for a prosperous new year ahead, filled with love, family, joy and friendship. May the Year of the Dog bring great fortune and happiness in the months ahead.
I rise to make a contribution today which celebrates International Women's Day. It celebrates the social, economic, cultural and political achievement of women around the world. I want to spend time today talking about some of those achievements. But first, I do need to reflect on the events yesterday on this very subject in this very building—that was, in estimates yesterday when the jobs minister threatened to name every woman who works for Bill Shorten who has been the subject of vile rumours in order to make some kind of political point. I have watched, in the roughly 24 hours since those comments, as the Minister for Home Affairs and other male members in the government have come out to diminish the significance of these comments, to excuse them in some way.
The women who work in this building on every side of politics are formidable, they are tough, they are determined and they are here in this building because they are trying to make this country better. They come to work every day in an environment that is dominated by men. It's dominated by men in the numbers of people that work in this building but also in the culture that governs this building. The minister's comments yesterday were not just an attack on Labor women; they were an attack on every woman who works in this building. And for the minister to threaten to spread some kind of sexualised rumours about the women that work for Bill Shorten, I just found reprehensible. I think there are some men in the building who are having a little bit of trouble understanding why women are so offended by these comments and I really want to encourage those men to use this as an opportunity to listen and to speak to the women in their life about why these comments are so guttingly offensive.
The inference that women use their sexuality to get ahead at work is an offence that is put on women and has been done so since the very beginning of sexism itself. This is the reflex that men and women in work places use to diminish the contribution of often young women to the work they do. I will not stand by while these things are said about the strong Labor women that I work with. I believe passionately that more young women need to get involved in politics. And I want to say to those young women today that there is a sisterhood here in parliament that wants you. We respect you and we will protect you when things like this are said.
Women have been fighting misogyny and sexism in the public arena for centuries. Today I want to pay homage to the thousands of suffragettes who paved a pathway for women like me to stand so proudly as we do in the House of Representatives. It's been 124 years since the introduction of equal suffrage across Australia. It started in South Australia in 1894 and reached my home state of Victoria 14 years later in 1908. Despite this historic event, it took another 41 years before the first woman was elected to the House of Representatives and another 19 years for Indigenous women to acquire the same voting rights. It was courageous and inspirational women whose agenda was seen in Labor's long held commitment to policies that underpin gender equity because gender equity, as with all types of equity, is at the heart of Labor's mission.
I'm very proud to be in a political party that for 20 years has had affirmative action policies in place that mean that the party that I represent in this chamber has almost 50 per cent representation of women. I want to encourage those on the other side of politics to reflect on what it is that they can do to help their own party room resolve its gender problem. There are good people on the conservative side of politics, and I know many of those good people feel frustrated that just 21 per cent of Liberal Party members are female. We have to help the conservative side of politics resolve this problem because, although it's sometimes probably good for the Labor Party to have more women in parliament because we do look a lot more like modern Australia, it is just not good for the country to have so few women in the party room on the other side of the chamber.
We live in a country today that thinks of itself as being very equal, but, everywhere I look, I see gender issues, not the least of which is the somewhere around 15 to 16 per cent gender pay gap which hasn't moved in 20 years. We need a government that cares about these issues, that has a history of fighting to stand up for women on these issues. I believe that party's the Australian Labor Party and I'm proud to represent it in this parliament.
I rise to express my disappointment and, to be frank, utter confusion at the Nick Xenophon Team and their policy stance on tackling drug use in our communities. The coalition government is committed to its drug-testing trials because it's good policy. It's about helping people help themselves. The purpose of the trials is to ensure that those receiving welfare payments from the Australian taxpayer are not using this money to fuel their drug habit but are directed into treatment and rehabilitation to assist them to get off drugs and into employment. Unfortunately, to my great disappointment, the Nick Xenophon Team don't support this policy. They stand with Labor and the Greens—yet again, I should note—to block this legislation in the Senate. The Nick Xenophon Team are opposing measures that will ultimately channel illegal drug users into treatment.
That is disappointing, but what, quite frankly, is perplexing is the fact that Xenophon is campaigning in the South Australian state election to force ice addicts into mandatory rehabilitation. What that highlights is not only that the Nick Xenophon Team are, once again, going against good policy in choosing to vote with Labor and the Greens but that they seem at odds with their state counterparts. Like many communities around the country, my electorate of Barker is struggling with the scourge of ice and is looking for help. Not only are the Nick Xenophon Team standing in the way of these measures; they are also announcing ill-thought-out policies because they, quite frankly, are desperate for support and popular votes. What you can't pretend is to be strong in South Australia on ice but soft as butter on the same issue in Canberra.
The Nick Xenophon Team and his party in South Australia are emerging as a party at odds with itself. Not only are his state and federal policies in relation to drugs at odds with each other but there seems to be some confusion on the topic of free trade. Those in this place will know that Nick Xenophon has, for a very long time, been an ardent critic of free trade agreements—free trade agreements which, I should say, are delivering gargantuan benefits in my electorate of Barker. I see firsthand the positives of free trade that are being felt by producers and communities in Barker. Free trade is delivering increased returns to the farm gate, meaning more investment, more jobs and better paid jobs. Barker is home, of course, to so many who are employed in the wine industry, the beef industry and the sheepmeat industry, and in horticulture, dairy and citrus—the list could go on and on. If people are not directly employed, they are providing services to these industries as truck drivers and in catering mills and financial and allied health services, directly to the primary producers, who are, in turn, benefiting from these free trade agreements.
By not supporting free trade, Nick Xenophon and his team are not supporting these industries. They're not supporting the jobs they sustain. They're turning their backs on the farmers in my electorate. More trade means more and better-paying jobs, as I have said, and anyone who doesn't support free trade is not supporting regional communities. That may be why the Nick Xenophon SA-BEST candidate for the Riverland seat of Chaffey is an ardent supporter of free trade. When asked why her position differs from that of her leader, she simply can't explain. That is because Nick Xenophon and the SA-BEST team know that free trade plays very well in regional communities and that the less that is spoken about Nick's opposition to free trade in regional communities, the better off they will be.
My constituents deserve to know what policy Nick Xenophon and his local candidates will ultimately subscribe to. They can't cut and run on this issue. They need to be clear. It is not good enough for the Nick Xenophon SA-BEST team in the Riverland to say they support free trade and for Nick Xenophon in Adelaide, as the candidate for Hartley, to tell the constituency in Hartley in South Australia, consistent with his history in this place as a senator for South Australia, that he does not support free trade. What we need to know is what they stand for. I fear that they don't support farmers in my electorate because they don't support free trade.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:35