Today I present the 27th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament, together with four petitions and 22 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented.
The four petitions I present today are paper petitions. A number of electronic petitions are currently open for signatures on the Australian Parliament House website. These petitions will be presented to the House after the four-week signature period.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, for responding in detail to the committee's report into the House e-petitions system on behalf of the Department of the House of Representatives. The report made a number of recommendations to enhance the system, and the committee looks forward to seeing these improve the user experience and simplify the process of creating, signing and sharing e-petitions to the House.
As foreshadowed in the committee's report, the committee is this week launching its next inquiry into the future of petitioning. The inquiry will assess the role and operations of the committee and review the current practice and procedures of petitioning in the House. In conducting the inquiry, the committee will give consideration to how other parliaments facilitate petitioning, and will be seeking submissions that address the terms of reference.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I look forward to updating the House further on the work of the Petitions Committee, and on the progress of the committee's new inquiry.
I present the following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented:
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ageing Australians and their families should not be kept in the dark. If adopted by the government, this bill would shine a light upon residential aged-care facilities by requiring them to publish their staffing ratios by qualification, and an optional accompanying explanation. There is no cost to government for this transparency.
The reality is that most elderly Australians who move into nursing homes are making their last move in their living circumstances, and it is certainly not a decision that older Australians or their families take lightly. It is a difficult and extremely important decision, all too often made under trying circumstances, and currently those decisions are not being fully informed because important information about the level and quality of expert care that they can expect is being kept from them.
In my view, a better-informed public is a more discerning public; they have a right to know what they are signing up for.
Earlier this year, I invited the Minister for Aged Care, the member for Hasluck, to meet with aged-care stakeholders and my community in Mayo. Mayo is the oldest electorate in South Australia, and the eighth-oldest electorate in the country, and so the quality of and access to aged-care services is a critical issue in our community.
The minister graciously accepted my invitation, and together we had what was, by all accounts, a very constructive day across the Mayo electorate. I and the community thank the minister for his time, his generosity, and his consideration.
In the community forum held in Victor Harbor, the aged-care issue that was raised the most with me and with the minister was that of staffing ratios.
There was a repeated and insistent call for mandatory minimum staffing ratios for residential aged-care facilities, echoing the sentiments the community has expressed to me since I was first elected in 2016. The contrast is often made to me in our community that we have staffing ratios in child care but we don't have them in aged care, and why is it that ratios are applied to child care but not to aged care? There is no good answer to that question.
The minister respectfully explained his concern for setting mandatory minimums, namely, that it might legitimise and inadvertently encourage aged-care providers to adopt lower targets than otherwise they would have set. I must confess that I am not wholly convinced by this argument, but I do recognise the government's rationale, and certainly take note of their continued reluctance to introduce mandatory minimums.
It is for this reason that, in my private member's bill, I have sought the pragmatic intermediate step of requiring residential aged-care providers to at least disclose their staffing ratios, a step which I believe will grant peace of mind to the Australian community and which the government, I believe, could not reasonably oppose.
Even when argued on pragmatic and detached economic grounds, reducing the information gap between the residents and their families, and providers, will lead to a more efficient, competitive market upon which competing residential aged-care services can more easily attract people through the greater quality of their service.
The bill thus requires the quarterly disclosure of staffing ratios by each residential care facility, which would then be aggregated and published by the government.
In their disclosure and publication, the staffing ratios are broken down by staffing category, namely, by: registered nurses, enrolled nurses, nurses with a certificate IV or equivalent qualification, personal care attendants, allied health staff and other staff members. If, between reporting dates, any of these ratios change by more than 10 per cent, the aged-care provider must also notify the government, within 28 days.
I recognise that different facilities have a different composition of residents with a differing profile of needs. As such, the aged-care provider may accompany their staffing ratio disclosure with a short written explanation. This written explanation from the aged-care facility could provide the context for why they have the particular staffing ratio and therefore will provide even greater clarity to the general public.
Again, I see no persuasive reason not to shine a light on this important facet of residential aged-care services. With the parliament's support, I will be seeking to refer this bill to an inquiry so that residential aged-care staffing ratios and other issues can be raised further and investigated and inform the government about the compelling need for greater transparency and public accountability in residential aged-care services.
I do not believe this to be an onerous task on providers and is designed to inform, not to prejudice.
I might talk briefly about an elderly gentleman in my electorate who was, some period of time after this particular incident, still visibly distressed. He happened to be visiting his wife in an aged-care facility. He was not living in the facility; she was. She began choking on her food. It took more than 20 minutes of him continually pressing the alert button for somebody to come to her room. He said to me: 'What would've happened if I wasn't there? There was nobody around. I yelled out. I was down the hall. I was yelling out to people. Nobody was there to care for my wife.' This was some time ago, and yet this man was in tears talking to me.
Together, in this parliament, I know we can reach a positive and constructive outcome for elderly Australians and their families, and I strongly urge the House and, indeed, the government to support the referral of this bill to an inquiry. I'd like to thank the minister for being in the chamber to hear my bill. Thank you. I will pass on the rest of my time, if it is allowed, Mr Speaker, to the member for Indi.
I'd like to second this motion that the Aged Care Amendment (Staffing Ratio Disclosure) Bill 2018 be read a second time. I will start by supporting the member for Mayo by reading a note from a constituent, Angela, who wrote: 'Over the past 13 years, chronic understaffing has had a huge increase in preventable deaths of elderly Australians in aged care, with people dying from falls, choking and suicide. They are our parents and grandparents, people who looked after us and loved us. But how many of them, especially those in need of high care, are left unfed, unwashed and even in soiled nappies for hours? Staff ratios in aged care must be legislated, as a matter of urgency, to protect the vulnerable, older nursing-home residents, who are the victims of Australia's crisis in aged care. In the absence of mandated ratios, dangerously low levels of nurse and carer staffing continue to put the lives of the elderly at risk. Hard-pressed nurses and care staff do the best they can in impossible circumstances, but they are run off their feet and can't provide the care they want to.' And Angela finishes with: 'This crisis in our aged-care system has been ignored for far too long. Now is the time to take action and pledge your support'—that's her request to me—'to legislate minimum nurse-to-resident ratios in aged care, to ensure our elderly get the care they need.'
So, with that sort of letter from my constituent, I'd like to bring to the House some statistics from my electorate. As you know, we have an annual budget survey, which took place in May. As a result of that survey, 9.2 per cent of survey respondents listed health and aged care as their most important issue, 30.7 per cent listed health and aged care as one of their top three issues and 79.4 per cent of respondents rated aged care and health care as very important. In my electorate of Indi, 22 per cent of residents are aged between 50 and 64, and 21 per cent are over 65. In my electorate of Indi, there are 44 aged-care facilities, and a huge issue is how we, as a small rural electorate, manage to provide the level of service we want in rural and regional Victoria.
Like the member for Mayo, I, too, would like to acknowledge the aged-care minister. Thank you for being here. You've also been to Mayo and Indi, and I know you've met with my boards of management and you've taken a particular interest in how we operate, and I know this is an issue dear to your heart.
But, in bringing this issue to the House today, I want to say: particularly for rural and regional Australia, one size doesn't fit all. We've got particular concerns in more isolated communities—say, for example, in Corryong, a small rural community two hours away from a major health service, that of Albury Wodonga Health. In that community, the multipurpose service provides so much: not only health care but also outreach, support for families, transport and social services that enable the community to continue to provide. It's never going to reach the same level of services of our cities, but it's a vitally important service to that community.
So I say to the minister and to your government: could you please look at this issue and support the call for an inquiry. Let's come out with some really solid, long-term, sustainable services to our communities. And, Minister, we'll back you in this effort and bring our communities with you. But also—I know the member for Mayo—huge understanding of public policy would be really helpful in this area.
The question is this bill be now read a second time. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
As independents it is our job to put forward solutions to problems that are impacting on our communities, to give an independent voice to the issues that are ignored by the major parties and to suggest effective solutions to these problems.
My primary role as the member for Indi is to represent my electorate. The budget impact survey is one of the tools I use to seek feedback and advice and ask for solutions from my community.
In this year's budget impact survey 24 per cent of respondents rated social services as one of their top three issues and 80 per cent of respondents ranked social services as either very important or fairly important.
So there is good reason for this being high on my electorate's agenda.
Although nationally there has been strong job creation, we still have areas of high unemployment and underemployment.
When the economy slows, it is young people that are first to have their hours reduced, lose their jobs or struggle to enter the workforce.
Nowhere is the challenge of employment security felt more than in regional Australia.
Where people are uncertain about their future they want to know that the social safety net is there to catch them, to look after them and to propel them forward to the next step.
The recent debate around social security payments being akin to a punishment—making recipients feel ashamed, making them feel embarrassed—does not do what we want it to do.
The experience of a loss of independence and self-esteem is an experience that is felt by so many people relying on the government to support them when they are most in need.
I believe the government should not be looking at welfare payments as a short-term cost but, rather, as a long-term investment, particularly when directed towards investment in our young people.
Social security should support people who are unable to work. It should feature fair returns from work, individualised requirements for participation in the workforce and support services that build individual and family capacity. It should give people a sense of security so that they are able to fully participate in our society.
I believe social security recipients should be able to have a standard of living that allows them to live with dignity.
This bill proposes establishing an independent review process to ensure recipients can live with dignity.
Summary of the b ill
This bill will establish a Social Security Commission to provide the parliament with independent advice on the minimum level for social security payments that meet an acceptable contemporary minimum standard of living.
The primary function of the commission is to conduct social security payment reviews.
As part of a review, the commission would determine:
(a) the acceptable standard of living for recipients of the payment;
(b) whether the current level of the payment provides adequate support; and
(c) a recommended increase to the payment level or rate of indexation.
The commission will consider all social security payments made under the Social Security Act 1991, including pensions, Newstart and youth allowance.
Mr Speaker, I have asked my two colleagues from the crossbench to add value to my comments today.
I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of Brian Lawrence, barrister, and Jeremy Mickle, who is in the House today. I thank Catholic Social Services Australia, UnitingCare and Anglicare for their support in developing this bill.
This bill will bring compassion and fairness to a really important system. It will provide independent, expert and evidence based advice on what is fair and adequate.
I call on the government and the opposition to take a serious look at this approach.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and rise in strong support of the member for Indi's bill, the Social Security Commission Bill 2018. I am impressed with the sheer level of detail contained within the member's proposal for a Social Security Commission. It highlights the amount of considered thought and wide-ranging consultation that she and her office have dedicated to this very important matter. That is what we, as a crossbench, are about.
The member for Indi is exactly right when she highlights the fact that social security payments of all descriptions are falling behind community expectations and that they are falling behind the ever-rising cost of living. Her sentiments echo my own concerns. Earlier this year I moved a motion, seconded by the member for Indi, that sought to establish an independent tribunal to assess the base rate of the pension and determine the best mechanism for annual review. It is astounding that in 2018, when we have an ageing population, that these are issues we have to fight for in the parliament. It should just be accepted; it should be given that we want to provide the most vulnerable members of our community with the best support possible for a good life—particularly our older Australians.
It's a logical extension of that proposal that Australia should apply the same formula to all social security payments through the open and deliberative commission model advanced in this bill and to publicly release the findings of that commission. That is what we need. We need transparency, because this transparency allows for a measured public conversation to occur. It is a very complex area of policy, and one that I think is often demonised and finds itself on the front of our broadsheets. It is not deserving of that place. Elected representatives should and would continue to have the final say on what is ultimately a deeply social, economic and political decision for the government of the day, but that decision can then be made with reference to a calm, collected, open and pragmatic policy development process.
In conclusion, I commend the member on her excellent work. This is what we are here for: we are here to create a better Australia. We are not here to squabble amongst ourselves. The efforts of this parliament should not be taken up with half of the members worried about who the leader of their team should be. So this is about creating a better Australia. This is what the parliament's about, and I strongly urge the House to support this bill.
Mr Speaker, I thank the member for Indi for her solid work in this area and seek leave to table the member for Denison's contribution, if that is possible.
Leave granted.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In 2012 the Gillard government made a terrible decision that, sadly, didn't get the attention it deserved. In essence, it decided to shift single parents from parenting payment to Newstart when their youngest child turned eight. This reduced fortnightly payments from $683.50 to $537.80. Moreover, to add insult to injury, income over $62 per fortnight was reduced by 40 cents in the dollar as opposed to income over $176.70, as had been the case with the parenting payment. ACOSS called the impact on single-parent families 'devastating', while the Single Parents Action Group quite rightly pointed out that the rationale for this move—to get people into work—was ludicrous, because the majority of single parents were already working. Even some members of the Labor Party admitted after the fact that this was a mistake, which is refreshing seeing as it's not often you hear politicians admitting to mistakes. But hand-wringing and apologies mean nothing unless you back it up with action. That's why it's shameful that, so far, neither party has committed to reversing the cuts.
The bill I table today, the Family Law Amendment (Review of Government Support for Single Parents) Bill 2018, would provide for the Australian Institute of Family Studies to conduct a review into three things: firstly, the impact of the 2013 cuts on single-parent families; secondly, the high instance of poverty in single-parent households and what effect the rates of government pensions and payments have on this; and, finally, what the government can do to better support single parents. The review would be conducted within six months and the AIFS would be required to report to the minister, who would table the report in both houses of parliament.
The raw deal single parents have got from a succession of Liberal and Labor governments is in part borne of naive idealism. For a start, as much as the government would like us to believe it, it's simply not the case that people can just go out and get a better job, if only because wages are stagnating and jobs are hard to find at the best of times, especially in rural and regional areas such as in many parts of Tasmania. How can many of these single parents be expected to find gainful employment between dropping the kids off at nine and picking them up at three? Yes, many workplaces have taken steps when it comes to flexibility for parents but, sadly, many more businesses have not. Add to that cuts to the family tax benefit, rising costs for health care and soaring rental prices, especially in my Greater Hobart electorate, and there's no wonder that rates of poverty in single-parent households are so high.
I could quote lots of statistics to illustrate the problem here: ACOSS's poverty reports, for example, which found a significant increase in child poverty from 2012-14, and a survey conducted this year by the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children. They surveyed nearly 1,000 people from single-parent families, over half of whom said their children had need or disabilities that required substantial extra parenting time.
The detailed figures are shocking, and I urge every member of the parliament to study them. In the last 12 months, for instance, 12 per cent of respondents had difficulty paying the mortgage and fell behind, incurring late fees. Thirty-three per cent had difficulty paying the rent. Six per cent had received an eviction notice or been forced to relocate because their housing was too expensive. Fifty-five per cent had lived with housing stress, meaning that more than 30 per cent of their income went towards housing. Sixty-six per cent had experienced food insecurity—for example, running out of food and not having money to replace it. Sixty-eight per cent had skipped meals. Forty-two per cent had struggled to ensure that their child had school lunches. Sixty-three per cent didn't allow their child to participate in an activity like sport because they couldn't afford the uniform. Thirty per cent said their child wants to take up part-time work to help with the family budget. Twenty-six per cent of children had hidden school notes that require money from their parents. Fifty-six per cent of parents had been forced to say no to children's birthday parties, family gatherings or sports events. Sixty-five per cent of parents couldn't afford a low-cost treat once a month, such as a takeaway dinner or a movie. Thirty-nine per cent couldn't afford toiletries or other household items, such as washing powder. Fourteen per cent were forced to give up the family pet. Sixty-eight per cent struggled to pay utility bills or had received late fees or threats of disconnection. Forty-two per cent of children had missed medical appointments or other healthcare needs. In a clear example of how these single parents are going without so much, so that they can provide for their children, 71 per cent of parents have missed their own medical appointments or gone without their own health care for themselves.
It goes on: 72 per cent of single parents have struggled with school fees, books or uniforms; 50 per cent couldn't afford school camps; 45 per cent have had inadequate clothing in winter; 33 per cent have reduced or ceased internet access; 40 per cent have reduced or ceased using their mobile phone; 61 per cent have limited the use of their car or can't maintain a roadworthy car; 46 per cent have ceased insurance, like health or home and contents insurance; 56 per cent said they have run out of savings and need to rely on the goodwill of charities, friends or family; 36 per cent have borrowed money, including high-interest or payday loans; and 18 per cent have been forced to cash in their superannuation due to financial hardship. All of this is appalling and completely unacceptable in a country as rich as ours and it's all the more shocking because it's preventable. Yes, we need to do a lot to fix our broken healthcare system, invest more in schools and rein in housing prices, but a lot of this starts with fixing the abysmally low rate of government pensions and payments. The review enabled by this bill would look into the impact that these payments have on the high rates of poverty in single-parent households.
I urge both parties to support this bill because it's an undeniable fact that the 2012 changes to parenting payment are disastrous. Surely it isn't too much to hold this review, conducted by the experts, so that the government and future governments can be better informed about what single parents are going through. I say to the ALP in particular: cutting parenting payments was your idea and now is the time to put things right. If you really are committed to a root-and-branch review of Centrelink payments, then this bill should be an easy one to support. I'll be interested to know what your members on the selection committee have to say.
In conclusion, I'd like to thank Terese Edwards from the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children in South Australia who is a tireless advocate for single-parent families and has helped me with the preparation of this bill. I now invite the member for Mayo, who is seconding the bill, to make a contribution in my remaining time.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I rise to support the member for Denison's bill and to urge the government and the opposition to strongly consider implementing the review that this bill would require. As the member for Denison outlined, in 2013 the then Gillard government changed the eligibility for the single-parent payment. As we all know, when a child now turns eight, the parent moves on to Newstart instead of the parenting payment. We all want everyone to be active in the workforce or in volunteering in any capacity that they can; however, what we saw was a cut of more than $145 a fortnight back in 2013. That difference is now $172 per fortnight. This creates a situation where a parent is really unable to care for their child as the child ages. As we all know, the older children get the more expensive they are. What the Gillard government and subsequent governments fail to understand is that the impact of those cuts is felt most deeply and overwhelmingly on our most vulnerable in our society and overwhelmingly on women. In Mayo there are almost 5,000 single parents and 80 per cent of those are women who are the primary carers.
The people who have suffered the most are the children of the single parents. Single-parent families account for 15 per cent of all families in Australia, yet recent data shows that 40 per cent of all children in poverty in Australia live in a single-parent household. I'll just give a short regional overlay on this. It is all well and good for us to expect single parents to move into the workforce, but when you live in regional Australia there are very few jobs that can accommodate moving around the school times. In my local areas, not every school has AHSC, after-hours school care. In many cases, children are walking a long way from the bus stop to try to get home and be alone in the house if their parent can, indeed, get a job. A full review means that we can avoid the mistakes of a previous government, examine all the evidence available and choose the right path. So I commend the member for Denison's bill. He is seeking a review and I think that it is a very worthy objective for this parliament to consider.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Twenty-one years ago this parliament restricted the rights of territorians to have their voices heard through their elected representatives on the issue of voluntary assisted dying. Back then, they said that these parliaments were too immature to be given the power of voluntary assisted dying. They said that no state had done it and a territory shouldn't be the first. Today, those arguments are gone. Victoria has now legislated on voluntary assisted dying. The whole notion that there might be some mass migration of Australians towards a territory that was the first to legislate on euthanasia, that argument is out the window. And parliaments have grown up. Back in 1997, when Kevin Andrews passed his private member's bill, the ACT assembly was just nine years old—just a kid attending primary school. Now it's grown up, left home and shown itself to be a mature debating chamber. Yes, the ACT is a unicameral assembly, but so is Queensland. The ACT has a bigger population than Tasmania. A 30-year-old mature assembly has tackled complicated issues, from light rail to infrastructure investment, from innovation to higher education. This is a parliament that has shown itself to be fit to handle a difficult challenge such as voluntary assisted dying.
Reasonable people can differ on the substantive issue of euthanasia. Indeed, I differ from my own seconder, Luke Gosling, the member for Solomon. But territorians should supporter territory rights. That's what Kate Carnell did in 1997 when she objected to the attempt to strip away democratic rights. It's what Gary Humphries did in 2006, when he crossed the floor on the issue of same-sex marriage. He didn't support the substantive issue, but he supported the territories. It's what Senator Nigel Scullion did when the vote came to the Senate last week. The position of Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, Senator Dave Smith and member for Solomon Luke Gosling, is to have reservations about voluntary euthanasia, but to support territory rights. I can't go without acknowledging my friend and colleague Gai Brodtmann, the member for Canberra, who, like me, supports voluntary euthanasia with appropriate safeguards. We hold this position in common with four out of five Australians, including three out of four Catholics, four out of five Liberals and four out of five Anglicans.
But there is a significant exception to this principle of territorians standing up for territory rights. That's Senator Zed Seselja and the Canberra Liberals led by Alistair Coe. They've taken the approach that they will oppose voluntary assisted dying by any means necessary, even if it means stripping away the rights of the ACT parliament. Their approach is a take your bat and ball and go home approach, an approach that says if you don't think you're going to win the substantive argument, then you should shut it down. Shame, Senator Seselja. Shame for not standing up for your representatives. Shame for not standing up for that assembly in which you served and which you strived to be the leader. Shame for not being there when it counted for territorians—territorians who will judge you and will judge your colleagues at the next territory election. The Canberra Liberals, when it counted, went soft on the issue of standing up for territory rights.
In conclusion I want to acknowledge the enormously important work done by former MLA Mary Porter, by ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr, by MLA Bec Cody, and in particular MLA Tara Cheyne, who has joined us here in the gallery today. We welcome you to this place. I also want to thank the 34 senators who voted for Senator David Leyonhjelm's private member's bill in the Senate last week. It did not pass, but it came very close and we territorians will keep up the pressure to have our democratic voices heard.
Is the motion seconded?
I rise to second the motion. I want to thank my friend and colleague, Andrew Leigh, the member for Fenner, and also my colleagues from the territories, with that one exception that was just outlined by the member for Fenner, which is a great shame because at the end of the day the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2018 is not about euthanasia; it's about the right of the territories—a right that was taken away 21 years ago—to legislate in an area which states can already legislate and in one case have already done so. The result in the Senate entrenches a system that treats Australians who live in territories—territories already underrepresented when compared to other small states—as second-class citizens. In a referendum to change the Constitution, the vote of a territorian is worth less than that of someone living in a state. So this is a bill to correct a wrong, to help correct a system which openly discriminates against territorians.
People living in Canberra, Darwin or anywhere in the territories are just as fit to make decisions for themselves as their counterparts are in Perth or Sydney, Adelaide or anywhere else in our great nation. To quote respected law professor George Williams, 'There is no good reason they are denied the same control over their lives. Their second-class status is an affront to our democracy and an accident of history that should be corrected.' It's now up to the Prime Minister to show whether he cares about territorians. The question is now for the Prime Minister: will he let a vote happen in the lower house? Will he let territorians have their rights restored? I urge him to speak to his cabinet colleague Senator Nigel Scullion about this issue and to listen to the speech given by my friend Senator Malarndirri McCarthy when this issue was debated in the Senate.
If the Prime Minister doesn't allow the bill to come to the House for a debate, what does this say about his view of territorians? Does the Prime Minister view territorians as second-class citizens? What is it about the Turnbull government's collective life experience that makes them think that they are better placed to make decisions for territorians? Are they somehow morally superior to the people of the Northern Territory or the ACT? Let's remember that this bill does not re-enact euthanasia in the NT or the ACT; it simply allows people who live in Australian territories the same rights as 24 million other Australians who live in the states: to legislate for ourselves. I have placed on the record my own reservations about euthanasia, but this bill isn't about what I think or what the Prime Minister thinks; it's about the rights of territorians and listening to what they have to say. This bill is about having a debate in the House about whether the territories should have the right to be on equal footing with the states. So let's have the debate. Let's see where the numbers stand. I urge the Prime Minister and I urge the House to support territorians and bring this bill to a debate.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the power of mentoring and its impact in fighting inequality;
(2) recognises the outstanding work of the AIME mentoring program;
(3) notes that:
(a) 15,000 Indigenous high schoolers and 5,000 university students have been through the AIME program since it began in 2005;
(b) the program aims to mobilise a generation of university students to volunteer and mentor disadvantaged high school students; and
(c) the program is helping to close the education gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians; and
(4) calls on the Government to explore how AIME's successful model can be strengthened to help address Indigenous inequality and assist other marginalised Australians.
Destiny is a proud and confident young Indigenous woman. She wasn't always like that. She was raised in foster care, taunted and bullied about her weight and her culture with cruel slurs that I won't repeat in here, but the Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience, or AIME, changed her life from when she joined it around 2014. In mentoring she found meaning and motivation and she now dreams of a future in photography.
Almost 10 years ago a young man knocked on my door, and we stayed in touch ever since. His name is Jack Manning Bancroft, and he started AIME in 2005 as a 19-year-old university student. His idea was as simple as it was difficult to crack. He was all about bridging the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students in education, getting them further down the pathway of education, building bridges between powerful people and the powerless, between school and university, between mentors and mentees—a cause taken up and advanced by so many others, including my friends in the gallery today Darren, Steph, Alex and Ben, who we spent some time with this morning. We thank you for your time and your commitment to such an important cause.
Mentoring is not some soft or fuzzy concept. It is cheap and scalable. For every dollar invested in AIME, for example, there's been something like $9 of value harvested, according to a KPMG study. And it's not a new concept either. As I was talking to Jack on the weekend, he reminded me that mentoring has been at the very core of 60,000 years of Australian culture and history. Its usefulness is not limited or narrow either. Just because it has found extraordinary success in Indigenous education here in Australia doesn't mean it can't solve some of our other challenges here and around the world. That's why this successful model developed here in Australia, the AIME model, is being adopted in South Africa and Uganda and also amongst our own African communities of Australians here at home.
Deputy Speaker, as you know, the defining challenge of our time is inequality, and inequality has many constituent parts that I unfortunately recognise daily in my own community of Logan City and the southern suburbs of Brisbane. Social immobility and marginalisation, locational and intergenerational disadvantage, racial and other forms of discrimination, underresourced schools, poor health outcomes—the list goes on and on and on. As many of my colleagues know, including some who will speak after me today, all of those forms of disadvantage can too often be allowed to become despair.
It may be that the answer to these challenges, or at least part of the answer, has been hiding in plain sight. It may be that the Indigenous high school students and the university students associated with AIME have done more than build one of the most successful movements in our country. Maybe they've shown us how to start fixing the problems that we too often dismiss as intractable problems. There's absolutely no reason why mentoring can't be one of the ways that we knit this country back together after too many years and too much division. But it will take a change in thinking, not just here in this building but out there in the community as well.
As AIME says, it will take 'a permanent shift in mindset' to 'end the cycle of disadvantage'. It will require us to genuinely treat somebody else's success as our own. It will require us to recognise that success is not a zero-sum game where, for someone to do well, somebody else must fail. It will require us to spend as much time and effort building bridges as we do walls. It will require us to appreciate the value in encouraging people to reach back and help each other along. And it will require us to get behind AIME and the thousands of young people who have reminded us to go about it and why it matters, to learn from the examples that they have set for us, drawing on the amazing work of our friends in AIME and all of the people they have helped to build more fulfilling lives, based on the good work and goodwill of tens of thousands of Australians and tens of thousands of years of culture as well, to end the cycle of disadvantage wherever we can.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. This morning, I met with one of the most amazing organisations doing wonderful and empowering work with our First Nations people. In the chamber today, we have the AIME deputy CEO, Ben Abbatangelo, and AIME staff members Darren Brady, Steph Beck and Alex Jackson. I want to congratulate them on their excellent work and service to our First Nations young people. AIME is different. There is no other way to describe this program. It is a concept of the mind, a shift that actually works.
A recent study from McKinsey which investigated half a million students across 72 countries found that those with a 'growth mindset' outperformed those with a 'fixed mindset'—that is, those who believed that they could improve with hard work did actually do better. It also discovered that mindset was the most powerful individual factor in lifting a student's educational performance, even more so than socioeconomic status.
AIME is a mentoring program for our First Nations people. It empowers First Nations children with the intention of connecting university students with an Indigenous high school student—to connect those with power with those who are being left behind. Since its inception 13 years ago, the results have been truly outstanding, proving the findings in the McKinsey report. Where there is support for a growth mindset, students will succeed. Since the first group of 25 kids, 15,000 Indigenous high school students and 5,000 university students have been through the program. It is the largest volunteer movement of university students in Australian history. AIME has managed to close the education gap for this group. Seventy-five per cent of non-Indigenous people aged between 17 and 24 are in employment, university or further training. For our First Nations people, the rate is 42 per cent. AIME kids have closed the gap, heading into jobs or university at 75-plus per cent for the last six continuous years.
In further measuring AIME's impact, Australian universities have completed independent research that has found the program to be one of the best activities that university students can do during their studies. The same body of research has found what we may have expected—that these kids have an increased sense of strength of identity, purpose and aspiration. As an economic solution for governments, KPMG found that, for every dollar invested in AIME, the return on investment is $7 into the Australian economy. We are talking about a scaleable, cost-effective solution in alleviating disadvantage, one that keeps communities where they are and gives them a hand to band together. As a solution that crosses racial and social division, not only does this program change children's lives; its return is both uplifting and economical.
Recently, a letter to the world was co-signed by over 30 leaders, including 15 Australian university leaders and Australia's first female Governor-General, Quentin Bryce. It led with the sentence:
It's not every day that an idea that can change the world comes across your desk.
That is exactly what this program achieves. I have seen firsthand what this program has done for people in the electorate of Herbert. There are AIME members at James Cook University. If you want to lift people out of poverty, the most effective way to break the vicious cycle of poverty is through education. AIME ends the cycle of injustice by providing real mentorship that ensures our First Nations children get a fair go and a chance at a wonderful future. Getting a chance for a better life is important and getting a chance to break a cycle is critically important, because everyone needs to have a chance to achieve in their life.
I acknowledge the member for Rankin and the member for Herbert for bringing this motion into the House and for seconding it. I know AIME very well. We're not allowed to have props in the House, but I have brought the sweatshirt that representatives from AIME gave me the last time they were here. I just can't hold it up, but they're wearing it in the gallery today. That's fantastic.
I also recognise the wonderful work that the AIME mentors and the people who work at AIME do. In particular I want to recognise their CEO and founder, Jack Manning Bancroft, who has just been the most incredible inspiration for all of us. He was one of the youngest CEOs ever at the age of 19 when AIME was founded in 2005. He was also New South Wales Young Australian of the Year last year or the year before. There has been an Australian Story program called 'Turning the Tables' made about Jack—in many ways an inspiration for this amazing program.
We all know what intergenerational disruption can do to one's life, but AIME—and I have seen it in action, I have spoken at some of its courses and I have seen the amazing students who put their hands up to be mentors and the young school students who are being mentored—is very much a practical, sensible way to make sure that young Indigenous students get the same sorts of outcomes in education as everyone else and see university as part of their life course and life journey, which of course was not the case a generation ago.
I cannot tell you how important AIME is in closing the gap. It really is about providing the resources and capacity to empower First Nations Australians. We know that one of the clear messages coming out of the discussions about reconciliation and Indigenous recognition is that First Nations Australians need to be more involved in the formulation of the laws and policies which affect First Nations people. And that is the power of AIME: it's self-determination in action. It's people who feel that they want to provide or give back, and that's also what AIME allows them to do.
There are so many people who really want to be part of the Indigenous story in this country in a really positive way, and AIME provides the mechanism for that to happen. As I said, it also makes sure that young Indigenous students see university as a normal part of life and see it as something that's achievable. It demystifies university and makes it a reality for so many young people.
I don't want to add very much more to what has been said. I think that when you look at mentoring and the power of mentoring, we have all, in one way or another, either had formal or informal mentors—every single one of us. That has made such a difference to our lives, and it makes such a difference to the lives of the young people who we mentor.
Education is the key to unlocking disadvantage. Education is the key to providing a life of choice and chances, and that is the power of AIME. I just want to thank them and put on record, along with my colleagues on both sides of the House, just how extraordinary they are and how important they are to the future generations of young Indigenous people in this country.
I too rise to speak in support of the member for Rankin's motion which recognises this wonderful organisation, AIME.
Mentoring is vitally important. Research demonstrates that mentoring can have a positive impact on the behavioural, academic and vocational outcomes of vulnerable young people. And we know that mentoring is used throughout education to improve inclusivity in the classroom, to assist learning, to support vulnerable students, to promote positive links to the wider community and to enable students to benefit from that important support from their peers. And it seems an effective tool to assist in ending a cycle of disadvantage and inequality.
Shamefully, inequality and inequity are still present, whether in the form of intentional and vocal bigotry and bias or through systemic and generational barriers. Indeed, shamefully, just last week in our parliament we saw racist, bigoted and hurtful comments made. I stand with all those who forcefully reject those extreme views and continue to fight against those views. This is an example of one of the many barriers faced and where we must have change.
Of course, one of the biggest barriers we have to remove is difficulty in access to education. We know that inequality extends to education, with many people—especially young Indigenous people—not accessing educational opportunities. Factors leading to the inequity are many and varied. There are many systemic barriers which we as individuals, communities and government must work to break down. We have to provide the support, encouragement and funding to mobilise people to get involved.
It is this guidance and mentoring that is proven to assist many students to navigate decisions around which paths are best suited to them. Organisations like AIME are helping so much to break down these barriers through the effective medium of positive mentoring, which works towards bridging and closing the gap, and providing guidance and support for Indigenous students through the transition from high school into their adult lives.
As we've heard, AIME was founded by Jack Manning Bancroft in 2005 when he was only a 19-year-old university student. I might add that Jack's mum, Robyn, lives in Byron Bay in my electorate. Her artwork is recognised and well-known right around the world. Since AIME's foundation, around 15,000 students from high school have been mentored by over 5,000 university students. This is incredible growth from the 25 young people in Redfern that Jack began with. At 22, Jack was a CEO. In 2016 he became the youngest person in Australian history to receive an honorary doctorate, from the University of South Australia. This followed a number of awards and recognitions, including an honorary fellowship from the University of Western Sydney, a Healthy Harold education award, the University of Sydney young alumni of the year award, New South Wales Young Australian of the Year, an Australian Human Rights Medal and GQ Man of Inspiration.
AIME has also won numerous awards for its mentoring program, as featured in many articles in The Sydney Morning Herald, in the AustralianFinancial Review and also featured on television, The Drum and on The Project. Fourteen years on, the organisation is now branching out and running a global campaign in Uganda and South Africa. AIME has over 100 staff working around Australia in 40 different regions to bring the promise of Indigenous success to life. Seventy-three to 78 per cent of AIME students aged 17 to 25 are attending university and other training or are in employment. Historical data shows a comparison of only 40 per cent of non-AIME students in the same position. So this is a proven success; Indigenous students who complete the AIME program finish high school and transition to university, employment or other further training at almost the same rate as non-Indigenous students, effectively closing the gap. This program is clearly working. It is effective and has demonstrated a clearly positive impact on the lives of people involved, people like Taylor Laurie, who lives in my electorate of Richmond, who has been both a mentee and mentor for AIME.
So, like my colleagues here today, who have all spoken in support of AIME, I too call on the government and encourage them to explore this very, very successful model of mentoring. We know that it works. We know how successful it's been. We need to look at how we can strengthen and extend programs such as this to help address both Indigenous inequality and indeed the quality of life and educational opportunities for others who could really benefit from the success of mentoring.
The Closing the Gap report recognised that a common feature of programs that successfully encourage an increase in Indigenous attendance of school was creative collaboration between families and the community. AIME has been so successful in building on such collaboration since 2005. I commend their outstanding work and look forward to seeing how models like this can be adopted elsewhere. I commend Jack and everybody else involved with AIME. It is a hugely successful mentoring program offering such great support and guidance to young Indigenous people. Congratulations.
The question is that the motion be agreed to. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes with great relief that the young boys trapped in the caves in Thailand have all been rescued;
(2) congratulates the:
(a) Thai authorities on managing a successful rescue mission; and
(b) international effort to support the Thai authorities and bring the boys out;
(3) especially recognises the Australian support to the rescue mission;
(4) recognises Dr Richard Harris and Dr Craig Challen for their heroic actions during the rescue and their awarding of the Medal of the Order of Australia and the Star of Courage;
(5) further recognises the awarding of the Medal of the Order of Australia and the Bravery Medal to Troy Either, Robert James, Kelly Boers, Benjamin Cox, Matthew Fitzgerald, Justin Bateman and Chris Markcrow for their brave actions during the rescue;
(6) notes with sadness the tragic death of the Royal Thai Navy SEAL veteran during the rescue mission; and
(7) warmly congratulates all involved in the rescue mission and gives thanks for their courage and heroism.
Imagine for a moment you're in a pitch black space, cold water rushing all around you, and you're scrambling desperately to find some dry ground, but the water level just keeps rising. You're dressed in nothing but a light soccer uniform. You're cold, wet, hungry and scared. You're huddled together with your mates, hoping and praying that you'll see your families again and get to kick a soccer ball on the field again. You pray that you'll get out of the cave alive and see the light of day.
That is exactly what 12 young men of the Wild Boars soccer team and their young coach encountered when they found themselves deep in the Tham Luang cave system in northern Thailand after what was supposed to be an after-training excursion on 23 June. The excursion led them deep into the complex, kilometres-long cave system. Deep underground they became trapped when the caves were flooded with monsoonal rains. A massive search and rescue operation was quickly launched. It required divers experienced in the dangerous pursuit of cave diving. That's being underwater in scuba gear in openings as small as 40 centimetres—certainly not a job for the faint-hearted or a novice diver.
The government of Thailand put out a call for assistance to help their over 1,000 personnel, including Royal Thai Navy SEALs. Specialists from Australia, Britain, Japan, China, Myanmar and Laos and the US were involved. The Australian government provided the AFP's Specialist Response Group together with support from the ADF and DFAT. They played a key role in the rescue of the 12 boys and their coach. The AFP Specialist Response Group was supported by a contingent including the clearance diver from the Royal Australian Navy, who was part of the diving team working to free the boys and their coach. This group was supported by air crew, logistics, professionals and diplomatic staff here in Australia and on the ground in Thailand—skilled professionals who all contributed their expertise to help get these young boys out of the caves safe and well. The professionals exhibited the very best of the Australian spirit of helping out a mate. The rescuers were working in dark, cramped and dangerous conditions, flooded chambers with visibility limited to seeing the next rock only when you hit it.
The tragic death of a former Royal Thai Navy SEAL, from a lack of oxygen, brought home to all of us how dangerous the rescue mission was. I think it was at this point that so many of us feared the boys may not come out alive. The British divers found the boys and a rescue mission was hatched. It was hazardous—with poor visibility, debris and constricted passageways, and further rainfall predicted. We saw the boys in the headlamps of the divers. They had big smiles. They were very cold but they were alive and smiling. With the help of two Australian doctors—Richard 'Harry' Harris and Craig Challen—a plan was conceived, trained personnel and local children rehearsed above the ground, and evacuation procedures were drilled to perfection. Drs Harris and Challen dived in to the boys several times, making sure of their wellbeing and assessing them for extraction. We know the details and we know what great care was taken. Dr Harris and Dr Challen were in the cave for the entire rescue mission. I want to acknowledge their conspicuous courage in circumstances of great peril. These are the words set out on the Star of Courage, which both Dr Harris and Dr Challen were awarded.
Another part of the Australian contribution was chief petty officer and clearance diver Troy Eather who joined the rescue efforts. There were so many involved who were noted for their bravery. Senior Constable Justin Bateman, Leading Senior Constable Kelly Boers, Detective Leading Senior Constable Benjamin Cox, First Constable Matthew Fitzgerald, Acting Station Sergeant Robert James, Detective Leading Senior Constable Christopher Markcrow and Chief Petty Officer and Clearance Diver Troy Eather were all awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia as well as the Group Bravery Citation.
When we look at what happened here, we were all desperately worried. But we were very proud of the efforts of everyone involved—in particular, Dr Harris and Dr Challen, who were awarded the Star of Courage. The Group Bravery Citation, which I mentioned earlier, is awarded for a collective act of bravery by a group of people in extraordinary circumstances. In addition to the Medal of the Order of Australia, Dr Harris and Dr Challen were also awarded the Star of Courage, our second-highest bravery decoration, in recognition of the crucial part they played in the whole rescue operation. In this House, we salute the brave Australians and everybody involved in the rescue of these young men and their coach.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Disaster brings out the best in humanity. Whether it is a natural disaster like the fires, floods, earthquakes and droughts that we are seeing around the world right now, a major catastrophe such as the Genoa bridge collapse in Italy, or even an act of terrorism where innocent people lose their lives or are badly hurt, disaster often sees the best in people who come together to help those in need at a critical time. It is even more noticeable, however, when lives are still hanging by a thread and it becomes a race against time. Most of us can still recall the Beaconsfield mine collapse in Tasmania in 2006. Seventeen miners were trapped. One of them, sadly, was killed and two of them stayed waiting underground for nearly two weeks in the hope that they would be rescued.
More recently, we have the case of the 12 young boys who were trapped in the caves in Thailand. They were aged between 11 and 16 and they were with their 25-year-old coach. There was not a lot of experience among them and they were caught up in some terrible circumstances—undoubtedly with fear and desperation in their hearts as they waited to see whether they could be rescued. These are human emotions that we can all relate to and which become more profound when it is about the lives of children. It is this universal commonality of human emotion that overrides race, culture, colour or religion. So it was with the misadventure of the 12 boys and their coach. For most of us, they were total strangers whom we don't know and will probably never meet. But that didn't diminish our deeply-felt hope that they would be saved.
Hope alone is not enough. Their survival depended on a rescue operation where others had both the expertise and courage to launch a very difficult and risky rescue operation. It is no exaggeration to say that the risks were real, with one experienced diver, a Royal Thai Navy SEAL veteran, losing his own life. And we shouldn't forget him either.
It was a rescue operation that drew on the expertise and experience of people from around the world, as the member for Forrest has just pointed out, including people from Australia. A team of some 20 Australians, led by Dr Richard Harris and veterinarian Craig Challen, were crucial to the mission's success. If anyone needs any proof of Australian cultural diversity and acceptance at its best, then look to the Thai caves rescue mission. The Australians who participated in the rescue of those 12 boys and their coach made every Australian so proud. Dr Richard Harris, Craig Challen, Troy Eather, Robert James, Kelly Boers, Benjamin Cox, Matthew Fitzgerald, Justin Bateman and Chris Markcrow were all awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia, in recognition of their representation of this country and in recognition of what they did. Most of them were also given the Bravery Medal, with Richard Harris and Craig Challen also being given the Star of Courage medal. None of these people went to Thailand to seek glory. They went there because they knew that there was a desperate situation. But the public recognition offered to them by way of the medals that they were granted showed the gratitude of a nation, and rightly so. Indeed, I had several constituents contact me after the rescue asking for that to be done.
I was in Adelaide and was privileged to attend a reception at Government House, hosted by His Excellency the Hon. Hieu Van Le, in recognition of the leadership role of Dr Richard Harris. Dr Harris humbly accepted the praise and accolades afforded to him. But it became very evident that, for him, there had been a crisis situation in hand, he had some much-needed experience and expertise, and lives were at stake—that was all that mattered. There was a job to be done. And the Australians stood tall in the face of that adversity, when the global spotlight was on them, and their recognition did all of us proud. The recognition given to them is indeed well deserved. And I know that Dr Richard Harris came back to Adelaide and just went back into his normal life as a doctor, doing what he does best—saving lives.
I commend the member for Makin on those comments. I also rise today to support the member for Forrest, whose motion I wholeheartedly concur with. It is at times of great adversity that we're reminded of the true selflessness and compassion of the human race, and that was the case in July. Reports of the 12 young soccer players and their coach trapped in the flooded cave in Thailand saw the world transfixed and mesmerised by the life-and-death crisis and the unfolding miracle. The incredible story brought to the world's attention some amazing Australians who took part in the rescue. In particular, I want to acknowledge a South Australian with a rare combination of talents.
Dr Richard Harris, an anaesthetist from Adelaide with more than 30 years of cave-diving experience, was specifically requested to be part of the operation by British divers participating in the Thai rescue. With his diving partner, Western Australian Craig Challen, Dr Harris's unique set of skills set him to lead a team of eight Australians involved in the gruelling rescue in Chiang Rai Province, along with six members of the Australian Federal Police. They cooperated with experts from around the world—from Britain, Japan, China, Myanmar and Laos—and more than 30 US military personnel, who joined about a thousand Thai rescuers in the massive search and rescue operation. The combination of his medical knowledge and skills in cave diving—a perilous hobby in the best of circumstances—equipped Dr Harris for this dangerous and complex rescue operation. He risked his life to make the treacherous journey to the chamber where the boys were trapped underground for 15 days, and spent three days with them, assessing and monitoring their medical condition, before the rescue commenced.
Can you imagine the fear and trauma these boys had experienced: days and nights of pitch black, hungry and cold, huddled together and wondering if they would ever be found and be reunited with their families? Handprints found at the cave where the boys climbed deeper to escape the rising waters were amongst the first signs rescuers found showing where they were, how they had escaped the floods and the dangers the rescuers would face in the mission to save them. When the group was found by British divers, the world sighed in collective relief to hear all were alive and remarkably well, but now to get them out. The young boys were weakened and malnourished, with no scuba experience, so the expectations of success were not high. It was on the advice of Dr Harris that the first four boys were cleared to make the incredibly dangerous journey out of the flooded cave complex. It required his medical expertise to sedate the boys combined with his diving knowledge to help put in place the daring rescue plan. In the final day of the 18-day ordeal, the last person to emerge from the labyrinth of tunnels was Dr Harris, a true example of a great Australian, who sadly emerged to the devastating news that his father had passed away.
Here in Australia, we like to celebrate our heroes—there's nothing wrong with that and so we should—but I sometimes wonder whether others view our citizens in the same way. I can assure this parliament that, in this case, it is the reverse. Richard 'Harry' Harris is a rock star in Thailand. I was in Thailand recently and heard firsthand from the President of the Thai Senate how revered Dr Harris is in that incredibly grateful country. I applaud the role of the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre. The centre is a key element of the Australian government's disaster and emergency medical response to incidents of national and international significance. The centre trains first responders and supports experts for global emergencies. Dr Harris had completed an Australian medical assistance team course and was on the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre database with up-to-date training. It was from these credentials the decision was made that Dr Harris was the man for the job.
While we saw how fast and effectively international cooperation can solve problems and save lives, we also remember the courage and selflessness of former Thai Navy SEAL Saman Gunan, who died while volunteering in the rescue. Dr Harris and Dr Challen have been awarded the Star of Courage, the second-highest civilian bravery decoration in the Australian honours system. Six police and a Navy diver received the Bravery Medal. It is a time to be proud of our Australian heroes, but it's even more important that we celebrate our ability to work together in the common good.
Debate adjourned.
I present an interim report on behalf of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The resolution of appointment for this committee stipulated that the committee present an interim report on or before 20 September this year. The committee determined that it would be beneficial to table this discussion paper as an interim report to provide guidance on the scope of the inquiry to individuals and organisations making a submission.
This discussion paper sets out the areas that are of particular interest to the committee—it is not a comprehensive overview of this far-reaching topic. Intergenerational disadvantage is a topic that touches on many aspects of public policy. To make some progress, it's important to note that this inquiry is not a review of the entire welfare system; rather, it will focus on the intergenerational welfare dependence of families and the outcomes for children.
To this end, the committee is guided by three foundational questions:
Whether these questions are as straightforward as they may seem, the committee is well aware they cannot be answered without agreed definitions and access to data.
A fundamental question for the inquiry is the definition of 'welfare'. At its broadest, welfare can be defined as all social assistance payments. The committee believes that it will be useful to focus on payments to working-age people who have a capacity to work.
A key element of this inquiry is identifying accurate and reliable data that can illustrate the scale, scope and impact of intergenerational welfare dependence. This interim report has identified several data sources. However, the committee is aware long-term intergenerational data is limited. As such, the committee is keen to learn of any other datasets or data sources that can assist in determining disadvantage, particularly across generations.
With agreed definitions and data, the committee will be in a position to focus on families and improving outcomes for children. Understanding why some families require welfare assistance for short periods only and why others become trapped in the system is vital to designing measures and programs that might be used to break this destructive cycle.
As I myself and many others have said in this place before, having employment has a profound effect on people's wellbeing and the long-term prospects of their children. We know there are generally large differences in outcomes between those with the highest levels of parental welfare dependence and those with none.
As part of the inquiry, the committee is keen to hear evidence on the primary influences on children that may affect their later labour force engagement. Importantly, we are also interested in hearing evidence based on interventions that have proven effective in addressing intergenerational welfare dependence.
Today, in addition to tabling the interim report, this inquiry has officially been launched. The committee welcomes submissions to its inquiry from individuals and other stakeholders across Australia.
I encourage everyone—people who are interested in this particular issue—to consider the causes, impact and potential solutions to help curb intergenerational welfare dependence in Australia.
Submissions are open until 18 September and more information can be found on the committee's website at www.aph.gov.au/IGWD.
I look forward to working alongside my colleagues on the committee throughout this inquiry process.
by leave—I want to echo the very reasonable and wise words from the member for McMillan. I don't want to take up too much of the chamber's time other than to make the point that I've been heartened by the spirit of cooperation that Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence has started with this process. It's very important for us to focus on what we can do to break the cycle of entrenched disadvantage, which was the nub of what the member for McMillan was talking about. We will certainly not be demonising welfare. Welfare can be defined as a social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material wellbeing of people in need. It's as simple as that. It is not a dirty word. Often, many people who have made it to this place have relied on welfare at some stage of their life. It's part of the social contract of this nation that we look after people in need. This committee is about how we break cycles of entrenched social disadvantage, particularly for children who grow up in households with a disproportionate dependence on welfare. We've been heartened by the start of the committee. I look forward to this committee working in a truly bipartisan manner to make some strong recommendations for this government and future governments on how we can break that cycle. I commend the report to the House.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the next day of sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 is, at first sight, uncontroversial and has support from both sides, but, to me, it does not go far enough. As a medical professional, I have seen the great risks and dangers that a shortage in certain medicines poses for patients across many countries. I have worked and seen in South-East Asia and in other parts of Asia the difficulties that medication shortages can cause communities.
I'm very concerned that, in Australia, we are seeing an increasing number of medications have shortages, often with very little explanation as to the reasons why. We're often quoted manufacturing difficulties, supply chain difficulties or import difficulties for some very common medications. These include broad-spectrum antibiotics which people would be familiar with, such as minocycline and ampicillin, which are used to treat simple respiratory infections; and fentanyl, which is pain relief medication used for severe pain. It also includes some vaccines. In particular, in the recent influenza season, we've had shortages of the particularly high-dose influenza vaccine. More recently, we've been faced with shortages and lack of supply of EpiPens used to treat acute life-threatening anaphylaxis. To me, this is an issue that is not going to go away.
This bill will go a little way towards encouraging pharmaceutical companies to maintain supplies of certain medications. Maintaining supplies of many different medications is something that we will find increasingly difficult in the modern world, with the disappearance of manufacturing in Australia and the lack of reserve supplies kept in Australia for many common medications. Sadly, the manufacturing base in Australia continues to shrink. With this shrink will come an increase in the likelihood of medication shortages. Whilst this legislation is about being prepared for such instances, and, hopefully, about ensuring we're able to have a timely response to prevent such instances arising in the first place, I do have my doubts that there is sufficient incentive for the remaining large pharmaceutical companies to maintain supplies of off-patent medications.
From my medical career as a paediatrician, I can certainly attest to the impact a lack of proper medication has upon my patients, both in hospital and in ambulatory-care practice, and their families. Time and time again, I've witnessed the rapid increase in quality of life for the patient and their families when a child's been given a medical treatment that they require and that previously has not been available. Take epilepsy, for example. It's a common and mostly permanent condition affecting around three per cent of the population. This is a condition which, without appropriate treatment and medication, can control the life of a child and their family. About 70 per cent of all epilepsy sufferers have their condition treated with medication and remain well because of it. It's vitally important that sufferers of epilepsy take their medication regularly and on schedule. Failure to do so can cause seizures, which can sometimes be life threatening. It's therefore critical that supply of these medications is closely monitored.
Asthma is another common condition which impacts upon daily life of many members of our community and, indeed, a significant number of the members of this House. I recently had the pleasure of relaunching the Parliamentary Friends of Asthma group, alongside the member for Barker. Those present at the launch had the opportunity to hear from guest speakers and representatives from Asthma Australia, who were able to effectively convey the need for medications to be taken seriously and to make sure we maintain adequate supplies of these medications. During the recent thunderstorm asthma epidemic in Victoria, many pharmacies actually ran out of medications for asthma—again, illustrating the fragile nature of our supply chain for these vital medications.
I have already mentioned the shortage of EpiPens. My experience is quite a personal one, as some members of my family do have anaphylaxis and require their EpiPens to be kept with them at all times. To go to a pharmacy and be told, 'There are no EpiPens available, and we don't know when we're going to get them,' is shocking.
Complacency in our ability to provide medications is widespread, even amongst medical practitioners and pharmacists. We need to be very careful in this space. We are already seeing regular shortages of a number of medications, and my fear is that this will increase as there is very little incentive for manufacturing companies to manufacture in Australia and for importing companies to import significant quantities of off-patent medications—often very important medications—unless we have a better system of making sure we maintain supplies. EpiPens are one example; broad spectrum antibiotics are another. Even some of the other countries around the world, such as the United States, have recently had shortages of injectable hospital medications—particularly antibiotics, which have reached a critical situation. Australia is only a very small proportion of the pharmaceutical market, compared to the United States.
We are increasingly seeing vaccines becoming available for many previously fatal illnesses, such as meningococcal disease and haemophilus influenzae type B, which can cause meningitis and epiglottitis in children. My fear is that, unless we have better supply chain practices, some manufacturing in Australia and reserve supplies of these medications, we will be in serious trouble. We need to make sure that these medications are available in sufficient quantities to meet with demand.
Recently we've had shortages of the medication Metformin XR, which is the most commonly used medication for type 2 diabetes. The fact that we could have a shortage of such a widely-used, relatively cheap and well-known medication is a sign, to me, that the system is impaired. Whilst this medication will go a little way to improving the situation, it is by no means sufficient. I encourage the government to look further with the regulation of the pharmaceutical industry in making sure that Australia maintains supplies of these vital medications—particularly things such as vaccines, broad spectrum antibiotics, anti-epileptics and medications for diabetes—so that we can look forward to a future when these drugs will be readily available to all.
I rise to speak in support of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018, as it will go some way to improving continuity of supply of critical medications in Australia. I'm pleased to follow my colleague, the member for Macarthur, Dr Mike Freelander, and I echo his concerns about the critical shortage of lifesaving medications that we experience all too commonly in Australia today. This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to introduce a mandatory reporting scheme for medicine shortages and decisions to permanently discontinue supply involving high-risk medicines in Australia, and for the introduction of civil penalties for noncompliance with the scheme.
I come to this legislation with some experience. I've been a pharmacist for 20 years. I was the Chief Pharmacist of Wyong Hospital, in my electorate of the New South Wales Central Coast, for many years and later sat on our local Central Coast health district's Drugs and Therapeutics Committee. I've been the person who picked up the fax alert—and, yes, in public hospitals they're still commonplace—late on Friday afternoon that a medication such as fentanyl, which is difficult to run an operating theatre without, was out of stock. Currently, 0.5 per cent plain bupivacaine is out of stock and won't be available for at least another three to six months, which means that common procedures like hip and knee surgery are affected. I've been part of drug and therapeutics committees' decisions considering individual patient use applications from specialists for patients on discontinued medications, such as antipsychotics like thioridazine, through the Special Access Scheme, or SAS, as it's the only treatment that is effective and keeps someone out of hospital.
One of the central roles of any pharmacy service in all settings is inventory control, particularly of life-saving medicines, where a shortage or discontinuation would be of critical impact. I welcome any measure that would improve certainty or continuity of supply and early notification of a discontinuation or shortage.
Early in my career, it was rare to experience shortages in commonly prescribed medications. It's now becoming increasingly common. Medicine shortages represent a growing and potentially life-threatening risk to patients in Australia whose health depends on access to those medicines. Medicine shortages may occur, and do, more frequently in a more globalised economy with consolidation of manufacturing operations and less manufacturing occurring locally, in Australia. Many people might be surprised that common medications such as insulin aren't manufactured in Australia. If there were a critical shortage, where would that leave diabetics in our community? If more production occurs in fewer sites with the consolidation of the globalised economy in manufacturing, especially overseas, there may be less redundancy and more risk of interruptions.
I spoke to a director of pharmacy yesterday, and he was lamenting that we now end up in a queue, and the Australian market or the Australasian market isn't a big market to global pharmaceutical companies. Without local capacity to manufacture, if there is a shortage, there can't be a quick upscale in manufacturing to be able to respond to a change in demand. It's a significant concern. With manufacturing or production occurring in fewer sites—especially overseas, as I pointed out—there'll be less redundancy and more risk of interruptions. Similarly, a single manufacturing plant may produce multiple brands of a particular medicine that has the same pharmaceutical ingredients. When a disruption occurs, many brands are affected at the same time.
The voluntary notification scheme where sponsors are encouraged to notify the TGA of medicine shortages hasn't worked. In fact, I was at a pharmacy training course over the weekend and thought I'd ask the pharmacists there. Many pharmacists that I spoke to weren't aware that this voluntary scheme had been introduced or hadn't seen any improvement since its introduction. Under this scheme, a significant number of shortages of medicines with a critical impact on patients haven't been reported, and therefore a mandatory scheme is considered necessary. An example—I know this example has been discussed before—is the recent shortage of EpiPens, which wasn't reported to the TGA until January 2018, despite Australia's only EpiPen supplier being aware of the issue in November the year before.
This has been such a critical issue that the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia, of which I'm a member, conducted a survey last April. It really highlights the widespread nature and extent of this problem. The SHPA gathered data from 280 healthcare facilities across Australia. What it revealed was that stopgap solutions such as ordering medicines from overseas or using emergency stock have now become commonplace. The SHPA president, Professor Michael Dooley, said:
… the results of the … survey show the extent of medicines shortages across Australian hospitals is broad - and worsening -and processes for monitoring are struggling to keep up.
Information about current or impending shortages was also found to be 'highly unreliable', with shortages flagged by pharmaceutical suppliers only 15 per cent of the time, according to the survey respondents. Professor Dooley said:
When we cross-referenced the responses with warnings and alerts available that day through government websites, including TGA's Medicine Shortages Information portal, 85 per cent of reported shortages were not listed by their respective companies—
according to the survey. Further, he continued:
There are … worrying signs beyond the data - anecdotally, many pharmacists contacted SHPA saying they wanted to list additional shortages, but ran out of time.
This is commonplace when you're working in pharmacy departments in public hospitals, particularly when the alert comes through, as it commonly does, on Friday afternoon and, firstly, you have to see what stock you have within the pharmacy department, then what stock is impressed in the wards of the hospital and then whether it's something that there is isn't a substitute for or another way of accessing. I've been in the situation, which is a very uncomfortable situation, where you have to talk to the executive of the hospital about trying to get something put in a cab from Royal North Shore to get to Wyong Hospital in order for somebody to receive the treatment they need.
According to the SHPA, 70 per cent of respondents found out about medicine shortages when trying to order stock, prompting them to switch brand of drug, or to use emergency stock or to procure stock through the TGA Special Access Scheme. Typically, this increased costs in 93 per cent of cases. Just over 32 per cent of shortages were reported to have had a direct impact on patient care. This was through swapping to a less-effective medicine; changing the administration due to a different form or route of administration—perhaps by switching from IV to oral medication; or, in many cases, through a lack of suitable alternative. Hospital pharmacists reported 1,577 individual shortages across a wide range of medicine classes, with the top five being: antimicrobial medicines, with almost 40 percent of shortages; anaesthetics—and I did mention bupivacaine plain at five per cent, which is out of stock at the moment; cardiology medicines; and endocrinology medicine, which Dr Mike Freelander, the member for Macarthur, touched on earlier. He mentioned about Metformin XR, which is one of the most commonly prescribed medicines for type 2 diabetes, being out of stock for a prolonged period of time. The list finishes then with chemotherapies.
SHPA CEO, Kristin Michaels, notes that Canada has recently regulated the reporting of shortage of medicines and vaccines by manufacturers and wholesalers, providing our Australian government with a precedent to address this urgent issue. These measures have been developed in consultation with industry and are supported by the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia and The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia, as I have mentioned. In commenting on the introduction of this legislation, the SHPA CEO, Kristin Michaels, said:
… a nationwide system for managing and communicating medicines shortages through the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) will improve patient outcomes.
I welcome this. Further, she said:
The prioritising of medicines used to treat acutely ill patients in hospitals, through the Medicines Watch List—
Which I have been looking at today—
will reduce the will reduce the amount of time hospital pharmacists spend seeking alternative or replacement medicines.
Hospital pharmacists provide care for the more seriously ill Australians and, by prioritising the visibility of shortages of medicines that are critical to this acute care, pharmacy teams can ensure they are on the front foot managing and resolving shortages before they adversely affect patients.
The PSA, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, has also emphasised pharmacists' firsthand experience with confused and distressed patients, and their carers, when a medicine—especially for an emergency health situation or chronic condition—is not available. It's a very difficult conversation to have with a patient or a carer when you have to explain to them that the only medication that keeps them well, or the only medication that they can tolerate if they're a treatment refractory patient, is one that isn't available.
These measures will go some way in making sure of continuity of supply, so that patients, carers, pharmacists and prescribers aren't landed in the situation—which they are too commonly now—where there isn't the lead time to be able to make those clinical considerations or to discuss with the patient and their carer what an appropriate substitute might be, how they might be able to access it and what it might mean for their continuity of care.
I have seen this myself, especially in my role as a mental health pharmacist in acute inpatient units, when a medication has been discontinued and the patient has less than a few week's supply. They don't know whether their only option might be to risk switching to a less-effective medication or to be admitted to hospital—not something that most mental health patients want. Understandably, that is quite distressing for all patients.
To put it in a global context, the PSA, the SHPA and others understand that medicine shortages occur worldwide for a variety of reasons. They have worked closely with the TGA and other stakeholders to help improve the response to shortages, but there are still significant gaps and problems in this procurement pathway in Australia. The PSA supports mandatory reporting of medicine shortages which is based on the risk assessment of likely impact on patients. It also seeks timely and accurate information to pharmacists and prescribers so that optimum patient care can be supported—not that last-minute fax that you pick off the machine on a Friday afternoon, or only finding out that the medication you ordered hasn't arrived because there's a slip sitting on top of the stock.
The PSA and the SHPA have welcomed this legislation. Medicines Australia has also welcomed it. So this is a culmination of working together with the sector to review the issues of medicine shortages in Australia. The partnership of Medicines Australia and the broader group of stakeholders, led by the TGA, has developed a comprehensive protocol which will be implemented through this legislation. As I said at the outset, this legislation will go some way to ensuring there is timely and relevant information available on the supply of medicines, which should assist patients, their doctors and other allied health professionals to manage their treatment plans so they receive uninterrupted care.
Before I conclude, I will go back to draw on my experience as a pharmacist for 20 years and a mental health pharmacist for 15 years. It causes distress and confusion for patients and their carers when the only medication that keeps them well is discontinued. For example, I remember the discontinuation of Mellaril thioridazine. It was discontinued voluntarily because of its severe cardiac complications, but for some patients it was the only medication that kept them well. I remember conversations with individual patients and their treating psychiatrists about what we might be able to do in order for them to be able to continue accessing the only medication that kept them well. Many of you may know that medications have an onset of action. Particularly for antipsychotic medications or antidepressant medications, that onset of action may be several weeks rather than the hours or days in other therapies. Switching, washout periods and swapping is something that is clinically very complex and does require an appropriate period of time and sometimes a hospital admission. It also is something that for the person themselves can compromise their care just from them having to confront the idea that the only medication that has worked for them, often after several treatment failures and lot of switching and swapping in the past and having to manage side-effects, is being discontinued. Many of these drugs are really dirty drugs with very severe side-effects. So when they have found one that works with them and where they can manage the side-effects and stay well, having to switch medications, particularly at short notice, is something that is distressing for them, potentially risky and needs to be properly addressed.
In conclusion, we know the new scheme will principally apply to prescription medicines. Some of my former colleagues have said that they believe this watchlist should be expanded and that other medications should be considered as ones that would have a critical impact. I'm sure that will be something that will be looked at over time. I welcome the fact that this is now being made mandatory, because it's evident from my experience as a hospital pharmacist and from my experience on hospital drug and therapeutic committees and assessing IPUs that the current system is broken and does need to be urgently redressed.
On the shortage of critical impact drugs and this notification of within two working days when it's 'reasonably known', I'm sure that suppliers and manufacturers will enter into this in the spirit of it and make this notification as soon as possible, because sometimes two days is too long. With other shortages it's within 10 working days. Again, early in my career you didn't see the shortages of common antibiotics or common medications that you see now. I think there needs to be a wider look at this particular problem, but I welcome the measures that have been taken. I look forward to there being an improvement in continuity of supply and I look forward to there being more work done in this space.
I'd like to thank all members for their contribution to the debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill of 2018. I want to acknowledge the contributions, amongst others, of the opposition in general but particularly the member for Macarthur and the member for Dobell, who bring considerable personal experience and expertise in this space. I remain—and I would say this in the most constructive spirit to the member for Dobell—open to any meetings, discussions or suggestions she may have at a further time on further measures. I think as a former hospital pharmacist hers is unique knowledge in this building. She's probably still registered, I assume.
This bill will support Australian patients by introducing a scheme for the mandatory reporting of medicine shortages and decisions to permanently discontinue the supply of medicines in Australia for higher risk, mostly prescription medicines. Medicine shortages have become an increasing problem in recent years, and a shortage of critical medicines places patient safety at risk. The recent shortage of EpiPen autoinjectors, which are critical in the response to severe allergic reactions in many people, including children, whose lives can depend on having rapid access to this life-saving medicine is a case in point. The current voluntary scheme for reporting medicine shortages by sponsors has, unfortunately, proven to be ineffective and a significant number of shortages of critical patient impact not been reported to the TGA. This means the TGA is not always able to alert the Australian public or their health practitioners to such shortages or for steps to be taken to alleviate the effects of a shortage for patients.
The purpose of this bill is, therefore, to amend the act to require the reporting of all medicine shortages and decisions to permanently discontinue reportable medicines within specified time frames supported by appropriate civil penalties for noncompliance. In particular, a shortage that is of critical impact for patients must be notified to the Secretary of the Department of Health as soon as possible but no later than two working days after the sponsor knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the shortage. This will enable complete and current information to be available to patients, healthcare professionals and those involved in stock management in healthcare facilities. Shortages cannot always be avoided. But, when they do occur, this mandatory reporting scheme will help Australian consumers to be more aware in advance and better enable measures to be put in place to minimise the risk to patients such as redirecting of supply to where it is most needed or considering alternative treatments for patients while the medicine is an shortage.
I would like to acknowledge in particular Professor John Skerritt, the head of the TGA, and other officials of the TGA for their work in developing this important new scheme. I also want to acknowledge both Alex Best and Sam Bevlin, my previous and current medicines and pharmaceuticals advisers, for their work and their contribution. This work, and this bill, adds to the broader improvements to medicines regulation resulting from the expert review of medicines and medical devices regulation which are being implemented by the government.
I would also like to recognise and thank state and territory health departments and the key industry and clinical representative groups for their support in developing this important scheme. In particular, the AMA has been extraordinarily constructive as have the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia and members of the Medicines Partnership of Australia, including the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, Medicines Australia, the Australian Self Medication Industry, the National Pharmaceutical Services Association, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association.
This has been an example of all sides of parliament, Commonwealth and state governments, the experts in the sector and community representatives working to achieve an outcome that will improve access to medicines with certainty and predictability and, therefore, improve patient outcomes. I thank all of those involved and commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the report Report 3/2018, Referrals made May 2018, of August 2018.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's third report for this year.
The report considers two proposals referred to the committee, one in May, from the Department of Defence, that proposal being the Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defence Capability Facilities Project.
The project is part of the wider LAND 21-10 Phase 1B capability project. LAND 21-10 is a multiphase project providing the Australian Defence Force with improved defence against chemical and other weapons, to ensure that it can operate in current and future threat environments.
The project aims to support the protection of ADF personnel by providing mask testing and storage facilities across no less than 14 sites across the country and refurbishing, also, existing facilities.
The estimated cost of the project is $16.67 million, excluding GST.
The second proposal is the Jindalee Operational Radar Network Phase 6 Facilities Project.
The Jindalee Operational Radar Network or JORN is Australia's first comprehensive land and air early warning system. It provides 24-hour military surveillance of the northern and western approaches to Australia, while also assisting in the detection of illegal entry, smuggling and unlicensed fishing. It is a high frequency, skywave over-the-horizon radar.
JORN Phase 6 is a project to update facilities to maximise efficiencies, providing increased capability that has arisen from advancements in innovation and technology, and supporting the changing operational model of the radar 3 site at Alice Springs.
The estimated cost of that project is $50.7 million, excluding GST.
The committee has recommended that these two projects should proceed.
Mr Speaker, I will keep my comments brief and commend both of those to the House on behalf of Public Works.
I rise to speak on the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. The bill makes a number of amendments to the Migration Act, the Customs Act and the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act. The bill is quite a broad-ranging bill. It is a miscellaneous bill that covers a whole range of aspects of the department, and I'm going to take the opportunity to talk about various aspects of the department and the administration of it.
The bill clarifies when a noncitizen is in the migration zone and ensures a bar on applying for further visas remains in place if the process of being removed is interrupted. It allows the department to provide information to visa applicants via their online ImmiAccount, reduces the risk of breaching the Constitution where refunds are mistakenly made from consolidated revenue, and establishes an ability to recover merchant fees for services.
Labor will support the passage of this legislation because it clarifies a number of minor issues across the vast range of the Home Affairs portfolio—which used to be called, of course, Immigration and Border Protection. The bill, however, does not explain or account for the Minister for Home Affairs' ongoing mismanagement of his own department.
Schedule 1 of the bill outlines amendments relating to the removal of a noncitizen from the migration zone and ensures a bar on applying for further visas remains in place if the process of being removed is interrupted. Section 198 of the Migration Act allows for the removal from Australia of unlawful noncitizens. Unlawful noncitizens can include those who have breached the conditions of their visa or have overstayed their visa. The removal of unlawful noncitizens is important for the safety and security of all Australians. At times, the removal of an unlawful noncitizen can be aborted or the removal can be complete but the person is not permitted entry into the receiving country. Some examples could be: an aircraft being forced mid-flight to return to Australia, or the government deciding to cancel the removal in response to an interim-measures request from the United Nations. If a situation such as this occurs and the person is required to return to Australia as a direct result, these amendments will allow for that person to have a lawful basis to return to Australia without a visa and ensure that, when such a person does return to Australia without a visa, there's a bar on the person from actually making a visa application for certain visas. In fact, it protects the integrity of the immigration system.
The Department of Home Affairs can already communicate with individuals applying for visas in a number of ways. This includes giving documents by hand, post, email, fax or other electronic means. Schedule 2 of the bill amends certain sections of the Migration Act to allow the department to provide visa applicants information and documents via their online ImmiAccount. The department describes this account as the front door to their online services. I hope these amendments improve the department's ability to process visa applications in a timely manner—something which is becoming increasingly problematic under the current minister, as I will allude to later in this speech.
Schedule 3 reduces the risk of breaching the Constitution where refunds are mistakenly made from consolidated revenue. Section 83 of the Constitution provides that no amount may be paid out of consolidated revenue, except under an appropriation made by law. The department currently operates mainly on a client self-assessment basis for the collection, refund and drawback of duty in an integrated cargo system. Due to this system, there's a chance refunds and drawbacks which aren't allowed are still being made and are currently in breach of the Constitution, particularly section 83. The amendment reduces the risk of breaching the Constitution and also implementing a requirement for the secretary of the department to report in the annual report any payments APS employees are aware of that are made for that financial year.
The amendments in schedule 4 apply to the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act. Persons seeking to depart Australia are liable to pay a charge known as a passenger movement charge. Currently, the Department of Home Affairs incurs a merchant fee if the passenger pays the movement charge with a credit card. This cost is incurred by the department and, in turn, the Australian taxpayer. The amendments before the House allow the department to add a new paragraph to section 15 of the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act allowing for regulations to recover this cost incurred by the department. This move is consistent with the fee-for-service that the department recovers for other current statutory portfolio charges, fees and duties which are paid by credit card or by PayPal.
Finally, there are a number of additional minor amendments outlined in schedule 5 of the bill which apply to the Customs Act. These amendments include some wording clarification, such as adding the words 'to an external place' to two paragraphs in section 58A of the act. The purpose of section 58A of the Customs Act is to control the movement of persons and goods between sea installations installed in an adjacent area and the coastal area of Australia or a resources installation attached to the Australian seabed or an external place. The words 'to an external place' were inadvertently omitted by the Customs Legislation Amendment Act. (No. 1) 1999. Of course, I welcome the current coalition government's attempts to fix the drafting errors of a previous coalition government.
The Minister for Home Affairs has been woefully incompetent in managing portfolio responsibilities. As I said, this bill deals with visas. I want to go into visa issues here. One of the consistent complaints I hear, along with many of my colleagues, is how visa processing times at the Department of Home Affairs have blown out under the minister and the Turnbull government. I'm sure that even members on the other side would have received numerous complaints about visa processing times, which their own government has control of. For the month ended 30 April 2017, the processing of 90 per cent of applications for partner visas, subclass 820, took 19 months. For the month ended 30 June 2018, a year later, the processing of 90 per cent of applications for partner visas, subclass 820, took 30 months. That's a blowout. That's an increase of 11 months in the processing time for partner visas. That's shocking and shameful. This means that there are Australians who now have to wait 2½ years and put their lives on hold while their partner's visa is being approved. Partner visas are just one of the many types of visas available in Australia. The minister must explain why visa processing times have slowed down on his watch and what his department's going to do to fix this growing backlog.
Recently, the minister has been beating his chest about cutting Australia's total migration program—the number of permanent migrants settling in Australia pursuant to visas. In the 2017-18 financial year there were 162,000 people granted permanent visas in Australia, including those on skilled visas who want to call this country home or people who've been granted family reunion visas, such as partner visas. This figure was a reduction of 21,000 compared to the previous financial year. It was splashed across newspapers and in the media as a 'cut' to Australia's permanent migration levels.
At the very same time, as of 30 June 2018, there were over 176,000 people on bridging visas in Australia—over 38,000 more people compared to the year before. Bridging visas are temporary visas that allow people to stay in Australia after their current visa ceases, while they're waiting for their next visa application to be processed or whilst they're making arrangements to leave the country. Since the member for Dickson became the responsible minister in 2014, the number of people on bridging visas in Australia has increased, if you compare each quarter, year on year.
Why has the number of people on bridging visas blown out of control under the minister's watch? How many of the 176,000 people currently on bridging visas are waiting for the Department of Home Affairs to process their visa applications? How many people on bridging visas are still in Australia as they wait to become permanent residents? The minister claims to have cut permanent migration, but it seems as though he's playing a game of smoke and mirrors with Australia's permanent migration level and visas in particular.
This bill deals with multiple aspects of the Department of Home Affairs. There have been multiple reports from the ANAO giving scathing indictments of the way the minister has failed to manage his department, the most recent of which was the report The integration of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, delivered on 6 June 2018. The Auditor-General's report found that, of the 33 consultant contracts—more than $1 million in total that were used as part of the department's integration only two were ever evaluated for efficiency. The department even then ended a two-year project worth $17.6 million one year early because it wasn't satisfied with the performance of the firm it hired. Despite being so unsatisfied with the performance of these consultants, the department has already paid 97 per cent of the value of the contract when it was cut short halfway through. This is really an out-of-touch and disgraceful act by the government, spending $17.1 million of taxpayers' money without considering where the money might have been better spent. The same Auditor-General's report found the department's record keeping in a critically poor state, and almost half of the senior executive service officers in the department in July 2015 were no longer there in July 2017.
Bear in mind that the member for Dickson became the responsible minister in December 2014. If the minister can't keep track of his pennies or retain senior executives in the department, how can he be trusted with Australia's domestic security agencies? Of course, in the short time since the minister took the reins of his megadepartment, we've seen political infighting, interference with national security policy, highly sensitive security documents being leaked, departmental jobs outsourced to multinational companies and the termination of the Australian Border Force Commissioner.
As part of the 2018-19 budget, the Treasurer announced that the government was going to spend $7 million to review the Department of Home Affairs. When the review was announced, the department—the pride of the minister and the secretary—was less than five months old. The strategic review of the minister's megadepartment is particularly telling given that there was no review that actually recommended the establishment of the Department of Home Affairs in the first place. The $7 million review was handed down in the same budget as the government stripped $250 million in administration costs from the same department.
The question remains: why did the Prime Minister grant this particular minister, the member for Dickson, such unprecedented powers in the first place, only to put him on notice nine months later? Is the Prime Minister so fearful of losing his job, as we've seen in the media today, that he had to appease at that particular time and continue to appease the member for Dickson? There's not even speculation—
The honourable member is now straying a little far from the bill. I know it's a miscellaneous bill, but this is a little far.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I note you've pulled me up in relation to that, and in fact you've got me right to the end of my speech. We're going to support this bill and the minor amendments it implements across various parts of the Home Affairs portfolio. However, the bill does not and will not account for what I think is—and it is quite clear from the reports that I've referred to—a tick-and-flick attitude by the Minister for Home Affairs. We'll always hold the minister to account in his ever-growing list of failures relating to the mismanagement of his department. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to make a few brief remarks on the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. I will speak to this in more detail when it proceeds to the Senate, because it seems that yet another home affairs bill is passing this House with the opposition's support. As is well known, the Greens did not support the creation of the home affairs department and the concentration of such a significant amount of power under a minister who, frankly, sends a shiver down the spine of most people in this country. The idea of having him having ever more power, including by this bill, is something that most people would find extraordinarily frightening.
Whilst there might be a number of items in this bill that are so-called technical and miscellaneous, as has been suggested by the government and the opposition, one of the things that I didn't hear examined in the contribution from the Labor Party was the provisions in schedule 1 and, in particular, what the Joint Committee on Human Rights had to say about them. As we know, in Australia, because we have this bipartisan approach to offshore detention, which is breaking people and killing people, someone who comes into Australia seeking our help isn't met with an open hand; they're met with a closed fist. We send them into, effectively, prisons. In those prisons, where they are indefinitely detained—some of those prisons were opened by the Labor Party, but the government is continuing to run them—we know it breaks those people. At the moment we're seeing children, some of whom have known no other life than a life in detention, increasingly reaching breaking point and being unable to function, and sometimes their parents are unable to look after them because they're spending their lives locked up as well.
One of the things that this bill does is deal with the situation of people who've come here seeking our help and who are then sent back—because that's what we do now in this country; we don't look after them and process their claims; we try and send them back—they're sent back and then, when they're sent back, they're refused entry and then potentially returned back to Australia again. This bill attempts to deal with some of the situations that might arise there. You've come to Australia seeking help; you get turned away, put on a plane and sent back; the place that they send you back to doesn't want to take you. What happens to you then? What this bill says is: if the plane turns around and brings you back to Australia, you still have no rights.
Think about this for a moment. In the situation where, if you're leaving country A and coming to Australia, and Australia sends you back to country A, and country A then says, 'No, we don't want this person—turn the plane around and send them back to Australia'—you would think that would be a very good indication that they are not safe in country A, if country does not want them. But no: what will happen under this bill is that it's made clear, by reference to the changes to the Migration Act, that when they come back here it's as if we maintain the legal fiction that they were never entitled to anything in the first place and—this is of great concern—they remain barred from coming back and seeking assistance again.
This is why the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the red flag about this bill. You would think that if you come to Australia and get knocked back, and part of the reason for getting knocked back might be that Australia says, 'We think you could actually be safe in your country of origin', if Australia tries to send them back to the country of origin and the country of origin says, 'No' and they come back to Australia, you would think the officials in the Australian department might say, 'Maybe we need to reassess this application. They're not welcome in that third country, after all. That third country does not want to take them, so perhaps we ought to, at a minimum, re-assess their application.' What this bill does is say, 'No, in that situation, you have absolutely no right to put in a further application.' The fact that your country of origin—it might be your country of origin or it might be a completely different country—has said, 'We don't want you,' means nothing to Australia now. That's what this bill says.
On any sensible reading, you would think that that's a relevant factor that should be taken into account when someone makes the decision again. You would think that that person, at the very least, ought to have the right to come back to the Australian government and say: 'Look, you've just tried to send me over to this other country'—perhaps it was the country they came from or perhaps it was somewhere else—'and they've turned the plane around. You ought to reassess my application on the basis of that new information and take it into account, because this is one of the things I've told you. It is the reason I fear for my safety. It's relevant to my circumstances. Take it into account. They've just turned the plane around on me. In the last 24 hours you've tried to deport me, and now I'm back here because there's nowhere for me to go.' You would think that, in that instance, at the very least, you could put in a new application and it would be considered on its merits. You would think that that is probably proof of or evidence towards what that person has been saying in the first place—but, no, under this, there is a statutory bar on applying.
The parliamentary joint committee raised concerns about this. It requested advice from the minister about it and said, 'This potentially does not comply with some of our obligations but, in any event, it's probably not a fair thing to do under Australian law and so we shouldn't do it.' You would think that, in that instance, that's something that the government would consider seriously. Even if you want to keep up the hardline border policy—which we know that Labor and the Liberals do—or even if you want to do it as a stepping stone to trying to become Prime Minister, you would think that, as a basic principle, you would say, 'If there's new information, it should be taken into account.' It's not even necessarily automatically opening the door; it's just saying 'take it into account'. But that's not where we're at. This bill can't be described as simply a technical bill or simply only about miscellaneous matters. The Greens will be giving this matter further examination when it comes to the Senate. At the moment, we can't support this bill.
I want to thank members for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. The bill will amend several provisions in the Migration Act 1958, the Customs Act 1901 and the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978. Amendments to the Migration Act 1958 in the bill will ensure that, when an unlawful noncitizen is in the process of being removed to another country under section 198 of this act and the removal is aborted, or completed but the person is not permitted entry into the destination country and, as a direct result, is returned to Australia, that person has a lawful basis to return to Australia without a visa. It will also allow the Department of Home Affairs to use an online account, such as an ImmiAccount, to provide clients with certain legally required communications and ensure that documents provided in this way are taken to be received at the end of the day on which they are made available through their ImmiAccount.
The bill also amends the Customs Act 1901 to insert a new provision similar to section 15C of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to allow the Department of Home Affairs to make a recoverable payment to a person to whom it is entitled under the law of customs. It will also ensure that section 58A operates as originally intended to control the movement of persons and goods between sea installations installed in an adjacent area and coastal area of Australia or a resources installation attached to the Australian seabed and an external place. It will also ensure that section 208DA operates as originally intended in relation to the disposal of narcotic-related goods other than narcotic goods.
The bill will also amend the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978 to insert a new head of power so that regulations can prescribe the charging and recovery of fees for and in relation to the payment of the passenger movement charge or an amount equal to the charge. These amendments will improve systems and processes to benefit the Department of Home Affairs and its clients. I trust this bill will have the support of members, and I commend it to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia's media industry is under sustained and significant pressure as digital technologies upend established business models and intensify competition for audiences and revenue. Last year, the government secured passage of legislation that will enable Australia's media companies to deal with these challenges and better compete in what is now a global media environment.
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017 implements two measures developed as part of the government's broadcasting and content reform package.
The first is the establishment of a register of foreign ownership of media assets to be overseen and administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The register will enhance the transparency of foreign investment in Australian media companies and the levels and sources of such investment.
The second measure relates to applications for community radio broadcasting licences. The bill will introduce the new local content criteria that the Australian Communications and Media Authority can consider in assessing such applications, giving applicants the opportunity and incentive to deliver more localised content.
The government also intends to move an amendment sheet to add a third schedule to the bill. The third schedule amends the local content obligations that will apply to regional commercial television broadcasting licensees following a relevant change in ownership, known as a 'trigger event'. The amendment addresses an anomaly arising from the application of the regional local programming requirements to a specific licensee in regional Western Australia. For historical reasons, the licensing arrangements for the two commercial television broadcasting licensees in regional and remote Western Australia—GWN7 and WIN—differ significantly from ordinary practice.
Although they broadcast to a geographic area of an equivalent size, GWN7 presently holds four licences—three of which are subject to additional local programming obligations—while WIN only holds one. The unconventional licensing arrangements means that GWN7 would be subject to three times the local content obligations than WIN would face if WIN's sole commercial television broadcasting licence in regional Western Australia was affected by a trigger event. Schedule 3 will equalise the respective obligations of GWN7 and WIN by inserting provisions in division 5C of part 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act, which alter the manner in which local content points may be accumulated by a commercial television broadcasting licensee for the three licence areas that cover the regional areas of Western Australia.
The measures contained in this bill represent the next steps in the government's commitment to implementing holistic reform to the Australian media industry.
I commend the bill to the House.
Labor does not oppose the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017, which contains measures negotiated over a year ago between the Turnbull government and Pauline Hanson's One Nation, but Labor condemns the Turnbull government for its lack of principles, its complete dysfunction and its utter disdain for evidence based policy and the public interest which brought about the measures in this bill. This is the reality: the measures in this bill were negotiated by One Nation and this government in exchange for One Nation's support for the damaging repeal of the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule last year. That backroom deal included a grab bag of measures, including those contained in this bill, as well as the launch of a full-scale attack, both financial and ideological, on the ABC.
Unable to get its media ownership changes through on merit and refusing to accept that the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule was actually contrary to the public interest, this government turned to deals with Senators Pauline Hanson, David Leyonhjelm and Nick Xenophon to scrape together the votes in the Senate to junk a key media diversity safeguard. Standing for nothing but self-interest, the Turnbull government pandered to the top end of town, as is their wont, by repealing the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule and then stooped to agreeing to attack the public broadcaster to serve that end. It is a sorry state of affairs.
Labor opposed the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule on principle and evidence and condemned the Turnbull government for using the public broadcaster, the ABC, as a bargaining chip to get it done. Labor understands that high media ownership concentration is an enduring concern of the Australian public and that we need diversity in the control of our media to support the effective functioning of our democracy. Labor opposed the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule because it was not in the public interest to permit Australia's already highly concentrated media landscape to become yet more concentrated. The evidence shows that Australia's media is already amongst the most concentrated in the world and that traditional media—newspapers, commercial television and commercial radio—continue to be the main source of news and current affairs for Australians. Furthermore, the majority of the top 10 news websites accessed by Australians are either directly or jointly owned by traditional media platforms. In regional areas, media diversity was already at or below the minimum floor required by the rules, yet the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation voted to make it worse. In regional and remote areas, the level of diversity was either at the minimum level or below it, with 42 per cent of licensed areas at and 28 per cent of licence areas below the minimum floor.
While the majority of voters disapproved of changing media ownership laws to allow a single company to control a newspaper, TV network and radio network in the same area, the Turnbull government went ahead and changed the laws. With the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule and the first media merger announced since its repeal now under consideration by the ACCC, Australia's media is primed to become even more concentrated. Sadly for regional Australians, indications are that the Nine Fairfax takeover is likely to be anything but positive for jobs and local news in rural and regional Australia. As reported in The New Daily on 26 July in an article entitled 'Nine hints it will shut down regional newspapers in Fairfax takeover':
Nine chief executive Hugh Marks has hinted the media giant will consider closing or selling Fairfax's regional newspapers when it assumes ownership of the business later this year.
… … …
In an investor presentation on Thursday, just hours after the dramatic announcement, Mr Marks was asked what the multibillion-dollar takeover deal would mean for Fairfax's regional papers.
Mr Marks said it would be "no surprise" that Nine would focus "on what we see as the high growth components of what this deal provides".
… … …
Fairfax's regional paper business has shrunk dramatically in recent years, and last year was by far the weakest performing arm.
Similarly, an ABC news article entitled 'Regional newspapers' place in merged Fairfax-Nine company questioned' stated on 26 July 2018:
Country Press South Australia president Ian Osterman, who is editor of the independent Mount Barker Courier, said the merger would remove regional newspapers from the "management epicentre".
"There's always been some criticism of Fairfax in the past that it was city-centric and Sydney-centric, and the regional newspapers in its stable were left out of the decision-making," he said.
"With Channel 9 having a 51 per cent share in this new company, it's going to further remove regional newspapers."
Fairfax has 160 regional publications and community-based websites, including the Newcastle Herald, The Border Mail in Albury-Wodonga, The Courier in Ballarat and the Illawarra Mercury in Wollongong.
Mr Osterman said regional newspapers were going to be a small fraction of the merged enterprise, and that "has some danger signs".
The Nine/Fairfax takeover is being scrutinised by the ACCC, but, as Labor has pointed out on many occasions, the ACCC is not required to apply a public-interest test to media mergers. As an economic regulator, it is not the job of the ACCC to look at issues of pluralism, informing a view on whether a merger will result in a substantial lessening of competition in a market.
The journalist union, the MEAA, has said that the takeover of Fairfax Media by Nine Network should undergo a far more detailed examination by the ACCC than that currently proposed. The MEAA has written to the heads of Nine Network and Fairfax, urging the companies to seek formal authorisation of the merger from the ACCC—a far more rigorous process than the current 12-week, informal merger review.
In this context, we have seen yet more evidence of consolidation in Australia's media market, with the recent announcement by WIN to close its Tasmanian news bulletin. The Tasmanian presenters of WIN have signed off for the final time, as fears grow that a move to present bulletins from New South Wales will lead to audience decline. Nine Network jobs have been slashed as part of a move to present Tasmanian news bulletins from WIN's Wollongong studios. The newsroom has been halved from 18 down to just four journalists, four camera operators and a news manager.
It's here that I'd like to turn to this government's attacks on the ABC. Sadly, for all Australians, the attacks on the ABC are well underway. The Turnbull government has launched the biggest attack on ABC independence in a generation with its deal with One Nation, but it is little wonder when you consider that the Minister for Communications has been a member of the IPA for quite some time. In response to questions on notice, it was revealed that the minister has not only been a member of the IPA for a decade but has also made private donations to the IPA. The IPA is an organisation which has advocated—and I'll name just a few of the special ones—privatising the ABC and SBS, immediately halting construction of the NBN, privatising the CSIRO, defunding Harmony Day and abolishing the ACCC and the ACMA. Since 2014, ABC funding has been cut by $366 million, and 800 staff have lost their jobs. This is despite the Liberals' pre-election promise of no cuts to the ABC or SBS. In this year alone, the Turnbull government has cut $83.7 million in ABC funding, launched two damaging public broadcasting inquiries and has three bills before the parliament to meddle with the ABC charter—all inspired by their deal with Pauline Hanson's One Nation.
The ABC belongs to the Australian people. It is not the minister's or Senator Pauline Hanson's to trade, yet, in August 2017, the minister used the ABC as a bargaining chip in their deal with One Nation to get the two-out-of-three repeal across the line. As I said, that deal includes no less than three bills to change the ABC Act and charter, as well as a damaging so-called competitive neutrality inquiry designed to undermine the ABC in the online environment. The Australian Financial Review has referred to this as:
… deal for the biggest assault on the ABC's independence in decades.
On top of that, the ABC is under attack with a pre-emptively announced cut of $83.7 million to the ABC ahead of this further efficiency review into public broadcasters, which is due to report later this year. I note that the ABC managing director has stated publicly:
The impact of the decision could not be absorbed by efficiency measures alone, as the ABC had already achieved significant productivity gains in response to past budget cuts.
She has also said:
The decision would make it very difficult for the ABC to meet its charter requirements and audience expectations.
And:
Stable, adequate funding is essential if we are to continue to deliver for Australian audiences.
These cuts have been referred to as 'payback' by conservative commentators and 'vindictive' by others. Even Andrew Bolt has said that it's now 'open war' between the government and the ABC. The $83.7 million cut and the efficiency review in the 2018 budget come on top of successive budget cuts by the Turnbull government.
At a time when the ABC is undertaking its biggest restructure to adapt to the digital age, the Prime Minister has launched the biggest attack on the ABC that we've seen. In 2014, the Liberals cut the ABC budget and ran an efficiency review that pushed the ABC to close down short-wave radio, a move that hurt, and continues to hurt, regional and remote Australians. In 2016, they cut local news-gathering initiatives, and there is a question mark about this funding going forward. It begs the question: how many times do the Liberals and Nationals think they can cut ABC funding without it hurting rural and regional Australia? Now, with yet another efficiency review on foot, we wonder what will be cut next. The government that cut the ABC budget and shut down the Australia Network is now running a review into 'soft' power. This government is nothing but dysfunctional and short-sighted, and cannot be trusted with media policy.
Earlier this year, the Liberal's federal council voted overwhelmingly to privatise the ABC. And, in stark contrast, at its state conference on 3 July this year, New South Wales Labor voted unanimously in support of a motion that Labor would never do so. That's because we believe that the ABC is one of the most important institutions in our democracy.
The difference could not be clearer: Labor believes in public broadcasting and those opposite do not. That is why Labor will stand up for the ABC and fight against the conservatives' ideological war against our public broadcasters. Only Labor will reverse the Turnbull government's $83.7 million of cuts and guarantee funding certainty over the next ABC budget cycle. Not only is the bill before us today yet another example of the cosy relationship between the Turnbull government and Pauline Hanson's One Nation it does precious little to fill the void left by the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule.
Turning to the foreign media limits contained in the bill, this bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to establish a Register of Foreign Ownership of Media Assets to be administered by the ACMA. The Howard Liberal government abolished foreign media ownership limits in 2006 in recognition of the need for foreign investment to support media diversity in Australia. In 2007, Senator Helen Coonan published an article in the UNSW Law Journal, summarising the 2006 Howard government media reforms. On foreign ownership and control, it stated:
The removal of all media-specific foreign ownership and control limits is consistent with the BSA’s object to facilitate the development of an efficient, competitive and responsive broadcasting industry in Australia. The repeal of the restrictions will achieve this by improving access to capital, increasing the pool of potential media owners and acting as a safeguard on media concentration. Removing the foreign investment constraints will open up the capital market for television broadcasters and print media, improve access to technology and managerial expertise, and, particularly in print media, increase the possibility of greater diversity through new market entrants. Compliance costs will be reduced through simplification of regulation and through removing the need to monitor foreign interests for the purposes of compliance with the BSA.
The recent CBS acquisition of Network Ten demonstrated the power of the two-out-of-three rule in fostering competition and diversity—just prior to its abolition—as well as the utility of foreign ownership as a safeguard on media concentration by improving access to capital and increasing the pool of potential media owners.
This bill will provide some further information about foreign ownership of the media in Australia, which is already considered to be a sensitive business. Current law and regulation provides for a number of checks and balances on foreign ownership of the media in Australia. Under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act and regulation, investments by foreign persons in excess of five per cent in an Australian media business must be notified to and approved by the Treasurer. However, the details of the proposed or actual investments, or the foreign persons involved, are generally not publicly disclosed. Under ASX requirements for disclosure of relevant interests in listed entities, about five per cent are made public, but they don't indicate whether the shareholder is a foreign person. Further, under the Broadcasting Services Act, the reporting regime requires disclosure when a person comes into a position to control or ceases to be in a position to control a regulated media asset. However, these disclosures don't specifically identify foreign persons and generally wouldn't require disclosure of interests less than 15 per cent. The bill introduces some additional disclosure requirements on top of existing requirements and sources of information under the foreign acquisitions and takeovers regulation, the ASX requirements and reporting administered by the ACMA.
I'd like to turn to the issue of community radio localism measures. The community broadcasting sector needs all the help it can get, given the Turnbull government has been so inconsistent with the sector on certainty of funding for community radio and access to spectrum for community television. Community radio services play an important role in informing local communities and providing community members with the opportunity to have their views heard. The bill adjusts the criteria against which licence applications and renewals are assessed. The amendment is designed to encourage community radio broadcasters to provide greater coverage of local issues and to provide greater opportunities for local participation in producing and hosting radio programs. Labor, along with the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, the CBAA, supports the intent of the bill to strengthen localism in community radio broadcasting and understands the need for the proposed changes to strike a balance between providing clarity to the community broadcasting sector while avoiding overly prescriptive or burdensome requirements. Labor notes that CBAA is concerned with the wording of the bill as it currently stands, and we encourage the government to address CBAA's concerns to ensure clarity and certainty for the sector.
I would like to turn to local programming requirements for regional commercial television broadcasting licensees. Labor do not oppose the government's amendment to this bill as contained on sheet EK129. Last year, Labor supported the proposal to bolster local content following a trigger event but took no comfort in the fact that those provisions do little to promote diversity. We are mindful of the compromised position of Australians in regional areas in terms of access to a diversity of news and current affairs content in both the traditional and new media environments.
Schedule 3 of this bill outlines some amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act to address an anomaly in the treatment of television licensees in Western Australia, as set out in the amendments I just mentioned. These amendments will equalise the local content obligations on the regional Western Australian licensees—GWN7 and WIN. For historical reasons, GWN7 currently holds four licences which cover specific regional areas of Western Australia while WIN holds only one licence which covers all of Western Australia. This is important in the context of the trigger events for media ownership. A trigger event occurs where a change in control would result in a person controlling television licences that, together, service more than 75 per cent of the Australian population. The anomaly in Western Australia that these amendments are seeking to address, as described, is that, if a trigger event were to occur with the current licensing arrangements, the local content requirements for GWN7 would be triple that of WIN. Labor does not oppose the amendment to even the requirements in Western Australia between these two entities.
In conclusion, Labor will not oppose this bill. However, we note it is yet another example of the cosy relationship between the Turnbull government and Pauline Hanson's One Nation party which does precious little to fill the void left by the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule.
This bill, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017, is made necessary because, in 2006, the then Howard government removed all of the foreign media ownership controls that then existed in legislation. So it is made necessary because of the actions of the former coalition government. It's also made possible, I've got to say, because of the actions of this government in removing the protections against further concentration in media ownership in this country. As the member for Greenway has pointed out, the bill arises because of a series of deals that were done between the then Xenophon group of senators—there are fewer of them today than there were back then—and the Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. On its face it's driven more by xenophobia than good policy. We know the author of the deal last week was railing against a certain despicable speech by a senator from the other place, at the very same time as introducing a bill which would create a plebiscite on immigration in this country.
It's the same sort of dog-whistling which informs certain parts of this bill. At the same time as she criticises foreign interference in our media, in fact, in every other aspect in our country, she champions the actions of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin—a man whose regime is probably singularly responsible for the greatest piece of foreign interference in a democratic process and media operations around the world. The inconsistencies in the Pauline Hanson's One Nation party in this area of policy are manifest. In making this deal, the former Senator Xenophon and the Pauline Hanson's One Nation senators have created a situation which almost certainly will lead to fewer jobs in the media and fewer media outlets in Australia than before. It may be the case, as many proponents of the bill have argued, that some of these changes would have occurred anyway. What is certain is that, because of this package of bills, those changes will occur: there will be fewer jobs and fewer media outlets in this country as a result of the legislation.
I'm very concerned about the future of a group of newspapers from southern New South Wales, including the Illawarra Mercury and the Southern HighlandsNews. They publish on a daily basis in the case of the Illawarra Mercury. They are great community newspapers championing community issues. They don't always agree with me, but they have been a source of quality journalism, breaking stories of regional, state-wide and national significance, for over a century. I want to see newspapers like this continue. From the Illawarra all the way down to the Victorian border, newspapers such as the South Coast Registerprovide a very important community function. As a result of the merger of Channel 9 and the Fairfax group, the future of these newspapers hangs in the balance. As the member for Greenway set out in her address on this bill, there is a question mark hanging over these regional publications.
We warned of this. We warned of this as the original package of bills was being debated in the House. We told National Party MPs and regional Liberal Party MPs, 'If you vote for this legislation, there will be fewer journalists working in your electorates and there'll be fewer publications and fewer outlets telling the stories about your electorates to your communities.' Yet they voted for it. So if these changes occur—as we fully expect they will—they have nobody to blame but themselves.
We are supporting the measures within the bill. They do no harm, as far as we can see—unlike the original package of bills, which we did not support. These consequential amendments arising out of the deal with the crossbench senators do no harm, and we will support them. They are only made necessary because of changes that were made in 2006 by the then Howard government.
We already have one of the most concentrated media ownership landscapes in the world. This government is responsible for ensuring that it becomes even more concentrated.
The bill before the House will provide some further information about foreign ownership of the media in Australia, which is already considered to be a sensitive business and, therefore, reportable. In 2006, as I pointed out, the Howard government abolished foreign media ownership limits in recognition of the need for foreign investment to support media diversity in this country—something which Labor does not oppose. The recent CBS acquisition of the Ten Network showed the power of the two-out-of-three rule, just prior to its abolition, and the utility of foreign ownership as a safeguard on media concentration by improving access to capital and increasing the pool of potential media owners for Australian media outlets.
Current law and regulation provide for a number of checks and balances on foreign media ownership of the media in Australia. For example, under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act and regulations, investments by foreign persons in excess of five per cent in an Australian media business must be notified and approved by the Treasurer. However, the details of the proposed or actual investments or the foreign persons involved are generally not publicly disclosed. In addition to that, under the Australian Stock Exchange's disclosure of relevant interests in listed entities, about five per cent are made public, but they don't indicate whether the shareholder is a foreign person. Under the Broadcasting Services Act, the reporting regime requires disclosure when a person comes into a position to control, or ceases to be in a position to control, a regulated media asset. However, these disclosures don't specifically identify foreign persons and generally wouldn't require disclosure of interests of less than 15 per cent.
This bill will make available some further information about foreign ownership of the media in Australia, which is already considered to be a sensitive business. It does this by introducing some additional disclosure requirements on top of these existing requirements that I've spoken about and sources of information under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Regulation 2015.
There are also a series of measures in here, in proposed schedule 2, concerning community radio. They are described as a package, the community radio localism measures. Whilst we do have some concerns, Labor will be supporting these measures. We encourage the government to respond to some of the issues that have been raised by the community radio sector. But, on its face, the amendment would encourage community radio broadcasters to provide greater coverage of local issues, which can only be a good thing, and to provide greater opportunities for local participation in producing and hosting radio programs. The amendment would require the ACMA, in assessing licence applications, to consider the extent to which the proposed services will provide material of local significance. 'Material of local significance' would be defined as 'material that is produced in, hosted in, or relates to the licence area of the proposed licence'. Labor thinks that this is a good provision, and the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, the CBAA, supports the intent of the bill to strengthen localism in community radio broadcasting. The Community Broadcasting Association is concerned that the wording of the bill, as it currently stands, may not be clear enough to address some of their concerns, and we encourage the government to respond to these concerns.
I also want to talk about proposed schedule 3 of the bill, which outlines some amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act to address an anomaly which pertains only to Western Australia and regional broadcasting in Western Australia. These amendments will equalise the local content obligations on the regional Western Australian licensees GWN7 and the WIN TV network. For historical reasons, GWN7 holds four licences which cover specific regional areas in WA, while WIN TV, the WIN network, holds one licence which covers the entirety of Western Australia.
The provisions within this schedule, which have Labor's support, will equalise the arrangements imposed upon both of these television broadcasters in the event of a trigger event pertaining to media ownership. A trigger event, of course, occurs where a change in control would result in a person controlling television licences that together service more than 75 per cent of the Australian population. These local content requirements attach to each licence area. As I said, because GWN7 currently holds four licences across the area, as opposed to WIN TV, which holds one licence in the equivalent area, they would be treated differently for no good public policy reason. So schedule 3, which obtains our support, deals with this anomaly. If it is passed through both places, they will be treated equally in the event of a trigger event.
Of course, these provisions as they pertain to broadcasting do not stand alone when it comes to government actions and government attacks on broadcasting throughout this country. The attacks through budget cuts on the ABC and the SBS are impacting on the capacity of these broadcasters to fulfil their charters. Seventeen million Australians consume some form of ABC content every week. It is by far and away one of Australia's most trusted brands, much more trusted than any of the personal or political brands of any of us in this place. Yet it is seen to be almost a rite of passage for those who come to this place as a Liberal or National Party MP or a Pauline Hanson One Nation senator to attack and seek to undermine, by every means possible, the operations and the reputation of the ABC and those who work for it.
These attacks must stop. We have a quality national broadcaster—again, a broadcaster with whom we don't always agree, and it doesn't always agree with us. That doesn't mean that we should not protect, with our last fighting breath, the capacity of the ABC and the Special Broadcasting Service to fulfil their mandate in producing quality independent journalism in the national interest. If from time to time they disagree with a government or a political party, that is their job. It is their job to produce quality, independent journalism and broadcasting content in the national interest.
I use this opportunity on a bill which concerns broadcasting to again call upon those members opposite to consider and to reflect upon their unrelenting campaign, culminating in a motion at their most senior policy-forming forum not three months ago to set a target of privatising the ABC. I call upon them to reflect upon their actions. It is not in the national interest, and it is certainly not in the interests of all of those MPs who purport to represent regional areas, that the ABC be privatised. That way lies a future where stories from and about regional Australia are no longer told to all Australians.
With those comments in mind, I commend the legislation to the House.
My first career was in commercial media in the late 1980s—actually, the mid-1980s. I am fudging on my age already! From 1985 to 1988, I was in this place—in the Old Parliament House—as a political reporter. At that time, I experienced the impacts of aggregation and the consolidation of media ownership as a young journalist and also from the perspective of being a political reporter. My radio station, 2UE, was bought by Kerry Packer, sold to Alan Bond and bought back by Kerry Packer. The upside of having a very close relationship, as a 2UE journalist, with Channel 9 was that, from time to time, I got to pick the brains of the likes of Laurie Oakes and Peter Harvey. I was also lucky to benefit from Peter Harvey's generosity in tipping me off to the fact that, as a journalist, at 1 o'clock one morning I should be outside Parliament House waiting for the then minister for sport John Brown rather than being tucked away at home in my unit. And landline phone calls—we didn't have mobiles—was the way we got information through then. That was a time when journalists were on the ground. They were able to get places, but we stood and waited a lot—as still happens now. It was a time of some diversity of media but a time of change. I lived through that. I was then fortunate enough to spend three years as a foreign correspondent in the US and the UK, working for Australian commercial radio network Austereo and also for British commercial radio station LBC. So I bring the experience of two different overseas markets to this place as well, and to this legislation.
What remains with me, the feeling as a journalist, is that the more the media concentrates, the fewer big owners there are, if you annoy one employer in the sector, there aren't an awful lot of employment options for you. That was certainly the case in the 1980s and, sadly, it is even more the case now. It is one of the reasons why the ABC, and its independence, is so important to providing a different voice that is not left to the whims of media ownership and why it is so disappointing to see those opposite continuing to undermine not just the funding of the ABC to be able to do independent journalism across all its platforms but also its independence.
I retain a very strong scepticism for any legislation that is the result of a deal with One Nation, that is agreed to in exchange for support to scrap a two-out-of-three cross-media ownership change. The way it came about does not send positive signals for the media sector. Even before the repeal of the constraint of the two-out-of-three media ownership rule, Australia had one of the most concentrated media markets in the world. And now we have seen media diversity further undermined thanks to that change.
I remain concerned about the shrinking of newsrooms for journalists. From a merger, where two newsrooms become one, it is my experience that the more journalists there are at a media conference listening with different perspectives the more likely we are to be able to get to what is really going on in any given situation. You would have to think that the ability of foreign investment in an Australian media business does actually expand the available capital for that industry, as we have seen with Channel 10. So Labor will not oppose this bill relating to a register of foreign ownership of media assets, which is already highly regulated and, certainly, considered a sensitive area—and rightly so. I also note that this bill covers new assessment criteria for community radio. Of all the measures in it, that is what I would like to turn to now—the measures that look at radio localism for community radio.
Like many radio journalists—and I am not sure if my colleague sitting alongside me has the same experience—I got a lot of my experience before getting my paid job by volunteering in community radio. Around 35 years ago, I was cutting tape and editing documentaries while finishing my degree at what was then the Institute of Technology in Sydney and working hard at 2SER FM, which continues to be one of Sydney's leading community radio stations. It's a vital component of our broadcasting landscape not just for aspiring journalists and program makers but for those who have a passion for niche topics. I recall that Phil Lasker, who's now at the ABC, discovered the joys of radio thanks to a collection of Polish jazz that he acquired that got him airtime on 2SER FM. Community radio has been a launching pad for a lot of journalists to further their craft, understand radio and get the experience they needed before they could get a paid job. For those reasons, I pay particular attention to things that happen around community radio.
In my electorate, community radio plays an important role in informing communities and providing members with the chance to have their views heard. This legislation is all about adjusting the criteria which licence applications and renewals are assessed against in order to match community expectations of that local community radio service. The amendment encourages community radio providers to have greater coverage of local issues—that in itself is a good thing in many cases but is not always the sole purpose of that community broadcaster, although in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains this is a very welcome move—and to provide greater opportunities for local participation in producing and hosting programs.
The legislation requires that, when assessing licence applications, the ACMA will consider the extent to which proposed services will provide 'material of local significance'. Material of local significance can be defined as material that is produced in, hosted in or relates to the licence area of the proposed licence. In principle, that sounds great, but there are concerns about the wording that is being used in this legislation. Along with the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, we support the intent of the bill to strengthen the local bit in community radio but we are concerned about the wording. It's very broad and open to interpretation. I note the sorts of broadcasting that might be impacted by this depending on how it is interpreted—for example, RPH radio, which is radio programming for Australians with a print disability. Does it really matter if any of those criteria are met for that particular broadcaster? What is the impact of enforcing that? There are questions that are open to interpretation here.
They're the sorts of concerns that we have about this bill. I have two community radio stations in my electorate: Radio Blue Mountains, which as the names suggest looks after the Blue Mountains side, and Hawkesbury Radio. Radio Blue Mountains provides a wide range of programs on everything from business to environmental issues to disability issues. There are some live broadcasts from community events, and it looks at politics both local and on a wider scale. It covers a variety of music styles—jazz, country, rock, dance, blues and classical. All types—you never quite know what you're going to get when you turn on. A shout-out for Retro Rehash, which is making sure we get a great music program on a Saturday.
Unsurprisingly, Radio Blue Mountains steps up in emergencies—the Blue Mountains has its fair share of bushfires, storms and winds—and provides an extra layer of local information in times of bushfires or any other disaster. This is a community radio station that operates on the smell of an oily rag, as most of them do, and works hard to meet the audience expectations of the upper Blue Mountains community. It's also providing training. I would hope that this legislation won't change what it does, because it is already considered to be meeting the community's requirements.
I turn to Hawkesbury Radio. I've had an insight into the world of community radio licences through a decision by the ACMA to suspend the licence of Hawkesbury Radio a year or so ago and then share the temporary licence amongst three broadcasters, giving them each a chance to demonstrate that they have met the criteria to be eligible for the permanent licence. I wish all the broadcasters well in what they're doing.
I just want to be clear about what I expect to see in a local community radio station: genuine local community involvement in that station, with an output that reflects the diversity of the Hawkesbury community. The challenge I think we have is that, the way I'm seeing it, the ACMA does not have the resources to turn on that radio station and listen to it 24 hours a day. It's an unrealistic thing to expect. So they're driven by complaints and feedback from the community, and I really hope that they engage strongly with the community to find out the views of local community members about which of these stations is best fulfilling the needs as part of their determination along this pathway.
I have a strong view that community radio should allow the exploration of local issues that might otherwise not make it onto a more national media scene. There should be a range of perspectives offered. We should be able to see young people involved and community interest groups involved; all those things would make a very rich and vibrant broadcast across seven days. When you only have one main local weekly paper published in your area, you actually need community radio to provide a different voice or, ideally, voices.
I will continue to pay attention to legislation that comes before this place around community radio and, more generally, around media legislation. Our voices are shrinking. The diversity of voices is shrinking. We have fragmentation and we have all sorts of changes, but above all we need to have strong, independent journalism that puts proper scrutiny across things that happen in this place and other places. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017 as, like the former speaker, I come from a media background. It was not in radio—I'm from a print journalism background—but I do remember university. I'm of an age when radio broadcasting was all about splicing up little bits of tape. To edit, you had to get a physical bit of tape, cut it up, sellotape it back together and spool it. That's the sort of generation I come from—not like today where it is all digital and much easier.
I rise today to speak on this bill as I too believe in the value of a strong media sector and recognise the importance of diversity in media ownership. I know that a lot of people say: 'There's no media ownership problem in Australia. Look at the internet; anybody can be a media proprietor on the internet.' You've got a multiplicity of channels. You've got YouTube and community stations on the internet, but the fact is that the fragmentation of the media has been disastrous for journalism in this country and for what I like to call the 'credible voice'. There used to be a time when I and, dare I say, you, Deputy Speaker Georganas, were growing up that just about every family in Australia would turn on the six o'clock or seven o'clock news. There was this shared community of news. It didn't matter whether you were Labor, Liberal, Communist—whatever you were. There was a shared set of information that everybody got. Perhaps some people would watch 60 Minutesthat was a very-high-rating current affairs show—and others would listen to talkback radio. I'm not one to dismiss the value of choice, but there were a smaller number of channels owned by a greater number of people in corporations, so there was actually probably more diversity 30 years ago with fewer channels than there is today in terms of credible voice.
As I say, any blogger can get onto the internet in front of a microphone and rabbit on to the world with what they want to say, but who's listening? When you want to reach a greater number of people, that's where the media diversity ownership question is so important. That's the problem with getting rid of the two-out-of-three rule. It allows for fewer corporations. They are corporations these days, they're not individuals. It used to be that the local used-car salesman or a local former mayor would open up a newspaper, or a community station or a local TV station. They were people born of, and who lived in, those communities. Individuals used to own media outlets. Now it's corporations and private investment firms—groups that have no intrinsic knowledge or interest in media. They just see the balance sheet.
I think that getting rid of the two-out-of-three rule is going to be very, very bad for media diversity in this country. I think that's what's happening with Channel Nine and Fairfax is exactly what we all anticipated would happen. We're seeing a hundred years of tradition with Fairfax going down the drain. We're seeing journalists losing jobs. We'll see fewer journalists funnelling opinion, analysis and stories through fewer voices. It's going to be very bad.
One of the other key issues I've got is that it used to be unacceptable for a news outlet to represent the private or commercial interests of its owner—at least, overtly. It used to be unacceptable. It was regarded as highly unethical for a private owner to push their private agenda, their corporate agenda, through the news mechanism that they owned. Indeed, Fairfax had a very proud history in this regard. Fairfax had a charter of independence for its journalists. They were completely separate, so the owners couldn't dictate to the journalists what to write. There was a charter of independence. That's gone now. With the death of Fairfax, that charter of independence has gone. What we see with some newer entrants into the media landscape—and I won't name them, but I think we probably know who they are—is that they are strongly pushing the private corporate interests of their corporate owners ahead of the news agenda. They are shaping the news agenda to fit their private corporate interests, and that is very dangerous territory to be getting into. They're not even hiding it anymore. They're not even pretending: it's absolutely overt. That's a very dangerous direction to be going in.
Given the role of the media in our society—particularly when it comes to the coverage of politics at the local, state and national levels—and the existing concentration and lack of diversity in Australia's media ownership, it's important to ensure that smaller numbers of owners do not have undue political influence or control over the political agenda and public discussion, or have the capability to disenfranchise alternative, opposing or minority views. I'll come back to the point I made earlier, that it used to be that owners were residents in their local communities. Generally, they've always been wealthy or middle class. The people who own newspapers, television stations and radio stations, have always been relatively wealthy in their communities. But they were born of their communities and they had an interest in the issues in their community. As their outlets were gobbled up—at that stage, by smaller state-based interests, then gobbled up by bigger national-based interests and now gobbled up by big international global interests—we saw that commitment to local news diminishing at a rate of knots. We've seen the closure of local newsrooms. In the drive for higher profits we've seen the closure of newsrooms and what is called the 'synergy' of newsrooms.
In my state of Tasmania, we've seen this just recently. WIN News are not producing the TV news bulletin from Tasmania anymore. They've announced, as of this week, I think, that it's now going to be presented by their headquarters. I'm not sure whether it's in Bendigo or in Sydney. I think it's in regional New South Wales that they have some sort of headquarters where they do this from. The journalists are in Tasmania and they cover the stories. They ship those stories off to the mainland and then the news is presented from the mainland.
You might say, 'That's an efficient use of resources', but the problem is it means fewer staff in Tasmania and, critically, it's a diminished service. That's because at that headquarters, where they're doing it in regional New South Wales, they aren't just reading the news for Tasmania; they're reading the news for a number of other bulletins as well, and to fit into the roster the Tasmanian news, which doesn't hit the airwaves in Tasmania until five or six o'clock in the evening, is actually read out at two or three o'clock in the afternoon. Then it just sits there until it's time to be aired. So half the day's news doesn't get covered. It used to be that if there was a late-breaking story you'd rush into the newsroom with your material, you'd madly type it up and you'd get it on air. You can't do that now, because they don't have the facilities or the ability. This is what happens when the bottom line dictates the news judgement. It's very bad for journalism. That's just one of the results that happens when you consolidate your media assets in such a way that you don't really care that much about local news production or local news content; it's really just part of your business model.
Media in Australia is not just like a factory producing widgets. The media in Australia is about news, current affairs and the production of drama. That's another way that we reflect our society upon ourselves and tell our own stories. All of these things are critical to a properly functioning society. They shouldn't be treated in the way that other sectors of the economy are treated. It's more important than that. It's part of our culture. I think we need to treat media with much more respect. At the moment, treating it with just an economically rationalist argument about the bottom line is very bad. This government, in the way it treats the media, particularly with its awfully cosy relationship with One Nation—it's very dangerous territory the way it's treating the media in this country. As the member for Whitlam mentioned, the jihad on the ABC, with the government and One Nation joined at the hip in waging war on the national broadcaster—it's all part of this agenda. It's very dangerous.
The topic of media ownership and diversity is not a new issue in Australia. The concern in conversation on this started with the arrival of television when, in 1953, then Prime Minister Menzies, the father of the Liberal Party, gave Australia's first television licences to the men—they were men—who already owned the country's newspaper companies. So right from the get-go we've had media concentrated in the hands of the few. To be fair to Menzies, he would have come under a fair bit of pressure from the then almighty press barons. The same people kept the ABC in the freezer for decades, because those press barons also prevented the national broadcaster from establishing its own news service independent of them. Not many people may recall this, but the ABC used to be forbidden from having a role in the press gallery and from actually producing its own news. The ABC used to only be able to report news that came from the newspapers. Over the air, it would be 'Such-and-such newspaper reported today'. They were prevented for a long time from having their own independent news service. I shudder to think where this country would be today without an independent news service produced by the ABC. Imagine if the ABC today had to rely on the news that it presents coming from The Daily Telegraph and The Courier-Mail and Sky News? What a disaster it would be for this country. I think it's a disaster; perhaps those opposite have a different view.
In the 65 years since Menzies granted those licences, the parliament has modified the law numerous time, sometimes to stem the power of the media barons. I know some people are critical of former Prime Minister Keating. He made his famous statement, 'You can be a prince of the print or a queen of the screen, but you can't be both'. He tried to stem the power of the barons by saying you can either own broadcasting assets or print assets but you can't be in both. That's since gone. We know there's got to be change and progress, but the progress all seems to be going the same way under the Liberals. It all seems to be about concentrating media ownership in fewer and fewer hands, which makes fewer and fewer people more and more powerful. That's not a good recipe for democracy. It's not a good recipe for democracy when you have fewer people and fewer corporations getting more and more power.
Each time, we're told that companies have to get bigger to compete with international competitors, whether it's Time Warner, Disney, CNN or MSBN. To be honest, I don't even know if some of those that I've listed are now under the same ownership. For all I know, two or three of those could actually be under the same corporate ownership, I just don't know—I haven't kept up with it. I don't see the need for companies to get bigger. I don't see how Australian companies in the Australian market need to concentrate to the degree that those opposite dictate in order to remain competitive.
Something that we don't talk about too often is the nexus, the link, between journalism and advertising. It's always been the case that advertising revenue pays for journalism. The ads come in and that's what pays for the journalism. The only reason the press barons had journalists on staff was to fill the space and convince people to buy the paper, because there was something to read, so they'd see the advertisements. It was a symbiotic relationship, but that's been broken with the internet. The internet has broken that relationship, which is a great shame. The ads have gone online, but quality journalism hasn't followed. We commend this bill to the House. We won't stand in the way, but we do think there are some issues still to be resolved.
I rise today to share my respect for the role the media plays in our democratic society, the importance of encouraging diversity of voices and my absolute passion for radio, particularly community radio. It was in the community radio area of the media that I worked immediately before being elected to this place by my community.
Today the House considers the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017 motion for second reading. Much of this bill speaks to the points I've just mentioned, and much of the current sorry state of the Australian media landscape can be sheeted home to the Turnbull government.
In 2006, the Howard government abolished foreign ownership and control limits At the time it was hoped that this move would bring more owners and capital into the Australian media market. It was thought that this could even encourage new players in print. Overall, it was seen as a safeguard to media concentration. Fast forward 11 years to 2017: the Turnbull government has negotiated with One Nation to secure its support to repeal the important two-out-of-three, cross-media ownership control rule. We never thought we'd see the day, but here it is. This is, as I speak, leading to an even greater concentration of media voices. We need look no further than the proposed Nine Network takeover of Fairfax for evidence of this: a television company swallowing what was historically a print based company. Fairfax is not just any print company: it has long been hailed as one of the great bastions of respectable journalism in Australia.
I must say, I do agree with former Prime Minister Paul Keating who, in response to news of this merger, described it as 'an exceptionally bad development'. In his opinion piece, which was broadly published in the wake of the Nine/Fairfax announcement, Mr Keating said:
The absence of those legislative barriers, in the media free-for-all the Turnbull government is permitting, will, because of the broadly maintained power of those outlets, result in an effective and dramatic close down in diversity and, with it, opinion.
As the elected representatives of a democratic society, I believe we must rail against this. In other parts of society, we encourage diversity. We seek input from various stakeholders when we face a multifaceted problem.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, when the member for Paterson will be able to seek continuation.
The spirit of my electorate shone brightly this weekend as the Launceston Tornadoes battled it out on the national stage in the South East Australian Basketball League grand final at the State Basketball Centre in Melbourne. As the only semiprofessional basketball team in northern Tasmania, the Tornadoes are well loved in my community, enjoying the support of local businesses and with a media and fan following that many sporting clubs would indeed envy. It is a common occurrence on a Saturday night in Launceston to have 1,000 or more Tornadoes fans descend on the Elphin Sports Centre to cheer on their team.
The players, coaches, administrators, fans and sponsors past and present should be congratulated on the hard work that went into the 2018 season. The Torns have had a season of ups and downs, with the loss of US import Mikaela Ruef to injury before the start of the season compounded by defeat in the first three games. However, under the guidance of the new coach, Derrick Washington, the team have rediscovered their winning ways and were able to fight their way to the championship decider and the chance to win their first SEABL title since 1995. Unfortunately, the game on Saturday night against the Bendigo Braves did not go their way, despite a hard-fought effort from the team.
I once again congratulate the Launceston Tornadoes. I congratulate the Bendigo winners and look forward to seeing what the 2019 season brings.
There was a time when Australia had the cheapest power prices in the OECD. Then, over a period of years, with the gold-plating of poles and wires by the state governments, a move to renewables and a centralisation of the energy market, we've seen power prices go beyond a place where people can afford them. I commend the government today in what they have done and also commend my colleagues in the National Party for the part they play in making sure that our nation starts getting real teeth in being able to bring down power prices. This is so vitally important.
We have now proposed a divestiture power that has the capacity to break companies up if they don't do the right thing on power prices. This is incredibly important legislation, a sword of Damocles to make sure that we have a more honest and a more vibrant market and to make sure that we are able to look after pensioners. I'll be interested to see what the Labor Party do in making sure that they look after pensioners the way we are in driving down power prices, getting a fair-offer price so that we get a fair price—not just the price that they think they can get away with but a fair-offer price—and driving for new power stations. We are not so religious as to say that we don't believe there could ever be coal-fired power stations. We believe that there can be.
We have taken real action today—real action to bring about a real outcome. Now it's for the states to do their part to make sure that they get a fairer return as well.
Last week, the Turnbull government issued its response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport report on its inquiry into the hearing health and wellbeing of Australia. Recommendation 21 of the report called on the government to retain Australian Hearing in government ownership. The government's response was to simply note the recommendation.
The clear signal from the government's response is that the Turnbull government has not ruled out selling off Australian Hearing and therefore privatising it. That is what the government wanted to do prior to the 2016 election, and it had already entered into discussions with a private consortium at the time. It was also a recommendation of the National Commission of Audit to sell it off. The government backed off in the lead-up to the 2016 election because it feared a public backlash to the sale.
Australian Hearing is an iconic, trusted national hearing service that has existed since 1947 and today has around 150 branches around Australia. It provides an invaluable service across the country and operates at no cost to the government. I call on the Turnbull government to reassure the hundreds of thousands of Australian Hearing clients and its hundreds of staff that Australian Hearing will not be privatised and that there will be no cuts to the services provided.
Yesterday, I went to the Maroota Muster, the annual fundraiser for Maroota Public School. The event has raised a lot of money for Maroota over the years. It's a small but excellent school in my electorate. The first muster was held in 2004, but the event traces its origins back to 1981. From a small art-and-craft fete, the event has since grown to become a celebration of the rural communities in my electorate. As always, this muster was a great day for families in the community. David Camilleriran the chocolate wheel. Activities and attractions included: vintage machines and classic cars; woodchopping and woodturning; stalls run by the local RFS and Men's Sheds; carnival rides; show bags; face planting; plant, fruit and vegie stores; and the ever-popular cake stall.
I want to acknowledge Deidre Dorbis, the principal of Maroota Public School. Parents and children there know what a fantastic principal she is, dedicated to the children's education and wellbeing. It was great to see recently retired teacher Pat Chivers there, continuing to lend a hand to support the school. Let me commend the Maroota Public School P&C, who worked to ensure that this muster was again tremendous. In particular, I thank their president, Kate McDonough; Lisa Aylward; Kirsty Higson; Olivia Graham; Lucinda Harrex; Sharyn Davies; and Val Harper. They all did a great job. It's because of their hard work that Maroota Public School has been able to fund the refurbishment of its school hall and implement programs like a swim school, athletics coaching and after-hours school care. I want to wish Maroota Public School every success and congratulations on another fantastic muster for 2018.
I recently drove west from the Blue Mountains to Broken Hill and saw firsthand the toll the drought is taking on farmers and communities. You don't actually need to leave the Hawkesbury in my electorate of Macquarie to find people doing it tough on the land because of the drought. Local Graham Williams, who's worked in the farm sector for years, knows the pain of some of our older farmers who are almost out of feed for stock and their working animals. He organised a collection at the weekend, with help from the Richmond Lions Club and the use of a shed, thanks to the Hawkesbury District Agricultural Association. While much of the agricultural land that fed Sydney since the colonial settlements has disappeared under concrete, there's still around 33,000 hectares of farmland in the Hawkesbury, most of it for grazing, and more than 450 businesses in the agricultural sector. We have leading agricultural research being done at the Hawkesbury campus of Western Sydney University. While many of the farming families have off-farm jobs to help get by, there are elderly farmers in particular—including in Agnes Banks in the Macdonald Valley, around Windsor and across the river—for whom that just isn't an option. As one fifth-generation farmer told me at the weekend, 'Farmers are smart and they've changed their practices to be more holistic, increasing soil carbon and organic matter levels and the ability of the soil to hold water, but it's not enough. This is a long drought and people need help.' Thanks to all who donated, but, with no serious rain predicted until autumn, this is likely to be the beginning, not the end, of the help that's needed.
It's easy to be distracted by some of the shenanigans here in the House, but, while those distractions occur, let us never lose focus on exactly what this government has achieved. Its achievement for my region, on the Gold Coast, is extraordinary. We've completed stage 2 of the light rail, with a $95 million contribution by this government. A billion dollars has gone into the M1 to see that completed right through to the Tugun Bypass. A billion dollars has been put forward. We're also committed to working with the opposition to duplicate the M1 through building the inter-regional transport corridor. I commend the state opposition for what they're doing. Three hundred million dollars was contributed to the Commonwealth Games, including $147 million in direct cash to build things. The Labrador Hockey Club was upgraded and there is a brand new Coomera Indoor Sports Centre, all built by the Commonwealth. Over $12 million has been spent on local roads under the Black Spot Program and hundreds of thousands of dollars has been spent on local community programs. I run the nation's largest aged-care seniors forum run by an MP, with almost 3,000 elderly Australians learning about goods and services. Holistically, across the board, the government continues to keep our borders safe. We've turned around 33 boats. We continue to prosecute our war on terror. We're balancing the books. We're nine months away from the budget being balanced after such a long time. We've delivered on personal income tax. This is a great celebration of what's happening. (Time expired)
A few years ago, we all stood in this place and celebrated the creation of the AFLW, a women's league at the national level. Many teams started in those first two years and the competition in the first year and the second year ran for seven weeks, plus two weeks for finals. The first game ever of AFLW was a lockout. Generations of women went to the game to see, for the first time ever, women playing at the top level. There was also a commitment—and the league has delivered—to expand the competition. Next year there'll be more teams in the AFLW.
So you can imagine the disappointment of women football players, their supporters and their teams to discover that the AFL is actually going to cut the season next year. They're proposing, in 2019, to cut the season from seven weeks to six weeks. That's not even enough weeks for every team to play against each other. We are calling on the AFL to rethink this plan. The women's league has launched an online petition, and I encourage everybody to go online and sign that petition—5,000 people have already signed it—calling on the AFL to expand the women's league season. Six weeks is a gimmick. It is not long enough for these women to play at the professional level and for each team to play each other. If the league were serious about women and women's football, it would not be cutting the season length; it'd be increasing the season length.
The south-west will resemble Hollywood from Wednesday, with CinefestOZ kicking off. Now in its 11th year, CinefestOZ has grown to become the biggest film festival in Australia. Award-winning actress Sigrid Thornton is the festival jury's chair, with other actors and actresses Michael Caton, John Howard, Tasma Walton and of course our local Busselton actress Emma Booth also attending. Over 150 film screenings and associated events will feature in the festival. There's something for everyone, with 18 Australian premieres and 11 international premieres to be shown, including three Quebec French films, illustrating the festival's rich diversity on display.
The richest film prize in Australia—the $100,000 CinefestOZ Film Prize—will again be awarded for the fifth year. The event invests in future artists, launching Cinesnaps, a program run in schools, offering workshops for young south-west students. One of the unique elements of the festival is that feature films are shown in wineries, small bars and galleries, giving a true south-west feel. They showcase not only the region's natural landscape but the region's fine local food and wine to people from across the country. I commend the work by the CineFest Oz board and founders David Barton and Helen Shervington to the House.
The current excess waiting times for age pension applications are unnecessary, cruel and, I believe, disrespectful. I know of many constituents waiting several months for their applications to be approved. One constituent applied for the age pension in July 2017. By early October, she was experiencing significant financial hardship due to also having a cancer diagnosis. Three months later, despite pleading with Centrelink, her application was still waiting to be processed. Eventually, she contacted my office. We were able to fast-track her application. What about all of those who don't think to contact their member of parliament? Over 1.5 million Australians rely solely on the age pension. The prolonged waiting periods for pensions are only matched by the enormous waiting list for home care packages.
How can we treat our elderly Australians like this? Why are we doing this? The government needs to ensure that, when you are applying for an age pension, your matter is dealt with with respect and efficiency. Waiting up to six months for the age pension after you've spent the majority of your life paying taxes is simply unacceptable. So I urge the government to give our older Australians the respect they so richly deserve. For so many of the people who are applying for age pensions, it's their first contact with Centrelink and it is a shambles. I would urge the government: please, put on more staff, particularly in the age pension area, so that if a person needs a pension they get it straightaway. (Time expired)
Remembrance Day this year has a special significance, marking the centenary of the armistice which ended the First World War. Several Tangney organisations are marking the centenary in special and poignant ways with the help of federal grants. The Aviation Heritage Museum in Bull Creek is an important part of my local community, collecting, conserving and displaying the aeroplanes and artefacts of WA's aviation history. Volunteers will restore a mural in the museum depicting the aircraft of World War I and unveil special plaques recognising the armistice. The museum will also hold a number of public events to involve my local community in this important commemoration. The Applecross RSL will relocate plaques honouring the service of local servicemen and servicewomen to the Applecross RSL hall. This preservation makes sure we continue to have a memorial dedicated to the local residents who have fought for our nation. These projects preserve very important parts of our local history. I encourage everyone in Tangney to reflect on and remember the Australian allied men and women who served our country and what their sacrifice gives us today. Get involved in these community projects and make sure you attend the Remembrance Day services in this very important year.
I rise today to speak about the great state of Victoria and this government's interaction with our great state across the last five years. This government has starved Victoria of infrastructure funding. Despite this, the Victorian Labor government has planned, funded and is delivering on major projects that are not only making lives easier in our state but are also responsible for increased jobs in Victoria. Critically, they will assist in the quality of life for Victorians who live in the western suburbs.
I speak of the Melbourne Metro, which will improve the number of trips by our train services. I speak of $1.8 billion of funding to roads within the city of Wyndham that will be upgraded—doubled—to help with the congestion. I speak of the rail crossing separations, and I speak, of course, of the West Gate Tunnel. The Victorian state Labor government is getting on with delivering the infrastructure that will improve lives in my community. As well as this, they're creating jobs through the process: apprenticeships and getting long-term unemployed people into work through training programs and jobs to go to. Meanwhile, we've got a federal Treasurer who stands in this place and claims to be responsible for the increasing growth in jobs. He should be thanking the Victorian state Labor government for those improved figures.
I rise in the House today to acknowledge the 52nd anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan and also to acknowledge the Vietnam Veterans Day, which was held on Saturday this past weekend. In doing so I'd like to acknowledge all of those Australians who served in Vietnam and, indeed, all those Australians that have served in each of the conflicts which this country has been engaged in.
The Vietnam conflict was the longest military engagement that this country was involved in last century—longer than the First World War, longer than the Second World War. Indeed, during the decade of 1962 to 1972 some 60,000 Australians served for one period or another in Vietnam and, of that 60,000, more than 500 didn't return home. They died as a result of that conflict.
The Battle of Long Tan, of course, was fought on 18 August 1966. It was one of the fiercest battles of the Vietnam conflict, with some 108 members of the 6th Royal Australian Regiment up against a Viet Cong force of more than 2,000. Seventeen Australians were killed, 25 wounded, and one of those 25 died a few years later. With the great casualties of the war, I don't think we in this country sufficiently and appropriately commemorated those who went to Vietnam War, and it's an opportunity to do that on an ongoing basis.
I would like to associate myself with the member for Menzies's acknowledgement of our Vietnam veterans. I turn my focus to Palmerston in my electorate of Solomon, where the wait is almost over for the territory's first new hospital in some 40 years. Yes, the Palmerston Regional Hospital is days away from opening. In anticipation of this, the new hospital held a community open day, and we had about 1,500 people come along to the open day. I'd like to acknowledge all those who contributed to the Palmerston Regional Hospital open day. It was led by their general manager, Catherine O'Connell, and the staff and volunteers from the Royal Darwin Hospital that joined in to help the public see how great this new hospital is. For my part, I will put on record that I was successful in getting an extra $40 million out of then-Prime Minister Rudd for this hospital, which has enabled it to become the first-class hospital that it is today.
It's taken 40 years for the Territory to get a new hospital. This one services the Palmerston region. So it is slightly disappointing, I must say, that this federal government has cut $16 million from Territory hospitals. It's not helpful. It is a disgrace and a slap in the face for the Territory's health system. It's great that the Palmerston Regional Hospital is opening; now give us the funds to run our hospitals.
If the Queensland state government were to write down its network assets, or even half of them, it would have a material impact on electricity prices. But, when I raised the prospect last Friday, the idea copped a public rebuke from the Palaszczuk government as a thought-bubble not worthy of consideration. Why? Why is Queensland Labor not prepared to seriously consider writing down its network assets? There can only be three reasons: (1) they're cynically putting cheap politics ahead of cheap power by encouraging Queenslanders to blame the federal government and not the state for their pain; or (2) they have a secret plan to privatise their assets, and so the last thing they want to do is to write them down, for fear it'll compromise a potential sale price; or (3) they want to keep charging Queenslanders a secret energy tax, under the guise of electricity bills—bills that are unnecessarily expensive to cover over-inflated, gold-plated, often monopolised assets—and also to cover debt, borrowed by government entities and effectively laundered back to state coffers in the form of special dividends. It's time that this racket was exposed and cleaned up. If the state Labor government cannot run the state's finances, it should not be gouging consumers to cover its incompetence.
I'm wearing black today, in mourning for the Prime Minister. It's been 3,184 days since the Liberal Party last dumped him as leader, and I think he's going to get his wish soon—to not lead a party that doesn't believe in climate change.
I also want to note that 22 August is an important day for Cambodian Australians. It's the bail hearing for the jailed opposition leader, Kem Sokha. We hosted, in the parliament last week, Monovithya Kem, his daughter. I call on the Australian government to redouble their efforts to see Kem Sokha released. Hun Sen, the dictator, just announced that he won 125 seats out of 125 seats in the sham fake election that saw the opposition leader jailed, his opponents kicked out of the country, the media banned and civil society shut down.
I want to beat the government—but I want to beat them fairly, at an election. It's about time that this government accepted that their dodgy refugee deal to give $40 million to a corrupt dictator is a stain on our country. It's about time that you accepted the need to examine sanctions on Cambodia—visa bans; asset freezes—and that you honour Australia's legacy from the federal Labor government under Gareth Evans, where we led the world to get the Paris Peace Accords in place. Whoever the Prime Minister is, in a few weeks when they go to the United Nations for leaders' week, they should lead. (Time expired)
In what could be a first in the history of this building, three members from this place and the Senate will sleep rough in the Parliament House courtyard—
Opposition members interjecting—
to raise funds for the St Vincent de Paul Society—Vinnies—on the Sunshine Coast. This Thursday night, the member for Fisher, Andrew Wallace; the member for Fairfax, Ted O'Brien; our Senate colleague James McGrath and I will join the 2018 Vinnies Sunshine Coast community sleep-out from the courtyard in this building. Others participating in the sleep-out on 23 August will be on the beach at Maroochydore. But, as we won't be able to get back in time, we'll be showing our support from here in Canberra.
While we get to go home after the event, there are thousands of people who are on our streets every night, whether through unemployment, mental illness, family breakdown, addiction or other unforeseen circumstances in life. This sleep-out is a good way to raise money for St Vinnies, to help them reach their $150,000 fundraising goal, to upgrade accommodation units for homeless people on the Sunshine Coast. I thank John Harrison, Sue Stack and all the staff who volunteer at St Vinnies Sunshine Coast for the good work that they do on this very serious issue of homelessness that we, on this side of the House, take seriously, unlike those who interjected before.
On Friday night I attended the Townsville NAIDOC dinner, which was an exceptional cultural experience. The Wulgurukaba and Bindal traditional owners and custodians welcomed all of those who were there to celebrate 'Because of her, we can!' The Wulgurukaba Walkabout Dancers and Komet Torres Strait Island Art and Culture group's performances were outstanding. The highlight of the evening for me was the speech made by the guest speaker, Rothana. She is an education counsellor at Townsville State High School.
Her story is one of inspiration and hope. Her life has been hard, sad and one of commitment to her family and community. She is a proud Aboriginal and Netherlands woman. Her life and her family's life on Palm Island under the protection act was nothing short of shocking. I was completely in awe while she spoke. With the silence in the room you could hear a pin drop. The respect that she commanded from the audience was second to none. Topsy Tapham also spoke. She is a proud Torres Strait Islander woman. She spoke of her life and the women in her life that have supported her. She has formed a women's group for Indigenous women seeking to build their dreams and hopes. Women like Professor Gracelyn Smallwood and Dorothy Savage are great role models for local First Nations women in my community. Their stories need to be heard, and I congratulate the Townsville NAIDOC committee on an absolutely inspirational evening.
I rise today to pay tribute to Australia's Vietnam veterans. Every year on 18 August we commemorate Vietnam Veterans Day. This year I attended Vietnam Veterans Day in Berri at the recently revamped Vietnam Veterans War Memorial. In the history of Australia's involvement in that war, 18 August is a significant day. Originally known as Long Tan Day, it was on this day in 1966 that 108 Australian and New Zealand soldiers fought a battle against over 2,000 North Vietnamese and Vietcong troops in a rubber plantation near the small village of Long Tan. In torrential rain, over a period of four hours, the Australians prevailed. Sadly, 18 Australians lost their lives and 24 were seriously wounded. It was the largest number of casualties in one operation since the Australian task force had arrived a few months earlier.
This battle was a great success, but one that came at a great cost. The Riverland Vietnam Veterans Association commemorate this day each year with a service at the Berri Vietnam Veterans War Memorial. I was honoured to lay a wreath and pay my respects in Berri on Saturday. I acknowledge the efforts of President Max Binding and committee members Rob Kemp, Robert Manuel and Roger Nettle.
Right now there are 57 bushfires burning throughout New South Wales, from the north to the Victorian border. It's winter and the regular bushfire season has not even started. The New South Wales government says that 100 per cent of the state of New South Wales is drought affected. Fifty-seven per cent of Queensland is drought declared. Rather than focusing on these matters, the government are arguing amongst themselves and squabbling about who is going to be the next Prime Minister of this country. They say it's about energy policy, but it's not. It's about politics. It is, as the member for Warringah says, all about attempting to create a point of difference between yourself and the opposition. If the thing that you are attempting to differentiate yourself on is the truth, then the political project that you are building is built upon a lie. When the thing that you are attempting to differentiate yourself on is an obvious need, then your policy is a vehicle for neglect. You have had six energy policies in five years, three of them in the last three weeks. The choice is not between a Turnbull government and a Dutton government; the choice is between governing and not governing. And you are failing.
Lieutenant Richard John 'Rick' Abraham was born and raised in Whyalla. He attended Whyalla Memorial Oval Primary School and later Whyalla High. He apprenticed as and became a professional photographer. As a 20-year-old, he was called up for national service but declared medically unfit because he had a plate in his leg as a result of a relatively recent motorbike accident. A determined character, over the next 18 months he had the plate removed and joined up anyway. He was assigned to 9RAR, which was formed in South Australia and was the last one raised for the Vietnam War. The battalion was transported on an aircraft carrier, the Sydney, and arrived in Vietnam in November 1969. Rick was a very popular member of the battalion and was known as 'Mr Personality'. The battalion saw heavy action and lost 35 during its tour, with over 150 wounded. Sadly, Rick Abraham was one of the 35.
On 6 July 1969 Rick was killed in an ambush by the Vietcong. As the M60 heavy machine gunner, he was the first to be targeted and was the only life lost in the incident, even though his immediate companion was wounded. He was remembered last Saturday in Whyalla as we commemorated Vietnam Veterans Day—as he should be, as all who served our nation should be remembered. Lest we forget.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he will not be legislating his own energy policy because he cannot command the support of his own government in this parliament?
The government introduces legislation when it knows that it can pass through the House of Representatives. As I said today, we're not able to be assured of that at this stage. But I want to say this: what we have demonstrated is a commitment to bringing electricity prices down.
We're bringing electricity prices down. We've started to turn the corner on electricity prices, and today we've announced new measures, picking up from the ACCC report, for example, and creating a default power bill for households and small businesses. It's estimated by the ACCC that that would save customers on standing offers—and there are over a million of those around the nation—between $183 and $416.
What that is doing is taking the practical steps, based on the ACCC report, which we commissioned, to bring down energy prices. And we are prepared to take strong action, to use a big stick, to bring the big energy companies to the attention of the public and the customers that they should be serving, just as we did with gas, where we threatened to limit exports of gas. That resulted in an increase in gas availability on the east coast of Australia, a halving of the wholesale price of gas and, as a consequence, a substantial reduction in the cost of generating electricity. We are not afraid of taking on big business on behalf of their customers, and we will do so again. Our commitment is lower electricity prices. We have the measures to do that; they're working.
Opposition members interjecting—
There's more work to do. On the measures we've announced today: these strong measures will enable us to do more to protect Australian families and businesses, and get their power prices down.
Just before I call the member for Robertson, the level of interjections is already too high and I'm cautioning the members for Rankin, Newcastle and Griffith—again. I'm not going to keep repeating the cautions. I simply will need to take action.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the actions the government is taking to reduce cost-of-living pressures on households, including lower taxes and cheaper energy, in my electorate of Robertson? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for her question. We know that many Australian families are doing it tough, and that's why we're doing everything we can to ensure they keep more of the money they earn and we reduce the cost-of-living pressures on their families.
Under our long-term plan for personal income tax relief, lower- and middle-income earners will save up to $530 this year—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield is warned!
and benefit from our plan to deal with bracket creep, which will mean that by 2024, 94 per cent of Australians will face a top marginal rate of 32½ per cent on any extra dollar they earn. That's a very big win for hardworking Australians. You'd think the Labor Party would have embraced that but, of course, they opposed it. They opposed it, just like they opposed our multinational tax avoidance legislation. Not only did they not want hardworking Australian families to pay less tax but they weren't prepared to support the government in ensuring that multinationals paid the tax they owed.
We're seeing strong economic growth and real confidence. It drove over 400,000 new jobs in Australia last year. That is being supported by our small- and medium-business tax cuts. Companies with turnovers up to $50 million a year are paying 27½ per cent tax. They're paying less tax than they were a few years back. What that means is that they have more money to invest in their businesses. The Labor Party oppose that. They are committed, as we know, to higher taxes for families, higher taxes for businesses, going after the savings of retirees and, with their reckless energy policies, higher energy prices as well. We're backing families with more affordable child care, we're fully funding the NDIS and we are able to list lifesaving medicines on the PBS because we have a strong economy and the government revenues that flow from that.
The Leader of the Opposition was telling us today, in a great example of magical thinking, about his 45 per cent emissions reduction target and a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target—and think about this; the Renewable Energy Target is widely accepted, including by the ACCC's chairman, Rod Sims, as being one of the worst energy policies we've seen. It's been completed and we are not going to continue subsidising one technology after another but that's what Labor wants to do. As Rod Sims said, all that does is lead to higher and higher prices.
Ms Burney interjecting—
The member for Barton is warned.
My question is to the Prime Minister. When will the Prime Minister provide Labor with a copy of the legislation for today's version of his energy policy? Will the Prime Minister work with Labor on a constructive, bipartisan basis to reduce pollution, increase renewables and deliver lower power prices for Australian families?
I have to hand it to the Leader of the Opposition. He was able to contain or restrain the smirk until he got halfway through that question. I've never heard a less convincing advocate for bipartisanship than the Leader of the Opposition. He's all politics and no policy. The simple fact is that what we have got are measures that will bring down electricity prices by hundreds of dollars—strong measures, and measures that are working already. All Labor has is a ragbag of measures that have been proven to fail: unsustainable renewable targets, unnecessary renewable targets and unsustainable emissions abatement targets. All of that has been demonstrated to put up higher prices and undermine our competitiveness. If Labor were serious about energy policy, they would be supporting policies based on economics and engineering. That's what we're doing, and that is why we're seeing lower prices, and we have more to come.
Mr Speaker—
The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking to table a document?
No, I was just asking the Prime Minister to table the legislation to which he was referring.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how implementing the ACCC's recommendations on retail electricity pricing will work to reduce energy prices for Australian households and businesses? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative suggestions that would drive prices up?
I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. Today we announced three things to do. In the March 2017 inquiry, which we launched as part of our broader suite of measures to get electricity prices down, we set the work for the ACCC to do and they reported back last month. The three key things we are doing now include a safety net on price for householders and for business, a big stick to keep the big businesses and the energy companies between the lines so those prices do go down, and backing in investment in additional power generation in this country, whether it's coal, whether it's hydro, whether it's gas—things that are firmed; things that actually generate more power and get prices down. One point two million Australians will benefit from our policy of the safety net price, the default price, which will see power prices fall between $183 and $416. On top of that, small and medium sized enterprises will benefit from a fallen price of between $560 and $1,500. That's a fall in prices as a result of the policies being pursued by this government. They were recommended to us by the ACCC and we're acting on that report. It will also simplify the policies and simplify the prices so people know that—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon is warned!
when they're getting a discount, they're getting a fair dinkum discount. On top of that, by putting in the big stick for the energy companies, by putting the ACCC, the cop on the beat, back to work to ensure that they are doing the right thing, they will be monitoring their prices again. That issuance will be going out today. That means that, if they fall foul of that, the government, once we put those powers in place, will have everything from infringement fines all the way to divestiture if the big companies do not do the right thing. By backing in investment and by guaranteeing the back end of the finance so those projects can come online, we will see that additional energy put into the market.
The Labor Party have a very different view about all this. They want to shut power stations down; they want to put power prices up; they want to put unnecessary subsidies into the market, which will only force consumers to pay more; they've got a renewable energy target the shadow Treasurer doesn't even understand, let alone how much it's going to cost; and, on top of that, they have an emissions reduction target that has only one destination, and it isn't Paris; it's higher prices—it's higher prices for every single family. Under Labor, you will pay more for your electricity and you'll pay more in taxes. You'll just keep paying more and more and more under Labor.
I inform the House that joining us in the gallery this afternoon is a parliamentary delegation of members of the budget and financial affairs committee of the National Assembly of Vietnam. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is legislating the government's energy policy an issue central to government policy? Is it of vital importance?
What's of vital importance is getting energy prices down. That's what Australians want us to do. I would have thought the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would understand that we need to ensure that the rapid rise in energy prices, way above the rate of inflation, has gone on for too long. We've taken strong measures to bring it down. It's starting to come down and we have to do more. What we are doing is using the recommendations from the ACCC to ensure that we have the tools to make the big retailers, the big energy companies, serve their customers and deliver for them. That's our commitment: cheaper electricity.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. This morning, I introduced a bill to establish a social security commission to independently recommend adequate levels of social security payments, from Newstart right across to pensions. Australians want to know that the social safety net is there to catch and look after them as they engage with workforce or further study. It's not a punishment. Will you support the establishment of this commission to ensure people living on government payments have a dignified standard of living?
I'd like to thank the member for her question. Can I say to her that the government is not going to outsource our welfare system because it is far, far too important—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Hill interjecting—
The minister will resume his seat for a second. The member for Bruce is warned, as are other members interjecting.
As a nation, we should be extremely proud in this place that in Australia the top 20 per cent give more to the bottom 20 per cent than in any other OECD nation in the world. What that means is that as a government we have been able to ensure that pensions for couples have gone up by $150 and pensions for singles have gone up by $100. When it comes to the NDIS, we've been able to fully fund it. When it comes to those of working age—and this is something we on this side should be incredibly proud of—the number on a welfare payment is at a 25 year low at 15 per cent. That is because of the policies we as a government have been able to put in place.
Look at the reforms we've undertaken that we got through the parliament this year. The welfare reform bill collapsed seven welfare payments into one. Look at the cashless debit card. I know all members on this side, especially the member for O'Connor, would have been incredibly interested to see on Friday the press release put out by the mayor. He said: 'The cashless welfare card is already proving a success. While the rollout of the federal government's card in the Goldfields only started this year, all the indications are positive.' As a government, we are going to continue making sure that we focus on ensuring that the best form of welfare is a job.
Mr Speaker, I did have a point of order, but I think the answer's rambled to its end.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how putting downward pressure on power bills and implementing tax cuts for hardworking small businesses will help create jobs and confidence in regional Australia, including my electorate of Page, and are there any risks to affordable energy and legislated tax cuts for small businesses helping regional Australia get ahead?
I'd like to thank the member for Page for his question, because he understands that, in his electorate and in all electorates, cost of living is a big factor. He's working very hard each and every day to make sure that cost-of-living pressures are addressed. It's at the centre of everything that the Liberals and Nationals stand for. That's what we're doing for families—helping with power bills, putting downward pressure on power prices and having a big stick for companies that gouge consumers. We don't want that to happen, the member for Page doesn't want that to happen and we're making sure it does not happen. We're going to force companies to have a default offer to make sure that consumers are getting a good deal.
For businesses, it's reliable energy so that you know when you flick the switch the lights will come on. There won't be hiccups. There won't be blackouts. We'll know that the lights will come on. That's where Snowy Hydro 2.0 is so important. We're building the sort of infrastructure that's going to make sure that, when you flick the switch, the lights will come on and the power will come on for families, households and businesses. For individuals, there are once-in-a-generation income tax cuts, supported by the member for Page and supported by each and every one of the Liberals and Nationals. For families and small businesses, it's the lowest tax rate in 78 years—27½ per cent, working its way down towards 25 per cent. We are making sure that we give those businesses the confidence to know they can invest in themselves and the confidence to know that they can hire that young Australian or, indeed, that older Australian. For farmers, it's also important in this drought. There's $1.8 billion in total assistance from the federal government. Yesterday we announced an immediate deductibility of fodder and grain storage and payments to local government areas in those drought-stricken communities. Plus, on water infrastructure, construction of piping, troughs, weirs and dams is what we're about.
The member for Page has a little business in his electorate called Mid Richmond Plumbers at Coraki. It's a family businesses that started in 1962. It employs 45 staff. It wants to employ more. It also wants to make sure it has confidence, going forward, that it has got the power prices right. We have got the power prices right, and they will take advantage of that.
I am asked about the Labor alternative. Labor had six years to do something. They didn't do much about anything. They certainly didn't do much about income tax cuts. They certainly didn't do much about small and family enterprises. When it comes to power prices, I have yet to hear the Leader of the Opposition come to the dispatch box—or go anywhere, for that matter—and say he agrees with LEAN, the Labor Environmental Action Network, who said, 'High prices are not a market failure; they are proof of the market working well.' So, does the Leader of the Opposition stand for higher power prices or does he not? (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has passionately advocated for three things in his public life: the republic, climate change and his big business tax cuts. Given the Prime Minister has abandoned the republic and abandoned action on climate change, will he now rule out abandoning his centrepiece big business tax cuts? Or is it the case that, whenever it comes to a choice between his principles and his job, this Prime Minister stands for nothing at all.
We know what the Labor Party stands for: higher personal income taxes; higher business and company taxes; opposing multinational tax avoidance; opposing greater childcare support for families; opposing funding the NDIS; wanting to keep secret, and corrupting, payments between employers and unions; and opposing restoring the rule of law to the construction sector. The reality is that the Labor Party does not have one policy that will encourage one business to invest one dollar or hire one employee.
By contrast, we have stood up for business. Last year we saw the strongest jobs growth in our country's history because we are supporting businesses and standing up for hardworking Australian families and giving them a tax break this year and a longer term reform that will see 94 per cent of Australians, relieved from the curse of bracket creep, paying no more than 32½ cents on any extra dollar they earn.
The honourable member talks about climate change. We are taking real action on climate change. The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned Snowy Hydro 2.0. That is the largest pumped hydro project in the Southern Hemisphere. We got it started. We've got it underway. Labor was able to deliver one policy after another that reduced the reliability of electricity networks and increased their cost. We are delivering the largest renewable energy project in Australia's history since Snowy Hydro 1. That is our commitment. We are committed to a responsible approach to the environment, cheaper electricity prices and a strong economy.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the government is focusing on lower power bills for households and businesses across Australia, including in my home state of Victoria? Is the minister aware of any contrary proposals that would increase the burden on Australian families?
I thank the member for Dunkley. He is focused on delivering lower power prices for businesses and families throughout his electorate—like Replas, in Seaford, who turn plastics into pallets and deck boards; like Sims Metal; like the car yards; like the retail shopping strips across Frankston and across his electorate.
We won't take lectures from the Labor Party when it comes to energy because, when they were in office, prices went up each and every year. They gave us the dreaded carbon tax. They gave us the dreaded Citizens' Assembly. They gave us the dreaded cash for clunkers. And what about green loans and the pink batts scheme—not to mention Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch. What a mess it was from Labor. No wonder the member for Port Adelaide wrote a book where he said: 'We made mistakes. We sent mixed messages.' It is because Labor drove power prices up.
In contrast, under the prime ministership of the member for Wentworth, we have been able to intervene in the gas markets. Prices have come down by up to 50 per cent. We've taken action to rein in the power of the networks, which, if the Labor party had done previously, would have saved Australian consumers over $6 billion. We've been able to get better deals for 1.8 million households. Wholesale prices are down around 25 per cent this year, and retail prices came down in Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales on 1 July.
Today we've announced the next step in our energy plan: implementing the ACCC's recommendations. This is what the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said about the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and my announcements today: 'This is a great announcement. This is a good, strong action which will help bring prices down and bring relief to businesses and families.' That's from the ACCI. What do National Seniors say about the government's announcement today? They said: 'We welcome this. This is what we've called for. This is based on what our members have told us.'
What they're talking about is a default offer for 1.2 million Australians who no longer will be on the higher-price standing offers. We'll see up to a $416 saving. Businesses will see up to a $1,457 saving. We'll now have the ACCC as a permanent cop on the beat, monitoring the market and equipped with new enforcement powers to stamp out bad behaviour. We'll be implementing recommendation 4 to get more dispatchable willpower, new generation and more competition to large commercial and industrial customers. At the end of the day, the Labor Party will deliver you higher prices; the coalition will deliver you lower power prices, more jobs, more investment and a better deal for Australian families and businesses. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Over the past two years, the Prime Minister has asked Labor to support an emissions intensity scheme, a clean energy target, the National Energy Guarantee that went to the party room last Tuesday, another version of it announced on Saturday—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The member for Port Adelaide will pause for a second. The Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities is loudly interjecting and preventing me from hearing the question. He's warned. Can you start again, Member for Port Adelaide? We will start the clock again.
It is my pleasure. My question is to the Prime Minister. Over the past two years, the Prime Minister has asked Labor to support an emissions intensity scheme, a clean energy target, the National Energy Guarantee that went to the party room last Tuesday, another version announced on Saturday and yet another policy four hours ago. Which of these five government policies does the government currently support? Aren't Australians paying the price for five years of this government focusing on itself instead of policies to bring down power prices for Australian households?
I thank the honourable member for his question. The policies that the Labor Party championed when in government were responsible for making the energy sector both unreliable and extraordinarily expensive, to the point that electricity prices rose over the last decade by 56 per cent over the rate of inflation. It was a decoupling of electricity prices from the consumer price index and it was entirely due to poor policy. It was largely a function of Labor ideology and idiocy that saw that. We're starting to see prices coming down. We're seeing wholesale generation costs coming down substantially. Retail prices are coming down. Emissions from the electricity sector are also coming down. In terms of the National Energy Guarantee, the policy that we took to the party room last week has been improved following consultation—
Opposition members interjecting—
It has been. We consulted with our colleagues. We have improved it to ensure that there is effectively a mechanism that makes it absolutely clear that any change to emissions standards cannot put up prices. That's a very important safeguard. Overall, what Labor has failed to do is focus on price. That is what we're focusing on. We're having success with it. But there's more work to do.
The announcements we made today, as recommended by the ACCC, will save families and businesses hundreds of dollars. They're long overdue. I thank the ACCC for their recommendations, which would never have arisen had it not been for the inquiry being commissioned by the Treasurer 15 months ago. It's a great piece of work. I'm glad that Labor is supporting, or claiming to support, at least one part of it. But this is an opportunity to make a really material difference to people's electricity bills and get them lower. That's what they want us to do for them: cheaper electricity.
The members for Shortland and Eden-Monaro will cease interjecting or they won't remain in the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on what the government is doing to keep Australia's economy internationally competitive and prosperous? What are the risks of pursuing alternative suggestions?
I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and for her support for businesses in her electorate. The Australian economy is growing at 3.1 per cent. This is faster than all of the G7 nations—the largest, most advanced economies in the world. But this growth can't be taken for granted, because Australia has to compete on the world stage. Our companies have to compete in the international marketplace. That's why the coalition government has an economic plan to keep our economy strong, growing, resilient and competitive. That's why we have provided tax relief for businesses and employers, while we're putting downward pressure on electricity prices, while we're finding new markets for our goods and services and while we're ensuring that Australia is still an attractive destination for foreign investment.
And our plan is working. In the 12 months to last July, over 300,000 more Australians were in work, and we were creating over 1,000 new jobs a day. So it is working.
But we have to ensure that we remain an attractive destination for foreign direct investment, because data released last week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that one in 10 Australian jobs is supported by foreign direct investment. Let me give you an example.
Today I met with the CEO of Japan's INPEX Corporation, Mr Ueda. They are developing one of the largest LNG projects in the world in Australia. It is the largest Japanese investment outside of Japan, ever. This will have enormous ramifications across the economy. Already they're employing, directly, 11,000 Australians. There are over 1,000 businesses engaged in just this one project. And already—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Shortland will leave under 94(a).
The member for Shortland then left the chamber.
$16 billion has been generated for the local economy. Over the life of this one project, it is estimated that there will be $73 billion in tax revenue generated. So that's what the coalition government's policies are aimed at developing—more foreign investment.
I'm asked about alternative approaches. Well, the Labor Party's policies are anti-investment, anti-economic-growth and anti-jobs. The Labor Party believes in higher taxes and higher prices. They are so against business that it is having a deadening effect—the mere thought of a Labor-led government would have a deadening effect on investment.
So the coalition stands for jobs, for workers and for investment. Labor stands for higher prices, higher taxes, lower investment and fewer jobs. We are fighting for the Australian worker. (Time expired)
I'd just like to inform the House we've just had join us on the floor this afternoon a parliamentary delegation of members of the New Zealand Social Services and Community Committee. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the current Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he's had five different signature energy policies, including two just today; he's planning on dumping his signature big-business handout; and his government is completely paralysed by infighting and chaos? Isn't it the case that Australians are paying the price for the circus that this government and its policies have become?
I thank the member for Batman for her question. She should welcome today's announcements, because they will lower power prices. The ACCC is a cop on the beat. It conducted a 15-month inquiry. It was able to compel some 50,000 documents from the companies and shine a light on their behaviour. As a result, there were 56 recommendations. Today we are announcing important ones that have been welcomed by the ACCI, representing businesses across the country—including in the member for Batman's electorate—and by the National Seniors Australia group, representing many of their people who are struggling with their power bills. We're on the side of the consumer. Those opposite are on the side of the big power companies.
The member for Batman is a former union leader, probably like most on the other side. Do you think the member for Batman would listen to the words of the CFMEU president, who wrote, about Labor's 50 per cent target:
An increased Renewable Energy Target of 50% by 2030 will increase the cost of electricity for manufacturing and ordinary households while being a poor tool to reduce Australia’s overall global warming emissions.
Did you hear that? The union movement is telling the member for Batman, 'Stop all the worrying about emissions and think about people's power prices.' What about Ben Davis, the Victorian secretary of the AWU—the member for Maribyrnong's former secretary. He had this to say:
… the rush away from coal and gas-fired electricity power stations to renewables is a little unseemly in its haste because we are potentially crucifying hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers.
Of those opposite, there is one member who is actually a conscientious objector—she's got her head down. Who do you think it is? It's the member for Paterson. Why? Because the member for Paterson is the daughter of a coalminer who holds an electorate in New South Wales's Hunter Valley. She told The Australian:
… she would support the construction of a new coal-fired power station.
Come on over, Member for Paterson! At the end of the day, we know what's going on over there. The Leader of the Opposition has sold out the workers he pretends to represent. He has done a deal with the Greens to protect his left flank. He is not supporting the blue-collar workers or the jobs of Australians that depend on cost-effective energy policies. Only the coalition will deliver lower power prices. (Time expired)
Before I call on the next question, I just want to address the House on that last question. I listened to the member for Batman, and her question, at the very beginning, had an inclusion or a lead-in with respect to the Prime Minister. I'm going to make really clear, having reflected through the answer, that I'm not going to allow that course to occur. If members are incapable of simply asking a question to the Prime Minister or a minister without adding in any other words, I'm going to sit them down and I won't be offering a chance to rephrase the question.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister update the House on the success of the government's defence export strategy? How is that strategy assisting Australian businesses and the broader economy, and how does the strategy differ from the approach by previous governments?
I thank the member for Cowper for his question. I must admit that I'm sorry to hear that he's retiring from this House at the next election. He's done a marvellous job representing the people of north New South Wales for the last 17 or so years.
The member asks me about the alternative to the government's defence export strategy. I have to tell him that there simply isn't an alternative to the government's defence export strategy. When Labor were in power, they didn't even conceive of a defence export strategy. They didn't have a defence industry policy strategy. They didn't have any plans for naval shipbuilding in this country. They hadn't commissioned one ship to be built in Australia. They didn't do anything to initiate the Joint Strike Fighter program. They certainly didn't support the combat reconnaissance vehicle program or the Australian industry content in it. When Labor was in power, spending on defence fell to 1.56 per cent of GDP, the lowest since 1938, the last year of appeasement. They didn't have any alternative to our defence export strategy. Quite the opposite: they were content to have a foreign military sales strategy where they bought everything from overseas, creating no jobs in this country, no highly sophisticated jobs in engineering, science, technology, maths or the 60 per cent of jobs in naval shipbuilding, for example, who are tradespeople.
By contrast, the Turnbull government initiated a defence export strategy which was released in January of this year with a defence exports advocate, a defence exports office and a grants program for small and medium enterprises to support defence exports. I can tell the member for Cowper and the House that it is working. In the June quarter of this year, applications for defence export permits jumped 25 per cent on the same period in 2017—an enormous increase in companies having the confidence to apply for defence export permits to get their goods and services overseas. I could also tell you that, since the beginning of January this year, the value of defence export permits granted has hit $1 billion in six months. That is $1 billion in six months of defence export permits that have been granted. So Australian businesses, small and medium enterprises, those who support the primes, are taking the clarion call from the government and investing in their businesses, trying to break into new markets, creating jobs, growing the economy, and innovating and investing in infrastructure in this country, which is the hallmark of the Turnbull government: focusing on the economy, focusing on jobs, focusing on increasing wages and infrastructure in our economy.
My question is to the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister has said today that he won't be introducing legislation on his energy policy until he's confident it can pass the House. Does that legislation exist?
It does.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the benefits of Australia's strong—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left. The member for Grayndler. Yes, it's getting a bit juvenile. The member for Swan has the call.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs: Will the minister update the House on the benefits of Australia's strong and consistent border protection measures? Is the minister aware of any threats to the integrity of Australia's borders?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I know he is very proud to be part of a government that has secured our borders when Labor could never do it. When Labor came into office in 2007, there were four people in detention, including no children. So what did they do? They undid the policy of John Howard that had stopped the boats. What happened? Fifty thousand people came on 800 boats and 1,200 people drowned at sea. The Labor Party set up Manus and Nauru. They put thousands of people onto the islands. They put 8,000 children into detention. We have cleaned that mess up. We've closed the 17 detention centres, we've got every one of those children out of detention and I have not had a death at sea on my watch.
Have the Labor Party thought to themselves: 'Why don't we just reinvent the whole thing again? Why don't we go back and make the same mistakes we did back in 2007?' Of course they have. We saw during the break the Leader of the Opposition being interviewed. It was a very interesting interview on ABC Radio where he was asked about regional resettlement options—that is, where would the people go from Manus and Nauru that he had put on the island? Bear in mind that we have got over 1,000 people off, including over 300 people to the United States in that deal we brokered. When he was asked about what countries he had in mind, Mr Shorten said there was 'a range of countries within Asia in the Asia-Pacific who we could talk to'. The interview went on. Mr Shorten was asked to nominate specific countries and he initially said:
I think there's big economies right through the Asian continent who would be, I think, worthwhile for us to talk to.
What did he nominate? Canada—that great, well-known South-East Asian country! He's taken inspiration from the member for Sydney on geography. The trouble is that Canada is not taking people from Manus and Nauru. He went on to nominate New Zealand. We've already established that, if you send people to New Zealand, the boats restart. And he nominated Taiwan and Korea. Some of these countries take fewer than 10 people a year through their migration program.
It demonstrates that Labor once again are making policy on the run when it comes to border protection. There is no question that the Labor Party would continue to make the mistakes of old if they were elected again. The reality is—and all Australians realise this—that Labor have no capacity to secure our borders. They don't have the strength to stare down people smugglers. Everybody knows that you cannot trust a word that this Leader of the Opposition utters.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister today release the legislation that he referred to in his last answer?
The government will introduce the legislation when it has concluded that it has the support in the House of Representatives for it to be passed.
My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation. Will the minister update the House on how the government's economic policies are benefiting small and family businesses? How would different approaches hurt families and businesses?
I thank the member for North Sydney for his question. I note that recently I was in Chatsworth in his electorate. I was in a room full of small and family business operators, listening to their concerns and receiving their feedback and thanks for the fact that the Turnbull coalition government places this most important of sectors—small and family business, which is responsible for employing up to 60 per cent of the private sector in this economy—at the centre of everything that it does—unlike those opposite.
I note that on the last day before the winter recess the Leader of the Opposition made the member for McMahon the shadow minister for small and family businesses. The very next day the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer announced that a Shorten Labor government, if elected, would let tax rates be 10 per cent higher than have already been legislated under the enterprise tax plan. Tax rates in this country for small and family businesses are on their way to 25 per cent. If those opposite were elected, they would be stuck at 27½ per cent—some 10 per cent higher.
It's not just tax policy that is the Leader of the Opposition's centrepiece of war against this most vital sector. It is higher taxes, high power prices and, as I spoke about last week, the abolition of the Building and Construction Commission, looking after some 367,000 small and family businesses operating in the construction sector. What do those opposite and the Leader of the Opposition want to do? Because of his secret deal with the CFMEU, they want to take the cop off the beat and they want to bring back the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, putting some 39,000 small and family business transport operators out of work immediately.
In the last 12 months of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd debacle we had Labor policies that were responsible for 61,000 small and family businesses in this country disappearing. In the six years when Labor were last in power some 520,000 jobs in small and family business land disappeared. In the last 12 months, under the Turnbull coalition government and their sensible economic management, we have had a net increase in the number of small family businesses operating of 65,000—an increase in the employment in this sector of 66,000 people just in small business land. The small and family business operators in this country can be very clear on one thing: whether it is the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow minister for small and family business, who is the shadow Treasurer, with friends like them they don't need enemies.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's last answer. Is the Prime Minister's position that the parliament will only be allowed to see the legislation if we agree to vote for it before we've seen it?
I explained the circumstances in my press conference this morning. It's perfectly straightforward. We have a majority of one in this House. We need to have all, or almost all, of our party room to support legislation for the government to carry it on its own numbers. With respect to this matter, we're not in that position at this stage. We will continue talking to our colleagues.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on how the government's drought assistance measures are supporting primary producers and farming communities to build drought resilience and preparedness, including in my electorate of Murray? What are the alternatives to supporting our primary producers in this way?
I thank the honourable member for his question and his concern about the spread of this insidious drought across this country. This government's policy on drought has been one around farmer welfare and preparedness. Proudly, we've invested over $1.8 billion in farming families and communities.
Yesterday, we announced more measures. We're making sure that we're lifting the farm household assistance to $37,626 to those farming families out there. We've invested a further $25 million into Rural Financial Counselling Service, of which $8.4 million will go towards new boots on the ground to put people of farming families in front of rural financial counsellors at their own kitchen tables. It's an important measure to give them time to make strategic decisions about their business and about their future, but we've gone further than that.
Now we're looking at preparedness measures, with nearly $100 million in water infrastructure projects, with $23.7 million of that going towards the Great Artesian Basin. It's a great program that goes towards capping and piping bores and looking after one of this nation's greatest natural resources. There's nearly $72 million in identifying new water projects, like new dams. We're proud to say that we want to build more dams to build more resilience for the agricultural sector and for the productivity and profitability of the agricultural sector. We're making sure that we invest also in giving over $2.7 million to the Bureau of Meteorology to help them have more localised climate programs that allow farmers to make strategic decisions about when they should buy and sell cattle, giving farmers the tools to get through droughts and to be prepared for droughts. It's also to allow farmers to make strategic investment in an instant write-off for any fodder infrastructure farmers want to build to get through droughts in the future. This is a strategic decision in their future. We've increased the amounts of loans for the Regional Investment Corporation from $1 million to $2 million to give more competitive pressure in the financial sector to the agricultural farmers right across this country. This is about building greater resilience into the agricultural sector.
We've also announced Major General Stephen Day to coordinate our approach, and the whole nation's approach, to this. This is to ensure that we actually hear, as a government, on a daily basis about the concerns and the rapid response that we will need to give as this continues to evolve.
The story of agriculture is still a good one, even though there will be further droughts. Farmers in this country should be loud and proud about what they do and how they do it. This drought will go and, when it does, they will make a quid. We should be proud of what they do for this economy. I can say to each and every farmer that this government—this parliament—will stand shoulder to shoulder with you to get you through this drought.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. If the condition for any legislation being introduced is that no member of the coalition will cross the floor, doesn't that mean now that each member of the coalition backbench has a right of veto over whether or not this legislation will ever be introduced?
The honourable member did not accurately reflect the answer that I gave, but the fact is, as I said this morning and as I said earlier, we seek to ensure that legislation that we introduce has the support of sufficient of our party room to enable it to be carried on our own numbers.
My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government. Will the minister update the House on how the government are building on our strong track record of supporting rural communities who are doing it tough? What are the alternatives to providing this support?
I thank the member for Flynn for his question, because he, like those on this side of the House, understands the importance of backing regional communities, regional jobs, developing regional economies and of course dealing with the challenges of drought in particular across their communities at the moment.
Yesterday, I joined the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources in Forbes and Parkes to announce the second phase, the next phase, of our drought package, a package that now reaches $1.8 billion of assistance across rural and regional communities affected by drought. Part of this phase is a $75 million extension to the Stronger Communities Program. That is all about delivering immediate support to the worst-affected drought communities through their local governments, through their local councils. Initial support of $1 million will be rolled out to 60 councils in Queensland and New South Wales and two in Victoria, because councils need to support those communities.
The drought is certainly being felt very hard on the farm. It's being felt equally hard in town. And that's what this Drought Communities Program is all about. I'm focused on ensuring that councils have the flexibility to prioritise projects in their local communities that will get that economic activity happening: local leaders making local decisions, employing tradies and employing local jobseekers and local subcontractors for local infrastructure projects, community events in tough drought times and, of course, events and activities that will support, particularly, potable water and water for stock use—you name it. Local communities determine drought necessities in these times of challenge.
Under this program, we've already delivered just on 124 projects across 23 councils in what has been a $35 million program to date. Obviously, the $75 million we announced yesterday will boost regional economic activity in drought-affected communities quite significantly—in Narromine, in Blackall, in Forbes, in Charleville, in Moree; proud farming and grazing communities that the Turnbull government is behind and has been supporting. As the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources said, they do not want pity. They want sensible support to help them get through the tough times, such that they can return to leading the charge in supplying significant opportunity and wealth for our national economy from their regional communities.
So I say to those across the chamber: make sure you get behind regional communities as we are. Make sure you acknowledge the importance of the Drought Communities Program, because it's as tough in town as it is on the farm.
My question's to the Prime Minister. Given his last answer, can the Prime Minister confirm that he is unwilling to talk to Labor about energy price legislation until he has the consent of the member for Warringah?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. His invitation to engage in his bipartisanship is not very persuasive. The honourable member will understand that, when dealing with issues of this kind, I'll continue to confer with my colleagues.
My question is to the Minister for Human Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government is supporting farmers in drought-affected Australia by guaranteeing essential services and making access to financial support quicker and simpler? Is the minister aware of different approaches to managing the economy that would hurt our farming communities?
I thank the member for Fisher for that question. Members of this House know that we are living through one of the worst droughts on record. That's why this government has announced the measures that we need to assist those Australians in need. The measures that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has just been going through will show that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Australians to give them the assistance they need to survive this severe drought that we know has affected so many.
In response to that, we've increased our direct assistance and concessional loans to $1.8 billion as part of the next phase of our drought package. Yesterday the government announced further measures to assist our farmers, including additional funding for local infrastructure and drought-affected areas, new tax breaks for farmers, the appointment of a national drought coordinator and low-interest loans. We've already, in 2014, introduced the Farm Household Allowance, which supports our farmers who are doing it tough. The recently announced package provides immediate relief and includes additional support for mental health services and community organisations. We're providing lump sum payments, in addition to regular fortnightly payments, worth up to $12,000 for eligible farming households from September this year.
We on this side of the House know that this assistance we have announced is urgent. We need to give farmers quick and easy access to payments and support and we've taken action to ensure that's the case. Within my department we have doubled the number of staff who are working on Farm Household Allowance claims. This means that people can call up and talk to someone who's knowledgeable and who can assist them to make sure that their claim can be processed as quickly and expeditiously as possible. We have also introduced staff-assisted claiming for farmers. That means that, if they can't complete their claim online, they can call us and talk to a knowledgeable person who can work through the claim process with them, and they can get assistance from a specialised staff member.
We're also taking immediate action to streamline the process. We request less information from people and we'll be able to use existing information to help them fill out their forms. For example, we could take the balance sheet from their farm or else a tax return and use this as a source of information. We're also providing that the people who can assist with drought assistance are going out directly into drought-affected communities on our drought assistance buses, particularly into regional New South Wales and Queensland. As this drought evolves, so will our policy response.
The danger for this is that of course we can only do this if we're running a strong economy. We can only do this because we've made the right decisions to make sure Australians have opportunities that they need. That means we're able to use the dividend from that process to assist Australians in need. We are the only people in this chamber who— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer in which he said that his government would not introduce legislation unless it could be carried on its own numbers. Given that the Prime Minister has a majority of one, doesn't every member of his backbench, including the former Prime Minister, now have the same power over government policy as the Prime Minister himself?
I thank the honourable member for his question. It is self-evident that in a parliament or a House of Representatives with a government with a majority of one, individual members who choose not to vote in accordance with the decisions of the majority of the party room have the ability to prevent legislation being carried. That is the practical reality of the situation. That is why, since the party meeting last week, we've been engaging with members to discuss their concerns and ensure that we can deliver support for the government's policies on the floor of the House.
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Can the minister update the House on how the government is supporting our farmers, especially by creating new opportunities in global markets?
I thank the member for New England for his question. We on this side of the House are absolutely committed to continuing to open new market export opportunities for Australian farmers and Australian businesses. In fact, it's been the coalition that has delivered the world's best market access for Australian farmers through the landmark free trade agreements. It's the deals that we've done with China, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Peru. And it's the deals that we also have underway with Indonesia, with Hong Kong and with the Pacific Alliance countries of Columbia, Mexico, Chile and Peru, as well as with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. All of this is a full agenda to ensure that Australian farmers can reap the benefits of prosperity as a direct result of being able to export quality Australian produce to the world. In fact, that's recognised throughout Australia's regional and rural communities.
The President of the National Farmers' Federation, Fiona Simson said:
Trade is good for our farmers, our regional communities and the national economy as a whole.
The simple fact is, as the member for New England knows—and as everyone on this side of the House knows—that we sat idle for a long time while Labor was in power, and Labor was unable to deliver any trade agreements. It wasn't until the coalition was elected that we started opening up market opportunities all around the world—market opportunities that Australian farmers are now reaping the rewards of, market opportunities that are seeing investment into Australian regional communities and market opportunities that, most importantly, are delivering jobs to Australians. That's what matters to the Australian people, and that's the reason why the coalition is so steadfastly committed to making sure we open those opportunities.
If you want to see a point of contrast between us and the Australian Labor Party, Mr Speaker, look no further than the TPP 11, because this Leader of the Opposition wanted to walk away from the TPP 11, with his tail between his legs, from a major trade agreement that is giving Australian farmers and Australian businesses access to $13.7 trillion of global economic activity. Point that contrast to what the coalition did. We followed it through, despite the fact that the Labor Party said it was a vanity project. We followed it through and we delivered it. We delivered it because this is the side of the House that delivers good sound policy, market access, jobs for Australians and new investment into the Australian economy, and which ensures that Australia continues to have a more prosperous future.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister has previously advised the parliament that no legislation to lower energy prices will proceed to the parliament unless all 76 members of the government in the House of Representatives agree, why do Australians have to wait to get lower power prices because of the disunity in the Prime Minister's government?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr Speaker, he's not even capable of remembering what I said for the five minutes between my answer and his question.
It is clear that we have a majority of one in this House and that we are in a minority in the Senate. But yet, despite many people questioning whether we would be able to deliver in this parliament, we have delivered one massive reform after another: the largest personal income tax cuts in 20 years; we've delivered lower taxes for small and medium family businesses; we've delivered childcare reform; we've delivered school funding reform; we've delivered billions of dollars going into Medicare, health and the PBS; and we've got record spending on infrastructure. And we've been able to do what the Leader of the Opposition said would be unthinkable: we actually stood up for Australian workers and we got the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreed.
Our government—my government—has delivered one big reform after another, again and again. It's been said that we could not get legislation through the Senate. Again, it's been said that we had a small minority in the House. And, of course, the numbers are what they are, but we have delivered. The runs are on the board, and they are: record jobs growth last year; 3.1 per cent GDP growth; energy prices starting to turn in the right direction—downwards; and tax cuts for hardworking middle-income Australians, cuts voted against by the Labor Party this year.
My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the government's response to yesterday's commemoration of the Battle of Long Tan?
I do thank the member for Fairfax for his question. I appreciate his interest in veterans in his community but also in the current serving personnel. It's greatly appreciated. He understands, as I know all members understand, the importance of looking after our service men and women.
Recently I had the privilege to be in Kabul and Baghdad, and I met many extraordinary Australians who were serving in those countries on our behalf. I must say: the thing that strikes me when I do meet with our service men and women is that, although they're extraordinarily well trained, extraordinary capable and passionate about the role they play, they're not supermen; they're not superwomen. They can bleed. They can get broken bones. And, from time to time, their mental health can suffer as well. And it is our obligation, as a grateful nation, to make sure we care for and provide support for them on their return. I must say that, every time I get the chance to speak in front of our serving personnel and our veterans, I start with one very simple point: 'Thank you for your service. I thank you for your service and thank your families for your service.'
On the weekend, we commemorated Long Tan Day or Vietnam Veterans Day. It was a very important commemorative event, here in Canberra, where we reflected on the 60,000 Australians who served in Vietnam. Tragically, 521 Australians died in the Vietnam War, 3,000 were wounded, and thousands more carried the psychological scars with them for the rest of their lives.
There is no greater service to our nation than to put on the uniform of the Navy, the Army or the Air Force and to be prepared to place yourself in harm's way to help those who perhaps can't help themselves. So we, as a nation, I believe—and I'm sure this is a sentiment shared across the chamber—are greatly indebted to those who are prepared to serve in those uniforms.
As MPs, I think we notice every day, as we travel throughout our communities, whether it is in our community halls, in schools or amongst the memorials, the names of the fallen. We see them as we move throughout our communities. And it is important that we honour them with the way we choose to live our lives today. Their values of mateship, of resilience, of integrity, of courage in adversity—that culture of service above self—are things that I think we can all take with us in the roles that we fulfil in this place. I'd suggest that perhaps we can all learn from that great Anzac tradition as we play our roles as members of parliament.
So I say to those Vietnam veterans, and I say to those families who supported them through those very difficult years after their service: thank you for your service. This House is united in recognising you, particularly on Vietnam Veterans Day. Lest we forget.
The member for Kingston, on indulgence.
I would like to associate the opposition with the words of the minister. I know that many members of parliament went to local services around the country and reflected on the weekend on that service and sacrifice. It is very fitting that we recognise that in the House today and also recognise those families. I had the honour of listening to Keith Payne VC on Saturday night and to hear him talking not only about his contribution but his family's contribution as well. I think it's important that we remember that as well. Lest we forget.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do, most grievously.
The member for Blair may proceed.
During the last question of question time last Thursday, the Minister for Home Affairs claimed:
… the member for Blair has asked for his first briefing on Operation Sovereign Borders from my department.
This is untrue. Labor has requested numerous briefings and been briefed on Operation Sovereign Borders in its various aspects, and on other departmental matters, including in September 2016, in November 2016, in February 2017, in May 2017, in August 2017, including a meeting on 17 August 2017 with the Commander of Operation Sovereign Borders, Air Vice Marshal Stephen Osborne, in September 2017 and in December 2017. At each of these briefings, an adviser from the minister's own office was present.
I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Steele-John has been appointed a member on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, I seek your indulgence to correct an answer given during question time.
Leave granted.
When answering a question about the extensive work under the Drought Communities Program, I inadvertently at one stage referred to the Stronger Communities Program, I just wanted to correct the record in that regard and make the point that this side of the House will always stick by those in regional Australia doing it tough, and those suffering the effects of drought are certainly no exception.
I fear that, when we distil our media voices down to a select few, we jeopardise that common humanity that unites us as Australians. We risk accepting infotainment ahead of robust, independent journalism. We risk losing access to analysis from commentators from different points on the political compass. We risk knowledge. We risk truth. We risk the dumbing down of our nation. I fear that the Turnbull government would love a media landscape where it was not called out and not called to account by the media—a media landscape where a friendly press did nothing more than regurgitate press releases and ask Dorothy Dixers. But that's not what real journalist do. It's no secret that this government has waged all-out war on the ABC and SBS, subjecting them to ever-shrinking budgets, efficiency reviews and consistently objecting to or intervening in editorial policy. How can we let this happen? It benefits no-one. How can we allow news to become propaganda? That's what will happen if we silence the ABC, SBS and Fairfax. This assault from the Turnbull government on our most robust media companies is not just a war of ideology; it has human casualties.
In the Hunter region and the area of Paterson that I represent, the ABC news rooms have been gutted. Fairfax has been cut to its very bone. Just last month, we received the sad news that the internationally acclaimed Fairfax printing press in Beresfield, which lies in my electorate of Paterson and employs around 70 people, will close in mid-September. The media people affected are people who, in their own way, serve our community, as I do. Many of those affected are my former professional peers. As many people might know, in my former life, I was a television and radio presenter. Television, I admit, was a long time ago—in the late eighties and early nineties. When my employer at the time—the great NBN Television, which had been owned by the Lamb family—was aggregated with Channel 9, it was the start of many big changes across the media landscape.
This brings me to my position on the amendment requested by the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, which is part of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017 that I speak on. There's a self-promoting radio advertisement that I keep thinking about in relation to this bill. It says that radio is word-of-mouth, and so it is. It's a two-way conversation. Long before journalists were being trolled on Twitter or there were articles being dissected in great Facebook comments, there was talkback radio. That was my bread-and-butter for over a decade. I was a local woman, a wife, a mother, a daughter and a businessperson. I pursued local issues through local channels and I spoke with lots and lots of local people. My listeners were able to call in and have their say. It truly was a two-way conversation. One of the most endearing memories I have of working in talkback radio was an elderly lady who phoned me one day and said: 'Meryl, I feel like you're my daughter. You're in my kitchen every morning when I put the kettle on. I often tell you what I think, and some weeks you're the only person who I actually speak to.' Radio is an incredibly personal medium, and community radio is perhaps the most personal of this very personal medium.
In the ever-changing media landscape, more and more radio newsrooms are being pared back. Content is being syndicated and shared. That local flavour is becoming more and more watered-down. Listeners are losing that channel of connectivity. In doing so, they're losing that sense of being part of a close-knit community—of sharing common goals, hopes, fears, dreams, gripes and loves. They are the things that unite us regardless of income, colour or culture. They are the things that help us appreciate difference and feel empathy for those who we share our streets and communities with.
I am agreeing not to oppose the broadcasting legislation amendment, but in doing so I note that the community broadcasting peak body, the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, has requested an amendment to the bill to help ensure we keep the 'community' in 'community radio'. The amendment will encourage more local issues, more local talent and more local jobs producing and hosting. It will do so by requiring the Australian Communications and Media Authority to provide new assessment criteria for applications for and renewals of community radio broadcasting licences. These criteria will relate to material of local significance, and work to ensure our radio services match the community's expectations.
The amendment I'm supporting would clarify the language around these criteria. They will create a definitive link between the amendment, the local content requirement and the assessment tools used when considering which licence applications and renewals are progressed. The proposed amendment would see the rewording of section 84(2)(b)(a) to read, 'In the case of a community radio broadcast licence—the extent to which the proposed service or services would provide material relevant to local communities and the community interest served by the licence.' It would also insert a new subsection, 84(3), that specifies that material will be considered of local significance if it is hosted in or produced in or relates to the licence area of the proposed licence. We believe that this amended wording will ensure that the Australian Communications and Media Authority's implementation of the new criteria will match the government's intention to strengthen localism in community radio broadcasting. This in turn will give the sector more certainty. Every sector of every industry needs certainty to attract investment and talent, and to continue to thrive.
I just want to add that, in community radio, localism is so important. Being a local host, having your finger on the local pulse is such an important thing. I do want to give a shout out to 2NURFM, my most recent employer. I, in fact, volunteered at that radio station and was fortunate enough to be offered a full, paying position as well. I love that station. Although it is a community radio station run out of the University of Newcastle, it is as professional as any media organisation in Australia could be and has the listening audience to prove it.
Our community broadcasting sector needs all the help it can get right now. This amendment and its small piece of certainty may be some comfort. Certainty is something that has been, sadly, lacking in recent times. The Prime Minister and his government have offered nothing of the sort—no certainty around funding, and no certainty of access to spectrum for community television either. The bill is not, however, any substitute for the void left in the media landscape last year, when the Turnbull government and One Nation repealed the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule.
We are a big country but a fairly small nation, with just around 25 million of us. Even before the Turnbull government's 2017 move, we had one of the most concentrated media markets in the world. Now we risk even greater homogenisation of media voices and narrowing of diversity. This is not good for any of us, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum. It is not good, and I appeal to this government to really think through the ramifications of what it's done.
While I choose not to oppose the bill, I place on the record my disgust at this government's backroom machinations with One Nation, which allowed the government to navigate the damaging repeal of the two-of-out-three cross-media control rule. I say to you: diversity in the media, truth in reporting and truly good questioning of all of our judgements and values is the only way we stand to live in a nation that is worthy of good representation and good governance.
I rise to also contribute to the debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017. This bill is the direct result of a series of utterly desperate deals done by our Prime Minister with Senator Pauline Hanson in order to pass his 2017 bill. There is little doubt that that will skewer media diversity in this country. I think we need to be up-front about this from the get-go.
Already, this legislation has opened the door for the multimillion-dollar takeover of Fairfax Media by Nine, a seismic shake-up of the media landscape that has grave implications for jobs, for consumer choice and, in particular, for the future of regional newspapers. I'll come back to that issue. The ACCC is currently inquiring into this deal, and I hold every hope that it will find what the government refused to acknowledge—that is, that this deal poses a very real threat to journalists, to consumers, to regional communities and, indeed, to the very health of our democracy. With the looming loss of Fairfax, we can't give up the fight to protect strong, independent journalistic voices in this country. Media diversity is the antidote to propaganda and misinformation.
But the craziest part of this whole mess is that, at the very time that the Turnbull government is taking a sledgehammer to media diversity protections, it's also waging a war on our national broadcaster. In order to get support for its attacks on media diversity, this government has also agreed to implement a number of measures for One Nation that are intended to cripple the ABC. So now we have the so-called competitive neutrality review. Have you ever heard of anything more absurd? And, to this, there is yet another efficiency review. And then, of course, there are the $84 million cuts to the ABC from the 2018 budget that just came down. The cuts were levied at the same time that this government was arguing that, as a nation, we could afford to forgo $80 billion worth of tax revenue in order to give big businesses a tax cut.
Of course, this government didn't need much convincing to wage a war, a vicious vendetta against our national broadcaster. In fact, they've maintained a barely concealed contempt for the organisation for many years. But Labor won't stand by and let this happen. This means doubling down on our efforts to protect ABC and fight for strong, independent journalistic voices. As The Washington Post ominously put it in its recently adopted tag line, 'Democracy Dies in Darkness'. We mustn't let that happen in Australia.
As I mentioned earlier, the legislation before us today is yet another relic of the cosy relationship that has seen One Nation become the government's most ardent supporter on the Senate crossbench. In return for signing away important media diversity protections, the Prime Minister acquiesced to a number of demands from One Nation, including the measures contained in the bill before the House today.
I'll say up-front that Labor won't be opposing these specific measures, which are designed, after all, to provide greater protection for community radio broadcasters. Labor understands that the community broadcasting sector needs all the help it can get, especially given the uncertainty around funding and spectrum access that we've seen under this government. The first measures in this bill propose a change to the criteria for assessing radio licence applications and renewals to better match community expectations. Labor supports this change, although we agree with the contention of the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia that the wording could indeed be better and we encourage the government to address these concerns.
The bill would also establish a register of foreign ownership of media assets, which would be considered in applications to establish or renew community radio broadcasting licences. It will mean that foreign persons would need to provide ACMA with more information about their company interests when they exceeded an ownership threshold of 2.5 per cent. Again, Labor doesn't oppose this measure, but it's worth noting the measure's utter hypocrisy given it was the Howard Liberal government which removed all media-specific foreign ownership and control limits back in 2006.
But nothing in this bill compensates for the smashing of media diversity that One Nation gladly waved through this parliament last year. These measures don't come close to making up for the loss of the two-out-of-three rule, which was designed to protect the diversity of media voices by preventing any one company from owning TV, radio and press outlets in the same media market.
There's a very good reason that Labor opposed the removal of this rule: media outlets aren't like other businesses. They do far more than entertain and sell us widgets. In fact, they have a critical role to play in shaping our understanding of and our response to the world we live in. The reality is that virtually everything we know about the world is mediated. Very little of our knowledge comes from firsthand experience, and that is fine, as long as we have a diverse range of strong, independent voices to help us make sense of the world. With too few voices, individual agendas or perspectives can easily gain undue influence, and diversity is the remedy to this.
Australia already has one of the most concentrated media markets in the world, with only a handful of companies and family interests controlling much of what Australians hear, see and read. Under the dirty deal done with Senator Hanson, this legislation opened the door to even greater concentration, and that has tangible, real-world implications. As I mentioned earlier, we're now seeing some of the consequences of the Hanson-Turnbull stitch-up playing out in the proposed conglomeration of the Nine Network with Australia's first publishing outlet, Fairfax. While this deal is being referred to in some polite media commentary as 'a merger', it is, to all practical intents and purposes, a takeover. After more than 100 years of publishing quality content through first-rate publications, like the Melbourne Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and the Australian Fin Review, the Fairfax name will soon be subsumed into the Nine Network, creating Australia's largest media entity.
This is more than nostalgia over the loss of a fine Australian company. There are some very real concerns about the form the new company will take and how seriously it will take its responsibility to investigative journalism and editorial independence. We mustn't forget that Fairfax has broken some of the most important stories of our time. Think of the mass worker exploitation at 7-Eleven, the outrageous ripping off of older Australians that has been rife in aged-care facilities, and the dodgy lending practises and scandalous behaviour of financial institutions—all broken by Fairfax. Consider the horrific evidence of systemic child sexual abuse in the church that built the case for a royal commission—another product of Fairfax's dogged investigative journalism. These stories matter. They shine a light in the dark crevices of our society, they hold the powerful to account and they force change.
There are many questions about what a post-Fairfax world will look like. Will Nine sign up to the Fairfax Charter of Editorial Independence? Will Fairfax outlets be given the resources they need to continue their dogged pursuit of the truth? How much will Nine be willing to invest in critical, long investigative projects that, in the cold light of commercial considerations, deliver a much greater social return than a financial one? There are still many things we don't know about the consequences of the merger, particularly to the quantum and shape of independent journalism in this country, but there are critical cultural differences between these organisations that should give us cause for concern, especially when Nine will be the dominant culture. Where Fairfax tried to inform us, Nine focused on keeping us entertained. Where Fairfax dedicated resources to investigative journalism, Nine invested more in the chequebook type. And where Fairfax shone a light into the dark corners of our society, holding powerful institutions, organisations and individuals to account, Channel 9 was nearly absent.
Another question that is particularly pressing for me is the role that the regional mastheads will play in the new organisation. This has a very direct and personal implication for me as the Newcastle Herald is one of the regional newspapers that could be facing existential threats. When asked directly to guarantee that the Newcastle Herald would be maintained in the new world, Nine failed to give a direct response. On every measure, the Herald punches above its weight. It's broken a string of stories that are critical to our region and are of national importance. But it's not just about breaking stories; it's about the critical role the Herald has played in defining and reflecting the unique character of our community for decades. If this is lost, the entire region will be the poorer for it. But, whatever shape the final merger entity takes, there is one thing that we can be absolutely sure of: jobs will be lost. Journalists will go. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance has estimated that 2,500 journalists' positions have gone in Australia since 2011. How much more can we hack at this professional body before the capacity to dig and get to the truth fails us entirely. On this and other matters, I agree with Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance president, Marcus Strom, when he said, 'The ACCC should hit the pause button on this takeover until it has guarantees on editorial independence and the future of regional and rural mastheads.'
In the face of this grave threat to journalistic capacity and diversity in media outlets, you'd imagine that the Turnbull government would respond by bolstering the other beacon of independent journalism, the ABC. Regrettably, you'd be wrong. In fact, at the very same time that he's junked the media diversity protections, Mr Turnbull and the Liberals have ratcheted up his war against the ABC in earnest. Those opposite went to the 2013 election with a very clear promise that there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS. They went on to cut $254 million in 2014 and another $28 million in 2016.
In the face of rapidly contracting media voices, surely even the Liberals can see the importance of a strong, independent national broadcaster. Sadly, no. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the government has been busily ramping up its attacks, under the direction, of course, of Senator Hanson. Aside from the bill before us today, we've had the competitive neutrality inquiry. There has been a further efficiency review. But it hasn't stopped there. In the most recent budget, a further $83.7 million worth of cuts were levied on the ABC. News director Gavin Morris was very clear about the damage this will do to the organisation and its ability to fulfil its charter when he said, 'Make no mistake, there is no more fat to cut in ABC News. From this point on, we are cutting into muscle.' Just in case it wasn't absolutely crystal clear that the ABC is under direct existential threat from this government, the communications minister himself has busied himself writing a steady stream of complaint letters to the ABC, which he dutifully shares with Newscorp and other media outlets. The very role of a minister is to argue for greater resources and to fight for agencies in their portfolio, but when the ABC has a sworn enemy controlling the purse strings, what chance does it stand? As opposition leader Bill Shorten said in a recent speech to this parliament, 'This government has neither an agenda nor any real authority, but it does do good vendettas.'
Labor understands that public broadcasting has never been more important in this country. We will stand up to this government's attacks and defend the independence of the ABC. That's why we will reverse the Liberals' cuts. We understand that, despite the faux outrage of conservatives, the ABC is one of the most trusted institutions in this country. Labor will always fight to protect our public broadcasters. A world without the ABC or SBS isn't worth contemplating.
I'm pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017. In particular, I'm pleased to follow the member for Newcastle and support the amendment that's been moved by the member for Greenway. When I say 'following the member for Newcastle', of course it's unusual for Labor members to follow each other. Normally what happens procedurally is that we have a government speaker and then an opposition speaker, and you have a debate through both sides of the chamber. But what is extraordinary about the state of chaos in the coalition is that they've given up on governing. They have no speakers provided for this legislation except for the minister who introduced it. Not a single member could be found to stand up and defend this deal with One Nation, which is how this legislation came about. Not even the member for Reid, who normally is not stuck for words, is prepared to defend this dirty deal that was done over in the other place with One Nation.
That deal was about the abolition of the two-out-of-three rule on media ownership. We have already seen the results of that with a further concentration of media ownership in this country, a nation that already has a lack of diversity in its media ownership. The two-out-of-three rule prevented a person or entity being in a position to control more than two of the three media—commercial radio, commercial television and newspapers—in the same license area. But that change went ahead, with One Nation's support. And now we have legislation before us which requires the release of more information about levels of foreign ownership in media organisations.
Other provisions in this bill encourage community radio broadcasters to provide greater coverage of local issues and to increase opportunities for local participation in producing and hosting radio programs. We know that community radio is already doing this. So we certainly support the call, in the second reading amendment that was moved by the member for Greenway, for the Turnbull government to end its war on media diversity. Today I want to concentrate my contribution on the enormous contribution of community broadcasters to diversity and cultural development in this nation. But I do want to take the opportunity to outline my concern about the government's ongoing attempts to undermine public broadcasting in this country.
Responsible governments understand and nurture a free, diverse and vigorous media environment. Responsible leaders understand that, while a free media can be an inconvenience when it comes to day-to-day political management—I'm sure members of the government regret opening up the plastic wrapper that is often on a newspaper on their doorstep every morning at the moment, because what they read about is the chaos that is occurring on that side of the House—a vibrant media is absolutely necessary for our democratic processes and for an informed society. We know what can happen when you don't have proper information getting out there in a coherent way.
One of the things we know about this country is that, in spite of the sometimes hysterical response of the right wing of the Liberal Party and the National Party and other fringe dwellers, the ABC and the SBS are very much trusted media organisations compared to the commercial media organisations. They play a particularly important role in regional Australia. They play an important role in the day-to-day life of residents and communities, who may be vulnerable to natural disasters like fires. The ABC and the SBS inform the community, particularly through radio bulletins, of what is going on in those local communities. So the ABC and the SBS are cherished institutions.
Yet, in spite of the fact that the government came to office under the first prime minister—it appears we're going to get three in just a couple of terms—Mr Abbott, the member for Warringah, who very clearly promised, just the night before he was elected, 'no cuts to the ABC or SBS', what we've seen since 2014 is that ABC funding has been cut by $366 million, and 800 staff have lost their jobs. This year alone, the government has cut $83.7 million in ABC funding and launched two damaging public broadcasting inquiries, and it has three bills before the parliament to meddle with the ABC charter—all inspired by the deal with One Nation.
So, beyond the cuts, there is the ongoing culture war. The government has used public broadcasting as a political whipping boy so that MPs on the extreme right have something to keep them busy. If the Prime Minister or his ministers don't like a news report on the ABC, they complain to the board or to the CEO. They don't do that publicly; they go, sneakily, around the back and put in those complaints. Quite clearly, that is all aimed at undermining public broadcasting.
We did expect that from a culture warrior like the member for Warringah when he became Prime Minister, but when the member for Wentworth, who has a background in the media, became the Prime Minister, in the first coup of this government, we expected a little bit more, and I think the Australian public expected more. What we got, though, was just more of the same. We shouldn't be surprised, really, because, while the Prime Minister said he cared about the ABC and SBS and the ABC's independence, he of course has trashed it.
He said he understood the National Broadband Network. He claimed to have invented the internet, according to his predecessor, and yet what we have is a copper based, outmoded system, a hybrid that's all over the shop, whereby, depending upon which side of the street you live on, you might be getting a first-rate service or you might be getting a Z-grade service. And we've seen Australia go backwards when it comes to our ranking on internet speeds. The only thing we're going forward on is our purchase of copper, which is going extremely well. It's just a pity that this is the century of fibre, not copper, and that the government is left behind. And this week we've seen that played out in the absolutely diabolical position of the government on climate change.
When it comes to community broadcasting, it is a great force for good in this country. There are more than 450 not-for-profit broadcasters. Five million people tune in each week. It provides a platform for communities that aren't served by commercial broadcasters—Indigenous Australians; ethnic communities; educational services; religious communities; local music and the arts—and for gay and lesbian communities, through radio stations like Joy FM.
Community broadcasting also provides a great entry point into the media. Radio stations in Sydney, like 2SER, 2FBI and Radio Skid Row, play a really important role in and around my electorate in providing young people, people who are still students, with that hands-on experience of running radio programs and of being able to broadcast, in many cases, really valuable and unique material.
They also provide an opportunity for people involved in the arts, particularly young musicians. So many bands and performers have had their material played on community radio stations before they've been picked up by triple j or by commercial radio, and that can provide a really important service as well. Community radio can be raw. The truth is that sometimes it can be a bit hit and miss, but that's a good thing. That's a very good thing. Certainly many bands get their start on these radio stations. Without them, we might never have heard of Nick Cave, Hunters & Collectors, the Saints or many other bands.
One of the bands that certainly got a run was Radio Birdman, and I take the opportunity to once again call for the ABC to reconsider its decision not to purchase the broadcast rights to the Descent into the Maelstrom documentary that outlines the history of this important band, started in Sydney by Deniz Tek and Rob Younger in 1974. Radio Birdman started in Sydney at about the same time as the Saints in Brisbane. They played a critical role in the alternative music scene in those two cities and in the nation—and, indeed, internationally. These bands were important in having an impact on the musos who followed them in the decades to come.
I conclude by talking about where I was yesterday—Henson Park at the Reclink Community Cup. There you have a game between the Walers, a musician based team, and the Sailors, a media based team. A lot of that media based team are people associated with radio stations like FBi and 2ser in particular. That is raising money for disadvantaged youth who get funding through the Reclink organisation, which tries to take young people who've been marginalised from the mainstream of society and include them back in by connecting them through arts and sport. It's a great example of how the community can reach out to give people a lift up and get them back into mainstream society—people who've been engaged with drugs, alcohol or homelessness—making sure that they're not just left behind.
Community radio getting involved, as they do, and now the community cup, which is a major fundraiser for Reclink around the country, are great examples of how people who are engaged in community radio are also engaged in their communities and make a difference. You'll find the people involved in community welfare will be the same people who are involved in community radio, which is why it's important that the government do more to support community radio throughout this nation.
I thank the members who have contributed to the debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017. The two measures in this bill—the establishment of the Register of Foreign Ownership of Media Assets and a change to the criteria for assessing community radio licence applications and renewals—are just two measures forming part of the government's broader reform package.
The first measure—the establishment of the register—will enhance the transparency of the levels and sources of foreign investment in Australian media companies. The public relies on the media to set the news agenda of the day, and the media sector's influence in shaping public discussion on important matters is well established. In this context, measures to establish transparency about foreign investment in our media are appropriate. The register proposed in this bill will achieve this outcome whilst also ensuring that the Australian public is not left in the dark. The register will complement existing regulatory frameworks governing foreign investment in Australia, including under Australia's foreign investment review framework, the Australian Securities Exchange and under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. To an extent it has been modelled on the national Register of Foreign Ownership of Water or Agricultural Land, which has already significantly increased the public's knowledge of the levels and sources of foreign investment in our agricultural sector.
The second measure, being the amending of criteria for allocating and renewing community radio licences, will require the Australian Communications and Media Authority to specifically consider the extent to which the applicant will provide material of local significance. Material of local significance is defined as material that is produced or hosted in the relevant licensed area or which relates to the licensed area. Community radio plays an important role in informing local communities and providing community members with the opportunity to have their views heard. This will ensure that broadcasters are required to consider how they can boost local participation in creating programs or how they can provide more coverage of topics and issues that are relevant to their local communities.
The government also moved an amendment to add a third measure to the bill. The third measure will address an anomaly arising from the application of the local programming requirements to a commercial television broadcaster in regional Western Australia. It will ensure that local programming obligations apply in an equal way to the two commercial television broadcasters who broadcast to the same geographic area. Local programming is important, and this amendment maintains the requirement that relevant licensees broadcast a specified amount of local content after a trigger event but will ensure that these requirements apply more fairly across the regional Western Australian licences. I call on all members to support the bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I seek leave to move government amendments (1) and (2) as circulated together.
Leave granted.
I move government amendments (1) and (2) as circulated together.
(1) [local programming requirements for regional commercial television broadcasting licensees]
(2) Schedule3—Local programming requirements for regional commercial television broadcasting licensees
Broadcasting Services Act 1992
1 Section 61CU
Insert:
combined designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licence area means the area that consists of the licence areas of the designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licences.
combined designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting local area means the area that consists of the local areas of the designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licences.
designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licence means a commercial television broadcasting licence for any of the following licence areas:
(a) Geraldton TV1;
(b) Kalgoorlie TV1;
(c) South West and Great Southern TV1.
2 Section 61CU (at the end of the definition of local area )
Add:
Note: See also section 61CYA (modifications relating to designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licences).
3 Section 61CU (at the end of the definition of material of local significance )
Add:
Note: See also section 61CYA (modifications relating to designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licences).
4 At the end of subsection 61CX ( 1 )
Add:
Note: See also section 61CYA (modifications relating to designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licences).
5 At the end of subsection 61CY ( 3 )
Add:
Note: See also section 61CYA (modifications relating to designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licences).
6 At the end of subsection 61CY ( 5 )
Add:
Note: See also section 61CYA (modifications relating to designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licences).
7 At the end of subsection 61CY ( 7 )
Add:
Note: See also section 61CYA (modifications relating to designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licences).
8 After section 61CY
Insert:
61CYA Modifications relating to designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licences
Scope
(1) This section applies if:
(a) a trigger event for a designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licence (the relevant licence) occurs on a particular day; and
(b) that event is the first or only trigger event for the relevant licence; and
(c) immediately before that event, the designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licences were under common control; and
(d) a period (the relevant period) satisfies the following conditions:
(i) the period began at the time of that event;
(ii) at all times during the period, the designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licences are under common control.
Note: Section 61CYB defines when licences are under common control.
Material of local significance
(2) During the relevant period, in determining, for the purposes of this Division, whether material is material of local significance in relation to the local area of the relevant licence:
(a) material that relates directly to the combined designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting local area is taken to be material that relates directly to the local area of the relevant licence; and
(b) material that relates directly to the combined designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licence area is taken to be material that relates directly to the licence area of the relevant licence.
Points system
(3) During the relevant period, the table in subsection 61CY(3) has effect, in relation to the relevant licence, as if:
(a) a reference in the table to the local area were a reference to the combined designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting local area; and
(b) a reference in the table to the licensee’s licence area were a reference to the combined designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licence area.
(4) During the relevant period, the provision of the local programming determination that was made for the purposes of paragraph (d) of item 1 of the table in subsection 61CY(3) has effect, in relation to the relevant licence, as if a reference in that provision to the local area were a reference to the combined designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting local area.
(5) During the relevant period, subsection 61CY(5) has effect, in relation to the relevant licence, as if a reference in that subsection to the licensee’s licence area were a reference to the combined designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licence area.
(6) During the relevant period, paragraphs 61CY(7)(a) and (b) have effect, in relation to the relevant licence, as if a reference in those paragraphs to the area were a reference to the combined designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting local area.
61CYB When designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licences are under common control
(1) For the purposes of section 61CYA, if, at a particular time, a person controls each designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licence, the designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licences are under common control at that time.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person controls a designated Western Australian commercial television broadcasting licence if, and only if, the person:
(a) holds the licence; or
(b) is in a position to exercise control of the licence.
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.
I rise to speak on the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018. Labor supports this bill, which has been introduced on the back of a government review of the Space Activities Act 1998 which was concluded in November 2016. The Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018 aims to modernise our laws pertaining to commercial and scientific space activities.
The space activities this bill aims to modernise are launches from Australian territories, Australian launches from overseas jurisdictions, launches of Australian owned payloads, usually satellites, returns of vehicles from outer space, and for the first time launches of rockets from aircraft or launches of high-powered rockets.
It is important we modernise the act in order to capture some of the global expenditure in the space industry, which is growing at nearly 10 per cent per annum. From their research report on 13 November 2017:
Morgan Stanley estimates that the revenue generated by the global space industry will increase to $1.1 trillion or more in 2040, up from $350 billion in 2016.
Modern nation-states like Australia are more dependent on space derived services and data than we may think. In their white paper released on March 2017, the Space Industry Association of Australia note that:
For over 60 years space has played an important role in national affairs and our international relations. The Australian economy and the lives of every day Australians are underpinned by space-based technologies. Space derived data and services provided by a combination of government and privately owned systems have increasingly become embedded into the fabric of modern life providing the communications, geolocation and timing services upon which millions of individuals and businesses rely each day. These data and services are parts of the critical infrastructure which enables our modern society to function. They include satellite positioning and communication services, as well as satellite earth-observation and astronomy capabilities.
They go on to point out that:
Without space technologies:
They're all important functions that the association pointed out regarding Australia's activities in space.
It can be easy to overlook the space technology involved when it encompasses our day-to-day activities. It is also hard to comprehend how our lives will be improved in the future with the advancements in space technology. That is what is at the heart of this bill. It aims to reduce barriers to the participation in the space industry by streamlining approval processes and insurance requirements for launches and returns. It provides that the insurance required for each authorised launch or return will be specified in subordinate legislation, the rules, noting that the amount will not exceed $100 million. This represents a significant reduction from the former requirement of the act of an amount no less than $750 million or maximum probable loss and is consistent with comparable requirements in other nations. Stakeholders have long pointed to the current legislative rules as being an impediment to both the development of launch facilities in Australia and greater participation in the emerging commercial space sector by Australian industry.
That being said, stakeholders were seeking a broader rewrite to this legislation than has been brought forward by the government. Melissa de Zwart, who is a professor at the Adelaide Law School at the University of Adelaide and a member of the advisory council of the Space Industry Association of Australia stated in her opinion piece published in The Conversation and many other news outlets on 12 June 2018:
More than a year after the legislative proposal paper was released by the DIIS, the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018 received its second reading in the House of Representatives on May 30, 2018, with little fanfare or coverage.
Despite the lengthy period of consultation and the initial statements that an entirely new act would be drafted, this is a revision of already existing legislation. It does little to inspire confidence in the government's approach to the Australian commercial space industry.
Professor de Zwart went on to say:
As noted above, the changes to the Act are dwarfed by the content that is merely left in place. Operators previously complained of an Act that is vague, difficult to navigate, and with prohibitive compliance costs.
Most of the changes embodied within the bill are merely in name only. A "Space Licence" becomes a "Facility Licence" with the only substantive reduction in pre-licence compliance being that the licence is no longer restricted to corporations.
The "Overseas Launch Licence" is renamed the "Overseas Payload Permit", but is not matched with any substantive changes. This would see an Australian who wishes to launch a rocket overseas need a payload permit to launch their rocket.
Further, and of significant concern to commercial operators considering whether they should base their operations in Australia or move offshore, is the requirement for all permits to "include a strategy for debris mitigation".
She then went on to say:
It is not clear what form this should take or how stringently this must comply, for example, with standards such as Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.
The professor's commentary on this bill is pretty devastating. It was a typical contribution by stakeholders who aired their concerns in a quite comprehensive way. They have been concerned with the government's half-baked attempt of just amending the Space Activities Act 1998, given the degree of review, the input from stakeholders and the length of time spent.
To touch on further comments from stakeholders, there are common themes within the feedback. The bill simply updates much of the terminology and most of the changes are in name only. Operators have previously complained of an act that is vague, is difficult to navigate and has prohibitive compliance costs. They've also noted that an earlier Department of Industry, Innovation and Science recommendation to completely replace the existing legislation rather than amending it has been rejected by the government, and that's why we've got this bill that largely amends an existing act. Of significant concern to commercial operators considering whether they should base their operations in Australia or move offshore is the requirement for a strategy on debris mitigation. It's really unclear from this act how closely applicants must apply to these new standards—in particular, its relationship with the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. So there are some questions for the government to answer in their interactions with industry post this bill passing the House.
The bill also fails to regulate Australian activities while in outer space, as required by the United Nations Outer Space Treaty. Finally, from the common themes in the stakeholders' feedback: the role of the new Australian Space Agency in administering this legislation is unclear. Due to the stakeholder feedback, the Senate referred the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018 to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report, which was presented on 13 August 2018, which is stunning efficiency for the other place. The one recommendation from the committee was that the bill be passed, and that was backed by Labor senators. The Labor senators recommended that the Senate support the bill, noting its deficiencies and the lack of clarification from the government in a number of areas.
As to my home state of South Australia: everybody will pitch for their home states, I suppose, in these activities. I do think space is a great national and international endeavour. But each state has its own proud history, and I do want to just touch on South Australia's contribution to our nation's progress in this area—in particular, the WRESAT, which is the Weapons Research Establishment Satellite. It was Australia's first satellite, developed in Salisbury in my electorate. It was launched at Woomera in South Australia on 29 November 1967. That made Australia the third country to design and launch a satellite—an incredible contribution, I think, to our national progress. My father had sold electronics into the WRE. Its successor, the DST Group, now occupies that site and continues that great tradition in South Australia, in making a contribution not just to our space industry but to our national defence. I think that is an important thing to acknowledge.
South Australia hopes to play its role in this national endeavour along with other states. It is important to note that both the Labor leader, Peter Malinauskas, and the Premier, Steven Marshall, are committed to South Australia playing a leading role in the advancement in the space sector, because they have both adopted, in their title and portfolio, industry responsibilities for the space industry. So Labor understands, at both a state and federal level, the immense opportunity that Australia has in taking giant leaps in the space industry in that area.
In government, Labor secured the hosting rights for the Square Kilometre Array, which is the biggest global astronomy project of this generation and a multibillion-dollar international investment in Australian based infrastructure. We recently announced our policy for a Shorten Labor government. That might be closer than anybody expects, given the events of this week, so it's important that we have policy out there in this area. We will invest $51 million in an Australian space industry plan, to promote the development of the Australian space industry, including establishing the Australian space science and industry agency, which will drive investment and coordinate the activities of state governments, scientists, industry and universities, to boost the opportunities that the global space industry offers.
We will establish a space industry innovation council, which will serve as an advisory board for the agency, develop an industry-wide agenda and allow us to build international confidence in our industry. We will establish a space industry supplier advocate, to open out the opportunities for space industry companies to attract investment and to attract jobs, to be part of that progress. We will have an Australian space industry program, and that will consist of four Australian Research Council space industry research hubs to advance capabilities in emerging areas of industry focused space research and technology. We will have two ARC space industry training centres working with industry in providing 25 industrial PhDs. A Shorten Labor government will also prioritise the establishment of a cooperative research centre in advanced manufacturing and space technology in future funding rounds. That is a plan that industry can have confidence in and that will advance the national interest and, of course, the interests of all those state governments which, understandably, have a great interest in the investment and the jobs that this can provide.
Australia is one of only two OECD nations without its own dedicated space agency. We can't afford to be left behind and that's why we're lending our support to this Australian space industry bill and to the industry more generally. We'll be supporting this bill. It sets out objectives to modernise and update domestic law covering commercial and scientific space activities. We hope that this will provide some certainty going forward. We just wish that the government had been more ambitious—that it would have taken notice of the feedback that was provided through the stakeholder process and been more ambitious for our great country in this area.
I rise to speak on the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018. One of the objects of the bill describes reducing barriers to participation in the space industry for companies in Australia. Australia's relationship with space stretches back more than 60 years. It goes back to the very earliest days of the space age. The International Geophysical Year, 1957, was the year in which Sputnik was launched and when the UK Atomic Weapons Research Establishment had activities in Australia, with high-altitude launches of sounding rockets. It was the very beginning of Australia's participation in the space industry.
Our friends and our allies have come to Australia and seen us as the perfect place from which to look to the heavens. From ELDO to NASA, and from Honeysuckle Creek to Woomera, there has been a procession of entities which have been friends of this country and which have sought to engage in space activities here in Australia. And it made sense. Firstly, we have a unique geography, being located in the East Asian time zone in terms of our longitude and also, in terms of our latitude, looking, as we do, on the southern sky. We're a country with a high degree of education and with a workforce that could support the efforts of the space industry. And we are, of course, in a political sense, a stable democracy, one that was a friend and ally of countries like the United Kingdom and the United States. It meant that we were a place in which to do space activities. It is almost as if, from the very beginning of the space age, it was our destiny as a nation to participate in this field of activity.
It was our destiny then, but it's become our reality today. Indeed, today we have a very strong presence in astronomy. The Square Kilometre Array telescope, which is a multinational scientific endeavour based in Southern Africa and in Western Australia, provides the largest array of radio telescopes that humanity has seen. The Giant Magellan Telescope is one of the large new-age optical telescopes. The Giant Magellan Telescope will be based in Chile, but Australia is a 10-per-cent stakeholder in it through the ANU.
Going back there was the Anglo-Australian Observatory, which began in 1974, so it's into its fifth decade. It is still one of the five top-performing optical telescopes in the world today, and that includes the Hubble Space Telescope. And Tidbinbilla, just on the outskirts of Canberra, forms part of NASA's Deep Space Network.
I say all of this because our history in space activities has led to a large present list of activities in astronomy which, in turn, make astronomy and space part of our national expertise. This is an area in which we should be active, and it's an area where we should play a bigger role as a nation. And yet institutionalising that role in terms of Australia's governments has in fact been a difficult road.
In 1959, the Australian national committee recommended the establishment of a space research proposal, which ultimately did not go ahead. In 1968, the Weapons Research Establishment that I mentioned earlier also came up with a proposal for engaging in space research, which again was rejected by government. In 1970, there was a proposal for an Australian space research agency, which was again knocked back by government. The Hawke government established the Australian Space Office. The Howard government removed it. The Rudd government established the Australian Space Research Program. The Abbott government removed that. There has been a long and difficult history in trying to establish an Australian government role in respect of space. It's what makes this particular moment in time so significant.
On 15 March this year, Labor announced that a Labor government would establish the Australian Space, Science and Industry Agency, which would be an Australian space agency. On 14 May this year, the government announced that it intended to create the Australian Space Agency—which it did—from 1 July this year, with Megan Clark as its first CEO. That should say something about Megan. Megan is a former CEO of the CSIRO. She is not only an esteemed Australian scientist but an esteemed Australian science administrator. There is no-one better to be leading the inaugural Australian Space Agency than Megan Clark. What it means at this moment in time is that, for the first time, we have genuine bipartisan support for an Australian government space agency that seeks to promote a bigger role for Australia in the space industry. Obviously, the legislation that we are debating this evening forms part of that.
The industry is a big one. It is now estimated to be $420 billion globally but, by 2040, it's estimated that the industry will grow to $1.1 trillion. It is a remarkable amount of money. The sad stat for companies—at this point in time, at least—is that Australia's share of that global industry is only 0.8 per cent. Given our history, our expertise and the nature of our economy, we should be batting higher than that. It's why it's really important that we now have a bipartisan approach to space through an Australian space agency and through this legislation, so that we can promote a much greater Australian role in this industry.
The industry today is very different to what was going on back in 1957. Back then, the activity of engaging with space was so large that only a government could attempt it and so it was almost entirely an activity that was in the public domain. Today that is very different. We are now in a world where space has become much more accessible, where there are far smaller satellites being put into space—CubeSats, as they are described—with more options in terms of being able to launch those satellites into space. New Zealand now has a launch site at Mahia on the North Island of New Zealand. There are a range of options for getting these much smaller satellites into space, which in turn do a whole range of global observations and participate in connectivity. They are a huge part of the industry.
A big difference now compared to 1957 is that, whereas back then almost the entire engagement with space was done publicly, now three-quarters of the industry is in the private sector. The role for an Australian space agency, the role for legislation of this kind, has to be about encouraging private Australian companies to engage in this very large global industry and to be playing a much bigger role in it. That is actually a very different vision of engaging with space than was had 60 years ago, when Australia first started its participation in space. That said, the skills that we picked up in those 60 years exist within both our public and private sectors and so, done right, place us in a very good position as a nation to participate in this industry.
Of course, this industry is also burgeoning now in the private sector because of an absolute understanding about the role that space plays in our everyday lives. Back in the fifties and sixties, it was an exotic activity which described the furthest frontiers of the human experience; today, it is the backbone of our telecommunications sector and, in many respects, it is the backbone of global interconnectivity through the internet and the internet of things. As shadow defence minister, I can say it plays an incredibly important role in the connectivity of the way in which our armed forces engaged in their business. So the role that space plays is not just there on the margins but absolutely central to the way in which we are living our lives today—and that is why the industry is growing at such a significant rate.
This bill, as I said, makes it easier to participate in the space industry. It does so by streamlining a number of processes, particularly around reducing the insurance burden on those participating within the industry. It also increases penalties for those engaging in the space industry in an unlicensed way. There is some criticism that the bill is not broader in its statement of purpose. Given the moment that we are in, we think there was opportunity here to have a more expansive statement of purpose. Nor is the role of the Australian Space Agency in respect of the operation and oversight of this legislation made clear. It is also not clear in the legislation how Australia engages with its obligations under a range of international treaties such as the UN Outer Space Treaty. That said, it is a first step down a path that, as a nation, we need to travel. In that sense, it is very important that it passes this parliament.
For all that, there is a final reason why, in my view, it is so important that we become more engaged in space. I was in year 10 in 1982, which means I was born in 1967. I had just turned two when Neil Armstrong first stepped on the moon. I don't remember it, but the backdrop of my education was very much the activities of Apollo, which were deeply inspiring—and hugely public. It wasn't just a scientific endeavour; it was a matter of popular culture. Not surprisingly, 1982 is the peak of the graph of those making a decision to study science, as I did. I pursued science from that time through to completing a science degree at the University of Melbourne. From 1982 until now, the number of children at school deciding to study science has been on the decline.
Big science is really important in terms of inspiring people to study science—and that's what Apollo was. But we have big science going on right now—through the square kilometre array telescope and through the giant Magellan telescope, which I mentioned earlier. There is the likelihood that, by the end of the 2020s, we will be able to see planets elsewhere in the universe which have biomarkers in their atmospheres. That is a pretty significant moment. It is not a moment when we will be able to communicate with life elsewhere in the universe. It is not a moment when we will know exactly what that life is or whether it exists now—because the information is thousands of light years away, so what we will be seeing happened thousands of years ago. But, between now and 2030, it is likely that the question of whether we are alone in the universe will be answered. That is a profound moment in the human experience, yet we do not see the square kilometre array on the front page of our newspapers, nor what is going on with the giant Magellan telescope. Indeed, it baffles me that this is not something that forms a bigger part of our popular culture. As a nation we desperately need to change our cultural relationship with science. It has to become something more mainstream in terms of what's reported and, particularly, what our kids digest. Engagement in space, I think, is central to that. It is a deeply inspiring activity and it can play a huge role in encouraging more of our young people to take up science, because infusing our economy with science and technology is not just an imperative; in my view it is the single most important piece of microeconomic reform facing Australia today. If we do not climb the technological ladder, we will find countries around us doing it at a much faster rate and we will be doing things very differently in the second half of the country, as a nation in the global economy, than we are doing now. Science matters. Space has a really important role in encouraging more Australians to pursue science. With that I support the bill.
The future is going to be awesome, and that is the basis on which I support the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018. It enables this country to engage more proactively in the potential of the horizons beyond us and in the wonderful world of space for whatever we choose to do. We know that the global space economy is now worth some $450 billion. That's measured in dollars; but the horizon of opportunities in what the space industry provides us, in technology, in science, in the pursuit of what we can achieve as people, is so much greater and is so exciting. We are an industrious nation of scientists, entrepreneurs and innovators, all of whom have so much to offer in the boundless frontiers of the commercial space industry. It is incredibly exciting what we as a nation can achieve, not just for ourselves, but for the future of the world and humanity in pursuing that ambition.
Space activity has of course traditionally been housed in governments and space agencies, thus subject to the inflexibility of budget considerations and, more importantly, limitations. In the 21st century the space industry will reach its next chapter, one which will see the power of the market unshackled from the burdens of the public sector through fierce competition, through private enterprise, to see the boundless potential of what can be achieved beyond our atmosphere. We'll see space hubs accelerate to a new level of ingenuity. The space sector is growing at a rate of more than 10 per cent per annum. The potential of this industry is incredible for us, for our country, for the world. We are just getting started. We have so much potential as a country because of the natural bounty we have, whether it's because of the role of the fuels, the technology and the minerals that enable us to be able to build up an industry of the future, but also because we have those innovators and scientists who can harness their intellectual power to build with the natural resources of this continent a space industry to take the potential of this country off the ground and into the atmosphere.
Already over 70 space start-ups have emerged as domestic and international investment is rushing in. We have the energy, human capital and courage to create a space hub driven by commerce and industrialism to take, not just the industry of the early part of the 20th century, not just the development of the service sectors that have profoundly transformed our economy in the late 20th century and earlier part of the 21st century, but to combine them for the potential for a mid- and late-21st-century industry.
Our space industry employs nearly 11,000 people and is worth $4 billion a year now. But it is only a beginning of what we can realise as a people in the future. There is no reason those numbers shouldn't multiply into the future. A new government space agency will be a significant moment for our country in contributing to that process, because we need the commercial industries and government to be working hand in hand. We have an obligation to ensure that the commercial regulatory environment is sound enough to allow private enterprise to flourish but, more critically, to work with many of the other businesses and space agencies that operate across the world. This bill supports the changing nature and growth of that industry by streamlining and simplifying licencing and insurance requirements. We are getting the dead hand of red tape out of the way so Australia's space innovators can fully unleash their growing capability and compete on the global stage. I just say to the members of the opposition who are scoffing right now: the future is going to be awesome, and we're bringing it about as part of this Turnbull government.
I really enjoyed the comments from the member for Goldstein. I might reflect on them a little later. I also enjoyed the earlier comments by the member for Corio, who pointed out the importance of big science and big science projects not only across Australia but across the globe. That's why it's important that Australia does participate in significant and large public science projects that can inspire the young people of today to undertake science and mathematics subjects at our secondary schools and universities across the country.
I'll turn to speak on the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018, which is hot on the heels of the Prime Minister's announcement of the Australian Space Agency. I commend the government on their interest in levelling the domestic playing field in this space as well as on making a start on a regulatory framework in which this industry can function, particularly as a result of this bill. However, as per usual, it'll be interesting to see how much detail has gone into this bill, given the government's historic Han Solo-type of attitude of shooting from the hip first and asking questions later. This check-up will take the form of a Senate legislative inquiry and a report, which I look forward to reading at a not-so-far-away time.
I will backtrack for a second here and take a look at some of the context surrounding this bill before I go on to the specifics. Before the creation of the Australian Space Agency, we were one of only two OECD countries to not have a federal agency entirely dedicated to the space industry—the other being Iceland. To the north of our country, Indonesia has a space agency. In Africa, Nigeria has a space agency, and even North Korea claims to have a space agency. We have truly lagged behind for too long in this respect. However, we have not been drifting in space doing nothing entirely all this time.
Australia has an extremely proud history in the space industry. We have been at the forefront of many of humanity's impressive feats in the great unknown. If we can reflect on the famous dish in Parkes, New South Wales, that was the beating heart of Australia's fledgling space industry. It's been a crucial part of Australian space operations for nearly 60 years and, of course, immortalised in that great movie The Dish. It has studied some of the most distant entities in our galaxy and beyond. It's still far beyond the range of conventional instruments of its time. It helped Apollo 13 make it home against massive odds and brought the very first moon landing into the lounge rooms of the world. Of course, it's not just The Dish. In my very own state of Western Australia, industry and academic leaders are constructing the square kilometre array low-frequency radio telescope, one of the world's largest public science data projects. It's happening in Murchison, north of Perth, where our clear skies are the envy of the world.
Labor proudly fought for funding for this. It was first funded under a Labor government in this place, but it has been a bipartisan effort, and I'm very happy to say so. The Liberal state government run by Colin Barnett was an enthusiastic supporter of the Square Kilometre Array bid, that Australia then launched out of Western Australia, and then set up the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research at the University of Western Australia and Curtin University. The Square Kilometre Array project is one of the biggest global astronomy projects of our generation. It represents a multibillion-dollar international investment in Australian infrastructure, and it's happening in the great state of Western Australia.
In 2025, Australians will also be proud to say we contributed significantly to the world's largest optical observatory, the Giant Magellan Telescope, which is another significant public science project. I might add, while I'm reflecting on these two projects—especially the Square Kilometre Array—that there is the importance of the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre in Bentley. It is one of the largest supercomputers of the world and is funded by governments of both types in this place. Also, the state governments have broad bipartisan support for the importance of investing in large supercomputing efforts. It is how we keep up with the rest of the world in science, data and data processing. I congratulate the incoming CEO of the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre, Mr Mark Stickells, who's someone I've worked with for a long time at the Energy and Minerals Institute at the University of Western Australia. Congratulations, Mark. You'll do a great job, and Pawsey does such an amazing job in processing the extraordinary amount of data that comes out of the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research and the Square Kilometre Array in the Murchison.
We have many examples of proud Australian achievements in the space industry, but they are spread apart. They're a bit decentralised and they're not able to light the way for future projects without outside help. The creation of the Australian Space Agency will greatly assist with this. I'd like to put in my two cents worth about the WA proposal to host the Australian Space Agency. Of course I would do that: I am a proud Western Australian, and a number of members in this House would back me up on this bid. It's a very important application. Clear blue skies, our fabulous weather and the expanse and range of geographic possibilities afford an opportunity like no other for Western Australia and for science in Western Australia. The bid has been spearheaded by the WA Minister for Science, Mr Dave Kelly. Western Australia's bid for the agency has been summed up in a report commissioned by WA's Chief Scientist, Professor Peter Klinken, another great Western Australian scientist whom I've had the very great pleasure of working with over the years. Professor Klinken concluded that WA's capability in the development and use of space derived application is very substantial. I would say it's unmatched. This, paired with WA's successful partnership with the European Space Agency, as well as NASA in myriad projects over the past several decades, proves that WA is best placed to take on the opportunity that could provide a significant economic boost to a state that needs it and is best placed to deliver.
To elaborate, the Western Australian state government has been working hard in connecting business, academics and industry, bringing them together on an unprecedented scale in this space. The oil and gas giant Woodside has a five-year partnership with NASA to explore the possibilities of remote operation and automation. I will quote directly from Professor Klinken's report on space industry capability in WA. He said:
This collaboration promotes the exchange of knowledge and expertise. NASA is benefitting from Woodside's experience in remote operation in harsh environments and Woodside is benefitting from NASA's experience in automation and the human robot interface.
I was very pleased to visit the centre at Woodside where they have their NASA robot and excellent staff and researchers around them, supporting the work of automation. It's a very dangerous environment. Having some automation saves humans from going into dangerous space to check on very dangerous conditions. I'm proud to say that the leader of that Woodside centre is a graduate of Kwinana Senior High School in my electorate. I wish them well in the science they are doing at Woodside, in the Perth CBD. It is very exciting stuff. It sometimes feels like it's straight out of a science fiction book, but it is a reality and it's happening in WA.
At the same time, Woodside is also working with Cisco, Curtin University and Data61 in data analytics, the machine learning program known as Innovation Central. Beyond Curtin, there's also the University of Western Australia. The Frequency and Quantum Metrology Research Group is working on the Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space mission for the European Space Agency, and the Microelectronics Research Group at UWA is conducting world-leading research in the innovative combination of microelectromechanical systems with infrared sensor technology for fourth-generation infrared systems. I was very pleased to visit the Microelectronics Research Group at UWA recently. I had a fantastic tour to see the quite remarkable things they're achieving. At Edith Cowan University, the Robotics and Autonomous Systems Group is investigating different applications of deep-learning approaches for send and control methods. At Murdoch University—and this is really quite cool—they're developing a research program aimed at creating drones capable for use on Mars. They're making use of those technologies so that we can explore the harsh environments of distant planets and moons in our own solar system, which is not unlike exploring the wild outback areas of Western Australia, so it's the perfect place to mimic testing.
As well as the creation of a national agency, this bill will assist with centralising and regulating the industry in Australia. Indeed, its very objective is to modernise and update Australian domestic law covering commercial and scientific space activities. I do note the comments of the member for Goldstein earlier. He talked of the critical importance of private enterprise and how, somehow, with this bill private enterprise will be unleashed to do all the work in this space, but you've just heard me recount the work being done at public institutions around this country. I've just told you about the Western Australian institutions and I know there is work being done at universities around the country, so I implore the member for Goldstein and others on the other side; for this work to continue, you really need to maintain the support funding for our great institutions—the universities, especially the research-intensive universities—rather than take every opportunity to cut their funding and skimp on their science. It is very important. You cannot have science like the Australian Space Agency tries to—and it's great that it is trying to do that—without properly funding science and research in this country, and without properly funding universities.
The scope of this bill is extensive, but it doesn't need to cover solar systems. It covers launches from Australian territory, Australian launches from overseas jurisdictions, returns of vehicles from space, launches of Australian payloads, which are usually satellites, and—and this is quite exciting—launches of rockets from aircraft or launches of other high-powered rockets. This is an Australian first. The current regulatory and oversight systems needed an overhaul, and I'm pleased to see that this bill makes a number of changes in this regard.
I might run through them briefly. It reduces barriers to participation in the industry by streamlining approvals and insurance required for launches and returns, making things easier for established players and providing incentives for newer, smaller business and academic ventures. The bill provides that insurance required for each individual authorised launch or return will be specified in the rules, noting that each amount will not exceed the $100 million threshold. This is important as it is a significant reduction from the former requirement of the act of an amount of not less than an eye-watering $750 million. This is comparable with similar requirements in other nations.
It's worth noting that this bill is updating the original Space Activities Act 1998, which was one of the very first examples of a domestic law that was focused on commerce. It was prompted by Kistler Aerospace's plans to establish a spaceport at Woomera. Sadly, this did not eventuate. However, there is new hope. There are proposals in place to establish launch facilities across the country. One of them, Equatorial Launch Australia, is located in East Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory, expanding and diversifying employment opportunities and industry in the region. As well as this, there is an uptick in commercial interest in the launch of CubeSats, small satellites used for a range of applications.
This bill will see a flood of interest in the return of stakeholders. Indeed, many stakeholders have previously pointed to the current act and its regulations as a roadblock to development and investment in launch facilities in Australia, and the vast majority have indicated their support for the new proposals. However, they are keen for the bill to have a greater depth and scope that will seek to make the Australian space industry the brightest star in the solar system.
Many of these questions and commentaries do include the fact that this bill simply updates terminology and makes superficial name changes and many amendments. These operators have previously made the complaint that the original act was too vague, more difficult to navigate than an asteroid field and disincentivises with unnecessary compliance costs. I'm sure they would hate for this bill to be too similar to the act itself, and we want to avoid at all costs an Attack of the Clones-type situation! One of the most significant concerns held by stakeholders was the requirement for all permits to include a strategy of debris mitigation. There is a lack of clarity on compliance with this regulation as to how closely it aligns with the space debris mitigation guidelines of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.
So, as you can see, it's a very wide-ranging piece of legislation. It's a wide-ranging industry that needs to deal with many complex matters. The bill tries. It might have to go further, and we look forward to more work being done in that regard to develop the space industry. We hope that the short Senate inquiry will bring the bill further into the light and show us more so we can assess the impact of the bill in its entirety. A short Senate inquiry should not unduly block the timely passage of this bill through parliament. It is an important bill. It's important to get moving on the Australian Space Agency. It's important to promote science in our community, to encourage young people and all people from around the country to think about science and maths as careers, and to develop great public science projects which will come out of an Australian space agency. That will be one of the good things that this parliament can do for the further and better development of this nation. I thank the House.
It is a great pleasure to speak tonight on the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018. Those listening in the chamber and in the galleries today will hear that once again it's a fabulous opportunity to spruik Canberra and its expertise in space and why we should continue to be the home of the Australian Space Agency. We are currently, but it's temporary under this government. We've made a commitment that, should a Shorten Labor government be elected, the Space Agency will be based here. That's yet another reason why we should elect a Shorten Labor government at the next election.
It is a wonderful opportunity to speak very briefly on this bill and also to spruik the many, many reasons why we need significant investment in space here in Canberra, not just basing the space agency here permanently—as I said, Labor has a made a commitment to do that already, should we win government—but also to make significant investment in the ACT, because, really, we are the experts. We are the experts in this nation. We are the stars when it comes to knowledge, research and history in this area, and the money should be invested here. But I will go into more detail on that shortly.
Labor agrees to support the bill but notes that a decision on any amendments in the Senate will be subject to the findings of a Senate legislative inquiry. There were stakeholders involved in the production of this bill who were seeking a broader re-write of this legislation than has been brought forward by the government. They made specific comments and queries on the fact that the bill simply updates much of the terminology and most of the changes are in name only. Operators have previously complained of an act that is vague, difficult to navigate and with prohibitive compliance costs; also that an earlier Department of Innovation, Industry and Science recommendation to replace the existing legislation rather than amending it was rejected. Also of concern to commercial operators who were considering whether they should base their operations in Australia or move offshore was the requirement for all permits to include a strategy for debris mitigation. It's unclear how closely these new standards must comply, for example, with standards such as the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. The bill also fails to regulate Australians' activities while in outer space, as required in the United Nations Outer Space Treaty. Also—and I think this is vitally important—the bill doesn't make the role of the new Australian Space Agency in administering this legislation clear at all. So, as I said, Labor is agreeing to support the bill but notes that a decision on any amendments in the Senate will be subject to the findings of a Senate legislative inquiry.
I turn to my beloved Canberra. For all those listening, I'm warning you now this is going to be a shameless sales exercise on why there should be significant investment on the space front in Canberra and why those opposite should, like Labor, make a commitment to base the Australian Space Agency in Canberra.
Almost one in four Australian space sector jobs is already in Canberra—one-quarter of them. We are the home of the next generation of researchers, engineers and scientists that will support the future growth of the industry. With the global space industry now worth A$420 billion per year and growing by 10 per cent each year, the Australian Space Agency is a welcome addition to our very comprehensive network of research institutions, national security institutions, international engagement institutions, innovation institutions, knowledge based institutions and, of course, transmission institutions and outfits.
Every Commonwealth stakeholder except the Bureau of Meteorology is based in Canberra. National policy agencies such as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science are based in Canberra, and that provides the opportunity for effective, ongoing collaboration with the Australian Space Agency. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and 80 embassies and high commissions are located in Canberra, and close relationships with our international network will be the key to the success of the Australian Space Agency's international engagement.
Space policy is also absolutely crucial to the success of the Space Agency, as are our international engagement, our innovation, our research, the transmission and the collaboration on this issue. The dual-use nature of many space technologies means that even seemingly benign civil and commercial initiatives will require coordination with the national security community, and such connections will require coordination through the Department of Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the national security agencies, which are all based here in Canberra.
In addition, Canberra provides a compelling enabling environment for the Australian Space Agency. We have a high concentration of space industry organisations with extensive technological capability. Here we go. Here is the list. We've got those government agencies. We've got the international agencies. We've got the national security agencies. And we've got these capabilities in so many different areas. The Australian National Concurrent Design Facility for Space Missions, at the University of New South Wales Canberra, and the Australian National University national space test facilities provide Australia's only end-to-end facilities for the design, building and testing of spacecraft. Geoscience Australia's Satellite-Based Augmentation System, National Positioning Infrastructure capability and Digital Earth are all managed in Canberra and supported by the National Computational Infrastructure, at the Australian National University, which recently received an additional $70 million in Commonwealth funding for maintaining Australia's tier 1 HPC capability.
The list goes on. The CSIRO Centre for Earth Observation is headquartered here in Canberra, and that will be a catalyst for engagement with Australian businesses, government agencies and research organisations. The Space Environment Research Centre, located at Mount Stromlo, combined with EOS space systems, makes Canberra a leader in space situational awareness and debris monitoring. The Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, managed on behalf of NASA by CSIRO, is one of only three NASA deep-space network facilities in the world and currently supports more than 30 deep-space missions. And the Canberra Region Space Industry Capability Directory lists Canberra region based space companies such as QLabs, who do quantum computing work—extraordinary. We've got Liquid Instruments, Locata, Shoal Group, EOS space systems, Geoplex, Geospatial Intelligence, Clearbox, Equatorial Launch Australia, Viasat, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Airbus Defence and Space.
This is the reason why the Australian Space Agency should be based here in Canberra permanently. As I said, it is a commitment that has been made by Labor, should we win the next election. But also we need to ensure that there is continued significant investment in this because Canberra is top of the pile. We are numero uno when it comes to space expertise in this country—numero uno.
What are we talking about? What is it? Almost one in four space sector jobs are already here in Canberra, and we have all these amazing agencies—internationally renowned and having expertise in so many different areas—based here in Canberra, as well as our national security agencies, our international engagement agencies, the CSIRO, Geoscience Australia, the Australian National University and UNSW Canberra. It's a very, very long list there.
And it's not just that we've got these amazing institutions, this amazing research capability and amazing infrastructure. We've got the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. It has responsibility for positioning, navigation and timing in the transport sector and space. There is the Department of the Environment and Energy, which is responsible for environment management through Earth observation. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources has responsibility for agricultural production, also through Earth observation technologies. And, as I said, there are the national security agencies: the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Cyber Security Centre. I attended that recently, last week, when it was officially launched in its new location by the Prime Minister, the defence minister and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security. I thank those opposite for including me in that invitation. National security and cybersecurity issues are largely bipartisan, and so I very much appreciated that bipartisan spirit being shown on that day. Again, I congratulate the government and all those involved in the official opening of the Australian Cyber Security Centre.
Here's hoping that it truly ensures integration between the private and public sectors—that we will see true collaboration and true information-sharing. Unfortunately, despite the best of intentions of everyone at both the Australian Cyber Security Centre level as well as at the national level for that collaborative and threat-sharing environment, that just hasn't happened. So here's hoping that the new facility, that very impressive facility out at Brindabella Park, will realise that real collaboration and cooperation. We actually have to have that for our nation's security and for the economic prosperity of Australia, to ensure that our social DNA, our social fabric, our way of life and our democracy, who we actually are, are protected. That's vitally important.
Just in closing, I've highlighted the education, research and strategic-thinking capacities here in Canberra and I've also highlighted the industry capacity. I've highlighted the many space facilities that we have. They are incredibly impressive and have been working in collaboration with the international community for many years. I also want to talk about the human capital and the actual skill base that we have here in Canberra. These figures make me incredibly proud. They mean that I'm on my toes, particularly when I'm door-knocking—which is, in a way, cold-calling. I need to be on my toes in terms of knowledge of policy, because quite often the people who I'm talking to have actually written the policy.
So they do keep me on my toes, but I feel incredibly honoured and privileged to represent such an extraordinarily engaged and curious community and such an extraordinarily well-educated community. Forty-one per cent of Canberra's adult population holds a bachelor's degree or higher qualification, and that means we are the most highly educated population in the country. The Knowledge City Index of 2017 found that Canberra is the underlying knowledge capital and that through that it has also activated a knowledge economy that sets us apart from other cities in Australia. We're also home to world-class small, medium and large space-related enterprises and high-tech companies. That provides a very fertile environment for innovation opportunities.
As I said, this is a shameless plug for my much-loved national capital, my much-loved Canberra and my much-loved ACT, for us to be the centre of the space industry in this country. We have the Australian Space Agency; we need to make that permanent now. We have these amazing facilities that have been engaging with NASA and the international community for decades. We need to enhance those now. We need to make Canberra our nation's space capital. We need to make Canberra the centre of space expertise in this nation. We have all these abilities—the skills ability, the research ability, the institution ability, the national security ability and the collaborative ability—based here in Canberra. We have the skills. I implore those opposite to listen to the sales pitch, to listen to what the people of the ACT have to say and to make Canberra, our nation's capital, the epicentre of the space universe here in Australia. It's just a small ask. We can begin by making the Australian Space Agency permanently based here in Canberra, as Labor will do.
Earlier this month, an astrophysicist, Professor Geraint Lewis, who is a Sydney university professor, held a forum as part of Sydney university's Sydney Ideas. Hundreds and hundreds of people were at that venue in Sydney, all because they are fascinated by the secrets and opportunities that space provides. Professor Lewis expressed the view that we should never have stopped at the moon, because essentially that's what happened. We got to the moon and there was a really long pause. Yes, there has been a bit of activity looking at Mars, but we have never made those same leaps that we made in walking on the moon. That's why this parliament supports this bill.
The Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018 is all about modernising and updating the domestic law covering commercial and scientific space activities, everything from launches from Australian territory, Australian launches from overseas territories, launches of Australian owned payloads—and, of course, those are usually satellites—and the return of vehicles from outer space. Also, for the first time, we have legislation that looks at rockets from aircraft or launches of high-powered rockets. There is a big gap and we've had it for a long time. There is no doubt that this is overdue.
I note that senators have had some opportunity to look at this bill, and Labor senators' comments highlight just how important this is. The classification of our current act as being essentially a failure is probably not far wrong. No company has launched from Australia since the implementation of the Space Activities Act, with the only example of local activity being the 2010 return of the Japanese Hayabusa spacecraft and of course the occasional overseas satellite launch. That shows that we've missed some opportunities and that, without a doubt, there is a real pressing need for reform. Unfortunately, this bill is not the wholesale reform that a lot in the sector have been calling for. It tinkers around the edges. I would think it's pretty clear that parliament will be asked to revisit this sector before too long to take those extra steps.
I noted from the additional comments from Labor senators who were involved in the economics committee inquiry that looked at this bill that there is an understanding that regulation must change as circumstances change. Obviously, the global industry of 2018 is very different to that of 1998. As the review of Australia's space industry capability notes:
Not since humans first walked on the Moon have we seen the global space industry undergo such rapid reinvention.
I was one of those kids who sat at school and watched the first steps on the moon. All of us kids of the sixties remember that particular day in the classroom on the black-and-white TVs that were made available. But the space industry has changed. It has just transformed. No longer is it restricted to government agencies and budgets. Space has become a fast-growing and fiercely competitive commercial sector as the costs of launching things falls and the high levels of private funding continue to push the price of entry lower than it has ever been. And these are good things because we should be thinking about a serious space industry. Certainly on this side of the House Labor is thinking of a serious space industry.
There are people in my own electorate who already can see the enormous opportunities that we have. There are four schools in the Hawkesbury part of my electorate of Macquarie that have received federal funding worth $80,000 to help them blast off their students to Space Camp later this year in the United States. Each school is getting $20,000. That will help a group of students towards the cost. It's a pretty hefty cost to get to Space Camp, but it's a big thing in the electorate because, once a few students go and have that incredible experience, others want to. The schools that are benefitting from that include Richmond North Public School. This is one of the pioneers of Australian kids from my part of the world going to Space Camp. The other schools are Hawkesbury High School and Windsor High School as well as Bede Polding College. These kids are really going to have the chance to dare to dream. For many of the children and their families, this will be the first time they've gone overseas. Some parents go, but most of it is just the kids going. They need teachers to go with them, and there has been a huge commitment by the schools to fundraise to make it possible for these students to go.
All of this is happening in the electorate of Macquarie thanks to an amazing woman called Jackie Slaviero. Jackie is one of the founders of One Giant Leap. Before she got involved in space, she had a diverse and longstanding background in education, working as a teacher for 25 years and then in the Department of Education, analysing the New South Wales school curriculum. Her passion for STEM came from an opportunity to go and take part in Space Camp. That passion for STEM is embedded into the goals of One Giant Leap Australia, which prepares young Australians for the opportunities of the future, enhancing teaching skills for teachers so that they are able to produce more capable students. She is helped by Bob Carter, who has a background in the defence and aviation sectors.
The Space Camp that they are preparing kids to go to at the moment takes place in October. They will be visiting Northrop Grumman headquarters. They'll be at the California Science Center. They'll visit the US Space & Rocket Center. They are going to have the most incredible experience. And apparently they get to go to Disneyland and Universal Studios too. I suppose that's not to be sneezed at!
Jackie has taken more than 300 kids to Space Camp USA and Space Camp Turkey. Both these countries have seen it. Of course, Australia doesn't have its own Space Camp, and that's the vision that Jackie has—that one day we will have a camp in Australia that gives kids the opportunity to really think about the adventures of space. On the camps they take the students on, she says, you can jump off 50-foot rock walls. You can parachute backwards into a lake. You do the simulations they use to train astronauts. For a whole week you do astronaut training. I've spoken to some students from North Richmond Public who have been on Space Camp and, while not all of them now want to be astronauts, it has opened their minds to the possibilities of science and turned something that they might not have been attracted to—that whole world of science—into something that they can't wait to get hold of.
Jackie's dream of Space Camp and a national STEM centre of excellence is something she's working very hard to achieve, and I'm very happy to support her. It's a big project. It requires a lot of money. But she has a vision, and that's what we need. The Hawkesbury would be the perfect location not so much for the space centre but for Jackie's vision of a Space Camp.
Jackie also works with students around drones, recognising that drones are not toys; they are serious pieces of science. She has the need for there to be land on which that activity can be done that doesn't interfere with airspace. So I really want to congratulate Jackie on the work that she is doing.
Of course, we think about space and we think about it just being stuff up in the sky, but I think we forget that space based applications impact our everyday lives. Supermarkets provide fresh fruit and vegetables by using satellite navigation in their delivery fleets to optimise just-in-time deliveries. ATMs and other credit card application authorisation processes need satellite based timing synchronisation. Mobile phone conversations require that synchronisation. Emergency and disaster relief response relies on specialised satellite imagery and communications, because electrical power, cell phone towers and cables can all be damaged. Of course, in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, that's something that we know is so important. Adaptation to climate change relies on space data. It's actually a science, and we can use science to help tackle it. Transport is being revolutionised today by artificial intelligence, and autonomous and driverless vehicles all rely on satellite navigation enhancements. That's why there is so much opportunity for Australia to be in this space.
Labor wants to double the size of the Australian space industry, which is estimated to be worth $3 billion to $4 billion annually in revenues, within five years of the establishment of a space agency. That's a really significant investment or revenue that you get after a short space of time. We see that it would create around about 10,000 new high-skilled, high-wage jobs in advanced manufacturing, research, earth observation and space technologies.
What are the things that we think need to be part of that? It's all very well to have some legislation that takes us a step further into the 21st century but we would like to see: four Australian Research Council space industry research hubs to advance the capabilities in emerging areas of industry-focused space research and technology; two ARC space industry training centres working with the industry and offering 25 industrial PhDs—these are the sorts of tangible steps we can put in place to equip and skill people; an Australian space science and industry agency, which we announced last year, to ensure that Australia doesn't miss out on the opportunities provided by the rapidly-growing global space industry; and a space industry innovation council to serve as an advisory board for the agency, develop an industry-wide agenda and build international confidence. We also need to make sure we have a space industry supplier advocate to open up opportunities for space industry companies, attracting investment and jobs. All of these things will be prioritised under a Shorten Labor government so that advanced manufacturing and space technology is given the research support that it needs.
These are all very doable things. As a kid in the sixties, watching the first man walk on the moon, it would have been beyond my comprehension—of course, The Jetsons took off and were way ahead of their time. Now we can ground it in science and in fact. Throughout this country, we have people who want to see this happen. This is a good step in the right direction to ensure that we have the framework that's needed to make this industry viable. But there's more we'll do, and more that I'm committed to doing.
It's often said that we live in a global economy, where every country is affected by what happens in another. Indeed, global trading of goods and services has become the norm. Computer technology has made the world a much smaller place in terms of how easily the world's people interact. In a competitive world, it is smart for nations to focus on their strengths. For Australia, the space industry sector opens up considerable natural advantages which will not only drive economic opportunities but, even more importantly, drive research and innovation which will then have community-wide benefits.
The purpose of the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018 is to ensure safe industry participation and encourage investment and innovation in the space sector. In particular, the bill broadens the regulatory framework to include arrangements for launches from aircraft in flight and launches of high-power rockets. The bill reduces barriers to participation in the space industry by streamlining approval processes and insurance requirements for launches and returns.
This legislation comes at a time that discussions are underway about the location of the head office of the national space agency. It's currently located in the ACT. It is a matter that should be resolved sooner rather than later because, regardless of where the office is located, a national industry sector is important for the nation's future. Space industry research, development and innovation will become increasingly important and Australia cannot afford to be left behind. Indeed, Australia already has an impressive record of contribution to the space industry, and it makes some sense to build on that expertise and experience—expertise and experience that spreads across institutions, universities and government entities throughout the country. Of course that's why each state and territory is laying claim to the national space agency headquarters. The government should get on with making a decision and stop playing the states and territories against each other, as it is currently doing.
I do, however, note that the government has committed $41 million in this year's budget towards a national space agency headquarters. I also note that the headquarters are currently located on a temporary basis here in Canberra. The importance is for a national commitment to a national space agency because, regardless of where the headquarters are located, each state and territory can contribute to the work of that agency. Many different agencies across Australia are already contributing towards the space agency work in other countries and they are doing that very, very well. So there is nothing precluding those with expertise and experience here in this country from contributing to a national program. Indeed, not only is it happening, but if we don't establish a national program, what is likely to happen is that we will lose some of our best scientists from this country, who will undoubtedly move overseas to find the work that they have a passion for.
I notice, in that respect, that the South Australian government has already made considerable inroads towards establishing a space industry in that state. As I understand it, right now, right across Australia, we have a similar sort of contest being waged between Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and even the Northern Territory. The truth of the matter is that whilst a lot of work is being done, Australia's involvement and expertise in space goes right back, particularly in South Australia, to 1947, when the Woomera rocket range was established in that state in conjunction with the British government. Since then, I understand that some 4,000 rockets have been launched from that range. Not only have some 4,000 rockets been launched from that range—rockets and missiles, I should make clear—it continues to be a location that has a future ahead of it if this country makes the investments it needs to in order to support a space industry.
I also note that in 2016 the South Australian Labor government released the Space Innovation and Growth Strategy, which is an action plan for the years 2016 to 2020. It was the first space strategy of any Australian jurisdiction. In 2017 the South Australian government created the South Australian Space Industry Centre to support growing space ecosystems in that state. The South Australian Space Industry Centre is now well positioned to drive space industry innovation, research and entrepreneurial development. It is already home to some 60 space-related organisations.
So I make the point that South Australia alone has, for the past 70 years, made a significant contribution towards space industry development and research in Australia and across the world. I note that the University of Adelaide, Flinders University and the University of South Australia have all made substantial commitments towards space programs within the universities. Indeed, several years ago I attended the University of South Australia, which took part in the launch of a rocket from Japan. We had a direct telecast of the launch because the university and the Defence Signals Directorate, as I think it was call at that time, had made a contribution towards the design of that rocket. So we were given the privilege of watching it take off. Again, that just shows the capacity that already exists.
Regardless of where the headquarters are—and of course I would welcome the headquarters being in South Australia if that's where the government finally chooses to locate them—I simply stress the point that every state and every entity that already makes a contribution towards the space industry in this country can continue to do so. In South Australia, more recently, a nanosatellite tracking station was established at Pinkerton Plains, which is about 70 miles north of Adelaide. It was established by Fleet Space Technologies. The first of two nanosatellites are set to be launched in October this year. One will be onboard a rocket that leaves from India and another on a rocket that leaves from California in the USA. Again, this shows how an agency in South Australia can contribute towards the work that is happening in two separate countries on the other side of the world.
Also last month, the Deputy Director for Technology and Research Investments at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Dr Christyl Johnson, said she's in the process of establishing a working agreement between NASA and South Australia for an internship program between the two countries. Under the program, undergraduate scientists and some undergraduate engineering students will be able to work at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, for about a year. Again, it's another great example of how collaboration and cooperation can continue regardless of where a facility is.
The truth of the matter is also this: our investment in the space industry in this country has huge flow-on effects for the country not only with respect to the direct work of the space industry more broadly, which the member for Corio quite properly pointed out the importance of, but also there are two aspects to an investment in the space industry that are absolutely critical. One is that the futures of economies of the world are reliant very largely on their space programs. That is the future economic driver for the globe, so it's important that every country gets in on it and gets in on it early, particularly Australia as we already have a great deal of expertise in that industry. We shouldn't waste that expertise; we should in fact be one of the countries leading the work that is being done around the world. The second is that, as we have seen from all other programs in the past, space industry research and development leads to breakthroughs of products that are then used very widely throughout society, so the benefits spread not only to the space sector but to every other walk of life once the development has been commercialised and made publicly available to everybody else.
In wrapping up my comments, the annual revenue of the space industry sector in Australia is estimated to be somewhere already between $3 billion and $4 billion, and the sector employs somewhere between 9½ thousand and 11½ thousand full-time-equivalent people. Already it is a major economic contributor. Already we have the base for a major national space agency program in this country, and we should be building on it. I do note, however, that clause 2 of the explanatory memorandum to the bill with respect to the commencement says:
The Bill will commence on either the day of proclamation, or 12 months from the date of Royal Assent. The delay in commencement is to provide time for the subordinate legislation to be drafted thereby aligning commencement of the full regulatory package.
I understand that there are to be regulations in respect of this legislation and they will follow. And I accept that time is required for those regulations to be drafted. However, it does concern me that we are talking about a bill today the effects of which may not come into force until 12 months or later. It seems to me that we have an important issue before us. The government, to its credit, has committed $41 million. Labor has said that it will commit even more than that—some $51 million—and do a number of other things to address the development of a national space agency. Yet we have legislation before us that appears to be delaying the implementation of the very legislation that we are debating today.
I will say two things to the government. Firstly, stop the bidding war between the states and territories as to where the headquarters of the national space agency ought to go. Get on and make a decision about that. That will provide certainty to each of the interested parties in the bidding war that is going on. Secondly, let's get on with implementing whatever legislation is required to build on the work already done and the opportunities ahead of us that are presented by the space industry here in Australia.
I would like to thank all honourable members for considering the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018. In 2015 the government announced a review of the Space Activities Act 1998 to examine the appropriateness and effectiveness of civil space regulation. Since that act was introduced, two decades ago, the space industry has been totally transformed. What was once strictly the domain of government has now become a flourishing private market with far lower barriers to entry. The consideration underpinning this legislative reform was to update the act to ensure it provides for the needs of Australian businesses in this new space industry paradigm. Through this reform, we are ensuring that the Australian space industry is able to engage with emerging opportunities, now and into the future, helping our businesses grow and create jobs without the burden of unnecessary red tape. This bill encourages our space related businesses to innovate, invest and create jobs. It provides Australians with greater access to the global space economy by bringing our regulations in line with agreed international practice and standards.
This is reform with long-term vision, providing for types of launches and returns that are considered imminent and in need of specific requirements. To date, the Space Activities Act 1998 has predominantly supported the launch of satellites from overseas where an Australian national is a responsible party. The bill broadens the regulatory framework to specify anticipated activities, including launches from aircraft in flight and domestic high-power rocket launchers. This reform reflects Australia's rising global prominence accompanying the Turnbull government's establishment of the Australian space agency. It allows our businesses to be at the forefront of space industry development. The bill also updates insurance requirements, bringing them into line with global standards. It requires insurance for space activities and higher power rockets to be no more than $100 million. This is a significant reduction from the highest amount specified in the Space Activities Act 1998—$750 million. The insurance requirement has changed based on levels commensurate with other countries while allowing flexibility for detail to be provided in the rules.
The Turnbull government recognises thorough consultation as key to this process. The rules which will form a critical part of Australia's space regulatory framework will be developed within 12 months of the passage of the bill. This timing allows a considered approach to be taken and appropriate time to engage and consult with stakeholders involved in space activities. Further transitional arrangements are included in the bill so that there is no uncertainty for those undertaking space activities. Details of the updated application requirements and revised fee structure will be included in the rules.
The development of the bill has been informed by extensive consultation, including a public information session, resulting in 69 submissions and the subsequent development of a legislative proposal paper based on further input from stakeholders and submissions in response to the proposed paper. I thank all stakeholders for their participation and support for the bill. The further consultation around the development of the rules will build on this comprehensive process.
The global space economy is worth over US$345 billion per year and is growing at 10 per cent annually. Despite our outstanding capabilities here in Australia, our businesses represent just 0.8 per cent of the global space economy. The passage of this bill will enable Australian industry to grow that share and to seize extraordinary emerging opportunities to create jobs right across the economy. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Order! I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating Ms Swanson to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, in place of Ms King.
by leave—I move:
That Ms MMH King be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and that, in her place, Ms Swanson be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
It is a great pleasure to make a contribution on behalf of the opposition on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Sector Regulation) Bill 2018. The opposition will be supporting the bill that's before the parliament. Of course we're going to support the bill, because the bill before us is one that is designed to increase competition in our banking sector, and you're not going to find a political party in this parliament, in this House or the other, that is more committed to making sure that we have more competition in banking and that we have better services for Australians through that crucial sector in our economy.
It's important that we don't see the bill come into the House today with too much fanfare. This is a bill that covers off an important area of law, but I don't think we can get too excited about any seismic shifts in competition. That's because the changes that are being proposed by the government are small ones.
I've got the member for Chifley next to me here. There's probably no-one in this parliament who knows more about fin-techs—about this exciting explosion of growth that we can see in financial services.
The bill is going to make a small impact on the ability of fin-techs to come into financial services and to compete against the major banks. But I'm going to go through the changes, for the purposes of the House, but also so that I can explain why this is going to make a small but somewhat positive difference and that's why Labor's happy to support this bill.
The first major change that's being made in this bill is that it will increase the ownership threshold applying to companies that want to provide life insurance or general insurance or to become authorised deposit-taking institutions or relevant holding companies in Australia, from 15 per cent to 20 per cent. What that really means is that, today, we have limitations on how much one person or company or related set of companies can own a financial institution. That's because we don't want to tie the stability of our financial system to one individual or to one group of companies.
The bill before us recognises that when we're looking at start-ups or when we're looking at companies that are early in their life, it's quite common to have a ownership structure that's more closed than more evolved companies. This bill will do something to support new entrants into the financial services market. I think that any layman listening to this would acknowledge that 20 per cent is a bit bigger than 15 per cent, but not that much bigger. We're making a change here; it's a small change. It's a positive change, but it's relatively minor.
There are other changes in the bill that are going to make some movement for start-ups coming into financial services. The bill creates a streamlined pathway for owners of qualifying domestically incorporated companies with assets that are less than the relevant threshold applying to become a financial sector company. In plain English, that means that a company that's owned and operated here in Australia is going to face a slightly more streamlined process to become a provider of financial services in Australia.
The bill also makes some changes that will allow start-up banks to enter the market at an earlier stage than is currently possible by allowing APRA to impose a time limit on licences that are granted to new applicants. What that means, in plain English, is that when a company wants to provide financial services in Australia, we're allowing APRA, the prudential regulator, to give them a licence, but to give them a licence for a shorter period of time. It's not a permanent licence to offer financial services but one that might be time limited to something around two years. Again, this is, as always, trying to manage the risk to our financial services sector of new entrants coming into the market with the crucial need for more competition in this sector. We're seeing that every day in the banking royal commission that Labor fought so hard for—this urgent need for us to have more accountability and more competition in financial services.
Let's just summarise what's happening in the bill here. It sounds a little bit like merchant banker gobbledygook—dare I suggest!—but today we're really talking about providing more opportunities for newer companies, companies which are doing exciting things, communicating with their customers in different ways and trying to offer competition in financial services. Of course, that's something that Labor would support.
The measures that are before the parliament right now are consistent with a recent Productivity Commission report that I want to speak about a little. As I mentioned, for the last 600 days Labor has been pushing and pushing the government to agree to a royal commission. Throughout the process, in the lead-up to the royal commission, the government got very creative about different ways that it would avoid having to call a royal commission. One of those was by asking the Productivity Commission to do an investigation into banking. The Productivity Commission finished that report recently, and it was pretty damning reading.
I want to quote a little from what the Productivity Commission found in its draft report. It said:
That pertains to the bill before us.
I said that the Productivity Commission made some commentary about some of the issues within financial services. What the Productivity Commission's final report described as 'competition' in the current context is:
… more accurately described as persistent marketing and brand activity designed to promote a blizzard of barely differentiated products and 'white labels'.
What the Productivity Commission found is that competition in financial services faces enormous challenges. What that means for Australians who are watching or listening to this broadcast is that there is a reason for why you feel that you're not getting good services when you go to your bank. That is a very common experience; it's something that I'm sure all the Labor members here find when they knock on doors around their electorates. Just about everyone in this country has a story to tell about getting poor services through their financial institutions. We hear it from people who are farmers, who have had their land taken away in circumstances that they feel are incredibly unfair, right down to people who have had some type of credit card fraud and can't get fees back from their bank. So there's a huge spectrum of issues here.
Some of the issues that the Productivity Commission talked about in its recent final report were things like opaque pricing. That is a trick that some financial services companies will use, where they'll incorporate lots of different things in the price they're charging you for financial products. What some people in this sector are saying when they look at that is that it is a deliberate tactic to prevent customers from being able to compare financial products. An essential aspect of competition is that consumers can actually see and compare products and make good decisions for themselves. But there is some evidence here to suggest that that's not possible, and it's not possible because the banks don't want it to be possible.
One of the other issues that the Productivity Commission talked about was conflicted advice and remuneration arrangements. This is a practice that has been rife in some aspects of our financial services industry, where we've seen people providing financial advice about selling products where they are getting a commission and not revealing the commission to the customer. They are extraordinary things that are completely out of step with what Australians expect of their financial services institutions. These are just a couple of the issues, but in addition to those there are things like layers of regulatory requirements and, indeed, public policies that seem to support the existence of four, perhaps five, big players in our financial services landscape, when we know that there are lots of other companies that could be providing these products with the right supports.
I was pleased to see the Productivity Commission make a really clear statement about how it saw the state of competition in this sector, but I did see some disappointing noises from the government. We had the Treasurer coming out and doing a press conference, talking about how upset and shocked he was. I think he was probably the only person in Australia who didn't realise that these problems were there in the banks. We all know it, don't we, because we're all bank customers. As I said before, just about every person you will meet in this country has a story about how they've been mistreated by a big financial institution and they've felt they had no recourse. We've seen that right at the public policy end of the discussion, through the Productivity Commission, and I hear it at people's doors when I go doorknocking around my electorate.
I want to make some comments about broader issues in financial services that relate to the type of regulation we're talking about today. The problem is that when we look at this legislation in its context—and I do say we support this bill because it's a step in the right direction, though a very small step—it pales in comparison to the extraordinarily destructive things that the government has done over the last five years when it comes to financial services. One of the first things the government did, when I was first elected to parliament, was attempt to dismantle the Future of Financial Advice reforms. These were crucially important reforms, but I think they probably were implementing what any Australian would regard as common sense—just basic things, like requiring financial advisers to reveal when they've got a commission. That is the minimum that we should be requiring of financial advisers. But it wasn't just the Future of Financial Advice reforms. In that first budget, that shocker 2014 budget, the federal government cut $120 million from ASIC. Now the government's out today and through this week talking about how they're 100 per cent behind the tough cop on the beat. They cut $120 million from this organisation in their very first budget, and now there's shock and awe about all these problems in financial services. It is a pretty predictable outcome, if you ask me.
Then we can't forget the 600 days that the government spent running a protection racket against the idea of having a banking royal commission. I don't think there is a person in this parliament who has been observing that royal commission who would say now that they were right, that all those things that they said about the banks and how they were trying to do the right thing were accurate and correct—because they weren't. And of course we can't forget that after all this, after all of these issues, the government is now trying to give the big banks a $17 billion tax cut. Can you believe it? We wonder why support is falling away from these guys on the other side of the House, but it is pretty obvious to me.
I want to say a couple more things about the royal commission before I close. For 600 days it was Labor's position that we urgently needed a royal commission into our banking sector. It's obvious to just about every Australian that there are issues that go right to the core of the culture inside these big institutions and it is urgent that we fix this problem.
We heard outrageous claims being made on the other side of the House all the while this debate was underway. We heard the Treasurer say:
It is nothing but a populist whinge from Bill Shorten.
What a ridiculous statement. We heard the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, when they eventually got around to announcing the royal commission, some 600 days after Labor first proposed it, saying:
We have got to stop the banks and our financial services sector being used as political football.
… … …
… this is essentially a regrettable but necessary action.
So, even after all that, they couldn't admit that it was actually the right thing to do, the right policy, to have a royal commission into banking. It had to be described as though this was in some way a political exercise. For 25 million Australians who rely on these institutions, it's not a political exercise. It's actually about making sure the fundamentals of our economy are operating correctly. That's why we needed a royal commission then, and it's why we need a royal commission now.
We heard the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services say, 'A royal commission is in fact very dangerous.' I highlight that one in particular because, on Friday, the Governor of the Reserve Bank came out and talked about how important this royal commission is for the financial stability of this country. So the Governor of the Reserve Bank doesn't agree with the relevant minister saying that a royal commission is 'dangerous'. Of course it's not dangerous. If we've got widespread misconduct in some of the institutions in which millions of Australians hold their life savings, we want to make sure that those institutions are acting in line with Australian values—that they are not ridden with misconduct.
Labor understands that; the Governor of the Reserve Bank understands that; and I would like to see some people on the other side of politics acknowledge that. And of course we can't forget John Howard, who said:
I would be staggered if the coalition proposes a bank royal commission, that is rank socialism …
We don't hear things like that anymore, do we, Member for Chifley?
No, we do not.
We don't hear talk of socialism enough in this chamber, frankly. But that was what John Howard had to say. I would be interested to hear John Howard's views now, I really would, because I truly believe that there's not a person in this parliament who could now stand in the chamber and deny the need for this royal commission, because some of the things that have come out are putrid.
What frustrates me the most is not the errant example here and there of some wrongdoing of one particular person in one bank or institution; it is the copious examples we have seen where banks have sat down and made a business decision to rip off their customers. Can you imagine these banks sitting down and saying, 'We are actively going to decide to charge people for services they are not receiving'? It's been very distressing. We've seen a range of responses from people who work in these big institutions to some of the charges that have been laid at their feet. Some of them—'fair cop'—are apologetic, and I think they understand now that that was the wrong thing to do, that they are not licensed to commit what the royal commissioner seems to be suggesting is theft. But there are other people who are appearing before that royal commission who do not take that stance, who continue to sit in the dock and argue that they should be allowed to charge any customer anything because the customer somehow is deeming it to be acceptable by the fact that they have not changed banks or they have not changed super funds.
We know that, try as we might to get Australians to be interested in their financial affairs—and we do ask that of them, and we do want them to be in that situation—we can't rely on people to change banks because they're not getting good services. Every piece of evidence we have is that people are more likely to get a divorce, they're more likely to leave a marriage, than they are to switch banks. There are an extraordinary number of people who are still in the same bank they were in when they were a kid, when they were a teenager and they got their first jobs.
So we are going to have to do a lot better to make sure that we have competition in this sector and that we are demanding and observing good conduct in this sector, because it's not just like any other service. It's not like a pizza delivery shop. The way that these big banks and institutions operate is pivotal to the stability of our financial system. I don't know about you, but I want us to survive the next financial crisis and the one after that and the one after that. What we have here is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to look right into the heart of these institutions and to look right in the heart of the regulators and ask whether this is good enough. I think the member for Chifley would probably agree with me—I think people on my side of politics would agree with me—that a lot of what we are seeing is not good enough.
What I do know is that there is only one side of politics that people can trust to actually deal with this problem, because what we have seen from the Liberals in five years of government is that just about every year there has been some step trying to create an improper regulatory environment for banks and financial services. I'll talk through them. They dismantled the FOFA reforms. Those reforms asked very little more of our financial services industry than that they act in the best interests of their customers—and that was a controversy on the other side of politics. Do you think there is a single person you could stop in the street and ask, 'Hey, do you think banks should be required to act in the best interests of their customers?' and they would say no? But we had a whole side of politics, a whole government, arguing that it was somehow above and beyond that we should require financial advisers to act in the best interests of their customers.
Or review their performance.
Or review their performance—exactly. So what we are saying here is that enough is enough. We've got a royal commission on our hands. It is, frankly, fantastic to see this royal commission blowing a breeze through some of the cultural practices and some of the completely suboptimal protections that are being provided to 25 million Australians who rely in one way or another on the services of these institutions. I'm very much looking forward to seeing what the royal commissioner has to say about some things we can do better in this industry. It is my fervent hope that we see more coming through this parliament to arrest what is an extremely serious problem, a very big problem, facing our country, than the sort of thing that is before the House at the moment.
I say again that we are happy to support this bill. It's going to make a small difference to competition in this sector in terms of the ability that it will give APRA to provide time-limited licences. I think there is one fin-tech that's gone through this process with APRA already—one. Moving the ownership restrictions from 15 to 20 per cent is great, sure. We're happy to agree to it. But is this really the best that we can do? We've got a set of institutions here that are experiencing some extraordinary difficulties in their culture and I just think we need to do a little bit better than making some minor tweaks to who can provide financial services in this country. It's quite clear that we are going to need bigger tweaks to make the sort of difference that Labor, on this side of the House, envisages.
What we envisage, just to make it clear, is a financial services sector that people can feel they can trust, where they can make an agreement with a bank and not only will the bank abide by the letter of the agreement but it will be acting in good faith. That's been the issue with a lot of the banks. There are probably a number of people in this chamber who met with some of the bank victims who recently came to Canberra. One of the issues with the way the royal commission has been run is we haven't been able to hear a lot of stories from people. This is because it has been given only a year by those on the other side of the House to look at banking superannuation insurance. We could have probably had three two-year royal commissions on those issues because they are just so serious and substantial. We had a superannuation round in the last couple of weeks and we didn't hear from many victims. That's because of the constraints the royal commissioner is operating under. He is doing a very fine job and I very much respect the work that he is doing. But we did have some victims come to Canberra, and it was extraordinary talking to them. It really was. I'd urge members of parliament to talk to victims in their community because there are so many people who we all represent who have a story. It's through talking to people that you realise that it's often not about the letter of the law in these issues. It's about people who make agreements with the banks and the banks, for one reason or another—they probably have an answer to it—don't always act in the best faith. That's what we have really got to get to the heart of.
So Labor will support the bill before the House. We are pleased to see some microsteps in the direction of providing better competition in financial services. But I think over the coming year, as the royal commission wraps up its work and Labor is able to provide a fulsome response that our heart is really in, we will see something much bigger and better than this.
It is a pleasure to follow the member for Hotham on this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Sector Regulation) Bill 2018. The legislation was characterised by the member for Hotham as being microsteps. There is no better term—if I can say that through you, Deputy Speaker, to the member for Hotham—to describe some of these. They are released with a flurry and they're announced as a big move, but you need to look at it in the context of all the other things that have been promised and not delivered. This is the problem with the government at its most critical juncture: it is addicted to announcement and deficient on delivery, regularly, particularly in the fin-tech space. On the fin-techs, as was pointed out by the member for Hotham, the fact is that we do need greater competition. Labor has argued that, in the financial services sector, having more options for customers and greater transparency, as the member for Hotham indicated, is vital. Ultimately, I might add—coming to another point that the member for Hotham raised—what is critical at this point is the need for greater trust.
Consumers clearly feel that they are not getting the best deal possible. They do expect better from their financial services system and particularly from the larger institutions. I dare say that this is why, in terms of Australia's fin-tech community, this community is so big. The reason is that—as has been seen with disruption elsewhere to industry sectors, where smaller firms apply technology in a smarter, truer way—they are going for sectors that are bloated, slow to change and not providing the services that are required or wanted or desired by consumers. Where the profit margins are so large, the smaller firms go in, and that's why the fin-tech community here has had so much initial success. But, having said that, what they are confronted with is obviously, through the disruption, a need for us to change our regulatory frameworks. The tremor that is felt through that reaches here in the form of all these new laws that have to be considered by the parliament.
This isn't the only bill. In my contribution I want to reflect on a number of pieces of legislation that have been touted by the government as taking a big step forward with respect to fin-tech reform and helping the local community. A number of pieces of legislation are out there, but, before they even get to this place, there's consultation round after consultation round after a draft item of legislation is put forward. In particular, industry bodies that have been formed, especially to represent the fin-tech community in Australia—notably FinTech Australia—have to consult with the Treasury, have to put in submissions and have to put in their argument for a financial regulatory framework that is much more amenable to the smaller firms.
I went to FinTech Australia's website just to see the list of submissions. They put in a submission to the Attorney-General on anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism regulations; a submission to the consultation paper regarding digital currencies under the AML/CTF regime; supplementary submissions to ASIC papers on regulating digital financial advice; and submissions on equity crowdfunding, and we know how long that's taken to amble its way through the parliamentary chambers, but whether it gets through is another question. They also had to provide a submission on a discussion paper on the GST treatment of digital currencies; a submission on the exposure draft legislation on GST treatment of digital currencies; an initial submission to the Productivity Commission report on data availability and use; a submission to the ACCC regarding collective bargaining with Apple; a submission to the draft Productivity Commission report on data availability and use; a submission to the Australian Treasury on the open banking inquiry; a submission on screen scraping to the Australian Treasury open banking inquiry; a submission on opening banking implementation earlier this year; a submission on non-ADI lender rules, which we are discussing now; and a submission by them and some others on changes in relation to skilled migration use. I could go on. I won't detain the House further, but that is the list of submissions that have been put forward. They're doing a huge amount of work. They expect the legislation to get through and what happens?
I mentioned equity crowdfunding. The second group of laws that were put forward in relation to that were introduced to this place in September last year by the Treasurer to fix up a set of laws that we urged him not to put through because they would be too cumbersome. He didn't do it. He put those first laws through and then came back, only mere months later, to put another set of laws through to change equity crowdfunding, as a way to help smaller businesses and start-ups get access to capital. He hasn't even had the wherewithal, despite regular needling by the opposition, to put it on for debate in the Senate. It won't even go to the Senate this week. What'll happen is we'll come back in September to debate laws that were introduced last September. That's fin-tech reform Scott Morrison-style—the Treasurer's style.
In terms of the regulatory sandbox arrangements to allow fin-techs to explore the development of new products and services without the heavy regulatory approach that is normally accustomed or expected in the delivery of these financial services products, when the initial arrangements were announced in 2016, in a blaze of glory, they discovered that they weren't such a smash hit. In fact, only four fin-techs used the arrangements. The government was then forced to reform those arrangements in legislation brought to this place earlier this year. Where's that legislation? Again, it's stuck in the Senate. It is not being debated this week, and we'll come back in September to debate it.
We also had, for instance, the comprehensive credit reporting arrangements stuck for ages, in terms of consultation. There was no end in sight to the consultation process. Then, suddenly, it's brought in, and the government fails to acknowledge that a separate piece of work in relation to the Attorney-General's review on hardship provisions—which is pretty important in terms of credit history and those people who may have suffered poor credit history because of hardship that they've experienced, and how that would be contemplated within a new regime—hasn't been finished, this area of review by the Attorney-General's Department. We are then pressured to support a regime absent hardship provisions, because the government can't do its homework properly in relation to that element of reform. Again, it is very important to the fin-tech community that this comes through and, again, it was stuffed up by the government—addicted to announcement, deficient with delivery. We often get this in this space.
The other thing that has been raised with me is that announced with a flourish earlier this year was a UK-Australia fin-tech bridge that's supposed to allow for greater cooperation between the UK and Australia in supporting the activities of fin-techs in our respective nations. On paper, that sounds like a great idea. But what's happening now is that fin-tech firms are raising with me their concerns that this is ushering in a period of what they have characterised as 'digital recolonisation'. The fin-tech arrangements in the UK are very well established, and the firms are growing very strongly. In our case we haven't had either time for local fin-techs to mature or a supportive regulatory framework to encourage maturation. What will likely happen is that, if we harmonise our arrangements with the UK, particularly in terms of open banking—and I understand, for instance, that there are key officials in Data61 that are guiding the development of our own open banking arrangements—
Data61!
Data61, yes. We've got officials who had been working on the establishment of open banking standards in the UK who have been deployed here in Australia for our open banking arrangements. The concern is that you've basically got an uneven playing field insofar as you've got firms that have become accustomed to a framework on the other side of the country coming in here, where we haven't even had time for our own people to see the framework put in place or have time to adjust to it. Again, all these announcements have been made and yet the government doesn't follow through to make sure that what it's doing will be delivered upon in a timely way, in the period in which they were announced.
This legislation, on its face, is quite good, lifting the permissible ownership stake in smaller financial services firms, particularly start-ups. While capital is flowing better to a lot of these start-ups now, and the issue of capital drought is not as evident now as it was a couple of years ago, there are still instances where it may be hard to get a number of investors to back firms in this area that would be capital-intensive and need a lot of support. If you can find an investor who is prepared to back you, and you can provide some leeway through the legislative ideas that are being advanced through this particular proposition that we are debating now, that is a good thing. There's no doubt about it. As the member for Hotham, the shadow minister, indicated, we are happy to support it. My question is: when are we actually going to see this eventuate? We have said we are not going to oppose the bill, but, when it goes to the other place, will it even get on the legislative program to be passed?
As I said, if you look at equity crowdfunding, if you look at the fin-tech regulatory sandbox, if you look at CCR and if you look at this, all of these are reforms that are put forward and they all get logjammed. As I have previously said, I think the Treasurer is the faux friend of fin-tech. Despite all his claims that he supports the sector, he doesn't deliver for them. And he had the temerity to say to the fin-tech community a few weeks ago on open banking reform: 'I have put forward all these great ideas. Don't stuff them up'—as if they are accountable for his stuff-ups, as if they are accountable for the quality of his ideas or his homework. That is a ridiculous proposition. There is no way the fin-tech community in this country should be held accountable, wholly and solely, for the Treasurer's work—poor work or otherwise. The Treasurer should be accountable for the quality of the work that is being done and doing it in a timely way. He likes to create publicity for himself. He has put together a fin-tech advisory group. He brought a lot of people with serious clout onto that advisory committee. Look at the range of people who are members of that committee. He consults with them and they must be scratching their heads. They come to these meetings with the Treasurer and put their ideas forward expecting to see legislative reform that makes it easier for fin-techs to deliver new products and services to inject serious competition into financial services in this country—and it goes nowhere because ScoMo is on the go-slow. He won't put these pieces of legislation through. We get this piece of legislation we are debating now, and you've seriously got to wonder whether it will see the light of day this calendar year. If they are going to be serious about this, they need to make sure that, once it has gone through the House, it actually gets onto the Senate legislative agenda and gets passed and gets implemented as quickly as possible.
The other big fear is that, in the meantime, you don't know what is going to happen on that side of the House. There are all sorts of questions about whether we are going to have fundamental changes in the face of the government. So you would have to wonder whether the legislation logjam will get worse. So they should get on with it, stop using the fin-tech community for publicity purposes, do the right thing by them and make sure the regulatory framework in this country is fit for purpose, modernised, up to date and allows the emergence of a sector that can provide real competition, alternative products, better services and, ultimately, as I made reference to in my submission earlier, a rebuilding of trust that is so badly needed in this sector given some of the things that have been reflected upon in the contribution by the member for Hotham.
To those who regularly follow my input in this chamber to myriad legislation, especially around financial services, I would like to start with an apology: I know that none of you like my tie, but, if you think this is an affront to sartorial excellence, wait till you get your head around this as part of the entire government's regulatory regime for our financial sector. As the member for Chifley has so eruditely explained—as had the member for Hotham—this legislation, at the end of the day, whilst a positive step, is, firstly, at severe risk of never making it any further than this chamber and, secondly, forms part of a lengthy set of pieces of legislation that have gone through this chamber and not progressed through the Senate or achieved very little in and of themselves. I won't use this opportunity to make some sort of lengthy contribution about the way in which this government's policy settings have failed the people of Australia by trying to put off the coming into force of FOFA reforms, by denying Australia, for 600 days, the holding of a clearly very necessary banking royal commission, or about the way in which they have failed to properly fund our corporate watchdog, now known as a corporate poodle, in ASIC, or the way in which they have failed to provide ASIC with the powers that it clearly needed and still needs to make sure that there are proper penalties in place and that it has the powers and the tools in its regulatory toolbox to be able to hold not just the banks but the financial services sector to account.
The changes that are brought forward in this bill will be positive, and they will be part of what needs to be a growing set of changes to the framework that will help those smaller financial services players grow themselves into being competitors, in a whole range of different ways, to the entrenched financial services framework that we have in Australia. It is definitely a positive thing that we have seen—effectively, only over the last year—a breaking down of the financial oligopolies that have existed in Australia, because we have seen the big banks now start to divest themselves of life insurers and we have seen the big banks starting to divest themselves of wealth management firms. That is actually all good for competition across the sector.
But what I want to highlight briefly here is that this legislation does two things. It raises the ownership restriction applying to financial sector companies from 15 per cent to 20 per cent, which allows new entrants into the financial services market—better. But the other thing it does is that it enables APRA to grant a time-limited ADI licence to encourage greater competition in the banking sector. These changes have come about through recommendations of the House economics committee in its inquiry into the banking sector, looking at how we could encourage, in part, greater competition in the banking sector so that we might see some better behaviour from our banks.
One of the other recommendations that has come from that committee has been to make sure that we have greater executive accountability within our banking sector, so that we can see the cultural change that is necessary in our banks to protect customers. However, what the government did was quite half-arsed. It said, 'We'll introduce a Banking Executive Accountability Regime, a BEAR, that applies for prudential matters, but we won't do one that applies to consumer-facing issues.' Yet that is actually the nub—in fact, the crux—of the issue when it comes to supporting customers and seeing that cultural change that is so desperately required in our banks, because the culture of a bank is quite an ephemeral beast. It's really about changing the behaviour of the senior executives in those banks and, therefore, the people who work under them as well. To do that, you have to hold them to account for the things they do that affect customers. And that's where the BEAR regime is quite deficient.
Again, here the government has not quite grasped the nettle of the problem of competition in the banking sector, because just making these changes is not actually going to do what we need. If it were about trying to access capital, which is effectively what these changes are all about, then, as to our international banks—such as HSBC, Bank of China, Citibank and, to some degree, even the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch—they all have a presence here; they have a footprint. But they are clearly not competitors, in any sense, to our big four Australian banks. If it were about access to capital, those banks have no lack of access to capital whatsoever. If they wanted to take on the banks here in Australia and it was about capital, they've got it. If it's about capital, our superannuation sector and our financial services sector have capital access.
There are clearly other issues going on. We have an entrenchment. The previous speakers, the member for Hotham and the member for Chifley, outlined this exact issue, which is that people are more likely to get divorced than they are to change banks. One of the most stressful things you can do is to buy and sell a house. The issue here is that we have a huge entrenchment in our big four banks. They do provide some stability, but they also bring a huge moral hazard. What regulator is ever going to go after them with ferocity if they hold such a big part of our financial services market, as they clearly do? And they hold it in such a way that it effectively excludes any other competitors or entrants from coming into the market. These changes are about trying to change that, but they are niggling at the edges, effectively, because they do not address some of the biggest systemic issues of our big four banks having the footprint that they do. If it was just about capital, you would see other entrants who have access to other sources of capital coming into this market. It's not like our banks aren't profitable. There's clearly money to be made in this sector.
So these changes are welcome; they are important changes. They will enable smaller entrants, the fin-tech sector in particular, to start coming up, niggling the banks and using, when it's eventually passed, the open access to customer information, for customers to be able to see through new financial models what they're able to access in banking products.
But, at the end of the day, the government is all bark and no bite. It likes going out for the media release, but it doesn't actually have any bang when it comes to delivering for Australian banking customers, who, when we think about it, are all Australians. All Australians are left worse off by this government not addressing fundamental issues in our banking and financial services regulation in Australia. We're all worse off for that, because they won't grasp the nettle. They won't do all of the things that are required. Not only in these speeches I give here, where you all love my tie, but also in the reports coming out from places like the House economic committee—of which the deputy chair, the member for Kingsford Smith, is here—we've been making recommendations and telling the government the things it should get on with, and the shame of it is that it can't even deliver things that even it has said it's delivering on, like the BEAR. It can't get it right. We keep telling them. There's now a consensus report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. All sides of politics have said, 'Extend the application of the Bank Executive Accountability Regime,' but they can't do it. So we support this legislation, but, at the end of the day, like so many things that this government is doing when it comes to financial services regulation, they just haven't got it right.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Sector Regulation) Bill 2018 aims to reduce the barriers to entry to improve competition in the banking and financial system. It includes two schedules. Firstly, it raises the ownership restriction applying to financial sector companies from 15 per cent to 20 per cent in order to support new entrants into the financial services market and create a streamlined path for owners of domestically incorporated companies applying to become a financial sector company. The criteria for approval include an asset threshold of the entity sought to be acquired by fit-and-proper-purpose assessment for the prospective owners. The total resident asset threshold will be $200 million for an ADI or a company registered under section 21 of the Life Insurance Act or will be an amount prescribed by the Treasurer in a legislative instrument. For companies authorised under the Life Insurance Act, the threshold is $50 million or an amount prescribed by the Treasurer under a legislative instrument.
The fit-and-proper-purpose test will replace the current national interest test. It will be set out by APRA as a legislative instrument. Ministerial consent will also be required prior to APRA making a ruling under the FSSA. If an approval is granted under the streamlined path, it will generally remain in place for two years. The second aspect of this bill goes to time-limited authorisation deposit-taking institutions. The bill enables APRA to grant a time-limited ADI licence in order to allow or encourage greater competition in the banking sector and to allow start-ups and banks to make and enter the market at an earlier stage.
The bill clarifies that APRA may impose a time limit on an ADI licence granted to a new applicant. The bill will provide APRA with greater flexibility when considering applications for authority to carry on banking businesses from new entrants to the banking sector. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act highlights the regulator's purpose to balance the objectives of financial safety and efficiency, competition, contestability and competitive neutrality, and, in balancing these objectives, to promote financial system stability in Australia.
The Productivity Commission's report into competition in the Australian financial sector, which was released earlier this month, contained some damning findings on the state of competition in the banking sector. The Treasurer has sat on that report for one month, only releasing it today, without a formal response. Problems like those identified in the report are the very reason that Labor fought so hard for a royal commission. Haven't we seen some shocking evidence that's come out of that royal commission about the practices that have been undertaken by the banks, in particular, the big four and several other financial service providers in Australia? The rip-offs, the scandals, the undermining of customer confidence, the lack of information, the lack of transparency and accountability have been hallmarks of this royal commission, and we certainly await the findings of the royal commissioner into what can be done to improve confidence in this very important industry in Australia.
It should never be forgotten that those opposite vehemently opposed a royal commission in Australia. For 600 days, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said there was no need for a royal commission, that there was nothing to see and that ASIC and other regulatory bodies had all of the powers of a royal commission to inquire into what was going on in banking and financial services, despite the fact that the government, in its first budget in 2014, cut $140 million from the budget of ASIC. That ensured that some of their employees with particular expertise and skills—skills that had been acquired over many, many years working for the regulator—were lost. It was only when Labor began to shine a light on what was actually going on in financial services and uncover some of the details—like the CommInsure scandal, the wealth management scandals at the Commonwealth Bank and fees for no services that all of the banks have been involved in—that we actually got the government to look at those cuts and partially refund some of the activities of the regulator.
The report that was released in May from APRA was quite scathing of the Commonwealth Bank, its board and its senior management and culture. The report ran into 110 pages, which heavily criticised the bank for 'widespread complacency, overconfidence, excessive complexity and insularity'. The report explained that the CBA had a 'slow, legalistic, reactive, and at times dismissive, culture'. We all know too well the self-inflicted problems the banks have caused for themselves. The royal commission has uncovered some shocking evidence of just plain misconduct but potentially also criminal actions by many of those working in these institutions.
The royal commission has shone a light on some of the worst aspects of culture, attitude, risk and decision-making in the industry, and it's clear we need strong, effective regulators in this industry. But it's taken the royal commission to help the Turnbull government see this a little bit more clearly, and that's a great shame. It's a great shame because we've all known for many, many years now that there was a problem in this industry. Some of the government's own senators uncovered this, through numerous inquiries that were conducted up to eight or nine years ago into what was going on in the Commonwealth Bank.
Senator Williams is one of those who began the early calls for a royal commission, but he was hosed down by those on his side, particularly the Prime Minister, who we all know comes from a banking background. Senator Williams and others within the National Party are now claiming credit for the royal commission, but where were they when Labor was calling for a royal commission for those 600 days and the Prime Minister was saying no? They didn't raise it as an issue within their party room and take it up with the Prime Minister and actually publicly come out and say this is something that should be done for Australians that were suffering. It took the government too long and they ignored the pleas of the Labor Party on this issue, and many Australians, unfortunately, paid the price with rip-offs and scandals, with loss of income and with the absolute stress and the pain and suffering—in some cases, unfortunately, suicides—that came about as a result of the actions of the banks and the feeling that people weren't being listened to by this government.
The history books have already been written and have shown that this is another call, another big call, that this government got wrong. They even shut down calls amongst their own backbench about this royal commission. Only after the green light from their mates in the financial sector did the Prime Minister finally agree to some form of inquiry in a royal commission. As the royal commission continues to do its good work, we're seeing just what happens when an out-of-touch government prioritises the banks ahead of the financial interests of millions of Australian customers and people who rely on solid, ethical, good advice from financial advisers and banking institutions to make ends meet, to grow successful businesses and to participate within society in accessing credit and other products that are important to everyday life.
This was when the government gutted the core of Labor's Future of Financial Advice reforms as well. That was when the government tried to water down the catch-all provision in the best-interest test that exists in the Future of Financial Advice reforms that are now embedded in the Corporations Act. It was a Labor government, again, that saw and listened to the pleas of people in the wake of collapses like Storm Financial, Trio Capital and Timbercorp, where millions of investors lost thousands of dollars, hard-earned savings, in many cases all of their life's work—and superannuation, in the case of Trio Capital—down the gurgler because of dodgy financial advice. For some, there was no recompense, particularly when the perpetrators of the crimes took off overseas to areas without extradition treaties.
It was because of this that Labor listened and established that big inquiry, which I was privileged to be involved in, looking at what was going on in financial services and making suggestions to the government. That was an inquiry that was chaired by a former member of parliament, Bernie Ripoll. It suggested that the best-interest duty be introduced into legislation in Australia, and Labor did that. We acted and took the advice of that committee and the Australian people.
It was the coalition opposition at the time that opposed that. The now finance minister was on that committee and, believe it or not, he relied on the advice and the evidence of AMP in his dissenting report to argue against the introduction of a best-interest duty into the Corporations Law in Australia. That's right: the now finance minister quoted AMP in his dissenting report, saying, 'These are the reasons why we shouldn't introduce a best-interest duty into Australian law.' Well, we all now know why AMP was keen to insure that there wasn't a best-interest duty introduced into legislation in this country. We all know why: fees for no service, leaving people on legacy products in superannuation and ensuring that they don't transfer to savings products that are more in their best interests. Hopefully, the royal commission will deal with the scandalous behaviour that's come out of AMP. Shame on this finance minister and shame on this government for trying to use the evidence of their mates in organisations like AMP and the big banks to do over Australian customers and hardworking Australians by watering down or taking out that best-interest duty in the Future of Financial Advice legislation that was introduced into the parliament.
Labor acted in government with the FoFA reforms, which were strongly opposed by the opposition—now the government—and by the financial advice industry at the time. It should never be forgotten that the Libs and the National Party opposed FoFA. The very scandalous behaviour being uncovered in the royal commission at the moment would not be illegal if the Turnbull government had their way; it would simply be a bad look for those organisations. Not only did they oppose the original FoFA legislation, but, when they got to office, they set about watering it down. They actually got it through the House of Representatives and the Senate. It was only after Labor introduced a rescission motion and some of the crossbenchers changed their minds because they saw what was going on that we were able to remove that attempt to water down the best-interest duty.
Labor's had to fight to help retain these laws and fight the persistent efforts of members of this government and conservative MPs in this parliament to water down regulation and protections for consumers. If the government had their way, there would be no laws against what some of the big banks and AMP are doing and have done that's being uncovered in the royal commission. That is a great shame because there would be no accountability for these individuals who have perpetrated this pain and suffering for many Australians. There'd be no ultimate accountability for their actions and that would be a great shame.
That sums up this government's approach to the regulation of financial services and leadership. When it comes to taking leadership on this issue, making some tough calls and standing up to the banks and the people who own the wealth in this country and saying, 'No, you're not going to be able to get away with it,' this government fails on every occasion. It was only the previous Labor government and now the Shorten-led opposition that have stood up to the banks and financial houses in this country in introducing FOFA legislation and in calling for a royal commission into the banking and financial services. Because of that, we're now shining a light on some of these practices. We certainly await the recommendations of the commissioner and hopefully being able to act to legislate and restore confidence to this important sector of the economy.
I rise to lend some comment on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Sector Regulation) Bill 2018. As I do, can I say I have had a gutful of being lectured to by the Labor Party opposite when it comes to financial sector regulation. I too have been here for 10 years. I too sat on the post-GFC banking inquiry and read every submission and went and listened to every witness at every hearing and, somehow, I find myself at odds with the honourable members opposite on how that went. This was a series of inquiries in 2008 and 2009. Labor had been in government for a number of years when the GFC went through and, of course, had achieved nothing. The post-GFC inquiry looked at something like $60 billion that was lost through MFS and through MISs, including Great Southern and of course the likes of Storm Financial. Storm Financial had brokers, many of them with master's degree qualifications, and the Labor Party wants to recommend greater education. Education wasn't the issue. The unscrupulous acts of bastardry of these people were some of the issues. That requires greater compliance to ensure that doesn't happen again. That's what this government is trying to achieve.
I was there when now Prime Minister Turnbull, back then a backbencher, and member for Wentworth said that things were getting so serious perhaps the government should look at providing a guarantee of up to $250,000 for bank deposits—a guarantee that now exists. The then Prime Minister of the day was not to be outdone by anyone, because apparently he had the smartest intellect in the room, so he made it unlimited. I watched the market distort. I watched banks being bought out. I watched Bankwest be subsumed over a weekend when one of the big four took it up. I watched competition almost disappear overnight. So I will not sit here and be lectured by those opposite about financial sector reform and reform in this area when all I've seen is a concentration of banking power and prowess under their watch.
That's especially so when we come to this bill, because this bill is all about making competition easier. We don't have as much competition as we need in the banking sector. We need more. Competition is a beautiful thing. I'd strongly recommend to those opposite competition in the super area as well, moving away from default funds always being industry funds. Let the light into the super industry, I say. Let's have a good, hard look at where those things sit. This bill is all about two measures designed to make it easier for financial sector ownership and to open up competition. This is a budget measure which we committed to in 2017-18. There are two measures relating to financial sector ownership and restrictions and banking licences that will work in tandem to make this sector more contestable, certainly improve choice in outcome and make it more innovative.
It's not in isolation; we're building on substantial reforms. There is the major bank levy, which over the next few years, will raise $16 billion because this parliament, representing the people of Australia, has applied an implicit guarantee to the banks that they can't fail. That doesn't come for nothing. There is a cost, and the taxpayer expects a return. And they have it: over $16 billion. Labor jumps up and down, but they did nothing when they were in power. We are relaxing restrictions on the use of the term 'bank' and have done a whole bunch of work in terms of crowdsourcing funding to get innovation moving, especially in the areas of fin-tech and other areas of finance. And there is, of course, the introduction of open banking, which does have the potential to transform the competitive landscape of our financial sector in the way that Australians interact with our evolving banking system.
The bill, which implements these measures, is about reducing barriers to entry. It will reduce a whole bunch of barriers. Ownership restrictions are an important way to ensure that institutions are run appropriately and have access to the resources they need to succeed. That's why ownership structures where any one shareholder owns more than 15 per cent has been subject to approval under a national interest test. It has stood the test of time, to a degree. But it is a barrier; it's a regulatory barrier and it limits competition. As a result, anything that arbitrarily limits competition can result in an unintended consequence that is poor. To address this, we're amending the ownership restrictions for financial sector companies from 15 to 20 per cent, as set out in the Financial Sector Shareholding Act 1998. It's designed to allow more players to play and more actors to enter the space. It's designed to drive competition—competition that disappeared on the day the member for Wentworth stepped outside and made a simple statement about, 'We need to guarantee deposits up to a certain amount.' And former Prime Minister Rudd could not be outdone. This is a measure that is designed to address the inadequacies and the distortions driven by the then member for Griffith's ego. It's extraordinary that it's taken a decade to overcome the damage of that one MP. Yet so much more damage is seeking to be undone.
The bill will also create a new streamlined approval for small, domestically based financial sector companies that are seeking a licence, or that have been licensed for something like half a decade—fewer than five years. Where a company is below the relevant asset threshold, their owners will receive approval to hold more than 20 per cent of that firm, as long as they meet the fit-and-proper persons assessment, which is well understood, especially in legal sections. The bill will also support the operation of APRA's new dual-phasing licence approach, announced on 4 May this year. It contributes to the government's efforts, again, to create far more competition.
Schedule 1 of the bill is seeking to overcome the issues that Prime Minister Rudd brought into the competitive sector. It's part of Australia's architecture and the regulator's prudent approach to managing risks relative to where we're going. The government endorses where APRA is going in this space—this is in respect of the restricted authorised deposit institution licensing framework. It's an important framework, based, in some parts, on the UK model, which since 2014 has seen more than 10 new banks commence operations—10! That's competition, compared to only one start-up in Australia in the last decade. One! It's extraordinary! This entire framework is designed to drive the competitive space and to give market operators freedom to create in the banking space.
We desperately need more competition in this area. Start-up banks will be able to receive a restricted licence for up to two years or for a time specified by APRA as the regulator. There will be a limited suite of prudential requirements and regulations and there will be caps on the size of businesses. There will be a whole bunch of these issues to allow them to compete properly whilst keeping it in a box. And after two years they can transition to a fuller framework. This issue of addressing competition is fundamentally important. If we're to see the banking sector grow, we have to pull the shackles off it responsibly, within bounds set by APRA, and this bill seeks to do that.
I commend the bill to the House. I commend the two measures to the House, and I look forward to reversing some of these difficult trends that we have seen over the years to get back to a fuller competitive banking system.
Debate interrupted.
Last December, the Turnbull government wiped more than $2 billion of funding from Australia's universities. It was the Christmas present that nobody wanted and nobody asked for and it's forced universities to slash programs and turn potential students away. It's meant that an estimated 10,000 students will miss out on the chance to go to uni this year alone. Some of these Australians would have been the first in their family to go to university, but instead of supporting them the Liberals are locking them out of higher education. I cannot imagine how gutting it must be for students, some of whom have worked their entire lives to try to get a place at university, to get to that point and have the Turnbull government slam the door shut in the faces. For those who do make it to university, they are facing fewer resources, bigger class sizes and, frankly, a lower quality of education than they would have got had these institutions been properly funded. The thing that angers me so much about this cut is that we're slashing funding to our universities while giving big banks a $17 billion tax cut and giving the big businesses around this country an $80 billion tax cut.
I have thousands of students in my electorate of Hotham. Since the AEC has recently changed the electoral boundaries, I'm very excited that I'll be now representing Monash University in this chamber. I'm excited because this is a vibrant and incredible university, and one in which I was lucky to spend six long years studying my degrees. I loved studying at Monash. It was challenging and fun, and I was grateful to the dedicated teachers, tutors and other students who helped me get my education. It horrifies me to hear about how these drastic cuts to universities are going to affect the place at which I was lucky to get that standard of education.
What we know is, under the Turnbull government, Monash University will lose $108 million in funding, and that's part of more than $500 million—half a billion dollars!—that will be lost to universities around Victoria. I've spoken to students at Monash University so I can get a better understanding of how these cuts are affecting the quality of their education. What I've been told is that they're having their tutorials replaced with seminars of more than 40 people. We've had entire subjects that were once taught in person now being taught completely online. For those subjects that still have lectures in person, many are happening for just a few weeks of what is a 13-week-long semester. I want to take the opportunity tonight in the House to acknowledge some of the students who are fighting so hard for fairer funding for Monash University. They include Eleanor D'Ambrosio Scott, Briyda, Kiah and Connor.
These cuts are also hurting the staff, the incredible teachers, the tutors and the professionals who run and teach in these universities. Today's paper had a disturbing story about university workers who are being exploited and underpaid. I spoke with the NTEU secretary at Monash about how the Turnbull government's cuts will affect his members. Colin Long is his name. He told me that 70 per cent of the staff at the university are now on fixed-term or casual contracts. He described a crisis of workload pressure for teachers and teaching staff, coupled with a significant increase in insecure employment. I heard some distressing and disturbing things where teachers require time to do marking and to support their students but they're sometimes not being paid for that time, and that's because of the intense funding pressure that they have been put under by the government of the day.
I'm very worried about the funding cuts to universities because I'm concerned about the young people who are studying in those universities and because I know that our skilled population is our No. 1 asset as we face the challenges that confront us in the future. All the best research that we have tells us that, when we look down the path, something around nine in 10 of the jobs of the future will require young people to have a university or a TAFE qualification. We need to invest in education, not cut it further. If we want a strong and productive economy, we need to invest in education properly. Labor gets this. We have always understood this and we're going to fight for fair and accessible funding for our universities. When we were last in office, Labor nearly doubled university funding and we saw an additional 190 Australians get a place at university, many of whom were the first in their family to go to university. It's an extraordinary achievement and speaks to the intense and deeply-held commitment that the people on this side of the House have to making sure that our university sector trains our young people so they can embrace the jobs of the future and build a better nation.
Vale Jan Dooley, nee Evans—unofficial Irish ambassador and matriarch of the Irish community in Queensland. Jan passed peacefully on 27 June 2018, surrounded by her family. Jan Dooley, iconic as her legendary green pubs, was loved by many and will be greatly missed. She is survived by her husband of 49 years, Dr Tom Dooley. Tom's father actually worked with my father, Des O'Dowd, and a chap by the name of Mick Kelly from Bracewell in the sugarcane fields in North Queensland, around the Tully district. She is survived by her sister, Pamela, and four children: Siobhan, Thomas, Kathleen and Patrick—great Irish names. She had nine grandchildren. She was born in Brisbane on 4 January 1946 and was educated at Loreto Convent at Coorparoo.
In 1967, she trained as a nurse at Brisbane's Mater Hospital and later became the sister in charge of the casualty department. She married Tom in 1969. In 1988, Tom and Jan Dooley took over a run-down pub, the Hacienda Hotel in Brisbane. Jan was a woman of action, a game-changer. People laughed when they said they would turn this pub into a great pub, and that's exactly what they did. The rough pub, in a bad part of town, became a hotspot for all the young and not-so-young people to visit on a very, very regular basis. Defiantly, she forged ahead and painted the pub green and adorned it with authentic treasures from her family heritage back in Ireland. It was transformed into a very hot night spot. In 1989, she revived the St Patrick's Day Parade. It had been 50 years since the parade was held. It had not been held since World War II.
In 2004, Jan and Tom sold the hotel at Brunswick Street in Fortitude Valley. In 2012, they built pubs in my electorate, at Capella and Springsure. Cans of Guinness marked the opening of Dooley's Tavern. Dooley's at Springsure created many jobs for the locals and a community gathering place, which is still going strong to this very day. Being a boss didn't stop Jan Dooley from hard work. Her job was to wipe down the bar, collect the glasses, pull the pints and chat with customers six days a week. She worked in the hotels until her health began to deteriorate 18 months ago. She was a wonderful hotelier and the family was wonderful to work with. It was all about just getting things done. Position meant nothing. Whoever was there got the job. It didn't matter what the job was.
Jan was the granddaughter of Colonel Evans of Evans Deakin, the builder of Brisbane's iconic Story Bridge. Her grandmother, a widow from Thomastown, immigrated with seven children. Determination was her trademark. We mourn the loss of someone who did so much to promote the Irish culture and heritage.
I quote:
Schooling should be socially just, so that students’ outcomes from schooling are free from the effects of ... differences arising from students’ socio-economic background or geographic location.
That is a direct quote from the SiMERR National Research Centre on regional Australian education. The Turnbull government is cutting funding to all levels of education and these savage cuts are having more impact on regional Queensland than anywhere else. This government would rather fund $17 billion in tax cuts for the big banks than fund education. There are 2,484 families in Herbert using early learning centres, and they will be worse off under the Turnbull government's changes to child care.
Under the government's package, families will have to satisfy a complex set of rules to qualify for government assistance, including a work test and a means test, which has the most impact on vulnerable families. The work test requires families to satisfy minimum levels of approved activities each fortnight, which knocks thousands of low-income families out of the system. This new slug on families is on top of the 20 per cent growth in fees to June 2018 since the election of the Liberal government, which means families on average are paying over $2,100 more a year. That is not to mention the impact on preschools. The Turnbull government has recently released that it will be cutting $440 million to the national preschools and kindy program. That will affect 350,000 preschoolers who rely on this program to get a good start in their life.
Then there are other cuts to schools. The Turnbull government is cutting $17 billion from the education budget, while giving exactly $17 billion to big banks. This government is literally putting banks before kids. In Herbert, these cuts mean $14.8 million from schools. Townsville schools provide quality education to children who need it the most. Aitkenvale state primary school has a population of one-third migrant refugee children, one-third Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and one-third mainstream children. Two-thirds of the children in this school have English as a second language. To address this, the principal has set up a language program to help those children, ensuring that they are not left behind. The government's cuts are putting this program at direct risk.
Now, turn to TAFE. The LNP federal government has cut more than $3 billion from TAFE, skills and apprenticeships. In this year's budget Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull cut a further $270 million from TAFE apprenticeship funding over the next four years. Australia now has 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees since Labor left government in 2013. In Herbert the number of apprentices and trainees has almost halved—a 46 per cent reduction since the LNP took office. That's 1,554 fewer apprentices and trainees in Herbert. Let's not forget universities, who are also bearing the brunt of the Turnbull government's cuts. There has been a $36 million cut from James Cook University and $38 million cut from Central Queensland University. What does that mean for Townsville? Right now James Cook University is cutting the arts degrees because of these cuts. Nineteen staff have lost their jobs and hundreds of students are now without a degree and a career pathway.
Regional Queensland needs access to educational opportunities at every level. Whilst we all spend time debating funding cuts, we never get the chance to debate about education systems such as those in Scandinavian countries such as Denmark and Sweden. We are never able to debate whether NAPLAN is fit for purpose and is giving us measurements that are really useful and purposeful. We will never be able to debate the vision and plan for our children's education because we are fighting over equal access to funding. In every Scandinavian country, both sides of the parliament agree to fund education properly. In Australia, we have only one party that is genuinely focused on needs based funding for students, and that is the Labor Party. Whilst the Turnbull government is in power, there will not be more funding for early learning, schools, universities and TAFE.
Education lifts people out of poverty. Education creates innovative environments. Education creates the opportunities for the jobs of the future. Access to education is the future of this great nation. The debate must progress beyond funding, because the people who miss out in all of this are our children and our grandchildren—and, importantly, the future of this great nation.
In this place we should always be focused on cost-of-living pressures. What I want to do tonight is update the House on how I was able to take a $3.5 million investment by the federal government into a regional airport in Mount Gambier and parlay that into very real and immediate cost-of-living savings for people in Mount Gambier and the wider Limestone Coast. It's a long story, a little complicated, so you might need to bear with me.
You would be aware of the Building Better Regions Fund. The most recent round was a $272 million competitive grant application process. Into that grant, with my encouragement and support—and, I will say, some guidance—the District Council of Grant, who are the owners and operators of the Mount Gambier Airport, made application for $3.5 million. They were seeking to leverage a similar sum, if not a bit more, from the state government, and some of their own funds to a development which would upgrade the Mount Gambier Airport.
Now, in the process of doing so, they sought the support of Regional Express. Regional Express operate the regular passenger transport service, the RPT, into and out of Mount Gambier from two ports, Melbourne and Adelaide. I'm sad to say that for a very long time—it predates even my time in local government in the south-east—there had been a strained relationship between Regional Express as the RPT provider into Mount Gambier and the District Council of Grant who own the airport. The reason for that had to do with the head tax. Some years ago the District Council of Grant took the decision to increase the head tax, against the advice of Regional Express. Regional Express were disinclined to support the application because the experience they had had in other places around this nation was that, whenever the federal or state governments made a contribution to capital at airports, they would quickly see thereafter an increase in head tax, which would eat into their profits, bearing in mind that Regional Express moved nearly a million people last year in terms of passenger movements, and made only $3 million before tax.
Well, we secured the $3.5 million. And, immediately thereafter, I encouraged the District Council of Grant to attend a meeting which I convened in my electorate office in Mount Gambier, together with representatives of Regional Express. That included someone known to this place, the honourable John Sharp, who is chairman of Regional Express. At that meeting, Regional Express put a proposal to enter into a partnership for the betterment of the Mount Gambier community, to offer what has been called 'community fares'. I had no idea this might happen. In fact, it has been offered in communities—Orange, Albany and other places—and I had done some research with other colleagues in this place and I was told that it was a great experience, that it saw fares reduced in terms of cost and a significant upswing in terms of passenger numbers. In any event, this proposal for community fares was put to the District Council of Grant, and I'm pleased to say that, some weeks later, after careful consideration, the District Council of Grant accepted the offer. But what does it mean for cost-of-living pressures? Well, it means this: the cheapest flight you could get from Melbourne to Mount Gambier, or Mount Gambier to Adelaide, was $177 one way.
Now, in return for reducing the head tax by $2, Regional Express said they would match that $2 reduction, but, much more than that, they would take fares—community fares, if you like—from $177 down to $129, a saving on a return fare of $98. But it was more than that. They also indicated that, not only would they allow these fares to be purchased up to 30 days before departure; they would also open up every single ticket on the plane within 24 hours—cheaper flights, last-minute flights at cheap prices, savings for the community, a direct product of investment that the coalition made in the airport in Mount Gambier.
This Friday, on 24 August, there will be a commemorative ceremony at Yurrkuru, Brookes Soak, about 60 kilometres east of Yuendumu in the Northern Territory. The purpose of this commemoration is to recall the Coniston massacre, which took place between August and October 1928, where a large number of Aboriginal people were murdered by an expeditionary force led by a policeman. This story is important to Australia in understanding our own history and in the issue of truth-telling, to appreciating the sacrifices that have been made and, in this case, the massacres of Aboriginal people.
What is known as the Coniston massacre was in fact a series of raids following two key events. The first began after the murder of Frederick Brooks on 7 August 1928 at Yukurru, at Brooks Soak, as I mentioned. Brooks, a friend of Randall Stafford, who ran Coniston Station, had set out with camels from Coniston in the hope of trapping a few dingoes to get him over hard times, it was said. He set up camp at the soak and was, by some accounts, well liked by the local Aboriginal people.
There are many stories told about Japanunga Bullfrog, the man who killed brooks. Most agree that Japanunga Bullfrog was angry about his wife staying with Brooks. Early one morning, Japanunga crept up and killed Brooks. People still visit the place where Japanunga hid from the revenge party with his little dog. He blocked the entrance of the cave, it's said, with a stone or some spinifex, and he ultimately managed to escape and live to old age.
Sadly, that was not the case for many other Aboriginal people. A board of inquiry which began in late 1928 found that 31 Aboriginal people had been killed by Constable William Murray and others following the murder of Brooks. However, it's believed that many others—probably twice as many—at a minimum of six sites were killed and were officially recognised by the board to have taken place. Aboriginal people of the area mention other sites where, they say, killings took place, but these weren't mentioned in the board of inquiry.
Of course, most, if not all, of the Aboriginal people who were present around that time have passed away—those, at least, who weren't murdered. However, there are still many accounts told by people in the land claim evidence of the 1980s and other publications such as Every Hill Got a Story: We Grew Up in Country; Warlpiri Dreamings and Histories: Newly Recorded Stories from the Aboriginal Elders of Central Australia; Warlpiri Women's Voices: Our Lives, Our History; Kaytetye Country: An Aboriginal History of the Barrow Creek Area;and Long Time, Olden Time: Aboriginal Accounts of Northern Territory History. The story remains vivid and painful to the descendants. Many people still talk about their uncles, fathers and grandfathers who were gunned down during the ceremonial hunting. The killings of Coniston were felt widely in Central Australia, scattering people far to the north-west and north-east. Sadly, some never returned to their country.
Here is a salutary lesson to us all. But, sadly, there are those—not here particularly but elsewhere—who try to tell us that this is really not what Australian history is about. Well, it is. We heard from the Uluru Statement from the Heart about the importance of truth-telling, of coming to terms with our past and understanding the role that people played in it. That's not to say that we should feel guilty about the past, but we should own up to the past and understand how people suffered and how they feel about the injustices and, in this case, the killings that took place now 90 years ago.
This Friday is a very important commemorative event, and I encourage those who might be listening and those who may have an interest to research this subject and the other massacres that have taken place across this country since we whitefellas first arrived here.
I rise to speak on electricity. It's one of those issues that's been taking up quite a bit of time in this place in recent days. I think I have something to give to the debate insomuch as I've been involved with the electricity transition since 2011, when Alinta Energy first came to me and informed me that the Northern Power Station was in trouble in South Australia.
I think it will pay to backtrack a little there. Alinta had been producing anything up to 40 per cent of Australia's electricity, but, as the RET came along, we saw investment in renewable energy in South Australia, particularly in wind—and I point out that the RET had no regional target, so it was all able to flow to South Australia. At a time in the past, Alinta could sell their electricity to the South Australian market for a profit on 365 days a year—and then it became 300, then 200 and then 100 because they were always underbid by renewable energy, no matter where the price is set. And then, eventually, it went down to about 70 days a year and they were unable to continue. They were bleeding red ink because, at the time, big businesses, big consumers, big manufacturers weren't interested in taking long-term contracts with them. Had they written them at $60 or so, I suspect that the Northern Power Station would still be there. But they chose not to, so the power station closed and the state government turned its back on the pleas from Alinta for what now looks like a very small amount of money to keep the doors open while we managed that transition.
In any case, last year South Australia had 52 per cent renewable electricity. The important point here is that companies are still building renewable electricity in South Australia. The RET, for all intents and purposes, is finished to any newcomers to the market at the moment—it has all been allocated—so they are building new renewable power generators without any prospect of picking up a subsidy. Here's the news: there is no impediment on anyone in Australia building a coal-fired power station. There are no extra taxes. There is no levy on CO2 emissions. There are no planning laws against building coal-fired power stations. But they are not building them. On the other hand, companies are building renewable energy even though there is no subsidy. So one has to start asking why this is. Every renewable generator that comes on the market—and I applaud it; it is a very good thing—shortens the number of days that the base-load generators could sell electricity for at a profit, so it undermines their business case. The reason no-one is building base-load electricity is investor uncertainty. There is too much pain involved. There are too many people locked onto whatever it is the government has settled on on the day to alter that arrangement. Until we reach that point, no-one will unlock their wallets to build new base-load electricity.
And so we come to the National Electricity Guarantee. What is it that it seeks to do? The most important thing is that, firstly, it is going to set regional targets, which is something the RET did not do—and that led to a rush of investment into one area. The second thing it seeks to do is provide a set market for base-load electricity, which is something the retailers will have to put into their energy mix. And the government has also offered to underwrite the bottom line, if you like, of power prices. When we get to that point, we will start to see people investing in base-load electricity—and, boy oh boy, that is exactly what Australia needs.
It doesn't matter whether that base-load electricity is geothermal, coal, gas or renewable—with storage or even with gas back-up. But the market should decide that; that is the best way forward. Just so Australians know, I would make the point that the price a new Healy coal-fired power station would need to break even is around $75 a megawatt hour. Coal at the moment is US$80—or over AUD$100—and you need half a tonne of black coal to make a megawatt of electricity. So you have already got $50 in input costs. That is why the market should decide what they build to service Australia's electricity grid.
House adjourned at 19:59
The Turnbull government's management of Centrelink is an absolute debacle. There have been staff cuts, wait times are up and processing of claims are being delayed. Last year, the Turnbull government cut more than 1,180 staff. Call times increased; busy signals skyrocketed. In this year's budget, another 1,280 staff cuts are planned. That is almost 2½ thousand staff cuts in two years. In addition to this, the government closed the Warrawong Centrelink office servicing my electorate. Only a government that is absolutely clueless about poverty would cut a Centrelink office that is servicing one of the poorest areas in New South Wales.
Across the country, older Australians, university students and people seeking parenting leave are being forced to wait as long as 10 months before receiving payments, leaving many feeling desperate, stressed and in need. There are constituents in my electorate who, despite being advised their applications 'will be processed within weeks', are waiting months and months and months. Take Jenny Sampson. Jenny is an aged-care worker in her mid-60s. Jenny applied for the age pension in March and provided Centrelink with all of the documents. Centrelink told her that her application would take only a few weeks. Instead, Jenny waited nearly six months. Each time she contacted Centrelink, she was advised that it was being looked at and it would be processed within a few weeks. Jenny got in contact with my office, and we managed to work our way through the muck, but people shouldn't have to wait the length of time for the pension that Jenny did after having worked their entire lives. We're told that the age pension processing claim average is now 49 days. That is almost two weeks up from last year.
It is not just the age pension; it's paid parental leave as well. Kirstie Williams and her partner submitted an application for paid parental leave eight months ago. Let's bear in mind that this is a payment attempting to help people with the cost burden of the early months of their child's life. The child was born in May. Again, they waited and waited and waited. They were told only this week that they are going to get their payment. They were running the risk that their child was going to reach their first birthday before receiving this necessary payment.
Mitchell Gibson, who is in his first year studying media and communications at UOW, is another example of a young man seeking to do the right thing to further his career. He has been waiting and waiting and waiting. He applied in February; it wasn't processed until July this year. These delays are unacceptable.
Sue Wardrobe is retiring as the postmistress of Wardell. She first came to the area in 1982 to run the BP service station with her husband, John, her parents, Cyril and Edna O'Connor, and two young sons, Peter and Tony. During this time, they expanded the business by including a food service area and sponsored many local sporting teams. Sue and her husband, John, jumped at the chance to buy the licence to the Wardell Post Office in 2010. The old post office was opened in 1927, but Sue was the first one to open the new one on Richmond Street when she took over the licence. Sue sees the post office as a happy place and a hub for the small riverside community where, over time, customers have become friends. Sue, good luck in your retirement. I know you are continuing your involvement in the community with many local groups.
What a great community the village of Wooli is. This weekend I will be at the Wooli Tennis Club. Through the Community Development Grants Program, I was able to get them $70,000 so that the tennis courts could be totally resurfaced with synthetic grass. The club includes 103 members who range in age from 12- to 60-year-olds. Congratulations to the club executive, which includes: president, Donna Preston; vice president, Julie Knight; secretary, Brenda Schafer; and Treasurer, Andrew Moore. On the same weekend a Camp Quality camp, being run by some very dedicated Wooli locals, will occur. I thank Wooli women, Glenys Small, Kath McAteer and Alison Groves for their dedicated fundraising. They have been raffling anything to make sure that they raise money for this wonderful event. Well done to the community minds and hearts of Wooli.
Anyone who has ever run the City2Surf may have seen the gorillas who have become a permanent fixture of the community race during the past 33 years. When Paul Stanley-Jones's father, Mike, took him and his brother Rob on fun runs in the early seventies he may not have realised what a tradition he was starting. In 1986, Paul decided to run with his friend Clint Hughes, this time in a gorilla suit. Rob joined his brother a year later, and their parents, Mike and Cynthia, also got in on the action and ran the race as gorillas. The next generation soon followed, and Paul's wife, Michelle, made costumes for their one-year-old son Jack and his little cousin Max.
The family lost their dad, Mike, four years ago to leukaemia, so the brothers started running with purpose, and have been raising money and awareness for the Leukaemia Foundation. This year Paul, Rob and Paul's son Harry donned the familiar costumes and raised $2,500 for the Leukaemia Foundation. They were ably supported by Michelle and daughter, Bella; and Rob's wife, Sharon, and daughters Rachael, Lucy and Sarah. The tradition of the Stanley-Joneses running the City2Surf in gorilla suits for the past 33 years continues—well done.
I want to extend to the member for Page: all the best to the gorillas in the sweat mist. It's a very good thing that they're doing there. It was recently National Science Week. It is a really important time to get young people engaged in scientific endeavour and thinking ahead about the way in which our work and work lives and committees will change through the impact of technology. Through the course of the week, I had the very great pleasure of visiting Chifley College Bidwill Campus to see students there who were looking at the importance of science, technology, engineering and maths for Australia's future. The school itself was involved in the CSIRO's STEM in Schools activities, which aim to demonstrate the importance of those subjects by making them very relatable to students and shining a light on exciting careers ahead, and from my point of view, especially, getting young students from Western Sydney engaged is exceptionally important. The session started off looking at the CSIRO's video on STEM, showing all the great things that Australians have done in scientific fields and the types of things we've been able to achieve as a nation. Where we may not have been considered as a country that could contribute, we've actually, as the saying goes, 'punched well above our weight'.
It was terrific to talk with those year 9 students about the types of things that they'd been working on. What struck me, going around the room, was that the students had been asked to think about ways in which they could make their school more energy efficient. They had approached the issue, each in their individual way, and come up with different means and techniques of helping the school out. It was quite inspiring to see them taking a lateral view to those problems and thinking about what could be done to help the school. It's under the outstanding leadership of the principal, Mark Burnard; the deputy principal, Stacie Connor; and the science teachers there that the students were super impressive in what they've been doing. I'm looking forward to catching up with them again in the near future.
It is crucial to have teachers and leaders who are just as engaged in the process—teachers such as Ms Prasad, whose skills extend well beyond just teaching the students. She's designed lessons that cater to the needs of individual students, and she guides and supports staff in upskilling their ability. They are very keen to engage with tech companies—which I was pleased to hear—to visit them and get Western Sydney students engaged and make them think about how they can impact on the future. I think the success for us as a nation in the innovation field is to ensure that everyone who has a stake, who has a say is engaged and is involved early on to ensure that we're doing the thinking and preparation in advance, and getting everyone involved in this important national endeavour.
Today I want to talk about drought. We all know that virtually all parts of New South Wales are struggling with the drought and 60 per cent of Queensland is also in drought. Thank goodness that Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia are experiencing much better times. Before our great nation became a Federation, we were gripped in drought. For six years, between 1897 and 1903, we had devastating droughts across the nation. Sheep herds fell from 106 million to fewer than 54 million. Cattle numbers fell by 40 per cent. Australia has a deep history of floods and droughts, with, in between those periods, good times, and that's what makes our nation as great as it is. It punches way above its weight in the agricultural field. With a population of 25 million, we are feeding up to 75 million. So it's not always bad news, but we're going through those tough times now. You don't value water till the well runs dry, and it's getting dry in many locations.
We intend to increase our agriculture. It adds $60 billion to our economy, and there is the prospect of that going to $100 billion in another few years. But the drought is real, tragic and devastating. There is a saying that, if things are going well in the bush, the cities will soon follow. There are projects in Flynn that need addressing, and now is the time to do it. We need much more money spent on water infrastructure projects. The Rookwood Weir, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, has been talked about for many years. The money has been approved by the state and the feds, so now is the best time to get on and get this project going. This will drought-proof Central Queensland along the Fitzroy River. It'll enhance Gladstone's ability in dry times to pump water into the Callide Valley, through an existing pipeline. Cooranga Weir, which has been proposed on the Boyne River south of Mundubbera, has been on the drawing board for many, many years. The old steel pickets have gone rusty from the days when they were put in to mark the location of the weir down at the southern end of the Boyne. This will not only add value for farmers in the Mundubbera area— (Time expired)
In his 2013 budget reply speech, the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, said that, if the coalition was to win the election, 'there will be no nasty surprises and there'll be no lame excuses.' The member for Warringah managed to foreshadow the direct opposite of what actually happened. What we've seen over the past five years of this coalition government is nothing short of chaos, backed up by lame excuses—pain for everyday Australians, pain for the grassroots in our society, pain for the people in electorates like mine of Lalor.
Here is a short summary. Under this government, the nation has spiralled into debt. Residents in my community are left with limited access to vital services. Inequality is at record highs. Wages are stagnant. The cost of living is going through the roof. Despite all the talks of a 'budget emergency' when the coalition were first elected in 2013, their 'budget repair' job has done nothing but drive further debt and dysfunction. The coalition's 2014 'budget repair' job predicted that the deficit would drop to $2.8 billion in 2017-18. Well, the deficit has now blown out to $14.5 billion under this government. The government has managed to do this while slashing funding from schools and hospitals, shifting costs to the states and territories; freezing the Medicare rebate; cutting funds from our public broadcaster, the ABC; cutting the pension; cutting public sector jobs, including Centrelink staff; ruining the NBN; and let's not forget the current disaster that is the rising cost of energy, being felt in households and businesses around this country. But, despite ruthless cuts, to fix the so-called budget emergency, the Prime Minister has still managed to find $17 billion to give to the big banks in the form of tax cuts and $75 billion for big business. This out-of-touch Prime Minister will stop at nothing to protect his own job and look after his big business mates at the top end of town. This government and this Prime Minister have their priorities wrong, and today we're seeing that play out in Canberra.
I would suggest that this Prime Minister, instead of being self-righteous, should take a moment to think about the people in my community who, as a result of his and his government's actions and inactions, are struggling with the rise in the cost of living, the rise in the cost of health and the rise in the cost of energy. We don't get the appropriate rhetoric from those opposite. They don't seem to care about how Australians living their everyday lives are coping with their decisions. Instead, we have a government hell-bent on dividing the nation and hell-bent on dividing themselves. As the member for Lalor, I would say to the government: get your house in order; there's a country that needs your support.
Like so many in the Limestone Coast community, I was deeply saddened to hear of the passing of a highly respected and loved member of that community, Annette Balnaves. Anyone who had the pleasure of meeting Annette would tell you she was a remarkable lady, which is why I stand to pay tribute to this incredible woman today.
Annette grew up in Kalangadoo, a small town in the south-east of South Australia. After finishing school, she went on to study nursing and became a qualified midwife before going on to postgraduate gynaecology at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne where she worked under Matron Vivian Bullwinkle and later, while working as a senior theatre nurse in emergency, with the famous World War II surgeon, Sir Edward 'Weary' Dunlop.
In 1963, at the age of 23, Annette left Australia to travel overseas on her own. Arriving first in South Africa, she worked as a nurse and midwife in Johannesburg where she experienced apartheid firsthand. In Rhodesia, she worked first as a private nurse and then in a small country hospital with the local Bantu people. From Rhodesia, she travelled up the east coast on a steamer: Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal to Egypt. From Cairo, she flew to Beirut before hitchhiking to Jerusalem and then through Iran to Kuwait.
Arriving back in Kalangadoo, after three years abroad, it wasn't long before Annette took a nursing position in Papua New Guinea. However, it was during a trip home for a temporary position as matron at the Penola hospital that she met a local sheep farmer who convinced her that he needed more care than the people of New Guinea, and they were married in 1967. Doug and Annette were married for 50 years and in that time achieved so much, including two children, Kirsty and Pete, and eventually four fabulous grandchildren.
In 1971, company Hungerford Hill came to Coonawarra and purchased their property, offering Doug a job turning it from a sheep farm into a 250-acre vineyard. Doug and Annette strongly encouraged Hungerford Hill to establish a cellar door which opened in 1970. With Annette, as manager, it operates seven days a week—the first for the Coonawarra. This was the beginning of Annette's long involvement in the tourism of the south-east. She became president of the then South East Regional Tourism Board and served on the state body. In 1988, Annette and Doug established Balnaves Vineyard Services of Coonawarra and, shortly after, Balnaves of Coonawarra wines.
Annette was also a founding member of the Stand Like Stone Foundation, a community foundation on the Limestone Coast which supports charitable projects and organisations. There is no doubt that Annette had a strong passion for the people and the community of the Limestone Coast. She was a stalwart of the Limestone Coast, which mourns her loss and is so much poorer for it but richer for her contributions over 50 years. Vale, Annette Balnaves.
I'm wearing black in mourning for the Prime Minister, because it's been 3,184 days since the Liberal Party last dumped him as leader but I think he's about to get his wish to not lead a party that doesn't believe in climate change. I can say to the House: the prospect of Prime Minister Dutton terrifies my community. It's going from bad to worse. He is reviled not just for his jibes but also for his appalling performance as minister. I will use the example that Labor will not let up on: delays in citizenship applications. There were media reports nationally last week of a shocking blowout, worse than imagined—an 800 per cent blowout over five years from 27,000 people in the queue to 243,000 permanent residents with their paperwork lost in the black hole of the department. The Liberal Party's response? Make this one Prime Minister.
More concerningly, there is evidence emerging that the queue is being manipulated—there are mysterious changes in approval rates for certain groups. For example, in the last five years there was a 72 per cent average approval rate, as compared to applications, for permanent residents of Australia who were born in China. But, in the last period, less than 20 per cent had been approved. This sudden, mysterious and enormous drop raises questions which the minister must explain. He dodged them on ABC radio last week, claiming, 'Everything has slowed down.' That fact is, in the same period, approvals for people from India rose while approvals for people from China dropped off the cliff. The Liberal Party is happy to take people's money at election time—to line them up against the wall and take their money—and let them live here, but they're not good enough to become Australians.
What possible reasons are there? We hear three. In a train wreck of an interview last Thursday, the minister said that it's 'national security'. Sure, ID checks are important, but there are nearly 250,000 permanent residents living, working and loving here. If they are so dangerous, why are they here? Why have they been here for four to 10 years? You can't just say 'national security' as if it's a Harry Potter style spell. It doesn't prove any point. You actually have to explain yourself.
Then we hear that there's spike in applications and it's all Labor's fault. That's simply not true. There's been a steady, normal increase on average over five years of 7.2 per cent each year. The only spike is in the queue of people in the black hole of the department. In the last two years, we've seen a 428 per cent increase in people waiting in the queue, but a 21 per cent increase in the number of applications lodged. And then we hear that it is all Labor's fault because of boat people. The minister said on ABC radio that there is a:
… big backlog of the boat arrivals from three or four years ago, which are now coming through …
What? Is he telling Australia there were boats arriving three to four years ago, when the Liberal Party was in government? If so, that's news. In fact, over the last four years, the number of applications for citizenship lodged by humanitarian arrivals has dropped 21 per cent. In the last financial year, only 3.9 per cent of conferrals approved were for humanitarian arrivals. The scandal is growing, and the minister must explain himself.
Delivering continuous mobile coverage along the 60-kilometre stretch of track between Wyong and Hornsby, as well as free wi-fi at train stations, is a game changer for hardworking commuters in my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast. One in four of the adult workforce on the Central Coast commute long distances each day, and I've heard from hundreds of them who have said that our commitment to them will change their day-to-day commuting experience. Many of them leave before sunrise each morning and arrive home well after dark every evening. This has the potential to make the commute more productive, offers a chance to wind down after a long day, and will help keep families and loved ones better connected. We are determined to deliver this for commuters like Zac from Springfield, who said this commitment will change the way he works: 'The reception on the train line is shocking, so being able to do laptop work on the train would massively help me and thousands of coasties.' That's why I'm pleased that hardworking commuters on the Central Coast will start to experience improved services by the end of 2018.
We are getting on with the job of delivering for commuters, with the project agreement already signed and the tender process underway. The coalition government has committed $12 million with an additional $4 million from the New South Wales government to deliver improved mobile and internet connectivity between Hornsby and Wyong. The Minister for Communications is working closely with the New South Wales government, which has responsibility for managing the complex planning, site access, power availability and safety issues to deliver continuous mobile coverage for Central Coast commuters as soon as possible.
We have already scoped many of the challenges of this project, which commuters know all too well, because they see them out their carriage window every day. They include the picturesque but difficult topography with mountainous terrain, river crossings and no less than seven tunnels, which will require a carefully designed mobile network solution. The tender has specifically asked for solutions, as part of any proposal, to ensure the timely delivery of the project despite these challenges. We expect the process to be highly competitive and construction is due to commence following the outcome of this process, ensuring the project is delivered for our commuters sooner rather than later.
We are also delivering on our commitment to better mobile coverage across the Central Coast with a new base station switched on at Calga, thanks to this government's Mobile Black Spot Program. Switching on dedicated mobile coverage was particularly important to the residents to ensure that locals have access to vital emergency services, which had previously not been possible. This site is in addition to the improved mobile coverage already delivered in parts of Mangrove Mountain, Mangrove Creek, Mount White and Somersby on the Central Coast, but there is still more work to do. We're focused on delivering on our commitments for better mobile coverage in communities like Spencer, Wendoree Park and Killcare. I look forward to continuing to work with these local communities to ensure our projects are delivered and that we can overcome any challenges together.
On 10 June, I had the privilege of attending the official opening of the very first Vietnamese aged-care facility in New South Wales. What started as an ambitious dream by some very caring doctors in my community has become a reality through the Australian Vietnamese Aged Care Service, a not-for-profit organisation established to care for the financially disadvantaged, frail and lonely within our community.
Since its establishment, I have personally witnessed the progress AVACS has made and the dedication of its team of volunteers, who have worked tirelessly to develop this important and much-needed aged-care facility that will provide essential services to the elderly within the Vietnamese community. I'd particularly like to acknowledge and congratulate the board of AVACS for a truly significant achievement—its President, Dr David Tang; Vice President, Dr Hao Vu; Treasurer, Dr Vinh Nguyen; and Secretary, Dr Vinh Tran—along with fellow board members Mr Quang Luu, Mr Thanh Nguyen and the incredible Dr Diep. These doctors actually took on the financial risk in this project.
In 2013, AVACS was granted a $12 million interest-free loan for the project in the aged-care round under the former Labor government. But, since then, AVACS has undertaken significant community activities, raised additional funds for the development and built community awareness regarding aged care and the vital need to provide appropriate aged-care facilities for the Vietnamese in our community.
In south-west Sydney, there is a significant unmet demand for residential care services for the Vietnamese community. AVACS, therefore, has a very significant role to play. It will not only address the needs of the elderly Vietnamese but will also create significant employment opportunities in my local area. The development of this project is also another example of the compassion and generosity of the Vietnamese Australian community and their commitment to helping those in need. Once again, I'd like to commend AVACS, its board, its management team and all those associated with the running of this facility. It's certainly a very, very important development in my community. It is delivering on cultural and linguistic services sensitive to the needs of elderly Vietnamese Australians.
As many here know, the Ryan electorate is home to Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera and 7th Brigade. This garrison is certainly a well-oiled war machine, and I appreciate the strong relationship I share with the men and women, and their families, who are based there. During my term, we've been fortunate in the outstanding soldiers who have served as commander, from Paul McLachlan, Greg Bilton and Adam Findlay to, most recently, Anthony Rawlins.
I speak today with particular emphasis on the dedication of Brigadier Anthony Rawlins, who has served in the Australian Army for more than 30 years and experienced his fair share of deployment conflict. As commander of the 7th Brigade, Brigadier Rawlins has been pivotal in ensuring his soldiers are battle ready and conditioned to cope in challenging environments. Recently, I was informed that Brigadier Rawlins will commence a new posting and promotion in Canberra. I'd like to place on record my appreciation to Brigadier Rawlins for his commitment and the time we've worked together during his leadership in Brisbane.
I look forward to meeting with the incoming commander, Brigadier Hocking. Having spent the past two years at the United Kingdom war college, and with an infantry background, Brigadier Hocking has also held a number of postings and brings a wealth of experience to further the development and success of the 7th Brigade.
I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to Major General Paul McLachlan AO, CSC, who retires from his significant career in the army at the end of this year. As the current commander of 1 Division, General McLachlan comes from a serving family, including his father, retired Major General David McLachlan, and has an extensive military career spanning more than 30 years. In 2000, he served as the commander of the diplomatic supplementation staff in Honiara during the conflict in the Solomon Islands. During this deployment, he coordinated the evacuation of Australian and other approved nationals and arranged military support to the initial peace negotiations between the combatants. In 2011, closer to home, General McLachlan commanded Operation Queensland Flood Assist during the Queensland flood response and recovery. For his leadership and strategic oversight, he was awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross for this role.
I have come to know Major General McLachlan well, and I would like to extend my best wishes to him and his family as they commence the next stage of their lives, which to date have been consumed by an often demanding role and numerous overseas deployments in the Australian Army. While this speech has provided me with an opportunity to recognise the contributions of those in the upper echelons of the Australian Defence Force, I would like to place on record my gratitude to all who have served and continue to serve, irrespective of their rank.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that Saturday, 25 August 2018 marks one year since close to 700,000 Rohingya—mostly women and children—were forced to begin fleeing their homes in Rakhine State, Myanmar;
(b) that the Government of Bangladesh leads the humanitarian response and has kept its borders open to Rohingya refugees while the Bangladeshi people of Bangladesh continue to show tremendous generosity and hospitality in the face of a massive influx;
(c) that since September 2017, Australia has contributed $70 million to the Rohingya crisis response and continues to have an important role calling for an outcome which allows Rohingya people to fully exercise their human rights;
(d) Australia's support for the implementation of recommendations from the report of the Kofi Annan-led Advisory Commission on Rakhine State; and
(e) the Australian community's generosity in providing financial support to the crisis; and
(2) urges the international community to:
(a) support Bangladesh to provide an appropriate, principled humanitarian response to the needs of displaced and affected communities;
(b) ensure humanitarian aid is delivered where it is needed in accordance with fundamental human rights; and
(c) work with all parties in the pursuit of inclusive peace and reconciliation, and to implement the recommendations of the Kofi Annan-led Advisory Commission on Rakhine State.
I rise today to recognise the first anniversary of the humanitarian emergency arising from one of the most horrific cases of ethnic cleansing we have seen in recent times. One year ago this week, the Rohingya people started their long and often dangerous journey to flee persecution, the destruction of their homes and property and the horrific violence occurring across the Rakhine state in Myanmar. They fled to Cox's Bazar in neighbouring Bangladesh. Within months, 700,000 Rohingya refugees had descended into what has very quickly become the world's largest refugee camp. The incredible speed of the exodus created a crisis of catastrophic proportions which aid agencies have found near impossible at times to keep pace with. The enormity of providing food, water, shelter and sanitation to so many people in such a short period of time was a task much larger than anyone could have imagined.
In November last year, I had the honour of visiting Cox's Bazar on the invitation of both Oxfam and CARE Australia to see firsthand the sheer scale of this unfolding tragedy. I thought I was well prepared for that journey to Cox's Bazar, but nothing could have prepared me for the sight of 700,000 people crammed into a very small area. For kilometre after kilometre, all you can see is refugee camps. I don't believe such a megacamp exists anywhere else in the world.
Camp residents still today lack adequate water, sanitation, food, medical care and of course access to any form of economic means of creating a livelihood. Most resources are desperately needed. The UN appeal for $1.2 billion—the amount estimated to be needed this year—remains at just 32 per cent of that target. That means that we have found less than one-third of what is required to meet the needs of people right now. It's the responsibility of all countries, particularly wealthy countries like Australia, to do what we can to keep these refugees both sheltered and safe. Of course, we want to see a time when the Rohingya can voluntarily return to Myanmar to live in peace and safety with the citizenship rights that they have long been denied. But that simply isn't possible at this stage, and, quite frankly, it's hard to envisage a time in the near future when that will be the case.
In the meantime, the international community has a vital role in working with both the Myanmar and Bangladeshi governments to identify a long-term solution for the Rohingya people. I call on all parties involved to really make a concerted effort to ensure that we implement the recommendations from the Kofi Annan led advisory commission on the Rakhine State. In a week when we mourn the death of Kofi Annan, I can think of no better way to honour that man's life and his lifelong commitment to peace than to ensure that the international community get this right in our approach to a long-term solution for the Rohingya people.
One year on, the number of Rohingya now living in refugee camps has climbed to beyond 700,000, and that means there is a density of more than 1,000 times what is recommended for refugee camps.. So you can just imagine the kinds of pressures that come to bear on that situation. I am especially worried about the impacts on women and children in those camps. They make up 80 per cent of the camp residents. There are huge child protection issues that are of grave concern both to the people within the camps and to the international community at large. I also would like to put on record that despite all of the challenges, the Bangladeshi government and its people should be so warmly congratulated for their efforts to ensure humanity is gained. Thank you. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve the right to speak.
I thank the member for Newcastle for raising this important issue. We are all concerned about the human rights abuses that have occurred in Myanmar's Rakhine State. The scale of this tragedy is enormous. Over 700,000 Rohingya have crossed the border into Bangladesh since August 2017, while more than 530,000 Rohingya remain in Rakhine State—all need humanitarian assistance.
I am pleased to note that, as we do so often, Australia has responded generously to the crisis, providing $70 million in humanitarian assistance since September 2017. These funds have provided emergency supplies in the Rakhine State and essential services for displaced people in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. We have also prioritised our support towards the needs of women and children, who remain vulnerable to violence and exploitation, including trafficking. Australia's assistance has contributed to 974,000 people receiving food and the education of 530,000 children. Our commitment has included more than just money. Australia has also deployed 36 specialists to fill critical roles over the course of the crisis. This includes a site engineer deployed to the World Food Program, to supervise construction of a bridge, enabling them to send food trucks to camps hosting over 100,000 refugees.
The government has been encouraged by the strong engagement from the Australian community since the onset of the crisis. In 2017, DFAT partnered with a range of non-government organisations to launch a joint appeal for Myanmar and Bangladesh. Additionally, over a four-week period, Australians raised over $5.3 million for the eight participating organisations. The Australian government provided $5 million to match this donation.
The government has consistently raised Australia's concerns with Myanmar. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have registered our concerns directly with Myanmar's state councillor, Aung San Suu Kyi. The Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Senator the Hon Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, also held discussions with Aung San Suu Kyi and other Myanmar government representatives during her visit to Myanmar. Just two weeks ago the foreign minister raised it with the Union Minister for International Cooperation, U Kyaw Tin, at the East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers Meeting and with the Minister of Home Affairs, U Kyaw Swe, at the Bali Process Ministerial Conference. The foreign minister regularly raises Australia's concerns with regional partners, most recently at the East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers Meeting in early August. The foreign minister and defence minister also discussed how best to respond to the crisis with their UK and US counterparts last month.
We all have a clear interest in helping Myanmar and Bangladesh resolve this crisis, given its regional dimensions. The Rohingya crisis is the largest humanitarian crisis in our region—hopefully, the tide has turned on it. We commend the government of Bangladesh for its generosity in responding. The government also welcomes the memorandum of understanding on repatriation between Myanmar and UN agencies and advocates for the safe, voluntary, dignified, sustainable return of displaced Rohingya from Bangladesh. Australia stands ready to support the government of Myanmar in implementing the recommendations of the Kofi Annan-led advisory commission on Rakhine State. Australia has called for a thorough, credible and independent investigation of human rights abuses. Perpetrators must be held to account. We support the UN fact-finding mission, and it is essential that Myanmar allows it access. We will respond to the fact-finding mission's findings when they are handed down in the coming months. Australia has supported resolutions and issued statements at the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly calling for accountability, unfettered humanitarian access to Rakhine State and the implementation of the recommendations of the Kofi Annan advisory commission.
On the last note, I would like to pay tribute to the great Kofi Annan, who sadly passed away yesterday. He was a giant in this field of compassion and sympathetic international relations. His voice commanded respect from governments and offered hope to the oppressed. He was one of the truly great statesmen, and we will miss him deeply.
I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion and was very happy to second it. I too visited the Rohingya refugee camps on the Myanmar-Bangladesh border two weeks ago. Six parliamentarians were guests of Save the Children Australia and, just like this motion states, the delegation saw the positive impact that our international aid has had in response to this remarkable crisis. Australia has contributed around $70 million to the response over the last 12 months and is in the top four contributing countries. This solidarity is on display in so many ways: water pumps, bags of rice and other food items, medical clinics and so much more. We were also able to witness the amazing contributions that our NGOs—Save the Children, Oxfam, and CARE—make in improving the lives and hopes of the Rohingya refugees. It is clear that our aid and solidarity, along with that of other countries, have prevented a humanitarian disaster.
It is now almost exactly 12 months since the first refugees flooded across the border, reporting atrocities at the hands of Myanmar soldiers. What was then a forest refuge complete with wandering elephants is now a medium-sized city of almost one million people. The infrastructure of the camps and the food, health and social programs for over 900,000 people, many of whom are still traumatised by the death of loved ones, are quite remarkable. One of the key lessons I learnt was that it will be crucial to provide men and women with real education and opportunities to earn a livelihood within the camps. Work is dignity, and the Rohingya are a determined and hardworking people, not used to doing nothing. We met young people who had completed or nearly completed high school in Myanmar, whose hopes have now been shattered. They don't even have any books to read, let alone opportunities for further study or employment. Yet they too are helping their brothers and sisters in the brother-sister programs, teaching very young children who can't get into the early learning centres.
The reality is that the vast majority of refugees will be there for the medium to long term. A looming question is: how does development occur that gives the Rohingya hope and opportunity but also deals with the equally pressing needs of the Bangladesh population. To date, the Bangladeshis have been unbelievably generous towards their displaced neighbours. However, you can see that this welcome could start to fray, especially if the Rohingya start taking up local economic and job opportunities that the locals believe should be theirs. Many UN and NGO programs are now delivering around 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the funding to host communities to try to compensate for this.
This all plays into what commitment Australia will make in the medium to long term. We are, as I said, amongst the largest donors, with around $70 million over the last 12 months, and this doesn't include aid to Bangladesh itself. We can be proud of that response. However, as a nation we need to lift our aid effort to both the Rohingya camps and to this region of Bangladesh. Funding UN agencies and NGOs to deliver food, water and sanitation is a relatively simple thing to do. But how we might contribute to economic development in the region, thus giving both the Rohingya and the local Bangladeshis opportunities and hope, will require much more complex thinking. That sustained and more complex contribution can and should be made. I remind honourable members that Australia's international aid budget has been the clearest victim of belt-tightening in recent years. Our current aid budget is 0.27 per cent, around 16th on the OECD list of countries. It is shameful that a country like Australia can't find the money to play our role in lifting the living standards and opportunities of our neighbours. Increasing our aid budget is an important step.
It really was an honour to meet with so many brave and resilient Rohingya. I would like to thank the organisations that made it happen, especially Save the Children Australia, who organised the delegation, and note how much I enjoyed the bipartisan approach to the trip. I learnt that Australia is making a huge difference to the lives of a million people in dire need, in an isolated part of our region. I also learnt that we have so much more to do to make this fantastic initial response sustainable. I, for one, will continue to advocate with my colleagues that this government and the next continue to make a strong contribution to the welfare of the Rohingya people and, of course, their Bangladeshi hosts.
I rise to speak on this motion and join the member for Batman in speaking in support of this motion. I was also on the trip with the member for Batman and the member for Paterson amongst others. It was a real bipartisan trip and one which I very much enjoyed. From the point of view of someone who has grown up in Australia and never been to a Third World country, I had the opportunity to go along and see firsthand how other people live, how these refugees are living in Bangladesh and how Australian aid is being used wisely. It was a good trip and I want to thank the members opposite and everyone on the trip for attending.
According to some of the statistics, there have been some 880,000 people from Myanmar flood into Bangladesh—700,000 of those in the last 12 months; 55 per cent are children under the age of 18; 52 per cent are female, which is pretty standard, I suppose; and 80 per cent are either female or children under the age of 18. The government of Bangladesh has done a great job accepting people fleeing persecution. That's a lot of people who have flooded over the border in the last 12 months, fleeing for their lives.
I had the opportunity to see firsthand how Australian aid and other aid from the USA, from Britain and from other countries is being spent. Save the Children funded the trip for parliamentarians and other Australian representatives. It was not government funded; it was funded by Save the Children and a private donor. We looked closely at what PLAN, CARE, Oxfam—and I see Kate Anderson, who was on the trip, is here today; thank you, Kate—BRAC and the World Food Programme are doing. They are all people with a strong heart for trying to help people and they want to see people live with dignity. I thank all those organisations and all of the volunteers that I met on the trip.
It was good to see what the World Food Programme are doing. I had a chance to speak with Peter Guest, who has been working in this space for around 20 to30 years. He was very knowledgeable and he congratulated Australia on the $70 million we have contributed. Fifteen million of that has gone towards food. The food that they receive is quite good, and they've been able to expand the variety that people can buy. They have a card which has credit on it that they can buy food with. Peter did mention that other countries need to do more, particularly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the European Union where Peter is a national. I would say to the foreign minister, the Minister for Trade, the Prime Minister and their opposition counterparts that something we can do as a government is talk to those other countries and ask them to invest more in Bangladesh and the Myanmar people.
I say to people in my electorate: Australian aid is being spent wisely. I looked at the latrines that were being built. I looked at the water wells and the pumps that they use for fresh water. I looked at what Oxfam was doing around treating wastewater and, obviously, looked at the food program. We looked at the learning centres for children, which bring a lot of joy. They get a couple of hours each day to learn just like our kids do at school, but, obviously, it's not enough. We need to invest more in education, because not all children get to go.
What struck me was they obviously have food, clothing and shelter—and the groups I mentioned before are doing a good job there—however, they don't have things like lighting or electricity, and that can be a safety issue for women, in particular, at night. They don't have things that we take for granted like showers. If they want to wash themselves, they've got to stand in the rain with a cake of soap or go down to some sort of dirty river and have a shower there.
I want to say to the people in my electorate: Australian aid is being spent wisely and it does help people around the world. Our economy is continuing to grow. I'm very focused on jobs and helping my electorate, but I think we can also invest some of this money to help other countries, and I'm very proud to do so.
I rise today to speak in support of my neighbour and friend, the member for Newcastle's motion. One year ago this Saturday hundreds of thousands of people, mostly women and children, were forced to flee their homes in northern Rakhine state in Myanmar and flee to Bangladesh. Currently, almost one million people shelter in self-made bamboo and plastic bag huts in a megacamp that stretches 10 kilometres long by eight kilometres wide. It is something that, until you see it with your own eyes, you really can't comprehend.
These people fled from shocking human rights violations and large-scale intense targeted violence. They fled their homes in a country where they are denied citizenship, where they can't move about freely, go to the doctor or find work. The atrocities they fled in many cases are unimaginable. These people crossed the border into Bangladesh's Cox's Bazar, and they crossed in droves. They walked to freedom. There are almost a million refugees in Bangladesh right now.
Save the Children, who hosted the learning trip that I was fortunate enough to attend, which was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, report that more than half a million Rohingya people arrived within the space of one month. Of those fleeing persecution in Myanmar, more than half are children under 18 and around three per cent are aged over 60. One in six families are headed by single mothers whose husbands are dead or missing.
The people and the government of Bangladesh have shown incredible hospitality and humbling generosity to the fleeing Rohingya people. They kept their borders open—I still feel quite emotional—and are leading the humanitarian response. According to the United Nations, there are more Rohingya living in Bangladesh than in Myanmar at the moment. But the generosity of the Bangladeshi people isn't enough, as magnificent as it has been. Bangladesh, a poverty-stricken nation in its own right, is heaving under the strain and it has had to put on infrastructure, health and water services for the influx of Rohingya that it has received.
Australia, as a nation, has reached out to those in crisis and those working to help them. Since September, we've contributed $70 million to mitigate the crisis. That sounds a phenomenal number, and I must admit that there are constituents in my electorate of Paterson who bail me up every day and say: 'Meryl, charity starts at home. Why are we giving so much money overseas when we've got drought-stricken farmers and we've got homeless people?' I understand their thinking, but I say to those in the chamber and to my constituents in Paterson: 'If I could take you all to see this megacamp, you would gladly give. These people are living in poverty that we can't even imagine. And our farmers would give too.' It is really quite humbling.
When I was offered to take the tour to Bangladesh earlier this month, to learn about the way our $70 million in aid is being spent, I took the opportunity, and it is a trip I will never forget. As you can hear in my voice, I have been impacted. It gave me a perspective that I doubt anyone could fully appreciate unless they looked into the eyes of those people, particularly those beautiful children, and those who are working to help them. I really want to praise the Bangladeshi people, and I want to praise the response organisations working tirelessly to provide sanitation, housing, health care, food and education. But the reality is that the makeshift refugee camps are rife with incidents of gender based violence. The shelters are flimsy and at risk of destruction during the monsoon season, which is upon us now. Landslides are a real risk. Diarrhoea, respiratory infections and skin diseases, like scabies, are rampant, largely due to poor sanitation and hygiene, and there have been more than 8,000 cases of diphtheria, which is particularly risky for children.
I want to again thank the member for Newcastle and thank the people from Save the Children and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who paid for me to go and witness this. We need to do more. We need to put pressure on the Myanmar government to grant citizenship to these people, and the Rohingya will walk home to their rightful place: the Rakhine State.
I too acknowledge the great contribution of the member for Newcastle in bringing this motion before us today. I have spoken on a number of occasions in the parliament about the ongoing humanitarian crisis involving the Myanmar security forces and those in the Rakhine State, the Rohingya Muslims. Saturday, 25 August this year is important, as it marks one year since the escalation of violence in the Rakhine State—one year since the situation escalated from violence and abuse to atrocities and a humanitarian crisis of catastrophic proportions which has resulted in the displacement of over 700,000 people from the Rakhine State. The situation has been described by the United Nations and Human Rights Watch as a 'textbook example of ethnic cleansing' and 'crimes against humanity'.
Clearly, there have been atrocities committed against the Rohingya. Evidence from a number of investigations carried out by Human Rights Watch has documented a series of brutal crackdowns by the security forces against the ethnic Rohingya Muslims, involving extrajudicial killings; the torture and suffering of men, women and children; arson; and the destruction and takeover of more than 300 villages by the Myanmar military.
It is important to note the long history of discrimination that has existed against the Rohingya. The Myanmar government continues to deny the Rohingya citizenship and basic government services such as health and education. It is this abhorrent denial of basic human rights that has legitimised the treatment of the Rohingya more recently; however, this escalation is of a different kind. This is now a campaign of ethnic cleansing.
Bangladesh, to its credit, has opened its doors to the Rohingya and continues to show tremendous generosity and hospitality in the face of this grave crisis. Despite the challenges that it faces domestically, Bangladesh has shown itself to be a true leader of the humanitarian response. Nevertheless, this makes the Rohingya in Bangladesh reliant on humanitarian assistance for their basic services. The risk now is markedly higher, given the full impact of the monsoon season. According to UNICEF, about 200,000 Rohingya refugees, of whom over 50 per cent are children, are already being well and truly threatened by the monsoons. They provide statistics that show that, in Bangladesh, over 900 shelters and 200 latrines have already been destroyed. Water points have also been washed away, and people have been buried under collapsing walls of mud. Waterborne diseases are regarded as a very high risk. While agencies such as UNICEF, Oxfam and Save the Children are working hard to move families to safer ground, the large number of refugees makes it very near impossible to relocate all these individuals to safety.
I note that Kofi Annan, regrettably, died over the weekend. As Chair of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, he had stated:
We recognise that the challenges facing Rakhine State and its peoples are complex and the search for lasting solutions will require determination, perseverance and trust. Nevertheless, there are steps that can be taken immediately …
While I'm pleased Australia is playing a crucial role in efforts to find a satisfactory position in terms of the return of the people of the Rakhine State, nevertheless there is a lot more that needs to be done. I call on the government to take a stronger stance against the authorities in Myanmar and to implement the recommendations of the Kofi Annan-led advisory commission by reinforcing its commitment to support unimpeded humanitarian access to all parts of the Rakhine State and refugee camps in Bangladesh. We must work closely with our regional partners to ensure that the government of Myanmar recommits to the pursuit of peace and a process of national reconciliation. The situation before the Australian government and the United Nations is urgent and one that requires immediate attention. We cannot merely play the role of bystander and hope for a satisfactory resolution. While these issues are intricate and deep-rooted, we must take the necessary steps to force change, otherwise we are really going to see a catastrophic situation emerge once again in Myanmar.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) tuberculosis was declared an emergency in 1993 by the World Health Organization and causes more deaths than any other infectious disease—of the more than 10.4 million infected with tuberculosis in 2016, 1.7 million people died; and
(b) drug resistant tuberculosis is one of the most common and deadly forms of all antimicrobial resistance in the world, accounting for a significant number of antimicrobial resistant deaths globally;
(2) recognises:
(a) the United Nations General Assembly is holding the first ever high-level meeting on tuberculosis on 26 September 2018, during the 73rd session of the General Assembly in New York; and
(b) Australia has supported global actions to reduce tuberculosis, including through contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, its support to tuberculosis programs in Papua New Guinea and Kiribati, and through the Indo-Pacific Health Security Initiative in our support to Product Development Partnerships and research grants; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) ensure Australia has senior representation at the United Nations high-level meeting on tuberculosis in September; and
(b) commit to support countries in the Indo-Pacific in their efforts for the elimination of tuberculosis.
TB is a disease that most people thought was in the past or was isolated to small pockets of some impoverished countries. TB is one of the oldest human diseases and has been identified in Egyptian mummies. I, for one, also assumed that the disease was no longer an issue, after my mum actually spent 12 months in hospital in 1962. I thought it was a disease that was well and truly in the past. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that TB is the largest infectious disease killer in the world, with 60 per cent of that burden in our Asia-Pacific region. Tuberculosis was declared an emergency in 1993 by the World Health Organization. It causes more deaths than any other infectious disease. In 2016 more than 10.4 million people were infected with tuberculosis. Of those, 1.7 million people actually died.
One of the great challenges in dealing with TB is the complexity of the treatment. Most of us in Australia at some stage of our life would have received the TB vaccine and would have a scar to prove it on our upper arm. I say to you all: don't feel protected. It's not worth a cupful of cold water, to be honest. The current vaccine was developed in 1921. It is totally ineffective, and really it is only a very small cohort of children under the age of five who can expect any sort of protection from it. With the new strains of TB, there's just no way in the world that this can be seen as a way of preventing the disease. However, there have been some very significant advances in diagnostics and treatment of TB. In treatment, through the fantastic work of the TB Alliance, under the leadership of Mel Spigelman and his team, we're now trialling treating patients with drug-resistant TB with four tablets per day and no injections for only six months. Prior to that, it was 25 tablets a day and two injections for up to two years. Little wonder the disease has spread and, of course, morphed into even stronger strains. They're now working on a treatment that will see drug-resistant tuberculosis cured with one tablet in three months. There's still work to be done, of course, in making that happen.
I'd like to congratulate James Cook University in Cairns. Through the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, they have established a research group, led by Professor Lewis Schofield, who are focusing on the development of a TB vaccine. There is not a contagious disease that has ever been cured without a vaccine, and so that really is the Holy Grail.
Nobody should die of TB. It's a disease that has been neglected and ignored for far too long. This disease can be cured, but more needs to be done. Australia has supported global actions to reduce TB. This includes contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. It also includes our ongoing support for TB programs in Papua New Guinea and Kiribati, our support of the Indo-Pacific health security initiatives, and our support of product development partnerships and research grants.
The United Nations has convened its first ever high-level meeting on tuberculosis, due to take place next month in New York. The high-level meeting is the biggest and best opportunity to raise the political priority of tuberculosis. We must ensure that Australia has very senior representation at the United Nations high-level meeting. We must be the ones that lead the charge on this, and not leave it up to others. It's the most significant political meeting that has ever been held on TB, and one I'm very proud to have played a part in making a reality during my three-month secondment to United Nations last year. This is a golden opportunity for Australia to stand up and be counted, and to lead the charge in the fight against TB. We're not talking about a disease in a faraway land; TB is already on our doorstep, with our closest neighbours, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, recognised as very high-burden countries, as are many other small countries in the Pacific region.
Finally, I would like to thank the countless number of people, and they know who they are, for their ongoing support, guidance and advice to ensure that together we can rid the world of this insidious disease once and for all.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I am pleased to support my friend, the member for Leichhardt, and thank him for putting up this motion once again, and for his commitment and passion for finding a cure for tuberculosis.
Is tuberculosis a health issue or is it a social disease? The evidence shows that there's a clear link between TB and inequality. Across the world, the poorest households and some of the most marginalised individuals suffer the highest levels of infectious diseases. And when the poor try to access health care, it's no surprise that they become poorer as a result of the financial strain of the treatment. This medical poverty trap can be seen across those individuals and groups particularly vulnerable to tuberculosis—for example, indigenous peoples around the world suffer from TB at a rate of up to 270 times that of non-indigenous populations. Migrants, the homeless, prisoners and people living with HIV are also especially vulnerable to tuberculosis. Sadly, almost all cases of TB today are both preventable and treatable, and yet it remains a common disease in many parts of the world. As the member for Leichhardt mentioned, it's all too common in our region, particularly on our doorstep in countries like Papua New Guinea.
Nearly 10.5 million people will contract the disease this year, and around 1.7 million of those will die. It's part of a quiet crisis. We don't often see TB in the headlines, and yet the devastation it causes dwarfs that of other infectious diseases. TB is the world's longest-running global health emergency, having been responsible for 50 million deaths since it was declared an emergency in 1993 by the World Health Organization—50 million people have died from what should be a preventable disease. Despite this, the United States government, the largest donor in the fight against tuberculosis, is rapidly scaling back their overseas aid, slashing billions of dollars from the global health and humanitarian aid budget.
TB, as a disease, has always suffered from neglect and a lack of urgency, and this is reflected in the chronic underinvestment in TB care and control in most high-burden countries. India, South Africa and Indonesia are suffering the biggest impacts of this social disease. It's the inequality of access to adequate health services, including fast diagnosis and effective medicines, that means that it is rampant in these countries and others. And yet it is also the lack of nutrition, poor sanitation and unsafe work environments that combine to contribute to TB in 2018.
The World Health Organization is calling for social support and poverty-alleviation strategies for people with TB. This is to help reduce the hidden costs of treatment, reduce stigma and increase TB prevention. Studies have shown that increasing financial pressures associated with TB treatment means that the patient in the household was more likely to abandon treatment, fail treatment or die. Medicines are needed in the crucial fight against tuberculosis and, yet, while they will help win battles, additional financial and social support is required to see that we do win the war against tuberculosis.
We're now moving into a new era of TB treatment, where community based care is playing a more important role, and good work has already been done. TB treatment has saved the lives of 53 million people around the world from 2000 to 2016. Australia has certainly been one of those countries that has made a fair contribution, by supporting global actions to reduce TB, including through support for TB programs in Papua New Guinea, Kiribati and other Indo-Pacific health security initiatives. I was fortunate, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Islands Affairs, to actually open the TB clinic in Daru in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea, and it's great to see that that facility is not only providing some of those prevention measures but also treating severe cases of tuberculosis.
The United Nations General Assembly is holding the first ever high-level TB meeting on 26 September this year in its 73rd session, and I want to thank the member for Leichhardt for putting this on the agenda in his time at the UN. We call on the government to ensure that Australia's representation at the meeting on tuberculosis is at the highest level possible. We also need a true commitment to the declaration from the UN at the high-level meeting to be shown by increasing resources for TB programs in Australia and within our region.
I commend this motion to the House. I thank the member for Leichhardt for his undying efforts to make sure that tuberculosis is removed from the medical literature as soon as possible. In my time as a medical student, I was given a textbook to read. It's called The Conquest of Tuberculosis, because we thought, when I was a medical student, that we would not have to deal anymore with tuberculosis. It's by Selman Waksman, a microbiologist who actually received the Nobel Prize for developing the streptomycin group, or the aminoglycoside group, of antibiotics that were used in the treatment of tuberculosis. It was thought that this would lead to the eradication of tuberculosis around the world.
We know that tuberculosis has been present in our communities since prehistoric times. Egyptian mummies have even been found with evidence of tuberculosis. It's been called many names over the years: consumption, galloping consumption, scrofula—a whole list of names. We seem to be in this revolving cycle of appearing to be able to eradicate this disease, but the disease, in the end, wins. Not this time, I think. I think that we have the resources to be able to remove tuberculosis from modern day texts on infectious diseases if we try hard enough, but it requires a lot of effort. The tuberculosis organism is a very clever one. It's able to lie dormant for many years after primary infection and may not become apparent for decades after an initial illness, the so-called primary infection. Secondary tuberculosis can present many decades later in a whole variety of infections, from bone infections to other organ infections, and can present in many ways. The organism itself is able to develop resistance to the antibiotics that are being used. We now have to use triple therapy. We're already seeing some resistance to these therapies in developing countries, where tuberculosis can be a major issue, killing over 1½ million people in 2016.
During a recent trip to Thailand and Myanmar with the Global Fund, it was apparent to me why we were having such difficulty in eradicating tuberculosis. We went to a tuberculosis clinic in Myanmar and saw the patients, often with very active tuberculosis, sitting around in the general waiting areas. Many of them came from outlying villages and many of them were transient workers on construction projects. They would not return for ongoing follow-up and would continue to spread the disease in the country. It is very difficult in a country with very few medical resources to continue with the contact tracing, contact screening and treatment.
The basic tools for diagnosis are no different, really, from when I was a medical student over 40 years ago. We are very poor in developing new technologies that are able to screen and treat people very quickly. The Holy Grail of treatment of tuberculosis will depend on vaccination development, and this will require a lot of resources, which are already being put in place by organisations like the Global Fund and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Australia must play its part. As has already been mentioned, we have a gateway for multi-drug resistant tuberculosis to enter Australia: from South-East Asia to Papua New Guinea, across the Torres Strait and on to northern Australia. This is a very important issue and one that we must investigate and fund properly.
The member for Leichhardt's motion is very comprehensive in its request to the government, but this is a matter that is now most urgent. We have the tools and the abilities, but we must make sure that Australia plays its part, together with many other countries, such as the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, who are all investing their resources in trying to finally eradicate tuberculosis. I don't want to see another textbook like this published in my lifetime. I want us to truly make an end for tuberculosis.
Twenty five years ago the World Health Organisation declared tuberculosis a global emergency. Since then, this disease has been responsible for 50 million deaths across the world. Last year, 1.8 million people died from it, more than from HIV and malaria combined. This makes TB the world's longest-running global health emergency. The fact that 25 years ago it was declared an emergency and we still have these appalling statistics—worse than HIV and malaria combined—is a shame for everyone in the world, particularly for a country that prides itself on playing a very active role in international citizenry.
TB is an infectious disease that affects the lungs, causing excessive coughing, high fevers, sweats and weight loss. It's painful, it's deadly and it's contagious, but it's also preventable. TB is often described as a disease of poverty, something prominent in Third World nations without the resources to identify the disease or treat the disease. While countries such as India, South Africa and Indonesia are the most affected, Australia is not immune. I'm sure the member for Solomon, who is in the chamber, will go into detail about how it affects Australia. But I briefly want to touch on the fact that when I was posted to India in the mid-1990s it was a disease you could see on the streets every day, particularly when you went to impoverished areas on the outskirts of the major cities. It was prevalent, it was obvious and it was common. India, South Africa and Indonesia are the most affected countries in the world, but the fact that we have it here in Australia is a great shame for this nation.
In 2016, the Northern Territory Centre for Disease Control revealed that of the nine million new cases of TB around the world each year, about 13,000 were in Australia. Those who are born or who spend their early years in countries with high rates of the disease are likely to contract it, but that infection can spread. TB treatment is free in Australia for anyone who contracts it. When TB is identified, the state and territory public health systems make sure those who seek it receive appropriate treatment, including antibiotics and hospital care. Australia is a low-risk country but it is not exempt from this global emergency, and that is why the World Health Organization has identified Australia as one of the countries with the ability to eliminate TB entirely. Like any other infection, TB is curable with antibiotics. This is the reality and this is why it's a great shame that 1.8 million people die from a disease that is preventable and curable. It's just horrifying to think this is happening in 2018.
Last year in Australia, 52 Australians lost their lives—that is, 52 lives lost in a First World nation with free first-class health care—to a preventable, treatable and curable disease 25 years after it was declared a global health emergency. It is the responsibility of every government with the ability to help to do so. Australia must join the world in recognising TB as a public health priority. When the United Nations General Assembly meets on 26 September, it will hold the first high-level meeting on tuberculosis. This is an essential step in the right direction to addressing TB throughout the world. Labor calls on the Turnbull government and those opposite to ensure Australia's representation at this UN meeting at the highest level. This government must commit to the declaration from the UN by increasing resources for TB programs in Australia as well as towards development of effective tools for diagnosis, for treatments and for vaccines. It is estimated that unless the world acts immediately, we could be faced with 14 million deaths from TB, costing a cumulative US$5.5 trillion. We need to be part of the solution.
I congratulate the member for Leichhardt for continuing the conversation on TB. He has been a long-term advocate for as long as I have been in this place, which is three terms. I want to acknowledge members and senators from both sides for speaking out to help end this global health emergency, and I encourage the Turnbull government to make the highest-level representation on this issue at that September meeting of the UN. It is vitally important for those millions of people.
I also rise to support the motion of the member for Leichhardt. I'm pleased to be joining with him and my friends—the member for Kingsford Smith, the member for Macarthur and the member for Canberra—on this. The member for Leichhardt is the co-chair of the Australian Tuberculosis Caucus and, together with Senator Lisa Singh, runs a cross-party group of 20 parliamentarians focused on building Australian support for ending TB as a global epidemic. As the member for Canberra was saying, now is the time for mobilisation. It would be good to see more members from the other side getting behind this but, nonetheless, I thank the member for Leichhardt and commend him on his continued work in this area.
TB is a worldwide problem, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, in our country and also in the place that I represent, the Northern Territory. In 2015, TB killed 1.8 million people globally—that is a shocking statistic. It's the world's greatest infectious disease killer. It's a disease that certainly hasn't gone away.
In our region, it's a serious problem: just across the Torres Strait and Papua New Guinea, there were an estimated 33,000 cases of TB in 2015. In another of our near neighbours, where I've spent a quite a bit of time, Timor Leste has the highest prevalence of TB of any country in our region. I want to commend the Australian groups—including Maluk Timor, Menzies School of Health Research and the Burnet Institute—who are working alongside the national TB program in Timor Leste to improve early case detection, recognition of drug-resistant TB and the prevention of TB in children.
TB is described as a disease that is a problem in developing countries, and that's true, but we should not overlook the fact that it is still a problem here at home in Australia. My electorate of Solomon, the northern capital of Australia, is in the Northern Territory where we still have cases of TB reported annually. The stats are much lower than those reported in other countries, such as PNG, but are still significant. Thanks to the good work of bodies such as the NT government Centre for Disease Control, these stats are trending downwards. Confirmed cases of TB in the Northern Territory have declined from annual numbers in the 40s and 30s in the 1990s down to the 20s more recently. This year so far, 11 cases have been confirmed, and rates of TB incidence in the Northern Territory between 2000 and 2015 have been approximately 17 cases per 100,000 population—that is, about three times the national average.
The rates of TB in the NT Aboriginal population are decreasing, which is good news, but, unfortunately, the rates in those born overseas is increasing. This highlights the need to tackle TB globally and for Australia to support countries in our region in their efforts to eliminate TB. The decline of TB in the Aboriginal population has followed years of hard work in TB control measures, contact tracing and high priority given to support and completion of curative treatment.
Contact tracing is crucial. TB infection can occur when a person with TB coughs, spits or even laughs. The risk of infection through contact with a person with infectious TB can be as high as 50 per cent. Hence the need to trace the people with whom the infectious person has been in contact. This has been a high priority for NT Centre for Disease Control staff, working in conjunction with hospitals and primary care providers. When a contact person is tested and shows as positive, treatment is provided that can prevent the contact from going on to get TB and is an important measure in working towards TB elimination. In the Territory, the mobility of Aboriginal community members presents a challenge for tracing and screening. and it's vital to provide services to diagnose cases, educate about TB transmission and support the follow-up of contacts and completion of treatment for patients.
I support this motion. It's important that Australia supports global action to eradicate TB, but it's also important for us here in Australia. I commend the member for Leichhardt on his work.
Debate adjourned.
I rise in this place today to speak on behalf of the 700,000 workers in Australia who have had their penalty rates cut under the Turnbull government. Workers across Australia and particularly in my electorate of Herbert rely on penalty rates to make ends meet and fundamentally to survive. These workers rely on their penalty rates to raise their families, pay their mortgages, if they can afford one, pay electricity bills, buy food and pay the many other bills that keep going up and up under this government.
In my electorate of Herbert, nearly 13,000 retail, hospitality and accommodation workers have had their pay cut. As of 1 July this year, the second round of penalty rate cuts impacted on some of the lowest-paid and most vulnerable workers. These cuts go far deeper and will take $77 a week from workers in the retail, food and accommodation sectors. That $77 could buy a tank of petrol to get the worker to work; $77 could buy groceries to feed the family; $77 could pay for children's weekly sporting activities; $77 could pay for new textbooks and school activities for students. The Prime Minister and those opposite should be ashamed of themselves, because, for a retail worker, $77 a week could be the difference between putting three square meals on the table or having only two or one. Instead of standing up for these workers and protecting their penalty rates, the Turnbull government simply turned away, leaving these workers out of pocket. In fact, the Prime Minister has said their penalty rates were outdated. Since when has earning a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, including penalty rates, been outdated? What a disgrace! The cost of living is going up, but workers' pay rates are stagnating. I'm here today to say enough is enough.
In my electorate of Herbert, 7,248 retail workers and 5,674 accommodation service workers have had their pay cut. Many of these workers are currently studying at university and TAFE. A pay cut of $77 a week is absolutely devastating, especially when a recent survey has revealed regional university students are flat out putting three square meals on the table. The 2017 Universities Australia Student Finances Survey, released on 13 August 2018, showed one in five students from regional areas regularly go without food and other necessities because of financial hardship. They also defer their university studies because of the costs, which are at a rate of almost twice that of their metropolitan counterparts. The same survey revealed that the majority of students, 83 per cent, support themselves through work. Students from regional areas like my electorate face significant shortfalls between their income and expenses, and yet the Turnbull government is doing absolutely nothing about it.
The Prime Minister may never have had to rely on penalty rates to get by; he just doesn't seem to understand what it is like to need penalty rates to survive. Time and again, the Turnbull government has clearly shown where its priorities lie. This is a government that is happy to cut $4,000 a year from workers' wages but give a big tax handout to big business and the banks.
Rest assured, Labor will always fight for workers. Labor understands penalty rates aren't a luxury. Penalty rates pay the bills and put food on the table for many thousands of people. I am proud to stand with the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, and my Labor colleagues to take up the fight to restore workers' penalty rates. I'm proud to be part of a Shorten led team that is committed to restoring penalty rates in the first 100 days of a Shorten Labor government. I am proud to be part of a Shorten team that will legislate to ensure that penalty rates can never be cut again. I say to the 700,000 workers who have had their rates cut by the Turnbull government: your voice does matter; you certainly deserve to be paid penalty rates; your pay certainly matters. Your vote matters; just make sure it counts.
I wasn't going to speak on this debate, but I've come to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, about what has actually happened here in regard to penalty rates. I have said before that if I have to use fear as an inducement to gain a vote in this nation, I'd rather not be here. You also know I've been kicked in and out of the House many times. This place is hard to get into, it's hard to stay in and it is easy to be thrown out of. We never forget two things. I have been kicked around in small business for nearly 30 years of my life. I lived the Thursday nights where the pay had to be there for my workers in the morning and at that stage it wasn't there, thinking: 'How are you going to do it? How are you going to make these 23 families that are reliant on you enough to supply their money for them?' I have lived it! I have never forgotten it. Even though I have been around this place for more than 30 years in this activity, I have never forgotten my roots, where I came from and why I am here. I'm still here for the same families. I'm still here for the same people.
With regard to changes to penalty rates, I am on the record as saying we needed that change in contemporary, modern Australia. A lot of the businesses in my electorate operate on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and public holidays, and the only people who keep operating are those that are running a whole-family business, with mum and dad and the children working and no wages for anybody else. I hear arguments about particular groups relying on penalty rates. Is there one policeman whose penalty rates are threatened? No. Is there one water industry worker whose penalty rates are threatened? No. Is there a construction worker whose penalty rates are threatened? No, because if they don't get the Saturday and Sunday money, they won't go to work; that's how it works. Is there one chef whose penalty rates are threatened? No. Those opposite make out that everybody's penalty rates are threatened, but that's not the truth.
The Fair Work Commission decided to gradually reduce Sunday rates in the retail award, from 200 per cent to 180 per cent. That's hardly a great change; it's hardly going to make a difference to whether an employer employs somebody on a Sunday, at 180 per cent of what it would normally cost rather than 200 per cent. It's not a decision-making change for an employer. It won't encourage what I would like to see: more young people getting a job. How do I know about more young people getting a job? Because I'm the one in my town, like other businesses and people like me, that employed those kids after school, on a Friday night or on a Saturday morning when they could work.
Kids come up to me today and say: 'Mr Broadbent, you know me; I worked for you.' I'm embarrassed; they look a bit different 30 years down the track. They're brilliant. They've gone on to do other things. They're wonderful young women and men with families and children of their own, and they're thanking me for what they learnt. I've had kids come to me and say, 'Mr Broadbent, I can't get a job.' One girl said to me, 'All I want you to do is put me on and pay me nothing, just so I've got something on my record to say that I have worked and I'm good at what I do.' I put her on, and I paid her above award rates—which most of our staff always got—plus bonuses in other ways, because I wanted her to succeed. She not only succeeded; she went on to do amazing things, as did other young people who were having a tough time and just wanted to come to work for a while. I'm running out of time. I could give my heart to this issue. Please allow the Fair Work Commission to help make Australia a better country with greater opportunities for young people.
I rise today to speak on the Leader of the Opposition's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018, to restore the hard-earned penalty rates of hundreds of thousands of Australian workers that have been cut by the Turnbull government. Once again, this is Labor showing leadership where the government won't. In fact, after reading today's headlines, it seems that the government isn't even sure who the leader is anyway.
The by-election that I recently contested afforded me the opportunity to spend more time out in my community. It meant that I was able to go to local sporting matches, meet with community groups and speak with people and their families about the issues that matter to them. I heard all manner of issues. People are not happy with this government. But no matter where I went, I always heard three key concerns: people are worried about the government cutting vital funding from our local schools and hospitals; people are angry that Prime Minister Turnbull wants to hand out $17 billion of taxpayers' money to the big banks; and people are furious that Malcolm Turnbull is doing all of this while cutting the take-home pay of ordinary Australian workers. It just shows where this government's priority lies—and it is not with regular people.
A few weeks ago, while I was out doorknocking in Bellmere, I met with a family that rely on penalty rates to pay their bills. It was a typical family in the area of Bellmere, good people getting by on a pretty modest income—a modest income that included penalty rates. The lady I spoke to in Bellmere—I won't mention her name in the chamber—works at a retail store at a local shopping centre and has worked there for 10 years. In those 10 years she has never taken one day's holiday. Even after giving birth to her child, she was back to work within days. Despite this, last year on 1 July the Turnbull government cut her take-home pay. It had an impact on her immediately. Just last month she felt it again, because this government cut her penalty rates once more. She has been 10 years in retail and never had a holiday, and for two years in a row this government cut the penalty rates that make up the very modest income of her family.
Under this government, wages growth has flatlined and the cost of living has exploded. It's become more and more difficult for an ordinary Australian to get by. These are members of our community who send their kids to the local school, use the local healthcare system and spend their money in local small businesses. But the government is cutting billions from their schools and hospitals and reducing their buying power. Less money in their pocket means less money to spend in local small businesses. Prime Minister Turnbull really has got his priorities all wrong. He gives millionaires a tax cut—in fact, he's giving himself a tax cut—and he's giving a huge multibillion-dollar handout to the big banks. But, as for regular Australians who keep this country going, he is doing nothing; in fact, if anything, he's pushing us backwards.
A Shorten Labor government will fix this government's mess. Even in opposition we are looking forward. We are developing policies to take to the next general election—policies that will make it easier for Australian workers, policies that will strengthen our health and education systems, and policies that prioritise Australian people over banks. Labor will restore the billions cut from Australian schools. Labor will restore the vital funding that has been ripped out of Australian hospitals, like the $2.9 million ripped out of our Caboolture Hospital—the hospital used by the worker I was just talking about for her health care and that of her family.
Labor will restore the hard-earned penalty rates of Australian workers. Labor can afford to make these decisions, of course, because of the strong decision we are making in not giving billions of dollars to the banks. We believe in Australian people. Under our leader, Bill Shorten, we're united as a party to stand up for each and every Australian every time the government makes it harder for them to get by.
It's great to have the member for Longman back here, and that speech has shown us why. I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018 put forward by our next Prime Minister, the member for Maribyrnong. Before coming into this place, I ran a small business for 35 years. I paid my staff penalty rates, which were very important to them. My practice manager started with me as a younger person, and, even now, 35 years later, she is still working for me. I know how important it was for my staff to get their penalty rates for overtime and weekend work, to help pay their mortgages and support their young families. So I stand here proudly with the enthusiasm, drive and determination to be part of a future Labor government that will protect and restore the penalty rates of thousands of people who are some of our lowest paid workers.
In this day and age, we have seen an enormous explosion in executive remuneration. I read on the weekend that James Packer is building an even bigger yacht because his present $70 million yacht is not big enough for him, yet our government has cut the penalty rates for some of the lowest-paid workers in our community. This is just a shame. It is an honour to speak on this legislation alongside such dedicated and hard-working members of the Labor caucus to understand the importance of penalty rates. Each and every one of my colleagues speaking on this legislation has committed that they will protect the poorest in their communities, do the right thing and restore their penalty rates.
I love my electorate of Macarthur. My community is a wonderful part of Sydney. It is populated by wonderful people, and I will do my best to protect them, particularly those who are really struggling under this present economic regime run by the member for Wentworth—but who knows by whom in the near future? This government can say all they want in relation to their position on penalty rates and they can shift the blame onto the Fair Work Commission, but they could have protected the penalty rates of the poorest paid in our community.
The other issue I have is that it is currently the penalty rates of the poorest paid being cut, in hospitality et cetera at the moment, but whose will be next? It won't be the executives; it will be the poorest and the ones without the power to fight this very right-wing, very conservative government. Labor has presented the government with the opportunity to join Labor in a fight to protect the incomes of the poorest but, each and every time, Malcolm Turnbull—and possibly Peter Dutton next—and his government votes in favour of cutting the penalty rates of the poorest paid. A shame. Let me be very clear. Every member opposite us in the chamber, every member of the Liberal-National government has voted to cut the penalty rates of their constituents on at least eight different occasions.
An honourable member: That's not true. It's an absolute lie.
How is that a lie? You have all voted to cut the penalty rates. The good people of Macarthur and the good people of Australia know that the government has the opportunity to protect their penalty rates and they know that the Prime Minister at present is intent on sitting idly by and doing nothing. Yet he and his friends are enjoying an enormous increase in their incomes and an enormous disparity in incomes between them and the poorest Australians. The people of my community know that the Prime Minister and his coalition MPs have had many opportunities to defend their interests and they know each and every time the government has instead opted to back their mates at the big end of town. What it all comes down to is the average Australian has not seen a real wage rise in years, and yet the government is intent on cutting their wages even further, while at the same time giving away $80 billion to the banks and to big businesses.
It was said once upon a time that there was one member for Banks in this parliament but now there are 76 of them—they all protect the banks and big business. It takes a truly out-of-touch Prime Minister and an ineffective government to think that it makes economic sense to take money from the pockets of working-class Australians, only to shove $80 billion into the pockets of the fat cats at the big end of town. Through the government's inaction and failure to stand by Labor in our attempt to secure the penalty rates of everyday Australians, some workers stand to lose over $70 a week. (Time expired)
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate has adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the Parliament recently passed the Government's Personal Income Tax Plan;
(2) further notes that:
(a) this legislation gives everyone who works a cut in their income tax bill; and
(b) the effect of this legislation means that over the next seven years 94 per cent of Australians will not face a tax rate of higher than 32.5 cents; and
(3) congratulates the Government for supporting working people and providing the economic leadership our country needs.
The coalition government is all about delivering lower, fairer, simpler taxes. Lower taxes are part of the Liberal Party's DNA, just as higher taxes are the constant hallmark of other parties. The government is building a personal tax system that encourages aspirational Australians to get ahead whilst being fiscally responsible. That's why the government's personal income tax plan is such an important step towards making lower, fairer and simpler taxes a reality for everyday Australian workers.
The first step of the government's plan provides tax relief straight to where it's needed most: to low- and middle-income earners. The second step will help tackle bracket creep, and the third step will simplify the tax system. Together with our company tax relief already being delivered right now, today, to Australia's small and medium businesses—helping, I add, incidentally, to drive the strongest growth in jobs on record—and the tax integrity reforms, these personal income tax reforms will reward hardworking Australians and drive an even stronger economy. At its core, the effect of the legislation means that, over the next seven years, 94 per cent of Australians won't face a marginal tax rate higher than 32.5c.
Let's put these tax reforms into some historical context just to understand how significant they are for everyday Australian taxpayers. Years ago, at the time of the tax summit held at the beginning of the Hawke government's second term, just over half of all Australian taxpayers were subject to a marginal tax rate of over 30c in the dollar and around 10 per cent of taxpayers were subject to a marginal tax rate of 60c in the dollar. By the time Paul Keating had taken over from Bob Hawke and the 'fightback' election took place, almost 80 per cent of all taxpayers were subject to a marginal tax rate of over 38c in the dollar and around 20 per cent of all taxpayers were subject to a marginal tax rate of 47c in the dollar. By the end of the Keating Labor government, around 80 per cent of all taxpayers were subject to a marginal rate of 34c in the dollar or more and about nine per cent of all taxpayers were subject to that marginal tax rate of 47c in the dollar.
By around midway through the Howard government, in the aftermath of the implementation of the GST and the new tax system, around 75 per cent of all Australian taxpayers were subject to a marginal tax rate of 30c in the dollar or more and around 10 per cent of all taxpayers were subject to a marginal tax rate of 47c in the dollar.
By the middle of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government years, around 70 per cent of all taxpayers were subject to a marginal tax rate of 30c in the dollar or more and around two per cent of taxpayers were subject to a marginal tax rate of 45c in the dollar. By the start of this coalition government coming to office in 2013, around 75 per cent of all those with taxable incomes were subject to a marginal tax rate of 32.5c in the dollar or more and around four per cent of all taxpayers were subject to the highest marginal tax rate of 45c.
Over time, more and more taxpayers have been pushed into higher tax brackets, dampening the incentive to work more, innovate and get ahead, and having all sorts of perverse and unintended consequences when the tax scales intersect with eligibility thresholds for other government programs, rebates and other payments. I reiterate: the effect of this recently passed legislation is that, over the next seven years, 94 per cent of Australians won't face a tax rate of higher than 32.5c in the dollar. Given that personal income tax accounts for over half of the government's overall tax revenue, it's just imperative that we get the settings right and build a better tax system for the long-term benefit of this country and for all Australians, including future generations.
This government is doing something about the tax burden faced by Australians. We are delivering, despite the efforts of those opposite to frustrate and obstruct good reforms like this over the term of this government. Higher taxes, including bracket creep, reduce the reward for that. It undermines the incentive to work hard, take risks and succeed. Our plan delivers a tax system that encourages aspirational Australians to get ahead. If we'd left the tax system unchanged, only 63 per cent of taxpayers would have faced that marginal tax rate of no more than 32.5c by the time this plan's implemented—in other words, about one in three Australian workers in the future will be avoiding unnecessary bracket creep.
Is the motion seconded?
I'm happy to second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Since the Turnbull government announced their budget in May 2018, I have been hosting budget community forums around my electorate of Herbert, and, let me tell you, the feedback from the community is a huge thumbs down. Both Labor and Liberal have made announcements regarding changes to income tax, but there is a stark difference between the government's and the opposition's policies. The Turnbull government is planning to radically rewrite the tax rules for this nation. The more Australians learn about these new tax rules, the less they like them. The Turnbull government is including workers on $40,000 a year in the same tax bracket as workers earning $200,000 a year. How on earth can it be fair for a nurse, for example, earning $40,000 to pay the same rate as a doctor, for example, earning $200,000, or for a cleaner to pay the same tax rate as a CEO? How can it be fair that, under this tax experiment, the doctor who earns five times as much as the nurse is entitled to a tax cut that is 16 times greater? New research has revealed that, under this plan, $6 in every $10 will go to the wealthiest 10 per cent of workers in Australia. It is becoming clearly evident that this tax scheme is looking like another 'mates rates' tax plan deal from the Turnbull LNP government, a tax scheme in which the government's business and banker mates get more and workers get less. This is simply not fair.
But Labor's personal income tax plan will deliver bigger, better and fairer tax cuts and it will deliver for more than 10 million working Australians. It's Aussie workers who need assistance, not the top end of town. Labor's tax refund for working Australians increases the tax cuts currently being offered under the Turnbull government's tax offset proposal. Under Labor, you will pay less income tax because we think you are more important than the multinationals, big banks and big business. Labor will give working Australians a bigger tax cut and not big businesses, the banks and multinationals. More importantly, our tax cuts will be permanent. Everyone earning less than $125,000 a year will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor when compared to the LNP.
What does that mean for my electorate? The median weekly personal income in Herbert is $672. Under Labor, that person in Herbert will be $350 better off. That's $150 more than under the Turnbull government's plan. Families will be better off as well. The median weekly family income in Herbert is $1,640. Under Labor, families in Herbert will be $928 better off. That is more than $398 better off than under the Turnbull government's plan. To put professionals into perspective, with Labor's tax refund a teacher earning $65,000 will be $2,780 better off. That's an extra $928 a year. A married couple, one serving in our defence forces earning $90,000, and the other working in aged care, on $50,000, will be $5,565 better off under Labor and they will have a combined $1,855 extra each year under Labor.
Under Labor, working- and middle-class Australians will pay less tax, and we will deliver vital infrastructure for Townsville as well as proper funding for our schools and hospitals. Under Turnbull, hospitals and schools will receive cuts, but big business and the banks will be billions better off. If you don't believe me, try Labor's tax calculator for yourself. You can enter your income and your partner's income and work out the tax cut you will receive under Labor. You can visit my Facebook page for the link. The Turnbull government is not interested in supporting working Australians, and its personal income tax plan certainly isn't either. Our most vulnerable and hardworking citizens deserve to make sure that they can survive, and the tax cuts for big business and the banks, at the expense of our vulnerable low-paid workers, schools, health system, aged-care system and supports for veterans, are completely unacceptable.
I thank the member for Herbert. I just remind members to refer to other members by their titles, not their names.
It's indeed a pleasure to support the motion moved by the member for Brisbane in this House on a very important matter for 94 per cent of Australians, with the coalition government bringing down their tax rates over time. This is a really important opportunity to speak about these reforms, because the end result of these reforms will be more money in the pockets of hardworking Australian men and women. The workers of our nation know that the action we are taking is designed to reduce the financial burden on families and ensure that Australians don't face the travesty of being punished for working harder. We want every working Australian to retain more of the money that they earn. Why should anyone be punished for taking on extra shifts, earning overtime or being promoted if the end result is that it'll push them into a higher tax bracket? These measures make sense. They will put an end to bracket creep, so that working Australians can keep more of their money to help pay the bills, save for their future or spend in our local communities. I'm very happy to say that nearly 74,000 taxpayers in my electorate of Forde will benefit from the low- and middle-income tax relief in the 2018-19 financial year. Importantly, this government plan is fully costed and is, therefore, affordable for the future. It will provide tax relief now for low- and middle-income earners, and, over time, provide a simpler and fairer tax system for all taxpayers.
The government's measures will be implemented in three steps. The first stage will see the delivery of tax relief to low- and middle-income earners in the current financial year to help ease the rising cost of living pressures. In this financial year alone some 4.4 million Australians will get tax relief of up to $530, which will be delivered at the end of each year when they have completed their tax return. The second stage of the bill will lift the tax brackets to protect taxpayers from bracket creep. This second step will ensure that as inflation and incomes rise workers don't get pushed into higher tax brackets and pay a higher percentage of their income in tax. From 1 July 2018, the government will provide relief for up to three million Australians by increasing the top threshold for the 32½ per cent tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000. When the low- and middle-income tax offset concludes in 2021-22 the top tax bracket for the 19 per cent tax bracket will be $41,000. As we can see, these measures are going to directly help low- to middle-income earners in the first instance. The third stage is about making personal taxes simpler and flatter and finalising the government's plan for more Australians to pay less tax through a simplified tax system. The end result will be a plan that means that 94 per cent of all taxpayers, including the majority of those working in my electorate of Forde will face a marginal tax rate of 32½ per cent or less from 2024-25. This compares with a projected 63 per cent of taxpayers in 2024-25 if there are no changes to the current settings.
Under our plan we will see Australia's tax system become internationally competitive. It will be a system that rewards effort and helps grow a strong economy. We all know that with a strong economy we see more jobs, more enterprise and more opportunity. But as we've just heard from the contribution from the member for Herbert, this is in stark contrast to those opposite, who always rely on taxes increasing on small and family businesses, on electricity, on incomes and on housing. Shamefully, Labor intends to rip money from the nation's retirees, who have spent a lifetime paying tax. It's classic Labor. They want to increase taxes by over $200 billion on hardworking families, small businesses, retirees and pensioners. Above all, their higher taxes will hurt the Australian economy. It is only the coalition government that is delivering responsible, affordable and well thought out tax relief that is costed and looks forward to how we can make a stronger and better economy for the future, because we know that in doing that we create jobs and opportunity for all Australians.
I welcome the opportunity to debate tax in this place. It's often said that between Labor and the coalition there's not much difference. It is true we agree on some issues, but when it comes to tax policy there are vast differences. On business and personal income tax in my electorate you'll be better off under Labor. The government keeps going on about wanting to put more money in the back pockets of Australians. Well, Australians would have more money in their back pockets under Labor.
One would think the Prime Minister would have learnt the lessons from the recent by-elections, particularly in my electorate of Braddon and in Longman, and actually started listening to the people. The recent by-elections were largely a referendum on tax cuts for big business and the big four banks. At the Tasmanian chamber of commerce business forum during the Braddon by-election, my Liberal opponent was asked on three occasions to justify how this policy would be good for local business. Just as the Prime Minister is not listening to the 6,500 businesses in Braddon, my opponent at that time simply ignored the question.
Labor has listened, and we recognise that small and medium businesses need certainty and confidence for the future. We will not reverse the company tax rate of 27.5 per cent that will be in place at the time of the next election for small and medium businesses with up to $50 million in turnover a year. Under Labor, 99.8 per cent of businesses will be equal or better off.
We have better policy with our Australian Investment Guarantee. The Australian Investment Guarantee ensures business investment takes place in Australia, supporting Australian jobs. Braddon businesses, large and small, will be able to immediately deduct 20 per cent of their investments in eligible depreciable assets. Small and medium businesses are our priority, not multinationals or the big banks.
Local small and medium businesses will also benefit under Labor's bigger, better and fairer personal income tax cuts. Low- to medium-income households generally spend all of their disposable income. Increased disposable income for these households will see increased spending in local businesses.
Under Labor, we will deliver permanent tax relief to 39,000 taxpayers in the electorate of Braddon. Everyone in Braddon earning less than $125,000 will be up to $928 better off a year over the next four years—that is, $398 more than under the coalition. The median income in Braddon is just over $41,000 per annum. This prime minister wants someone on $200,000 a year to pay the same tax rate as someone on $41,000 a year. How is that fair? How is that delivering a fair go?
Only an out-of-touch prime minister would have a policy that sees the top tax bracket being the largest beneficiary in six years time. I guess he could be accused of simply representing his own electorate. My electorate would rank 147th out of 150. The Prime Minister's electorate ranks No. 1 under his Personal Income Tax Plan. It just demonstrates to me that he is completely out of touch with the rest of Australia. If Labor is elected, we will almost double the Prime Minister's tax cuts that the member for Brisbane is proudly trumpeting.
I say to the member for Brisbane and those opposite: why did you oppose bigger, better and fairer tax cuts for low- to middle-income earners? How can you possibly say it is fair to give working people a smaller tax cut while cutting funding to schools and hospitals and giving $17 billion in a taxpayer funded handout to the banks? From the outset, I said I welcomed the opportunity to debate tax policy—
A government member interjecting—
The member just said a very unparliamentary word. It is not a lie; it's the actual truth of their corporate tax cuts that they will yet again try and get through the Senate, and I'm sure that it will fail because they fail to listen to the electorates in this country. It is clear both households and businesses in my electorate will be better off under Labor. It's rather a simple choice: back local small to medium sized businesses and households with bigger, better and fairer tax cuts or give $17 billion to the banks. It's a pretty simple choice, in my estimation.
The Prime Minister is under a lot of pressure this week on energy and tax. They're all in disarray, completely conflicted in the Liberal Party room this week. He can make his life a little bit easier, and the lives of the people of Braddon, by listening and dumping his corporate tax cuts. He could also make things easier by adopting Labor's tax plans for businesses and households. They will be better off under a Shorten Labor government.
I'm delighted to rise today in support of the government's Personal Income Tax Plan and to endorse this motion from the very good member for Brisbane. In 2015-16, Australians paid $186 billion in personal income tax, approximately 45 per cent of which was paid by the top 10 per cent of income earners, compared with around 36 per cent coming from the top 10 per cent in 1995-96. Our tax system must be fair for all Australians. To continue to drive jobs and growth in our economy, our tax system must also reward effort and empower aspiration. We can't persist with a tax system that effectively penalises Australians who are prepared to have a go and work hard.
The Turnbull government takes very seriously the role that a balanced and properly weighted tax system plays in sustaining not only fairness and justice but also a strong economy that not only underpins jobs but is also the means by which essential services are assured for millions of Australians. The government's Personal Income Tax Plan, rolled out in three steps, is targeted to bring immediate tax relief to low- and medium-income earners, protect Australians from the impact of bracket creep and ensure more Australians keep more of their own hard-earned money. The government's plan is about lower, fairer and simpler taxes.
From 2018-19, over 10 million hardworking Australians will receive up to $530 in tax relief, and by 2024-25 94 per cent of all taxpayers are projected to face a marginal rate of 32½ per cent or less thanks to the abolition of the 37 per cent tax rate from that year. This will mean that the only part of the income tax spectrum untouched by the government's plan is the highest income category, being the six per cent of taxpayers projected to earn over $200,000 in 2024-25. In keeping with the key principle of fairness that instructs Australia's progressive tax system, this level of taxable income will continue to attract the top marginal tax rate of 45 per cent.
The coalition's vision is for a better and fairer tax system—a tax system that rewards effort and encourages aspiration for individuals and for business, a tax system that drives a strong economy—rather than a regressive and uncompetitive tax system that risks jobs and is a drag on growth. The government's personal tax plan has achieved these objectives in spades. I congratulate the government on striking the right balance of encouraging aspirational hardworking Australians to get ahead while at the same time ensuring these reforms are sustainable and fiscally responsible. I concur wholeheartedly with my colleague the member for Brisbane in recognising that this key reform from the Turnbull government does demonstrate true economic leadership.
Sadly, economic leadership is a quality almost non-existent on the opposition benches these days—
Mr Dick interjecting—
because, by Labor's own admission, they just don't get aspiration. They even heckle as soon as the word 'aspiration' is spoken in this chamber
Order! The member for Oxley will allow him to continue.
In fact, it completely mystifies not only the members opposite in this chamber, clearly, but indeed the member for Sydney, and the evidence strongly suggests that it's not just the member for Sydney and those in this chamber alone. As always, Labor's only plan is for higher taxes, with over $200 billion in new taxes announced. By pledging to undo steps 2 and 3 of the government's legislated tax cuts, Labor would effectively rip a further $70 billion from the pockets of hardworking Australians in just 10 years and push Labor's total tax grab toward $300 billion. That is why the choice at the next election will be simple: lower taxes under the coalition; higher taxes under Labor.
The member for Fairfax, who has just finished speaking, spoke about leadership. Of all days for this parliament to get lectures from the LNP about leadership! The member for Fairfax and the member for Brisbane come from the division of the LNP in Queensland. A short moment ago, on leadership, Queensland LNP president Gary Spence urged MPs to topple Malcolm Turnbull for Peter Dutton. Of all the things, they talk about leadership! This is the most dysfunctional government that this dysfunctional government that this Commonwealth has ever had! The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and ministers are backgrounding people today.
Government members interjecting—
Those opposite are laughing. Turn on Sky News and you will see a cavalcade of desperate LNP MPs wanting to talk about everything other than the issue of the day.
So today we are hearing lectures from members opposite about leadership. Well, I can tell you what the people of Australia want. They want a government focused on them, not the LNP, who are focused on themselves.
Government members interjecting—
The member for Chisholm is having a lot to say. You're not going to be here after the election, so don't worry! If today's polls are any indication, 25 of you are going to lose your seats! What do two years of continually losing poll after poll say? It says the people of Australia are not interested in what you are selling! Take the hint. Talk to the community. They will tell you very clearly they are sick and tired of the government being focused on itself, worried about its own survival, not the economy of Australia. Time and time again, we are seeing a government hopelessly divided, completely at war with each other, unable to even sit around a cabinet table to make decisions.
Of course, we know, by listening to community and listening to our residents, the trickle-down rubbish that we are seeing time and time again. Today we are seeing the winding back of the progressive nature of Australia's world-leading tax system into a shambles where the rich get richer and the poor are left to pick up the scraps of those opposite, who just want trickle-down economics right across. Their one ideological hit is to make sure those at the bottom end of the scale pay more but those at the top get the benefits. That's what the government tax plan in the motion put forward by the member for Brisbane has left us already. I cannot believe the member for Brisbane and his colleagues come into this place wanting to be congratulated for making the residents that I represent pay more tax. You want people on lower incomes to pay more tax. It is that simple. You don't want people on low incomes to pay a smaller share; you want people at the top end to pay less.
They look puzzled when I talk about this. A resident in my electorate who is earning $40,000 a year will get a tax cut of $455, while someone on $200,000 a year get a tax cut of $7,255 per year. That is your definition of fairness. Someone on $40,000 gets $10 a week, but a surgeon on $200,000 a year gets a tax cut of over $7,255. If you think that's fair, if you think that's reasonable, good luck going out and selling that. You talk to working Australians, who are under record financial stress in their household budgets, and tell them: 'Guess what? I'm giving you $10 a week under this government, but the person across the river will get $7,000 worth of tax cuts.' That is just outrageous. If those opposite want to come to my electorate and argue that case, good luck; bring it in, any time, any place. Those opposite can come out and argue in the member for Batman's electorate and in the member for Morton's electorate. We will take a day and night. When it comes to fairness, it gets up my nose that time and time again we are seeing the members of this government wanting to be congratulated. I can understand that if you are an addict of trickle-down economics—sure. If that's what you think is fair—fine. But do not come into this parliament and expect to be congratulated for your policies. It will not happen, and we will make sure the people of Australia continue to know what you are up to.
It's great to follow my good friend the member for Oxley on this motion put forward by the member for Brisbane. Normally I'd be following the fourth speaker from the government side, but they couldn't find a fourth speaker to support the notion that Prime Minister Turnbull's government is 'supporting working people and providing the economic leadership our country needs.' They're in government and they couldn't find a fourth speaker to support the current Prime Minister. That's very disconcerting. Obviously, they're off doing their numbers.
This is a motion put forward by the current member for Dixon's former chief of staff, I think. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but things have just snowballed. We've got a strange set of circumstances where people are doing the numbers on the current Prime Minister. Obviously, the reality is: you would not put this lot in charge of your goldfish. It is unbelievable. We've got a government that comes in here trying to do self-praise and it can't even organise a pat on the back. It can't line up four speakers to back in this motion. Why? Because we have a government that could not care less about hardworking Australians, especially the middle and working class. We see this time and time again.
Let's go through what those opposite have trotted out as they're about to commence their sixth year in government. We've got a government that's been bending over backwards to give the big banks $17 billion while cutting money from local schools and hospitals. They've been sitting idle while the penalty rates of 700,000 Australians have been slashed, and we've seen the Prime Minister washing his hands like Judas Iscariot, saying, 'This has got nothing to do with me.' We've seen the Prime Minister and the coalition, for 600 days, rejecting Labor's call for a royal commission into the banking and financial sector, rejecting the pleas of hardworking families and, most importantly, Australian small businesses that have been hammered by this sector. Before the mid-year break, with the willing support of Senator Hanson and the One Nation political party, we saw the coalition give itself a huge personal tax cut, with 80 per cent of all of those benefits going to the top 20 per cent of income earners. That's a shameful figure and an un-Australian figure, I would suggest. How unfair is that! It shows that those opposite are out of touch. They're just three examples. There are many, many more.
These are some key statistics to consider when it comes to Australian workers, sadly not mentioned by the member for Brisbane in his speech. He sees fit to come in here and offer self-congratulation without offering any concern for workers and their families. I listened to all of the speeches of those opposite, and there was no mention at all of flat wages, even though we had more wage increases under Labor in one year than we've had in five years under those opposite. I guess this is what happens when you bring in the former CEO of the National Retail Association, someone who doesn't get what it's like to be an employee or a working-class or a middle-class Australian. In September 2013, when this lot came to government, there were 702,300 people unemployed. As of June 2018, there are now 719,000 people unemployed. That's 16,700 more people unemployed. We have record underemployment—people who are actively looking for more work but can't find it. We have record low wage growth, something not touched on by any of those opposite. We have 40 per cent of workers now in insecure work—contract, casualised or labour hire. For young Australians under 25, it's actually over 50 per cent. That makes it difficult for them to ever get ahead or to even get started.
Labor offers a far more comprehensive vision of support for working Australians in our economy. Let's now look at Labor's vision for personal income tax rates. We are proposing a bigger, better and fairer tax cut. Should we win the election, everyone earning less than $125,000 will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor's plan. For many of those people, the tax cuts are almost double those being proposed by the Dutton government. I beg your pardon—the Turnbull government. To help show the benefit of Labor's plan to working Australians, we've had an online calculator tool running for a few months at www.biggerbettertaxcut.com.au. Check it out. Do some calculations using your own individual circumstances and you'll see. For example, a teacher on $70,000 a year would receive a tax cut of $982 under Labor. NATSEM modelling shows that Labor's plan is much better. Those opposite are proposing something that is un-Australian. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12:54 to 16:00
A few weeks ago, I was around the corner from my place at the Flemington community centre where Somali Independence Day, organised by the Somali community in Victoria, was being celebrated. The Eritrean community organised the security, the Oromo community were looking after the coffee and the Sudanese were making fairy floss for the kids. That's what I call an 'African gang' in Melbourne. That is what an African gang in Melbourne looks like. Any time our new supreme commander, Peter Dutton, would care to come down and take a look, he would see multiculturalism and solidarity on display.
The member will refer to members by their correct title.
The Muslim communities in Australia and around the world are marking Eid al-Adha this week—and to Melbourne's Muslim communities: Eid Mubarak. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Melbourne's Muslim communities for the contribution that you are making to our city.
I will be back at Flemington this Saturday to celebrate the Multicultural Eid Festival. The festival has gone from strength to strength in recent years. It will be a fun day with food, sport and family activities. Everyone is welcome. I will be there with my family, as will many other members of the local community. The festival is organised by the Somali community, the Oromo community, the Eritrean community, the Eritrean Djibouti community, the Yemeni community, the Sudanese community and the South Sudanese community as well as receiving support from local organisations and c ouncil. To the festival organisers and supporters, I say congratulations. Thank you for the work you're doing to bring our community together.
I love hearing about fairy floss being made at community festivals—not sure what it does for the nation's GDP—but I want to make sure that the following Monday they have a reasonable prospect if they are working age of showing up and holding down a job, because that is why they came to this country in the first place. On that note, there are people who won't be staying in Australia either. They are the people whose visas have been cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act that the other side of politicians never bothered about, but the coalition government sent them home.
Mr Burke interjecting—
Small numbers and fine print, Member for Watson. We are talking about nearly 1,000 visa cancellations. We're talking about a New Zealand Prime Minister saying, 'What the hell is going on?' I tell you what: if you are here and engaged in crime, you are not going to be here for long. If you're in Queensland, that is where you will be found out, you will be outed and sent home.
Let me give you a few more specifics. Last financial year, there were 53 visas cancelled for drug offences. In Queensland, there were 22 visas cancelled for child sex offences; 10 for rape and sexual violence; five for murder; four for child pornography; and six for manslaughter. They are the highest figures of any state in Australia. Queensland is the great beneficiary of a little bit of courage in this area. Australians welcome those who come here for a meaningful chance of employment and to engage in the real economy. We do none of the families any favours by separating them from it by using the welfare system as a way to do it.
Overnight, Muslim communities in Australia and around the world will be celebrating Eid al-Adha. Eid is a celebration that brings together all the Abrahamic faiths. The story of the Koran, the Torah or the Bible is the same, described as either Abraham or Ibrahim; the son described as either Isaac or Ishmael. But, in each of the faiths, it's a story of sacrifice and a story of faith. The rituals of the hajj pilgrimage coincide and have their roots in the story of the prophet and emphasise the importance of faith and patience in times of hardship.
Early in the morning, at sunrise, many Australians will be finding their way to mosques and echoing choruses of peace and unity as family, friends and communities gather to share blessings and well-wishes for the safe return of loved ones from the hajj. Children will be in their brand-new clothes and there will be a spirit of peace and goodwill that those communities will be wishing to all Australia. To all of those celebrating from here in parliament, I wish people an Eid Mubarak and express—as I think it is important to do—gratitude for what people from every part of the world bring to this country.
The world of elite sport is something many in the regions rarely get to see up close but is one that can serve as such an inspiration for our kids, regardless of where they grow up. That's why it was such a thrill to have had the Australian national rowing team in Rockhampton to perform their final training camp on home soil before their assault on the world championships in Bulgaria. Taking to the water on the mighty Fitzroy River, motivated by stunning weather and tales of the five-metre crocodile that lurks in that stretch of the river and is always ready to help dislodge a water scooter or rower, both the men's and women's teams trained hard and mixed with the locals. These young athletes were so generous with their time, spending much of their time in Rocky with schoolkids, coaching other young rowers and even stopping for a chat with yours truly. I am sure that the motivation of our local water lizards will prove rather valuable, and while Bulgaria is a long way from home I'm sure they'll do every one of us proud at the world championships.
Rowing provides such great life lessons. It teaches our kids the traits of diligence, discipline and, perhaps most importantly, teamwork, all of which are skills perfect for setting up someone for a life of success. I wish our men and women rowers all the absolute best in the coming world championships. We will all be cheering from home.
I rise today to express the increasing frustration of many of my constituents at the government's lack of real action on live sheep exports. We saw a few months ago some horrific footage of the mistreatment of animals being transported to the Middle East.
Mr Broad interjecting—
People have come together and said we've got to do something about this. It is disappointing that the government has failed to act. Constituents have raised with me the distress that they have felt seeing these animals suffer in extreme heat and sometimes suffocating and drowning in their own filth. It is disappointing that the government has ignored advice from both the Australian Veterinary Association and the RSPCA that clearly stated that live sheep cannot be transported safely and humanely to the Middle East during the northern summer without suffering casualties and extreme heat stress. This is distressing to so many people.
Mr Broad interjecting—
I am disappointed that the member opposite is interjecting. He needs to start listening to the Australian people and, indeed, to the farmers, who don't want to see their sheep being treated like this either. It's inhumane and absolutely appalling. My community and many communities around Australia are asking for action from this government but are being sorely denied. (Time expired)
The member for Mallee will not interject.
On Saturday I had the great privilege of being invited to the 60th anniversary celebrations of the Hornsby unit of the State Emergency Service. I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on what a special organisation the State Emergency Service is and commend all those who have volunteered throughout its history. The SES volunteers are available day in, day out, when it's cold, when it's wet and when it's flooding. When the rest of us are tucked up in bed they are slip-slapping about on our roofs making sure that we are all safe.
The Hornsby unit was formed on 3 April 1953 in a small shed on Hunters Lane. For the last 60 years, 10 generations of volunteers have worked together to grow the organisation, and there are now 136 members, including 14 who have joined in the last 12 months. Over this last year the Hornsby SES unit has been dispatched on 368 jobs, the equivalent of over 4,600 hours of community service. Over its history, the Hornsby SES has provided assistance to many major emergencies, including the Newcastle earthquake, the Thredbo landslide, the Eastern Suburbs hailstorm, the Wollongong flash floods, the Casino floods, the Brisbane storm and, most recently, the Central Coast floods and the Hills hailstorm last year. I commend all the volunteers of the Hornsby SES, particularly Reinoud Beijerink, who has been the local controller since 2016, and Ankur Chaudhary, who was recognised for 15 years of service, with the national medal on Saturday night. The SES is there when people need help most, and the volunteers should know that their service to our community is very much appreciated.
I rise today to congratulate Kevin O'Callaghan, the president of the Craigieburn War Memorial and Remembrance Committee Incorporated, for all of his and his committee's hard work in the recent launch of the book and DVD Craigieburn Remembers: the history of the establishment & dedication of the Craigieburn War Memorial ANZAC Park.The book and DVD detail the history of the campaign to erect a war memorial in Craigieburn. In fact, as Kevin remembers, it was Fred Tyrrell, a veteran of World War II, having served as a radiographer in the Army Medical Corps in Darwin and Papua New Guinea, who first planted the seed in 2007, when he asked the very simple question: why can't Craigieburn hold its own Anzac Day service?
Ten years later, in 2017, they did exactly that. This year's service, in particular, was one of the largest we've seen in the area for some time. The Craigieburn War Memorial serves as an important reminder that there is no time like the present to honour the past and shape our future. I want to again congratulate and thank Kevin and all the tireless volunteers at the Craigieburn War Memorial and Remembrance Committee who have worked so hard to ensure that we never forget how fragile peace and democracy can be.
Bill Tyrrell of Goonellabah is a very special person. For the last 41 years Bill has worked at the Lismore Base Hospital as a specialist nurse in stomal therapy and continence management—or, as he likes to call himself, the poo and wee man of Lismore! He says that title always brings a smile to the faces of his patients.
Bill started his training as a registered nurse at Lismore Base Hospital in February 1977. His skills were to always make people feel comfortable as he nursed them, and it was a job he loved. He was seen by his peers as a practical Samaritan. Bill's popularity is evident in that he had five farewells thrown by his co-workers. Everyone I have spoken to about Bill, including my wife, Karen, says what a special person he is. Always going above and beyond the call of duty for patients, many say he is irreplaceable.
Bill plans to take up golf and get involved in community work. Along with his wife, Lois, he plans on spending more time with his family. He has two daughters, Amy and Jenna, and his three little grandsons—James, Leo and Thomas—will see a lot more of their pa. Bill, on behalf of our community, thank you for the 41 years of care you have given to us.
A lightning bolt has been carved into the pitch at Central Coast Stadium to mark Olympic legend Usain Bolt, the world's fastest man, trialling for the Central Coast Mariners. The eight-time Olympic gold medallist and 11-time world champion sprinter touched down in Sydney on Saturday and was met by Mariners CEO, Shaun Mielekamp, and diehard fans like Julie Wall. Bolt will train for the first time tomorrow with the Central Coast Mariners—on his birthday.
There is a lot of excitement on the Central Coast, as the member for Robertson would know, at the prospect of the world's fastest man playing with the Mariners. Some have said: 'Skip the trial. Put him straight into the starting side.' Having previously trialled with teams in Germany and Norway, Bolt's trial with the Mariners was initially met with some disbelief: 'Is he really coming to our coast?' Some questioned whether it was just a publicity stunt, but I had the inside running from the Mariners. Both the Mariners and Bolt are committed to his professional football career, and I know many in our community would be thrilled if he was offered a contract at the end of this trial. The Mariners have poured additional coaching and high-performance resources into the project, which will launch tomorrow with his first training, but the public won't get a glimpse—it's only open to the media.
On behalf of my constituents in the electorate of Dobell, I want to warmly welcome Usain Bolt to the Central Coast and wish him all the best for his trial with the Mariners. And happy 32nd birthday. What better place to spend a birthday trialling for a new career than on the beautiful Central Coast of New South Wales. All the best to the Mariners and to Bolt. We'll do the Wanderers this season!
In our parliament today I would like to congratulate the Indian Society of Western Australia for serving our Indian communities in Tangney and across Western Australia for more than 50 years. For more than 50 years, committee members and volunteers have given so much of their time to our community in promoting Indian art, culture, music, food, and fostering friendships with the wider Australian community. This important organisation facilitates events for members and the whole community, promoting Indian culture.
I had the pleasure of attending Sangam 2018, the Spirit of India, at the Perth convention centre. At this very important event, I was pleased to offer my best wishes and deliver a message of congratulations from the Prime Minister. Thousands of guests packed the Riverside Theatre for a night filled with fantastic performances of classical, folk and contemporary Indian dance and music. We spent the night cheering the performances and celebrating the contribution of Indian society to Western Australia. Congratulations to all the performers and organisers who made the event a night I will remember for a long time. Congratulations once again to President Surya Ambati, the society's executive and the members of the Indian Society of Western Australia for your 50th anniversary.
I recently had the pleasure of working in partnership with the Australian Conservation Foundation to hold a threatened species evening. We were joined by Dr Martin Taylor, protected areas and conservation science manager for WWF Australia; Jo-Anne Bragg, CEO of the Environmental Defender's Office Queensland; Jess Abrahams, a nature campaigner with ACF; and Judith Hoyle, a volunteer from BirdLife Australia. The event was well attended by locals who engaged the panel in a discussion on policy and strategies to better protect our threatened species. Our community is lucky to have many natural waterways and bushlands where native species thrive, and it was great to hear from a range of local residents about their ideas for how we can do more to protect our local fauna and flora.
One such area is Springfield environmental corridor, which is home to two species of platypus alongside koalas, birds and native frogs. I have previously spoken in this place on the importance of the corridor, which sits adjacent to Woodcrest State College between the Centenary Motorway. It's equal in size to 10 Suncorp Stadium precincts, and is currently owned by the Department of Defence. The Springfield community has been loud and clear that this land should be handed over to the local community. My thanks to Andrew Picone and Jess Abrahams from the ACF who attended the forum. I look forward to working alongside the ACF to strengthen environmental laws and to see more of our threatened species with the protection they need and deserve.
When you think of a business that you can trust and rely on in your community, it's hard to think of one more trusted than your local community pharmacy. Local pharmacies are an essential small business, delivering health services and professional, friendly advice in many towns and communities. Our communities simply wouldn't be the same without our local chemist. The community pharmacy is often the first port of call for families and seniors who need some health and medical assistance, but who may not necessarily need to see a general practitioner. There are a proud 5,700 community pharmacies across Australia helping people with their health and dispensing over 300 million prescriptions annually.
I recognise the work of their representative body, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, which was established in 1928, serving the interests of its members and the public. I would also like to give a shout-out to one of my local pharmacists, Jacqueline Meyers, the managing partner of two community pharmacies in Wide Bay—one in Cooroy and one in Pamona. Jacqueline is also the president of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia's Queensland branch committee and has a keen interest in the health and wellbeing of her community. I thank Jacqueline and all the pharmacists in Wide Bay for the wonderful job that they do supporting their communities.
This Thursday I'm looking forward to catching up with Marayong local Teagan Hodges and her mum in Parliament House. Teagan was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when she was just 11. She has been battling the condition now for six years. Though her life did change, she also decided to stand up and advocate for others who are also in her position. She's been doing some great work with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and will be part of their Kids in the House event later this week.
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition affecting 1,000 people in Chifley, 141 of them being children. The fight against it requires constant support from government to drive research. Clinical Research Network 111, also known as T1DCRN, is so important in continuing the marvellous work being done. In the first two phases it has supported 30 projects across 65 institutes.
As the JDRF advocate for Chifley, Teagan is now 17 and has taken part in research trials such as the hybrid closed loop trial, which is the next big thing in the management of type 1 diabetes. I wish Teagan all the success in her journey. She's deeply impressed me as a local advocate and has been speaking up so strongly for others, not sitting on the sidelines but putting her best foot forward for others in need. She really is a true Chifley champion. In Teagan's words, we look forward to the day that type 1 is type none.
Last Saturday, I attended a very moving memorial service at Cotton Tree for Vietnam Veterans Day. I was proud to join the Sunshine Coast community to commemorate the service of those special men and women—almost 60,000 in total—who sacrificed so much, and recognised survivors who, five decades on, continue to carry the scars of that terrible conflict. We stood together in record numbers to show our respect and to mark the 52nd anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, one of the hardest fought and most costly engagements involving Australian troops during the decade-long conflict in Vietnam.
Each year on 18 August, Australians gather in ever-increasing numbers to commemorate Vietnam Veterans Day and remember the more than 500 young Australians who lost their lives in Australia's longest conflict in a blood-soaked 20th century. While the Battle of Long Tan recedes into an increasingly distant past, I'm confident that its memory will continue to stir the hearts of generations of Australians to come. To those who have served and those who continue to serve, we say a very big thank you and lest we forget.
I want to acknowledge two very valued members of my community and our local Labor Party in the Illawarra who passed away during the period of the break. The first was the Hon. Laurie Kelly. Laurie was one of the longest-serving speakers of the Legislative Assembly of the New South Wales parliament. He was speaker for 11 years, 11 months and two days. He was the member for Corrimal for a record seven terms, from 1968 until his retirement. Laurie played an important role in the development of the University of Wollongong and served as deputy vice chancellor. He was also chairman of the Wollongong City soccer club and the and the Illawarra disabled persons trust. He was president and life member of Surf Life Saving Illawarra and a patron of the Illawarra Rugby League football club. He was a life member of the Labor Party. His father, Laurie Kelly senior, was also a member of the New South Wales parliament. Only recently, Laurie's beloved wife, Rhonda, passed away. He will be very sadly missed. We will all extend our condolences.
The other was a gentleman called Allan Cobbin. Allan joined the ALP during the great Gough Whitlam's It's Time campaign. He was an educator and a teacher in country towns, and it imbued in him a very strong sense of the importance of education in lifting people out of poverty. He had a very strong sense of social justice that he brought to not only his party activities but also his community volunteering. I extend my sincere condolences to his wife, Pat, family and friends.
This week, 18 to 26 August, we celebrate Seniors Week. The Central Highlands Regional Council will host a Seniors Week event at Blackwater in Central Queensland on Tuesday, 21 August. At the Blackwater Civic Centre, we'll host approximately 250 to 300 seniors. A luncheon will be provided by the Central Highlands Regional Council and the federal government, as will free bus transport for those golden oldies coming from Duaringa, Dingo, Bluff, Emerald, Yamala, Capella, Springsure and Rolleston. A big thanks to Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government, Minister McVeigh, who helped sponsor the day under the Building Better Regions Fund.
Seniors Week is an opportunity for Queenslanders of all ages to get together and celebrate the valuable contribution these people have made over their lifetime. This is an opportunity to say thank you to the golden oldies. I'd like to say that Dawn Fraser—an Australian legend and icon—will be there as the guest speaker. The oldest male and female guests will be crowned Senior King and Queen for the week.
Last week, I received the excellent news that the Victorian state government had agreed to the sale of a parcel of land in McBryde Street in Fawkner, alongside Merri Creek, in my electorate of Wills. It agreed to sell it to the Moreland City Council so it can remain as open space in perpetuity. Protecting our open spaces from overdevelopment, particularly as the price of land in the northern suburbs of Melbourne climbs, is critical. We cannot let go of the need for and value of open-green spaces for all of us to enjoy.
Last year, I led a walk with local residents in Fawkner, organised by the Fawkner Residents Association, to view firsthand the open public-park space along Merri Creek. It was very clear from the numbers that turned up that residents didn't want this land to be developed. They wanted to keep it as public parkland so that future generations could enjoy the open space, the flora and the fauna. This has now been achieved. I would particularly like to thank and acknowledge Luke Donnellan, the Victorian Minister for Roads and Road Safety for his cooperation and vision throughout this process and for taking the decision to make the land available at a price the Moreland City Council could afford. I'd like to thank also the Mayor of Moreland City Council, John Kavanagh, and the Moreland City Council for their efforts during the negotiations and their commitment to open space. A big thanks also go to Joe Perri, the head of the Fawkner Residents Association, and the association for all their hard work leading to this community campaign It is a campaign I was so pleased to be part of, because this is a major win for our community.
I rise to inform the House of a great initiative being run in the community of Robe, a coastal town in the south-east of South Australia, in my electorate of Barker. Robe to Recovery, as it's known, is a respite program for Australia's veterans and their families. It began with a desire to help Australia's contemporary veterans and their families. It was a conversation between Jacqui Bateman, a Robe local, and veteran Justin Brown in 2015 which began the ball rolling. Offering up her own bed-and-breakfast free of charge to recently returned veterans and their families up to four times a year, Jacqui, who is also a member of the Robe Tourism Association, enlisted the support of local business owners, and the response was overwhelming. Offers of vouchers, gifts, goods and services began to roll in from the Robe community. Before long, the concept of Robe to Recovery was born. Anyone who has visited Robe would agree that it is a picturesque town with the ability to offer holiday makers rest, relaxation and respite from even the most stressful of day-to-day lives. For veterans and their families the healing value of this program cannot be understated. It's an incredible initiative and one that I hope to see replicated across the country. I have personally written to the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, and invited him to visit Robe to get a better understanding of what this program has to offer while he's here for the Invictus Games. He has, in fact, responded and is considering the proposal. I commend Robe to Recovery, and Jacqui Bateman in particular for this initiative.
Before I call on the next speaker, it sometimes hard to hear the speakers when other members are talking. I ask that the level of noise be kept to a level such that, as Deputy Speaker and chair, I can actually hear the contributions.
I want to share a story which demonstrates the truly petty and mean nature of this government. A constituent, who I will call Mr J, rang me last week. He explained that when he lost his mother two years ago he had been able to phone a dedicated Centrelink bereavement line, where a person quickly answered and was able to help to register his mother's death. Sadly, Mr J found himself in need of this service again when his father passed last week. But his experience last week couldn't have been more different from the previous one. Mr J soon found out that the bereavement line had gone. Instead, he was asked to call a generic Centrelink number where he got caught in a maddening loop of menus. He ended up in the wrong area and was told there was a 45-minute wait. Frustrated, he downloaded a form to register his father's death. As directed, he printed it and took it to his local Centrelink office where he was told they couldn't help him. They gave him a stamp and sent him on his way. This is no way to treat people facing the grief and trauma of losing a loved one. What kind of small-minded government can't even keep a phone line open for bereaved Australians? I've written to the minister demanding an explanation. (Time expired)
I welcome the announcement by the South Australian Premier, Steven Marshall, that South Australia is to establish four Clontarf academies in the state—three in my electorate. I became interested in the work being done with young Indigenous boys by Clontarf in 2013 when I first met Gerard Neesham, the inaugural coach of the Dockers, who established the program in 2002. I met Gerard through the former—and sadly deceased—member for Canning, Don Randall.
The program, which uses football as a reward and development tool, is not designed to cater for football excellence, even though that doesn't hurt. Its first requirement is that boys attend school and study hard; otherwise they miss out on the rewards program. This year, they have 7½ thousand boys attending throughout Australia. Boys get out of bed for 6:30 training and, by the time, they attend a full day of school and go home, they are ready for early bed. This is a virtuous cycle and, even better, Clontarf are now reporting that the alumni of some of the earlier intakes have matured and raised children and are now benefitting from living in a family that works and values education. These are the benefits of breaking the intergenerational cycle. The academies will be established in Whyalla, Port Lincoln and Port Augusta. The previous government hadn't been so keen on Clontarf because it didn't focus on girls. But as Gerard Neesham said, 'If you can get the boys at school, if you can get the boys working, a lot of the girls' problems will go away and they'll do exactly the same thing.' Well done, them.
On 10 August I had the great pleasure of visiting Thomastown Secondary College, a school that's very dear to me, to celebrate their involvement in the CSIRO STEM in Schools week. I thank the assistant principals, John Retica and David Smith, for showing me around and looking after me so well, as well as all the amazing students there. I made two promises to the students: firstly, to come to Canberra and wear their school scarf, which was very useful on this morning's minus four degrees—I am not wearing it in the chamber but it is with me; and secondly, to talk about what an impression the visit made on me. I want to highlight in this place the great strength of this school community, demonstrated by having so many alumni return to the school as teachers in other capacities. I want to talk about the strength it shows in its great diversity, with almost all the nations of the world represented and working together. What an antidote to words spoken and deeds done emanating out of this building!
I also want to talk about the amazing work done in the STEM class, overseen by teacher Julie George, collaboration and problem solving amongst this diverse group of students. I found it simply inspirational. It presented to me and hopefully all of us not only a great example but also a challenge to recognise the work that our students are doing in secondary school in building themselves up for future lives and the future workforce. The challenge for us is to make sure we do our job in enabling every school for individualised learning facilitated by needs based funding that all of our kids deserve.
We're often reminded that all of life is a series of checks and balances. There are great times countered with the not so great. There are times of inspiration and joy that can be countered by tragedy. Last Friday was a poignant example of exactly that. I visited the RFS Shoalhaven catering brigade to thank them for all their work in the local fires. I know how hard they work. I reminded Ingrid and Judy that I'd be a willing worker, as I have done in the past, if they needed me. They run a very tight operation, feeding dozens at a time without a hitch. Judy showed me all the donations that had been gathered by the students, parents and community of Milton Public School. I thank each and every one of you.
In addition I'd like to thank the following businesses for all their donations, Hayden's Pies, Milton Heritage Bakery, Ulladulla Baker's Delight, Annabelle's Cafe in Milton, Ulladulla Coles and East Nowra Bakery, who helped our firies in the North Nowra outbreak. The fires continue to burn with many crews, both local and more distant, being called on to bring them under control. Our whole community is grateful for the firies' amazing and tireless efforts.
But, as I said, my great joy and appreciation for my community is tinged with deep sadness. At the time I spoke to the operations crew at Milton, a tragic call, 'heli down, heli down' came in. Allan Tull, known as 'Tully' of Sydney Helicopters, who had been constantly water bombing the fires, lost his life when his helicopter came to grief. I send my sympathy and honour to the wife, family and friends of Allan Tull. Our community shares its grief with you.
I was going to call on the Prime Minister to intervene with the Minister for Home Affairs, to get him to show a little bit of humanity, but the irony of that, of course, is that the Minister for Home Affairs is busy intervening with the Prime Minister. But, even for Minister Dutton, the cuts to income support for up to 12,000 vulnerable asylum seekers show cruelty at a new low. The brutality of these changes is shocking, and they affect my electorate greatly. Over 25 per cent of the asylum seekers living in Victoria live in my electorate, in the City of Greater Dandenong. We know the government's agenda is to say 'migrants' and 'welfare' a lot, for base, divisive political reasons, but understand what this means in reality. These are the most vulnerable people in Australia, living in our community on $247 a week, a meagre payment. Of course people who can work should work—no disagreement. But to run a prejudiced stereotype campaign to say these people are somehow lazy and don't want to work is disgraceful. The reality is: these people's claims have not been processed. They've lived here for years in limbo, waiting. Your government would not let them apply. They had no work rights. They weren't allowed to work. Then all of a sudden the government says: 'Here are work rights. You've got seven days to prove your claim. Oh, you're not in a job? Well, we'll take your money away.' This is a policy for homelessness. It's a policy for poverty. It's a policy for exploitation in the workplace. It's a policy for sexual exploitation. It's a policy to drive up crime. It's a policy for tent cities. And that's probably just what the Minister for Home Affairs wants, so he can then say, 'They're all criminals.'
I'd like to take this opportunity to commend Coomera Anglican College on the official opening of their new future-focused resource centre. Dubbed 'The Pod', this new centre is designed to take learning out of the traditional classroom, with robotics, interactive touch-screen displays, 3D printing, writable walls and an indoor drone flying space, as well as a 360-degree 'Imaginarium'. I had the pleasure of attending the official opening recently. After touring the centre and experiencing the Imaginarium for myself, I can say without a doubt: this new facility will inspire the imagination and dreams of the next generation of students. To be able to immerse yourself in another world, to see actual footage of the surface of Mars or to explore the Australian outback from the comfort of your school introduces students to a whole new way of thinking, interacting and learning. I'd like to congratulate Principal Dr Mark Sly on bringing future learning to Coomera Anglican College and taking student learning literally out of this world. The parents, students and the wider school community will be so blessed and impressed with The Pod that I have no doubt it will set an example for learning environments right across the country. Well done to everybody at Coomera Anglican College.
Every single budget delivered by the LNP governments has included cuts to aged care. The Turnbull government are trying to say that they are funding 14,000 places for in-home community aged care over four years, when in fact the Turnbull government are robbing Peter to pay Paul, which was discovered in Senate estimates because the government is actually taking funds from residential aged care to pay for in-home care packages. Robbing Peter to pay Paul does not fix one problem; it actually creates two problems. Three thousand five hundred packages a year isn't enough to keep pace with the actual demand, as there are currently 105,000 people on the waiting list. In Northern Queensland, there are more than 323 people waiting for access to in-home community care packages. Last month I met Christine, whose mother passed away whilst waiting for a package. To rub salt in the wounds, more than four months after her mother's death Christine received a letter to say that her mother was now approved for a package. We had a very similar incident with my mother-in-law. We received a call to book an appointment for her to have an assessment. Unfortunately she had passed away. This is quite disgraceful and very distressing and hurtful for families. We don't actually know the real waiting list—we suspect the numbers are a lot higher—because the Turnbull government has refused to release the latest data. Older Australians deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and that includes in-home aged-care packages.
Today I want to speak about a remarkable figure in the bayside community. Senior Sergeant Tony Brown recently marked 30 years as a police officer. It's a rare feat in his line of work. Tony has done a terrific job while being the acting officer in charge at Wynnum Police Station. Earlier this year he came out to one of my crime mobile offices to reassure residents in Gumdale and Wakerley about local crime and police presence in the area.
'The last 30 years have gone by just like that,' Tony told me the other day. He's worked all around south-east Queensland, out in the country as a rural constable, at the Gold Coast and in his home town of Wynnum. Tony spent a lot of his career as a detective investigating crime. One of his proudest achievements was putting a lot of time into a homicide at Wishart and eventually securing a conviction.
He takes pride in being out in the public eye and reassuring people that things are safe. Thankfully, crime has remained relatively low around the bayside area. The biggest challenges he sees in the future are people and more development in the area, bringing more traffic issues and more demand for services.
Tony, you've had an outstanding career. You should be proud of everything you've achieved. Thank you for all that you've done for the bayside community. There are great things ahead in your future, and I wish you all the best.
Exercise Pitch Black is a biennial three-week multinational, large-force employment exercise conducted from RAAF Base Darwin and RAAF Base Tindal. It was conducted from 27 July—it finished on the weekend—to 17 August this year. The exercise hosted up to 4,000 personnel and up to 140 aircraft from around the globe, including participants from Germany, Indonesia, Malaysia, the United States and, for the first time, the Indian Air Force took part in the exercise.
I was fortunate to have the opportunity to join the exercise with the ADF Parliamentary Program, and I want to congratulate exercise director Air Commodore Michael Kitcher for an exemplary exercise and our host on the ADFPP, Wing Commander Jonathan Lilley.
The exercise contributes $30 million to the Territory economy and helps reinforce the strong ties Australia has with participating nations, especially those from the Indo-Pacific. Locals got the chance to get up close and personal with the military personnel aircraft during the Pitch Black Open Day at the RAAF base and at Mindil Beach markets where there was a sunset flyover of 36 aircraft, which was amazing. Darwin is the gateway to Asia, and this is a great exercise to show how important we are in this part of the world.
Australia and my home state of Queensland are suffering the ravaging impacts of drought, which we know all too well. It's a terrible but recurring feature in Australia. We are indeed a land of drought and flooding rains that follow. For over 20 years, Commonwealth, state and territory governments' policy approach has been about preparedness and resilience. Since 2013, this government has invested more than $1.3 billion in delivering support for our farmers and has recently announced $1.8 billion on top.
Our farmers are tough, they're survivors, but we need to lend them a helping hand when times get tough. I'm the son of a farming family from Bundaberg—canefarmers. The Bureau of Met reports that farmers are facing harsh conditions with the situation not likely to change any time soon. We may see conditions getting even drier, heaven forbid. That's why there's new funding announced to help.
The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources recently travelled across drought-affected parts of my home state of Queensland to listen to people on the ground, see the conditions affecting farmers and connect with communities.
The government has acted. It's increased payments from three to four years to the FHA to give farmers in drought extra support. We've announced rurally based farm liaison officers to work through the Rural Financial Counselling Service. We'll stand behind the tough and hardworking farmers of the nation. It's a difficult time. We've seen it before. We'll probably see it again, but we'll stand the whole time.
Sadly, Sherwood, a leafy suburban in my electorate, will no longer have a local bank branch for any of the big four banks within a few weeks. Sherwood has many older residents who have been doing their banking locally for decades. These residents will now have no local branch.
ANZ, NAB and now Westpac are all closing their doors in Sherwood. All four of these banks are making huge profits. Westpac, the most recent bank to announce a branch closure, had a profit last year of $8 billion. So who are these banks working for? Is it their shareholders only? What about their customers? Not surprisingly, just as we've heard during the banking royal commission, the big banks are looking after their profits at the expense of their customers.
Banking customers living in Sherwood will have to drive more than 13 kilometres to the Mount Ommaney branch or negotiate the very busy Indooroopilly bridge and Indooroopilly Shoppingtown precinct, if they want to speak to a real person to do their banking. Many older customers will find this either impossible or stressful.
Westpac has a 200-year history in Australia, and they gave me this book the other week. For 200 years, Australians have supported this company and trusted it to look after their hard-earned money, only to be rewarded by having local services that customers rely on shut down. They have dropped the ball in Sherwood. Why would any sensible government reward this behaviour with a $17 billion tax giveaway? I ask these big banks to have a rethink and start putting their customers first, rather than their shareholders.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) in the 2013 federal election, the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP, promised no funding cuts to the ABC;
(b) since 2014 the Government has announced cuts of $338 million in funding from the ABC, comprised of:
(i) $254 million since 2014; and
(ii) $84 million over three years as announced in the 2018 budget;
(c) these funding cuts are privatising the ABC by stealth;
(d) many members of the Government are former staffers and/or members of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA);
(e) the IPA has advised the Government to privatise the ABC and has published Against Public Broadcasting: Why We Should Privatise the ABC and How to Do It;
(f) on 7 October 2008 Senator Fifield, now Minister for Communications, gave a speech entitled Fiscal Contraception:Erecting Barriers to Impulsive Spending in which he stated that 'Conservatives have often floated the prospect of privatising the ABC and Australia Post and there is merit in such proposals.';
(g) strong and independent Australian public broadcasting is important to Australian culture and the quality of our country's democracy;
(h) the Liberal Party of Australia's 2018 Federal Council voted overwhelmingly in favour of the 'full privatisation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, except for services into regional areas'; and
(i) no Government ministers present at that Federal Council spoke against the motion during the debate; and
(2) calls on the Government to reverse the funding cuts it has imposed upon the ABC since 2014.
We are not talking about an idle rumour here. We are talking about a systemic campaign to slash the budget of the ABC, combined with sustained attacks from various sections of the political right to question the integrity of the ABC and to sell it off. Following a pledge at the 2013 election that there would be no cuts to the ABC and SBS, the 2014 budget saw $254 million in cuts, and now in 2018, under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, the ABC faces a further cut of $84 million over the next three years.
We heard in Senate estimates that the ABC has shed more than a thousand jobs since 2014. That figure equates to nearly a quarter of the ABC's full-time equivalent workforce of over 4,100 employees, so the impact of these cuts is already quite apparent.
We also heard from the ABC that it has experienced a 28 per cent fall in funding in real terms since the mid-1980s. In addition to dealing with less income, management of the ABC have also had to face inquiries into its charter, the disclosure of salaries, its competitive neutrality and its delivery on rural services.
Even the commercial media is pointing the finger at the ABC as being a significant contributor to their falling bottom lines despite the arrival of Google, Facebook, Netflix and Amazon and their blindingly oblivious impact. They just don't see that it's got nothing to do with the ABC; it's actually about them. Blaming our national broadcaster for being true to its charter to serve its public interest by reaching audiences in new and innovative ways that the commercial media have been too risk-averse to attempt is the height of hypocrisy.
Then there was the Liberal Party's 2018 Federal Council—how could we forget that? They overwhelmingly voted for a full privatisation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, except for services in regional Australia, and not one—not one—government minister even stood up and spoke against their motion.
Then, we have the Institute of Public Affairs' book: Against Public Broadcasting: Why We Should Privatise the ABC and How to Do It. As if the government doesn't already know! Who did the IPA think would read their book? I can only assume that it was made deliberately for the minister for communications who, back in 2008, gave a speech entitled, Physical Contraception: Erecting Barriers to Impulsive Spending. In that speech the senator stated:
Conservatives have often floated the prospect of privatising the ABC and Australia Post. There is merit in such proposals.
When you have a communications minister who sees merit in privatising the ABC, when you see a political think tank that has such close ties and calls for privatisation and you see the Liberal Party Federal Council calling for privatisation, I do not think it's unreasonable for the ABC, and for those who defend the ABC, to be alarmed.
The government could allay the fears by showing the country that it values the work of our public broadcaster and wants to fund them adequately. Australians who value the ABC are on notice. We believe that we must act, and I know that I, and my Centre Alliance colleagues, will do all we can to pressure government to restore funding to the pre-2014 levels. Last month, I received my ABC defender's badge in recognition of my support of our national broadcaster. I believe in a well-funded, independent ABC, and I believe it's crucial for our democracy.
The ABC has an annual budget of around $1 billion, of which $200 million is spent just in transmission costs. The ABC uses its $800 million to create high-quality innovative content—stuff that you can't find in the commercial sector. It's a training ground for young people—local talent, local productions—and ensures that it consistently exceeds quotas on Australian content. Australians trust the ABC. It tells our stories. And that trust is extended to public interest journalism in which the ABC has a long and proud history.
I would like to present at the end of my speech a non-conforming petition signed by 694 people in my electorate supporting my motion calling for the ABC's funding to be restored. Their names are just a snapshot of the deep concern in the Australian community that the Australian public broadcaster is being privatised by stealth. We must keep the ABC. We must fund the ABC. It is our national treasure. I seek leave to present the petition.
Leave granted.
The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration. It will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders. Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
When people buy a ute—and they should buy a good quality ute—in the electorate of Mallee they get the dealer of that ute to tune the radio to the ABC for them. One of the things I say when people criticise the bias of the ABC is that, when people take that ute in after they've been driving it around for 10 years and the windows don't wind up because they're full of Mallee dust, the radio is still tuned into the ABC. And do you know what? They vote National Party. Isn't that interesting. To those who say that the ABC is completely biased I say two things: one is that it is clearly not biased enough, because the voters who listen to it vote for the National Party; and the other is that you could draw the conclusion that the people in my patch are not easily swayed and they like to have a good old ding-dong argument with radio.
ABC radio, in particular, is very important. I would point out one great injustice here, and that is that in the township of Hopetoun you cannot get Triple J. There is a farmer who contacts me regularly, so incensed by the injustice. He wants to listen to Triple J but can't get it. That isn't a result of the ABC being cut; it's just never been broadcast there. That is something we need to do.
I've got a better one than the petition to save the ABC. We had a group of ladies who baked a cake in the shape of the ABC outside my office. If you want to protest to an MP, that's the way to do it, I've got to say. Don't worry about a placard; bake a cake. They came up to my office and we sat down and we had a conversation, and that's really how it works.
The ABC does play a very important role. The changes that have been made fairly recently are very important to rural MPs. It's essentially put video journalists in its country radio stations. In the past, it used to fly the helicopter out to the country—that was when it did have plenty of money—and often the stories wouldn't quite get told; whereas what's happening now is that our ABC radio journalists are doing video footage, and so the stories of regional Australia are increasingly being seen in the city. I think that's one of the things that is very important in a public broadcaster. A public broadcaster should be bringing people together, and bringing people together is telling the great stories of regional Australia in the cities. Something I would always advocate for but have not had any success with yet is the good old Country Hour. It is the longest-running radio program with the two most important things being its market report—I've just got to get that on the record—and the weather forecast. But Country Hour isn't broadcast in our capital cities. If we're to gain a greater understanding of the issues of regional Australia in our capital cities, wouldn't it be great to see Country Hour broadcast in our cities?
There is something unique about an Australian broadcaster. It was disappointing to me that, in one of the cuts that were made, the part of the ABC that broadcasts overseas was removed. I think that was a poor step. I've got to say there is a role in talking about what our community does and what our country does and sharing that with other parts of the world. It is true, though, that the very nature of the media is changing. The ABC does need to change. It does need always to look for new efficiencies. I'm reasonably comfortable with the new management and where they're heading, but there are a couple of things that are very important in growing a regional community. One is access to public transport. Another is that there are adequate jobs. There should be educational opportunities for children. The next one is adequate telecommunications. The other is doctors, which is something very important. But the other thing—and Saul Eslake did a study on this—is someone to tell the community's story. That can be a local newspaper, but in so many of our country towns it is our country broadcasters and the ABC. That talkback where people have a conversation and people get a sense of pride in their community is critical for the economic growth of those communities.
I would like to see more ABC staff in the regions; I would like to see fewer in the city. I would like to see more robust discussion perhaps on Q&Athose more regional based audiences when those programs are at their best. People on my patch are so happy with the ABC they're prepared to bake a cake and come to their MP and argue for it. That's the way to effect change.
I think we're all in agreement that the ABC matters—the ABC matters a great deal. If only because a strong independent media is one of the very foundation stones of a strong democracy. But all around the country, especially in regional areas, especially in a place like Tasmania, it has always been a very important training ground for young men and women who have wanted to enter the media world. Many of them have joined the ABC as cadets or trainees—or whatever they're called. They've cut their teeth, come up through the ranks and gone out to fill really important roles throughout the media and throughout the country.
The ABC also—and this is unique to the ABC—fills a very important role when it comes to emergency broadcasting. I will just recount very briefly what happened in Tasmania, over five years ago now, with the terrible bushfires around Dunalley. At that time, the mobile phone network went down. There were many, many people right throughout that part of Tasmania who were relying on the ABC emergency broadcast, on their little portable radio or the radio in their car, simply to know what was going on and where to go. If we didn't have that ABC media footprint in that area at that time, perhaps people could have died.
We also need the ABC because it is just so accessible and trusted. Surveys show that something like 71 per cent of all Australians access the ABC in one form or another every week and 82 per cent of all Australians surveyed trust the ABC. They rate it as a far more trustworthy source of news than any other news channel.
Unfortunately, despite all of this, the ABC is under attack, and it is absolutely remarkable that, at the Liberal Party Federal Council a couple of months ago, the overwhelming majority of Liberal Party council members voted to sell off the ABC. I regret to say that my own Premier in Tasmania, Premier Will Hodgman, did not vote against that motion.
And then of course we've got the funding cuts—another way in which the ABC is under attack. Perhaps the government thinks: if we can't sell off the ABC, let's at least cripple it. In fact funding cuts from 2014 that'll run out to 2021 now gross up to $338 million, $254 million of which is in the 2014 budget and then another $84 million effectively cut over three years in the 2018 budget going out to 2021.
I think there's no better way to illustrate the decline of the ABC than perhaps these two measures. One is that 30 years ago they used to say the ABC was costing us 8c a day. It's now on a per capita basis costing us 4c a day. In other words—
Ms McGowan interjecting—
that's right, Member for Indi—over 30 years real spending on the ABC on a per capita basis has halved. The other way to illustrate my point is just to recount what's happened at the ABC headquarters building in Hobart. Some of you might have seen it down there near the roundabout where the old railway station was. It wasn't that many years ago that this fairly big building was full of ABC staff and ABC capabilities. But if you go down there now, the minority of the building is filled by the ABC and its staff and the majority of the building has been leased out to the College of GPs, to the University of Tasmania, and—perhaps most ironically—to WIN TV. I think that says a lot about what has happened to the ABC in recent years and the trend is on for the future. It is under attack at every turn.
We need to make the point again that the majority of members on the Liberal Party national federal council want to sell it off. If they can't sell it off, they're going to reduce the funding until it is a shadow of itself. If that trend continues, if one day we lose the ABC as a strong, genuinely independent broadcaster, we're going to ask ourselves: how on earth did we get here? Because you know what? It might cost us 4c per person per day to keep it but, when it's gone, it will be gone for good and we'll miss it.
I am delighted to join my colleagues the member for Mayo, the member for Denison and the member for Mallee in this really important debate. We've had lots of good reasons why we should support the ABC, but today I want to talk about the impact of the ABC on economic development, particularly in the regions. I'm going to focus particularly on the impact the show Back Roadshas had. Right across Australia, ABC does the work that we have been hearing about. I had the enormous pleasure on the weekend of attending the annual general meeting and conference of Australian Women in Agriculture in the beautiful city of Shepparton. One of the many talented guest speakers was Heather Ewart. She spoke about the background to Back Roads and gave stories about how it's working. I want to share with you today not only some of what Heather said, but some of my own knowledge about that program—why it is so important, and why, as a product of the ABC, it epitomises the importance of this motion.
We have had five programs of Back Roadscity-centric, if you want—but the masters that be have committed to another series. Good decision, Sydney! Back Roads bridges the city-country divide. It is a really popular program at a prime viewing spot. It has positive, humorous, real stories of real people in rural and regional Australian. There is no spin. There are real people, real places, real stories, and so much local pride. As for the ratings, 1.3 million viewers tuned in to hear the Ceduna program alone, which is hugely significant. And many of the other programs regularly get a million viewers. No other TV network, no commercial station, would ever have backed a project like Back Roadsbecause whoever would have thought that a quirky program about country towns would have had the impact it has? What is it that I really appreciate about Back Roads? I love its sense of connectedness. The member for Mallee talked about how important it is we have someone telling our story. It is a genuine look at people's lives. And who doesn't like a really good story of someone else and their lives and how they live it?
Let me do a huge shout-out to Heather, the presenter. Heather really gets rural and regional communities. She knows how to relate. She knows how to engage, and there is such a genuine connection that you actually see these communities through her eyes. She doesn't patronise. She doesn't look down. She is not at all sarcastic and doesn't deal in gotcha moments; she lets the story tell itself. Heather is herself as well. One of the things the I love about Heather is she is a very good country woman. What's the quality of a good country woman? They have got a sense of humour, they have got a really good sense of commitment to relationships, they have got dedication and persistence, and they have a wonderful eye for detail. They are not show-offs, they are not smarty pantses but, my word, you get the sense of humour and the connectedness with it. In acknowledging Back Roads, I want to thank Heather, Bridget, Ron and Jon; editor Tony; the researchers and producers Lou, Kerri, Gerri, Damien, Kathy, Frith. You do a fantastic job.
I just want to quickly talk about my little town of Yackandandah. Back Roads came and did a story about Yack, as it's affectionately known. The next day, the town's Facebook page went berserk. I'm not sure if it crashed, but the gossip was that it was going to crash. There was huge interest. I can walk down High Street in Yack, go to get the paper on the weekend, meet somebody and chat in my role as a member of parliament and they'll tell me: 'I saw it on Back Roads. What a beautiful community. Yes, it's just like it was.'
It's not enough just to say that. My constituents asked me to get up here today and talk about this. To Jenny, who's really tired of the attacks on the ABC, I bring your voice to parliament—also to Pam, who's very concerned about cuts, and to Jacqueline, who's horrified to learn about these cuts. Right across my electorate, people are really personally affected by the thought of what the cuts will mean to quality programs and by the thought that wonderful presenters like Heather Ewart who won't be able to do their magnificent work, which is to take our stories to the cities and to each other and, in the process, give us economic development and tourism, get people to the country and, most importantly, encourage city people to move to the country.
I'm happy to speak in support of the motion put forward by the member for Mayo, standing up for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I welcome her back after a little intermission. I'm always happy to speak in support of our ABC, our Aunty. I also particularly mention it because the ABC was born the same year as my mum, and I think it almost knows more than my mum—just kidding, Mum!
I believe the ABC is an important institution in Australia. It's part of the fabric of our nation and has been for over 85 years. Who wasn't brought up watching Play School? In my home town of St George, we only had one channel, and that was the ABC. Big Ted, Little Ted and Jemima are as familiar as our own toys. The theme song, 'There's a Bear in There', was the soundtrack to our early childhood. There's also Sesame StreetI will give a big shout out to my special Kermit the Frog, Leo, who can do a great Kermit the Frog impersonation—the cricket, the Hottest 100 countdown and Bananas in Pyjamas. We could go on for half an hour about the staples of our childhood and of young children today. There is some comfort in this fast-paced, ever-changing world that there is one thing that grounded my childhood and continues through to my children's formative years—the familiar, dependable and always educational ABC.
Sadly, the coalition government, the Turnbull government, do not share my appreciation for our strong and independent ABC. The Turnbull government have made it clear that they are on a mission to destroy our public broadcaster, or to so weaken it that it will be unable to do its job. This Liberal-National coalition has launched its biggest attack on the independence of the ABC in a generation. I note that, on this speaking list, we've had one National Party MP speak in support of the ABC and, after that, silence. They are damned by their silence, I would suggest.
Since 2014 the coalition government has cut $282 million from the ABC. What does that mean? It means 800 jobs lost, a drop in Australian content, and services like shortwave radio shut down, which actually sabotages remote Australia—something the National Party should be ashamed of. In this year alone they've cut $83.7 million from the ABC funding. We are not talking about trimming fat; we are cutting into muscle.
Destroying the ABC through slashing funding is not enough for this destructive government. They've launched two damaging public broadcasting inquiries and have three bills before parliament to meddle with the ABC's independent charter. The Liberal Federal Council even voted to privatise the ABC. What would that mean? Privatising the ABC would see our kids seeing ads during children's programming; commercial influence on ABC news and current affairs, perhaps; missing out on popular ABC programming like Four Corners, Australian Story and Gruen, to name but a few that would never exist on commercial networks; an end to innovation through public funding like ABC iview; putting high-quality Australian content behind a paywall; and reductions in the diversity of Australia's media sector.
The ABC is a constant and reliable source of information for 17 million Australians every week. In regional Australia, the National Party homeland, the ABC has a more important role in keeping regional communities connected, providing them with local news and, in particular, emergency information in times of bushfires, cyclones and floods. At a time when people in regional Australia are facing crippling droughts—and the effect of years of drought on farmers and community has been severe—we see cutting the information services and the jobs that go with them in these communities as rubbing salt into the wound. It is a heartless act of an inept government. This Turnbull government is completely out of touch with ordinary Australians and, dare I say, especially the bush. Putting on an akubra for five minutes does not mean that you are looking after the bush.
For the community to have trust and faith in our institutions, like the ABC, they need a healthy public interest media sector, and a trusted institution like the ABC to continue to deliver independent content that is tested and supervised and that you know will ring true. Australians know the value of a strong, independent national broadcaster. We have seen survey after survey showing that Australians trust the ABC—as does Labor. Even though occasionally we will have our arguments with the ABC, I personally will always trust that the ABC will do their job well, that they will be strong and independent and that they will look after the interests of all of the nation, not just the inner city. If we want what our children see on our screens to be a reflection of our modern Australian community, we need to protect the ABC. It's about priorities, and it's clear that this Prime Minister is only concerned about the top end of town, and his own— (Time expired)
I think it is a disgrace that only one member of the government has had the conviction to stand up for the ABC. I might have expected it from Liberal members, but why more Nationals aren't standing up for the people of the bush I can't fathom. I well remember the promise by then opposition leader Tony Abbott in 2013 that there would be no cuts to the ABC. We all remember that. What an absolute joke it proved to be. Since 2014, the ABC funding has been cut by $366 million and 800 jobs have been lost. Some of those people are people that I studied journalism with. That newsroom in Sydney has shrunk beyond recognition. In this year alone, $83.7 million has been cut.
Funding cuts are one thing, but two damaging public broadcasting inquiries and three pieces of legislation to undermine the ABC charter take it to a new level. This is the biggest attack on the ABC's independence that we have seen. It shows the real intent on that side of the House. This is a federal government willing to use the ABC as a bargaining chip in its deals with One Nation. If you let that sink in and think of what the consequences of that are, it is horrific that they're willing to trade off the ABC for whatever purpose.
We know the ideology is driven by the Institute of Public Affairs, which several government MPs have been former staffers of. They have advised the government to privatise the ABC. Nearly a decade ago, the minister, Senator Fifield, gave a speech in which he stated:
Conservatives have often floated the prospect of privatising the ABC and Australia Post. There is merit in such proposals.
That is an outrage! We should never look at privatising the independent voice that is funded by taxpayers, that cannot be influenced because it has a charter that protects it. But what's really driving this government in its efforts to demonise the ABC is it's ideology. That's what's behind the recent Liberal Party federal council vote to proceed with a full privatisation of the ABC, except for services in regional areas. Well, small mercies there. Was this hotly debated? By all accounts, no. Not a single government minister at that federal council spoke against the motion.
Let's look at the consequences of these cumulative attacks on the ABC. The ABC says that the financial impact of the decision cannot be absorbed by efficiency measures. They have cut and cut already. It used to cost Australians 8c a day to run the ABC; now it costs 4c a day. Yet the ABC is delivering across so many more platforms. These funding decisions make it difficult for the ABC to meet its charter requirements and to meet the audience expectations. Part of me wonders if that's what this is all about: 'Let's undermine the ability of the ABC to deliver to the community; let's undermine it in any way we can to destroy the support that we know is out there in the community.' And that support is not just in Labor held seats; that support is also in Liberal and National held seats, as well as, clearly, in Independent held seats. My seat, the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury, has a very large Friends of the ABC—one of the largest groups in the country.
I was lucky enough to attend the rally in Sydney to support the ABC, and that was packed to overflowing. What are the things that people care about? No. 1, let's talk about the independence of news—that is the foundation of a strong democracy—and the ability of journalists to be able to go out and do their job without fear or favour and without worrying what a proprietor might think. For someone who's come out of commercial radio, I can tell you that's something to be valued and protected. Also, we have the ABC helping us understand our place in the world because they have Australian reporters all across the world. Those things start to be cut when funding gets cut.
The ABC has a commitment to telling Australian stories in homemade dramas—and, Deputy Speaker, you and I both know the importance of that—and a commitment to quality children's television. It's not just Play School and Bananas in Pyjamas, which my children grew up on, but also a variety of voices that reflect who we are as Australians. I want to know that any grandchildren I might end up with one day will have the same benefit of growing up with those Australian voices. There's also a commitment to covering in a thorough and balanced way issues on radio and online that wouldn't rate a mention anywhere else. There's a commitment to making sure Australian musicians are heard—whether it's broadcasting classical music from our symphony orchestras or Unearthed for the new up-and-coming musicians on Triple J. These are the things that matter—and, yes, bushfires. We need the ABC.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House notes:
(1) notes the appointment of the new Deputy Chair of ASIC, Mr Daniel Crennan QC;
(2) further notes that the Government invested in ASIC to give it the tools it needs to be a tough cop on the beat including:
(a) the introduction of an industry funding model to secure ASIC's funding base;
(b) a new product intervention power to enable ASIC to intervene in the sale of harmful products to retail customers;
(c) legislating to:
(i) remove ASIC employees from the Public Service Act 1999 to enhance ASIC's ability to attract and retain the best staff, and
(ii) include competition considerations within ASIC's mandate;
(3) notes Mr Crennan's appointment builds on the reforms to strengthen criminal and civil penalties for corporate misconduct; and
(4) further notes that this appointment boosts the powers of ASIC to protect Australian consumers from corporate and financial misconduct.
ASIC has a new deputy chair, Mr Daniel Crennan QC, appointed by government. He's a highly regarded Queen's Counsel. He has extensive experience in handling relevant cases that relate to ASIC's responsibility, and he will be working with ASIC to further the government's agenda in that part of the regulatory environment.
This motion today before the Chamber is to further note that there is an industry funding model to secure ASIC's funding base; that there are new product intervention powers; that we are legislating to remove ASIC's employees from the Public Service Act to enhance its capacity to attract the best staff; and that we are legislating to include competition considerations within ASIC's mandate. This motion further moves to note that the reforms strengthen criminal and civil penalties for corporate misconduct and notes the boosting of powers for ASIC to protect Australian consumers from corporate and financial misconduct. These are outstanding initiatives and further strengthen the regulator.
Industry funding for ASIC ensures that the costs of regulation are borne by those that have created the need for it. It incentivises compliance. The introduction of the ASIC funding model or industry funding model was a key recommendation of the Financial System Inquiry, and it's a critical component of the government's reforms to strengthen ASIC and better protect Australians.
The government is also moving forward with progressing important reforms to ensure that financial products are targeted and sold to the right customers. The days of product sellers deciding what products they want and squeezing all customers into the same size are coming to an end. We've just concluded a second round of consultation on draft legislation for design and distribution obligations, and product intervention power. These will ensure that financial products are targeted and sold to the right consumers and, where they're inappropriately targeted or sold, ASIC will be empowered to intervene in the distribution of the product to prevent harm to consumers. I've recently met with the Australian Banking Association to discuss the issues of design and distribution obligations and the product intervention power, and I note some of their legitimate concerns regarding inclusions and exclusions, especially to deal with bank accounts.
There's also legislation to remove ASIC from the Public Service Act to enhance it and give it the opportunity to hire the very best staff. We do this right now in some areas of defence and in areas of science. ASIC needs to be able to hire the very best it can get if we wish our regulator to be able to prosecute to the very best levels, as we want it to do. The bottom line is that it's competing in a market for skills, knowledge and experience, and we need to let the regulator compete in the market. I'm particularly pleased about the fact that Mr Crennan's appointment builds on the reform to strengthen civil and criminal penalties. We're strengthening the penalties to protect Australian consumers from not only corporate and financial misconduct but misadventure. These new penalties will ensure that those who do the wrong thing will be punished. It is that simple.
These are some of the most significant reforms to maximise civil penalties that we've seen in 20 years. They are designed to be strong and they are designed as a deterrent, to send a message, to bring them into line with leading international jurisdictions and to ensure that penalties are not only credible but a strong deterrent. In terms of harmonising: penalties for individuals will be 10 years imprisonment or the larger of $945,000 or three times the benefits and for corporations the larger of $9.45 million or three times the benefits or 10 per cent of annual turnover. This is tough. We will expand the range of contraventions subject to civil penalties and also increase the maximum penalty amounts that can be imposed by the courts. We've responded to ASIC's need for funding with an additional $70.1 million over the next two years.
The bottom line is that this package of measures is designed to resource ASIC to the level it needs to be resourced, to accelerate and expand its enforcement activities and to introduce strong new supervisory approaches. It will enable ASIC to be a more agile regulator, which is what we want. It will be a tough cop on the beat, but a cop that can move quickly as the beat changes. I commend the motion to the House.
Would someone like to second the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I would like to welcome the new Deputy Chair of ASIC, Daniel Crennan QC, to the role. No-one having observed the activities of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry could possibly suggest that he does not have a lot of work ahead of him. This is particularly true, noting the support of the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O'Dwyer, who's claimed that this government has provided the resources and powers necessary for ASIC to be 'the tough cop on the beat', whilst her actions and the actions of the government speak otherwise.
The truth of the matter is playing out every day, with horror story after horror story coming out of the banking royal commission. It is beyond a reasonable observer's contemplation, having the benefit of hindsight, that this government, supposedly having the interest of consumers at heart, actually opposed the royal commission, derided Labor constantly for suggesting that the royal commission was necessary in the first place and claimed instead to have appointed ASIC with the necessary powers and resources to protect consumers. ASIC, along with many of our other public institutions and, in particular, the regulators, has been run down by this Liberal government, a government which has seemingly made it a point of pride to claim that the royal commission might harm the integrity of our financial institutions. This is a government that, whilst pretending to act in the interests of Australians, I say has operated a protection racket for the big banks. Rather than protecting ordinary Australians, this government is more interested in protecting the banks from ordinary Australians. Following the news of ordinary Australians being ripped off and having their lives destroyed by the big banks, who treat people, even dead people, as instruments of profit, what the government is now offering is too little too late.
They say actions speak louder than words, and the actions of this government are on record when it comes to tackling corporate misconduct. The government has time and time again put the interests of the big banks ahead of Australian consumers. It tried to pull apart the future of financial advice reforms in a bid to wind back protections for consumers. We all remember the Liberals, led by the Prime Minister, denying for nearly two years the need for a royal commission into the banks. What has the government actually done to provide the regulators with the resources they need? I, along with many Australians, remember the disastrous 2014 budget that saw so many broken promises and funding cuts. ASIC was not immune to those cuts—it lost $120 million. We then heard at Senate estimates how the budget cuts of 2014 would affect ASIC. It's then chairman, Greg Medcraft, said:
In particular, our proactive surveillance will substantially reduce across the sectors we regulate, and, in some cases, it will stop.
He also said:
Some examples of the changes in our consumer cluster are the deposit takers, credit and insurance team. There will be reduced proactive surveillance. As a result, they will focus on activity by entities that have the greatest market impact at the expense of smaller entities that have a smaller customer basis.
It wasn't until Labor began calling for a royal commission into the banks in 2016 that the government relented and restored funding to ASIC.
Unfortunately, the damage has been done and Australian consumers have been impacted and had their lives destroyed. For some in our community, this damage can never be undone. In the government's quest for savings and pursuit of their ideological campaign for tax cuts, damage once done is not easily repaired. Their cuts were cuts to the capability of the regulator and amount to a free pass to the financial sector for misconduct—misconduct which has been played out day after day in the royal commission. Indeed, just when you think the particular conduct appears particularly egregious, it seems to get worse. They made ASIC's task even worse this year: only a few months ago the Prime Minister cut ASIC's funding and its staff numbers in the 2018 budget. Now the Prime Minister and the Liberals are fighting their ideological war against Medicare, public schools and the interests of ordinary Australians to give the big banks a $17 billion tax handout. What sort of doublespeak constitutes this as levelling the playing field for consumers?
The announcement of additional funding for ASIC is, of course, welcomed by Labor. We also support the introduction of an industry-funding model and the plans to remove ASIC employees from the Public Service Act. These are a good start, but much more needs to be done. This government's furious back-pedalling in just about every policy area does nothing to distract the Prime Minister and the Liberals from the side of the big banks.
I thank the member for Fadden for bringing this important motion to the House. I'm the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which has oversight of ASIC. I see the member for Burt in here, who is a member of that committee as well. On Friday we held a hearing with ASIC. One of the things I knew that Labor would come in here and talk about is the cuts. They are not cuts. I heard the member for McMillan in here today talking about honesty and truth and some stuff. Just to explain: one of the questions we asked ASIC on Friday—which the member opposite might be interested in, as he was the one who raised the cuts—was about the $26.1 million. He didn't actually mention the figure, but he talked about the budget. The $26.1 million is actually about the finishing of programs, which the ASIC staff confirmed. The head of ASIC confirmed that they were finishing off programs; they weren't cuts to their core budgets. And this happened back in 2012 when, under Labor, they finished the GFC funding program and cut $20 million. If you want to talk about cuts, Labor cut $20 million. Don't listen to what Labor say; watch what they do.
I will get back to the thrust of the member for Fadden's motion. It's timely that the member for Fadden put this motion forward, as I would like to update the House. As I said, we had the committee hearing on Friday. It was a great opportunity to meet Mr Daniel Crennan QC, who has a strong focus on enforcement action. I must also add that, after Friday's hearing, I'm confident the Mr Crennan's appointment as deputy chair of the corporate regulator will only strengthen ASIC's position as the corporate watchdog. I look forward to working with Mr Crennan in his role as deputy chair, as I'm sure the member for Burt will.
The coalition government is committed to ensuring ASIC has the powers and resources it needs. That's why the coalition government is injecting $70.1 million into ASIC to combat misconduct in the financial services industry and across all corporations for the protection of all Australian consumers. This is new funding which will bolster ASIC's enforcement capabilities and enable it to undertake regulatory activities and investigations so as to better deliver on its mandate of combating misconduct in corporations and in the financial services industry. The additional funding follows a decision by ASIC's new chairman, James Shipton, to refocus ASIC's strategic direction on proactive enforcement and increase onsite supervision. This is the key. We need to maintain confidence in our corporate regulator. We need to know that they have the resources they require to ensure corporate misconduct is investigated and penalties are enforced.
At the hearing on Friday, I spoke briefly about the need for mum-and-dad investors to have that confidence, and I referred to the case of LWP Technologies. I know ASIC are currently investigating the company and its directors. In the interim, there are investors who have been left financially devastated by people doing the wrong thing. There need to be consequences. Every Australian needs to have the confidence in ASIC to deliver on this.
I'd like to speak further on the $70.1 million the coalition government is investing in ASIC. The package of measures includes: $26.2 million to accelerate and increase the intensity of ASIC's enforcement activities and enhance its capacity to pursue actions against well-funded litigants for serious misconduct, through the Enforcement Special Account; $9.4 million to boost supervision of the superannuation sector by strengthening audit and enforcement action to improve transparency and outcomes for superannuation members, which, as you know, Deputy Speaker Gee, is sorely needed; $8 million to implement a new supervisory approach in respect of Australia's five largest financial institutions, the big four banks and AMP, by, for the first time, embedding dedicated staff within these institutions to monitor governance and compliance actions; $6.8 million to establish a dedicated task force which will conduct a proactive, targeted and thematic review into corporate governance to identify and pursue failings in large listed companies, including deploying staff to conduct new onsite surveillance and investigations; $6.6 million to implement the government's reforms to whistleblower protection laws, so that ASIC can better receive, assess, triage and address whistleblower disclosures about misconduct; and $6 million to promote Australia as a world leader in the development and adoption of regulatory technology solutions for the financial services industry.
ASIC are an important part of our financial sector in Australia. They need to be a strong cop on the beat, as the member for Fadden said. I wish them all the best in pursuing their duties and their obligations to the Australian community.
Adele Ferguson, in today's Financial Review,perfectly sums up this government's approach to financial services and regulation. She says:
… the Prime Minister down to the Treasurer and Financial Services Minister, used every trick in the book to avoid a royal commission.
It should never be forgotten that for 600 days all of the Liberals and many of the National Party dodged and weaved Labor's call for a royal commission. Let's not forget how the new Minister for Home Affairs and Liberal Party leadership hopeful called Labor's demands for a royal commission into the banks a 'financial stunt'. On 263 occasions in total, government ministers of all stripes have argued to the hilt against a banking royal commission. We now know why, given the evidence that's been uncovered by the banking royal commission. Many of the coalition's mates in this particular industry are now facing unwanted scrutiny.
In 2016, the Treasurer was adamant that, despite slashing ASIC's budget and cutting 14 per cent of its staff, the understrength regulator was the answer. He said:
ASIC has the powers of a Royal Commission and in fact it has greater powers than a Royal Commission.
The coalition were out of touch when that was happening and they're really out of touch now with what the community is feeling regarding financial services, because they are the government that want to give the banks a $17 billion tax cut. In the environment where Australian workers, families and small businesses are struggling to make ends meet, the government want to give the biggest banks in the country—who have been doing such a wonderful job and such a fine job by the Australian people!—a tax cut. Consumers were getting ripped off and our regulators were being short-changed and didn't have the resources to deal with it.
The Abbott-Turnbull government have never given any encouragement to the regulator. They tried their best to gut ASIC, having undermined its ability to uncover and prosecute unconscionable financial conduct. Of course, this kicked off in 2014, when the Abbott government's first budget slashed ASIC's funding by $120 million. The result was not surprising: a devastating loss of staff and expertise, with a significant effect on the ability of the corporate and financial services regulator to address financial misconduct. It was a further kick in the guts for victims of financial rip-offs. And despite the length of the cuts to ASIC and their massive impact on its ability to police the financial sector, the government took zero action. They only partially unwound ASIC's cuts when Labor began to shine a light on the industry and commenced its calls for a royal commission.
We know what this government's approach to financial services regulation is. Labor first proposed the future of financial advice reforms, which set out the best interests duty and the obligation on financial advisers to actually act in the best interests of their clients. Believe it or not, prior to the FoFA reforms being introduced into the parliament by a Labor government, there was no obligation on financial advisers to actually act in their client's best interest. Can you believe it? There was no legal obligation at all. And guess what? In many circumstances, they didn't and that's what's being uncovered by the royal commission at the moment. It was Labor that inserted that best interests duty into the corporations law and it was this government, the Abbott-Turnbull government and their predecessors, that opposed it.
When they got to government, they actually tried to water down the provisions that we put in the act. They were actually successful; they got it through the House of Representatives and the Senate. It was only after Labor moved a rescission motion that we were able to stop that. So if the Turnbull government had their way, the activities that are being uncovered in the banking royal commission at the moment would not be illegal. They would simply be a bad look and that is unconscionable given the suffering, the pain, the hurt and loss that the banks and financial institutions like AMP have caused for so many Australians.
This government would seek to water down those provisions and would seek to cut the budget of the regulator whose responsibility it is to keep a check on this industry to ensure that banks and financial institutions are acting in the best interests of their clients and acting in the interests of the Australian public. So this motion is a ruse because, when it comes to properly financing and resourcing our regulator, we all know it's only Labor that's really interested in this; all the Libs do is slash and cut.
I did think there was quite a degree of irony in the fact that it was the member for Fadden who moved this motion to strengthen ASIC's investigative powers. I'll put that to one side because the member for Fadden is so committed to what he has moved in today's motion that, as soon as he moved it, he left the chamber. But that is no matter.
The first point of this motion does note the appointment of a new deputy chair of ASIC, Mr Daniel Crennan QC. I do welcome his appointment because I think it is entirely appropriate for a body that should be one of the most significant law enforcement bodies in this country that at least its deputy chair is able to bring a focus into that part of the work of our corporate regulator. I welcome that appointment.
The motion goes on to further note the government has invested in ASIC. Let's take a look back at that investment. 'Invested in ASIC' is a curious choice of words for a government that cut the budget for ASIC when it came into power and had to reverse that decision. It took a long time for ASIC to be able to restore its staffing numbers after those disastrous cuts. But when we got to this budget, again we saw there was a reduction in funding for ASIC. Now the government has said it's okay because programs have wound down—they're coming to end of life. Let's look at the core funding that's available to ASIC. That has reduced significantly over time, partly because this government continues with its task of applying efficiency dividends which, ironically, are making ASIC less efficient and less able to do its work. It is completely wrong in this motion to say that this government is investing in ASIC and being a tough cop on the beat.
Let's get into the detail. It talks about the introduction of an industry-funding model. Labor welcomes that. That is appropriate. Look at the big task, the new task that the government has given to ASIC. ASIC came to government and said, 'We want to place investigators and officers into the banks.' Because, after all of the disasters we have seen come out of the royal commission, we know that it's really important that we're able to see what the banks are actually doing to try and make cultural change, to hold them to account. But who is paying for that? Not industry, not the banks. ASIC had to get the government to use taxpayers' money to fund that purpose because, at the moment, the industry funding model that the government has put in place doesn't actually cover that yet.
Then we get to the new product intervention powers. How long has it taken to get to this point? How long has it taken to get to the point where these new powers, which ASIC has been crying out for for years, and of which review after review has said, 'ASIC should have these strong powers,' are introduced? It's taken years, as it has with penalties. The government says it wants to make sure that the book is thrown at the banks. Actually, the government should have gotten on with the job of delivering some of this legislative change years ago instead of holding up FoFA reforms and trying to stop the things that are unlawful from becoming unlawful. If it had gotten on with the job of making these stronger penalties come into force and of giving ASIC these powers then some of the things that have come before the royal commission wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Then we get into legislating the removal of ASIC employees from the Public Service Act. That is something we support. The government's stated purpose for that is that they want to allow ASIC to be able to pay more to its employees, to attract people that it needs and to keep the employees that it needs, instead of them being taken away by industry. That's a great idea, but how are they going to fund it if they keep cutting back ASIC's budget and keep enforcing efficiency dividends that are making it less efficient at its job? This government says one thing but does another. It is effectively all bark and no bite when it comes to our corporate regulator. In fact, it's effectively left our corporate regulator not a corporate watchdog but a corporate poodle, because it keeps neutering it every time it steps forward. The government says something harsh but fails to deliver when it comes to ASIC.
They talk about strengthening the criminal and civil penalties that are available. They continue to defer and delay. They have not delivered on this. Only on Friday, in the committee that the member for Swan was just referring to, we asked ASIC about its commitment to being a strong law-enforcement body, it reeled back from saying it has a strong nexus to serious and organised crime. But when we look at what serious and organised crime actually is, we see it is quite clear that there are many offences under the Corporations Act that completely fit that nexus. Money laundering in particular is something we often see associated with corporate crime—but, no, apparently there's no nexus. Thankfully, ASIC has said that it will go back and look at this more seriously.
To conclude, we've got a problem here because the government is all bark and no bite. It is quite clear that only Labor can be trusted to make sure we have a strong corporate regulator and to make sure the recommendations of the banking royal commission are properly implemented to protect the consumers of Australia, who need strong corporate watchdog protection in this country. (Time expired)
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I rise today to speak on the private member's motion moved by the member for Bass, which relates to the long waiting times our elderly Australians have to endure before they can access the Home Care Packages Program and the failure of this government to fix this crisis. The latest blowout in waiting for home care packages is hurting our elderly Australians, especially the 16,312 Australians in my electorate over the age of 65. It is denying them urgent home care.
Our local ageing population in Calwell is made up of residents who are of Italian, Maltese, Greek, Turkish, Indian, Iraqi and Lebanese backgrounds to name a few. They are largely, but not totally, first-generation migrants of the post-Second World War era. They are Australians who need a culturally nuanced approach to aged care, one that responds to the expectations and aspirations of their strongly held family values, which involves them remaining amongst their children and extended families, who have also an integral role to play in caring for them in their old age. These older Australians want to remain and live out their final days in the home they built and raised their families in, with nursing home care or aged care as a last resort. That's why these home care packages are so important to my constituents, and being able to access them when they need them is absolutely crucial to their wellbeing. The onus is therefore on the government to do everything it can to enable my constituents to live out their years in the comfort of their own home, if they so choose. Their quality of life and wellbeing should never be compromised waiting for home care packages just because this government is not investing enough to keep up with the growing demand.
I know how many Australians over the age of 65 I have in my electorate but, unfortunately, I can't tell you how many are actually on the waiting list for home care packages. We know that the latest figures show that there are more than 100,000 older Australians waiting for home care packages, but the government won't provide us with any details of a breakdown of these figures by electorate. This is not good enough, nor is the government's assertion that the information is too difficult to glean, stating 'complex technical difficulties' being responsible. But this is important information and the public—as well as other members and I, as the local member—have a right to know just how many of our local constituents are on these waiting lists, especially given that this list appears to be growing at a very, very fast rate.
Data finally released last week by the Department of Health—data which incidentally was requested by the shadow minister for ageing—shows that in the March 2018 figures there are more than 108,000 older Australians waiting for home care packages. This includes 88,000 older Australians who have high needs—many of whom are suffering from dementia. Is it any wonder that the government tries so hard to delay the release of these figures? They also show that the waiting list for the home care packages has grown by almost 4,000 older Australians in just three months, meaning, of course, that the 3,500 new home care packages per annum that were committed in the budget will not come anywhere close to meeting the demand of Australia's ageing population.
There's no doubt about it: the Turnbull government has created an aged-care crisis in Australia. It's a crisis which has imposed more difficulties and pressures on our older Australians because, in addition to the anxiety of having to wait, our older Australians have to also experience this government's stubborn persistence in trying to axe the energy supplement for two million Australians, including around 400,000 aged pensioners. This will affect the 16,187 aged-care pensioners living in my electorate of Calwell.
Pensioners are already doing it tough. They're doing it tough, because they're struggling with the cost of living. They have to worry about their energy bills going up, and they have to face, especially in Melbourne— (Time expired)
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important issue, an issue that is not niche; it is not reserved for those with status or wealth. This is the inevitable process of ageing. I speak of those in our society who have been lucky enough to live to a ripe old age. But, in 2018, how lucky are our elderly in this country?
Over the past five years, the coalition government has slashed billions of dollars from aged care. This government is responsible for the blowout in aged-care waiting lists, and this blowout is causing terrible consequences for older Australians and their families. One such example is demonstrated in an email I received from the daughter of Terrence, who lives in Ulverstone in my electorate:
Hi Justine
We are at our wits end and don't know who to contact next.
My father was diagnosed with Parkinson's 8 years ago and sadly has been given a terminal diagnosis of Lewy Body Dementia.
Dad has been assessed for a level 4 Home Care Package and has been waiting in the system for over twelve months.
My mother is his 24/7 sole carer.
Dad has been receiving an emergency level 2 Home Care Package for the last year.
This provides three twenty-minute showers a week. Two hours of respite care on a Monday and a Wednesday.
I have made numerous calls to My Aged Care and the only response I receive is, 'He's on a priority list but it will be another twelve month wait.'
Things are now at a crisis point. My father and mother live alone in Ulverstone.
I live on the Gold Coast and travel back and forth to help when I can.
Sadly on Thursday, I received a call from my parents' neighbour saying she'd popped in to check on mum and dad, as she does each morning.
She found my mother lying on the floor sobbing, saying she just can't keep going on like this.
I have brought them to Queensland to stay with me, but they can't stay forever.
I've hired lift chairs, toilet frames, shower chairs just to get us by.
We have found a carer up here to give mum some respite, but at a cost of $30 per hour, and Dad is still not in his own home.
Dad requires 24/7 care.
He cannot feed, dress, shower, get out of a chair, or get out of bed without assistance. He can't even sit on a toilet by himself.
He is solely reliant on my mother for his everyday living.
My mother doesn't want to put him into a nursing facility as they both want to stay at home together.
Dad just wants to live what's left of his life in his own home.
When will his level 4 package be approved by the government? When it's too late?
I don't know where to turn next or what to do. I would give anything to see the both of them able to live the rest of the t ime they have together with the help and support they deserve .
A local provider has told me Terrence is one of 3,000 waiting for an aged-care package in Tasmania. This list continues to grow nationwide, and still this government continues to sit on its hands, refusing to come clean on when the 14,000 extra packages announced in the budget will be released. Even that announcement was smoke and mirrors with money being cut from one area of aged care to fund another.
When will this government provide older Australians with the adequate care they need and deserve to live with dignity in their own home? Rather than give the banks a $17 billion taxpayer funded handout, why doesn't this government prioritise aged care? This government thought it could pull the wool over our eyes by delaying the release of data with the distraction of five by-elections. I call on this government to stop treating our elderly with contempt and immediately commit to releasing the June quarter data when it's due later this month.
An elected Labor government will not ignore this aged-care crisis or our elderly, and an elected Labor government will make aged care a national priority. I call on the Turnbull government to do the same.
A measure of a society and a government is how it treats the people it is responsible for—whether it's properly funding preschool and child care so no-one is worse off and the children in difficult situations get the best start to their school education; whether it's properly funding primary and secondary schools so that every school is funded equitably, whatever the sector they are studying in; whether it's supporting penalty rates for those employees who work weekends and public holidays; or whether it's ensuring that our older citizens are supported and able to make choices about their support and care when age related difficulties mean they need assistance.
Our older citizens have the right to be able to choose to stay at home, and that is the basis on which the My Aged Care supports have been designed. It was Labor who introduced the historic Living Longer Living Better reforms in 2012. But, in the latest figures released last Friday, 108,000 of our oldest citizens are waiting for home care packages, and 54,000 of them have no package at all. Worse still, the average wait time for level 3 and level 4 packages is more than 12 months. As the chamber well knows, level 4 packages are for people who are determined to be in the most need. To stay at home, they need the most support—perhaps with personal care, home maintenance, shopping, transport to doctors and other things.
I was recently contacted by one of my constituents. She and her sister have been caring for their 92-year-old mother who has expressed her wish that she stay in her own home—something they want to honour, but they are finding it increasingly hard to do. My constituents work full-time, have their own families and, without the support the package could offer, they were finding it almost impossible to honour their mum's wish to stay at home. Thankfully, with my office's support, their mother has been given interim support while she waits for a higher package. For this family, it means they continue to assist her to stay in her home and meet their obligations to their own families and work. But they are looking forward to her needs being fully met when the package she's approved for is properly funded. This is certainly not the only example that's been brought to my attention.
The choice as to whether our older citizens should go into more supportive care like a nursing home should never be determined by the availability of funding. That should be the choice solely of the person and their family, with support from the medical team looking after them. Not only is staying at home preferable for the person because they can stay in neighbourhoods with familiar surroundings where they've lived for many years, close to their supports and doctors; it is also cheaper for the budget's bottom line than spending time in acute care hospitals or residential nursing care. The government has trumpeted 14,000 new in-home aged-care packages over the next four years—3½ thousand a year. While any increase is welcome, 14,000 is far from adequate.
The latest release of figures, as of April this year, shows that there is a waiting list of 108,000. We need to remember that these aren't just figures; each is a person, with a family, who is not being funded to the level at which they have been assessed. Many of those people have high-level needs and dementia. Given our ageing population, this waiting list will no doubt continue to grow and the crisis in aged care will become more acute year after year. While our older Australians are still waiting for care, the government seem unable to find any additional funding to address the waiting list, yet they are happy to provide $17 billion tax cuts for the big banks. Consideration needs to be made now to fix these issues for our older Australians.
It has been said that a comfortable old age is a reward for a well-spent youth. Those of us privileged to know or to get to know Australians now in their 80s and 90s know that they don't ask for much and they don't complain. They grew up in the Great Depression and served and lost loved ones in the Second World War and, in the case of many post-war migrants, experienced the hardships of war. They worked and raised families in the early post-war years without many of the things we take for granted today. High school education wasn't possible for many young people, who left school early to help support their families. Free universal health care didn't arrive until the seventies, when I was born. Women earned less than men doing the same work, like my mum, a primary school teacher. And occupational superannuation was limited to a lucky minority, mostly men, until the introduction of the superannuation guarantee in the nineties, well after many of this generation had reached the end of their working lives. They just had to trust—trust that there would be an adequate age pension to support them in a modest retirement. This is a generation who are used to doing it tough and who are reluctant to ask for help, even when they really need it.
A well-spent youth—so where is the reward and where is the dignity? How must older Australians feel when the activities of day-to-day living and caring responsibilities become too much and they ask for help, and that help just isn't there? They are told that they must wait, and then wait and wait some more. And that is just what is happening across Australia.
The latest data on the waiting times for home care packages, released belatedly on Friday, shows that more Australians than ever are waiting for home care. The waiting list for home care packages grew from 105,000 in December last year to 108,000 at the end of March—in just four months. Of these 108,000 older Australians waiting for a package, around 54,000 are receiving no package at all. There are waiting times for people with high needs, many living with dementia. This is deeply personal for me. I lost my dad to younger onset dementia earlier this year, and the many people that I have met through his journey are waiting. They need care. They can't wait. It's not fair and it's not safe. I don't know that knowing they are in the national prioritisation queue would be much solace to the over 54,000 people still waiting at the end of March.
On the Central Coast there are now 771 people waiting for packages and not receiving assistance while they wait. That compares with 750 at the end of December. While we are talking about numbers, we should not forget the very human face of aged care. Last week I spoke about two of my constituents, Enid and Warren, who approached my office for help. Enid is 94 and is vision impaired. She looks after her husband, Warren, who is 97 and living with dementia. As his illness progresses, understandably Enid is finding it harder and harder to care for Warren at home, which is his wish. Enid and Warren do receive some care, but not enough. In April last year they were approved for a higher, level 3, package. They're still waiting. For 16 months they've been waiting for this care at home. They've continued to contact My Aged Care and their provider, but to no avail.
Enid called my office last week out of desperation. When she asked for help, she said it was because she just couldn't do it anymore. Sadly, she told me Warren had said to her, 'I don't know why you're even bothering to call. We'll be dead before the package comes through.' My office contacted My Aged Care only to learn that Enid and Warren were not even a high priority for home care. They were considered medium priority. They were waiting for 16 months—97 years old, living with dementia, and were not a high priority. I don't know how this prioritisation is assessed. Figures released on Friday show the annual cost for level 3 care is a maximum of $32,500. This is a government that can find $17 billion for tax cuts for big banks and can't find an extra cent for aged care.
How can this government look at people like Enid and Warren and tell them there isn't $32,500 to help them spend their final years at home together? Enid and Warren are just two people out of 108,000 nationwide. They matter, as does everyone else. Their situation is heartbreaking but, on a national level, this is a disgrace. The government must tell these older Australians waiting for the assistance they desperately need when the 14,000 packages announced in the budget will be released. The Turnbull government need to act with urgency. They need to act with compassion. They need to act with empathy, and they need to act now. It's unfair and it is unsafe.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Ending live export is an issue that is important to my community of Mayo. Since the 60 Minutes report that highlighted the atrocious conditions that sheep endure while on export ships aired in April, I have been contacted by thousands of constituents—and I really mean thousands—who want to see an end to the industry. There is no future for long-haul sheep export from Australia. Time and again we have seen that exporters are unable or unwilling to comply with Australian animal welfare standards, and that the regulator is simply powerless to enforce the regulations.
The sheepmeat industry is worth $5.23 billion yet live exports only account for $250 million of this value, and it is diminishing. At present, the live sheep trade exists primarily to three countries—Kuwait, Qatar and Turkey—who, between them, take over 75 per cent of all sheep exported from Australia. As the member for Farrer noted, the reality is that demand for live sheep in the Middle East comes in no small part from its cheap retail price due to government subsidies. Opponents of this bill, the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018, point to the Middle Eastern countries requiring live animals for religious reasons, yet Australia exports halal accredited boxed meat to all relevant countries to which we export live sheep.
This bill takes a measured approach to phasing out the industry. It is not prudent to implement an immediate blanket ban on live exports, and nobody here in this place is suggesting that. A phase-out over five years with an immediate ban on exports to the Middle East during the northern summer is an appropriate balance. It would allow farmers and the government to put the pillars in place for a transition away from live exports and would be a great opportunity to grow our chilled meat processing industry.
I also want to comment on the suggestion that farmers are opposed to ending the live export trade. The farmers I know take great care of their livestock. I have spoken to several farmers in my electorate who were disgusted in the way the animals were being treated on export ships and some of them said, ' Rebekha, we need to end this industry.' I believe that, if the government works with Australian farmers, the transition from live export to expanded meat processing will be positive and will lead to greater competition and better farmgate prices. It has always been my preference for meat to be processed onshore and then exported.
The passage of this bill and the phasing-out of live sheep experts will create an exciting opportunity for Australia's meat processing industry. The industry directly employs 35,000 people and another 100,000 directly. I want to keep those jobs in Australia and I want to see that industry grow. My electorate of Mayo has numerous examples of the opportunities to be gained by transitioning away from live exports and towards onshore processing. The Thomas Foods facility in Lobethal provides employment for more than 700 people. It now has two shifts. In Normanville there's a disused abattoir that the local council has approved for upgrade so it can commence production. Reopening the abattoir will see around 70 jobs for the region, but it needs some state and federal government support to improve roads and water access. On Kangaroo Island there's a desire to get a small abattoir up and running. I met with the project managers just last week. A meat-processing facility on the island would provide a huge economic boost to our community and allow us to brand KI lamb. Kangaroo Island is a small place, with just 4,700 people living there.
The phasing out of the live sheep trade, as well as proper planning and support from government, would create an opportunity for these examples from my community to be replicated across the country. It would mean real jobs—real regional jobs. Let's pause and look at New Zealand's example. It shows you don't need live sheep long-haul export to have a thriving industry. New Zealand lamb is prized around the world because they control their product right the way through the supply chain.
I support the bill of the member for Farrer, and I commend the member for Farrer for bringing this bill to the parliament. It takes a great deal of courage to come from a regional area and do that. I urge the government to allow a vote on this legislation. The live sheep industry is already a dying trade. The Australian public expect us to show leadership on this issue, and they expect us to take action to end this trade.
I rise today to speak on the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018, which restricts the long-haul exports of live sheep and for related purposes. I would also like to congratulate the member for Farrer for bringing this bill forward. Just a few months ago, I, and many Australians, saw the footage from the 60 Minutes program which showed Australian sheep that were dead, dying and suffering from overcrowding and heat stress, unable to move in a thick bog of their own waste or to access food and water. They were simply shocking and disgusting conditions.
This wasn't one bad journey, one bad exporter or a few animals that had slipped outside the system. It is what happens to animals routinely under Australian standards under live export companies and in the live export industry. This is in regard to live sheep exports from Australia. Over the years I have been a member of parliament, since 2004, I have met with the live animal sheep export industry and warned them time and time again that Australian people do not want to see sheep and animals suffer. So many times I have been given reassurances that I wouldn't see it again.
A voyage to the Middle East takes an average of 21 days. That is 500 consecutive hours in which sheep travel in hot and cramped conditions by sea and road transport. The conditions are unavoidable, stressful and dangerous. Lengthy voyages can be a death sentence. Sheep risk a slow death from starvation, illness and injury. After weeks on ships, they can emerge caked in so much excrement that they are barely recognisable.
New evidence reveals not only that the live sheep export trade is breaking the law but that animals are being denied the most basic needs: proper access to food, water, rest and veterinary care. I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, David Littleproud, for his efforts in calling out the industry and acting immediately. The government announced sweeping changes on 17 May 2018. The space allocated to sheep on live-export ships to the Middle East will be increased by up to 39 per cent, and directors of live-export companies who flout the rules will face up to 10 years jail. However, after meeting with Dr Portia Reading, a veterinary surgeon resident of Dewhurst in La Trobe, I have the following recommendations—I have said this personally to the minister before. We must have independent vets on boats so at each time there is a thorough and proper investigation and call out immediately those who are doing the wrong thing. We must stop long-haul live exports between May and October, from Australia's winter into the Middle Eastern summer. In Kuwait, the biggest market for Australia's sheep, the average temperature in May is 34.3; in June, 34.7; in July, 36; in August, 35.6; and in September, 32.6. This is combined with humidity across these months that ranges between 40 per cent and 60 per cent. Sheep suffer severe heat stress as they travel from cooler months in Australia to these very hot conditions. In addition to the air temperature, the water in the gulf can reach 41 degrees Celsius. The ship's engine and constant lighting create additional heat, while ventilation merely recirculates the hot air. The impact of extreme heat causes the vast majority of deaths in live sheep exports.
I've met sheep producers and the live animal export groups. They need to have in place a future for the farmers—and I absolutely support our farmers—but they do need to be aware that, eventually, this industry will stop, and they need to have transitions in place to make sure our farmers get the full support. I know that farmers in the electorate of La Trobe and farmers right across the country—in particular, those in New South Wales and Queensland—are really struggling. We heard the speech the other day the deputy chair made. We want to support our farmers. I know the farmers care about the sheep. However, we do need to call this industry out because it's causing ongoing suffering for animals. It is simply wrong, and they don't deserve it.
Rarely has an issue so appalled and mobilised my community to action as has the live sheep export trade. It's mobilised people across the political spectrum from the youngest members of my community to the oldest members. Since the shocking and appalling footage of sheep cooking alive and wallowing in their own filth emerged from ships bound for the Middle East a little while ago, more than 2,000 of my constituents have called, emailed, written and dropped into my office to express their disgust, their dismay and their desperate pleas for action from me and from this national parliament. That's on top of the many thousands of constituents who've made the same pleas over recent years.
This government has dodged this argument time and time again. They're simply waiting for it to drop out of the public's mind—out of sight, out of mind—and hopefully, for them, out of the national papers. But in my electorate of Port Adelaide it hasn't left the public's mind—nor will it. The docks of Port Adelaide are a stone's throw from my electorate office, and every time a live sheep export ship is in port, the anger, the sadness and the disgust that this government is sitting idly by is palpable. Locals and people from across Adelaide gather at the wharves and their faces are full of horror at what they're witnessing and anger at the continuation of this undeniable cruelty.
The government have tried to say that they're acting in accordance with the science. Well, they're not. They've dodged the science and they've dodged responsibility. The Australian Veterinary Association and the RSPCA have said that, no matter what regulations are put in place and no matter the penalties for breaching those regulations, this voyage is simply untenable. It's unsafe. No animal should endure the long voyage to the northern summer from Australia ever again. The summer trade must be halted immediately.
Australian produce is lauded the world over for its quality, and part of that quality is borne of the care and the attention that Australian farmers give to their livestock. It's the Australian law and the Australian government that are currently failing the standards expected of and by all Australians. For too long this debate has been framed as animals or farmers. That's not the question. It's not a question of saving one with the betrayal of another. Farmers raise their animals with care and attention to their wellbeing and their quality.
At the moment, farmers across the nation are battling a devastating drought. They're facing the prospect of watching their livestock suffer thirst and hunger, unable to help them. We've seen so many distressing stories of farmers choosing to kill their livestock rather than watch them continue to suffer. This difficult decision, this tragic decision, clearly shows that the live export trade is not in line with the values of either our farming community or our broader community. The hard work and the effort put into each and every Australian-raised sheep is destroyed as they're packed onto ships with barely room to stand and spend weeks in sweltering temperatures, slowly dying of thirst and heat. It's the antitheses of the farming trade, not the tools of it.
I commend the member for Farrer for having the courage to stand up and cease waiting for the government to act on this issue. It's notable, obviously, that she comes from a regional electorate with a long background in this area, representing many farmers from across her big constituency. Clearly, this is not just a matter of inner-city people out of touch with the realities of farming. It's a matter, instead, of corporate interests out of touch with the values of the broader Australian community, whether they're from metropolitan or regional areas. Australians expect better. The evidence in this matter is clear: the northern summer trade must be stopped. It can't be done safely, it can't be done humanely and it shouldn't be done at all.
In contributing to the debate on the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018, I will begin by saying this issue has generated a great deal of interest within my electorate, with a significant volume of correspondence received over the past few months. Like all Australians, I was appalled at the evidence of the mistreatment of sheep and the high mortality rate aboard a shipment to the Middle East. My approach and response has been to ascertain the facts in as objective a manner as possible before making a considered and informed decision regarding an important agricultural industry which is vital to the economy of Western Australia.
At the time the member for Farrer first proposed this private member's bill, I said publicly, on the record, that the legislation had merit and the industry had a narrow window of opportunity to self-regulate to ensure that instances of cruelty did not recur, because the consequences of a repeat occurrence would be a groundswell of public support for parliament to legislate to phase out the industry. Since then, the McCarthy review has taken place and has resulted in a series of recommendations to protect animal welfare, based on the principles of veterinary science, and reduce stocking densities. I held meetings with the stakeholders from the Western Australian Pastoralists and Graziers Association in my Canberra office, as well as with representatives from Emanuel Exports, to better inform myself of the details and facts surrounding the issue. I accepted an invitation to go on board a live export vessel, the Al Shuwaikh, which was moored in the port of Fremantle, in order to view firsthand the condition of a typical livestock export vessel. On the day I visited, the vessel was being loaded with sheep from semitrailers. I viewed the lower decks and observed the stocking densities and conditions. I must admit that, although it was not the most pleasant of experiences, I found the conditions and animal welfare standards to be not dissimilar to a typical agricultural feedlot setting.
In 2017, of the 1.7 million live sheep exported by sea, 99.29 per cent were delivered in good health into suitable facilities approved under the Export Supply Chain Assurance Scheme. We need a sustainable live export trade which has good animal welfare outcomes. The trade provides for an estimated 10,000 rural Australian jobs and was worth over $1.4 billion in 2016-17. The report of the McCarthy review into the Middle Eastern summer sheep trade was released on 17 May, along with the department's response. All of the 23 recommendations were accepted, subject to further testing and consultation on the heat stress risk assessment recommendations. In response to other McCarthy recommendations, the regulator has reduced the allowable stocking densities, which means sheep are getting up to 39 per cent more space, with stocking densities reduced by up to 28 per cent; established mandatory investigations of any voyage on which more than one per cent of sheep perish; ensured that all vessels carrying sheep to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer are equipped with automated watering systems; and placed on all voyages independent observers who are to report back to the regulator.
The government's Export Legislation Amendment (Live-stock) Bill 2018, currently before the House of Representatives, contains proposed amendments to increase criminal penalties, introduce offences for directors of companies, and introduce new regulatory options. Under the current legislation, penalties for wrongdoing in live export are five to eight years imprisonment and/or fines ranging up to $100,800 for individuals. For a company, the maximum fine is $315,000.
For the reasons which I have just outlined, I am supporting the government's legislative position in the first instance. As legislators, we have a duty to make balanced and informed decisions. In this case it involves balancing animal welfare with the livelihoods of farmers in the agricultural industry, ensuring that the rural economy can operate whilst maintaining acceptable animal welfare standards. We must not make irrational decisions that will cause significant financial hardship and economic loss for rural communities, as was the case during the live cattle export bans in 2011, but, at the same time, we must be firm in upholding animal welfare standards that prevent cruelty.
Since the media again highlighted the awful conditions under which Australian sheep are exported from this country, my office has been inundated with inquiries and concerns. Months after these horrific stories aired, constituents that I represent still regularly contact my office by email, letter and phone to express their horror at what they saw and subsequently what they have learnt about the live export trade. What seems clear to them and to me is that the current licence holders have not been able to transport sheep humanely, especially during the hot northern summer. Advice provided to the government by the RSPCA and the Australian Veterinary Association clearly shows that the transport of live sheep is not in the best interests of the animals.
Since my election, there have been very few issues that have elicited more responses to my office. Not only has this issue seen the most responses but, most surprising of all, it has been almost all one-way traffic. An overwhelmingly majority of the responses are that the live sheep trade should stop. This is surprising. As other members would be well aware, with any other issue that your constituents might comment on, there are normally responses from all sides of the argument. This has definitely not been the case with the live sheep trade. Furthermore, many constituents have emailed me on multiple occasions to express their concerns.
There are times where, despite opposition, we must lead the debate in our communities, but there are also times when we grow with the overwhelming view of our constituents. It is clear to me and clear to my community that the trade should stop. I recognise, though, that any ceasing of the trade must be done carefully and in a planned way. The last thing our farmers need are further pressures on their farms and businesses. I note that the worsening drought is causing so many problems and distress. With all of New South Wales drought declared, any changes should be done with the consultation of farmers and exporters, with a plan to introduce markets that value-add to our sheep and red meat export products.
A Shorten government announced it would, at the first opportunity, put an end to the northern summer live sheep trade and would phase out the balance of the trade in a period of no longer than five years. The science is clear—the live summer trade and animal welfare standards are not reconcilable. A five-year transition period would allow the government to work with farmers, the unions and the industry on a plan to do more value-adding here in Australia. More processing here is good for our farmers, good for animal welfare standards, and good for the Australian economy with jobs for Australian workers. Labor is also trying to achieve the phase-out plan quicker, with its amendments to the government's penalties bills currently before the parliament. That is why it is important that this bill be brought forward for a vote. It is time that we provided certainty for our farmers but, more importantly, for the human dealing of livestock. I acknowledge the member for Farrer for moving this bill and I acknowledge all speakers, and particularly those concerned members of my electorate who have taken the time to contact me.
Right at the outset of this debate, we need to make sure that everybody is well aware that this is not about the lamb trade. This is not about the lamb that we eat here in Australia; this is about the wool flock—the sheep that have been growing wool for six years or seven years and are then being offloaded at the end of their lives as wool-producing sheep. They are classified as mutton. Australians don't eat mutton, or they eat very little of it. Therefore, to take away this live export business, this live export opportunity, is really a dagger in the heart of farmers who are currently doing it very tough under the drought that we are experiencing. The people who are in support of this ban on live sheep being traded would have you believe that the industry is in serious decline, but that's not necessarily the case. One of Australia's major competitors, Romania, has increased its live exports by 36 per cent each year—year upon year—from 2010 right through to 2016, with over 2.5 million sheep from Romania exported in 2016.
Live sheep will remain vital for food security and religious reasons, with more than one million sheep imported into the Middle East for the annual Festival of Sacrifice alone. Qatar and Kuwait are our two largest markets, but Turkey has also emerged as the third major market in the last 12 months. Trade to Israel, Jordan, UAE and Oman remains important, while there are prospects of exports to Saudi Arabia and other markets such as Iran which are going to see this market diversify further.
Those who say that a ban on live sheep will in no way impact on the export of cattle are also very incorrect. More than half a million cattle have been exported from Australia to Israel alone in the last 10 years. In the 12 months to the end of April 2018, more than 100,000 cattle were exported via the Red Sea, predominantly to Israel and Turkey. Cattle exported to the Middle East are typically shipped with sheep. So a long-haul sheep ban is going to have a decimating effect on the opportunity for us to export cattle, as it will seriously impact the commerciality of our ability to do that.
In 2017, of the 1.7 million live sheep that were exported by sea, 99.29 per cent were delivered in good health. They were delivered into suitable facilities approved under the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance Scheme. The trade in live sheep and the export markets in the Middle East are still open, and they must remain so under this government. We need a sustainable live export trade which has good animal welfare outcomes. This trade provides for 100,000 rural Australian jobs and is worth well over $1.4 billion. A ban or a phase-out of this entire industry would unfairly punish those exporters and farmers who have done no wrong. The calls to ban live exports disregard the value of this trade to our farmers and others in rural and regional Australia, especially in this time of worsening drought.
It would be a kneejerk reaction along similar lines to what the Labor Party did when they were previously exposed to issues in relation to cattle going to Indonesia. They made an immediate decision to ban the live export of cattle into Indonesia, and then, within a few months, realised they had made a mistake. Within six months they reversed their decision and then they were wondering why Indonesia was no longer interested in Australia's cattle. Farmers have never been able to recover from that knee jerk reaction that the Labor Party made when they saw the television images of those cattle being killed in an incorrect manner. Yes, they should have acted. But they overreacted with a ban in exactly the same way that they are now wanting to fix this issue with a ban.
Minister Littleproud has brought in place a whole range of regulatory changes. He has reduced the allowable stock densities and made that a serious issue, and he has increased penalties for poor husbandry on the way over to the Middle East. We need to stick by Minister Littleproud as he attempts to fix this industry.
I'm very proud to be joining with other colleagues in this place to support this private member's bill, the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018. As I've said in this place many times, for too long we've been witnessing the mistreatment of our animals through the live export trade. It's not just and it's not necessary, and it should never be acceptable. In a nation like Australia, where we're proud of the treatment of our animals, to see the images that we've seen on our TVs—in all sorts of documentaries and in current affairs—and in newspaper reports is unacceptable. The cruelty to these animals should not be happening.
Opposing live exports has not always been the popular thing in this place. Nevertheless, like other members here, I've stuck by my values. I've spoken many times on the issues for many, many years. I've advocated for a ban for over a decade on this particular topic. I've attended rallies and made many speeches in this place—and private members' bills and private members' motions. This atrocity has always had the potential, though, to become a success story for our animals and our Australian workers. I have to say, when we talk about decimating industries, at the Gepps Cross meatworks throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s there were nearly 2,000 workers working within an industry just on the outskirts of Adelaide—let alone all around Australia. We decimated that industry and put people out of work by exporting live animals.
As a representative of a community, I've led this fight for a change for many years. Labor is committed to seeing a transition out of the trade and ending the live sheep exports. We've listened to the Australian public and to calls from concerned Australians and live exporters. Even farmers have called my office and spoken with me and told me that they do not want to see the inhumane treatment of their animals. As I said, I'm proud to have opposed live animal exports and have been part of this movement for well over a decade. I'll continue to do so and I'll continue to advocate for this important change to happen as quickly as possible—ending the atrocities and cruelty to these poor animals.
We all saw the footage on TV of those sheep trampled, dying of thirst and dying of diseases. It is just not right. It's clear that the northern summer sheep trade and animal welfare expectations cannot be reconciled. No matter what the standards or stocking densities, sheep will continue to suffer in that searing heat. We didn't need a review to tell us this. All you have to do is look at that footage on TV and it tells you right there and then, and we seen plenty of that sort of footage. No doubt, if we don't stop this cruel trade, we'll see more images on our TVs.
We know there are large parts of the industry that support the transition away. Labor will stop the summer trade at the first opportunity. We have to be able to phase out the balance of the trade over time and impose the high standards recommended during the transition period. When we look at nations across the world, we see, for example, that New Zealand has been able to phase out its live export, and New Zealand exports far more meat around the world than we do. It manages to have a market, and it does so in a humane way. It does so in a way that treats animals properly, and in a way that doesn't lower its standards by being inhumane to animals. It does so in a way which value-adds to the industry, which we could do here as well. It value-adds to its workforce—creating jobs and creating other industries and businesses here onshore. It ensures that it has control over the meat that does leave the country, and it's doing quite well out of it. New Zealand is doing quite well out of it. And in the last couple of months we saw other nations in South America planning to go exactly that same way.
We had a great industry. As I said, in South Australia, in Gepps Cross, many, many people worked in the abattoirs. That's all decimated not just in South Australia but across the country, costing thousands of jobs. We could re-create that. We could do that again, and we could do it in a way that ensures that we stop the trade, stop the cruelty, stop the inhumane practice, and we create jobs here for people who are looking for work—workers who will work in these places—and create an industry right here onshore. This is an industry that we could absolutely value-add to.
Opposing live exports, as I said, has not always been a popular choice but, nevertheless, many members, like the member for Farrer and others on my side, have stuck with our values and the decision that it is cruel and inhumane.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:35