I inform the House that on Friday, 31 August 2018 I received a letter from the Hon. Malcolm Bligh Turnbull resigning his seat as the member for the electoral division of Wentworth.
An opposition member: I'd go to New York too!
You'll be going out of the chamber; you won't be going to New York. Consideration is being given to possible dates for the by-election, and I will be consulting with party leaders on this matter during the course of this week. I will inform the House in due course of the dates which I have fixed for the by-election.
Today I present the 28th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament.
Nine ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Today I present the 28th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament, together with two petitions and nine ministerial responses to petitions previously presented.
The two petitions I present today are paper petitions, but there are a number of electronic petitions that are gathering signatures on the Australian Parliament House website. These petitions will be presented to the House at the close of the four-week signature period.
As I mentioned in my previous report to the House, the committee has launched an inquiry into the future of petitioning. The inquiry will review all aspects of petitioning, including the role and operations of the Petitions Committee, and the practice and procedures for petitioning in the House.
Petitioning remains the most direct form of communication between the public and the parliament. The success of e-petitioning demonstrates the benefits of responding to the changing needs and expectations of the public. This inquiry will give people the opportunity to have their say on what petitioning the House should look like, including what action should be taken on a petition after it is presented.
The committee will examine alternate approaches to petitioning that have been adopted in other parliaments in Australia and overseas. This will assist the committee in determining how best to engage with Australians on issues they raise by creating or signing a petition. During the inquiry into e-petitioning, the committee heard about the petitioning systems of other jurisdictions, including the UK parliament. The committee is looking forward to considering these approaches in more detail during the current inquiry.
The committee encourages all interested Australians to have their say on petitioning by making a submission to the inquiry. Submissions are open until 12 October.
Thank you, and I look forward to updating the House further on the work of the Petitions Committee and on the progress of the new inquiry.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, I present the committee's report entitled Taxpayer engagement with the tax system, together with minutes of the proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
Two thousand years ago, the Bible records that, when Jesus Christ wanted to demonstrate to all that everyone was equal before our Lord, he gave the example of the two most odious people in society at that time: one was a prostitute, and the other one was a tax collector. While some may see this report as an act of Christian kindness, I would rather see it as an update on 2,000 years of tax collection and where we stand today.
Taxpayer engagement in the current century is not what it was 2,000 years ago, much less 20 years ago. Globalisation, technical innovation and budget pressures have all made it a different business for both governments and the taxpayers. During the inquiry, the ATO gave extensive evidence about its reinvention as a modern, automated tax administration system. There was a lot to be confident about. Compared with other nations, the ATO appears to be doing well by a number of measures, but the inquiry also raised some alarms which the committee was compelled to explore. In particular, the committee was concerned that tax complexity in Australia's tax system is impeding the ATO's transformation into a fully automated and intuitive system. We must be clear that automation is not the higher goal here but, rather, that lower compliance cost is, and automation is a road to that outcome.
In comparing advances in other nations, certain areas of tax policy stood out as problematic for Australia. Australia's complex system for claiming workplace related deductions, for example, was repeatedly highlighted as being out of step with approaches in other advanced nations. Sweden, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, for example, had standardised approaches which the committee was told had facilitated the shift to fully automated push return tax systems where few taxpayers have to lodge returns.
Tax complexity is a burden for the taxpayer and the regulator. It also does significant damage to our economy and to our society. It lowers productivity, perverts investment and results in lower wages. This report contains 13 recommendations to make tax obligations in Australia simpler, easier to administer and easier for taxpayers to comply with. The first recommendation calls for a complete review of the tax system by 2022 to achieve a system that responds to the rapidly evolving digital environment and is both easier to enforce and understand. To address more immediate needs, recommendations are also made to close loopholes associated with high-risk industries and the growth of the gig or sharing economy. The committee believes that the standardised workplace expense deduction scheme is needed and recommends for this with the proviso that claims above that standard are allowable if it be fully substantiated.
The committee also supports considerations of an ABN based withholding tax system, with the potential for rates to be industry specific, akin to the model in New Zealand. The recommendation will provide greater certainty for business planning and reduce the potential for cash activity and tax avoidance. Other recommendations in this report aim to ensure that the ATO's automated systems genuinely assist taxpayers and reduce the potential for error. The committee calls for a review of behavioural economics, nudge tools and trialling outcomes to ensure they are effective and give more tax revenue for the taxpayers' buck.
Finally, while the digitisation of tax services has been seen as the silver bullet to old and new tax administration problems, the committee has concerns that some Australians are simply not ready to make that transition. In the committee's view, taxpayers have a right to exercise freedom of choice to meet their tax obligations by various means. The committee recommends that the ATO be more open about the forward phase-out plans it has for paper forms and information.
Taxpayers also deserve reliability in tax services and should not have an unimpeded choice of tax service providers and not have the ATO behaving in a non-competitive, neutral fashion. This report recommends that the ATO, as a priority, implements a service-level agreement with all stakeholders affected by the agency's changing practices—in particular tax agents, who are often impacted during peaks in business activity.
Accountability is the key to confidence. The committee's final recommendation is for the ATO to take a close look at its core mission statements to deliver a single cohesive and easily understood framework, a regulatory philosophy that clearly and simply outlines the rights and obligations of both the tax office and the taxpayers in tax-engagement processes.
In closing, I would like to thank the member for Page, who started this committee as the chair, but also I wish to thank the members for Parramatta, Griffith and Oxley, who were engaged participants in the inquiry, and also the members for Berowra, Forde, Boothby and Cowper, who also made invaluable contributions. I would like to thank Sharon and Loes from the secretariat. It is said that there's no such thing as a stupid question; I'm sure those two can come up with something that gets pretty close!
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
I start by thanking the secretariat for the extraordinary work they did in preparing and working on this report that we present today: Sharon Bryant, the inquiry secretary; James Rees, committee secretary; Loes Slattery, senior researcher; Dorota Cooley, office manager; and Natasha Kaleb, administrative officer. This inquiry has been going on for nearly two years, and at times, honestly, I thought we'd lost our way, so broad were the terms of reference and so broad was our interest across the committee. There were so many different areas in a time of rapid change that there were times I wondered whether we would actually come to conclusions and get a report written. I think the fact that we did is largely to do with the extraordinary efforts of an amazing bunch of people who work behind the scenes and are usually barely mentioned. The staff that we have in Parliament House are like no other. I sometimes think that every single organisation in the country should look at how this place is managed. We are supported by extraordinary people working quietly, without fanfare and largely without credit who make our jobs possible.
It is perhaps particularly necessary that we draw on all of that skill at this moment because at this point in time we are going through a time of extraordinary change, and the way that human beings over millennia have come to common conclusions, shared common views and formed a base upon which we can build new ideas is largely breaking down. In fact, the change itself is in the way we come to conclusions, so even in the committees now we have such a broad range of views that cover such a broad range of areas that it's difficult to find the common ground on which we can build.
In this inquiry, I think perhaps we saw that more than I have in others. We saw people passionately interested in the way that technology is changing and the way that people interact with the Australian Taxation Office. Whether that was about the tax office's role in being up to date or whether it was about the tax office's role in enabling others, there was an extraordinary difference in opinion there—even a difference in opinion about whether or not the move towards cash transactions will or will not increase the cash economy. There were incredible differences in our views and the areas that interested us, and that meant that, over the two years, we covered an incredibly broad range of areas and very few of them in sufficient detail to really get our teeth into what might be happening and where we might be going as a country.
So the report itself is really quite an interesting read. It covers some very important areas. I personally believe that, as I think this speech shows, if we'd settled in some smaller areas, we could have done some even better work in important areas, but it is a fine report and it's worth reading. It covers some of the areas that we face as a nation in terms of our interaction with the tax system. But once again I'd just like to thank very much the work of the secretariat and all of the staff that support us in this. You are unparalleled. Every business in the country should aspire to have an organisation as well managed as this parliament is and as our secretariats are. Thank you very much. I commend the report to the House.
The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Mackellar wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 110, the honourable member for Kennedy has withdrawn his notice relating to the introduction of the Inland Rail Project (Improving Accountability) Bill 2018. The order of precedence of remaining private members' business notices as determined by the Selection Committee's report, adopted by the House on 22 August 2018, remains unchanged.
I'm very pleased to stand in this place and talk about trade and the opportunities for businesses right around Australia, particularly those in rural and regional Australia. As we know, the TPP-11 is one of the most comprehensive trade deals ever concluded and will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs for the 11 members. The TPP-11 countries are not only Australia but Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. When you look at all of these countries, there are opportunities for a range of Australian businesses and service providers.
I notice that there's new modelling undertaken by economists from Brandeis International Business School and John Hopkins University showing that Australia is forecast to see $15.6 billion in net annual benefits to our national income by 2030 and increases in exports of $29.9 billion as a result of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is great news for the Australian economy, building on the work that this government has done previously in securing a number of free trade agreements. It means so much to businesses in rural and regional Australia, and I've spoken about this previously in this House—better access for exporters, especially for those who are primary producers. I am very proud to be an Australian farmer. I think I'm the only dairy farmer in this place. What I'm hoping to see is more of our great dairy products, and I will be parochial and talk about some fantastic products out of my electorate that I hope to see going into these TPP-11 countries. We have not only great dairy products but beef and lamb as well and a whole range of very good quality products from my part of the world.
One of the things we've heard a lot about is the $1 milk issue. I'm hoping that more of our milk processors and dairy processors will take advantage of the TPP-11 and use those agreements to export even more of our great product, one of the most respected dairy products in the world due to the quality of our fresh milk. However it is manufactured, I hope more of our dairy processors and manufacturers use this opportunity to get the milk out of the hands of the Coles and Woolworths of this world and put some genuine competition into that market. That is exactly what is needed, and that's the opportunity that free trade agreements give in a direct as well as indirect sense.
I'm also hoping that a number of our amazing education providers, the service providers in education, take advantage of this TPP-11 to establish even more sound and direct relationships in each of these TPP-11 countries. The education that people receive from our universities and training providers is also of great value and is valued by business as well as the individual around the world. I can see many more very direct relationships being established, both in country and in Australia, as a result of this TPP-11 agreement. It will provide so many additional market-access opportunities, whether it's farming, mining or manufacturing. It is really important that we ratify the TPP-11 as soon as possible. We really need to lock in the forecasted benefits as quickly as we can. The businesses on the ground want to get on with doing business, which is why this needs to be ratified as quickly as possible.
A number of businesses in the south-west of Western Australia, in my electorate, have so much to offer, and reducing tariffs would present many opportunities for them. Once this agreement is ratified I'd encourage each of them to look very closely at the opportunities that it provides for small businesses as well as for some of our major manufacturers and also for the service sector. In this particular agreement, I think there's a great opportunity for our service sector. In particular, as I've already mentioned, I can see a great opportunity for our education providers. I would encourage everyone in this sector to have a very close look at the opportunities that present themselves with TPP-11.
Labor has a strong tradition of supporting sensible, broad based trade liberalisation. It was the Whitlam government that instituted a 25 per cent tariff cut in 1973 and the Hawke and Keating governments that reduced tariffs in 1988 and 1991. The net impact of that was to make the Australian economy more competitive and to put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of regular Australian households. Indeed, if you go to a department store now to buy a pair of kid's shoes, you'll see sticker prices that are similar to where they were 30 years ago. If you go to buy a bottom-of-the-range new car, you'll find sticker prices not that different from 30 years ago. Trade liberalisation has benefited households and has the potential to create jobs. But trade liberalisation has to be done right. Labor's commitment to trade liberalisation is a strong, multilateral one. As they say in trade, 'bigger is better', not only with respect to the number of countries engaged in agreement but also with respect to the breadth of the trade agreement. High-quality agreements generate greater benefits.
The Peterson Institute, in a paper by Peter Petri, Michael Plummer, Shujiro Urata and Fan Zhal, suggested that TPP-12 would deliver benefits of US$492 billion. Their modelling now suggests that TPP-11 would produce global benefits of US$147 billion. Alongside Australia, the TPP-11 includes Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It should be noted that it does not include the United States or China, the world's two largest economies. The Peterson Institute estimates that significantly larger gains would come if Indonesia, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Thailand were to join the agreement—were it to be a 'bigger and better' agreement. When the institute turns to the individual countries, they note that no country benefits from going from TPP-12 to TPP-11. The Peterson Institute's modelling suggests an income benefit for Australia in 2030 of 0.5 per cent—a smaller impact than is found, for example, in Peru, in Brunei, in Malaysia, in Singapore or in Vietnam. These gains are smaller than they would have been under the original TPP and reflect the fact that this is an agreement that covers only a relatively small share of trade compared to the previous agreement.
Labor is committed to engaging with Asia. Our FutureAsia policy ensures that we establish an Australia week in China on an annual basis and that we establish a joint team made up of officers from DFAT, Austrade, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry to tackle non-tariff barriers. We are also committed to ensuring that there is better Asia literacy among Australian corporate boards. As my colleagues, the shadow trade minister, the shadow Treasurer and the shadow assistant minister to the shadow Treasurer have noted, it is vital that we improve Asia literacy.
In terms of tackling trade agreements, we believe that the Productivity Commission should independently review trade agreements a decade after they're signed to see what the impact of them has been, and whether the results live up to the boasting. We need to increase the role of business in trade negotiations, and, importantly, we need to ask the Productivity Commission to conduct an independent economic analysis of every new trade agreement before it's signed. That approach of independent economic analysis has been supported by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Productivity Commission, the Harper review and, indeed, by Liberal MPs who examined the original Trans-Pacific Partnership. It was supported by the member for Warringah, who commissioned independent economic modelling on Australia's agreement with Korea.
We have reservations about the inclusion of ISDS clauses. We note that the New Zealand government, under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, has recently negotiated side letters with four countries, removing the application of ISDS clauses in the TPP-11.
It's my great pleasure to rise to speak on this PMB. As I know you know, Mr Speaker, there were people in this place who said that this couldn't be done; that the TPP-11 was dead, couldn't be recovered and couldn't be delivered. Well, here it is. The coalition government is again delivering on trade. We have already signed agreements with China, Japan, South Korea and Peru. We are in negotiations for the RCEP, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, with Indonesia, and we have signed the TPP-11 when those on the opposite side of the chamber said that it could not be done; that we should walk away from something which has a $13.8 trillion GDP. There are arrangements by which people in Queensland and New South Wales have sales into those regions and countries. In Queensland, there is $6.3 billion for coal; $1½ billion for the meat of bovine animals, fresh, chilled and frozen; and unwrought aluminium. In New South Wales, coal, once again, is at $8.4 billion. It is no surprise to me that resources and agriculture are two of the biggest exports from those two big states on the east coast, which will get a great benefit from the TPP-11.
For the people in my electorate, it is very straightforward. One in five jobs in this country rely on trade. For Australia, trade means jobs. More trade means more jobs, and that is what we are about as a coalition government. We have delivered over a million jobs in the last five years, as we said we would. The focus for me as a local member is to ensure that those jobs are in my electorate, where, unfortunately, we find ourselves in a very difficult position, with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. For my people, my businesses and my exporters, this agreement means more jobs for us.
What will the opposition say? Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, wanted to take the approach of Monty Python—I'm sure you would be aware of that, Mr Speaker; you are probably of the right ilk for Monty Python!—but not the approach of the Black Knight, where he will fight to a standstill for the Australian people, Australian trade and Australian jobs, but the other approach, which is to run away, retreat, say it's too hard and not deliver. I say to those on the opposite side: this is a good deal, which should be ratified by the Australian parliament. The Leader of the Opposition should go back and apologise for what he said to the Australian people about this arrangement. Quite simply, this is about trade and jobs, and jobs for our regions.
As I've said, in my local area, this is about a stronger regional economy. This is about more local jobs. We are continuing to build our local regional economy by multistreaming it, with support from the coalition government. Under the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages, we put $9.65 million into five projects in the Hinkler electorate, which resulted in over $31 million worth of construction. Why is that important, and what is the arrangement in terms of the TPP-11? Well, it's quite straightforward. Macadamias Australia received $4.68 million to extend its operations. This is an organisation that exports 100 per cent of their product locally, which is macadamias. The member for Cowper and the member for Page may disagree, but the Australian macadamia association does not: the biggest producer of macadamias in Australia is now in my electorate, around the town of Bundaberg. That means more jobs through processing and more jobs in the local region, at its factory on Goodwood Road.
We have the local business of Austchilli, which received $1½ million to extend their packaging operations. This is an organisation which exports right around the world chilli products, herbs and a lot of other processed bits and pieces. They're pretty well known. They've shown up on MasterChef and other things around Australian domestic television. I think it's really important that we continue to support them because they employ local people. They are not shifting their jobs offshore; they are not shifting their jobs away; they're doing it here and we need to support them through better trade arrangements. Every time we reduce a tariff on an Australian product in an overseas country they become more competitive because the forward-facing price is cheaper. That is what we are about: we are about delivering more trade for more jobs for our regions.
Costa Avocados received $495,000. One of our largest exports around the world is avocados because they are a first-class product. Once again, in their processing facility near Childers, a small town in my electorate, they employ local people. This is what it's about. The more we can deliver in terms of trade, the better the opportunities for the Australian nation and the more chances for our businesses to employ more people because they have more confidence and a stronger bottom line. So the coalition government will continue to deliver on trade agreements, we will continue to deliver on jobs and we will continue to deliver on stronger regional economies and local jobs for our people.
With the greatest respect to my friend the member for Hinkler, he's mischaracterised this side of politics' commitment to free trade. I'd like to reassure the House that Labor in government and from where we sit at present support the broad principles of free trade because we've seen, over generations, the effect of free trade in growing the economy. But there's one very, very important differentiation between this side of politics and the other side: we recognise that it's vitally important to ensure that we properly consult, that we have comprehensive economic modelling and that we take every step to ensure that those who are adversely affected by free trade agreements are appropriately compensated. There you have the difference between our side of politics and the government.
This government is prepared to enter into free trade agreements on the basis that, whatever deal is struck, the economic benefits of that arrangement will be simply assumed. I had the pleasure to serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties when it examined this particular treaty action and I was, in part, the author of the additional comments which were published as part of the report of that committee. There is no underestimating the Labor Party's commitment to the beneficial effects of free trade. We have every confidence in the fact that free trade will create additional employment, but we need to enter into free trade agreements with clear eyes and we need to enter into these free trade agreements on the basis that the effects of the agreements are properly modelled and that there is suitable transparency during the course of the negotiation of the free trade agreements.
There are aspects of this particular treaty which give rise to concern—in particular, the inclusion of so-called ISDS provisions within the TPP-11 treaty. The inclusion of ISDS within this particular treaty goes against the general flow of opinion internationally with respect to the inclusion of ISDS within treaties. Indeed, the United States has recently indicated that it will not accept ISDS within treaties that it seeks to negotiate. That's not to say that you should adopt the protectionist view that the present President of the United States adopts with respect to free trade. What we want on this side of politics is fair trade and, in particular, we want to ensure that the effect of negotiation and implementation of a treaty which affects trade should not produce costs within the economy, including the loss of jobs.
There are significant concerns about the abolition of labour market testing within this treaty in so far as it affects the migration or temporary migration of workers across boundaries. It's vitally important in my view—and it's the view of my colleagues on the Labor side of politics—that we need to ensure that two things occur with respect to our labour market. Firstly, there needs to be adequate labour market testing to ensure that we're not removing Australian workers from the equation when we look at jobs that are created by free trade agreements. Secondly, we need to pay particular attention towards skills testing. There are particular areas, for example in the area of construction such as electrical contracting, which require the maintenance of standards at the highest level.
The Australian consumer must expect that, for the people who are performing complex tasks particularly with respect to electrical contracting and similar trades, we are not introducing people to the Australian market who do not have adequate skills. I can say from experience, particularly with respect to the maritime industry, that there are people within the Australian market that have their jobs exported by the importation of unskilled or lowly skilled people to the Australian market. This is something that should be taken into account when we adopt treaties.
I'm very pleased to stand and support this motion, which:
… commends the Government for leading efforts to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 nation (TPP-11) agreement …
The TPP-11 agreement includes the nations of Canada, Mexico, Japan, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei.
What will this agreement achieve for the nation? Just last week the Minerals Council of Australia released modelling conducted for the Australian Information Industry Association that found:
Australian workers, jobs and business will benefit significantly from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP-11) trade agreement, with increased national income, exports, investment and wages …
The modelling was undertaken by the economists from the Brandeis International Business School and the Johns Hopkins University. It reinforces the real benefits of the TPP-11 to Australian businesses and jobs and our economy overall. It shows that Australia is forecast to see $15.6 billion in net annual benefits to national income by 2030, with an increase in exports by close to $30 billion. The analysis also forecasts a significant boost to investment by 2030 with investment into Australia projected to increase by $7.8 billion and additional overseas investment by Australian businesses increasing by $26 billion.
Further modelling was done by the respected Peterson Institute for International Economics. It found that the TPP-11 would boost Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent and boost exports by four per cent. The economic analysis by Grant Thornton concluded Australia's:
Inclusion in the TPP-11 will give Australia a competitive advantage in the Asia Pacific region.
That's what the coalition has done.
Let's contrast this to the opposition's policies involving the TPP-11. When the US decided that they would pull out of the original TPP agreement, the Labor Party said the deal was dead. They gave up on it. They ridiculed the government. The opposition leader said: 'It's dead. It's not going anywhere and everyone knows it, so why is the coalition not getting on with sorting out and protecting Australian jobs?' This is not the first time we've heard this rhetoric from the opposition. We heard it against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. In fact, it's still up on Labor's website under the heading 'Bill's Opinion Pieces'. It says, 'free trade agreement with China threatens local job opportunities'.
What have we seen in local job opportunities under this coalition? Over one million new jobs have been created since the Abbott government was first elected. I can remember sitting in this chamber and hearing members on the other side when we said that over two terms of government there would be a million new jobs created in this economy. What did they do? They scoffed. They scoffed and they laughed. They said: 'A million new jobs? It's impossible.' But we have actually done that. A million new jobs have been delivered. The reason why those jobs have been delivered is that we on this side of the House understand that it is not government that creates jobs. It is the entrepreneurs in this society that get out there and take risks. That's why these free trade agreements are so important, because they create opportunity. They create market access. They support Australians who create great products and services to take their expertise and skills onto the international playing field and to give them the opportunity to compete.
That's why we have seen that million new jobs. Nothing shows more the great contrast between this side of the House and that side of the House. We believe in opportunities and free trade. The opposition doesn't. We see it in the results, in the employment numbers that come out on a monthly basis—a million new jobs, and there are many more to come.
It's a bit rich, isn't it, really? You've had the member for Hinkler and the member for Hughes—the leaders of friends of instability—coming into this chamber and lecturing the Labor Party about how great the record of trade and investment is under this government. They are so proud of their record that they can't get people to even speak on their own motion! There are vacancies because no-one wants to get up and defend your record. I can understand it's The Hunger Games out in the corridor today, situation normal for the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison-potential-Dutton government. But honestly, having lectures from those opposite when they can't even get members of their own government to get up and defend their record is appalling.
I want to start by saying that today's motion is just another case of this government grandstanding and boasting about an on-again-off-again trade agreement with, let's face it, a revolving door of trade ministers not to mention a revolving door of prime ministers. When it comes to advancing Australia on the world stage, the first place the government should be looking is in the mirror at themselves, because of the shambles and embarrassment they have put the Australian people through, not only in the past few weeks, but the past five years. The level of hypocrisy that we have just heard from the member for Hughes, coming in here and trumpeting their success, pales by comparison with the muppet show that we've seen in the last few weeks. That's the government's own words—it's not an offensive comment; it's what the Prime Minister actually describes his own government as. We know that if you can't govern yourselves you can't be expected to govern the country, let alone deliver effective and thoughtful trade and investment policies.
But despite their own shortcomings, I want to be clear from the outset, as we have heard from the member for Bass and the member for Fenner in today's debate, that the Labor Party and the Labor movement have a proud record of reform that has boosted trade and investment, created new jobs and increased the incomes of Australians. When we were last in government, as the parliament knows, we signed off on free trade agreements with Chile, ASEAN and New Zealand, giving a significant boost to Australian trade and jobs. We have done this work because, as a trading nation, Australia's future economic success is underpinned by our ability to sell our goods and services overseas. Key to this is making sure we make the most of the rise of Asia. Two in every three dollars that we make from trade comes from Asia, and this is likely to increase in the years ahead.
In particular, Labor looks forward to examining the details of the free trade agreement recently concluded with Indonesia and urges those opposite to conduct independent modelling of the agreement. The previous Labor government launched negotiations with Indonesia in 2012 because we recognised that our trading relationship with Indonesia is massively underdone. Indonesia is the world's fourth-largest country by population and by 2050 it is projected to be the world's fourth-largest economy. Yet it is currently our 13th-largest trading partner. In fact, two-way trade between Indonesia and Australia has gone backwards over the past five years. As a comparison, despite more than 18,000 Australian companies exporting to New Zealand at the moment, only about 2,000 export to Indonesia. If this is a good trade agreement, it could not only increase trade but also potentially bring our two countries closer together.
I am pleased that a future Shorten Labor government will build on this agreement by formalising annual meetings between our treasurers and trade ministers. However, when it comes to the CPTPP that we are debating here today, we know that it is much smaller and many of the contentious sections of the original TPP have been suspended since the US pulled out of negotiations. Labor believes that all trade agreements should be subject to independent economic modelling, as we have heard in today's debate. The coalition has refused to do this. However, the Victorian Labor government has commissioned independent economic modelling of the CPTPP. The independent economic analysis concludes that, while the agreement does not benefit all sectors equally, no sector or business would be worse off as a result. There are potential strategic benefits to this agreement. Simplifying trade rules and building stronger trade ties between the countries in our region will help make us more secure.
As we have heard, the New Zealand government under Prime Minister Ardern has shown this can be done. They have recently negotiated side letters with four countries, removing the application of ISDS clauses in the CPTPP that had been agreed by the previous conservative New Zealand government.
Labor is committed to improving the way that trade agreements are negotiated, by, in addition, conducting independent economic modelling. We are also committed to publically releasing the government's goals at the commencement of negotiations.
I thank the member of Oxley for his words and also note the enthusiasm with which the Liberal government is speaking today on this private members' motion on trade—as enthusiastic as they are they for free trade, they can't find enough people to fill the list! So we shall do it, and we are more than happy to.
As the elected representative of the people of Rockingham and Kwinana, I am acutely aware of the challenges and benefits of open and free trade. More importantly, I am a Western Australian and, therefore, I am from the No. 1 export state in the country. With our iron ore and grain exports, we see and experience the value of those export and free trade agreements every single day. We also see the failures. Live sheep exports are in chaos as this government ignored warnings from the industry itself to take action. We see the new opportunities in exports: potential exports of lithium and rare metals, shipbuilding technology as well as agricultural products and education. And that is just to name a few.
Today we are discussing the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. The agreement was signed by the 11 countries on 8 March 2018 in Santiago, Chile. The CPTPP will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone spanning the Indo-Pacific region with a combined GDP worth $13.7 trillion. Australian manufacturers, industry, farmers and service exporters will benefit from the new market access opportunities that will come from 500 million consumers across these countries.
As members know, the Labor Party and the Labor movement have a proud record of reform that has boosted trade and investment, created new jobs and increased the incomes of Australians. This goes back to the days of Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. Labor has done this work because, as a trading nation, Australia's future economic success is underpinned by our ability to sell our goods and services overseas.
Turning to one of our great exports, thanks to science and collaboration, Australia has a tremendously important high-yield and disease resistant grain industry for export. This year, another record wheat crop is predicted in Western Australia, and the lion's share of that grain will be exported to our near neighbours in Asia. These exports begin in Kwinana, in my electorate, where the iconic blue wheat silos of CBH overlook Cockburn Sound. CBH holds the largest grain export facility in the Southern Hemisphere, and is a constant reminder of the importance of agriculture to WA. Just last week CBH was recognised as the fourth largest private company in Australia, employing over 1,000 people with $3.7 billion in revenue—all as a cooperative grain storage and export company.
More than 60 per cent of the world's population live in what is, arguably, the most dynamic region on earth, which is directly to our north. This is where the world's largest economic growth will occur, and Australia is in a great position geographically and economically to take advantage of this.
All South-East Asian nations must work together in policy development so that we together can meet the challenges of the region, such as nutrition, infrastructure, education, security, energy security, pollution, climate change and, of course, trade. Our common concerns and our common goals bring us together. We must ensure that we make the most of the rise of Asia. Two in every three dollars we make from trade come from Asia, and this is likely to increase in the years ahead.
When we were last in government, Labor entered Australia into the negotiations on the original TPP. As we know, the current US President withdrew the United States from that agreement. This agreement—what's known as the TPP-11—is much smaller, and many of the more contentious sections of the original TPP have been suspended.
I'd like to recognise the efforts and leadership of the government of Japan and its trade negotiators, who progressed the CPTPP in the absence of the US. The novel approach of suspending many provisions that had been required by the US has led us to this point. I commend the work of all trade negotiators, and particularly the leadership of Japan, in helping to build an open trade framework, to uphold international rule making and multilateralism and to realise a free and open Indo-Pacific that will lead to greater prosperity for many more people across that region.
Labor believes that all trade agreements should be subject to independent economic modelling. The coalition government refused to do this, but the Victorian Labor government has done so. Independent modelling indicates small benefits in the immediate future, but there will be much larger benefits as the agreement continues to progress through world trade systems.
I rise to speak on this motion moved by the member for Forde about trade, and I do so as the third Labor speaker in a row during this debate—unusually, because one would have expected that, when governments move a motion supporting what they say is their own policy, they would actually have some members of the House of Representatives who'd be prepared to defend that policy. But so chaotic and shambolic are the rabble opposite that they can't even provide speakers for motions that they move and they list for debate in this parliament.
Following this debate, there's a motion to be moved by the member for Sydney on the gender pay gap, for which four Labor speakers have been listed, and there is not a single member of the government parties, the Liberal and National parties, who is prepared to engage in a debate about the gender pay gap. Now, given the issues of bullying that occurred in the last fortnight from those opposite, particularly targeting women members of the coalition—as outlined by the member for Chisholm, who said it was so bad that she will withdraw from politics at the next election, backed up by the former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and foreign minister, by Senator Gichuhi and by the Minister for Women, the member for Higgins—it is extraordinary that those opposite have felt like they should not participate in a debate about the gender pay gap.
Here, if they participated in this debate on trade, they could explain why they believe that free trade agreements should include investor-state dispute settlement provisions, which undermine Australia's national sovereignty and the right of this parliament to determine the way that health policy and other policies operate here in this nation. This is a big distinction between Labor's approach and the approach of those opposite. We understand how important trade has been to global growth and how important trade has been in lifting up the living standards of people in both First World nations, such as Australia, and, importantly, the underdeveloped world, particularly in the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. We understand that trade is a driver of economic growth but we also understand that, without appropriate provisions that ensure that the national interest is served through that global process, we can have outcomes that do undermine Australia's national economic sovereignty to make decisions about issues such as health care and to make decisions about pharmaceuticals, for example. That's why we're quite happy to debate these issues.
We also believe that there should be independent economic modelling of the TPP-11 and of other trade agreements which are proposed, including the Australia-Indonesia free trade agreement which is proposed. What we say is that we are all for free trade, but we are all for it with appropriate provisions to ensure that there's transparency and to ensure that the national sovereignty and the right of this parliament to make determinations in the national interest continues. It's a pity that those opposite are such a shambolic rabble that they are incapable of defending their government's own policy, which is why they should just call an election.
I rise to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Forde, and I also wish you a very happy birthday Deputy Speaker Mitchell. As I understand it, it was yesterday. The Labor Party and the Labor movement have a very proud record, as we know, of reform. Much of that reform has boosted trade and investment, created new jobs, and increased the incomes of Australians. When we were last in government, Labor entered Australia in the negotiations for the original Trans-Pacific Partnership—the TPP.
This work of opening up to the world, where Australia engages with its regional partners and globally, is a tradition that Labor hold. Who can forget the efforts of Gough Whitlam, even in opposition—going over to China, starting that relationship and building it from there—and the work of the Hawke and Keating governments. Labor's done this work because, as a trading nation, and we are a trading nation, our current and future economic success is underpinned by a consistent rules based system that actually enhances our ability to trade and our ability to sell our goods and services overseas.
One in five Australian jobs are currently linked to trade. The more we export, the more jobs we create, and they are better paying jobs as well. Furthermore, two in every three dollars we make from trade comes from Asia, and this is likely to increase in the years ahead. One of the keys to the success of Australia's international trade then is to make sure that we make the most of this rise of the Asian century—the rise of the Asian countries in our region, which we are very much a part of. This is the Asian century, and Australia is actually perfectly positioned geographically to take full advantage of it. We are no longer constrained by that dreaded tyranny of distance. However, as we know, President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the TPP, effectively killing the original agreement. This new agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, is much smaller, and many of the more contentious sections of the original TPP have been suspended.
Labor believe, of course, that all trade agreements should be subject to independent economic modelling, as the member for Grayndler has pointed out. That is why we have announced a policy for scrutiny of free trade agreements and will ask the Productivity Commission and government to conduct an independent economic analysis of each new FTA before they're signed and also conduct 10-year reviews post signing. The coalition has refused to do this; however, it's good to see that the Victorian Labor government has commissioned independent economic modelling of the CPTPP.
This independent modelling indicates that the agreement will deliver modest economic benefits in the short-term, and there is the potential for more significant economic gains in the longer term if more countries sign up to the agreement. The independent economic analysis concludes that, while the agreement does not benefit all sectors equally, no sector or business would be worse off as a result. There are also other potential strategic benefits to this agreement. Simplifying trade rules and building stronger trade ties between the countries in our region will help make us more stable, more prosperous and more secure. And it is important in this age where middle powers such as Australia have a greater responsibility in ensuring a rules based order continues so that we can continue to benefit from such a rules based trade order.
There are a number of concerns, however, that Labor has raised with respect to this agreement—in particular, the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions and the waiver of labour market testing for contractual service suppliers. The same clauses have been included in other trade agreements signed by this government. Labor have made it very clear that, if we win the next election, we will not sign trade agreements that include ISDS clauses and we will not waive labour market testing for contractual service suppliers. In addition to that, Labor will remove these provisions from existing trade agreements, including this one, by negotiation. We have seen this happen. The New Zealand Labour government under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has shown how this can be done. They have recently negotiated side letters or bilateral agreements with four countries, removing the application of ISDS clauses in the CPTPP that had been agreed by the previous conservative New Zealand government. The same approach can be used to reverse the waiver of labour market testing.
We also need to make sure of this because, before a carpenter, electrician or plumber is brought in from overseas, employers should be required to first check and see if an Australian can do the job. In addition, Labor have announced that we will establish an Australian skills authority, an independent labour market testing body to determine genuine skills needs and restrict temporary work visas so that they are only made available when a genuine skills gap cannot be met with local workers. The authority will work in consultation with industry, unions, higher education and the TAFE sectors as well as state and local governments to protect Australia from future skills shortages and train Australian workers for those jobs. This is very important because this is a benefit for Australian workers and for the Australian economy.
Debate adjourned.
That this House:
(1) expresses concern that despite recent improvements in the gender pay gap, Australian women continue to experience sustained economic disadvantage, in particular women working in undervalued, traditionally female dominated industries;
(2) notes that on 5 September, early childhood educators around the country staged industrial action to highlight the need for equal pay and proper recognition for the value of their work;
(3) acknowledges the important contribution these workers, along with workers in other undervalued care professions such as aged care, health and disability care make, not just to our nation's economy but to Australian society; and
(4) calls on the Government to take action to support equal pay and recognition for women working in undervalued care professions.
It is extraordinary that yet again we have a government that is so chaotic, so unable to govern that, although we have four speakers to this motion in my name on this side of the chamber, there is not a single speaker on the other side of the chamber that's prepared to get up and debate the issue of equal pay for women and, particularly in this instance, the focus on equal pay for women who work in female-dominated industries such as child care. On 5 September, I was very pleased to speak to a rally of early childhood educators who had walked off the job in protest at the gender pay gap that they face in their industry. Last week's rally was bigger than the ones I've been to before. I think this is a movement that's growing in support amongst childcare workers and, most importantly, is growing in support amongst the parents, who value the work that early childhood educators do every day caring for young Australians.
I was also very pleased to recently be part of the launch of the Big Steps campaign in parliament last time parliament sat, because the Big Steps Campaign is a recognition that early childhood educators ought to be paid better for the complex, difficult, important work that they do. High-quality learning-and-development experiences in a play based learning setting are absolutely critical in the early years of a child's life. More and more science tells us how important those early days and weeks in a child's life are for neurological development, laying down neural pathways that last a lifetime. We know that in those early years 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the brain development occurs and children's cognitive and non-cognitive development is being nurtured along with foundations being laid for learning, behaviour, thinking and communication, and emotional and social skills.
Quality early childhood programs offer a very strong return on investment for taxpayers. We know that, by investing early, we save across the lifetime of a child. A child who starts school developmentally or educationally vulnerable requires more help in the early years of schooling. If we can invest early, we can actually smooth that pathway. Currently, one in five children start school developmentally vulnerable, and that's just not acceptable in a country like Australia.
If we value early childhood education, if we see the importance of this investment, we have to value the early childhood educators who do this important work, and there is no way anyone can tell me that it's a coincidence that you see this sort of undervaluation of the importance of this work in an industry where nearly 98 per cent of the employees are women. It makes no sense to me that someone with a certificate III in early childhood education earns 20-something bucks an hour, and someone with a certificate III in metal work earns 40-something bucks an hour. There is no way that is anything other than gender based discrimination.
Early childhood educators shouldn't hold out too much hope of the government actually fixing this problem. When asked about it last week, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer brushed off the concerns of early childhood educators. The Prime Minister waffled on, 'I want to see the gender pay gap shrink because I want to see our economy continue to strengthen and because of the improved conditions and arrangements that are there for women right across the workforce. I wish everybody the best in coming to the best set of arrangements they can.' He totally disregarded the bargaining position of most of these workers, who are in very small workplaces, with perhaps half a dozen or a dozen staff. The short answer from both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister was, 'Not my problem'. I don't think that parents feel that way. Parents have generally been very supportive of the campaign of early childhood educators, because they see the complexity of the work that early childhood educators do. They see the way these staff pour their hearts and souls into the children.
This government have no plan for equal pay. They have no plan to lift wages and no plan for women. I think all these complaints last week about bullying within the Liberal Party, bullying of Liberal women—these two things cannot be a coincidence—go together. This government have had an appalling record in early childhood education. They cut $20 million from the national quality agenda at the last May budget. They introduced a new childcare subsidy system which leaves one in four families worse off, including some of the poorest families, and they want to cut $440 million from the national preschools program. So I move:
That this House:
(1) expresses concern that despite recent improvements in the gender pay gap, Australian women continue to experience sustained economic disadvantage, in particular women working in undervalued, traditionally female dominated industries;
(2) notes that on 5 September, early childhood educators around the country staged industrial action to highlight the need for equal pay and proper recognition for the value of their work;
(3) acknowledges the important contribution these workers, along with workers in other undervalued care professions such as aged care, health and disability care make, not just to our nation’s economy but to Australian society; and
(4) calls on the Government to take action to support equal pay and recognition for women working in undervalued care professions.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I rise today to speak on this very important motion raised by the member for Sydney, which calls on the government to take action to support equal pay and recognition for women working in undervalued care professions. I want to thank the member for Sydney for her continuing efforts and her commitment to raising awareness about the need to address the gender pay gap in Australia.
Over 50 per cent of my constituents are women. They come from a mix of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. They vary in circumstance, age and education—from women who are now on the age pension, to women who are young and aspire to education and employment in their chosen careers. They are women who have families—young mums, single mums, women living with disability and women who are carers. My most recent arrivals are women fleeing the violence and the destruction of war. They have arrived here, grateful for the protection and safety we have offered, and are eager and anxious to rebuild their lives and those of their families.
Unemployment in Calwell is a challenge; so too is underemployment. But, in the case of my local women, the gender pay gap adds an additional burden to their economic disadvantage. This is especially the case for women who work in undervalued, traditionally female-dominated industries. Yes, there have been improvements in the gender pay gap. But our concern here today is that it has not been enough and we need to do more if we are to achieve equal pay and recognition for those women working in traditionally female-dominated industries such as early learning, aged care, health and disability care. These jobs are the backbone of our country. Workers in these areas provide for our vulnerable Australians and care for our needy. They support our young and they look after our sick. These are the jobs many of my local women choose as their profession. They deserve equal pay and they deserve recognition.
In their fight for this, last week, on Wednesday, 5 September, early childhood educators around the country staged industrial action to highlight the need for equal pay and proper recognition of the value of their work. Many of the women in my electorate participated in this stop-work. One of them, Roxborough Park resident Kate, who marched alongside other early childhood educators on the day, marched because she wants to send this government a message that this industry is not to be ignored. She marched because it's a hard job, a tough job, but a job she loves and she's been involved in for 20 years. She marched because she wants to end the high turnover of staff and said that, if the government paid them properly and recognised the work they do, they would feel valued to stay. She marched because other industries with the same qualifications of cert III and diploma level are paid a lot more. And she marched because she wants to end the stigma endured by her and her fellow early educators—that they are seen just as babysitters. Early childhood educators engage children in ways that are way beyond babysitting. They teach children to socialise, to interact and to learn. They allow families to feel safe and confident that they are leaving their child in a professional place with people who are trained to look after their children.
When I spoke to Kate last week about her job as an early childhood educator, she told me that what she loves most about her job is educating children, looking after families and mentoring the next generation of early childhood educator staff. She said:
There is nothing I love more than when a new family comes into the centre and I get to settle their child, especially for first time mums who are having to go back to work.
I love that I can make them feel safe leaving their child with me—giving them the security they need to go off and work. And then being able to watch their child's progress from three months all the way to kinder.
The children of our local non-English speaking communities have special circumstances and special needs that must be addressed if they are to get a fair go at school. Many newly-arrived migrants rely on early childhood education to help their children learn English and to help the families settle and integrate into the community better. In this community, Kate recognises that people rely on extended families for care. However, in many cases, they don't have the family support here in Australia. The childhood educators then step in and earn the trust and respect of these families and help them in settling into their new home.
How is it that workers who do one of the most important roles in our community, are the most undervalued? A Shorten Labor government will ensure early childhood educators are treated with fairness and decency, are recognised as a profession and paid their fair due. My question today in this chamber is: will this government do the same?
I'm proud to speak in support of the motion put in the House by the member for Sydney about the gender pay gap. I also congratulate her on 20 years as a parliamentarian, and I look at the wonderful achievements that she has rolled out—and the more to come. It's sad to see that, on this motion, there are only Labor speakers. It's bizarre to think that we have a former human rights commissioner, the member for Goldstein, sitting in the parliament, mute or muzzled—I'm not sure—and not prepared to speak up on gender pay equity. It's unbelievable. He's happy to moan every now and then but, when it comes to talking about gender equity, he has nothing to say—unbelievable!
The reality for women in Australia is that they get paid 14.9 per cent less than men. That peaked at 18.5 per cent in 2014, which perhaps had something to do with the mining boom. I note that that gap is still higher than the OECD average—a shameful record for Australia. That is not okay. There is no comfort from the fact that we're not the worst in the OECD. There is still much more to be done. It is definitely not okay in a modern, progressive country in 2018. Women in Australia effectively work for free for the first two months of each year, and that is unfair. Fundamentally, people doing the same job should receive the same pay. It's not a difficult concept. I'm sure even those opposite would support that idea. But, at the current very slow rate that the gap is closing, it will be decades before equal pay for women becomes a reality for women in Australia.
Women don't want special treatment; they merely want the same treatment. It's no argument that women's work is mostly in what some call 'feminised' industries and that somehow that work is easier. We know that is rubbish. I know how hard women in the so-called feminised caring industries work. My mum was a nurse. She worked harder than most men, I would suggest. She had 10 children to look after and was a single mum for most of that time. When she was at home it was difficult, and then she had patients to look after when she was at work, patients who relied on her care to get well and get back to their own families and jobs. And in her first career, my wife was a social worker, working in child protection. I know how hard she worked helping families who were in crisis. On many significant days of the year like Christmas and New Year's Day, when most families were spending time together, Lea was working, looking out for other people's loved ones and, sadly, for those who nobody loved.
And what about our early childhood educators? They do such important work educating our most precious resource—children—especially in the first 1,000 days of life. Their patience and care give our kids the best start they can have in life. And what about the carers who look after our elderly family members? They give them not only care but precious dignity in their later years of life. In all of these industries, the workers are mostly women. These workers deserve recognition for the valuable work that they do. And what is the most obvious form of recognition? It's pay. So I'm very happy to support the member for Sydney's motion. Workers in these sectors are caring; that is the nature of what they do. They're always thinking of others before themselves. So when they stop doing their important work to draw attention to the unfairness of their wages, we know they don't do it lightly.
Last week we saw some early childhood educators stop work to send a message to the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government that time is up in terms of payment. This is unprecedented action taken by early childhood educators. I joined a Big Steps rally in Brisbane to show my support for them. I joined educators from Robertson and Salisbury and a few other centres in Moreton who are demanding better pay for the valuable work that they do. What sort of society do we live in if we don't value the important work that our early childhood educators do? If we value every child, we should value every educator and we should pay them better. Some early childhood educators must have tertiary qualifications, yet some of them are paid as little as $22 an hour. You'd be better off pushing trolleys in the supermarket car park. That makes them some of the lowest-paid professionals in the country. We expect the people who give our children their educational start to be well qualified. We expect them to be the best educators for our children. We cannot expect to attract people to these caring roles if they are not adequately remunerated. We've heard evidence that they are unable to get a mortgage and, on occasion, to even feed all of their family. These women are not asking for special treatment, just the same pay for doing the same job. There can be no more excuses. Our early childhood educators need support from good governments.
Today I'd also like to recognise all of the early childhood educators who walked off the job across the country last week, and I'd like to thank the member for Sydney for bringing this important motion before the House today. This is the fourth walk-off in 18 months, and it was spurred by the desperate wages crisis that has been completely ignored by this shambolic Liberal government, regardless of who sits at the helm trying to steer this crazy ship on any given day.
The action from the early childhood workers was designed to give a clear message to the Liberal government that the time is absolutely up on the gender pay gap. Australian women are sick to death of being paid less, whether it is in early childhood education or any one of the grossly undervalued caring sectors that employ so many women. Early childhood educators have been underpaid and undervalued for far too long. While there's been some small progress to reduce the gender pay gap in some sectors, the female-dominated caring sectors lag shockingly behind. This is a fact that is not missed by any Australian woman in any part of this nation. The pitiful wages paid to early childhood educators in no way reflects the true value of their work to our community.
In fact, it's hard to overstate the contribution that these workers make to our children, to our communities more broadly and to our social wellbeing as a whole. Everybody knows that education is the key to unlocking a child's potential. A child's brain develops dramatically during the first five years of life. It's a time of rapid cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional and motor skills development. Again and again, the studies show us that high-quality early childhood education improves a child's outcomes. Children who participate in early childhood education have more advanced development than those who don't, and disadvantaged kids have the most to gain from those early-learning environments.
But wages are way too low. Early childhood educators are some of the lowest paid professionals in the country, with pay as low as $22 an hour. Certificate III qualified educators receive a little over $800 a week, which is around half the average weekly earnings for all occupations. It is just so wrong that the people who are responsible for educating young Australians at such a critical stage in their life are paid less than half the average national wage. How can we possibly say that the people who are responsible for the wellbeing and development of our children are worth this little? It's appalling that these women could earn more stacking shelves at a supermarket than they do undertaking the work that they love so much. If we do not pay our early childhood educators properly, we won't be able to attract, or indeed retain, the skilled workers that we need to ensure our kids get the best start in life.
There are committed, talented people who have to turn away from these jobs because they simply can't afford to stay in them. According to a 2016 survey, one in five early childhood educators had plans to leave the profession within 12 months and others took on a second job just to get by. This cannot continue. Of course, it's no coincidence that the majority of workers in this important industry are women. Just like their hardworking colleagues in aged care or disability services, the vast majority of early childhood educators are women. So what needs to happen here? Well, it's past time for this government to take action. It's timely that we should be discussing issues of gender equity today—the sitting week after a bunch of men in the Liberal Party bullied and intimidated Liberal women who dared to stand in the way of their ruthless ambition. The wages crisis for early childhood educators demonstrates one massive problem with this government: they simply do not have enough women sitting at the table. The Liberals' refusal to commit to a genuine target like Labor, a 50-50 target, means that we're going to be sitting around for another 50 years waiting for those guys to get their act together and have equal representation in the Australian parliament. It's not good enough. Their time is up.
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.
Since the House last sat, the member for Melbourne has made a serious allegation against me. He's claimed that I misled parliament in response to his question on 27 March 2018. The claim is completely false and this is my first chance to address the chamber on the matter. On 26 March 2018, the shadow minister for immigration asked me a question, asserting I had granted a visa for a person to be employed by me and by my wife as a nanny. That is completely false. On 27 March, the member for Melbourne, after a short preamble, asked me:
Can you categorically rule out any personal connection or any other relationship between you and the intended employer of either of the au pairs?
There are two points to make here. My answer was in the context of the baseless allegation about the employment of this person by my family, as my answer on that date states. As I stated on 27 March, I did not have a personal connection or any type of relationship with the people involved in these matters.
Secondly, and in regard to the matters which have been referred to as the Adelaide matter, as I've stated previously, to the best of my knowledge I've never met the visa holder or anyone else involved in the matter. I would also like to put the following on the record in regard to that particular matter. The representation was received by my office, specifically my chief of staff, from an AFL government relations officer. My chief of staff requested information regarding the matter from the department. The department compiled a submission, including all relevant information, as was provided in evidence to the Senate inquiry hearing last week. On the front page of that submission was a recommendation to intervene. I actioned the submission on the facts of the case before me.
In regard to the other matter, which has been referred to as the Brisbane matter, to the best of my knowledge I have not socialised with, met with or had personal contact with the man involved. I finished work with the Queensland Police Service in July 1999. At that time, from my recollection, there were 5,500 police officers in the Queensland Police Service. He does not have my personal phone number or my personal email address. The use of terms such as personal connection or relationship, as used by the member for Melbourne in his question, signify a much closer relationship between two people than working in the same organisation two decades ago and not speaking to each other since that time. No reasonable person could come to the conclusion that my professional association through working in the same large public service some 20 years ago constitutes a personal connection or relationship.
I also put on the record the following in regard to the matter. The individual did not have contact with me in regard to this matter. He wrote an email to my publicly available email account, which can be accessed by anyone online. That email account is monitored by my staff. A staff member in my office asked me whether I knew this person. My initial response was, 'Who?' As is the case in any of these matters, my staffer asked for information from the department to examine the facts. The staff member in my office then sought further information through the DLO. At no time did I speak with the ABF commissioner, the departmental liaison officer or any other member of the department regarding this matter. In fact, as has become public over the last few days, despite his evidence otherwise, no-one in my office spoke with the ABF commissioner on this matter. Any statements made by current or former departmental officials are not informed by any communication with me. The department then compiled a submission which, as was provided in evidence to the Senate inquiry hearing last week, on the front page states as the recommendation to intervene in that matter. I actioned the submission on the facts of the case before me, nothing more, nothing less.
I move:
That so much of standing ordering be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the last time this parliament sat, the Government shut down this House because this Government was unable and unwilling to govern itself;
(b) the next day the Government deposed the elected Prime Minister but nobody is able to explain why;
(c) the Government continues to be wracked by infighting, with Government Members leaking against each other on an almost daily basis;
(d) the current Prime Minister claims he remained loyal to Malcolm Turnbull, but his own Liberal Party colleagues have been briefing that he was plotting to depose the former Prime Minister for some time;
(e) the current Prime Minister has described his own Government as a "Muppet Show" and his own colleagues as Muppets;
(f) Government members don't trust each other, are only focused on fighting themselves, and cannot possibly be trusted to look out for the interests of the Australian people; and
(2) therefore, condemns this Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government for only being focused on itself and not helping Australians.
Every Australian wants to know, as parliament resumes, why isn't Malcolm Turnbull the Prime Minister of Australia? Last time the parliament met, the Liberals and Nationals voted together to shut this place down. They gave up even pretending to care about the country. They walked off the job, not in protest, not in pursuit even of better conditions, but in simple surrender. Being in government was too hard for this government. In that moment, once and for all, they proved they are simply unfit to govern Australia.
Now they return with a different Prime Minister and a different Treasurer, and they expect people to think that the past five years were simply a bad dream. Yet they cannot answer the very first question that every Australian has been asking for the last 16 days: why was Malcolm Turnbull sacked? Barrie Cassidy, on the ABC show Insiders, asked the Treasurer that very question three times: why was the Prime Minister knifed? Normally the words pour out of the loquacious member for Kooyong. There's nothing he enjoys more than the sound of himself answering one of his own dixers. Yesterday the well ran dry. He was squirming in his seat. He tried to duck and weave, but he never came within cooee of answering the question. Either he couldn't answer or he didn't want to.
But it wasn't just the Treasurer. The Leader of the House, the member for Sturt, normally so eloquent and quick with a witty opinion on the matter of the day, actually made history. He was the first politician to be caught by a 'gotcha' question on his own show. The intrepid journalist, none other than the member for Corio, asked him, 'Why exactly did we need a new Prime Minister?' What did the member for Sturt say? 'The question you ask is a good one. It's yet to be answered by those people who thought there needed to be a change.' Have a quiet whisper to the member for Dickson next to you; maybe he'll let you in on the picture. 'Those people', the member for Sturt calls them. That's how he talks about more than half of his colleagues.
But, to be fair to the member for Sturt, at least that's polite compared to what the Prime Minister described his entire party as—'muppets'. It goes to show you how deep, how toxic and how bitter the divisions are in the Liberal Party. On morning television last week, the Prime Minister said the curtain had gone down on the 'muppet show'. But, already, we can see it wasn't the end; it was only an intermission. Since he said that, on Monday last week some kind patriot in the Liberal Party, in the resistance, leaked the entire infrastructure plan of the government. Not to be outdone, on Tuesday, another patriot in the resistance leaked the whole of the plan to fix up Catholic school education—they neglected, of course, to look after public schools, but that's in their DNA. On Wednesday another patriot in the resistance leaked the entire business tax options for the government, and on Thursday, for good measure, one of the anonymous bullies of the Liberal Party paid back the member for Chisholm for speaking up against the bullies.
Of course, all week, we had the freedom fighters out there on and off the record explaining how Prime Minister Morrison outmanoeuvred would-be Prime Minister Dutton and former Prime Minister Turnbull. But who is actually the director of the production? Who is the Jim Henson of the 'muppet show' of the government of Australia? It is the same as it's ever been—the member for Warringah. Two weeks ago wasn't the end of the civil war; it was just the opening shot, and the next battle we see every day. We've already seen the recriminations such as the campaign of leaks against the poor old Minister for Home Affairs over his conflict of interests, his visas for mates—or not mates, depending on what we know and when we know it—and, of course, the debate over his constitutional eligibility under section 44.
We've seen recriminations much more serious, indeed, even than that: the shocking allegations of bullying and intimidation. We've seen women members of parliament, like the member for Chisholm, Senator Gichuhi, the member for Curtin and even the Minister for Women, talking about serious allegations of thuggery and standover tactics. We've had the member for Leichhardt out today making the same point. But, of course, on the other hand, against the victims of the bullying, we've got the member for Hughes saying they should 'roll with the punches'. This is indeed a character test for the new Prime Minister. Bullies are not entitled to the protection of secrecy. They do not deserve a deliberate silence from the Prime Minister of Australia. The simple point is this: the best way for the Liberal Party to resolve all of these toxic, poisonous issues and the best place for them to get them out of their system is a good long stint in opposition. There are no shortcuts to promoting women. The Liberal Party will not be taken seriously on the issue of equal representation of women in parliament until they introduce quotas like the Labor Party has.
The Australian people didn't vote for this current Prime Minister, and his own party can't explain why he's there. But one thing that is clear is his record. The Prime Minister has spent the past 16 days trying to hide from the previous five years. We remember, though. We remember when he was Minister for Social Services in the Abbott government, cutting child care, cutting support for families, increasing the threshold before people were able to access the age pension and pushing the retirement age to 70. We remember when he attacked nurses and police officers who'd negotiated improvements in their paid parental leave as 'rorters'. We remember when he was Treasurer, presiding over the lowest wages growth in this nation yet voting eight times to cut penalty rates. We remember when he insulted the victims of banking rip-offs by mocking the banking royal commission as a 'populist whinge'. We remember when he voted 26 times to protect the big banks from scrutiny to deny justice to Australian farmers, small businesses, banking consumers and homeowners. We remember the three years and three budgets that he devoted to giving some of these same banks a $17 billion handout. We remember the three years and the three budgets where he's helped doubled the deficit. We remember the three years and the three budgets that have cut schools, cut TAFE and apprenticeships, cut universities, cut hospitals, cut support for pensioners and frozen the Medicare patient rebate, all in the name of funding Australia's biggest-ever handout to the top end of town.
But there is a simple fact here which deserves more attention: 45 members of the Liberal Party voted to spill the Liberal leadership and sack Malcolm Turnbull—45!—but only 40 voted for the member for Dickson. Who are these other five Liberal MPs who wanted up their own man, the current Prime Minister? They were clever enough to spill the former Prime Minister's position and clever enough not to vote for the member for Dickson. Who is the person who has benefited most from the instability in the current Liberal workforce? Who has benefited most from the spill of Prime Minister Turnbull and by not voting for the member for Dickson? It's the current Prime Minister, the man who now holds the office.
This Prime Minister was not an innocent bystander in the leadership coup any more than he was a bit player in the Abbott and Turnbull leaderships. Every day at the cabinet table for the past five years, he'd done over working and middle-income families in Australia. Saying 'fairness' repetitively, like a mantra, doesn't make up for five years of unfairness. His record speaks for his character far louder than anything he yells in question time. The Australian people are sick and tired of watching the Liberal Party fight themselves. They deserve better than a government consumed by jealousy and ambition and animosity. No more badge-wearing, covering up and evangelical lectures—it's time for the Australian people to have a say on the government of this country. (Time expired)
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion. Who will forget that vision of the then Treasurer, now Prime Minister, with his arm around the member for Wentworth? Who will forget him in the courtyard saying, 'I'm ambitious for this man'? He should have said, 'I'm ambitious for his job.' Less than 48 hours later, he'd knifed the Prime Minister and placed himself on the throne. Who knows how long this plot had been waiting to hatch? Who knows how long he'd been working towards this end? One person knows. That's right—we know who knows.
This Prime Minister does not come to this job with clean hands. Right around Australia, people are scratching their heads and going, 'Actually, that Malcolm Turnbull was pretty popular, and the Liberal Party actually weren't very popular at all.' They've exchanged a popular leader of an unpopular party for a less-popular leader of an unpopular party. Where is the logic of this? The other side had the members for Flinders, Stirling, Hume, Aston and Moncrieff all pledging their loyalty to the former Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, and then all of them voted for this man opposite, the member for Dickson. This is the guy, in charge of our borders, who can't even count to 43. It makes me a little nervous to have someone in charge of the borders who can't even count to 43. But you know for certain that those on the opposite side have been obsessed with the numbers for weeks. For months they've been focused on the numbers.
We've been focused on another set of numbers. We've been focused on the number of people in hospital waiting queues. We've been focused on the number of kids who are having their access to early childhood education cut because of the changes of those opposite. We're focused on the number of young Australians who are missing out on apprenticeships because of the cuts to TAFE and vocational education.
Those opposite, by their own description, have given up governing. Even the Prime Minister calls his own people the 'muppet show', a bunch of muppets. The Prime Minister says that of his own people. But—you know what?—this new Prime Minister himself has nothing too much to be smug about. People won't forget his record as Treasurer. They won't forget wages growth at record lows. They won't forget 1.8 million people on the unemployment queue or looking for more work. They won't forget the fact that, when Scott Morrison was Treasurer, net debt doubled, gross debt crashed through half a trillion dollars and the pension age was raised to 70. How many times is the now Prime Minister on the record saying how necessary it is? Cuts to penalty rates, cuts to schools, cuts to health care and cuts to banking taxes as well are in his DNA.
People know his record. They know that the reason he's prepared to slip and slide through these things that he used to say were tenets of good government—they know that the reason he's prepared to give up on them today—is that he just wants to grub a few extra votes. He knows he's up against it. He will say anything to get a few extra votes, in the party room and in public.
And—do you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker?—the leader of government business challenges us to talk about what's been leaked during this time. Well, aside from the infrastructure plan, aside from the tax plan, aside from the school-funding plan, I think the most interesting leaks coming from those on the other side are the leaks about the toxicity of their internal culture, the fact that they cannot work together to deliver for Australians, because they cannot work together, full stop. To have respected women on the opposite side talking about a toxic culture of bullying and then having the now Prime Minister dismiss that, refuse to take it seriously, refuse to investigate it, show just how unfit that mob opposite are to govern.
I noticed with interest that the Prime Minister, when swearing in the new front bench, decided he had to give them all a lapel pin to remember why they're here. I noticed, in fact, that the manager of government business and the minister for immigration—
Opposition members interjecting—
Where are they? Where are the lapel pins? I will tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker: I don't need a lapel pin to tell me whose side I'm on. I don't need a lapel pin to remind me why I'm here. We don't need a lapel pin to remind us that we are proud Australians and we support increased wages for working Australians. We increased— (Time expired)
Mr Deputy Speaker, of course the Labor Party want to blow up the parliament. That is the playbook of the opposition. That's been the playbook of the Labor Party for the last five years. You would expect them to come into the House, and they have, following the usual mantra: a suspension of standing orders, a fire-and-brimstone speech from the Leader of the Opposition and a not-so-fire-and-brimstone speech from Deputy Leader of the Opposition. You'd expect them to want to blow up the House. They want us all to be focusing—Happy New Year to you too, by the way, Member. I'm surprised to see you here, but I'm delighted that you're here to be part of this discussion.
An honourable member interjecting—
No, I am. I'm delighted to see you, and Happy New Year to you—Rosh Hashana.
You'd expect Labor to come into the House and blow up the parliament with a whole lot of confected outrage about what's been going on the last month, but you've got to admire their chutzpah, particularly the Leader of the Opposition's chutzpah, because lot of those members on the other side of the House come from a government and an opposition—a Labor Party—that changed their leader in five years from Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard to Kevin Rudd. When they were in opposition they had Kim Beazley, Simon Crean, Kim Beazley again and even tried Mark Latham, who they now completely reject as a member of the Labor Party. Then they went to Kevin Rudd. They were a party that changed their leader very routinely. And I agree with them that changing the leader is not the right thing to do.
The Australian public are quite rightly most disconcerted with what's occurred. I agree that the last 10 years of politics in Australia, the instability that was initiated by the Labor Party from 2007 to 2013, was the wrong way to treat the Australian public. It was the wrong way to behave, and now Labor says they had to do it. But they began the process that has led to this 10 years of instability in Australia after the 11½ years of stability by the Howard government.
We had 11½ years of stability in the Howard government following relative instability in the Hawke and Keating governments, the Fraser government, of course, and the aberration that was the Whitlam government. Before that we had 21 years of continuous power from the coalition. And Labor created this very unfortunate atmosphere in Australian politics in the last 10 years, where changing the leader became de rigueur. It's the wrong thing to have done.
I agree with the Australian public that what they want is stability.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
Order! The member for McEwen is warned.
They want a calm, methodical government in Australia that is getting on with the job. When it comes from the Leader of the Opposition, it is particularly galling to be lectured about stability and unity. In Paul Kelly's book, Triumph and Demise: The Broken Promise of a Labor Generation, on the Leader of the Opposition, Paul Kelly lined him up. He said:
The distrust between Shorten and Rudd was intense and enduring, the Gillard camp was contemptuous of Shorten, considering him weak and duplicitous. Neither side trusted him and neither side revised its view.
That is the truth about the Leader of the Opposition. Neither side trusts him in the Labor side. Nobody trusts him amongst the Australian public. The only people that trust him to follow what he says he'll do are the CFMEU and John Setka. The reality is that, after only two weeks, the new Prime Minister is the preferred Prime Minister in Australia. How upsetting that must be to the Labor caucus. Even in polls showing the government trailing the opposition very seriously—and there is no point in gilding the lily; that is certainly the case in the current public polling—even in published polling that shows the Labor Party well ahead of the government, the Leader of the Opposition is not the preferred Prime Minister in this country. In two short weeks, the member for Cook has so put his stamp on the prime ministership that he is the preferred Prime Minister in this country, and that must be making the Labor Party hardheads of the caucus and the union movement scratch their heads and think it's possible they could lose this next election—an election which the Labor Party thinks they already have in the bag, an election where the Leader of the Opposition is already sizing up the curtains in the prime ministerial suite because he is so certain that he's going to be the Prime Minister of Australia after the next election.
Well, I've got news for the Labor Party: we're getting on with the job on this side of the House. Whether it's creating over a million jobs—last week, according to the national accounts, we had the highest level of growth in the G7—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! There is far too much noise.
because the policies of this government, the policies of the former Treasurer—now the Prime Minister—and the former Prime Minister have been driving economic growth in this country, creating growth, creating jobs. This government has got the runs on the board. This government has reduced personal income tax in Australia. For average families struggling to make ends meet we are reducing income tax. We are reducing company tax for small businesses. We are driving small and medium enterprises in this country to re-invest in their own businesses, to create the jobs that are driving the economy. We have record levels of infrastructure spending right across the nation, in roads, in bridges, in new airports, in defence industry infrastructure, in bases—$75 billion worth of infrastructure spending according to the new minister, and he is going to get the opportunity to expand on that and outline that infrastructure spend. That's helping to create jobs and growth in the Australian economy, unlike the Rip Van Winkle years of the Labor Party from 2007 to 2013.
We are getting electricity prices down. They've already started coming down in certain markets around Australia, including in South Australia and Queensland. We are going to be focusing like a laser beam on electricity prices. The new minister, the member for Hume, is focused on one thing and one thing only: bringing down electricity prices. We are going to make the states focus on the reliability of energy supply in this country.
On national security, the member for Dickson, the Minister for Home Affairs, is continuing to support our border security. He will answer questions about that later today, about how we've dealt with the latest boat arrival. For five years we have stopped the boats in this country. We have completely reversed the record under the Labor Party, when there were 50,000 arrivals on over 800 boats. There were thousands of children in detention. When we came into power we had to get children out of detention. When the Howard government lost power, I think there were six or even five children in detention. We have stopped the boats, we have defended our borders and we are investing in national security. We have a $200 billion investment in our defence capability, the largest build-up of our military capability in our peacetime history. After the years of Labor, when spending on defence was reduced to 1.56 per cent of GDP, the lowest level since 1938, the lowest level since the last year of appeasement, under Labor, we are repairing the damage. We are repairing the damage that was done by the Labor Party in defence.
We are balancing the budget. We have a path back to surplus. A strong economy and a strong budget means we can invest in the things that Australians regard as important, like the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, like listing new drugs on the PBS that couldn't be done under Labor because there wasn't the money.
Here we are debating a Labor motion to suspend standing orders to demand that we have more chaos to try to break the furniture, to rip up the place like a CFMMEU annual general meeting. We're not having anything to do with it. We are going to keep getting on with the job. We are going to focus on the things that people regard as important: reducing taxation, supporting families, raising wages, balancing the budget, investing in infrastructure, national security, protecting our borders and the essential services that people like the farmers right now need all around Australia because of the drought. Our response to the drought is about using the funds that we've managed to salt away as a government by having a balanced budget process to support the essential services Australians need.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until 12 noon.
Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that members have been nominated to be members of certain committees. I call the minister.
by leave—I move:
That:
(1) Mr Fitzgibbon be discharged from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources and that, in his place, Ms Keay be appointed a member of the committee;
(2) Ms T. M. Butler be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and that, in her place, Ms Kearney be appointed a member of the committee;
(3) Ms Kearney be discharged from the Standing Committee on Economics and that, in her place, Mr J. H. Wilson be appointed a member of the committee;
(4) Ms T. M. Butler be discharged from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training and that, in her place, Ms Lamb be appointed a member of the committee;
(5) Mr Conroy be discharged from the Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence and that, in his place, Ms Kearney be appointed a member of the committee;
(6) Ms Templeman be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network and that, in her place, Mr J. H. Wilson be appointed a member of the committee;
(7) Ms Macklin be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and that, in her place, Ms Burney be appointed a member of the committee;
(8) Ms T. M. Butler be discharged from the Standing Committee on Procedure and that, in her place, Mr Gorman be appointed a member of the committee;
(9) Mr Conroy be discharged from the Joint Committee on Publications and that, in his place, Mr Gorman be appointed a member of the committee;
(10) Mr Hill be discharged from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and that, in his place, Ms Keay be appointed a member of the committee;
(11) Ms T. M. Butler be discharged from the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue and that, in her place, Mr Gorman be appointed a member of the committee;
(12) Mr Hart be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that, in his place, Mr J. H. Wilson be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
The Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018 reflects a change to the Family Law Act which Labor has been calling on the government to make for some time. It's hard to believe that in 2018 family violence survivors are still sometimes required to endure cross-examination conducted by their own abusers. It seems unthinkable, but it happens.
According to an Australian Institute of Family Studies report, published in June 2018, 173 survivors were directly cross-examined by their abusers in family law matters over the course of two years. But that number likely disguises the much larger number of women who, faced with the possibility of direct cross-examination, chose to settle in order to avoid it, often with bad outcomes. It's hard to put into words how horrific an experience it must be to have the person who has inflicted hurt and pain on you question you in front of others about that very experience. It's a tool perpetrators can and have used to inflict fresh pain and trauma on survivors. It should have stopped a long time ago. It's an outrage that it continues.
Let me pause here to note, with some dismay, the fact that this important bill was interrupted by the chaos that engulfed this government in the last sitting week. I was sitting in the chamber, ready to speak on this bill, just before the Leader of the House rose to his feet to suspend parliament because the government had completely lost control. That's the same person, the Leader of the House, who has just tried to claim to the chamber that this government is somehow in control. Instead, what we saw on the Thursday of the last sitting week was a shameful act, an extraordinary act, not just because it was unprecedented that the government should decide that the House should no longer sit because of its own inability to manage its own affairs or to even agree on how to go forward, but because of the delay caused to important bills like the bill that's now before the House. While I'm glad that this bill is being debated and progressed through the House, I could not neglect to mention that this could have happened two weeks ago, that the bill could now be in the Senate and that domestic violence survivors could now be one step closer to being protected, if not for this government's shameful actions in the last sitting fortnight.
Before the 2016 election, Labor pledged to change the laws so that this horrible practice stops happening. We also pledged $43 million in funding for Legal Aid to provide legal representation during hearings to prevent direct cross-examination from being necessary. Our party leader recommitted Labor to that policy on White Ribbon Day in November in the same year. It was then and is now an initiative of which I'm very proud. As the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, said in his speech two years ago:
This is trial by ordeal. It is an added indignity, a further injustice, inflicted by the abuser who has already done enough damage. Cross-examination in family violence by unrepresented perpetrators is a re-injury. It is new harm on top of the old, we must put a stop to it.
Labor's policy would have compelled judges to consider whether appropriate protection should be put in place during cross-examination of domestic violence survivors and, if available mechanisms were insufficient, to impose a ban. Labor has led the debate on this issue and, thankfully, finally, the government has followed.
The government has produced the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018, which imposes an automatic ban on direct cross-examination of family violence survivors by perpetrators. This automatic ban applies where there is evidence or allegations of family violence between the two parties in a family law matter. The ban will be imposed automatically if certain conditions are met. If there is an allegation of family violence between the two parties and either party has been convicted of or charged with an offence involving violence or threat of violence to the other party, the automatic ban will apply. Similarly, if a family violence order applies to both parties or if an injunction is in place for the personal protection of either party, the automatic ban will apply. Of course, there could still be serious family violence in play, even if none of these conditions are met. In that case, the court still has the discretion to impose a ban if it deems appropriate. If a ban is not imposed, other protections are available for the victims, such as video link or screens during cross-examination. In cases where the ban is imposed, unrepresented parties will be directed by a judge to obtain representation, either through Legal Aid or through private funding. This includes both the survivor and the perpetrator. If either party cannot obtain or refuses to obtain legal representation, no cross-examination can take place. Contained in the measures I've just described are the bones of a good policy, perhaps similar to the one that Labor may have introduced after the 2016 election, had we won that election. But there is one glaring and very, very major omission: additional funding for Legal Aid to make it all work.
Before I discuss this issue in depth, I will address some of the concerns raised through the committee process about other parts of the bill. One concern raised by lawyers is the lack of discretion available to judges, thanks to a ban on cross-examination being automatically triggered if certain circumstances are met. This is a concern that is linked with the issue of insufficient funding for Legal Aid and lack of availability for representation for those who cannot afford a private lawyer. If a party is directed to obtain legal representation but is unable to obtain that representation, then no cross-examination can take place. This could present a significant problem in terms of testing the key facts and evidence of the case and will potentially make it difficult for a finding to be made. This could cause as much of a problem for survivors as for perpetrators if legal representation is unable to be provided. As the Australian Bar Association said in its submission:
Without cross-examination, a Court is left in the unenviable position of determining a dispute without a proper and fulsome testing of the evidence. In short, where there is a dispute of fact but no cross-examination, the court cannot make a finding one way or the other.
This is, indeed, a problem. If a ban on direct cross-examination is imposed but legal representation cannot be obtained in a large number of cases, a serious and systemic problem could eventuate. But this is a problem that has a solution. The missing piece, of course, is funding. It's well known that legal aid services across the country are stretched to their absolute limit. National funding levels are forecast to increase less than five per cent in the four years from 2014-15 to 2019-20. That is barely enough to keep up with demand.
Wherever I go around the country, I always make an effort to visit legal aid commissions and community legal centres. Let me tell you: there is nothing left in the tank. National Legal Aid gave the following evidence at the inquiry into this the bill:
If new funding is not made available to support the scheme, legal aid commissions would be unable to provide legal representation outside existing legal aid funding. Legal aid commissions operate within an already stretched funding regime and strict guidelines that prioritise those in our community that are the most vulnerable and in need of assistance.
The government appears to believe that the passage of this bill would not result in a significant increase in demand for legal aid services, and quotes the Australian Institute of Family Studies figure that only 173 survivors were directly cross-examined in two years—which, of course, is far too many. But if a ban on direct cross-examination were put in place, plenty more survivors would be willing to proceed with their cases, where previously they would have settled. It is likely that the demand for legal aid services would be significant.
When Labor modelled the policy that we took to the 2016 election, for example, we assumed that as many as 658 cases of potential direct cross-examination could arise where legal aid services would be required in any year. It is actually anyone's guess. There is simply no way the measures in this bill can be properly implemented without additional funding. It would be a shell of a policy and a show of good intentions, but completely ineffective. If no additional funding is granted by the government, the most likely outcome is that unrepresented litigants who are directed to obtain representation from legal aid could be turned away. Labor recognised this reality and pledged $43 million in additional funding for legal aid so that we could make this change work.
There is another consideration to keep in mind. Thanks to the failure to adequately fund legal aid, eligibility requirements are incredibly strict, and many litigants are turned away. However, many of these people, similarly, cannot afford a private lawyer. They fall between the gaps. As Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia said in their submission to the inquiry:
… we note that women who have experienced family violence often fall into the "missing middle"—the gap between those who are eligible for legal aid and those who can afford to pay a private lawyer.
So simply directing unrepresented litigants to go to legal aid or obtain private legal representation is not as simple as it looks. Labor made clear in our funding pledge that the additional money would go into a dedicated fund for legal aid, which would operate outside normal eligibility requirements so that an unrepresented litigant who could not afford a private lawyer would still be guaranteed representation. So not only has the government failed to announce adequate additional funding; it has also failed to address the problem of access. When this additional funding is announced—we hope it will be imminently—this is an issue that the government must take into account.
It's not just Labor calling for additional funding in order to make this reform work; it's the government's own senators. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, chaired by government senator Ian Macdonald, produced a bipartisan report with complete agreement on its final recommendations. This is what the committee noted:
The committee believes there should be a commitment to additional funding for Legal Aid before the bill is put to a vote in the Senate, including the amount, timeline for distribution and method of distribution; and in any additional funding for Legal Aid that is announced, the government make clear the eligibility of litigants who do not meet regular eligibility requirements but could not otherwise afford a private lawyer.
The committee went on to make two recommendations. Recommendation 1 was this:
The committee recommends that details regarding the funding of the measures contained in the bill be made public prior to the commencement of debate on the bill in the Senate.
Recommendation 2 was, 'The committee recommends that the bill be passed, subject to Recommendation 1.' There you have it: the government's own senators calling out the Attorney-General for not committing to the funding that would make this reform work. I thank the government's senators on that committee—and, of course, the other senators as well—and particularly the chair of the committee, Ian Macdonald, for working with Labor on achieving that sensible outcome. This is maybe the only time that Senator Ian Macdonald has received praise from our side of the parliament! But, on this occasion, Senator Ian Macdonald deserves praise.
Here we are debating the bill in the House, and the clock is ticking for the government to make its announcement. If the government is to adhere to the recommendation of its own senators in announcing details of additional funding for legal aid before the bill is debated in the Senate, it does not have much time. I sincerely hope that real progress is being made towards the outcome, but my fear is that the Attorney-General and his colleagues may be a little distracted at present with their own infighting. This is the worst thing about the kind of chaos that is engulfing the government. The focus of those opposite is only on themselves, not on the Australian people, who they are meant to be serving. Domestic violence survivors are people who deserve our attention. The government cannot look away from its obligation to help. Ignoring the calls for appropriate funding for legal aid to make this cross-examination ban effective in practice would be the government turning its back on these survivors.
Last week, the opposition leader and deputy leader wrote to the Prime Minister, urging him to step in and act on the funding that is missing from the bill that we are currently debating. I'll read a few lines from that letter:
… as a matter of urgency, we are asking you—
The current Prime Minister—
and the Attorney-General to provide a guarantee of funding before this bill is put to the Senate for a vote. This is fundamental to making the reform worthwhile. We have often attended events together where we've both spoken of the need for parliament to do more to eliminate the scourge of family violence from our national life and to deliver better services and resources for survivors and their families. It's a policy area we all care deeply about. By allocating a small sum of money alongside an overdue reform, we have the opportunity to make a difference as soon as parliament resumes. So let's get it done.
Unsurprisingly, we are yet to receive a response. Who knows when we might receive a response or who we might even receive it from? The Prime Minister may be a completely different person this time tomorrow. Perhaps we'll never receive a response. This is a government that is completely engulfed in crisis, with 10 frontbenchers straining to dump the Prime Minister and the government completely incapable of making a decision. There will be many Australians who will suffer while the government is focused on itself instead of on them. I sincerely hope that domestic violence survivors are not among the number of groups who will be forgotten by this government. That would indeed be a tragedy.
Labor will not stand in the way of this bill passing the House today. That is because we believe in the important principle of stopping the direct cross-examination of domestic violence survivors, and we will not delay this reform any longer. But I urge the government in the strongest possible terms: do not forget the most important ingredient required to make this reform work—funding. You simply must announce how much additional funding you will deliver legal aid before this bill is debated in the Senate; otherwise you are asking the parliament to pass a law without a guarantee that it can be implemented in practice. That is crazy and ultimately hurtful to the people the bill is aiming to protect—domestic violence survivors. Amid this chaos, I call on the government to step up and show us that you have not lost the ability to make decisions in the best interests of this nation; guarantee the funding now. I do commend this bill to the House, but I also move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to provide adequate funding for Legal Aid to ensure sufficient access to legal representation in order to facilitate a ban on direct cross-examination of family violence survivors in court"
Is the amendment seconded?
It is so seconded, and I reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Isaacs has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. I have taken the view that the deferred division should not be proceeded with until the member speaking at 12 noon had completed his speech and so I did not interrupt the member. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour.
In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Maribyrnong on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.
The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission annual report 2017, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—It is unusual for a member of the opposition to be presenting a report for the Standing Committee on Economics to the House of Representatives, but that has occurred because the government doesn't have a chair for this particular committee at the moment. That's right: the Standing Committee on Economics in the House of Representatives does not have a chair. We've been through, I think, three chairs of this committee during the term of this parliament, and we'll now go on to our fourth because the previous chair has, of course, been elevated to one of the assistant minister positions in the government as a result of the shake-up and the dethroning of the member for Wentworth as the Prime Minister, and the chaos continues in this government.
It really is symbolic and highlights very well the fact that, whilst good committees of this parliament are getting on with the job of looking into one of the most urgent matters that the parliament should be devoting a fair bit of time to at the moment, and that is the scandals and rip-offs that have been occurring in the banking and financial services sector, which are numerous, instead, the government have been focused on themselves. It's been 16 days since the coup occurred in the government, and they still haven't got around to appointing a new chair for the Standing Committee on Economics of the House of Representatives. Well, whilst they dilly-dally and whilst they fight amongst themselves, Labor is getting on with the job. It's symbolised by the fact that I am more than happy to present this report on behalf of the committee.
When this inquiry occurred on 22 June this year in Canberra, we welcomed the new Chair of ASIC, James Shipton, who'd recently been appointed to this role, in his first appearance before the committee. Unsurprisingly, most of the evidence that was taken on that day, and the questioning from members of the committee, related to the banking royal commission and ASIC's performance as a regulator. We've all seen some of the scandals and rip-offs that have occurred in this industry over the course of the last few years but in particular amongst some of the biggest financial houses, some of the most trusted banks and financial institutions in this country, which have undermined confidence in this industry. I speak, of course, of AMP, the fees-for-no-service rip-offs that have been occurring in all of the big banks, and the scandals in the banks associated with wealth management and with insurance, particularly life insurance products.
That frustration that Australians have really been feeling was perfectly summed up in a recent opinion piece that was written by Jeff Morris in April this year. It related to his experience with ASIC and the Commonwealth Bank. Jeff Morris was, of course, the person who blew the whistle on the wealth management scandal that was going on in the Commonwealth Bank. He uncovered fraud in the Commonwealth Bank, in their financial planning arm, back in October 2008. At the time, ASIC, when it launched some preliminary investigations, accepted the view of the Commonwealth Bank and basically did nothing about it. Over the course of the next couple of years, a series of a number of whistleblowers continually hounded ASIC, the regulator, to do something about what they believed was fraud going on in the Commonwealth Bank. It took the physical action of those whistleblowers walking into the offices of ASIC and demanding that the regulator take action against the Commonwealth Bank and have a look at what was going on in its wealth management arm. Thankfully, ASIC did at the time and it uncovered what led to a parliamentary inquiry and, ultimately, a royal commission into financial services and banking in this country.
In the words of Jeff Morris, the delay that occurred between 2008, when he first identified the fraud, and ASIC taking action meant 'files had been sanitised'. In June 2014 the Senate looked at the issue of what had been going on in the Commonwealth Bank, and it determined that ASIC had been 'a timid and hesitant' regulator. It was that particular inquiry that recommended a royal commission be launched into banking and financial services in this country. That committee had on it people like Senator Williams, who has been one of the few voices for the coalition calling for a royal commission for some time.
In the wake of that inquiry, what did we see? The government concluded that there was no need for a royal commission. Despite the fact that a bipartisan Senate committee had recommended a royal commission, the government concluded that there was no need for one. In his op-ed, which was printed in April of this year, Jeff Morris wrote:
Immediately the then Abbott government hosed down any prospect of a royal commission. I drove to Canberra to implore Mathias Cormann not to trust CBA.
I told him that ASIC had trusted CBA who had then made monkeys out of them. I warned him that the same thing would happen to him. It was in vain, of course, three weeks before CBA's annual general meeting, Cormann obligingly ruled out the royal commission in exchange for yet another self administered compensation scheme.
It perfectly sums up the view and frustrations of people who have been calling for action in banking and financial services for a decade now. This government did nothing about it. Even back then, when its own members were calling for a royal commission, this government did nothing about it. It stonewalled and protected its mates in the banking sector to ensure that there was not a royal commission. We've all seen the outcomes that have been uncovered. Yet another round is occurring today, with insurance under the spotlight.
Who was it that voted so many times in this place against a royal commission? Who was it that led the charge for the Abbott and Turnbull governments against a royal commission? It was none other than the new Prime Minister, the member for Cook, Scott Morrison. It was the new Prime Minister who led the opposition to a banking royal commission in this country. He ought to be ashamed of himself, based on the evidence that's being uncovered in that royal commission today. It's because of that that ASIC didn't get the resources and the funding it deserved to stop some of this action. Who knows how many thousands of Australians might not have been ripped off by the banks and some of these financial houses if the government had taken seriously the calls in the early days for a royal commission, and properly resourced ASIC? In the wake of that initial Senate inquiry report, what did the government do to the regulator? It ripped $120 million out of its budget. That saw job losses and a loss of expertise in this particular industry and in this sector, which led to a complete lack of oversight and to the rip-offs and scandals being gotten away with, and it's Australians who have suffered.
The Australian people have paid the price. All of the banks have been involved in the fees-for-no-service scandal. All of the banks have had accusations made against their insurance arms. Issues with commissions and conflicts of interests are continually being uncovered by the banking royal commission. For all of that period between 2008 up until a year or so ago, when the government finally agreed to a royal commission, thousands of Australians had been ripped off. This government should hang their heads in shame that they didn't take action when Labor was calling for it back in 2010, in the wake of that report. All of this opposition to a royal commission has been led by the current Prime Minister.
Thankfully, in the wake of all of these scandals, the government have woken up to themselves. They have restored some of the funding to ASIC, and that's been a welcome development. A second deputy commissioner to ASIC has been appointed on a full-time basis; this is something that Labor has supported. Finally, the government is giving some additional powers to ASIC and has stiffened penalties. But these are the things that should have been done some years ago. If they had been done then, many Australians would not have been ripped off. Many Australians would have a lot more money in their bank accounts, in their retirement savings accounts and in their superannuation balances. They would've had better insurance outcomes and there would've been a lot less pain and suffering for many Australians. But because the Prime Minister and members of the front bench and backbench voted so many times against the royal commission that Labor had been calling for from 2010 onwards, many Australians have suffered, and that is a great shame.
Labor stands ready to work with the government, with ASIC and with other regulators to ensure that we do have a fair dinkum set of regulations that oversee this particular industry, an area of deep concern for many Australians. Hopefully, we can restore confidence and trust in Australia's banking and financial services sector.
It is indeed a pleasure to rise in this House and speak on what I think is an extraordinarily important piece of legislation, the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018. I listened with interest to the comments from the member for Isaacs earlier. I think we all in this place can agree that a bill of this nature deserves support. The reason for that is that victims of family violence or parties involved in family law matters can presently be cross-examined by the alleged perpetrators of that violence. I think many people across our community would find great concern with this—and justifiably so.
At the October 2016 COAG National Summit on Reducing Violence Against Women and their Children, it was agreed that perpetrators of family violence should not be able to personally cross-examine their victims in any family law or family violence proceedings. In the 2017-18 federal budget, it was announced that the legislation would be progressed by the Attorney-General to implement these family law proceedings. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee reported its inquiry into the bill and recommended that the bill be passed, subject to details regarding funding of the bill being made public prior to the commencement of debate in the Senate.
This bill responds directly to the recommendations of the committee's report. As I reflect on the topic that we're discussing, it's important to remember in all of this that it's not about what we discuss here in this House; it's actually about the families and the children who suffer in these circumstances. Importantly, these amendments also apply equally to parenting and property proceedings, thereby ensuring the appropriate safeguards for the victims of family violence are applied in all types of family law proceedings.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's report found one in six Australian women and one in 16 Australian men have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a current or previous partner, and one in four women and one in six men have experienced emotional abuse by a current or previous partner. Sadly, the report showed those most at risk were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, young women, pregnant women, women with disabilities, women experiencing financial hardship, and women and men who experienced abuse or witnessed domestic violence as a child.
The cost to the nation of violence against women is significant on many fronts. The KPMG report into the cost of violence against women and their children in Australia stated:
Violence against women and their children is a crime and a fundamental breach of human rights. Experiencing violence has significant implications for victims, their children, families, friends, employers and co-workers. The implications of violence can include long term social, health, psychological, financial, and economic—
harm. KPMG estimated the financial cost of such violence was $22 billion per annum in 2015-16 but noted that when taking into account under-represented groups and their source data, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, pregnant women, women with a disability, and women experiencing homelessness, an additional $4 billion may be added, taking the total financial cost to $26 billion per annum.
Family violence is not just about dollars; it is about people. It is about men, women and children—not statistics but human beings. It's not about the numbers but mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, grandparents, and the people next door, many who keep it secret and suffer in silence for weeks, months or years. It is in every community and in every electorate. The human cost to our society is both devastating and intolerable and is part of the human toll that this bill seeks to address.
We know that domestic violence and abuse can take many forms: physical, verbal, financial, emotional, sexual, stalking, spiritual and image based. Any and all of these are used against victims, often over a considerable time frame and almost always with devastating results. The reality of this terrible scourge is that, as we stand here today, thousands of Australians are being subject to the most terrible abuse by violent, vicious and uncaring partners. Thousands of children are witnessing what has become, tragically, normalised behaviour for many.
The ultimate tragedy for all of us is that there are many victims in our communities who won't make it as far as the court. These are the victims who pay the ultimate price and who die at the hands of their attackers. We all know the shameful regularity of domestic violence deaths. Week by week, the human toll increases and the shame on our society is added to.
The luckier victims—and I use that term only as a measure of degree—who reach the court system have often endured years of unimaginable physical and mental abuse. Subjugated by permanent and crippling levels of fear, they have, through circumstances or through sheer courage and force of will, been able to escape their abusers. The direct cross-examination of such victims of family violence by their alleged perpetrator can expose the victims to the possibility or even likelihood of retraumatisation and has the potential to undo even years of treatment and therapy and affect the quality and the clarity of their evidence. We hear public testimony of survivors saying their cross-examination by former partners drove them towards suicide. The often one-sided power dynamics underlying family violence can also make it difficult for victims to effectively cross-examine their alleged perpetrator. Research conducted by the Institute of Family Studies found that over two years between 2015 and 2017 direct cross-examination in final hearings occurred in 173 matters where there were allegations of family violence and one or both parties were self-represented.
This bill seeks to amend the Family Law Act to prohibit the personal cross-examination where there is an allegation of family violence between parties and any of the following applies: either party has been convicted of or is charged with an offence involving violence or a threat of violence to the other party; a family violence order other than an interim order applies to both parties; an injunction under section 68B or 114 of the Family Law Act for the personal protection of either party is directed against the other party; or the court makes an order that personal cross-examination is prohibited. The bill provides that if personal cross-examination is prohibited, cross-examination must be conducted by a legal representative, and it provides that if there is an allegation of family violence but personal cross-examination is not prohibited, the court must apply other appropriate protections.
This bill anticipates a process through which the court would make a request or direction that the party engage a lawyer, either privately or through legal aid, for the purposes of cross-examination. These arrangements will be provided for in the rules of the court and/or practice directions as necessary. The bill is balanced and affords equal protections to both parties in a proceeding. However, there should be no doubt that it sends a strong signal to the community that the rights of victims matter, and that this government understands that victims of crime, often overlooked, deserve the type of protections that in too many jurisdictions these days seem only to be afforded to criminals.
We should not pretend that this legislative change alone will bring an end to family violence. That is a fight that is going to be fought on many fronts across our society for time to come. The bill before us is intended to be and needs to be a step forward to provide these protections to the victims. I hope this bill will, at least to some degree, ease the burden of fear of those many people who are currently facing the devastating situation of being victims of family violence and who, until now, have had their victimisation exacerbated by the very system that seeks to protection them. I hope it allows them the comfort of knowing that they will not be compelled to face the alleged perpetrator of the violence and abuse that has consumed them and become, often, the most significant, terrifying and destructive episode in their life. I'm proud of the fact that this bill has been brought before the House and of the bipartisan commitment that the member for Isaacs outlined earlier. We seek in this bill to provide the rights and protections to victims of family violence that are so desperately needed.
I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018. I welcome this bill, but I say up-front that I have concerns about the funding, as outlined by the Senate committee. It is past overdue that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government legislate to protect victims of family violence from being directly cross-examined by the very person that actually inflicted the violence. Stakeholders, including victims and survivors of family violence, have been calling for this legislation for years. Labor did extensive work on a policy solution to this problem before the 2016 election. As the shadow Attorney-General's shadow parliamentary secretary, I ensured that we consulted with many stakeholders around Australia. We listened to what those stakeholders said and we came up with a policy that would work. It would protect victims of family violence from being retraumatised by their abusers in the courts. And it would work because it was funded. Labor took to the 2016 election a commitment to legislate this measure, accompanied by funding of $43.2 million. I announced this measure in Annerley, with the member Griffiths, at the Women's Legal Service, a service in Moreton that services the state.
In November 2016, the Leader of the Opposition announced Labor's renewed commitment to pursue this reform. While I congratulate the Morrison government for finally bringing our policy to the parliament, unless it has funding it will be useless. I say that again: unless there is funding it will be useless. Unrepresented litigants have been a constant feature of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court for many years and they're becoming more prevalent. When they're unrepresented, it is slower for the bench to walk through with the litigants the processes they will deal with. The government's failure to adequately resource legal aid funding has certainly contributed to the rise in unrepresented litigants. There is a large cohort of individuals who are not eligible for legal aid under the current eligibility criteria but also are unable to afford a private lawyer. This cohort has no choice but to appear unrepresented if they find themselves in a family law dispute.
During a family law trial, the evidence is tested by cross-examining each party and any witnesses called. When a party is unrepresented, the cross-examination necessarily will be done by the party themselves. When there is an allegation of family violence perpetrated by one party on the other, the trial will become an extension of that abuse by allowing a perpetrator of family violence to actually cross-examine their victim. A submission by Women's Legal Services Australia to the Family Law Council in 2015 explained that this experience can often retraumatise the victim and compromise the quality of evidence given to the court, which can affect the court's ability to make safe and effective orders. It can allow the perpetrator to use court proceedings to exercise control and dominance over the victim. It can allow perpetrators to ask ostensibly valid questions but which can deliberately and strategically be loaded with hidden and sinister meaning or threats to the victims. It can provide an avenue for the perpetrator to ask the victim directly about incidents of violence and abuse as this is relevant to determining the best interests of the child. It becomes systems abuse—that is, the legal system is participating in the abuse, complicit in further perpetuating harm. It would be a disincentive for victims to proceed to trial and it can pressure some victims into consent agreements that may be unsafe or unworkable to avoid the trial experience.
Women's Legal Services Australia conducted a survey in 2015 on the experiences of women survivors of family violence who had been personally cross-examined by their abusers in the family law courts. They had 115 women respond to their survey. Of those 115 women, three women reported that they were so traumatised by the experience of being personally cross-examined by their abuser that they were suicidal. The remaining respondents to the survey expressed their experiences in terms of anxiety, depression and ongoing distress. Some women were so distraught at the prospect of being directly cross-examined by their abuser that they were physically ill before entering the court. One woman reported being violently ill on the side of the road on the way to court, making her late for the court date. They then had to be vacated, drawing out her traumatic experience even further. Some of the respondents to the survey settled their disputes before the trial. Forty-five per cent of those women reported that the prospect of being personally cross-examined by their abuser was a significant factor in their decision to settle—nearly half.
It is important to bear in mind that the purpose of all of these court proceedings is to decide what is in the best interests of the children. It is important that the person making the decision has reliable evidence before them—evidence that has been properly tested. In our adversarial legal system, it is important that both parties are able to test the evidence that is before the court by way of cross-examination. As a lawyer I can never support the simplistic notion of just banning cross-examination whenever there is any allegation of family violence, but this bill imposes a ban on direct cross-examination of both victim and perpetrator in family law hearings in certain circumstances where there is an allegation of family violence. The ban will be enlivened when there is an allegation of family violence between the two parties and either party has been convicted of or charged with an offence involving violence or threat of violence to the other party or a family violence order applies to both parties or an injunction for the personal protection of either party is directed against the other party. If none of those conditions exist, the court will still have its own discretion to order that the ban applies. Where the ban has been ordered, the parties will be directed to obtain legal representation either privately or, if eligible, through Legal Aid. It is crucial to this measure that the parties are able to access legal representation. As I've said previously, there are many people who are not eligible for legal aid who also cannot afford to engage a private lawyer. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee received submissions about this bill. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia gave evidence at the hearing. They described this cohort of people as being the missing middle—ineligible for Legal Aid but not able to afford a lawyer.
National Legal Aid told the committee that without appropriate funding and resourcing for the proposed measures the bill's provisions could disempower many self-represented litigants who may be unable to access Legal Aid or afford private representation. The committee was told by the Attorney-General's Department that there were ongoing discussions with National Legal Aid about resources for this measure which would be resolved prior to the consideration of the bill in parliament. Well, here we are, in parliament, debating this bill and still we have no confirmation that there will be any funding to ensure that the measures are workable. It was touched on by the member for Forde, but there's still no money on the table, despite what the committee said. I hope that the government is not just making hollow promises to victims of family violence. I hope that preventing the retraumatisation of victims of family violence is considered a serious issue that they will actually properly fund.
Submitters to the Senate committee were also critical that the bill appears to only mandate that a legal practitioner can conduct the cross-examination. The representatives of the law bodies who appeared before the committee expressed concern that legal representatives who were parachuted in to do the cross-examination would not be able to properly conduct the cross-examination as they would not fully understand such cases, which are often complicated.
The Australian Bar Association was also concerned that limited representation for cross-examination alone would be a breach of its professional rules. It also queried whether a barrister's professional indemnity insurance would be available for such a limited period of representation. It not only makes more sense to provide representation for the whole trial but it actually provides better outcomes.
Mr Kearney, who appeared on behalf of the New South Wales Bar Association at the Senate committee hearing, stressed that it was particularly in cases involving allegations of family violence that a court must be in a position to properly determine whether violence had occurred and how the victim and children are to be protected. A lawyer has a duty to their client but also they have an ongoing duty to the court—that is, to justice and to the greater legal system. A lawyer who is properly prepared will be able to advance their client's case efficiently. They will be able to cross-examine the other party to test the evidence and to ensure that the evidence provided by their own client is coherent and relevant. Providing full representation will save the court time, provide better evidence to the court and give the parties the optimum chance of settling their dispute before the trial. Labor's policy considered all of these issues. It provided for full representation to both parties for the duration of their trial. Legal representation would be provided by Legal Aid but the parties would not be required to fit within the regular eligibility requirements. The ban on direct cross-examination contained in this bill is triggered only when a party has been convicted or charged with a violent offence to the other party or whether there was a family violence order applying to both parties or an injunction for the personal protection of one party from the other. There was criticism from Women's Legal Services Australia in their submission to the Senate committee that interim family violence orders were not a trigger for the ban. Interim orders can be in place for one to two years before a final order is made.
I note that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has a majority of Liberal members. This committee conducted an inquiry into this bill by receiving submissions from stakeholders, holding a public hearing and producing a report. The committee notes in its report that the funding of the bill's proposed measures were a consistent theme throughout evidence provided to the committee.
The Liberal-dominated committee also concluded:
The committee believes there should be a commitment to additional funding for Legal Aid before the bill is put to a vote in the Senate, including the amount, timeline for distribution and method of distribution; and in any additional funding for Legal Aid that is announced, the government make clear the eligibility of litigants who do not meet regular eligibility requirements but could not otherwise afford a private lawyer.
… … …
The committee recommends that details regarding the funding of the measures contained in the bill be made public prior to the commencement of debate on the bill in the Senate.
And that
… the bill be passed, subject to Recommendation 1.
It is quite extraordinary that a committee with a majority of Liberal members would make such recommendations about legislation put before the parliament by the Liberal coalition government. At least this government enthusiastically embraces their TheMuppet Show routine. What is sad is that it is vulnerable victims of family violence who will suffer if this hapless government does not come up with proper funding for this crucial measure. Victims of family violence deserve to have protections in place so that they are not retraumatised through the court system. Children of families who have experienced family violence deserve to have decisions made about their welfare that are considered and based on evidence that has been properly tested and is timely. None of this can occur without proper funding.
The record of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, the ATM government, in managing our important family law system has been horrendous. Looking at the measure contained in this bill alone, it has taken too long for the government to act. Labor committed to a policy to protect victims of family violence from direct cross-examination more than two years ago, and that policy was accompanied by proper funding that provided full representation for both parties. Looking more widely at the family law system, this government has not replaced judges in a timely manner. Retiring judges have taken more than a year to be replaced, which causes backlogs that have never recovered. The previous chief justice called for more resources 2½ years ago. That plea fell on deaf ears—it was only $20 million for family consultants and registrars to help to manage cases.
Now, when the family law system is in crisis, what does the government do? They haven't given the courts the resources they've been crying out for. They have announced a radical reform that will effectively abolish the specialist Family Court of Australia—the court that has the most expertise in complex family law cases, including family violence, mental health issues and drug and alcohol abuse. Have they canvassed this radical proposal with stakeholders? Have they gone out to legal practitioners, judges or the families that use the family law system? No. Instead, they've gone ahead without consulting any of the groups. This arrogant, out-of-touch government does not consider it necessary to ask the very people who use the system daily if their radical idea will work before they try to implement it. It is dangerous to recklessly tinker with a family law system that decides the future of vulnerable children and their families—families who are already under stress and at breaking point. I hope, for the sake of the victims of family violence and the children using the family law system, that this government considers the measures in this bill to be sufficiently important to allocate proper funding. As I said before, if funding is not attached to this legislation it will be useless.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the bill currently before the House is urgent and should be given precedence over all other items, other than question time and this motion, for the remainder of the day;
(b) at 11.23 am today the Minister for Home Affairs made a statement to the House in which he said, "On 26 March 2018, the shadow minister for immigration asked me a question, asserting I had granted a visa for a person to be employed by me and my wife as a nanny";
(c) however, on 26 March the actual question asked by the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Blair, made no reference to whether the minister had granted a visa to a person to be employed by him and his wife as a nanny. Instead it read: "I refer to concerns raised in the media today relating to the minister's use of his ministerial discretion to grant a tourist visa to an au pair. Was his decision based on departmental advice? If not, what prompted the minister to intervene? And will the minister undertake to provide the opposition with a department briefing at the earliest opportunity so that the facts can be made clear?";
(d) today the Minister for Home Affairs also stated, "On 27 March, the member for Melbourne, after a short preamble, asked me, 'Can you categorically rule out any personal connection or any other relationship between you and the intended employer of either of the au pairs?'";
(e) however, once again the Minister for Home Affairs changed the words of the question to make it look like he had not misled the parliament; and
(f) the question the member for Melbourne actually asked read: 'I note your recent statements in relation to your personal intervention to prevent deportation of two foreign intended au pairs. Can you categorically rule out any personal connection or any other relationship between you and the intended employer of either of the au pairs?"
(2) therefore resolves to provide an opportunity for the minister to act in accordance with the Ministerial Standards to explain why he provided the House with false information in his statement today when he next attends the House.
This resolution does two things. First of all, it declares the bill before the House as urgent. It would have the effect of suspending 90-second statements so that dealing with this motion now takes away no time from an important bill. But the second thing it does is deal immediately with the fact that the minister stood up today, allegedly to make it clear that he had not misled the parliament and, in making that speech, misled the parliament twice—twice—and not simply on matters of detail but on misquoting the Hansard. They have a history of wanting to change the Hansard.
I seek your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, on whether you believe that this suspension of standing orders is in order at this time of the day, given that we're in the middle of a debate on the family violence legislation.
An opposition member: It didn't worry you last week.
What do you mean? That's not really a relevant objection.
The members opposite will be quiet, please.
If the Manager of Opposition Business wants to move a motion at some stage later today and move a suspension of standing orders, that's another thing. But we are in the midst of a debate and there are rules around what can be done in the midst of a debate. We're not between two items of business.
I do take the point and, as the Manager of Opposition Business would know, the suspension has to be relevant to the current debate. I am yet to be convinced of that. I am happy for you to finish but at this stage I would say, 'Probably not'. But I'm happy for you to finish.
If I can make it clear again, the first paragraph of this motion deals explicitly with the bill that is in front of the House. It has the House declaring that for the rest of today, other than question time, we will deal with only two issues. The first is this bill. The second is the remainder of the motion. It is not possible to have a resolution of this nature without reference to the particular bill, but we are making a decision as a House as to what the issues will be for the remainder of the day. One of them would be, quite specifically, about the bill that is currently before the House. The other would be about the extraordinary moment we had in the House earlier today, where the Minister for Home Affairs made a statement on indulgence, allegedly to clean up having misled the House and in doing so misled the House twice.
I call the Leader of the House.
Thank you. The point is that this would be a very significant precedent if an opposition, or for that matter a government, could move a motion in which a bill that was currently under debate—in this case, the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018—could simply be mentioned and that would somehow make the motion relevant to the bill that was under consideration. There has never been a time when a suspension of standing orders has been allowed to interrupt a substantive debate in the House just because the first item mentions the bill that is being debated. If this precedent is allowed to stand, anytime the opposition or the government wants to move a suspension of standing orders, they will simply have to name the bill in the first item and somehow that will be enough to make it relevant to the bill. The matters that are being canvassed by the Manager of Opposition Business to do with the Minister for Home Affairs may well be legitimate matters to be canvassed but they should not be canvassed during the debate on this bill. It would be a very significant precedent if that were allowed to happen.
To the point of order, if I may?
Yes, Manager of Opposition Business.
To the point of order, this is a procedural motion seeking to identify the issues we will deal with for the rest of the day. It's not simply a passing reference to the bill, as the Leader of the House has just described. This says that, for the rest of the day, all other items would be suspended, including 90-second statements, other than this bill and one statement to the parliament from the Minister for Home Affairs. It is impossible for the House to resolve that without explaining what the two issues would be. It cannot be determined by 'which one involves more words in the motion'. It has to be determined by the action the House is taking. The House in this motion is taking a very clear action that it will give precedence today to the bill that is currently before us and the fact that we need to deal with the Minister for Home Affairs having misled the parliament again twice this morning.
I have listened to the arguments of the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House, and I do not believe—and I have conferred with the Clerk—that this is relevant to the business being debated. The Manager of Opposition Business can certainly bring this up at a later time.
I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018. If you listened closely to the member for Moreton's address to the parliament—previous to this interruption—the member for Moreton, as a lawyer, made it very clear that this isn't as simple as we would like to think it is and that there are areas around funding that need to be addressed which the opposition have said that they are prepared to address if they are in government.
But I want to talk about the process of how we in this parliament get to an issue around personal cross-examination of victims by their alleged perpetrators in family law matters. It doesn't just pop into the parliament; it doesn't just arrive here as a bill. Clearly, there a number of people in our community who have experienced firsthand and observed the trauma of those people who have their perpetrator in a family law case examine them directly. The member for Moreton went through in detail the consequences of that for an individual, usually women, and the retraumatisation of what had happened within that family household. And groups and committees have raised this in law reform groups. What I am saying is that we don't make a change to the common law in Australia without due diligence and consideration. We go through a lot of hoops and do a lot of checks to get to a point where we want to make a change to what happens in a courtroom or a family court. We don't do it by chance.
It is simple to understand that a woman in a courtroom being cross-examined by the person who actually perpetrated the act on her must be something that would traumatise the strongest of women—that they are going to have to relive the situation. We don't know what the innuendo or the background of a question from the perpetrator might be. We wouldn't have a clue. But she would know. She would know exactly what is being put to her. She would know exactly the trauma she is facing. She would know how she and her children felt at the time. Then she has to live through it again, but this time in front of an audience—this time in front of a whole lot of people who are going to report on the perpetrator's question and her response. The member for Moreton talked about women vomiting on the way to court and women settling out of court just to avoid cross-examination. I don't think you can ever come to the point of knowing and understanding unless you have been inside the person's head, which we haven't been. For those of us like me who haven't been through this process—a process which thousands of families have gone through—I don't think you can ever understand the trauma and the invasion.
The community has brought this forward to the parliament of Australia through the channels that were necessary. Eventually, the Attorney-General is asked to put something together that we can put into law that will protect those people being cross-examined, at the same time adhering to the point of law where it is right that someone can be cross-examined, only with issues about by whom and at what time and in a timely manner. If we do that, we'll have achieved a lot, because the threat of direct cross-examination is being removed by this legislation. It didn't just come to the House. It went to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 13 August 2018, and in its inquiry the committee recommended that the bill be passed subject to details regarding funding of the bill being made public prior to the commencement of debate in the Senate.
For the broader community to understand, and for me to understand, there are issues around how you will fund people who can't get legal aid to get a lawyer to cross-examine on their behalf, but who are not in a financial position to hire a lawyer themselves to cross-examine on their behalf. I don't think it's unreasonable to find a way that they be funded through legal aid with a variation to the criteria that are currently in place for people to gain access to legal aid. If we have to go that far in this country in regard to another issue around family violence, then we have to do it. This bill achieves the aim but doesn't specifically say how it will be carried out. It puts in the framework for the courts. It puts in the ability of the courts to make decisions about how the court will act in these cases and what recommendations it will make. So the basis and determination of the bill is correct. The community has decided that it's not good enough for a perpetrator to be able to cross-examine the victim, the person that's been hurt.
So I put to the parliament today that we need to support this bill. There needs to be reasonable consideration of where the bill will go into the future, and there needs to be monitoring in the courts, by the courts, of the outcome of this legislation. We don't just put it through the parliament and set and forget. There needs to be reporting back to say whether the legislation has worked. Will somebody review this legislation in the future so that women, in particular, do not face this cross-examination, and so that the court system is working more effectively and efficiently and more fairly on behalf of those who have suffered the consequences of family violence? If we can do that, we'll have achieved a lot. We'll have achieved something that hundreds and hundreds of people have desired that the parliament do. We can do it in a bipartisan manner. The only disappointment I have with the member for Moreton is that he had to bring the politics of the day into an issue that's going to last in people's lives for years and years to come. We're doing something now that will make a difference to women in Australia for years to come, in the full knowledge that they will be protected by the courts.
The flow-on of that, of course, is that they are protected by the Parliament of Australia, because this parliament is deciding on your behalf. This parliament is making a decision on behalf of the women of Australia in the Family Court who have experienced family violence. We're recognising that, and we're also saying: 'Oh, by the way, we have a responsibility too. We have a responsibility on behalf of our broader community.'
With those few words, I support this legislation. I expect that the opposition will support this legislation. I know that the crossbenchers will support the legislation. There will be some criticism along the way, but I hope that, in the genuineness of the spirit that is behind this legislation, it will be supported unanimously by this parliament.
It certainly gives me some pleasure to stand in the House of Representatives today to speak at least to the substance of the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018. There have been some terrific contributions to the debate so far. But I also stand here to support very strongly the amendment moved by the member for Isaacs, Labor's shadow Attorney-General, which seeks to ensure that there will be adequate funding available for legal aid in Australia, which is of course the essential part of being able to implement this legislation.
I listened carefully to the words that the member for McMillan spoke before me, and certainly there is longstanding support for the prohibition of cross-examination of victims of family violence by perpetrators of violence. I say that there is some longstanding bipartisan support. I should correct that and say that Labor has, for two years now, been calling for this very bill to come before the House, and it is terrific that the government is now on board in trying to provide a legislative framework to ensure that the ongoing practice of cross-examination of domestic abuse survivors by their perpetrators is put to a halt—that there will be a stop to this utterly shameful practice that has been going on in our legal system for far too long now.
But I don't think anybody in this House should kid themselves about the level of concern that remains outside this parliament about the fact that we have courts that are already feeling so stretched by the under-resourcing of our family courts in Australia now. We know that increasingly the Federal Circuit Court is hearing family law matters, which comprise some 80 per cent of its case load nowadays, but the Family Court of Australia—coupled with the Federal Circuit Court, of course—is carrying the brunt of family law matters in Australia. Both of those courts have expressed, through their former Chief Judge and Chief Justices, grave concerns about the lack of adequate resourcing of our Commonwealth courts in Australia.
I concur wholeheartedly. It remains a matter of great concern to me that we really still haven't faced up to that very obvious shortcoming in our legal system—that is, if we want those courts to work as they should, they need adequate staff, resources and tools to do so. This piece of legislation goes some way towards providing some tools for judges to be able to insist that unrepresented litigants have legal representatives. That is not unreasonable. Indeed, it's something that I think most people in this House would suggest is a good thing. But, in order to get to that point, we've got to ensure adequate resourcing, as I said. Indeed, we heard from speakers previously that, in the most recent inquiry of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee into this legislation, even the government's own senators stood in unison with Labor senators in calling for a guarantee of additional funding for legal aid before this bill passes this parliament.
We don't have that guarantee here today as we debate this in the House of Representatives, so all of the Labor speakers on this side of the House will be putting the government on notice about this glaring omission from the legislation to date. Indeed, we have called for this additional funding to be guaranteed. There have been no such assurances provided as yet; hence the amendment put by the member for Isaacs earlier on in this debate. It is most regretful that both the former Prime Minister and, clearly, it would seem, the current Prime Minister, along with the Attorney-General, have so far chosen to ignore the fact that, without funding, you cannot implement this legislation in the manner in which it is intended.
As Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I spent much of last year taking evidence from men and women across Australia with regards to the family law system and how it might better support and, indeed, protect those affected by family violence. We made a number of recommendations that would go some way towards providing an accessible, equitable and responsive family law system which better prioritises the safety of those affected by family violence.
I'm very pleased to say that one of the very strong recommendations from that committee was about ensuring that perpetrators of violence were then not able to retraumatise their victims by fronting up to court and insisting on being the person to directly cross-examine their former partners. We heard some very, very troubling evidence as to the impacts of the current laws, which allow self-represented perpetrators to cross-examine victims during court proceedings. Indeed, the evidence that was brought before our committee from both the survivors of family violence and all of the legal practitioners who work in this area was so overwhelming that it's of no surprise to anybody in the House that that committee, back in December last year, asked for the government to bring forward this legislation much sooner rather than later to ensure that we provide a more adequate level of safety for what is predominantly—overwhelmingly—women who are in this situation of having violent partners going on to cross-examine them in family law matters.
As I said, I am delighted that this bill comes before the House. It is deeply regretful that there is not adequate funding attached to this. I am absolutely clear that this is just one of many pieces of reform that is necessary in order to provide better protection for women and victims of family violence in our family law system. I draw the House's attention to the tragic fact that the register of women killed by violent acts this year alone now stands at 46. We are at week 36 of this year, and 46 Australian women are now dead as a result of violence perpetrated against them.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43 and may be resumed at a later hour.
On Friday, at a place she loved in Melbourne, Mary Day's family, friends and comrades gathered to say farewell and to remember her. Mary knew and loved this place too. She made a huge contribution to its best work. She deserves to be remembered here as a giant of Victorian Labor, who gave so much to our movement through her work, especially for Gerry Hand and Lindsay Tanner, but also through the crucial leadership she demonstrated as an activist for the party and, as she'd insist on me saying, for the left. That ours is a movement of collectivism does not mean that we are without selfishness. But Mary was. She cared for outcomes, not credit. She cared for people. She built a movement in which she encouraged, developed and supported those around her. She saw and brought out the best in others. Like so many, I owe Mary so much. I say thank you to Mary for giving me the chance to speak here and to carry on our shared work in the struggle for a better and fairer Australia, with so many friends and proteges of yours, like the member for Bruce. All my best thoughts go to all who knew her and especially to her son, Nick, her siblings and all the family. Vale, Mary. Rest in peace.
It is a pleasure that I attended the Wondai Show on 1 September. Wondai is in the southern part of my electorate. 2018 marks the 101st Wondai Show. It was first held in 1911. A few years were missed due to drought, depression and war. Competitors travel from all across the state. There are 21 competition sections in the show: wood chop, poultry, cattle, equestrian, trucks, vintage cars, woodwork et cetera. The two days of the Wondai Show were action packed, attracting thousands of entries and thousands of spectators. The show was officially open by Dr Linda Stewart. Dr Stewart was educated in Wondai and Kingaroy, and is an inspiration to all regional youth. She has university degrees—Bachelor of Health Science and Bachelor of Medicine. Dr Stewart is currently working at the Toowoomba Hospital. Dr Stewart said, 'If you are dedicated, you will get there.' Congratulations to the Wondai API Society and all involved. Well done.
Professor Jim Hyde died in August. He was stirrer and an activist and incredibly intelligent. He was a man of strong principles and commitment, forthright and brave, a community leader. His lifelong commitment to preventative health care came from his deep love of people and respect for humanity. He was a political adviser in the 1980s, a Senate candidate for Labor in the 1990 election and a longstanding member of the LGBTI policy committee of the ALP.
Jim was a Labor man, but this did not prevent him from developing the relationships he needed with Marie Tehan and the Kennett government as general manager of the Victorian AIDS Council at the height of the HIV epidemic in the early 1990s. That experience of health policy during the AIDS crisis and the need for evidence to prevail over ideology informed his life's work. As a policy analyst and advocate for health promotion prevention policy in New South Wales and Victoria, he is remembered for asking, 'What's the evidence?' He served as a senior public servant as well in New South Wales and Victoria, and in 2016 he was honoured by being made a fellow of the Victorian chapter of the Institute of Public Administration Australia. He understood the intersection between the political and the personal, what it is like to feel like your body and your identity and the way you're born is up for debate, and what it's like to try to fight it through political activism. He leaves behind his daughters Sophie and Alice and their families, his partner, Glenn, and an Australia that is fairer, more loving and more compassionate.
Did you know that statistics show that dementia is the second leading cause of death amongst Australians every year and approximately 250 people are joining the population with dementia every day? This disease is a silent, often overlooked killer. Dementia doesn't discriminate. It doesn't matter what your race or gender is or whether you're from city or surf, rich or poor or which country you're from. The chance of dementia infiltrating your life or the life of someone you love is a tough reality that we have to face.
Right now there are thousands of families affected by dementia. I was recently sent a book by one of my constituents, Debbie Flack, titled Forget Me Not. It's about her mother's dementia battle. Because of this book, I have been able to understand the perspective of those who are impacted by dementia, and I have a new-found drive to help raise awareness of the struggles of living with dementia. As a government, we cannot ignore the progressive increase in the number of Australians suffering with dementia. I'm incredibly proud that we've delivered a national framework for action on dementia and that we've also added $5 billion to the aged-care sector in this year's budget. I'd like to thank Debbie for sharing her story, and so many people like her can learn— (Time expired)
We return to parliament today with a new Prime Minister who has spent the fortnight since his surprise elevation talking about his values. The first time Prime Minister Morrison spoke in this chamber as an MP, he spoke about 'the values of loving-kindness, justice and righteousness, to act with compassion and kindness, acknowledging our common humanity'. He said his 'vision for Australia is for a nation that is strong and prosperous' and 'generous in spirit, to share our good fortune with others, both at home and overseas, out of compassion and a desire for justice'. He made it clear that the then Rudd government's moves to increase Australian aid were inadequate to the scale of the need and that 'We still must go further'. He spoke particularly of the humanitarian tragedy in Africa and of the thousands of deaths from preventable disease that occurred there every day. He concluded:
The need is not diminishing, nor can our support. It is the Australian thing to do.
A decade on, this need has not diminished, but our support has fallen dramatically under the Abbott and Turnbull governments. These governments have cut Australian aid by over $11 billion. Our support for the people confronting the humanitarian crisis in Africa has fallen most of all, slashed by at least 50 per cent. Australian aid is now at an historic low at just 0.19 per cent of gross national income. If the new Prime Minister wants to show us his values, he can start here. Live up to your words, Prime Minister Morrison, and change course on the coalition's cuts to Australian aid.
I'd just like to say how important the work that we are doing with the drought is. Just this morning we had meetings with the department of agriculture—and I'm looking forward to having further meetings with the Prime Minister of Australia—about how we make sure that this No. 1 priority of our nation is seen through. I'd like to commend the work that has been done by so many people, such as those in the Western Australia who have put forward large amounts of fodder. One instance that I'd like to note is the 6½ thousand tonnes of oaten hay that is now in New Norcia and that we are endeavouring to bring across. This sits on the back of a further 500,000 tonnes of barley hay that we're organising and further fodder that's coming in from Esperance down the pipeline. We have a massive task in front of us, and we must be fully aware that, even though there are some areas that have had rain, there is further work to do. In the coming days I'll have a meeting with Major-General Stephen Day, and this will put all the resources, in a coordinated fashion, into making sure there is delivery. It is something that I believe is of a bipartisan streak. I want to commend the Labor Party for the work that they are doing in making sure this is not parochial and is focused on an outcome.
There's one rule in this House for ministers: to tell the truth and not mislead the House. You might not like what a minister comes in here and says; you might not agree with the decision that she or he makes, but the basic rule is that, when you ask them a question, they tell you what they've done and they tell you accurately. I asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in March this year, whether he had any personal connection or other relationship with someone he helped out with an au pair issue. He not only categorically ruled it out, but he went on to say, 'I do not know them.' Then he went on radio after that and said: 'I do know them. I happened to work with them 20 years ago as a colleague. I worked with them over a period of two years.' Then he comes into the House this morning, apparently to clear matters up, and says nothing more than, 'We haven't spoken since that time,' implying that they did speak before. The minister didn't qualify his answer to my question. The minister didn't say 'to the best of my knowledge'. He gave us a categorical answer, and he has been caught out.
Now, that is clear. That is a clear breach, misleading the House, and it is a clear breach of the ministerial standards. It is up to the Prime Minister to now take action. If the Minister for Home Affairs won't resign, the Prime Minister should sack him. And, of course, this speedy intervention that the minister makes comes at the same time as we have 107 children on Nauru. They don't get the benefit of quick decisions to bring them here. They are left to languish and in some cases die. This minister is one in which the House has no confidence.
I'd like to congratulate the Prime Minister, the member for Cook and also a fellow shire resident, on announcing that the NEG is dead. To the hundreds of constituents, to the small businesses, to the cafe shop owners, to the restaurateurs and to the bakers who have come to me and have raised the issue of their electricity costs, I say: we have listened. To those pensioners and those hardworking families who have raised the issue of electricity costs: we have listened. To people running factories that must have internationally competitive electricity: we have listened. We have listened, and our sole focus on this side of the chamber is to get electricity prices down.
There is also now a very great contrast between this side of the House and that side of the House. While our focus is on getting electricity prices down, they have a policy over there of copying the failed South Australian experiment. That is Labor's official policy, to copy South Australia—an ideological failure of an experiment that not only gave that state the highest electricity prices in the nation but gave that state the highest electricity prices in the world. Every member over there wants to copy that policy and to take it nationwide. There is a clear distinction between what we believe in, which is lower electricity prices, and what they believe in—
I thank the member for Hughes.
Share the Dignity is an Australian charity that helps women experiencing domestic violence, women experiencing homelessness and women going through tough times. It helps in the form of personal items. Twice a year, Share the Dignity conducts the Dignity Drive, where collection boxes are placed in office locations and spaces right across Australia.
I've been taking part in the Dignity Drive since 2015. I've had a collection box in my Tuggeranong office, and Canberrans have always donated generously. Once again I've been blown away by the kindness, the altruism, of my community, after the August Dignity Drive. The Canberra Institute of Technology Return to Work for Women program gathered three boxes and five bags of items for women in need. There are just 12 women in that program and none of them are working, so that's an extraordinary effort.
The year 3 teachers and staff at St Clare of Assisi Primary School collected a whopping 32 handbags brimming with deodorant, tissues and sanitary items, soap and toothbrushes. Teachers Claire Walsh and Karen Haines have joined us in the chamber today—hello—with two of their year 6 student leaders. There've also been countless people wandering past my office who've dropped in supplies. The donations made by my community will go to women who face the daily battle of choosing to buy sanitary and hygiene products or a meal. Thank you, Canberra.
Australians are just horrified that you come to this great building to try to hear two great, positive messages for the future of the country, but all you get from the Labor Party is scrounging around for a scare campaign. They are a party that can only re-elect themselves from opposition with a scare campaign. They'll scurry around like mice, looking for one. It's got to be schools, universities or hospitals—that's right. They are fixated on health and Medicare and simply unable to reform the health system. Do you know what? That mob over there wouldn't know anything about hospitals except the visiting hours and where the coffee cart is. They are a party that barely understand education and will fight religiously for money but not for quality.
I'll tell you what: this side of the chamber understands that, to keep up with the rest of the world, you actually need a school system providing the best possible services, and there's a whole lot more about that than money. It's called quality care—something that the great Labor Party forgot about in 1948. It's quality of education. I can see an edgy sort of school principal there shifting from side to side. Yes, that's right. Teachers shouldn't be doing pick-up duty. Teachers shouldn't be doing playground duty. Teachers should be resourced so that they don't have to take their work home at night, unpaid, and do marking on their laps when they should be with their kids. We'll fight for quality for teaching. We'll fight for great outcomes, measuring performance over the journey of a student and not by a snapshot. This is a state Labor government which is out of ideas on health, is out of ideas on education and has nothing to offer our great nation.
What a two weeks it has been! Our new Prime Minister has donned an Australian flag pin to remind him of who he represents. He may do that because, since he has become our Prime Minister, it's clear that he needs constant reminding about who he represents. We've had him asking for a rev up for the boys in his team. He has called unionist thugs. He has talked about gender whispering in school. He has killed the NEG. He has defended the indefensible: bullying in his own team. He has defended European au pairs coming into this country under dubious circumstances. He needs to be reminded that, in the Australian population, there are women and girls, there are victims of bullying, there are unionists, there are people who believe in scientific fact, there are people who are concerned about the planet and there are members of the LGBTQI community. He could also be reminded that, in Victoria, not everyone lives in Geelong or Frankston. God help the PM-proclaimed 'muppets' on his own side if he stays Prime Minister for long in this country.
It's my great pleasure to rise in this place and speak about one of the great community organisations in my electorate of Forde. Soroptimist International is a worldwide organisation for women that works through service projects to raise the status of women; to advance human rights for all; to promote equality, development and peace; to work for gender equality; and to say no to violence against women. The members of the Beenleigh branch have, for three decades, made a positive and lasting contribution to our local community and deserve recognition and gratitude. The branch fights well above its weight and has just received the regional Soroptimist award for best practice and best activity for its Little Feet campaign, designed to combat the terrible impacts of domestic violence. Current president, Carolyn Kinniburgh, along with Pat Heck, Vicki Bailey, Jackie Benton, Jennie Breene, Barb Currell, Cheryl Dowrick, Jean Fornasier, Christine Johnstone, Gail Ker, Maree Lubach, Lesley McGrath, Stella Redhead, Gloria Thomson and Libi Coyer are outstanding Australians who work tirelessly and seek nothing more than the feeling that comes with making a difference. They make an enormous contribution to our community every single day.
It was depressing but not surprising in the least to discover that the government's secret list of infrastructure and transport commitments, with a combined value of $7.6 billion, did not include a single project in Western Australia. It's not surprising because it follows the pattern of the last five years, a period in which the coalition has proved time and time again that it takes Western Australia for granted. Western Australia needs investment in 21st-century infrastructure, and there's no better example than a new road and rail bridge across the Derbarl Yerrigan, or Swan River, in my electorate. If you want to improve the critical cross-river linkage between north and south and you want to shift more freight out of Fremantle off road and onto rail, you need this bridge.
The current bridge was built in 1939. It has a predominantly timber framework and it is past time for it to be replaced. The previous state Labor government put funds aside for that purpose. The Barnett Liberal government took those funds away. A much-needed new bridge would be safer and more efficient, enabling a duplication of the rail link that is currently conflicted during the day between passenger and freight trains. It would mean the existing bridge could be repurposed as a pedestrian and cycle link, with a potential for community and cultural uses. Yet with $7.6 billion for projects around the country, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison-dot-dot-dot-watch-this-space government is continuing to blank WA. To borrow the tourism campaign slogan from a few years ago, we find ourselves on the far side of the country in Western Australia asking, 'Where the bloody hell are you?'
Today is World Suicide Prevention Day, but tragically today, just like yesterday and tomorrow, eight Australians will take their own lives. For every person who dies by suicide in Australia, 30 will unsuccessfully attempt it. That's around 240 people who attempt suicide every day. Each of them is someone's brother, sister, work colleague, mum or dad. The theme of this World Suicide Prevention Day is working together to prevent suicide, with events raising awareness for suicide prevention happening all over Australia.
On Saturday, I attended the Sunshine Coast Community Suicide Bereavement Remembrance Day organised by StandBy-Support After Suicide service provider United Synergies. The riverside ceremony was an important opportunity to remember those who have been lost through suicide and to acknowledge the families and friends who've been impacted. We heard from members of the Living Beyond Suicide Caloundra support group about their own experiences. Doves were released and attendees had the opportunity to place flowers in the river in honour of their loss. I was joined at the event by my state LNP colleagues the member for Maroochydore, Fiona Simpson, and the member for Caloundra, Mark McArdle, who both gave moving addresses. Thank you to Linda Small of United Synergies for organising the event and to Kerry Evans, who was the MC. (Time expired)
The Northern Territory's got a bright future, but right now there are a lot of Territory businesses that are doing it a bit tough. It's now been 510 days since the Darwin City Deal was first promised. However, rather than signing the Darwin City Deal now, we know, from leaks from that divided coalition party room, that the only thing that's stopping these muppets from confirming the Darwin City Deal is that they're waiting for the election. An election should be in the coming months—that's when an election should be—but the prime muppet might be waiting until nine months from now to sign the deal.
The only thing that's standing in the way of job-creating projects for the Northern Territory and for the Top End is the political games being played by those opposite. It's a disgrace. The Lord Mayor of Darwin and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory have confirmed that the only delay to the Darwin City Deal is this federal government under this new Prime Minister. On top of all this, this coalition federal government has cut infrastructure funds for the Northern Territory over the forward estimates by 75 per cent. That's from this Prime Minister who claims to love all Australians— (Time expired)
Today I'm very pleased to rise to speak about the latest Liberal-led government's endometriosis initiative. We're investing $400,000 to educate doctors and nurses as part of funding set aside in this year's budget to improve education among primary health professionals. This is a really critical part of what we will do with the National Action Plan for Endometriosis. We will develop Australia's first ever clinical practice guideline for the disease. This is a step towards addressing those waiting times of between seven to 12 years for patients. As we've heard through the endometriosis debate, sometimes they can wait up to 20 years for that diagnosis.
This is a really huge issue for the women affected by endometriosis. The government is also investing in education by developing the inaugural in-depth tertiary unit on the disease for our nurses. This will ensure nurses, prior to graduating, learn firsthand about endometriosis. Given that they're on the frontline, this unit will go a long way towards earlier diagnosis, better treatment and long-term management for women with the disease. This measure addresses another one of the first ever National Action Plan for Endometriosis's recommendations. Over 700,000 Australian women live with this disease, and I'm proud to be part of a government taking these first steps. (Time expired)
While the Prime Minister has been out in the lobby revving up the characters in his very own muppet show, the member for Chifley has discovered a secret plan by his government to axe 30 jobs from the Department of Human Services in the member for Cunningham's electorate and my electorate. It is not bad enough that this means that the last line of defence against their shocking robo-debt program is about to go. It's not bad enough that this means queues and wait times will get longer and longer and longer. It also flies in the very face of their own promise to decentralise jobs out of Canberra and into the regions. We had a lot of hope that the new great hope, the new minister for decentralisation, who has had the job for 12 days, was going to make her mark. But her very first act was to wave through these regional job cuts.
They have had pretty bad form in this area. At the last budget, the National Party leader stood up and said: 'We've got triumph. We are decentralising 96 jobs out of Canberra and into the region.' When you read the fine print, you see what he is doing; he is moving jobs out of one capital city into another. My very favourite is that he is moving 25 jobs out of Sydney to Parramatta, and calling that decentralisation. It is time for the Prime Minister to take regional jobs seriously. They deserve more than a Prime Minister who acts like Fozzie Bear and is leading an entire muppet show.
It is 99-not-out for the Leeming Spartan Cricket Club in my electorate of Tangney. They are celebrating 100 years this season and a record 53 premierships in that history. This is a fantastic milestone for a community cricket club, run by dedicated members and hardworking volunteers. The Spartan Cricket Club was formed in 1918 by the Reverend WR Hibbert to help with the rehabilitation of young men returning from the First World War. Reverend Hibbert settled on the name Spartan in honour of the superhuman feats of endurance and bravery of the returning Anzacs. Preseason training is underway in Leeming, ahead of the season launch on 4 October. Filming has commenced for a Channel 7 produced documentary about the Spartan's history. Channel 7 will screen the documentary during the Big Bash test match against India in Perth this summer. The Spartans are going all-out with a centenary ball and other community events to celebrate their centenary innings. Congratulations to members past and present, their families, the Spartan committee and everyone involved in my local community with the Leeming Spartan Cricket Club. One hundred years is an impressive milestone and, with such a strong membership, I know the Spartans will go from strength to strength.
While chaos, division and dysfunction reigns in a government that doesn't even know what it stands for, 650,000 Australians continue to be ripped off every day by payday loan sharks. Despite what the temporary Prime Minister might say, the muppet show is well and truly continuing for those opposite as it is for everyday Australians who are paying the price. Today, it is exactly 1,131 days since those opposite acknowledged there was a problem and promised to do something about these loan sharks. Since then, what have they done? Nothing. Now we have the alleged 'chief of the unofficial friends of payday lending' with carriage of this vital issue, the member for Fadden, who is the fourth government member to sit on their hands and do nothing with this out-of-control industry. This is a previously sacked minister who was so out of touch with the community that he has called for billionaires to get a GST exemption for bringing luxury super-yachts to Australia. This is absolutely staggering. The minister should take some time to read up on the facts and the damage being done to Australians through the out-of-control payday loans sector. We know that 1.8 million Australians are now financially distressed, a number which has almost doubled under this government's watch. Inequality is at an all-time high with stagnating wages and people struggling to get by. This has resulted in 650,000 Australian households turning to payday loans. When will this out-of-touch government stop the muppet show and get on and start delivering for Australians?
Last year I rose in this chamber to talk of the It's a Bloke Thing charity fundraiser held in various locations around the country, most particularly in my home city of Toowoomba. Just last Monday, It's a Bloke Thing held a lunch fundraiser for prostate cancer, and it was a very significant event. Many might suggest it was just another ordinary Monday in Toowoomba. This lunch gathered together some hundreds of people across our community, for fundraising, as I said, reminding us all of the significance of prostate cancer and the importance of us all monitoring our own health. To mark the occasion we had a special guest, who flew in directly from the United States. I am referring, of course, to Keith Urban, who flew in to Toowoomba to conduct a brief concert for us. The significance for him, given the fact that his father was affected by prostate cancer, meant that he took the time to leave his tour in the United States to fly to Toowoomba to, I understand, briefly spend some time with his mother and brother for lunch, and then he returned straight back to the United States. Such is the significance of this cause that we could attract his support in Toowoomba. It was yet another successful event, raising over $2 million in one lunch.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a short statement.
The Prime Minister may proceed.
I wish to advise the House that on Friday, 24 August 2018, the federal parliamentary Liberal Party elected me, the member for Cook, as the leader of the Liberal Party, and the honourable member for Kooyong as the deputy leader. As a result of this I was sworn in as Prime Minister that same day, and the member for Kooyong was sworn in as the Treasurer. For the information of the House, I present the changed ministerial arrangements.
MORRISON MINISTRY
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Human Services in the Social Services portfolio and a Department of Veterans' Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952.
I'd like to place on record the thanks of this chamber, but in particular the parliamentary Liberal and National parties, for the dedicated service of former Prime Minister Turnbull. I have had the opportunity to extend my remarks and sincere best wishes to him on other occasions, and I don't intend to prolong that matter here today in the House. I also wish to thank the member for Curtin for her 11 years of service as deputy leader, and commend her for her great service to her country.
The National Party had a meeting this morning. At that meeting the member for Murray was elected chief whip of the National Party and the member for Flynn was elected as his deputy. Both were elected unopposed. I thank the previous incumbents, the member for Capricornia and the member for Wide Bay, for their service in those respective roles.
On indulgence, in reply to the Prime Minister's comments, I congratulate the Prime Minister on his elevation to this high office. This is a great country and a remarkable country, and it's a special privilege to be elected Prime Minister. I also wish to record our acknowledgement of the service of the previous Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. I want to put on record our acknowledgement that, whilst we didn't always see eye to eye, he served this country for nearly three years. We wish him and Lucy all the very best. I also acknowledge the outgoing Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the former foreign minister, Ms Julie Bishop. We acknowledge your service and thank you for it.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable further statements on indulgence on the death of John McCain to be made in the Federation Chamber.
Leave granted.
I thank the House. I move:
That further statements on indulgence on the death of former United States Senator John McCain be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today, as he is observing the Jewish new year of Rosh Hashana, and I will answer questions on his behalf. I thank members of both sides for facilitating the observance of important religious holidays, and I wish the entire Australian Jewish community L'shanah tova as they celebrate today.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Malcolm Turnbull is no longer Prime Minister of Australia. Why?
I thank the member for his question. John Howard used to say something quite simple—that is, the privilege of serving as the leader of your parliamentary party is the decision of your parliamentary party. That's what it is. That's who decides who the leader of the parliamentary party is. Just as it is true that caucus members of the Labor Party decide who the leader of the Labor Party is, on this side of the House, the parliamentary party has made its decision.
I recall many years ago being at the Sydney Entertainment Centre and listening to a presentation from Norman Schwarzkopf, and he said:
When placed in command, take charge.
That's what I propose to do, to take charge to ensure that we continue the stable government that has delivered the strong economy that has seen a million people come into work since we were elected in 2013; that has seen bulk-billing rates rise to record highs under Medicare; to ensure that we're delivering record funding for schools and for hospitals; and to ensure that we're putting young people in jobs. Ninety-five thousand five hundred people got a job in 2017-18. That is the strongest jobs growth in 30 years for young people.
Honourable members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
My point of order is relevance. The Australian people deserve an answer. Why did you change the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister has the call.
I thank the member for his interjection. He must be a little hard of hearing. His ears must be painted on. That's what we see from this Leader of the Opposition. As he roams around the country, he's doing a lot of talking and he's doing a lot of promising but he's not doing a lot of listening. I made it pretty clear: the privilege of serving as the leader of the Liberal Party is a decision of the parliamentary party, and they have made their decision. I have accepted their decision and, more than that, I have decided to take charge of that situation and deliver the strong economic growth, the even stronger Australia that we've been delivering now for five years. That is three simple points: keeping our economy strong, keeping Australians safe and keeping Australians together. That's my plan, and Australian will be backing it.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members cease interjecting. I'm just going to make very clear—I realise members are in a mood to interject, but I will not incessantly warn members. I will simply eject those who are regular offenders.
It gives me great pleasure to ask the first question from this side of the chamber of our new Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House—
Opposition members interjecting—
You might learn something. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is helping farmers and rural communities to cope with the devastating effects of drought?
I thank the member for Grey for his question. In the north-west pastoral zone in South Australia, we know they are experiencing drought. We know the drought is in New South Wales. We know the drought has been for many years in Queensland. We know that it's in Victoria. This is a national problem. It's a national challenge. It's one of the reasons we've appointed the special envoy, the member for New England, to be working as part of a team with Major General Day to coordinate our drought response and recovery program.
One of the first things I did was to go firsthand with the Deputy Prime Minister to those drought-affected areas of western Queensland. While it is true there is frustration, while it is true that I found exhaustion and while it is true also that I found disappointment in those that I've met as I've spoken to those affected by drought not just on the farms but in the towns as well, I tell you the other thing I found. It is hope. There is real hope about where we are going ahead as a country when it comes to dealing with the drought. I was shown by Steve Tully with his wife Annabel a picture of pasture land with grass up to your knees just 2½ years ago. That is what they believe will return.
They haven't given up in terms of what they've been doing over this period of time, and Australians haven't given up on them either. That's why Jack Berne from Freshwater public school started Fiver for a Farmer. That's why the kids from St Patrick's Parish School in Albury were busking in the street to show their solidarity with rural communities all around in this country. It is because in this country we look after our mates, and we are looking after our farmers and the rural towns.
Now, the challenge is great and there's no one single answer. There are many responses that need to be co-ordinated at state and local level and at a Commonwealth level. Major General Stephen Day has been put in charge of a joint agency task force to coordinate the Commonwealth's response, not unlike the joint agency task force that was formed back in 2013 called Operation Sovereign Borders. It is a similar approach, bringing together all agencies of government under a single command to ensure the help gets where it needs to get to and that response is coordinated in the way it needs to be.
That joint agency task force has already been stood up, and the reports coming back to me from Major General Day are that the story is uneven. It's different in different parts of the country. Some people are doing better than we may have expected, but many are doing worse. On top of that, the generosity that has been provided by charitable organisations all around the country is working, but it needs to be better targeted. Major General Day has a simple plan: he's going to listen, he's going to plan and he's going to act. That's what we're doing to coordinate our response to the drought to ensure the feed gets where it needs to, to ensure the assistance gets to the farmers where it's needed and to ensure we keep those towns alive to recover.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to my previous question. I asked not 'how' the Prime Minister was replaced but 'why'.
The party chooses the person they want to lead to ensure that we can put the best foot forward at the next election and to ensure that we are connecting with Australians all around the country. Last week I went to Albury and I explained that our government has been incredibly successful in delivering, whether it's on jobs, the economy, getting rid of the carbon tax or ensuring we're delivering the nation-building infrastructure and the congestion-busting infrastructure.
This is a government that has been strong on the 'what', but when it comes to the 'why', I'll tell you why this government is doing all these things. We believe in a fair go for those who have a go. We believe in a social safety net which says Australians back their mates. We believe in a country where people come to make a contribution, not to take one. We believe the best form of welfare is a job. We believe that one Australian to get ahead doesn't have to bring another one down. That's what we know. The Leader of the Opposition has a negative plan for Australia. He has no plan to ensure a strong economy. If he can't guarantee a strong economy, everything he says and every promise he makes is not believable, because he can't pay for it and he doesn't believe in the things that underpin any of the promises he makes.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's plan for a stronger economy is working to create more jobs and more opportunities for Australians and how this is reflected in the most recent national account figures? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for North Sydney for his question. Last year's national account showed that Australia remained at the top of the leaderboard when it came to economic growth around the world. In the terms of the G7 economies, the OECD—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
I hear the interjection from the member for McMahon: 'We're not in the G7.' We all know that. But isn't it a good thing, the member for McMahon, that Australia's growth rate is greater than all of the world's largest developed economies? I haven't heard the member for McMahon say that growth is a good thing lately, particularly when it comes. I haven't heard him say that, because our economy is strong and our government's policies are continuing to ensure that it remains strong. That growth was better than the budget forecast that we handed down just in May of this year. It's better than the estimates that were predicted by the markets. It shows, in its detail, that the big winners out of this growth have been the jobs that have been created. The record jobs growth that we've been seeing in this country under the economic stewardship of the policy of the Liberal and the Nationals parties is putting people into work.
We're going to keep our economy strong not just because it gives people jobs—and when you have a job you have choices in life—but because it ensures that the economy that we are generating can pay for the things that really matter. It means that it can pay for hospitals. It can pay for lifesaving, affordable medicines for cystic fibrosis like Spinraza for those children who had no prospect of a long life and now have the opportunity for that. It can pay for education. It can pay for Medicare. It can pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Our policies are all designed to give a fair go to those who want to have a go. They're not designed to bring others down to try and raise others up. We reject the politics of envy when it comes to economic policy and any other type of policy. We believe in those things; that's why we're for lower taxes. We believe Australians should be able to keep more of what they own. Labor want to increase their taxes—all of their taxes. They want to put taxes up, if they're given that opportunity. It's why we back small business and why we've delivered the single largest boost to small business in taxation arrangements seen in generations. And there'll be more to come because we believe in small business. The Labor Party wants to increase the taxes on every small business in this country, and if elected they will. That's why we're for cheaper electricity prices and cheaper gas prices and putting in place the policies which achieve that. That's why we're for congestion-busting infrastructure in our cities. That's why we're for infrastructure that connects our rural areas to our ports and markets. That's why we're for expanding our markets with free trade agreements like the one we are moving forward on in Indonesia, which I was able to bring to that point just the weekend before last. We are a government investing in growth and delivering on growth, and that guarantees the essential services that Australians relies on.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that just last week the government's entire infrastructure plan was leaked on Monday; its plan to end conflict with Catholic schools was leaked on Tuesday; its latest corporate tax plan was leaked on Wednesday; and all week there was leaking about the Prime Minister plotting to tear down Malcolm Turnbull? Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he said his own government was a muppet show?
As I said, the curtain is down on that performance, but the long-running performance of the muppet show on that side of the House is setting new records. We don't hold a candle when it comes to their performance. It's the longest-running show in the history of the Australian parliament on that side of the House. In terms of the issues raised by the member, yes, I can confirm that we have a policy and we have a plan that we're implementing to ensure that we've got congestion-busting infrastructure going all over our cities. I can confirm that as a government we've not only moved on delivering needs-based education funding, but we are making great progress in ensuring that there is absolute certainty that every parent who wants the choice to send their children to an independent school, like I do—I send them there because it reflects my faith, and that's great; I think it's wonderful—will have that choice. Whether it's a Catholic school or an independent school or anything else, I want them to have that choice, and we will make sure that they have that choice, just like we will ensure that when it comes to religious freedoms they will be protected in this country under my government.
I can confirm that we will be moving to ensure that we reduce the tax burden even further on small- and medium-sized businesses, and I can confirm that the Labor Party will increase that burden on small- and medium-sized businesses. Remember how the member for Batman said, 'Tax is a privilege'? No—when it's weighing down on a business or on a low-income earner, it's a burden. It's a burden that removes their hope and takes them away from the choices that they want to make. My government will deliver the strong economic growth that Australians need to make the choices they want, whether it's congestion busting in our cities that means they can move around, see their families, get to work and get on with their lives—we support Australians living the life of their choice and we will enable their choices.
I would like to inform the House we have joining us in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Jim Lloyd, a former minister and former member for Robertson. On behalf of the House I extend a welcome to you. I also inform the House that we have joining us the Hon. David Simmons, a former minister and former member for Calare. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome to you as well.
My question is to the Prime Minister. When I asked him on 27 March this year, the Minister for Home Affairs categorically ruled out any personal connection or other relationship with the intended employers in the au pair stories. He went on to say, 'I don't know these people'. He later publicly confirmed he does know one of them, calling him a former police colleague that he worked with over a period of two years. TV news aired a photo, apparently, of the two of them together, and this morning in parliament the minister even implied that they spoke to each other while working together but simply hadn't spoken since that time. Prime Minister, hasn't the minister clearly misled parliament? Isn't this a clear breach of your ministerial standards? Will you now dismiss him?
No.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on how the government is supporting communities affected by drought by partnering with local councils to help farmers, families and communities? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any different suggestions that would not provide the same level of assistance to our farmers?
Opposition members interjecting—
I thank the member for Flynn for his question. It's a question about drought. I hear those opposite calling out 'Wagga Wagga'. Yes, you will be pleased to know that last Thursday in Wagga Wagga there were 27 millimetres of rain. That's going to provide some ability for those farmers to get a crop off. Many of the farmers in New South Wales, Queensland and, indeed, Victoria are not going to get a crop off, and we should be mindful of them. When yelling across the chamber, we should be mindful of all of those farmers, of all of those rural businesses, but at least some of the farmers have a bit of a green sheen around the electorates. Certainly in Wagga Wagga it rained last Thursday, so thank you for your interest in that.
The member for Flynn, like all of us, is working hard to support the farmers, the families and the small businesses and communities across Queensland who are doing it tough. I know his electorate borders Maranoa. It's very dry in Maranoa. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources is doing an outstanding job representing those farming communities. To date, the government has pledged $1.8 billion in drought support in three tranches of supporting measures such as cash on the table to help farming families to pay for some groceries, to pay for some bills. Indeed, those amounts are $12,000 for a couple and up to $7,200 for single households, the first payment of which will be in October, the second payment from March next year. There is more support for rural financial counsellors, so very important as far as getting out the people who can help people with mental health. We have increased the eligibility for farm household assistance and made additional investment in water and fodder storage.
We made an announcement at HE Silos. Now there's a great family business—a third-generation family business started by Ivan and Patsy Morrison in Hillston in 1969. It's an Australian-owned family business. As I said, it is third generation. It's got factories in both Forbes and Gunnedah. It builds silos. It makes kit silos, superphosphate silos, 60-degree cone silos, field bins, and cattle and sheep bins. It is a great little company. Their sons Darryl, who manages the Gunnedah factory, and Steven, who manages the Forbes plant, with their wives Cherylee and Jennifer now have the third generation coming along. The kids are taking part in that business. They employ up to 70 staff. They are the sorts of businesses that are helping out with the drought. They are the sorts of community resilience-building family companies that we need to really support in the drought. We don't need our farmers to be told what they can do, where they can farm and how they can farm. That's what the member for Hunter has done in recent times. Farmers don't need to listen to that, Member for Hunter; I tell you that now. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the standards required of ministers under the ministerial standards. Is the Prime Minister aware that the member for Leichhardt has today called for the bullies within his government to be named and held accountable for their actions? What process has the Prime Minister commenced to assure himself that none of his ministers or assistant ministers are guilty of bullying or intimidation of their Liberal colleagues, in breach of ministerial standards?
I had a chat with the member for Leichhardt today and I know he is fully satisfied with the way that the party is managing all issues that are germane to the internal running of the Liberal Party and the support of all colleagues. We have a very clear process for the handling of the welfare of our members. It's handled by our whips, as I'm sure it's handled in this chamber by the opposition party whips. They have a pastoral care role when it comes to issues of management with colleagues. Our chief whip, the member for Forrest, has served as a whip in this parliament for the last 11 years, and I particularly want to welcome the appointment of the new deputy whip in the Senate, Senator Hume, who will also be part of that task.
What I won't do is take lectures from the Leader of the Opposition on bullying. I'm not going to take lectures from a leader of the opposition who could not have a warmer embrace with John Setka, the head of the Victorian CFMMEU. If they were any closer, they'd be Siamese twins joined at the head, joined at the hip and joined at the heart!
The Labor Party, when it comes to bullying and intimidation—I remember Peter Baldwin. I remember seeing Peter Baldwin.
Opposition members interjecting—
I'll tell you why I am talking about Peter Baldwin. It's because my introduction as a young person to the Labor Party was seeing his bashed face on the television. So I won't be taking lectures from the Labor Party on—
On a point of order—
The Prime Minister has indicated that he has concluded his answer.
Ms Claydon interjecting—
The member for Newcastle will leave under 94(a).
The member for Newcastle then left the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to keep Australian families safe? How would different ideas make our communities less secure?
I thank the honourable member for her question. The Morrison government is absolutely committed to keeping our borders secure and to keeping our Australian community safe. Under this government, we have cleaned up Labor's mess. We know that 50,000 people arrived on 800 boats and we know that 1,200 people tragically drowned at sea and that Labor and the Greens, when they were in government together, put 8,000 children into detention. We've got those children out of detention. We have closed 17 detention centres. We have provided support to people who are genuinely in need of protection from a country like ours. Last year we brought in more people under the refugee and humanitarian program than any year in the last three decades, and we have done that because we have a well-managed border protection program.
As Australians realise, the people smugglers have not gone away. We've spoken a lot about it over a long period of time. The people smugglers are still in Indonesia, in Sri Lanka, in Vietnam, across the Middle East and elsewhere around the world, seeking to take money from innocent men, women and children to put them onto boats to come to this country. We did see an arrival of a vessel, which was flagged out of Vietnam holding 17 people, land in the Daintree. I inform the House that the 17 people on that vessel have now been returned back to Vietnam. We have dealt with the issue. We have surged our naval assets and we have surged our assets in terms of aerial surveillance as well. This government will do whatever we need to do to stop those boats and to make sure that we don't see women and children drowning at sea again, like they did when Labor was last in government and like they would do again if Labor were elected at the next election—because they have learned nothing at all from the past.
At the same time that we've done all of that, we have been reassured of the steps the government have taken to cancel visas in relation to criminals and, in particular, to outlaw motorcycle gang members. I can update the House that we have cancelled the visas of 194 outlaw motorcycle gang members, who are the biggest distributors of amphetamine and ice in communities across the country. The ACIC predicts that that has saved 1,000 Australians from falling victim to members of outlaw motorcycle gangs. Not only are they big distributors of drugs but they are also in lock step with the CFMEU and other organised criminal organisations who are involved in extortion and assaults—all sorts of criminal activity that you would expect from the CFMEU. Seventy-five of them have been charged in relation to these matters. This government will keep our borders secure and we will keep Australians safe. (Time expired)
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Can the minister confirm that the last time this House met, he supported a Turnbull government on Monday, voted for a Dutton government on Tuesday, said he supported a Turnbull government on Wednesday, called for a Dutton government on Thursday and pledged his loyalty to a Morrison government on Friday? Can the minister confirm that, when he told the House he supported Malcolm Turnbull, he'd already decided to support someone else? What is the minister's response to the Prime Minister describing his behaviour as being like a muppet show?
I don't particularly think the question's in order. But I can see the minister's prepared to answer it, so I will give him the call.
I am very prepared to answer this because, oddly enough, this is an opposition that cannot even raise the will to ask a question about health; they cannot raise the will to ask a question about the PBS; they cannot raise the will to ask a question about medical research. And do you know why? Because they're ashamed. They are shamed of what they did when, in the 2011 budget, they pulled the plug on the listing of new medicines. One of the reasons why I have a deep and profound belief in this Prime Minister, in this man, in this individual, is that he put together a $1.3 billion health and medical research plan. This was a plan with $248 million for clinical trials to help people have access to medicines who would otherwise never get it. It was a plan with $242 million for a new frontier science program and a plan with—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is now warned!
$500 million for a national genomics mission, which, amongst other things, will help young families aspiring to have children have genomic testing as part of Mackenzie's Mission, which the Prime Minister talked about the day after the budget, so that they could tell whether there is any prospect that they are likely to have the combination of markers that would lead to children being born with cystic fibrosis, SMA or fragile X, amongst other genetic conditions. This is the same Prime Minister who invested and helped create a billion-dollar contingency fund for PBS drugs. Why would he have needed to do that? Because the previous government stopped listing medicines. The previous government, in their 2011 budget, because they couldn't pay for it, deliberately deferred the listing of new medicines until fiscal circumstances would permit. Just remember that: until fiscal circumstances would permit. So one of the things that he did as Treasurer was help create those fiscal circumstances. He helped create those—
The Minister for Health will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler on a point of order. State the point of order.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. The question was about the misleading of parliament. It's a very serious issue to accuse a minister of. If you mislead parliament, you have to resign your position. The minister needs to respond to the question.
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The Leader of the House on a point order.
Mr Speaker, the question didn't mention the misleading of parliament and the member for Grayndler knows that, if there is such an allegation, it needs to be moved by a substantive motion, not asked as a question by the member for Ballarat.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I'll deal with this matter very swiftly. As I said, I didn't particularly think the question was in order myself, certainly on the basis of what I've advised members numerous times about the content of the whole 30-second question. The majority of it was not in order. Nonetheless, the minister was prepared to answer it, so I allowed that course. If we're now going to get into a tit-for-tat over the content of the answer, I will be more strict on the questions. That's why I'm giving the minister latitude.
In the end, this Prime Minister has done more in the raising of funds for allowing new medicines to be listed than, arguably, any other person in the history of this parliament, and it compares with that side, which, in the end, you always know, because they can't manage the economy. You can't trust them to list your medicines.
My question is to the Minister for Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the government is focused on driving power prices down and producing results, particularly for small businesses, families and older Australians? How would alternative approaches hurt Australian families by putting ideology over price?
I thank the member for Tangney for his question and I recognise his keen interest in this all-important subject and issue for those on this side of the parliament, because we want to see lower prices for electricity for households, for small businesses and for large businesses across our electorates. We see the impact of higher electricity prices for households, for small businesses and for large businesses, like aluminium smelters and cement manufacturers. But, as the minister for bringing electricity prices down, I can assure you and I can assure this House that this government's priority, my priority and the Prime Minister's priority is to get power prices down while we keep the lights on.
I do need to pay tribute to the good work of my predecessor, the Treasurer. Under his leadership we have seen power prices coming down. Across South East Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia, on 1 July this year, we saw price reductions across the board. For instance, in South East Queensland, Powershop reduced its prices for households by 8.6 per cent. That's $140 for a typical household. We saw a 14.6 per cent reduction in the charges for small businesses. For a typical small business, that's a $1,400 reduction in costs, something that those opposite will never understand because so few of them have ever worked in a small business.
But there is more to be done, and that's why we're taking practical action to bring down electricity prices. That means stopping the price gouging by energy companies. It means providing customers with a fair price safety net. It means backing investment in fair dinkum reliable generators that keep the lights on to provide more competition and lower prices. We are not afraid to use a big stick on big energy companies if that's what's required. We are not afraid to do it. We know that switching from a standing offer to the cheapest offer can mean savings of up to $800 for a household.
The member asked about alternative approaches. We do have an alternative approach from those opposite, which is a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target and 45 per cent emissions reduction target. That is going to mean more subsidies and higher prices paid by every energy user and taxpayer in Australia. If you want to see the evidence for this, just look at South Australia—the member for Port Adelaide knows this—which amongst the highest electricity prices in the world with a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target. For that you would expect service. But no, they are struggling to keep the lights on. We are the party, we are the government for lower electricity prices, in contrast to those opposite.
My question is to the Minister for Energy. Can the minister confirm that the last time this House met he supported a Turnbull government on Monday, voted for a Dutton government on Tuesday, said he supported a Turnbull government again on Wednesday, called for a Dutton government again on Thursday and pledged loyalty to a Morrison government on Friday? Can the minister confirm that when he told the House he supported Malcolm Turnbull he had already decided to support someone else and was misleading parliament?
The Leader of the House on a point of order?
The first reason this question should be ruled out of order is because accusing a minister of misleading the House can only be done by substantive motion, not in a question.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left! I want to hear the point of order. If members don't allow me to hear the point of order, I will simply eject them.
The second reason that this question should be ruled out of order is that it is about matters to do with the parliamentary party. Traditionally, of course, those matters have not been within the ministerial responsibility of members, and therefore they should not be questioned about them.
I'll rule on the point of order. I disagree with the Leader of the House on the term 'misleading'. The term 'deliberately misleading' is the trigger point that he is referring to. There are many instances where the word 'misleading' has been used in questions and indeed in answers by ministers. Referring to the minister's previous answer is obviously the substantive point, but it's not the substantive part of that question. Whilst it was there, it was the last line. I've said before I'm not going to allow a whole range of material as commentary in the 30 seconds and just bolt on at the very end, in the last instants, the only part of the question that is in order. On that basis I'm going to rule the question out of order, not on the basis the Leader of the House said.
My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations. Will the minister update the House on how the government is helping everyday Australians find work and keep more of their hard-earned money? Is the minister aware of any threats posed by different approaches?
I thank the member for Fisher for his question. The coalition stands for jobs, for economic growth and for lower taxes, which means more money going into the pockets of hardworking everyday Australians. We have reduced the personal income tax rates for individuals.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Members on my left, I've warned about interjecting. There are many who I warn every day, several times a day. One of them is the member for Wakefield, who I've asked to cease interjecting today. I think he knows what follows next. He can leave under 94(a).
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
We have lowered tax rates for small, medium and family sized enterprises, and we have taken important steps to restore law and order to the critically important building and construction sector. This is despite those opposite doing their very best to defend the militant union thugs and their criminal associates. It is thanks to the coalition's economic plan that job growth is at record levels. Over 400,000 jobs were created in 2017, with three-quarters of those jobs being full time. Unemployment is down, women's participation continues to see record highs and, pleasingly, we have seen 95,000 young Australians find employment in 2017-18, the best result in almost 30 years. By contrast, in their final year in office those opposite saw youth employment go backwards, with around 16,000 job losses. We all know that if you cannot get that first job, it is very hard to get the second, third and fourth job.
The member asks about threats. Make no mistake that the Leader of the Opposition would hand the keys to our economy to his comrades in the militant mega-union, the CFMMEU. It is an organisation that proudly boasts about the fact that they have run up $16 million worth of penalties, with $1 million in this financial year alone. It has been described by a Federal Court judge as 'the most recidivist corporate offender in Australian history', with office holders having been convicted of serious offences that include assault, trespass and theft, to name just a few. This Leader of the Opposition would give the militant CFMMEU free rein to abuse, threaten and intimidate workers and small businesses right across the country. There would be no more fines and no more penalties if the Leader of the Opposition had his way. He says he has zero tolerance for union bad behaviour, but, unlike Bob Hawke, he refuses to stand up to the militant extremists within the union movement.
We on this side are getting on with the job of running the economy. We are getting more Australians into more jobs. We are ensuring that they have more money in their pockets. The Leader of the Opposition would put militant unions first and workers and small businesses last.
My question is to the Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation. Can the minister confirm that when he told the House he supported Malcolm Turnbull on Monday and Wednesday he had already decided to support someone else and he therefore had misled parliament?
The Leader of the House on a point of order?
Mr Speaker, again I would direct you to the standing orders and the House of Representatives Practice with respect to the responsibilities of the minister, and, particularly, page 553, which indicates that ministers should not be asked questions about:
… party leadership and related issues where there is no connection with a matter in respect of which the (Prime) Minister is responsible to the House.
Opposition members interjecting —
I'm happy to rule on the question now. It might save a bit of time.
You said that last time!
You might do better this time! The Leader of the House is quite right, and I'm very familiar with the 7th edition of the House of Representatives Practice. Obviously, I've considered all these matters in advance. He would be right in the normal course of events, but the difference here is that a minister has answered a question. It's quite in order for that previous answer to be asked about again, and that's what's been done on this occasion, so I'm going to allow the question to stand.
I've had two questions from the shadow minister and not one about policy. While they want to play inside baseball, we are getting on with the job of serving the Australian people. Last week I was with the member for O'Connor in his electorate in Kalgoorlie, Leonora and Laverton and we went to the local Aboriginal medical service and saw the work that was being done in my portfolio by Australian Hearing. Ten years ago, when the Labor Party were in office, one in 10 kids under five were getting their hearing tested in remote communities. Now, under this government, it's one in four kids under five in remote communities who are getting their hearing tested. That means we can intervene early and make sure that, if children need assistance to get their hearing right, we will give them that assistance.
We also went and spoke to the local councils of Leonora, Laverton and Kalgoorlie about the cashless debit card. What we heard from local police officers, what we heard from local stakeholders and what we heard from people who provide social services in those towns is that alcohol abuse is down, drug abuse is down and antisocial behaviour is down.
Ms Burney interjecting—
The minister will resume his seat for a second. The member for Barton will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Yes, on direct relevance.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I do have to say that, when it came to the question to the Minister for Health, which I didn't believe was particularly in order, I allowed him to answer but that was a much longer question with a whole lot of other elements. This is a shorter, tighter question and the minister needs to be relevant to it. It was really one straight question that didn't go to the matters he is now raising, so he needs to bring himself to the answer. He is not compelled, of course—as I always point out—to take the entire three minutes. The minister has the call.
The Australian people want us to get on with the job. That's exactly what we're doing with services like those I was talking about. I support the cashless debit card. Those who don't should go and see for themselves the impact it is having in those communities.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Would the minister update the House on how the government is continuing to be in a financial position to subsidise life-changing medicines such as Orkambi for cystic fibrosis? How does our approach differ from past approaches?
I want to thank the member for Cowper, who has been a great advocate for the listing of Orkambi, a medicine for cystic fibrosis. He does ask whether or not there are alternative approaches and I will deal with that first. The history is that for many years there has been support for the listing of new medicines, with the exception of 2011 when the then government—and I simply quote from their budget papers—said: 'Due to fiscal circumstances, the listing of some medicines would be deferred until fiscal circumstances permit.' What that meant was, 'We can't pay for it so we won't list it.' 'We can't manage the economy'—said Labor in 2011—'so we don't give people access to new medicines for deep vein thrombosis, for IVF, for schizophrenia, for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.' These were their decisions. There are real-world consequences when you can't manage the economy.
Fortunately, we are in a dramatically different place. We have seen a turnaround in the economy under the very careful hand of the coalition, and in particular the Prime Minister. We've seen a million jobs created and that has put the budget in a far stronger position, so that we can guarantee that every medicine that is recommended by the PBAC, we will proceed with and we will make sure that it can be listed.
What I do want to note in particular in relation to the medicine Orkambi for cystic fibrosis is that eight days ago I was privileged to join the Prime Minister in his first major announcement on health, as we recognised that Orkambi had been recognised by the PBAC. Within a few short weeks we were able to list it. It had been raised by the member for Mayo, the Member for Forrest and by those on the other side—indeed I mentioned the member for Lilley previously. This medicine will help 1,200 beautiful young Australian children and young adults get access to life-changing medicine. Overall, it will lead in some cases to an additional 20 years of life, and this is a medicine that would otherwise have cost up to $250,000. Virtually no Australian family could afford $250,000 a year. This medicine in particular will mean that young children have access to a capacity to have a future which they would otherwise not have had. I can't summarise it better than the words of Kate Daly—14 years old and unbelievably eloquent—who met the Prime Minister and me. What she said was: 'That night that Orkambi had been approved, I was a whirl of emotions. I was so happy, so excited and so grateful—so happy that I would have access to a drug that would for the first time stop the slow failure of my lungs. There couldn't have been a better outcome.'
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Today the minister said that the employer of the Brisbane au pair wrote an email to the minister's publicly available email account. Will he table that email now? If he doesn't have it with him, will he provide it to the parliament by 5 pm today?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I don't have the email with me, but I'm happy to table it.
My question is to the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population. Will the minister update the House on how the government is investing in congestion-busting infrastructure, including in my electorate of Dunkley? Is the minister aware of any different approaches to building the roads and infrastructure that Australians rely on?
I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. The Prime Minister and I had a great visit to his electorate just last week to discuss some local congestion-busting projects as well as the Baxter line, which I'll come to in a second. This government has $75 billion worth of congestion-busting initiatives going on right now across the nation. That consists of hundreds of small-scale, little projects at a localised level—things like the Mount Dandenong Tourist Road in your electorate, Mr Speaker, which you'd be familiar with—but also major infrastructure projects in every city in every state across the nation. That consists of the Bruce Highway; the Monash Freeway and the Tullamarine upgrade in Victoria; the Midland Highway in Tasmania; the North-South Corridor in Adelaide, the METRONET in Perth; and the Western Sydney Airport—over $5 billion put into that. All of these major infrastructure projects are designed to bust congestion.
I'm asked about projects in the member for Dunkley's electorate. He has been an outstanding advocate for the upgrade of what is known as the Frankston to Baxter line. That project will duplicate the line, upgrade it and also electrify it, effectively putting it onto the Metro rail. That will mean—once they've analysed the business case—an extra station at Frankston East, which I note the member for Dunkley has strongly supported, and it will link up to the Monash University campus down there as well as the Frankston Hospital. That will take cars off the road. It will ease up the car parking issues in those particular locations. And local people will be able to jump on the train and get to those destinations. Indeed Monash University believes that this will increase enrolments at the peninsula campus by 20 per cent, simply by having that rail line electrified and having a train stop there.
I'm asked about alternatives, and I'm very pleased that the state opposition has agreed to match our $225 million commitment. What we haven't seen yet, though, is the state Labor government also commit to seeing this done. We have seen the federal opposition commitment to the project, but guess what? There's not a dollar attached to it. It's a classic Labor opposition here—commits to something, but doesn't put a dollar to it. If you want the Baxter rail done, you have to support the coalition federally and at the state level in Victoria.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Section 44 of the Constitution provides that any person who has a financial interest in an agreement with the Commonwealth is disqualified from sitting in parliament. Is the Prime Minister aware of a letter sent to a childcare centre owned by the Minister for Home Affairs's family trust which says:
This Approval letter, together with the Conditions of Funding, make up the agreement between the Commonwealth and You …
When will the Prime Minister refer the Home Affairs minister to the High Court so that doubts about his qualifications to be a member of parliament under section 44 of the Constitution can be resolved?
I'll ask the Attorney-General to add to my answer. The short answer is that those matters were understood by the Solicitor-General at the time of the previous advice being prepared. I'll ask the Attorney-General to speak more on this, but I tell you what I'm not going to allow. The Australian people have had a gutful of these games. They want us to get on with business, and that's what my government is going to do.
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The member for Barker will cease interjecting. The Attorney-General has the call.
I thank the member, through the Prime Minister, for the question. Of course, the history to this is that Labor commissioned an advice for Mr Walker and Mr Mack. That advice made a conclusion—not a conclusion shared by three other pieces of public advice that are now available. The Solicitor-General's advice, in fact, dealt with the very agreement that you've spoken about. What Labor now contend is that the conclusion contained in the Walker and Mack advice is absolutely critical to the integrity of this parliament. If that is so and if the conclusion contained in the Labor advice is so absolutely critical to the integrity of this parliament, there's is one very obvious and very important question that requires answering before we proceed any further: why did Labor wait 126 days before deciding to provide that advice to the parliament? When you look at the cover page of that advice that's now oh so important, the date written on Mr Walker and Mr Mack's advice is 18 April 2018. It was sent to me as Attorney-General 126 days later, late on the evening of 22 August 2018. If any of us here as members of parliament thought that we had information truly critical to the integrity of this parliament, do you think we would sit on it for 126 days?
What happened? It couldn't be the case someone as learned as the shadow Attorney-General took 126 days to read it. Jack Kerouac wrote a whole bestselling novel in three weeks! What happened that was so important you had to sit on it for 126 days? Surely, if any of us truly believed that we had information that critical to the parliament, that important, striking at the heart of the integrity of this fine institution, we would abide by our duty to this parliament to disclose it to the parliament.
Three members of the Labor Party sat on an entire parliamentary committee into section 44. There were seven public hearings, and we're meant to believe that they had advice that they believed utterly critical to this issue and didn't disclose it to this parliament. Give us a break.
My question is for the Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on how the government is providing vital support and funding for students, parents and teachers? Is the minister aware of any alternative ideas about supporting the education of our young Aussies?
I'd like to thank the member for her question. She knows the best start in life is a good education from child care through to university. This government is providing record funding for education, record funding for child care, record funding for schools and record funding for higher education. The government wants to deliver better results for students, greater support for teachers and clear advice to parents on how their child is performing. In short, we are providing record funding, but we will also target that funding to improve results and put in place measures to keep track of those results.
That is why we are providing more subsidised child care for families who work the hardest and more financial support for families who earn the least. It's why we believe that NAPLAN is necessary for parents as well as teachers. We want to see how students are progressing across their time at school. It's why we're working through the 23 recommendations provided by David Gonski to improve results in our classrooms for students and better support our teachers. It's why we will make sure that, if you decide to study at university, we will reward institutions that deliver better results for students.
Our record funding will be matched by a focus on results. We want to make sure that we get better grades, not abolish grades. Without grades, how would we mark a geography student who didn't know that Africa is a country, a nation? Without grades, how would we mark an English student who didn't know the meaning of the word 'aspiration'? Without grades, how would we mark a mathematics student who provided three figures over three days on their higher education policy? How would we do that without grades?
We want to make sure that we're looking after our children's future. We want to make sure that our education system means that they will get the results they need to go on and have proper, meaningful employment outcomes. We want to make sure that they will know how to spell, that they will know how to add up, that they will know how to ensure that they can have the best future possible. That is what we are about and that is what our education policies will deliver.
I ask further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I seek to make a brief statement on indulgence.
The Manager of Opposition Business on indulgence.
With respect to the Minister for Home Affairs, there have been three different issues of misrepresentation. On one of those issues, which related to the question asked by the member for Melbourne, the comments I made in the House this morning were based on a transcript that had errors in it. I take full responsibility for it. I stand by the other parts but, for that part of it, I apologise to the Minister for Home Affairs.
I seek leave to make a personal representation, Mr Speaker.
Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes, I do.
The minister may proceed.
I firstly want to say thank you very much to the Manager of Opposition Business for his statement. I appreciate him clarifying that matter once he saw the transcript. There was a second issue that he mentioned and made reference to earlier in the day—as has the member for Blair, and I've seen some media sites as well—which go to the statement I made this morning in relation to a question asked in March of this year by the member for Blair, where he made reference to media articles. The media articles to which he referred, I believe, related to an article in the SMH and in The Guardian that day, which made claims about au pairs being employed by me or by my wife or by my family. My wife has never employed a nanny or an au pair. It was clear in the question asked by the member for Blair that he was making reference to those particular media articles. That was the debate at the time in relation to the first false allegation around this visa issue. It was a false statement for the member for Blair to make then; it's false now. I would be happy for him to correct the record now.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip that members have been nominated to be members of certain committees.
by leave—I move:
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources: Dr Gillespie be appointed a member of the committee;
Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity: Mr Sukkar be appointed a member of the committee;
Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts: Mr Alexander be appointed a member of the committee;
Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples: Dr McVeigh be appointed a member of the committee;
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services: Mr Sukkar be appointed a member of the committee;
Standing Committee on Economics: Mr C. A. S. Laundy and Mr T. R. Wilson be appointed a member of the committee;
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters: Mr Pitt be appointed a member of the committee;
Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport: Mr Drum be appointed a member of the committee;
Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources: Dr Gillespie be appointed a member of the committee;
Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories: Dr McVeigh be appointed a member of the committee;
Standing Committee on Petitions: Mrs Prentice be appointed a member of the committee;
Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests: Mr Ted O'Brien be appointed a member of the committee;
Standing Committee on Procedure: Mrs Prentice be appointed a member of the committee;
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Dr McVeigh be appointed a member of the committee;
Selection Committee: Mrs Prentice be appointed a member of the committee;
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties: Mr Broadbent be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
I present the following Auditor-General's performance audit reports for 2018-19: report No. 4, Operational efficiency of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity: Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, and report No. 5, Statistical Business Transformation Program—managing risk: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Documents made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant revoking the nominations of the honourable members for Wright and Swan to be members of the Speaker's panel.
I also lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for Reid and Groom to be members of the Speaker's panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.
by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Perth making a statement immediately and that the Member speak without limitation of time.
Question agreed to.
Before I call the honourable member for Perth, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech, and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.
Mr Speaker, I am humbled to speak on the lands of the Ngunnawal people about my community of Perth, on the lands of the Nyungar people. They are both parts of the oldest continuing cultures in human history, spiritual cultures that emphasise a love of land, love of environment and love of one another. Ultimately, the work of the Parliament of Australia is about love—love of the community you represent, love of your fellow humans, whatever their background, love of the values you and your party stand for, love of this country and what it can achieve. And, for me, having had the privilege to work in this building, the Parliament of Australia, meant I found love and met my wife, Jess.
The Australia that Jess and I love is a country that makes, creates and exports things, from arts to ore. The Australia that Jess and I love is a country that pays everyone a secure and fair wage, from cleaner to construction worker. The Australia we love is a country that builds a fair society through safety nets, adequate pensions, a fair tax system and a free and public health system. The Australia we love is a country that creates opportunity through unashamed investment in education. The Australia we love is a country committed to continuous reconciliation with the Indigenous peoples we have so badly wronged, dispossessed and ignored. The Australia we love protects our environment and our climate for future generations. The Australia we love is a country that believes gender equality is more than just an aspiration. The Australia that Jess and I love voted yes for marriage equality.
And, fortunately, Jess loves me—a failed pilot, a guitar hoarder, a former shift manager at McDonald's, a childhood member of the Double Helix Club, a former adviser to an Australian Prime Minister, and a pun-loving, ukulele-learning dad of one. Thank you to my Australian Labor Party family and to my community of Perth for allowing me to add 'Labor parliamentarian' to that list.
There is no greater agent for change, no volunteer organisation more effective, no cause more just than that of the Australian Labor Party. I'm incredibly grateful for the opportunities that this country has afforded me, grateful that the Whitlam Labor government opened up our universities, ensuring that my parents met at Claremont Teachers College, and grateful to have been surrounded by driven, independent women my entire life—my great-grandmother Rooke, who worked as a proud public servant at the Australian Taxation Office in Perth for many decades; my Grandma Pat, a working single mum who lived on Walcott Street just metres from where Jess and I now raise our son, Leo; and my grandmother Joan, who for some 50 years has run and still runs one of Western Australia's most successful family-owned farm-supplies businesses. As I was a chronically asthmatic child, my parents broke most parts of the traffic code at one time or another rushing me to Fremantle Hospital. I'm incredibly grateful for, and I'm here because of, Medicare and our public health system. I benefited immeasurably from a world-class education at Lance Holt primary school, Melville Senior High School, Curtin University and the University of Western Australia, and I'm indebted to the teachers of Australia.
That education drove me to have a career committed to delivering fairness. I worked for Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who delivered fairness in the wake of the global financial crisis, grew Australia's international development program and enacted reforms to give Labor Party members a real say and ensure stability of the leadership of the Australian Labor Party. This prepared me to serve as State Secretary of WA Labor, lead our 2017 state election campaign and work to elect Mark McGowan as Premier of Western Australia. Mark is a great Australian and a good friend, and I thank Mark for his support. Together we built a team that wrote new electoral history in Western Australia. We elected the greatest number of women ever seen in the state's parliament and delivered a landmark plan for jobs.
Both the Prime Minister and I have had the honour of serving as state secretaries of our respective political parties. Political parties are an essential part of our democracy, but right now our party system, this parliament and our executive government are being weakened—diminished by populism, racism and a sense that our institutions are no longer effective. Too often the Australian people look to this parliament and see the worst reflection of our society. It shouldn't be this way. I hope that one day in the near future people will again look here and see role models leading our country. This will take commitment from every one of the 226 members of this parliament. It requires us to protect and respect the institutions that made this country. One simple way would be to expand the parliament and civics education rebate to fully fund the costs for schools to visit our capital. We should also follow the lead of the former Western Australian Premier Geoff Gallop and hold interstate and regional sittings of the parliament on a yearly basis. And, of course, we need to treasure our Public Service and those that hold us accountable in the media, new and old—institutional players like the ABC and the West Australian through to newer entrants like The Conversation and BuzzFeed.
The Australia I love would be nothing without Perth. Perth is the heart and the brain of Western Australia. Perth is Boorloo, on the banks of the Derbarl Yerrigan, home to Aboriginal leaders past, present and emerging; home to businesses, tiny and global; home to mighty trade unions, new and old. Perth is Australia's beacon to the Indian Ocean economies and the GMT+8 time zone. Perth welcomes new Australians and has a proud migrant history. Western Australians have a sense of fairness that helps us grow our national economy and create the opportunities of the future. It was these values that saw Western Australia's Carmen Lawrence become the first female premier of any state in Australia.
Western Australians are recognised for grasping opportunity and turning it into something bigger. We need to be equally ambitious in our approach to economic infrastructure. As a modern city, we must plan across local, state and federal government for a metropolitan light rail connecting our CBD to the Burswood Peninsula, Kings Park and the great universities of our inner metropolitan area. As an entrepreneurial city, we should commence a visionary redevelopment of East Perth Power Station. This building should be full of art, culture and history, not sadly decaying on the banks of the Swan River. And urgency should be applied to laying the track of the Perth Morley-Ellenbrook train line. We must fast-track the train.
To achieve my ambitions for Western Australia, we need stable policy when it comes to resources, energy, agriculture and a regulatory environment that encourages new business; an environment that ensures our tax system is fair and seen to be fair, the most urgent being delivering a fair share of the GST to Western Australia. Every Western Australian is sick of debating the GST. I'm sick of debating and, equally, of seeing money that could fix such injustices go offshore through international tax avoidance.
Western Australia is one of the most diverse and beautiful places anywhere on earth, but it lacks a world-class built tourist destination. If Western Australia is serious about international tourism, then we have to seek investment for or make investment ourselves in new major tourist attractions. Western Australia has the time zone, location, climate, space and skills to host international theme parks with a uniquely Australian flavour.
When tourists and visitors come to Australia, they should see a progressive and welcoming country. We demonstrate this to the world through an Indigenous voice to our parliament, enshrined in our Constitution. We demonstrate this to the world when we stand as an Australian republic. We demonstrate this to the world by building the world's best education system from the earliest years right through to lifelong learning. We demonstrate this to the world by aiming to be the country with the highest living standards and best quality of life anywhere on earth.
The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, has welcomed me into his team to deliver a fair go for Australia. He truly understands the meaning of fairness. Both of our mothers were teachers and education lecturers. There is no greater grounding in social justice than having a teacher as a parent. Both he and I completed a Master of Business Administration, knowing education is the key to realising your vision. We both know that the safety of workers is paramount. He showed this as he represented workers in Beaconsfield. In Western Australia we live it every day. Jess works in the resources industry, as do thousands of Western Australians. We need to keep our workers safe. Together with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Tanya Plibersek, he leads a united team; a team that truly reflects the Australian people and is committed to equality in this workplace and every workplace. Bill and Tanya, thank you for your support and for your leadership.
It's an honour to join the Western Australian members of the federal parliamentary Labor Party. Together with Senators Dodson, Lines, Pratt and Sterle, I am pleased to serve in this place alongside the member for Cowan, who I first met when my then boss launched her book in 2011; the member for Burt, who I first worked with when we served as president and secretary of WA Young Labor; the member for Brand, with whom I had the honour to work for the Gillard government during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting held in Perth; and the member for Fremantle. Both he and I are sons of Freo and, amongst many things, did our part as ambassadors for democracy as we observed the 2014 Afghanistan presidential election count in Kabul.
I pay tribute to my good friend Tim Hammond, who made an incredibly difficult decision to leave this parliament in the best interests of his family. Equally, I'm here, unashamedly, in the best interests of my family. I want Leo to grow up in a fair society full of opportunity for him and his friends Spencer, Isla, Ethan, Saul, Lincoln, Matilda and Meredith, and I want Jess to experience true gender equality in her lifetime. That's why I'll proudly and publicly be a parent in this parliament and in my electorate of Perth. When Leo was born, I took three months paternity leave. I wish I'd been brave enough to ask for and take more because every child, every parent and every community benefits from us building a workplace culture and workplace laws that enable all Australians to be fully engaged parents and have fulfilling careers. This isn't an easy policy outcome to achieve, but the big economic reforms never are.
There is nothing more effective I can do for the parents and families of Perth than to build our education system. Australia's public, primary and secondary education systems are the envy of the world—government-run, well funded, accessible, free. Early childhood education is a fundamentally different story. It's a sector that boomed in response to the post-war economic needs of the workforce—a proud achievement of the feminist movement of the 1960s—but the wages in the sector are disrespectful to thousands of professional educators, and as a society we treat it as a purchased service in a $13.7 billion a year industry, not a public good. We know from many researchers, including the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, that the first 1,000 days of a child's life are 'the first and best opportunity we have to build strong foundations for optimal development'. It makes no logical or economic sense that we leave this to the free market. Early childhood education is the first step of our nation's education system.
There's a lot of discussion about free university education. We need a national discussion about free early education and free child care. We should work as a nation to bring child care and early childhood education more into line with primary school—government-run, well funded, accessible, free. If early childhood education gives Australians the beginnings of the soft skills needed for the 21st century, then it's TAFE that delivers the economic grunt of our education system. Yet today TAFE fees are among the most regressive tax on the capability of our people—a stop sign on the road to economic growth. TAFE is how we support people through economic disruption and change of everything, from automation to blockchains to a low-carbon, clean energy economy that prevents catastrophic climate change.
The fees for TAFE across this country are embarrassing, with some courses having increased in cost by more than 510 per cent. Australia needs to urgently reverse this trend. Labor's plan to abolish up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE places is the start of a visionary restructuring of our TAFE system across the country. I am excited to be part of fixing our broken technical and further education system—a repair that only Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek and Labor can deliver. Our party has the persistence to implement creative, progressive policies—Bob Hawke did it with Medicare, Paul Keating did it with superannuation and Julia Gillard did it with the National Disability Insurance Scheme—because investing in our people is how we become the country with the highest living standards and best quality of life anywhere in the world.
Freedom from fear and freedom from want were the two rights of all Australians that Senator Dorothy Tangney highlighted in her first speech following the 1943 election. Freedom and a commitment to effective national security are fundamental Labor values. Thirty-seven years later, Kim Beazley reminded this place, in his first speech, of the constitutional obligation of the Commonwealth to protect the states from invasion. He outlined the posture needed for the protection of the vast coast of Western Australia, including the Pilbara, as key defence priorities. He delivered on this vision as a great defence minister and Deputy Prime Minister of this country. Today, the risks to our national security are amplified by disengagement with international institutions, ongoing economic instability and digital attacks we only learn about years after they occur. Australia cannot be relaxed and comfortable when it comes to digital national security. We can't stand on the sidelines as a passive participant in the global and regional forums that deliver stability. We cannot expect a shared commitment to a rules based order where we've done nothing to ensure peaceful development. I'll be a voice in this parliament for growing our international development program because it fulfils our humanitarian obligations and our security necessities. It is only by fulfilling our mission as Australia, the good international citizen, that we truly protect freedom and achieve our ambitions as a nation.
The greatest achievement in my life is my family. I love Jess and the life we are building together. We love Leo—how he keeps us alert, grounded and excited about the future. And Leo and I love Jess and all she achieves as one part of the 18 per cent of women working in the mining industry in the resources sector in Western Australia. To my parents, Wendy and Ron Gorman, thank you for showing me that education and political action makes an overwhelming difference. Thank you for taking me on marches for land rights, peace parades and tree-planting excursions. Thank you for the middle name 'Possum'. And this possum thanks my younger brother, Joseph Anachie Gorman. Thank you to Jess's parents, Diane and Danny Bukowski, and her brother, Andrew, for welcoming me into their family and making Brisbane my second home.
It takes a village to raise a by-election candidate. Thank you to the former members for Perth Stephen Smith, Alannah MacTiernan and Tim Hammond. Thank you to the state members in Perth Lisa Baker, John Carey, Alanna Clohesy, Dave Kelly, Simon Millman, Samantha Rowe, Matt Swinbourn and Martin Pritchard. Thank you all. Thank you to the national secretariat, under the leadership of Noah Carroll, Sebastian Zwalf and my friend since I was a teenager Paul Erickson. Thank you to my campaign director, who I understand is having lunch and watching on the television screen in Perth, and successor as state secretary, Matt Dixon, and thank you to Ellie Whiteaker, who will shine in the male-dominated world of party officials. Thank you to my campaign manager, David Cann, a man who has enthusiasm for campaigning that cannot be curbed. Thank you to my field director, Lucy Morrison, who will make her mark on Western Australian politics. Thank you to my national organiser, Callum Drake, who became an honorary Western Australian over a three-month campaign.
I thank the state and federal Labor members, ministers and shadow ministers, and, most importantly, the grassroots Labor Party members and branches in Perth and further afield. Thank you to the union members who campaigned alongside us in the Perth by-election. A special thanks to United Voice, the AMWU, the CPSU and the SDA. Thank you to the community groups and local businesses engaged with our positive campaign. Thank you to the campaign team members and volunteers, including Marije Van Hemert, Phil O'Donoghue, Ben Latham, Alisa Shibalova, Owen Wrangle, Naomi McLean, Daniel Smith, Klara Andric, Julie Bogle, Sheena Cole Bowen, Mark Reed, Stacey Hearn, Clement Avenell, Dennis Liddelow, David Goncalves, Daniel Street, Stuart Aubrey, Brock Oswald, Lisa Tibbs, Jack Eaton, Fran Hickling, Tim Dunlop, Lex Guider, Steph Anderson, Toyah Shakespeare, Robert Williamson. And thank you to Ester Borcich who, after a 12-week campaign, will do it all again in a few months, but hopefully not too soon.
Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition's team, led skilfully by Ryan Liddell. Thank you to my first employers in state and federal parliament, Ken Travers and Melissa Parke. Thank you to all the staff I've had the privilege to work with in ministerial, prime ministerial and backbench offices—hundreds of dedicated people and lifelong friends. And to three women who've had faith in me for many, many years—thank you to current party president, Carolyn Smith; Deputy President of the Senate, Sue Lines; and the Western Australian government's cabinet secretary, Amber-Jade Sanderson. Thank you.
Finally, thank you Kevin, Therese and the Rudd-Rein family for your friendship and encouragement over many years. Kevin, thank you for the advice to discover and confirm what you believe in, why and what you are going to do about it. Therese, thank you for the well-timed and simple reminders to be myself. And a special thank you to Jess Rudd for her support of my wife, Jess, during what felt like a never-ending by-election.
This is as much a speech to the parliament as it is to my future self. Therefore, I end with the words of the greatest Western Australian to serve in this place, John Curtin. I do this to remind me, for however long I may be here, whatever capacity I may have the honour to serve, of the purpose of electing Labor members to the parliament of Australia. Curtin said:
Labor is a peace-loving party. Its struggle has always been on behalf of the weak against the strong; for the poor, for those who never had a chance as against those whose privileged positions enabled them to prosper—even though millions suffer.
Thank you.
Order! I've received a message from the Senate informing the House that on 27 June 2018 Senator stoker was discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and Senator Martin was appointed a member of the committee.
I move:
That the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move as an amendment:
That the words "the next sitting" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"17 September 2018, where it shall be the first item of private Members' business, and if the second reading debate has concluded on 17 September 2018, the bill be called on immediately for its third reading as the first item of private Members' business on 15 October 2018, and on each day it shall be permitted for the debate to conclude and the question to be put".
To explain the detail of this to the House, we have a private member's bill that has come from the Senate that is in very similar terms to a private member's bill which is currently on the Notice Paper in the name of the member for Farrer. This House has not had the opportunity to debate any bill relating to the future of live exports. This motion is to make sure that the bill that has already passed the Senate has the opportunity to be fully debated in this House. If this amendment is not carried, the impact will simply be that, given that the call went to the Leader of the House and not the member for Melbourne, the practical outcome of that is that instead of this being listed in private members' business, it disappears into the ether. The government has been so determined to make sure that we don't have a debate about the future of live sheep exports that not only are they wanting to pretend that a bill from the Senate, moved from the crossbench there, is in fact now government business; they've also announced that the member for Farrer's private member's bill is intended to be taken off the Notice Paper. The action that they proclaimed as urgent, and introduced their own legislation to respond to some of the effective scandals about the live sheep trade that emerged over recent months—they now won't even bring on their own bill containing their own policy, because (1) it would lead to a debate and (2) it might lead to amendment.
I simply implore both the members of the crossbench and those opposite, because there are many people in this chamber—it's not hard to get to a majority of people in this chamber—who hold the view that we should at the very least debate this issue and, beyond that, people who have a view that the sheep trade ought to either be phased out or, in some people's view, stopped immediately. The only chance we will have this term to ever have that debate and make that decision is by voting for this amendment today. It doesn't determine the outcome of the debate, but it does determine whether or not the parliament will get to debate it. The private member's bill in the name of the member for Farrer is on the Notice Paper today. It won't be on the Notice Paper tomorrow. This bill is before us now. If the motion moved by the Leader of the House is not amended, then this bill will never be in front of us again.
In relation to the legislation that the government has brought forward, so concerned are they about there being a majority in this House that wants to do something about the trade that they have even abandoned their own legislation that they had introduced. While it's technically on the Notice Paper, it never gets listed for debate. We were told how urgent it was; we were told how important it was; and it never turns up anymore from the moment the member for Hunter gave due, responsible notice that when we got past the second reading debate we would seek to amend it in the same terms as the member for Farrer's private member's bill.
There was some good cross-party work not long ago from people on all sides who were genuinely passionate about this issue. There is no point putting out media releases, holding media conferences, saying you care so much about this issue and then going missing the one time there is a vote that matters. What's about to happen in this House today will be the one time this term that will determine whether or not this parliament has an opportunity to act on phasing out the live sheep trade.
Originally it was expected that this debate would start in the Senate. You would all remember when the member for Farrer announced her private member's bill, together with the member for Corangamite, and the big question was, 'Well, you know, it will start in the reps and then go to the Senate.' Well, the Senate has now had the whole debate. The Senate has dealt with it, the Senate has carried it, and it is now here anyway. Those who are supporting the private member's bill, when they held their media conference, said that they would not support a suspension of standing orders to bring it on. Today they don't have to. This is not a suspension of standing orders. This is an amendment that simply says: 'We're not going to let this bill disappear. We will debate it and it will come to a conclusion.'
How it lands when it comes to a conclusion, I don't know, but be in no doubt that, if this comes to a vote, anyone who chooses to vote against this amendment will have made an active decision that we will not be dealing with the live sheep trade in this term of parliament. That is the necessary consequence of anyone voting against this, because the private member's bill that is in front of the parliament is about to disappear, and the government's own legislation is never coming back. For people who set a threshold that they wouldn't play political games, that they wouldn't support a suspension—and that was their argument—here is the simple procedure. The simple procedure is that, on 17 September, it will be the first item of private members' business. If debate is concluded that day, it will be called on immediately for its third reading as the first item of private members' business on 15 October. Then it will be called on as the first item each day and will be allowed to be debated until the debate concludes. Then, unusually—because you normally don't get to do this in private members' business—the question will be put. We will get a vote.
This is an unusual opportunity and it has happened in a way that navigates past every objection that has been put by people who felt they were bravely crossing party lines to deal with this. They've received a whole lot of community support. The time for that bravery to turn into action is now; the clock runs out today. This is the last moment. This amendment deals with every one of the objections those individuals raised.
I respect what those people would now be weighing up, given that at least one of them is now back as a member of the executive. There may well be from the government a penalty for keeping to your convictions. But, if you've gone out there publicly, said you are willing to do that, said that that's what has to happen, used some extraordinarily compassionate language about how important all of that is, and then when the opportunity is presented in the exact terms that those individuals demanded—I certainly hope they vote for the amendment. If they vote for the amendment there will be an opportunity to act on the live sheep trade this year. If this amendment fails, almost certainly there will not be that opportunity. I commend the amendment to the House.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment. I support the amendment for three very key reasons. Members of the House of Representatives should be given the opportunity to vote on this matter before we go to the next federal election, for three key reasons. First of all, the Australian community has broadly made its views on this point very well known. There is a growing concern about animal welfare issues in this country, and it is a concern that stretches across each of the 150 electorates represented here in this place. There is a particular concern about the inability of the live sheep export trade to continue while also meeting what are reasonable community expectations on the animal welfare front, and I will return to those issues.
The second reason is Australia's reputation. The most important thing to our agriculture sector in this country, the thing that brings us our key competitive advantage, is our reputation as a provider of clean, green, safe, high-quality and, importantly, and increasingly so, ethically-produced food. The longer the live sheep trade continues—inconsistent with community expectations, not just in Australia but internationally—the more damage will be done to that reputation and to our key competitive advantage.
The third reason is the will of this parliament. The Senate has been given the opportunity to express its will today, and a majority of senators have chosen to reflect the view of the broader Australian community, which I have no doubt is in favour of phasing out this trade. I challenge anyone on the other side, in response to this amendment, to stand in this place and challenge that proposition—to challenge the idea that a majority of Australians now believe that it's impossible to reconcile the live sheep trade with community expectations. We are elected to this place to represent our people. I do understand the role of the executive in the Westminster system, but here is an opportunity for the executive to let the members have their say—to allow the members to properly represent the views of their constituents.
As the member for Watson has pointed out, this is a vote that would only require a simple majority of the parliament, not an absolute majority and the 76 votes that would usually be required. I worked this out quickly, and the member for Watson will correct me if I'm wrong, but, at the moment, if the Labor Party secured the support of all members of the crossbench—and I would be very confident, given they are now gathering, of strong support on the crossbench—there would only be, at best, one vote in this. That would be the case if the members for Farrer and Corangamite go back on everything they've said in this place with respect to the live sheep trade. What they should do today, in response to this amendment, is stick to their principles, as enunciated here, and join with the Labor Party and the majority of the crossbench to support this amendment, which is about giving members of this place a say and, eventually, a vote. That is not an outrageous proposition by any stretch of the imagination.
The members for Farrer and Corangamite, stoically supported by the member for La Trobe at a subsequent press conference, spoke on their private members' bill in this place very, very passionately. Given the short notice of this amendment—in other words, the short notice of the Leader of the House's motion—I haven't had the opportunity to drag out quotes from the speeches of the members for Farrer and Corangamite, but I can assure the House they were passionate, they were heartfelt and they left every member of the Australian community and every member of their own electorates in no doubt that, given the opportunity to vote on this matter in this place, they would be voting to give effect to an immediate cessation of that dreaded northern summer trade and to phase out the live sheep trade within five years. That's what they stood here and told the Australian parliament, it's what they told people in the broader community and it's certainly what they told the members of their own constituencies. To have now accepted promotions to the very junior ranks of the Morrison ministry, knowing that they would then be able to argue that they were no longer in a position to stand by their convictions, will come as a great disappointment to the many constituents who are relying upon them.
The Leader of the House is indicating to me that if I leave my comments at this point, members of the crossbench will have an opportunity to make a contribution, and I will give way to them. I thank the Leader of the House.
We have the opportunity in this House to do something meaningful for animals right now. We could do something meaningful right now and restrict and hopefully, ultimately, bring an end to the live sheep trade. Why can we do that? Well, something very significant has happened. A bill has passed the Senate. The Animal Export Legislation Amendment (Ending Long-Haul Live Sheep Exports) Bill 2018 passed the Senate, co-sponsored by Senators Rhiannon, Hinch and Storer. Obviously, they had the majority of their colleagues with them. The bill put in place a process to begin to restrict the live sheep trade. Is it a perfect bill? Is it the ideal bill that the Greens would want and would move in our own right? No, it's not. It's a bill that restricts the trade through certain months of the year. It doesn't unfortunately deal in detail with the stocking density question, which is a very important question, and it's not a full ban or end to the trade—all things the Greens would like to see happen. It only applies to sheep, whereas we see no reason for it to not apply across the board, but it would be a very good start.
The reason it is in a position before us in the House today is that it's a bill that's a result of compromise by people of good will from across the political spectrum. Up until recently some of those people sitting on the Liberal backbench have said to us: 'We agree with you and the Australian population that these ships of shame cannot continue. These shiploads of death that result in animals under our watch dying in huge numbers as we send them offshore have to come to an end.' What we know, because we've been here time after time, is that it's not possible to regulate the treatment of those animals from behind a desk in Canberra. Once the sheep get on the ships and the ships set off on their long journeys to the other side of the world, it is impossible to regulate the conditions under which they are being kept. That is why they die in huge numbers. That's why you find them in their own excrement, dying. That's why you find them in heat that they cannot tolerate, dying. They begin to pant, they begin to expire and then they die.
The Australian population wants this regulated. Most of them, I suspect, want it brought to an end. We've tried, as the Greens, and I know the member for Denison has tried as well, to bring bills in here to bring the whole trade to an end—to either do it immediately or have it done over a period of three years. In the Greens we've also worked with the meat workers union to say it would be much better to have the processing conducted here. When you have the Greens and the meat workers union working together to say, 'Wouldn't it be a good idea to have processing here rather than to send these animals offshore?' it tells you something about the strength of feeling in the community and how widespread the view is that people want something to happen.
We now have, probably, the best opportunity that we've had for a very long time to do something. I was on my feet seeking the call while the Leader of the House was still sitting down. I've got an explanatory memorandum for the bill ready to be tabled right now. I was seeking the call to try and progress this debate and start it in the House today, so that we could debate it for the rest of this week and hopefully pass it. I didn't get the call—so be it. The Leader of the House got the call and the government is now trying to kick this off into the long grass. The government is now trying to make sure that this bill, which has passed the Senate and could pass this House if we're given the chance to debate, can never, ever come to a vote. But there is a way this House, just like the Senate, can say 'No, actually the treatment of sheep is an important issue and the deaths that we have seen of these sheep as they've been exported is important enough for us that we want to debate it now.' How can we do that? All it would take would be for a few members to stand up and say that they are going to vote to have a debate now. I was very, very encouraged to hear and talk to the member for Farrer not that long ago about a compromise bill, like this bill, that wouldn't satisfy everyone but would start to rein in this terrible trade.
I've heard the member for Corangamite and the member for La Trobe speak very passionately about this, and I think they believe it. They want to see this horror stopped. I also know that those members, the member for Corangamite and the member for La Trobe, are in very close contact with people who run in their electorates at election time and they beg them for their preferences. They say, 'Come and give us your preferences, because we are much better on animals and, even though you might not agree with everything my party says, you know that, when the opportunity comes, we will stand up for animals.' I've spoken to many activists in Victoria who say that the member for Corangamite and the member for La Trobe do what they can. Well, now's the chance to earn that support that you've been given by your constituents, who want you to take action on animals. Now's a chance to say nothing more than, 'We want a debate in this House and a chance to consider a bill that would start to rein in some of the worst excesses of the live export trade.' So I say to those members that now is your chance. We might not get another chance. Now is your chance. I say to anyone in this House who says that they're concerned about the welfare of animals that now is your chance.
In many respects, there couldn't be a better week to debate this, because the government don't have much else on the agenda for this week. They're frantically running around trying to make sure that we don't debate anything that might be potentially controversial. So the program is looking very bare indeed. So there is time to debate this. I would prefer that we get it on this week, and that's why I was seeking the call. We're not going to be able to do that, so I support the amendment that has been moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, because that would mean that we'd get to it next week—but we would get to it.
People should be under no illusions about what they're voting on. If we don't vote for this amendment, we're voting to do what the government wants and it will be kicked off into the long grass and this horror will continue. This horror will continue, because the government has run away from taking any action itself. It had a bill on the Notice Paper and now it's pulled it back. The Senate has called the government to account—and I'm very, very proud of the work that former Senator Rhiannon has done, together with her colleagues, to come up with this cross-parliamentary, cross-partisan, bill. Now is a chance for us to do something about it.
As someone who spent many, many years in Fremantle, you know what it's like when the ships are in town. You know when there is storey upon storey of sheep and animals piled up ready to go offshore, because you can smell the stench of death as you walk around town. When it hits 40 degrees on a summer's day in Perth, you know that there are animals there that are suffering. Then you think about what it's like when they've been at sea for days and weeks and the temperature starts hitting 40 and 50 degrees and you imagine the suffering that those animals are going through then. The Australian people know what that suffering means. That's why they want this trade restricted. They know that, whatever the government is doing, it's not enough. So now we have an opportunity.
I'll just say once more to anyone with a good heart in this place who believes that it is time to act to stop the suffering, now is your chance. If you don't vote for this amendment, we will remind everyone about it right up until election day. If you don't vote for this, every promise that you've made about standing up for animals counts for absolutely nothing.
There are obviously a great many reasons that politicians, and federal politicians in particular, are being held in contempt by many members of the community. One of the reasons that the community has lost confidence in federal politicians and the federal parliament is that, somewhere along the line, we stopped representing them. Whether it be climate change or asylum seekers or animal welfare, this place has stopped representing the majority of Australians. There is no better example than when it comes to animal welfare. There is no way in the world that a majority of Australians support the live animal export trade. Every poll you can come up with that is conducted fairly and among the broad members of the community shows overwhelming public support for shutting the trade down—the beef trade, the sheep trade, the whole lot. Because the only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade.
I know the bill that has come down from the Senate is far from perfect because it only would phase out the trade over five years and shut down eventually, in five years time, the sheep trade just to the Middle East. But in the absence of anything else, or everything else, it's a bill that should be brought on for debate and should be supported. In the first instance, this parliament should get behind the opposition motion to at least schedule debate on the bill that has come down from the Senate. That's what the community wants. If we want to do the right thing by the community, if we want to act in the public interest, if we want to start in a little way to restore the public faith in federal politics and the federal parliament, we should get behind this opposition motion to at least schedule the bill that's come down from the Senate. That's what the community wants.
Who can forget the shocking footage from the Awassi Express a few months ago? Thank God there was one brave whistleblower that had the strength and the means to record the scenes on that vessel. About 2,500 sheep perished on that ship of horrors. Remember the scenes of the little lambs dying in the filth on the floor and the scenes of the sheep panting with the extreme heat stress just before they died. No-one can defend that, and no-one can say that the cruelty on the Awassi Express was a one-off. What was rare about the Awassi Express was that there was a whistleblower on board with a camera. Because we know it's a fact that the trade is systemically cruel and it is not unusual to have that sort of cruelty on the sheep ships to the Middle East. It's not unusual to have similar cruelty on the sheep ships to Indonesia, to Vietnam and in increasing numbers to China. It is a systemically cruel trade. The only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade.
It's a systemic cruelty. It's not one off. Since 2010, 2011, 2012, how many exposes have we seen in the media of cruelty to Australian livestock being sent to and arriving in China, in Vietnam and repeatedly in Indonesia? Who can forget the scenes on our TV of live Australian sheep being thrown in to a hole in Pakistan and covered up with dirt—all the time approved by the Australian government, encouraged by the Australian government, a government that rubs its hands together in glee at every announcement of an expansion of the trade. What about the cruelty that we know happened to Australian animals in Turkey, in Israel, in numerous countries in the Middle East? This is a trade that is systemically cruel. The only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade. The only way to do the right thing by Australian workers in the Australian economy is to process those animals in Australia. If you draw a line from Perth to Townsville, I think there's only one abattoir north of that line that's licensed for export markets. All the rest have been shut down. No wonder the unions oppose the trade, because it's cost us thousands of jobs. Indeed, if you want to put sheep and cattle production in this country on a sustainable footing, if you want to safeguard Australia's reputation as an ethical producer of food, then you'd shut the trade down. It is systemically cruel. It's not in Australia's best interests. The excuses for keeping the trade are preposterous. If you were to believe the nonsense from some quarters, you'd think Australian farmers are doing this for free because they want to do the right thing by low-income people elsewhere in the world—that it's an act of altruism; nothing to do with money; it's about providing protein to the world's poor. What bunkum. There's no altruism here. It's business and it's all about what sort of business will give a small number of farmers the best return on their investment. There's nothing fair dinkum about this claim to provide protein to the poor. It's bunkum.
There's the nonsense about religious practice—that we can only send live sheep to the Middle East because that's the only sort of sheepmeat that we could possibly send there. What nonsense. The fact is that the value of the processed red meat that Australia exports to the Middle East, and specifically sheep, is almost three times the value of the live sheep we send to the Middle East. There's the nonsense about no refrigeration. My godfather! Let's not be so condescending and paternalistic. They have fridges in other countries; they have fridges in the Middle East, they have fridges in South-East Asia, they have fridges in Indonesia and they have fridges in Pakistan—all those places. Let's stop being so racist by coming up with the nonsense about them not having fridges and that, if we're going to feed them, we need to send live animals.
And there's the issue that someone else will fill the gap—that, if we don't send those sheep to the Middle East, someone else will. Absolute nonsense. The fact is that there is a strong demand for meat from this country which is fine meat, carefully processed in Australia and ethically produced. That's one of the reasons the Middle East is taking almost three times the value of processed Australian sheepmeat compared to the live export trade. Even if they do go somewhere else, wouldn't it be nice that we act like a country with integrity and that we will say that we will not be party to systemic animal cruelty in those markets? That's what we should be doing: acting like a rich and civilised country with integrity that will do the right thing. I'll tell you what: by doing that, we enhance the value of what we do export, because so many people in the world will be increasingly attracted to Australian suppliers because they know that Australian suppliers raise their sheep and their cattle in as humane a condition as possible and they process it in Australia in as humane a condition as possible. They'd be buying ethically produced meat from Australia.
If I had my way, we'd shut the whole live animal export industry down this afternoon because the only way to end the cruelty is to end the industry. But, if we're not going to do that, then let's at least phase out, over five years, the sheep exports to the Middle East—ban them completely at the height of summer and be done with them in five years. That is enough time, particularly with some government assistance, for the sheep export industry, especially in WA, to prepare for that transition. If nothing else, let's at least debate the issue. That's why I think that everyone in this House with any common sense and any decency should get behind the opposition's motion to at least schedule the bill that has come from the Senate, because the Manager of Opposition Business is quite correct: if we don't debate this bill shortly, then nothing will be debated. Like so much else that's said in this chamber in all of those grand speeches and all those wonderful press conferences, with all of those looks of anguish, will amount to nothing. Then we'll wonder why the community still has no time for politicians. It's because the community thinks that words are worthless unless they're backed up by action. Why doesn't this parliament for once do something in the public interest and for once represent the majority of the community? Let's pass this motion, let's schedule this bill and let's have a debate of ideas because I'm quite confident that, in a debate of ideas, the best idea will win and we will decide to back the bill that's come from the Senate and we'll at least wind up the sheep exports to the Middle East.
We have an opportunity to do—
Mr Katter interjecting—
Order! The member for Kennedy will resume his seat if he wants to contribute to this debate.
We have an opportunity to do a very good thing here today, and goodness knows we need to start doing some good things in this place. Six months ago we all saw the 60 Minutes interview, and I would say that there is not a member in this chamber who has not received emails, phone calls or personal representations from their community. They want us to act. This motion quite simply says, 'Please debate this bill.' The Senate has debated this bill, and the Senate has passed this bill. All we are saying is: allow us to debate this bill. That is what a democracy does. That is actually the job of every person in this place. We are employed by our communities to be legislators, and our communities want us to vote on this bill.
I refer to the comments by both of my crossbench colleagues here: this is perhaps not the bill that many people who are supportive of ending animal cruelty want. However, it is a compromise. The first thing we need to do is actually use this place—this place that is supposed to be a place for the contest of ideas and the contest for debate—for constructive debate.
I have received thousands of emails from my community. I have a regional community. I have a community with many entirely rural pockets. Even sheep farmers have said, 'Rebekha, we need to end this industry.' My community wants to see its closed abattoirs reopened. We have an abattoir begging to be opened at Normanville. We have an abattoir, Thomas Foods, at Lobethal. They already have two chefs. They could put on a third. These are true regional jobs. To every member over there who stands on their feet and lauds regional Australia, and says how much they support regional Australia and want to see regional jobs: there are no truer jobs in regional Australia than those in the meat processing industry. They are good, quality jobs. They are stable jobs. They don't exist on the north shores of Sydney or in central Melbourne, but they do exist in my community and many of the regional communities around here.
Let us debate the facts. My goodness, New Zealand must just laugh at us and at how we are dragged kicking and screaming to progressive debate in our country compared to theirs. We should be following New Zealand's path. Their lamb meat—and I have travelled to many places overseas—is considered to be much better quality than ours, simply because they no longer have long-haul live exports.
I would like to refer to the member for Farrer's comments when she introduced her bill. I have tremendous respect for the member for Farrer. I was very pleased to be sitting in her room, before she introduced her bill, meaningfully discussing the merits of this proposed legislation with members from the crossbench, the Greens and Labor. That is what this place is supposed to do. The member for Farrer said:
I have researched the science, the facts, the economics and the opinions. I have not allowed emotions to overcome reason.
The case for continuing long-haul live sheep exports fails on both economic and animal welfare grounds.
I would say that they will be hollow words if the member for Farrer does not support this bill being debated. I would also ask the members for Corangamite and La Trobe to consider the words that they have said in this place and outside, in the media, with supporters of animal welfare behind them.
A couple of weeks ago we all saw, in the media, the Prime Minister give lapel pins of the Australian flag to his new frontbench. He said that they were to remind everybody that they're there for the Australian people. Let me say this to the government: if you are genuinely there for the Australian people, you will allow this bill to be debated and you will support this motion. We need to restore the faith of the Australian community, and this is one very good way to do it.
Let me be caring towards my fellow crossbenchers, at the start, and say I agree with them totally in asking: just how competent is the government? You can't put an inspector on a boat!
With the live cattle trade, I was absolutely shocked to find out that Minister Truss had known for five years about the cruel way in which they were killing the cattle in Indonesia and had done nothing about it. The meat and livestock corporation had known about it and done absolutely nothing about it. Industry representative organisations had known about it and done absolutely nothing about it. If they are saying something should be done about the cruelty to animals on the boats then I agree with them totally. But if members here stand up and say the matter should be debated—well, they've all had a 10-minute go at it. I don't know how much longer they want to speak about it.
I've been away from this place, thank bloody goodness, for about six or seven weeks and I've listened to the people of Australia. People are not interested in you bleating and howling about sheep. They want a job next week. If you say, 'They'll get jobs in the sheep-killing works,' I've got news for you, because I represent the biggest cattle area in Australia and I've been through it. Our party is based upon meatworkers. It should be called the 'Knuth Australian Party' rather than the Katter Australian Party. A Knuth was president of one of the biggest meatworks in Australia, and one of our executive members was the secretary of that meatworks. So don't tell me about meatworks. I'm intimately familiar with them.
We had seven of our nine meatworks in North Queensland close down when there were virtually no live cattle going out of this country because we didn't have the cattle numbers. And we couldn't raise the cattle numbers because we have a drought every year and you people won't let us use the water. You're going to keep it. What are you keeping it for? I want to know what you're keeping it for. You can't say it's stopping the flow in the rivers. In North Queensland we don't have rivers; we have a flood and then we have dry creek beds. All we're asking for is a little tiny bit of those floodwaters to be held back.
But let me return specifically to the question. What you did with your ban on live cattle, my friend, was to cut our incomes clean in half. We had a person committing suicide—and I don't hesitate to say it—every five days. I said it was once every two weeks and I was wrong. It was once every two weeks in Queensland. That didn't include the other states. So thank you! It was a wonderful job you did in destroying us completely. And the farmers of Australia were destroyed completely, because our biggest industry is the cattle industry. You took one-fifth of our market out from under us and the price collapsed completely, to less than half. What happens then? We're now fighting to keep the last two meatworks open, because there are no cattle. When the price dropped by half, they had to sell their breeders. For those of you who don't understand farming—and, clearly, the previous speakers don't—when you're up against the wall and the banks are foreclosing, you've got to do whatever you've got to do, and that means selling your breeders. The breeders went into the meatworks weighing nothing. We got paid nothing for them. But it staved off the banks for a year or two. Now it will probably be 10 or 15 years before the cattle numbers are restored. If you pull this stunt, you'll have exactly the same reaction that you had in the cattle industry. And it won't help the meatworks. You'll be absolutely, definitely shutting meatworks in Australia, because the sheep numbers will not be there.
We said to the great geniuses in this place: if you abolish the wool marketing scheme, you will destroy the industry. Within three years the price had dropped to one-third what it had been before statutory marketing. It was ironic that one of the so-called socialists in this place, Keating, said I was the last socialist left in the parliament. I probably am, because I'm the only one who believes the government should interfere in the marketplace when the marketplace is not working. And it most certainly wasn't working in the sheep industry. When that great man Doug Anthony introduced the scheme, the price tripled over the next three years. That woebegone good for nothing Keating removed the scheme—a man who was put in this parliament by the fathers of arbitration. When I walk into this parliament, I proudly clench my fist with Charlie McDonald, the leader of the Labor movement in Australia—he was the second or third speaker in this place—because I'm very proud to carry on those traditions that Charlie McDonald had of giving work to his workers.
We need the sheep numbers out there, and what you are saying is: 'Abolish the sheep industry. That's the answer.' If you are naive enough to believe that you can take one-tenth of the market away and still have a sheep industry then you are obviously toweringly ignorant of economics. People know that with a five per cent undersupply, the market is going to go through the roof; with a five per cent oversupply, the market will collapse through the floor. That's what the great Ron Camm in the state of Queensland—the father of the cheapest electricity in the world—told me, and I found it to be absolutely accurate. You're taking more than five per cent away from the market and, when you do that, the market will collapse, as it did in the cattle industry and we will have the same disaster in the sheep industry as we had in the cattle industry. If you want to fix it up and if you are in any way genuine, you should be calling upon the government to properly police what is going on here.
Is it very difficult to have two people on a boat? The expense is negligible compared with the value of that boat—to ensure that the cruelty to animals is not occurring. People that live in the bush with animals love animals. They wouldn't live in the bush and work with animals if they didn't.
Let me return to what is being proposed here: the removal of, I don't know, 10 per cent off the market, which will collapse the market for sheep in Australia. Now, we've lost 70 per cent of the herd, thanks to Mr Keating and the so-called Socialist Party that is actually the free market party in this place. I hate to break it to the Liberals but you're not the free market party. If you compare how many assets were sold and how many industries were deregulated, these blokes beat you hands down. But that leaves me—well, I never thought I would ever agree with anything that Mr Keating said, but he said I was the last socialist left in the parliament. I'm starting to think one thing Keating and I did agree on is that I am. I can most certainly say that the people beside me here that I share the crossbenches with and the people on both sides of this parliament are most certainly not. They don't believe we should go back in and take the electricity industry over.
If you like to watch programs on the ABC, which I don't, did you see it when I said that the only answer to the electricity industry was to nationalise the industry, and the whole of the audience, 600 people, just screamed in applause and, if you look at the pictures, I was mobbed when I walked out of the audience. So you people are so far off the mark that you don't even know what planet you are living on.
If you go up there and you say in the cattle areas of North Queensland that you are going to ban the live cattle trade, well I'm not taking any life insurance out on you when you go up there and start talking about it. I wouldn't be taking any life insurance out on you when you go into country New South Wales or Victoria—as to what is going to happen, because they may not know at this stage; they may be quite friendly to you at the stage, but I would hate to see what's going to happen to you in the longer term.
Now, let me state again for the parliament, quietly and calmly: if you take five per cent of the market away, you will completely collapse the price. That is what has happened in every industry throughout my lifetime. Sir Joseph McAvoy, the great leader of the sugar industry; Ron Camm, the great father of the cheapest electricity in the world and father of the coalmining industry in Queensland have said that again and again and again that if you take that market away, you will collapse the industry completely and you will have no sheep, because people are not going to keep running sheep when it is costing them money and they're losing money. They will shift out of sheep, get rid of them and move into cattle and grain and other alternatives. That is what is going to happen.
If you think you are going to help the meatworkers, think again. We are now fighting to keep our two meatworks—all we've got left in North Queensland. Out of a cattle herd of twenty-five million, we have five million in North Queensland and we are flat out keeping two meatworks open. It will be another five or 10 years before we recover from the dreadful catastrophe and it could have been fixed up by the government simply by— (Time expired)
The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the Manager of Opposition Business has moved as an amendment that the words 'the next sitting' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
The question is that the original motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the order of the day for the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018 standing in the name of the Member for Farrer being returned to the House from the Federation Chamber, called on immediately and given priority over all other business for passage through all stages by no later than 6 pm today.
The members for Corangamite and Farrer have taken their 30 pieces of silver—
Leave is not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Hunter from moving the following motion forthwith:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the order of the day for the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018 standing in the name of the Member for Farrer being returned to the House from the Federation Chamber, called on immediately and given priority over all other business for passage through all stages by no later than 6 pm today.
The 30 pieces of silver have been—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Hunter be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. This is a shambles. This is not a government. This is—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Fremantle be no further heard.
The question is that the motion moved by the member for Hunter be agreed to.
During the course of question time today, in response to a question from the member for Blair, I undertook to table an email this afternoon. I seek to do so now.
The question before the chair is that the amendment be agreed to.
I'm honoured today to speak to the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018. The personal cross-examination of victims by their alleged perpetrators in family law matters is an issue of high community concern. I know it has been raised with me by many locals in Dunkley on a number of occasions and by Australians elsewhere across the country. It is certainly an issue where the perpetrators of family violence should not be able to personally cross-examine their victims in any family law or family violence proceedings.
What will this bill do? It will amend the Family Law Act to prohibit cross-examination where there is an allegation of family violence between parties and any of the following applies: either party has been convicted of or is charged with an offence involving violence or a threat of violence to the other party; a non-interim family violence order applies to both parties; an injunction under sections 68B or 114 of the Family Law Act for the personal protection of either party is directed against the other party; and the court makes an order that personal cross-examination is prohibited. It will also provide that, if personal cross-examination is prohibited, cross-examination must be conducted by a legal representative. And it will provide that, if there is an allegation of family violence but personal cross-examination is not prohibited, the court must apply other appropriate protections.
I saw the need for this many years ago when I worked as an associate to a magistrate at the ACT Magistrates Court—the now Supreme Court Justice and former Magistrate John Burns. I came across a number of family law matters that involved incidents that I'm talking about today. I also experienced this when working as a lawyer in private practice when I undertook a number of family law matters. So it certainly was an issue back then, but it also is an issue to this day, and I'm very proud that the coalition government is taking actions in this regard.
This is also about keeping Australians safe and, in particular, protecting the victims of family violence, whether they be a partner, a parent, a child, the elderly or others. As the Prime Minister has said, it is about having two ears and one mouth and listening to the victims of family violence. It is also a matter that—going into the further details of this bill—the direct cross-examination of a victim of family violence by their alleged perpetrator can expose the victim to retraumatisation and affect their ability to give clear and coherent evidence. That is something that shouldn't be occurring.
Family violence power dynamics can also make it difficult for victims to effectively cross-examine their alleged perpetrator. Some victims of family violence also cite the fear of being cross-examined directly by their alleged perpetrator as a significant factor in deciding to settle a matter, often on unfavourable terms. This can place victims and children at an increased risk of harm. This must be stopped, and this bill is an important step to doing so. Creating an automatic ban, as this bill does, provides certainty for victims of these circumstances that they will not be directly cross-examined by their abuser. And, when these circumstances do not automatically apply, the court does have the discretion to make an order that direct cross-examination is prohibited.
In circumstances where direct cross-examination is not prohibited, the amendment requires that the court also apply other appropriate protections, such as giving evidence via video link or using screens so that the alleged perpetrator cannot be seen. It is important to note that these measures also apply to both parties. Where the prohibition applies, separate legal representatives must undertake the cross-examination on behalf of the victim, as well as the alleged perpetrator. This ensures that the victim is given the appropriate protection and support both when cross-examining the alleged perpetrator and when being cross-examined by the alleged perpetrator.
These measures will improve the justice system's ability to support vulnerable witnesses by requiring the use of appropriate protections in all family law proceedings that involve allegations of family violence. The government is also working with National Legal Aid to assess the resourcing impacts for legal aid commissions to provide legal representation where the ban applies and to ensure that adequate funding is available.
I congratulate the Attorney-General, others in cabinet and the coalition government more generally on this work in bringing out this important bill. I'm proud to be part of a coalition government that is making these changes. We have zero tolerance for violence against women, against men, against kids and against the elderly. Every victim is impacted. Let us all as a government, in a cross-party manner and as a community work to continue protecting people, to reduce the incidents of family violence and, when it does occur, to better support victims and their families. May we also try to better understand victims instead of saying things like what I heard from one member of my electorate, who I shall not name but who went through a very serious family law matter. She was told, 'It couldn't have been that bad if you had stayed as long as you did in the relationship.' These are the sorts of things that are meant to be in the past, that we shouldn't be saying in the current time. These are things of the past, and we should be looking to protect those who are victims of family violence, not to make them endure what they've gone through again.
As I said, this is about keeping the victims of family violence safe. We must continue to do so. I will not stand here and be a person who won't stand up for victims of family violence. I'm here today with my colleagues—and, indeed, I believe those across the chamber as well—to stand for the victims of family violence now and into the future.
Debate adjourned.
I present a report on the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Brazil and Chile from 7 to 15 April 2018 and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
In presenting this report on the delegation to Brazil and Chile, I want to thank the delegation members who accompanied me on that visit. I was deputy leader of the delegation. The delegation was led by Scott Ryan as President of the Senate. I want to thank Senator David Bushby, the member for Kingsford Smith, Senator Alex Gallacher, the member for Bowman and, of course, the delegation secretary, Dr Jane Thomson, who also went on the delegation with us.
This visit to Brazil and Chile was interesting in a range of areas, but we particularly looked at trade and investment, the fiscal challenges of Brazil and Chile in relation to their ageing population and their pension and superannuation systems. We also looked at people-to-people interests—education, including tertiary education, university students, health and cybersecurity. The other interesting thing around health, which I was particularly interested in, was Chile having the highest sugar tax in the world at 18 per cent. They introduced it in 2012, but it didn't become law until 2015 to allow time to adjust. They also introduced it with some food-labelling measures at the same time. The food labelling looks at whether or not a food is high in sugar, high in salt or high in calories. What it does is it puts a black star on the food label. There has been no proper evaluation of whether or not this food tax and the food labelling is working, but, anecdotally, what was interesting is that it's the younger generation who are being affected by the food labelling and telling their parents not to buy those products. It was fascinating to get an opportunity to quiz the health officials in the bureaucracy in Chile about this system and about whether or not it's working.
We also had discussions around the education systems and around tertiary education, and it was fascinating to hear the similarities and differences between the systems of Brazil, Chile and Australia. We had a great chance to meet with parliamentary officials in both countries, and I want to thank everybody involved in the visit. I particularly want to thank the embassy officials both in Brazil and Chile, who were fabulous to us and provided us with great guidance. Importantly, they put together a jam-packed, really interesting program for us.
As you know, as very busy politicians, when you do an overseas delegation—and I've only done two in 10 years—you want to make the most of it. Your time is short, so it's always important to ensure that the discussions and meetings that you attend whilst you're on an overseas delegation are in the best interests of our country and our relations with those other countries. I want to thank staff from the International and Parliamentary Relations Office, particularly Ms Fiona Way and Mr Raymond Knight, for their support, as well as the embassies for providing such a great program. It was a busy program, but it was a very exciting program. I think everybody on the delegation learnt a lot, and I look forward to hearing about the evaluations of the health changes, particularly in Chile, in coming years and months, to see what they produce in their country. Chile has a really serious obesity challenge, as do many western countries. I look forward to hearing about that, and thank all those involved in the visit.
I thank the member.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
In a 14 April 2016 submission in relation to domestic violence and gender equality to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, the Law Society of New South Wales made the point that they supported the views expressed in the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022, and that gender inequality has a profound impact on violence against women and children. However, the Law Society noted that the national plan recognises that family violence is a broad term that refers to violence between family members as well as violence between intimate partners. It involves the same sorts of behaviours as described for domestic violence. Domestic and family violence takes many forms. It's not just physical and sexual assault; it can be financial domination, familial isolation, emotional and psychological abuse and even religious persecution.
Before entering parliament in 2007, I had a long and extensive career as a family lawyer and as an accredited family law specialist. During that time I witnessed the distress that comes from a witness who is cross-examined by the perpetrator of violence against them. I've witnessed firsthand the power imbalance and the risk of retrauma. There's a very good reason why effective and competent legal representation is vital to just outcomes in property settlement, parenting and other issues in both complex and even simple cases. The situation for those who are cross-examined by the perpetrators of violence against them can be humiliating, traumatising and even terrifying.
The Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties) Bill 2018 seeks to provide appropriate protections for victims of family violence during cross-examination in all family law proceedings. Specifically, the bill seeks to prohibit personal cross-examination in certain circumstances and seeks to necessitate cross-examination by legal representatives, not perpetrators. This is a good reason for why we should be funding legal aid even more. It's why I'm calling on the government—and the member for Isaacs, the shadow Attorney-General, is calling on the government—to put up the money to assist legal aid and to make sure this power imbalance between men and women, and particularly between the victims of domestic violence and the perpetrators, can be addressed.
We've got shocking delays in the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court. The recent PwC report said that the median time for trials in the Family Court had blown out from 11.5 months five years ago to 17 months now. In the Federal Circuit Court, it has gone from 10.8 months to 15.2 months. These things can wait up to three years, in my experience and observation. For those people who have to wait for their cases to be heard, it is simply another form of trauma. It really is possible to argue that this is a form of institutional abuse that people are going through. They have to wait to settle their affairs financially and wait to make sure their children are settled and the best interests of those children are decided by a court with the best evidence from social workers as well as psychological evidence.
Judicial officers currently have general but extensive powers in relation to asking witnesses questions. In spite of all of this, there's no specific prohibition on one party directly cross-examining another party, particularly if family violence allegations exist. The defunding by this government of legal aid and the lack of support for the Family Court system and the Federal Circuit Court system has resulted in not just delays but more and more people being self-represented in litigation before the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court. The Australian Institute of Family Studies reported that the majority of cases, 72 per cent, involved direct cross-examination. Thirty three per cent involved fathers cross-examining mothers, and only 28 per cent of cases involved mothers cross-examining fathers. In 11 per cent of cases, both parents cross-examined each other.
Direct cross-examination by perpetrators is very common. I've witnessed, firsthand, the impact, the terrified attitude and the experience that people have had when they're in a court proceeding and they're facing someone who has been physically and sexually violent towards them and who is asking them questions and interrogating them. Even the best and most prudent judicial officer has trouble protecting the witness from the trauma that they're experiencing.
Cross-examination exposes witnesses, I think, to significant risk of retraumatisation. It substantially impacts their capacity to prosecute their cases. I found that, after a client has been through that, it's very difficult to actually get detailed instructions from them. They feel like they want to settle the case—often to their detriment and the detriment of their children. They want the matter over, and that often results in people not getting the just outcomes they need in terms of property, child support and parenting orders. It's not always in the best interests of children. There are safeguards that can be used, including remote witness facilities; screens; judicial intervention, such as rephrasing questions—that's why we need our judges and magistrates to be well trained in this issue and be very sensitive to the issue—and monitoring of direct cross-examination proceedings.
A Women's Legal Services Australia 2015-16 study surveyed 338 women survivors of domestic and family violence. The study cited that 43 per cent were directly cross-examined by the perpetrator in family law proceedings. A substantial number reported feeling frightened, unsafe, retraumatised and intimidated. Overwhelmingly, most cases never get to final hearings. Indeed, it's quite uncommon for cross-examination to take place at an interim hearing. You need leave of the court, and judges rarely allow it to happen. Of all the cases where proceedings are instituted, only a very small number ever get to a final hearing. Most cases have settled and, of those cases where proceedings are instituted, no more than five per cent ever get to a final hearing—that's a historical figure that is accepted within the profession.
Settlement, under certain circumstances, is often done by a witness who is party to the proceedings, and it's often quite unfavourable. They are often really keen to get the whole matter resolved. State and territory courts have already made changes to prevent direct cross-examination of a witness by a perpetrator. In most Australian jurisdictions self-representative accused parties are not permitted to directly cross-examine a complainant in sexual assault proceedings. In Queensland—my home state—in Victoria, in Western Australia, in South Australia, in the Northern Territory and in the ACT, legislation also prevents direct cross-examination in proceedings, for example, where apprehended violence orders are being sought.
A 2016 report by the Family Law Council noted that direct cross-examination can perpetuate and perpetrate the abuse of victims of family violence and lead to incomplete and poor-quality evidence. At the October 2016 COAG National Summit on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children it was agreed that a ban should be placed on direct cross-examination of victims by perpetrators in family violence and family law proceedings. Labor agrees with that position, and we have for quite some time. We've been calling for an end to the practice and we're pleased the government has finally caught up. We've been arguing for it for at least two years. There are other ways to test evidence. We believe the family law courts should be required to consider measures to protect victims and survivors of family violence.
Protective measures, as I've said before, can take place. It can happen because the courts are experienced in this. For example, in conciliation conferences and mediations, it's very rare for someone who is a victim of domestic and family violence to be put in the same room as the alleged perpetrator. Often they're shuttled and taken places with lawyers involved, if they're represented, or by the mediator or the registrar of a court to settle issues, so that limits the risk of trauma.
The Council of Single Mothers and their Children highlighted that the 'courts would require additional resources to implement the protections proposed by the bill and that 'increased use of video and audio technology, separate safe places for parties to enter and wait in courts and alternate venues' would be required under the proposed changes. That's important. It's extremely important, because these are usually public areas and people go in and there are waiting rooms and, unless there is good security, people can feel tremendous trauma if the perpetrators of the domestic and family violence are actually close by, in proximity, and only separated, for example, by a wall or a door. The Law Council went on to state that the bill was:
… likely to prompt parties who have experienced family violence, who may previously have avoided court action for fear of direct cross-examination, to proceed with their cases. This could subsequently cause further delays to court listings and add to the workload of the family courts.
And, as I have outlined, the workload of the family courts has increased and waiting times have blown out.
Labor has committed to provide $43 million to Legal Aid to facilitate a ban on direct cross-examination of survivors of family violence by perpetrators. The Morrison government need to step up. They've junked plenty of policies in the last two weeks. This is another one they should junk and change. I'm asking for a change in their perspective in relation to this. How about telling the legal community how they'll be funded before they seek to implement these changes? How about they put up the $43 million and match Labor's commitment? Those opposite haven't made public any provision of funds to legal aid to assist in the implementation of these changes. I note that the explanatory memorandum states that 'there are no direct financial implications from implementing the measures' contained in this bill. Quite clearly there's no money put up.
The question the Attorney-General must now answer is how payment will be ensured for those who are not eligible for legal aid. I call on them to make a difference, and that's why I'm supporting the shadow Attorney-General's amendment. The financial burden of legal representation could force parties to consent to parenting arrangements which are unsafe and unjust and negatively impact on victims. Labor listened to stakeholders and we listened to legal aid commissions throughout the country, and they told us that this change could not be made based on current levels of funding. That's why Labor made the commitment that I outlined before. The funding will cover all unrepresented litigants, both victims and perpetrators. This means that if a party does not qualify for legal aid and cannot afford a lawyer, they will be provided funding through this appropriation by Labor.
Despite Labor's commitment, the government is refusing to come to the table and provide the bipartisan support of legal aid that it seeks to pass this bill through the chamber. If the government doesn't plan to announce additional funding further down the track, why has the Attorney-General not provided a figure yet? While Labor has committed $43 million to boost Legal Aid to carry out these changes, the Attorney-General simply refuses to announce if any money will be forthcoming. The government needs to give certainty to funding before it expects this bill to pass through the parliament. The government has made no allowances for litigants who are directed to obtain legal representation but do not qualify for legal aid and cannot afford a private lawyer.
The government's stance in this instance is that cross-examination simply cannot go ahead. Cross-examination is a necessity in some proceedings. Without cross-examination, often the evidence can't be tested and a court is left to determine a dispute without a proper and fulsome testing of evidence. The evidence should be put to the test. In short, where there is a dispute of fact but no cross-examination, the court often can't make a finding one way or the other. National Legal Aid gave evidence at a hearing of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. They stated that it is it is very difficult for the service to respond to the proposed legislation without details of additional funding. In situations where Legal Aid are unable to fulfil requests for representation, and the ban of cross-examination applies to both perpetrators and victims, a denial of due process could occur, leaving courts unable to test the facts and unable to make findings, and that could lead to further delays and injustice.
Labor supports this important reform in principle, but the government needs to come to the table and provide Legal Aid with the funds it needs to allow the scheme to operate. Labor is committed to an Australia that is free from domestic and family violence, to a legal aid system that is fair, just and appropriately funded and to a court system that provides justice for all. We've listened to stakeholders and we've supported reform, and I hope the government will do the same. I await the Attorney-General's announcement on funding towards this significant transformation to the family law system.
It is bewildering that in a free, liberal country such as Australia, many families are entrapped by violence in their own homes. It is disheartening to see the cornerstone of our society, the family, defaced and tarnished with unjustified sadism. Just last year we saw 72,000 women, 34,000 children and 9,000 men seek homelessness services due to domestic violence. Even more alarming, however, is the fact that one in six women and one in 16 men have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or previous partner. When you begin to account for emotional abuse and violence against children, the figures only appear to loom closer and more threatening than ever.
Aisha Mirza said:
It is not the bruises on the body that hurt. It is the wounds of the heart and the scars on the mind.
This bill will ensure that victims of domestic violence do not have to relive their trauma. These measures will ensure that appropriate protections are in place for victims of family violence during cross-examination in all family law proceedings. The direct cross-examination of a victim of family violence by their alleged perpetrator can expose the victim to retraumatisation and affect their ability to give evidence. Some victims of family violence also cite the fear of being cross-examined directly by their alleged perpetrator as a significant factor in deciding to settle the matter, often on terms they consider unfavourable. This can place victims and children at risk of harm.
A constituent of mine was in this very same predicament. Her case was before the Federal Circuit Court in Sydney, where my constituent was the victim of serious domestic violence. Her ex-husband was in fact serving a prison sentence after being found guilty of attempted murder. The ex-husband was self-represented and without a lawyer. Under the current law he was able to cross-examine my constituent, the victim. As you can imagine, she was extremely reluctant to proceed with the financial and property matter which was before the court because she was terrified of being cross-examined by her ex-husband, who had been convicted of attempting to kill her. The judge was forced to try to confirm with the ex-husband prior to the trial if he wanted to cross-examine the victim of his abuse. This left my constituent faced with the prospect of being cross-examined by a person who had tried to kill her, or lose the property. She would rather withdraw from the property proceedings than be cross-examined. The judge was at pains to outline that he would ensure that the husband could not get carried away with cross-examination. However, the court was unable to prevent the husband from cross-examination because he was entitled to so-called due process and to test the wife's evidence under cross-examination.
I'm pleased to say that these new laws will prevent this scenario from occurring again and will give victims the certainty that they can have their cases heard before the court without fear of being traumatised or having to face the perpetrator. These measures will amend the Family Law Act to prohibit direct cross-examination where there is an allegation of family violence between the parties to the proceeding and either party has been convicted of or is charged with an offence involving violence or a threat of violence to the other party; or a family violence order other than an interim order applies to both parties; or an injunction under section 68B or 114 of the Family Law Act for the personal protection of either party is directed against the other party. This automatic ban provides certainty for victims covered by these circumstances that they will not be directly cross-examined by their abuser.
Where the circumstances do not apply, the court has discretion to make an order that direct cross-examination is prohibited. For example, the court could make an order prohibiting direct cross-examination where an interim family violence order applies to both parties or where allegations of family violence are raised for the first time in a family law proceeding. Where direct cross-examination is prohibited, the amendments require that the cross-examination be conducted by a legal representative. In circumstances where direct cross-examination is not prohibited, the amendments require that the court apply other appropriate protections, such as giving evidence by video link or using screens so the alleged perpetrator cannot be seen. These measure apply to both parties. Where the prohibition applies, separate legal representatives must undertake the cross-examination on behalf of the victim as well as the alleged perpetrator. This ensures that the victim is given appropriate protection and support both when cross-examining the alleged perpetrator and when being cross-examined by the alleged perpetrator.
Cross-examination by a violent partner or former partner will often be the catalyst for victims to re-experience their trauma. Victims again have to re-engage with support services such as counsellors, domestic violence workers and some mental health support workers. This also includes children's counsellors because, let's not forget, many children experience vicarious trauma when they know that their parent, who is the victim of domestic violence, has to go to court. Again, this is a tragic and often all-too-real occurrence. A young child in my electorate would engage regularly with a psychiatrist because they knew that their mum had to keep going back to Family Court to try and prevent their father, who threatened to burn down the family home with them inside, from having any time with his children. If we can prevent these cross-examinations from abusers occurring, then we can ensure that the trauma does not continue and that victims can seek appropriate services. They will then not be reliant on government support services every time they have to attend court. They can simply focus on their future.
Matters in the family law courts will not be impacted by the provisions in this bill for nine months. This includes a maximum three-month commencement delay to ensure that the family law courts can put appropriate procedural mechanisms in place to support the implementation of these measures. The amendments will then apply to cross-examinations that occur six months after commencement to ensure that parties have adequate time to obtain legal representation, and prevent any unnecessary delays to their court proceedings. These measures will improve the justice system's ability to support vulnerable witnesses by requiring the use of appropriate protection in all family law proceedings that involve allegations of family violence. There are some avenues which need to be explored to fund this legislation. However, the government is working with National Legal Aid to assess the resourcing impacts for legal aid commissions to provide legal representation where the ban applies and to ensure that adequate funding is available.
In New South Wales we have seen rates of domestic violence decrease. There are, however, some pockets of our community where it has surged. We must continue, as a government, to tackle that scourge. This bill is a welcome step towards supporting victims of domestic violence. It is welcomed by the community, support services and legal professionals. The New South Wales government is also supporting victims of domestic violence, most recently announcing a raft of reforms to extend lengths of ADVOs from 12 months to two years, a new strangulation offence with a maximum sentence of five years and, in the most severe cases, indefinite ADVOs. I'd like to take one moment from this debate to acknowledge family law specialists Robert Tricca & Associates and Brett McGrath from the New South Wales Law Society for their advice and work in representing victims of domestic violence.
This legislation will have a positive effect that will spread throughout the mechanisms that we have and the legal system in our community by reducing stress on victims and, in doing so, allowing those people to get on with their lives and ensure that they can get back on their feet, rather than continuing to mire them in legal processes that so many in the legal profession think that their clients want and, indeed, need. It will also help children. It will also alleviate the pressure on already strained domestic and family violence support services by helping people get back on their feet and get out of the system, and not help them continue to dwell in it. I think that the Attorney-General deserves great credit for this bill that he has brought to the House. I commend this bill to the House.
I commend the member for Mackellar. I agree with much of what he had to say. The only thing where we would depart is on the fact that, when you bring a piece of legislation of this substance into this House, you should make sure it's funded; otherwise, it becomes inoperative as a legal instrument.
I rise in this contribution to speak on the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018 because I want to make it clear, firstly, that we support the bill, but we do so because this has been Labor's policy for some time. As a matter of fact, the reforms captured in this bill are the very matters that were discussed in this House over two years ago. They are reforms that Labor committed to in 2016 in the lead-up to that election. We recommitted to them in 2019, and we think this bill is sound in what it does—that is, to impose an outright ban on the direct cross-examination of both victims and perpetrators in family law hearings where there is evidence or allegations of domestic or family violence.
This legal prohibition will be administered through the processes in the courts. The court, through the judicial officer, will make a direction to the party to engage a lawyer, either privately or through legal aid, for the purposes of cross-examining, where either party is unrepresented. We think that's a good thing. We support that. The Queensland Law Society—of which you are no doubt well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta—says this about what's contained in this bill:
It is well recognised that direct cross-examination of victims of family violence not only perpetuates the abuse but can result in the court receiving incomplete or poor quality evidence.
That's from our legal colleagues in Queensland. I don't think that's rocket science. I think that is precisely the case. If we want to have good-quality evidence, we need someone to be unintimidated when they're presenting evidence to the court.
As are many in this chamber, I am also a White Ribbon ambassador. I think it's good that most of us take an interest particularly in matters of domestic and family violence, and this bill is no different. It's on that basis that I say it is an absolutely shameful practice where we've allowed within our judicial systems for victims of domestic violence to be cross-examined by the actual perpetrators of that violence. We've heard from so many women who say that they have settled for less than adequate outcomes solely to avoid cross-examination by the perpetrators of their violence. Other women have said that they've gone through the experience and it's had horrible consequences.
All of us sitting in this chamber would have to say that that's an absolutely woeful practice that's been allowed to continue. Subjecting victims to hostile questioning in court by the perpetrators of their domestic violence inflicts a new and fresh trauma and often makes victims reluctant, quite frankly, to take their cases through the court process, so it would appear that the aggressor becomes the victor in those situations. It perpetuates a cycle of violence by reasserting the perpetrator's power over the victim, albeit on this occasion through the courtroom.
When we on this side first introduced the policy that is now the subject of this bill, we actually made it with a tag—the tag being that we committed $43 million to Legal Aid in order to facilitate the representation of litigants. We made the funding commitment because we listened to the stakeholders. Legal Aid told us that this change could not be possible on the current funding levels. In highlighting the importance of legal representation in matters of family violence and the need for adequate funding, the Australian Human Rights Commission emphasised that this could not be accommodated under the existing Legal Aid funding levels. So neither side of parliament can be excused for making any mistake about what is in this bill and the fact that there are costs associated with it.
In essence, we are seeing now a bill come through the parliament without proper resources to support its implementation. In its current form, it lacks the necessary teeth to ensure the desired outcome. There has been no additional funding for Legal Aid proposed in this bill—and, for that matter, none was set aside in the last budget. All we have is a statement that says, 'the government is working with the National Legal Aid Office to determine impacts that are expected to result from the measures in this bill'. However, on 28 June this year, it was reported that the Attorney-General said:
… the government was "working closely" with National Legal Aid on implementing the new law.
However, he said there would be no extra legal aid funding as a result of the legislative change, and those prevented from cross-examining their ex-partner would only be able to access legal aid if they met its usual rules for qualifying.
That is pretty simple. There is no intention to put any money aside to support the implementation of this bill. So, while it's pleasing that the government have finally decided to move on preventing the cross-examining of victims of domestic violence by their perpetrators, they have not matched Labor's commitment to properly fund this scheme. As far as I'm concerned, with such critical reform like this, there can only be a true commitment to ban the horrible practice when we have a very clear and strong intention as to how we should fund the scheme in the first place. Without proper funding, this bill is, in effect, holding the general practice now to ransom.
Statistics tell us that there are still many, many cases where direct cross-examination of family violence survivors remains prevalent. A study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies published in June this year, found that there were 173 direct cases of cross-examination in family law matters over the course of the last two years alone. But, as the Women's Legal Services Australia points out, this does not include the many cases which were settled before they even went to court. The National Legal Aid has voiced its concern about the funding aspects of this bill and it has given evidence at a hearing of the Senate committee, noting the difficulty the service has in responding to a direction by the court without additional funding.
Passing this legislation without guarantees of additional funding could create a crisis situation in the family law system. We could see a situation in which Legal Aid is unable to fulfil requests for representation when made by a judge. This could result in the denial of due process and the court being unable to test the facts or make the necessary findings. The Law Council of Australia has explored this issue in detail, warning that it could have many unintended consequences, particularly in relation to the delivery of justice. In discussing the ramifications of this bill, the Law Council went on to say:
It is foreseeable that the Bill will have the consequence of trials being adjourned or trial listings being vacated so that legal representation can be obtained. The new provisions may also give parties the opportunity to delay for strategic reasons.
In other words, unless this is funded and the victim is able to have representation in terms of cross-examination by the perpetrator of the violence, this could inordinately delay those court proceedings, and delaying that is justice denied.
We have also been issued a number of comments from stakeholders—principally the Law Council of Australia. It goes on to say that, in the event that a legal aid commission may not be able to redirect funding away from other essential services, to comply with a judge's direction Legal Aid may have to take money that otherwise would have been used in other cases funded by the legal aid commission. Quite frankly, this is inefficient, ineffective and certainly mitigates against the broad thrust of this piece of legislation that it before us, the intent of which, as I said at the outset, is a good thing. It will pass the parliament, but, because of these concerns that we have, I do support the second reading amendment made by the shadow Attorney-General.
We do think that the government should be acting quickly to explain how it expects Legal Aid to facilitate these important reforms if they are not going to be funded. The government must give certainty on how it intends to meet the funding questions, and it must be done before this bill not only passes the parliament but comes close to being enacted, because it would be absolutely embarrassing, for all of us that have the honour of sitting in this chamber, to think that we've passed a piece of legislation that had no teeth, because there will be consequences which will be borne mainly by women, who in the main are the victims of domestic violence, seeking redress and justice through our judicial system. It is the absolute least this government should be doing for survivors of abuse, for those families, for the women and children and for those who have been so active in calling for reform in this area, that we show not only that we care but that we will do everything we can to mitigate the ongoing suffering in this regard.
Labor will always remain committed to be an Australia free from domestic and family violence. We think this is a measure going to that and we support it on that basis, but we ask the government to consider the amendment of the shadow Attorney-General. We need these measures appropriately and properly funded.
For my colleagues: what an opportunity to stand in this House tonight. I want to tell you a story. As a newly elected member of parliament for north-east Victoria, one of my first constituent meetings in Wodonga was with Eleanor. Eleanor came to me and said, 'Cathy, we need to change the law, and you as my member of parliament need to help me do this.' So it is with enormous pleasure tonight that I stand in this house and say to Eleanor, 'Finally we're there.' I would also like to acknowledge the support of my staff member, Karen Keegan; previous Chief Justice Diana Bryant; and, in particular, the Women's Legal Service for the work they've done on this; and I name Angela Lynch and Pasanna Mutha for their work in getting us to this stage.
Colleagues, tonight I want to read some of Eleanor's words because I think she tells the story of why this legislation is so important. She writes:
My name is Eleanor and I thank-you for the opportunity to speak to you today. Section 221 of family law restricts my ability to identify myself fully particularly in the media. In all interviews I have taken the name 'Eleanor' to ensure I am not in breach of this federal law. This law was introduced to protect children in family law proceedings but unfortunately it has also been a factor in muting the victims of their experiences in the courts once they leave their perpetrator.
Eleanor writes:
I am someone who has had direct experience of escaping a perpetrator of violence, then having to deal with the complexity of the system in keeping myself and my children safe from the abuser. My ex-partner was sentenced, finally after five years, this last January. Throughout the last five years I have been subjected to intense system trauma both via the Victorian system and the federal family law.
Eleanor goes on to tell the story of what happened to her in the intervening years, but this is the bit I'd like to read into the Hansard tonight:
The criminal system and civil system for intervention orders and the family law system are not aligned. Navigating your way through these systems is complicated, emotionally draining and, dare I say, dangerous. After a contested hearing I was granted an intervention order on the grounds it was not safe for me to have my perpetrator near me. I remember looking over to the mantel in the room where a quote by Henry VIII was in pride of place. He too was a rapist. A week later I was back in that same courtroom for family law proceedings. I was sick to my stomach to discover on day 1 of the hearing that he, my previous partner, had become a self-litigant and was going to be directly cross-examining me. That day I stood on the stand and the Federal Court allowed him to directly cross-examine me. It was a massive slap in the face. How could they give my rapist his power over me back? He asked questions I was forced to answer. He was only metres from me. How could this happen when another magistrate had already said that this circumstance was not appropriate or safe? It is this system flaw that I was able to identify as a major flaw, an obstacle in my recovery from trauma. Having your rapist stand only metres from you, asking intimate and personal questions about your relationship, your parenting, your social media account—every aspect of your personal life—is invasive, disempowering and cruel. This person does not deserve the right to cross-examine his victim.
She goes on:
This is what drove me to seek support in reforming the family laws that are massive obstacles to women escaping violence. I created an online support group called Tea Leaves, named from the quote of Eleanor Roosevelt, "Women are like tea leaves. You don't know their strength until they are in hot water." This group enabled me to have a place to discuss issues and find solutions and share those solutions with other women like me. I have listened to the journey of others, and all have the same link—that same thread of system abuse that they are faced with when the family law process is started.
Eleanor writes:
I began writing letters to all who would listen. I have corresponded and met with federal leaders and representatives. I have received sympathy and empathy for the predicament I and other victims have been placed in, but what I haven't received till that time is real action by the federal government on this issue. It seems simple to me. No person, male or female, should be cross-examined by the person who raped or beat them. When I had no joy from local members of parliament or from the Attorney-General, I began to turn to the media. My letters and emails came before the likes of Angela Lynch and Pasanna Mutha, who have taken on this issue in the media and at high levels of government. These women have been relentless and beside me in addressing this flaw. Working with the WLSA has helped me to politicise this issue and keep it in the foreground of discussion in a variety of forums. Angela and Pasanna were able to provide the legal knowledge of how this change could occur. I was an example of why it should occur.'
Eleanor continues:
Meeting Sally Sara from the Lateline program was life-changing for me. She listened to my story and cried with me over the injustice of the trauma of not only being cruelly abused by my intimate partner but the system trauma I had suffered at the hands of the government. Sally gave me a voice, and this was the first time I had to use a false name, due to section 221. I chose Eleanor. In the media, the voice of Eleanor has been loud and it has been heard. The headline is catchy, I guess, and a shock for many. How can our community allow a woman to be cross-examined by her abuser? It sounds dreadful, doesn't it? But not dreadful enough for the government to amend its laws and use other avenues to stop this event from happening to criminals on a daily basis. The voice of Eleanor has enabled me to speak on behalf of those who have no voice, those who have been unable to fight for change as they are fighting too hard to survive each day. It has enabled me to talk to important people … who each day deal with victims of violence who are restricted and challenged in a system that should be supporting them and helping them to recover and progress as a protective parent. While we have laws that force mothers to be cross examined by their perpetrator then are given family orders that force her to co-parent with her rapist we are eroding a woman's ability to heal and become the strong parent she needs to be for her children. This is not about stopping fathers [having] access to their children it is about protecting the vulnerable from further trauma and abuse by their perpetrator.
Eleanor finishes by saying:
I will not rest until this law is amended and I know that what I went through has some purpose.
Colleagues, it gives me enormous personal pleasure and great pride to be able to stand in parliament today and be part of a combined effort from both the government and the opposition in passing this amendment to the law. But, in doing so, I would particularly like to knowledge the work of the Labor Party in coming to the fore. I won't name your team, but you've done a fantastic job in helping Independents like me get the support we need. It was when you guys came on board that we actually got the traction we needed, so thank you for that. But I want to say to Eleanor and, if I could through her, to all the members of my community: it really is worth going and seeing your member of parliament. It is really worthwhile saying: 'We've got a problem with this law. Can you help me fix it up?' And, sure, for someone newly elected like me, I go, 'Oh my word, how do we do that?' But, through your work, Eleanor, through the work of the legal service, through the work of the very many women you worked with and through the fantastic support of the media—and I too would like to give a call out to the ABC and say thank you so much for giving voice to many, many people on this issue—it works. Then you get to the parliament, and we are going to vote on this legislation tonight, and I hope, with the changes that we need to see regarding funding, which clearly is so important—you can't make changes at this level without putting the money into the legal system and the community legal services to make sure that the staff and the support are there; it's so obvious—we will be able to bring this law in as a combined parliament.
To the people of Australia, I say: trust us because, sometimes—more often than not—we really can deliver the changes that we need to fix up the problems in the system and to be the representatives that you really want us to be. So, Eleanor, thank you for your work, for your dedication and for the persistence you've shown in being such a strong spokesperson, and to my colleagues: I look forward to your support with this legislation tonight.
As many of you know, I came to this place as a lawyer with a history in prosecution work in corporate law—I was working in a corporate law firm and working on international disputes—but what many don't know is that I started my legal career working in a small, suburban practice that was started by my grandfather and then carried on by my mother. The majority of the work done in that legal practice was in the area of family law. In addition to that, I also spent time as a board member for Starick, which is a local community service in my electorate that runs refuges for victims of domestic violence.
From my experience of working in the law, and from many other experiences, I got to work, as my mother and my grandfather did, firsthand with many victims of domestic violence who were trying to work their way through the Family Court system. Since that point, in many different guises, I have met people in that situation. If there's one thing that is continually reinforced to me from my conversations with them and from working with them, it is not only the degree of trauma that they have been through but indeed also the degree of trauma that they continue to go through and the way in which the Family Court system allows further violence to be perpetrated against victims of family and domestic violence through its processes and, for some—in fact, for way too many people—for an extended period of time.
This bill seeks to address but one aspect of the Family Court system, which is a system that should be there to allow people to get on with their lives. It addresses one part of that system to try and make it a system that is a bit easier for victims of family and domestic violence, because having to suffer through a legal process is difficult and it's difficult for anybody. It's part of why I went into the legal profession, because I knew that I was very fortunate to receive a good education and I saw from my grandfather and from my mother the use of a skill to help other people. I chose to use that in many different ways in the legal profession and I now find myself in this parliament. What I think is typical for lawyers working in family law all over Australia is that people at their most vulnerable are using the system to try to find justice. It is a system, in effect, that they cannot avoid and they need the assistance of, but unfortunately it presents retraumatisation time and time again for the people using it.
When we think about family and domestic violence, in the state of Western Australia it is a scourge. Over the past decade, we have seen increasing numbers, unfortunately. As I said, I was a board member of Starick services from 2005 to 2007. Back in 2007, in Kelmscott, where I'm from, 38 people were reported to have suffered from family violence. Last year, that number was 125. In Armadale, in 2007 it was 104. Last year, it was 321.
Since joining the official campaign trail in 2015, I've campaigned around many issues, but one which was particularly dear to my electorate was making the Armadale Police Station open 24 hours a day. There are many reasons for that, but one of those reasons was that it provides a safe haven that people know they can go to when they need safety and security. That's very important. I'd like to say at this point to those who criticise a 24-hour police station as a waste of police resources that, if they're worried about that, they should talk about the resources, not talk about the station being open for 24 hours a day, because it is so important for those who need to find a safe haven when they feel under threat. It is but a step, though, in helping those in our community who need it and need it quickly. We're moving in the right direction to help the people who are suffering at the hands of those they thought love them, but what about the individuals who have already encountered violence? What about the individuals who have had to impose trust in our legal system, as I mentioned before, in the hope that it will also keep them safe?
This bill allows the Family Court to prevent the direct cross-examination of a victim by a perpetrator in family law hearings or in situations of family and domestic violence. It will apply where there is an allegation of family violence between the parties or if there's been a conviction related to violence between the parties. It also applies for those who have sought personal protection orders. It is, of course, still open to the court, even in its discretion without those matters, to prevent such cross-examination. Reports and inquiries have been calling on the government to help better protect victims of family and domestic violence in our courts for many years. It goes back many years indeed. Various agencies, inquiries and reports have been calling for this annually—in fact, sometimes even more than once a year—since 2014. There are countless examples of cross-examination of domestic abuse survivors by their perpetrators causing more harm and more trauma to them. There are huge numbers of women who say that they settled for imperfect outcomes just to avoid cross-examination by their perpetrator or that they went through the experience and suffered horrible consequences as a result. Our court system, especially our Family Court system, should be a system of solutions, protection and assistance. It should not be a system that allows for further traumatisation and, effectively, further violence against those who have suffered. This practice needs to stop.
On White Ribbon Day in 2016, the Leader of the Opposition pledged $43 million for legal aid to facilitate the representation of unrepresented litigants in order to allow for family law cases to continue in a situation where lack of representation would prevent such cross-examination. Unfortunately, this government, in its many iterations, has refused to meet that pledge in the two years since it was made by Labor. In fact, the Attorney-General has indicated that he has no intention at all to give that funding to legal aid, and that's despite the fact that, when the Attorney-General was the Attorney General of Western Australia, he continued to rail against the fact that there was insufficient funding from the Commonwealth for legal aid. Now that he finds himself in a position to do something about it, what does he do? Nothing.
Subjecting victims to hostile questioning by their perpetrators in court inflicts new and fresh trauma, and, as I said, it is deterring those victims from taking legal action where they should or from being able to pursue Family Court matters to their just conclusion, settling instead for a situation that they are not happy with and sometimes settling for a situation which they feel leaves their children more unsafe. The government have long promised to address this situation, but so far, until now, they have failed to act on the legislation. This bill is a start, but, without the legal assistance funding to go with it, the injustice will not be properly addressed. So I implore the Attorney-General to re-evaluate this situation and to think seriously about the fact that additional funding is going to be needed for legal aid to make this work.
As an aside, when it comes to dealing with these matters of family law, I'd like to make a point in respect of the Western Australian Family Court. While the Attorney-General's thinking about funding and resourcing for family law here in Australia, he might like to think about the fact—of which I know he is very well aware—that, at the moment in Western Australia, we have but five Family Court judges. The interesting thing about that number of five Family Court judges is that that's exactly the same number that Western Australia had in 1975 when the Family Court was created.
It probably won't surprise members of this House to know that there's been a little bit of an increase in the population of Western Australia since 1975. It might be a small mercy to think that at least we're back up to five, because there was a period of time where we didn't even have our full complement of just five Family Court judges in Western Australia. We have seen commentary by members leaving the judiciary in Western Australia about how perilous a situation this leaves our Family Court justice in in that state.
Again, when we think about the cumulative impact, when we talk about the risks that are perpetrated and the trauma that is perpetrated on victims of domestic violence by being cross-examined by the person who inflicted that violence on them, we have a situation in our courts because of this lack of resourcing, whether it's in Western Australia or in other states, where that trauma is not just revisited within a short time frame. Because of the way in which these cases are dragged out, we have a situation where, years later, that trauma is revisited on these victims of family and domestic violence, and in the intervening period they are continually traumatised because they know this is coming. They know, as they progress towards trial, that they will have to sit in a witness box and have the person who inflicted violence upon them re-inflict it in the aggressive way in which they can cross-examine, in the way in which they can push buttons in a witness box against them, and cause deep psychological trauma and damage to them through a system that is supposed to deliver them justice.
Instead, we could—and by this law we will—prevent that cross-examination. We will remove a stress for those victims of domestic violence going through the courts. But, as I say, we only remove that stress if we properly fund legal aid in the process. Otherwise, we reach a situation where courts will be forced to prevent the cross-examinations from occurring, which may result in an even more significant injustice where those Family Court matters can't properly be resolved, because legal aid won't be afforded to those perpetrators so that a lawyer can cross-examine properly so that cases can reach resolution. We now have a problem that will exist on both sides—which really already exists—where part of the delays in our family law processes is because we have self-represented litigants trying to deal with a complicated process of law to resolve very complex issues, whether they are related to property or related to who will have primary custody and support of children. Those issues are very important, but these matters can also be matters of life and death, so it is appropriate that the state and the Commonwealth afford the proper supports to those parties by making sure that legal aid is provided to them so that the system can move as swiftly as possible and in the most just manner possible. This law will help with that. It will make a difference. We absolutely support it for that reason. But in order for it to function properly—indeed, like for our courts to merely function properly—appropriate legal aid must be made available and the government must stand up to do that.
Finally, I would like to make this observation. It's probably lost on many members of this chamber and on those in the other place. Western Australia, being the exceptional place that it is, has its own family court system. What that means is that, when this legislation passes, it won't provide protections to those going through the Family Court of Western Australia, because this law will not automatically apply in Western Australia. I also call on the West Australian government—and in particular the WA Attorney-General—to promptly move to amend the WA Family Court Act 1997 to pick up and adopt similar provisions as contained in this bill to ensure the protections awarded to family violence victims outside of Western Australia are also afforded to those within Western Australia.
To that end, I note positively that the now Attorney-General has made comments to exactly this effect in the state parliament back when he was in opposition in 2016. I have no doubt that the government will go down that path once this decision is passed. Of course, it, along with the Commonwealth, will still need to find the additional funding and resources that are required to support legal aid, to support the operation of these laws to ensure that justice is actually done by the passing of these laws to protect victims of family and domestic violence. These victims, these families, have waited long enough.
I was calling in 2015 for this government to get on with the job of proper support for victims of family and domestic violence. Three prime ministers later—and indeed three years later—we now get around to debating this bill in this chamber. It still has to work its way through that other place as well, so I say this to the Attorney-General and to the government: you still have time to find that $43 million; I suggest that you do your absolute best in finding that money to make sure that, by the time this legislation passes the Senate, there is proper legal aid funding and resources to support this much-needed and unfortunately much-delayed legislation.
Labor has been calling for the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018 for some two years. The ongoing cross-examination of domestic violence survivors by their perpetrators is a shameful practice which has gone on for far too long. This is a demeaning, stressful and shocking practice that must be stopped as soon as possible. Subjecting victims of domestic violence to hostile cross-examination by their perpetrators in court causes people to relive devastating experiences and creates fresh trauma. This often makes victims reluctant to take their case to court. This is completely unacceptable, so many women say that they have either settled for imperfect outcomes to avoid cross-examination by their perpetrators or they have gone through the experience only to suffer horrible consequences.
My sister is a family law barrister, and as such I am very well aware of the stress, anxiety and re-victimisation that occurs when an alleged abuser cross-examines their alleged victim. Although my sister is a family law barrister, I am not a lawyer. I have never been through or experienced the family law court system myself. However, in preparation for debates like this one this evening, I wanted to be educated and aware of the issues on the ground. At the invitation of Judge Coker, I spent a full day listening to interim hearings regarding matters before the family law court. I witnessed a very professional and caring approach to what is, in fact, an extremely complex and distressing environment. I was surprised at the number of people who present to the court unrepresented, and, as such, this takes more of the judge's and the court's time. I witnessed a very effective court process where procedural fairness was delivered for all parties. I also witnessed a strong focus on the needs of children who are powerless and sadly caught up in very complicated cases.
But I also witnessed how incredibly underfunded and under resourced the family law courts are. Our family law court in Queensland is underfunded as people are waiting lengthy periods to have their cases heard in the court. Legal Aid and community legal centres are also stretched to their maximum capacity and are in desperate need of significant additional funding. Although I wholeheartedly support this bill, when workloads are significantly increased and the system is already underfunded, more funding must be allocated not only for the courts, but also extra funding for Legal Aid, community legal centres and Aboriginal legal centres. This is supported by the fact that the Australian Law Reform Commission report has identified a funding shortfall for Legal Aid to the tune of $400 million.
Labor is ahead of the government on this vital issue of funding. Labor committed to this important change ahead of the 2016 election and recommitted in November 2016 on White Ribbon Day. As part of our policy pledge, Labor is committed to amending the Family Law Act 1975 to compel a judge, when domestic violence is alleged, to consider whether any vulnerable witness should be protected during court proceedings under a range of mechanisms already available under the Family Law Act 1975 using existing resources and facilities so that, if the judge believes that the available mechanisms under the Family Law Act 1975 are insufficient to protect the vulnerable witness, the judge is empowered to direct all unrepresented litigants in the matter to be represented by Legal Aid. The commitment included $43 million for Legal Aid in order to facilitate the representation of unrepresented litigants.
Labor made that funding commitment because we listened to stakeholders, in particular Legal Aid, who clearly stated that this change could not be made on current funding levels. The government, by contrast, is refusing to commit to any additional funding for Legal Aid as it seeks to pass this bill through the parliament. In fact, signals have been given through the media that indicate that the Attorney-General, Christian Porter, has no intention of giving additional funding to Legal Aid. The government has already thrown Legal Aid and community legal centres into crisis with its cruel funding cuts, and now the government wants to add additional workload to Legal Aid and community legal centres without any extra funding on top of the previous cuts. The government has not explained just how it expects Legal Aid to facilitate this very important change if it is not given any additional funding to take on the extra unrepresented litigants. If the government does plan to announce additional funding, why can't that happen now? Why can't the government at least give Legal Aid a pledge that additional funding will be forthcoming?
These concerns are serious, and I want to reiterate the concerns expressed by a number of legal organisations regarding the need for extra funding for Legal Aid, community legal centres and Aboriginal legal centres. A number of submitters raised concerns regarding the funding arrangements to support the bill's proposed model. These submitters noted that the bill requires a party to seek private legal representation or a grant under Legal Aid in order to cross-examine a witness if the mandatory protections are found to apply. This may significantly increase demand for Legal Aid representation in addition to other legal services such as community legal services or Aboriginal legal services. Some submitters argued that National Legal Aid and other community legal services operate on tight budgets and may not be able to absorb the cost of the bill's proposed model. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia stated in its submission:
The Bill envisages that legal aid commissions will provide assistance where parties are prohibited from personal cross-examination but cannot afford to access private representation. However, R&DVSA are concerned that legal aid commissions are not equipped to respond to even the current level of demand for legal assistance in relation to family violence.
Several witnesses recommended that the Australian government establish a separate funding stream for the bill's measures. National Legal Aid, for example, recommended the creation of a dedicated Commonwealth family law and family violence fund which would support the bill's measures and assist in funding legal assistance centres. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia also supported the creation of a separate funding stream for the measures contained in the bill. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia believes that additional dedicated funding to legal aid commissions is vital to ensure that legal assistance is accessible to all parties who are prohibited from personal cross-examination, especially women who have experienced family violence. Moreover, a dedicated funding stream will ensure this initiative does not detract from other vital services provided by legal aid commissions to people who have experienced sexual, family or domestic violence. Women's Legal Services Australia also stated in its submission that, without a separate funding stream for the bill's measures, legal aid commissions, community legal centres and other specialised legal services would be unable to cope with the demand to provide lawyers to conduct cross-examination without redirecting resources from other areas of major need.
Other submitters put the view that the bill's provisions may create an added burden on court resources and cause delays in proceedings. The Law Council of Australia noted that trials would likely be delayed due to the bill's proposed requirement that parties seek legal representation in certain circumstances. It stated:
The Law Council struggles to see how the family courts can oversee parties acquiring legal representation without, at least, one more extra procedural for each case before trial, adding to the costs of any represented litigant and delays. It is foreseeable that the Bill will have the consequence of trials being adjourned or trial listings being vacated so that legal representation can be obtained. The new provisions may also give parties the opportunity to delay for strategic reasons.
The Law Council further observed that the bill did not provide additional funding for the family courts to enable them to implement the bill.
The Council of Single Mothers and their Children also highlighted this issue, stating that the courts would require additional resources to implement the protections proposed by the bill, including increased use of video and audio technology, separate safe spaces for parties to enter and wait in the courts and alternative venues. The Law Council also stated that the bill was likely to prompt parties who have experienced family violence who may previously have avoided court action for fear of direct cross-examination to proceed with their cases. This could subsequently cause further delays to court listings and add to the workload of the family courts. Clearly these calls echo the concerns of Labor. The law profession is making their case very clearly: funding is needed, and it's needed urgently.
I want to acknowledge the work and dedication of my colleague shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, whose continual lobbying and hard work has led Labor to put real commitment and real funding on the table for legal organisations. If people in this place are committed to real change in domestic and family violence, additional funding must be put on the table. Labor is committed to an Australia free from domestic and family violence. I call on the government to match Labor's funding of $43 million for legal aid. Addressing the legal issues associated with family and domestic violence is essential in reducing the fear, anxiety and stress associated with complex family law cases. Labor is clearly focused on the welfare of families, especially children, which is evident in the fact that Labor has committed the additional funding to the sector.
I am supportive of both sides of the parliament—the minister for introducing the legislation and the opposition for putting this little rider at the end of it. I think both are very necessary developments. I think that all members of parliament should try and relate what they're doing and what they're saying to actual cases. I could select a number of cases, but I will select one. After 45 years of being a member of parliament, I've had many of these cases come through my office, but I'll select this one case.
In this case, the husband was a school teacher. He was living with two of his students in a house, and I mean 'living' in the bad way, if I can use that expression. So there was the wife and these two 15-year-old girls all living together and having relationships together. There were three little kids involved. The mother came to me a long time after the situation reached a hiatus. I learnt about the situation where the two 15-year-old schoolgirls were living with the school teacher and the mother at the same time. They were quite a prominent family, actually—it was like everybody knew the family—but very few of them knew what was going on with the two schoolgirls, and the school officials had a lot to answer for here.
The courts awarded two of the children to the mother, but the third child said he wanted to go with the father. The courts awarded custody to the father, and the mother came to me for help in appealing the situation. On top of this, the father drove his car at two of the kids, who were on horseback. He drove his car recklessly at the two horses. Whether he was attempting to kill them or just scare them, we don't know. When I rang the sergeant of police for the area, he said: 'Shut up, Bob; I know exactly what you're going to say and I have exactly the same feelings. If I learnt that the whole family had been wiped out tomorrow, I would not be surprised. I would be deeply upset but not surprised. We have a 24-hour watch on the house.' So we're dealing here with a bloke that was so arrogant and so personable and charming that he got away with, quite literally, blue murder.
Let me go back to the mother. Let's just say her name was Cindy. It wasn't Cindy, but I'll say Cindy. I said: 'Cindy, how could you have put up with this? For a whole year you accepted this situation?' And she said, 'Well, there was no "Cindy".' I said, 'All right; I can see what you're saying.' She said: 'When I did have the temerity to speak up against the situation, he punched me in the jaw, broke my jaw in two places and sent me flying through a glass door. And, both for physical reasons and for emotional and psychological reasons, I did not speak for nearly three months.' The woman then had to appear in court, and this is where I think the Dreyfus amendment is needed.
She had to appear in court. She didn't have any money, and legal aid said they'd contest the first case but they wouldn't contest this case—the appeal—so we had no legal aid. I did everything humanly possible to get some legal aid for her but couldn't. I applied to some of my friends to see if they would do it for free. They wouldn't. So I tried to school up the lady to represent herself. She said she would and I schooled her up, but, when the day came for her to appear in court, she was not game to appear in court. I suppose, who could blame her? She was terrified to appear in court.
The very sad sequel to this story was that a private school in Brisbane took him on as a teacher. He was a very charming, personable, good-looking sort of bloke, and they thought they had a good person there. Within a year and a half they realised what they had on their hands, and they agreed that, if he left the school voluntarily, they would not give him an adverse report even though they knew what he'd been up to. He then appeared at a school in New Guinea. I rang the headmaster of the school in New Guinea, and he said: 'That explains so many things. I will get rid of him immediately.' I said: 'I don't want you to get rid of him; I want the child back. The mother wants her son back.' So, seven years later, a lady rang up our office and said: 'There's a little boy here, and he's naked except for a pair of shorts. He is 13 years of age. He stands outside the house and looks out into the distance, and his father is having it off with a mother and the two daughters all at the same time in New Guinea.' And I rang the inspector of police for the area, and he said, 'He is a monster.' He said, 'I'm going to get him; I'm going to get him.' He said, 'I wish I was in the Highlands, because they know how to deal with these sort of people and I'd be out of town when they dealt with him!'
This little boy hadn't been to school for two years. He lived by himself and just looked wistfully out into the distance. What damage was done, I don't know and I don't want to know. But, after seven years, we were able to get the inspector of police to move and the child to be restored to his mother. Some would say it was all too late at that stage. But, whether it was or whether it wasn't, I tell the story because I think the Dreyfus amendment is needed and I would like the government, who have acted with all the right intent here, to take a further step.
I don't come here as one of the lily-pad lefts that jump up every time there is a problem and want to solve it by taking tax money and throwing it at the problem. But, in this case, I think there has to be legal representation provided, because the mothers are just too terrified. With the number of mothers in Australia that get murdered each year, there is no doubt at all that there is still a very serious problem, even though women may have become governors, governors-general, prime ministers of Australia and chief justices of the High Court—and leapt over every other boundary that they could possibly want to leap over. Mothers are the greatest people on the planet. They are mothers of children. But there are mothers that are married to men who are, to put it at its kindest, cowardly dogs. Where I come from, they would have taken a bashing until they started behaving themselves. Unfortunately, those days aren't over and the police have their hands very much bound in these cases.
To ask a mother who is terrified out of her mind—who is subject to continuous domestic violence of a very physical nature—to go into a court to fight the man who is terrorising her psychologically as well as physically, and to ask her to represent herself in the court or to be questioned in the court by the perpetrator of this brutality just can't be allowed. The government should take the place of those good men who, when I was a young lad, went around and bashed people that belted women. They deserved a good hiding and they got it in the good old days. If the government can step into the shoes of those good men from the past they must, but they also have to provide money. Money must be provided here.
I go back to the case of a mother who was deprived of her little seven-year-old child who was brought up by a monster that was living in the lowlands of New Guinea with a New Guinea lady and her two daughters—all living in sin, if I could use that expression. The inspector of police for that area was determined that he would throw him in jail and deal with him in the way he should be dealt with as speedily as humanly possible. When we got the phone call that the child had been returned to the mother, all seven employees of my office shouted out, screamed, clapped and yelled in happiness, because we'd fought the battle for seven years to rescue that little kid. We'd lost him for four or five years and we had no idea where he was. It was just that a lady in New Guinea felt so sorry for this little kid, she tracked down where he came from and who could help him. Thank the good lord they came to our office. I can give you a lot of cases like that.
We commend the government on making this move. I think they've done it for all the right reasons. We also commend the opposition and the initiative taken by the shadow Attorney-General, because I think in this case it is very, very necessary.
I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018. Many women have settled for really imperfect outcomes when it comes to settlements offered in family law courts, and they do so in order to avoid cross-examination by their perpetrators—and it is absolutely shameful. We in this place need to do things that will empower women to leave bad and abusive relationships not condemn them to live through them. Women are strong and many, as we know from the statistics, have faced countless horrible situations and trauma. The ongoing cross-examination of domestic abuse survivors by their perpetrators is a practice that has gone on for far too long. As parliamentarians in this place, we are in the extremely privileged position of affording and providing safety to all of our citizens, including women—predominantly women—going through the family law courts. We are able in this place to make a difference to hundreds and thousands of people who are affected by domestic and family violence—and we should. It is now at epidemic levels and has remained at high levels for far too long.
Labor's announcement during the 2016 election campaign and commitment to end cross-examination of DV victims by their perpetrators are a really important step, but we matched it with $43 million worth of funding for legal aid. It cannot be delivered by those in the government without that commitment to funding legal aid to make sure that everybody has access to justice. I'll use my time here again to ask the third Prime Minister, perhaps, to stand up for victims and survivors of domestic violence.
Subjecting women and sometimes their children to this form of hostile questioning retraumatises and creates new trauma for victims. It can also be why a case is dropped and a perpetrator is allowed to remain out of any kind of punishment or gets off the hook, and it's simply unacceptable. Sadly, there have been far too many promises to address it. I think we go back to George Brandis when he was here. He was talking a big game about doing it but actually did nothing, and I have no great hope that the current leader is going to act anytime soon. We hear of the bipartisan support and the words—which, quite frankly, are very, very empty and very hollow—about ending domestic violence for women and children and for men, where it occurs, but where is the action that backs up the rhetoric?
One of the more shocking cases of domestic violence is a woman I've come to know whose story is horrific. It's so bad that it's amazing that she and even her girls survived what she went through. Her former husband is now tucked away behind bars for what I hope will be a very long time, but not before she was subjected to him cross-examining her in their case. During one of the court hearings, the abuser attended court unrepresented, and that gave him the privilege and the legal right to ask his victim questions. It was such a horrific experience.
It defeats the purpose of courts having safe rooms or 'shine rooms' for women to go into before they have to attend court. It defeats the purpose of the WDVCAS support staff going with these women, when you then throw them under a bus, essentially, and let their perpetrator cross-examine them. Of course, this is just one of thousands and thousands of examples that I could cite in here of women who have had to endure this kind of hostile experience at the hands of their abuser.
This reform to end cross-examination has been called for by survivors—and women, predominantly—for years, and it is an absolute failure of this government to have not delivered it. Allowing an alleged perpetrator of domestic violence access to the ability to cross-examine a victim has the effect of perpetrating violence once again through a court-sanctioned process, an endorsed procedure. The perpetrator has the opportunity to continue the fear, to create intimidation, to undermine and to exercise control in a courtroom setting. It cannot be accepted any longer. When we know better, we do better.
Tackling domestic and family violence will be a priority for us when we are in government, and in opposition we will continue to call for those things to happen. I'll continue to work towards changing legislation, advocating on behalf of thousands of women who are affected by this.
Changing legislation in family law is just one step that this government can take now to help end the scourge of family violence. Imagine being a woman stuck in a relationship and then being too scared to leave because this is what she fears; this is what she's going to face. It's hardly a solution. It's a crisis that's going to take the whole of society to change, and it can't be left to just governments alone to end the rampant behaviour, of course.
Society, corporate Australia, unions, schools, workplaces, media outlets, police and law enforcement all have a role to play. There is not a single person in this country who should feel excluded from the efforts to end family and domestic violence. We all have a role to play, and we in here can play the biggest role. Not one single person is exempted from the responsibility of protecting mothers, sisters, daughters, aunties, grandmothers, colleagues, neighbours and friends. We all ought to feel obliged in helping end all forms of violence against women.
It is worth pointing out here that respecting women and valuing women equally in all areas of society would go a long way in demonstrating an understanding of how and why violence against women has reached epidemic levels, which includes the halls of this place too. Broad gender inequality is the root cause of men's violence against women; indeed, there is a clear link between issues of gender equality and issues of domestic violence. So in our efforts to reduce violence against women we should seriously consider what we can do to reduce the markers of gender inequality that stubbornly remain in our society and in our economy today. The gender pay gap, the lack of women in corporate positions of power, the lack of women in political positions of power, the lack of support for working women with children and the lack of support for older women in our communities—these all contribute to a broader sense of powerlessness that may be difficult to understand when you're not on the receiving end of it.
The correlation between this sense of powerlessness and the fear, anxiety and despair that many victims of domestic and family violence feel is obvious. We have to have a very serious discussion about what we're doing to reduce gender inequality alongside the discussion we're having about what we're doing to tackle family violence. The fact is that these things go hand in hand. In my community there were 1,068 domestic assaults over a 12-month period. Ninety per cent of the work done by my local police command is related to domestic violence. The scale of the problem is simply daunting, but as a community and as leaders we must find ways to tackle this much better.
In my community, over a one-month period, 56 women and 95 children sought help from a specialist domestic violence service and were unable to be helped. They were turned away from a shelter, a safe place to go when they needed it, because of massive gaps between the huge demand for services from women fleeing domestic violence and overcrowded, underfunded shelters that have borne the brunt of state and Liberal government funding cuts. Just today we see the New South Wales state Liberals rushing through the tender process, with just a three-week time frame, that's going to privatise the support services that aid women who need to attend court through the WDVCAS service. When is enough just enough? When do we take the problem of supporting victims of DV seriously, so those who need to leave can? And so that, when they do leave, they know they won't be subjected to cross-examination; they know they'll be supported in a specialist accommodation service; they know they won't face more trauma compounding the trauma they have already been through.
I draw this House's attention to the family law court and the situation happening there. I know that there's some legislation being tossed about and a time-frame being rushed through again over through the Senate with the family law court reforms, trying to melt the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court together. That is not going to solve the problem that most of these complex cases deal with. We must do more to support these women fleeing violence, and we as leaders here need to be advocates to stop it.
Under our policy, the policy that we were proud to announce during the 2016 election campaign and re-announced again since then, where family violence is alleged the family law courts will be required to consider measures to protect the victims and survivors, including, if other measures such as video conferencing are insufficient, refusing to allow an unrepresented litigant to personally cross-examine the other party. Legal aid will be made available to allow all unrepresented parties in the matter to be legally represented at trials and in circumstances where the judge has decided that the alleged perpetrator cannot personally cross-examine the other party without first obtaining legal representation. This bill cannot go through unless the $43 million that is required to be committed to support this is matched. Labor is committed to changing the status quo for women around Australia with some tangible commitments and some tangible outcomes for these victims. We are committed to facilitating the representation of unrepresented litigants, while the government is more concerned with ripping more money away from Legal Aid and leaving women worse off. Without certainty and without commitment organisations like Legal Aid cannot function and continue to provide services to some of the most vulnerable members of our community.
This government need to do a far better job of protecting women, and they are falling grossly short on the promises that they have made. Last year they announced they would spend $12 million trialling the use of innovative technology to keep women safe—so far falling ridiculously short and only delivering a measly $180,000 of that commitment.
Family violence in Australia is not something that any of us should take lightly. We should provide more than rhetoric. We need to do better to combat this crisis where Australian women and families currently face being cross-examined. The current arrangement for women going through family law is inadequate and woeful. The times in the Family Court, the three-year delays for some of the most complex matters, and the associated high costs are barriers for some to even enter there—a barrier to even having their matter heard in the first place. I call on this government to match this bill with the $43 million of funding that it requires.
I rise to speak on this important bill, the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties) Bill 2018, and the important reforms. The direct cross-examination of domestic abuse survivors by their abusers is a truly shameful practice. Labor has heard from so many women who have been forced to go through this trauma. They are forced to endure intimidation and continued psychological abuse from their abusers in the courtroom. They are forced to relive their trauma and abuse. We have heard about women who have chosen to settle for imperfect outcomes just to avoid the intimidation and trauma of direct cross-examination. When we look back, we'll wonder how we let this practice go on for so long. It was, of course, Labor who called for an end to this practice two years ago—a commitment we made at the 2016 election and recommitted to on White Ribbon Day that year.
While it goes without saying, it's important to note, in light of some comments on social media, that this is not about preventing the cross-examination of victims of domestic and family violence; this is simply about the direct cross-examination by perpetrators of family violence of people who have experienced family violence. Parties to the family law dispute involving domestic violence will still be able to undertake cross-examination of each other through their respective legal representatives. To that end and to fully realise the intent of this important change, we need to ensure that parties to court matters involving family and domestic violence have the necessary legal representation so they can avoid the need to directly cross-examine each other. That is often very difficult given the financial circumstances of many of the people we are talking about. It is for this reason that Labor has committed $43 million for legal aid in order to facilitate the representation of otherwise unrepresented litigants. The government, by contrast, as a member for Lindsay articulated, is refusing to make the same commitment for additional funding to legal aid. Without any explanation as to how legal aid will take on the additional workload that this reform will necessarily bring about, this particular issue will undo the good intentions of this bill.
The way this bill will function is by placing an automatic ban where, first, there is an allegation of family violence between the two parties; second, if either party has been convicted of or charged with an offence involving violence or threat of violence or if one of the parties is subject to a violence or protection order by the other. Alternatively, a court can make orders banning direct cross-examination. If there is an allegation of family violence and personal cross-examination is not prohibited, the court must ensure that there are appropriate protections in place for the party who is the alleged victim of family violence. For example, the court could be required to provide alternative protections for the victims such as a video link or screens during cross-examination. When a ban has been imposed, parties will be required to obtain legal representation, either privately or through legal aid, should they be eligible.
We know that many women and children who have experienced domestic or family violence will be retraumatised and will relive the abuse when they are directly cross-examined by the perpetrator of that abuse. According to the Family Law Council, this practice risks perpetuating the abuse in the courtroom and can lead to incomplete or poor-quality evidence to the court. Matters involving unrepresented litigants are significantly less likely to contain the kind of evidence needed to determine matters involving child safety concerns. The council expressed concern about the capacity of self-represented litigants to stick to the relevant issues in the dispute. The council also acknowledged that the adversarial nature of litigation is not necessarily the most effective way of resolving family law disputes, especially where the litigants are self-represented.
One respondent from the ACT to the House inquiry on family law stated:
It was extremely traumatic being cross-examined by my [ex-partner]. Even having him sit in the courtroom while I was questioned earlier on in the process was enough to make me feel uncomfortable and intimidated—he was laughing and smiling and making comments as I spoke and staring at me the entire time.
Another respondent, from Victoria, said:
The cross-examination process makes the victim feels like they are partly to blame, it re-traumatises the victim and brings up unnecessary history to shame and rattle the victim.
Even Victoria Legal Aid said:
… the mere possibility that direct cross-examination could occur can … cause victims of violence to agree to unsafe consent orders—
or to abandon proceedings altogether, which, of course, is the tragedy. It is for these reasons that many jurisdictions have enacted vulnerable witness protection measures, which prevent direct cross-examination in certain circumstances.
We also note that judicial officers do have some discretion in managing these types of proceedings. However, we know that, according to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, direct cross-examination in circumstances of family violence occurred in 173 matters between 2015 and 2017. It is clear that something must be done to prevent this unnecessary and detrimental practice, and this bill does it.
Of course, prohibiting direct cross-examination in these circumstances necessarily means that parties will require legal representation to continue proceedings. We also know that legal representation can be expensive, if one is not eligible for legal aid. Labor is concerned, as many stakeholders have expressed concerns, about ensuring that all litigants in these circumstances have access to legal representation. Labor is concerned about the gap in access to legal representation between those who are eligible for legal aid and those who can afford private legal representation. We feel that some individuals will fall through the cracks between those who do not qualify and those who cannot afford legal representation. The Productivity Commission's 2014 report quantified this gap in finding that more than 14 per cent of people live in poverty, yet only eight per cent will be eligible for legal aid.
With these bans, we would also be increasing the workload and dependence on legal representation in these type of litigated proceedings. As such, it is clear—and Labor has said this—that additional funding must be available. It is necessary to ensure that people do not miss out on the opportunity to have witness testimony cross-examined. This call has been made by National Legal Aid, and the Australian Bar Association has expressed similar concerns. The consequences of a party not being able to afford representation are dire. These people would essentially be denied the opportunity to cross-examine a witness, a key and often crucial legal right to test the credibility of a witness and their evidence in the resolution of litigated proceedings.
According to the Australian Bar Association:
A Court is left in the unenviable position of determining a dispute without a proper and fulsome testing of the evidence.
The ABA states:
The suggestion in the Explanatory Memorandum that an unrepresented party would be able to receive a fair hearing on the basis that there "would also be some scope for the court itself to ask questions of a witness who was unable to be cross-examined" ignores the likelihood of procedural fairness complaints arising from the intrusion or intervention of a trial judge in adversarial proceedings.
For those who can afford legal representation, it can still present a significant financial burden. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia told the Senate inquiry that the significant financial hardship that private representation presents could force parties to consent to parenting arrangements which may be unsafe or unjust for the victims of family violence and/or their children. Instead of parties being coerced into consent arrangements out of fear of facing direct cross-examination, we will have parties entering into consent arrangements as a result of financial coercion.
It is absolutely imperative that the government attach some money to these changes. If not, things will grind to a halt and people will absolutely fall through the cracks. As the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have said in their letter to the government regarding the issue of funding: 'The message, even from your own government's senators, is crystal clear. Without the necessary money, the reform is just an empty shell; an expression of good intentions with no practical effect.' I ask the government to give serious consideration to the question of funding, if we want to fully realise the intentions of this bill.
The ongoing cross-examination of domestic abuse survivors by their perpetrators is a shameful practice and it has gone on for far too long. It has forced victims to settle with underwhelming outcomes in order to avoid being questioned by their perpetrator. We know that victims who are cross-examined by their abusers are less likely to reveal the full extent of their abuse, and courts are less likely to find out the truth. This is an incentive for perpetrators to cross-examine their victims, and we need to remove that incentive.
This bill imposes an outright ban on direct cross-examination of both victim and perpetrator in family law hearings where there is evidence of, or allegations of, family violence. Labor support this bill; we have done so for at least two years. We understand the importance of it, so much so that we took it to the 2016 election. It is a relief to see the government finally joining us in this commitment. There is one major difference, however, between Labor's plan and this bill; the government has failed to guarantee additional funding for Legal Aid or to set aside funding in this year's budget.
National Legal Aid has stated it is very difficult for the service to respond to this proposed legislation without additional funding. Passing this legislation without a guarantee of additional funding could create a crisis situation in the family law system. Legal Aid will not have the appropriate resources to fulfil requests for representation when made by a judge. This means the ban on cross-examination automatically applies to both perpetrators and victims. This could result in a denial of due process, with courts being unable to test facts and thereby being unable to make actual findings. This is the outright denial of justice.
The government says it is conducting ongoing discussions with Legal Aid, which include the topic of funding. At a Senate committee hearing this year, National Legal Aid said those discussions were at an early stage and were not conclusive. If they're 'not conclusive' and they're 'at an early stage', where is this government actually up to in terms of those discussions with National Legal Aid?
Attorneys-General, past and present, have also sent mixed messages about funding for this legislation. In June this year, the Attorney-General told The Australian there would be no extra Legal Aid funding as a result of the legislative change and those prevented from cross-examining their ex-partners would only be able to access Legal Aid if they met the usual rules for qualifying. This means, where the ban on cross-examination applies, parties will be directed to obtain legal representation either privately or through Legal Aid, but only if they are eligible. If a party cannot obtain or refuses to obtain legal representation, no cross-examination can take place. In the government's plan, no-one wins. The accused may lose their right to a fair trial and the affected person may be forced to wait years for the outcome of their case. That is why Labor's plan committed additional funding to support this change.
In the lead-up to the 2016 election, and again on White Ribbon Day in November that year, the Leader of the Opposition announced Labor would commit $43 million to Legal Aid to facilitate a ban on direct cross-examination of survivors of family violence by their perpetrators. This $43 million would be a separate, standalone fund operating outside of ordinary Legal Aid eligibility and it was designed to cover all who are underrepresented. For example, if parties do not qualify for Legal Aid but cannot afford a lawyer, they will be provided for through this fund. This includes both victims and perpetrators.
Without additional funding, the right to a fair trial may be at risk. If the accused isn't eligible for Legal Aid, the government simply says the cross-examination cannot go ahead. This is simply not good enough. National Legal Aid told the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee that it is increasingly difficult for the service to respond to this proposed legislation without additional funding. Without a guarantee of additional funding, passing this legislation could create a crisis situation, as I said, in the family law system.
Here in Canberra, the nation's capital, we are feeling this sting. In its annual report the Law Society of the ACT reported it donated over $1 million in funding to legal aid and community legal centres in the ACT and its pro bono work program helped more than 1,000 Canberrans seeking legal advice in areas of property and tenancy, family law, employment and wills. This is at the same time that the government cut $30 million to legal aid funding right across Australia.
Through pressure from Labor, National Legal Aid and community legal centres, the government restored funding in 2017, announcing an additional $39 million to the legal aid sector, but this was just a restoration of funding. The only new funding was $8.4 million over a three-year period. The government stated the full amount, the $39 million, was intended to prioritise frontline family law and family violence services. But in a sector that is already struggling to meet the needs of the community, taking funding away and rebadging it for something else doesn't really help anyone. It doesn't fix the underlying problem. It doesn't make all the other legal issues people need assistance with go away. It just forces community legal centres to reprioritise their case loads in favour of one area over the other because they are so strapped; they are so up against it. This is the sting on Canberra's legal system right now, even before this bill comes into effect. This bill has the potential to flood Legal Aid with both victims and those accused, yet the government is failing to compensate—or even recognise or discuss it. It's still early days in those discussions, and they're still not conclusive. This is the situation we are facing at the moment.
A recent study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found there were 173 cases of direct cross-examination of family violence survivors over the course of two years. Organisations, including Women's Legal Services Australia, say this figure does not represent the full extent of the issue, because it fails to include cases that settle before a hearing in order to avoid the prospect of direct cross-examination. According to an Australian Institute of Health and Welfare study, women are at far greater risk of family violence than men. On average, one woman is killed every week by a current or former partner, one in three women has experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by someone known to her, and one in five women over the age of 18 has been stalked in her lifetime. Domestic violence is the principal cause of homelessness for women and their children, and this compares to one in 16 men. We have heard from so many women who say either they settled for an imperfect outcome to avoid cross-examination by their perpetrators or they went through the experience and suffered really horrible, horrendous circumstances and consequences. Women are likely to be the main beneficiaries of this policy. That makes this a women's issue. Domestic violence is one of Australia's most pressing issues, and the numbers that prove it are alarming. For every woman who comes forward, there are so many who won't have their story heard. They suffer in silence.
A recent report published by the Women's Centre for Health Matters found that here in the ACT most women who experience domestic violence are staying in their homes post crisis and not accessing the crisis service and the crisis system. This means that they're not accessing homelessness services and do not have access to the support systems that are available to others. Many of these women are middle-income earners and are employed full time. They are not able to access financial assistance and support, because they don't qualify for hardship provisions or loans. So it's not just a case of women being afraid to leave; in these circumstances they can't leave. They're caught in this vicious cycle of being compelled to stay in an abusive situation because there's nowhere for them to go. There is simply nowhere for them to go. Without additional funding to legal aid, we are providing another roadblock for women in this situation. These women can't escape. They're caught in this vicious cycle of not having the money to leave or not having the homelessness support systems and the legal support systems because of the income that they're earning, and yet that income is relatively modest. These women may not be eligible for legal aid and are unable to afford private legal representation, and this gives them another reason to stay in an abusive relationship, to stay in an already dire situation.
We already know how this government feels about women. You don't need to look further than their frontbench to figure it out, and we've had it all playing out for us over the last three weeks. Women make up 51 per cent of the population, yet representation of women on the other side is about 20 per cent in the lower house and 32 per cent in the upper house. This is outrageous and shameful in 2018. On this side, however, tackling equality for women is very important. We have nearly 50 per cent women in the House of Representatives. Compare that to those opposite. For us, tackling family violence is a priority, in government or in opposition. We are extremely proud of the work that we've done, but there is always more to do.
Labor supports the substance of this bill. That is why we have been calling for it for two years now. We committed to this important change ahead of the 2016 election and we recommitted to it on White Ribbon Day in November 2016. That commitment included $43 million for Legal Aid in order to facilitate the representation of under represented litigants. We made that funding commitment because we listened to stakeholders. We listened to women who were in abusive relationships, women trying to escape abusive relationships, women who had been victims of this cross-examination. We spoke to Legal Aid, legal societies, women's support services, rape crisis services. We spoke to stakeholders long and extensively. They told us that this change could not be made on current funding levels. Labor will welcome any form of announcement from the government to commit to additional funding to support this bill. We encourage the government, we beg the government to invest in Legal Aid and to fund to properly fund this legislation—not with reheated money, but with new money, with significant funding to ensure that people actually have access to their legal rights, particularly those women who are fleeing domestic violence relationships, fleeing hardship, fleeing horrible consequences in their homes. We ask the government, please, please commit the funding so that we do not have already stretched Legal Aid services and support services being flooded with the changes that arise from this bill.
I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018. First of all I must congratulate the Attorney-General, Christian Porter, for bringing this bill forward. It is a very important bill. I also acknowledge that the other side have also been very supportive of the bill. Right at the outset I make the point that not all men are involved in family violence or want to intimidate women in any way. That is in some ways wrongly portrayed. On the other hand, as a former police officer, I have seen some men acting in the most barbaric and cruel ways to the so-called family that they are supposed to love. So many times you'd go to a family violence situation and walk in the door and the husband and wife would be screaming at each other. You'd see the young children cowering in the same room, absolutely terrified of what was going on. But when you walked in and the parents were just abusing each other, those were the good family violence cases to go to. The really bad ones were where there was so much violence and women were really badly beaten. There were cases I've been to—in one case a lady, the spouse, was raped. This was when I was at the Knox criminal investigation branch. She had very horrific injuries and had been badly beaten. We took her to a hospital. At that stage I think it was the community policing squad that looked after her. As detectives we were very confident that we had sufficient evidence to take the offender, the husband, to court. However, within a week or so the victim came to the office and there was the husband behind her. She'd been to a solicitor and provided a statement that she wanted no further police action. In those days, too, we tried to get it up, but the DPP wouldn't proceed with the case where the victim had withdrawn the complaint.
Things have definitely improved over time when it comes to law enforcement, prosecution of cases and the way police respond to family violence. I still recall another time when a lady I attended in Collingwood who had very, very poor English was trying to explain to me and my partner at the time that her ex-husband had basically been stalking her and she was in fear. She was able to produce an intervention order, and eventually I said, 'Okay, I'll take this on and see how we can go.' Then she supplied to me 27 other occasions that police members had attended, with their name, rank and the date they attended, and where absolutely no action was taken. So you could tell this poor lady had been living through hell. The good news is we ended up proceeding with the case and proving by phone calls that the offender had breached his intervention order. It was all about fear. It was all about control.
You then, sadly, look at my electorate of La Trobe. In Casey Cardinia, the family violence figures seem to me like they have to be wrong. I have been told that one in five families has family violence. When I speak to schoolteachers, again they speak of family violence, quite often caused by drugs, quite often caused by financial problems. But, in saying that, it always comes back to the male figure in the household. He can't control his anger. Everyone in life at times has the ups and downs of really bad things happening, but it doesn't mean you yell and beat your wife or your partner and also the children.
Sadly, in the last couple of years we've seen in the country that the amount of family violence ending in murder seems to be getting worse and worse. Nearly every week there's some poor female victim who has met someone on social media or has been in relationships where the other person has decided to take it out on their wife or spouse—or, in cases where a complete stranger has met a person on a dating site, they have decided to take revenge on them.
When it comes to the cross-examination, yes, I've got no doubt that there'll be some men who would do it in the correct manner in which it is supposed to be done, but, sadly, I find through my personal experience that, when you get a person who is absolutely vindictive, they would be using the process just to humiliate and intimidate their wife or spouse in the witness box, asking those so-called 'personal questions', which the court at the time would be nearly obliged to allow. In doing so, as I said, the victim would just be suffering and suffering. That's why we find that there is a huge reluctance for, in the first place, women to place intervention orders on men. I've spoken to a number of female victims, some of whom have been personal friends, who have told me that, especially when you have children, you're thinking first, 'Okay, how am I going to look after those children?' I remember raising this with Rosemary Batty when she attended a forum up here in Canberra. Sadly, she had the tragedy of losing her son, and her big issue was that women in family violence situations, especially with children, quite often feel compelled to stay there if the violence is only on them and not their children; they can put up with that for the sake of their children. But, normally, you find that the acts don't get any less violent or threatening and eventually the children, even if they are completely removed from the situation, get dragged in by these awful threats and intimidation.
Having, as proposed by this legislation, the cross-examination only conducted by a legal person acting as a defence counsel, puts a barrier in front of the victim. It puts a barrier in front of the female and stops them being cross-examined by their perpetrator and having unnecessary, intimate questions—quite often asked just to humiliate or intimidate them—asked. Going through a defence counsel takes that away from them. So this is very important legislation. The bill amends the act by prohibiting personal cross-examination when:
So there are safeguards in place to ensure that, if it's a situation where there are threats of violence against the parties involved, the person can have the defence counsel ask those questions.
I fully support this legislation, and I acknowledge that both sides are supportive. I make the final point that I have been a very strong advocate of community legal centres of Victoria and have been able to secure funding for them in the past.
I'm pleased to rise this evening to speak on the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018. I'm sure all of us will have heard horror stories from our constituents who have been through the mill of the family law courts. The best advice I think I could ever give any of my constituents who come to me about an issue to do with family law courts is to stay out of court if you possibly can. I've heard horrendous stories of people having legal bills of $100,000, $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 and even $800,000 as a result of going through the family law courts. One thing that we must look at when trying to see how we can improve access to and issues of family law are the legal costs. There is of course the emotional hardship that people go through but, for many people, the financial hardship of being dragged through the family law courts is more than they can bear.
There is quite a bit of work that we need to do, and I'm very glad that the Attorney-General is making some very important steps to improve the family law courts, to improve access to justice, to try to take away some of those legal costs and to try to take away some of the strict and harsh rules of the family law courts. Of course, one of those laws goes to cross-examination and where each party is cross-examining each other. It is important that someone who is accused of an offence has the right to full and fair legal defence, and that includes being able to cross-examine. But there is a line where family violence has been involved and where the person who is the perpetrator of that family violence gets to cross-examine their witness often for hours and hours on end.
Debate interrupted.
Ten years ago, almost to the day, almost to this minute, I held a press conference in this building after the fourth largest US investment bank Lehman Brothers had filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. It was clear then that the financial system was ripping apart at the seams. As I said that night, no country in the developed world was in a better position to handle these events than ours. That night, I drew attention to Australia's strong and well-regulated financial system, which had been strengthened and enhanced thanks, in large part, to the joint efforts of the Reserve Bank and the new Labor government. During our first 10 months in office we put in place reforms the previous government had refused to do. It's crucial to have an accurate record of these events so that when the next crisis comes we can look back and assess the effectiveness of all of those things that we did.
On the weekend, the Financial Review published a feature on how Australia responded and rescued our banks. The article spoke of the tireless actions of the RBA during the crisis, which are an enduring tribute to our central bank and the public servants at its helm. These facts are beyond dispute. The Financial Review, however, neglected to outline how Australia's financial system had been strengthened by the new Labor government, working with our world-class regulators. It neglected to outline how, in February and in April, our Labor government met with the Council of Financial Regulators to discuss how best to buttress the financial system. It didn't outline how, in May, our Labor government increased the issuance of Commonwealth government securities and granted new investment powers to the Australian Office of Financial Management. It failed to outline how, in June, our Labor government announced the Financial Claims Scheme, which would provide the backbone to the bank guarantees we announced in the wake of Lehman's collapse. It neglected to say how we outlined new powers for our regulators to take over distressed financial institutions in order to maintain financial stability. Without such actions, we would not have been able to move as quickly as we did to shore up the financial system and to keep the supply of credit flowing to households and to small businesses.
We can deal effectively with the next crisis, and, if we can deal effectively with the next crisis, it will depend on whether political leaders have the courage to actively intervene to avoid recession and to reject policies which insist that governments should sit on the sidelines and say there is nothing that can or should be done. Indeed, the events of 10 years ago already have a familiar ring to them. It was 10 years ago this Sunday, the day after Lehman Brothers fell, that the then member for Wentworth, Mr Turnbull, toppled the then Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson. As the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth then saw fit to play politics with the deposit guarantee that our Labor government had announced a month later. The sorts of policies we subsequently saw, we saw played by the opposition under both Mr Turnbull and Mr Abbott against our stimulus, which international authorities regarded as one of the best designed and most effective in the Western world. Our country came through the GFC by choice, not by chance.
Where governments didn't act like ours did, either by providing stimulus that was too weak or stimulus that gave way too quickly to austerity, they left a legacy of dangerous economic and political aftershocks with living standards falling and political extremism on the rise. It's 10 years on and I believe that Australia could combat the next crisis. Whether we would combat it would depend on which party was in government and what lessons they had learned from 2008 and 2009.
In 2008, Labor was facing the choice between a recession and a deficit. I feared then as I fear now, that facing the same choice, the coalition would give us both. Let's hope, if the worst happens, that we remember the importance of international coordination and gather the political courage to take the critical fiscal and financial regulatory actions to avoid the next recession. Ten years on from the GFC, we do need a new conversation about what we can learn from the past and what we must do in the future, and that's why it's important that, when these matters are analysed, we don't get partial explanations of what happened, such as was provided by the Financial Review on the weekend.
On 11 June 2018 I held the inaugural Fisher Schools Debating Competition at Kawana Waters State College in my fabulous electorate of Fisher. It's important to me, in my role as the federal member, to encourage our young people to engage in Australia's political system and get a good understanding of civics and the role of government. It's crucial that we demonstrate to our leaders of tomorrow that an understanding of the political landscape in Australia both now and in years past will set them up for success in the future.
Complementing this are skills that can be developed through participating in a good old-fashioned debate. I strongly believe that it's vital that all of our young people, at some stage during their school journey, are encouraged to participate in debating. The skills of public speaking and critical reasoning and the ability to construct and prosecute an argument are transferrable to many areas of life. It was therefore a great pleasure for me to host the first of what I hope will be many Fisher debating competitions in the years to come.
It was a tremendous event with numerous local schools competing and vying for the opportunity to be the best debating school in the electorate of Fisher and to prepare a speech for me to be read in the House of Representatives. I'm very pleased to announce to the House that Chancellor State College—who you would remember came and spoke to you in our last week of sitting, Mr Speaker—won the competition, and the following speech was written by Mia Seefeld, Lucy Gillespie and Kate Frankish, who visited parliament in the last sitting week with their teacher, Ms Amanda Watson.
Whilst I don't necessarily endorse a number of the propositions put forward in the speech, I welcome the debate and the heartfelt passion with which it was written. It goes like this:
Dear future,
You may not know it yet but we have plans for you. We want to make a difference and have an impact. We want to pave our own path and colour it in our favourite shades. We also want to have a say. Every time our parents go to vote, we go with them. We take the flyers shoved in our face, we read the policies, we consider our options but then we just feel frustration. We feel frustrated because everyone is voting on issues that impact on us. And yet we are silenced. University fees, education, the future of housing affordability, medical care, infrastructure, the environment and many other areas of interest and importance. Why does someone else get to have a say in our life, why are they allowed to thrust their hand into the clay of our future that is just beginning to take shape? Why can't we remove their hand until we are 18, when we are classified as an adult? Why does my age define my maturity?
We know many adults who couldn't hold a flame to the political understanding we have at 16 years of age and yet someone who has never or will never be linked to the path we are travelling gets to shape the policies influencing this path? How do we justify that approach? Voting is just one of the ways we should get to have a say. There needs to be more opportunities for us and all other young people to stand out and speak up.
There is nothing more empowering than delivering a jaw dropping speech on issues which put a fire in our belly. But then the spotlight shifts, and we take our seat, once more leaving our inspiring words and plans to shape our world lingering in the air. Without a hand to catch these sparks, they soon fizzle out. Opportunities like public speaking and debating are vital as they give young people a voice. Competitions run by parliamentary members—thank you so much, Andrew Wallace MP—are even more crucial as young people can be heard by someone who can put their ideas into action. But there is no point to giving us a voice if only the confident and outgoing speak. Our peers, many who won't get up in front of a room full of people, deserve their say too. Voting will give young people the option to express their views.
So dear future, despite all the negativity that surrounds our generation, we plan on making a difference in this world but first we need a chance. Dear future, we are ready for you, but are you ready for us?
Today I rise to express the deep concern of the electors of Kingston—the confusion and the chaos that has left them, quite frankly, bewildered. Why do we have a new Prime Minister? Why has this government spent the whole of the last few months talking about itself, talking about who is going to win the hunger games of being Prime Minister? That confusion, exasperation and frustration has been particularly palpable around my community. But, of course, what they know deep down is that the Liberal Party may have changed its leader yet again but nothing has changed for the Australian people. We still have one of the most out-of-touch governments in living memory, and the now Prime Minister was the out-of-touch Treasurer that this country has had to endure for the last three years.
Over his years as Treasurer and before that as a minister, the Prime Minister has made his values abundantly clear. He had no greater goal than to make life easier for big business and the big banks. His mission was to give a $17 billion tax cut to big business at the expense of ordinary Australians. As Treasurer and as a member of the government, he voted against the royal commission into banking 26 times. He went further than that and called it a 'populous whinge'. Australians cannot trust that this Prime Minister will ever put their needs first when he has clearly shown not only his allegiance to the top end of town but that he has more interest in acquiring the top job than in Australians' jobs. In the area of early childhood, the Prime Minister, as the then Minister for Social Services, designed a system that left one in four families worse off as a result. These are the values of the now Prime Minister—one that cut $17 billion from our schools, one that cut penalty rates for hundreds of thousands of Australians. And let's not forget his five-year-long pursuit to increase the pension age to 70. I could go on. He is now saying he wants to scrape these barnacles off, but of course we know that deep in his heart he absolutely believes in an Australia that does not put people first. It might put the top end of town first, it might put values around supporting big business first, but it does not put the Australian people first.
I would quickly like to speak about two issues tonight—firstly, his ongoing commitment as Treasurer and now as Prime Minister to slash $84 million from the ABC. The government has launched two inquiries that are trying to damage our public broadcaster, and it has absolutely cut the guts out of the ABC. Many of my constituents are part of the 17 million Australians who consume ABC content each week. Some turn onto the ABC and receive their trusted news and current affairs. Some are families like my own who access quality, free children's programming from the ABC. Some are young people who look forward to the Triple J Hottest 100 every year. Some love the ABC for quality Australian drama and comedy. Some love the ABC for its coverage of local sport. The ABC also plays a critical role in emergency situations, transmitting warnings about flood and fire. There are countless reasons why the ABC is such an integral part of our nation's fabric. Particularly in a time of distrust in the media and fake news, Australians need a strong, trusted, healthy public broadcaster.
When the Prime Minister, as the then Treasurer, cut $84 million from the ABC in his budget, he said that everyone had to live within their means as an excuse as to why he would cut funding to our public broadcaster. Well, it's time that this government took our ABC seriously. It's time to hear this government defend our ABC rather than constantly talk it down, and it's time to see this government backing what the Australian public know: the ABC is worth fighting for. It means so much to so many people and it deserves respect in this place, rather than the constant picking apart that the then Treasurer, now the Prime Minister—it's hard to keep up—did, as well as, of course— (Time expired)
Cancer touches the lives of so many people, young and old. I'm blessed to have a family untouched by cancer, from my 92-year-old mother, who still enjoys great health, right down to my four beautiful children, but not everybody is so lucky. While O'Connor is fortunate to have many dedicated specialists working in the regions, I often encounter constituents who need to travel long distances and endure protracted separation from their families to receive the therapies that they require. For many, the stress of temporarily relocating to Perth is compounded by the financial burden of these potentially life-saving treatments in addition to the cost of travel and transport. A recent study by the University of WA suggests that nearly every rural cancer patient experienced considerable out-of-pocket expenses while undergoing potentially life-saving treatments. The survey found that rural patients paid out-of-pocket expenses of around $2,100 per person, with the cost of accommodation making up around 12 per cent and fuel around eight per cent.
I recognise we cannot have comprehensive cancer care services in every town in O'Connor, but the city of Albany, with a broader catchment of 60,000-plus people, represents the largest area outside of Perth and Bunbury where patients do not have local access to radiation oncology services. Great Southern cancer patients who require radiotherapy need to travel for treatment. With the average length of treatment being four weeks and in some instances as long as seven weeks, this is a long time to be away from home. Many patients who would benefit from radiotherapy opt for other treatments or choose no treatment at all. Such is the burden of travelling when so ill.
Last July, the federal government, through the Radiation Oncology Health Program Grants Scheme, approved $6.6 million in capital funding to support medical equipment for a radiation oncology service to be located in Albany. In the letter to grant recipient Genesis Cancer Care, the government acknowledged that there was a demonstrated need in the Great Southern region of O'Connor. This federal funding will be spent on a linear accelerator, a CT simulator and a CT interfacing planning and computer system set up for three work stations. There will be a requirement for a top-up of this federal funding to achieve a planned operational date of 30 June 2019. Currently, patients from the Great Southern are funded to undergo treatment in Perth or Bunbury and they receive state government financial support in the form of the Patient Assisted Travel Scheme. The opportunity exists to redirect this funding towards providing a gold-standard radiotherapy treatment facility in Albany. To this end, I've written to the state Minister for Health, Roger Cook, who has responsibility for PATS and the capital infrastructure funding for public health services in WA. I have appealed to the state to assist in the prompt installation and operation of this much needed radiotherapy facility.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge key businesses and individuals, many of whom have had their lives touched by cancer and have made it clear they back this project for their Great Southern community. I give a special shout-out to Mary Williams who has been pivotal in disseminating information and raising funds for this much needed radiation facility. While Mary has very much understated her role, she has been involved in fundraisers, including everything from sausage sizzles to a 24-hour radiothon. There are ongoing fundraisers planned, including a dinner at the Princess Royal Yacht Club, fundraising at the street festival in Denmark, fashion parades in Albany, and quiz nights, dances and street stalls throughout the Great Southern. Mary has named the Mayor of the City of Albany, Dennis Wellington, as a great supporter, along with the Denmark Community Foundation, the Denmark CRC, the Denmark Medical Centre, IGA, Red Dot, Albany Party Hire, Soroptimist International, and others too numerous to name. Mary and her team of volunteers have conducted an information campaign, including street signage along our regional roads and infomercials in local medical centres. Local farmers have lent their eye-catching support by wrapping their silage in multicoloured covers, creating a colourful patchwork throughout the paddocks of the Great Southern.
This morning I spoke to the federal Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, thanking him on behalf of the Great Southern community for his commitment of $6.6 million towards this essential project. Mr Hunt has committed to visiting Albany at the first possible opportunity to meet with cancer sufferers, their families and support networks and our dedicated regional medical practitioners and specialists. I thank all who have given generously of their time, money and effort to support the establishment of a gold standard radiotherapy service in the Great Southern. I hope that in the very near future we will see our cancer patients undergo life-saving treatments close to home with the support of family and friends and the doctors and ancillary health workers they know and trust.
It's barely spring, but in New South Wales the bushfire season has been declared. It might not mean a lot for city dwellers, but for those of us on the urban fringe it's not a good sign. In spite of recent rain New South Wales is described as a tinderbox. For the uninitiated, tinderbox is an expression that until recent years we didn't hear until midway through a blistering summer. February, March or even April is more traditionally described that way, so to hear it in September is scary. The Rural Fire Service says that literally millions of people are at risk from bushfires this season in New South Wales. In the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury we know we're included. This year saw the seventh driest May on record in New South Wales, according to the Bureau of Meteorology, followed by another dry June, which continued a run of 14 consecutive months of warmer-than-average daytime temperatures. The records are likely to continue breaking in coming months.
So it's no surprise that residents flocked to the Blue Mountains Bushfire Building Community Forum at the weekend, where experts from the New South Wales RFS and other bushfire professionals shared their knowledge, tips and advice for people living and working in bushfire-prone areas. This was part of a two-day event, with the other day for the industry to get the latest in bushfire design and construction. It's an initiative that came out of the 2013 Winmalee fires five years ago, and was organised by Blue Mountains Economic Enterprise and supported by the RFS. I want to thank everyone involved in continuing to raise awareness about how we best protect ourselves. I also congratulate those involved in the production of Fire Stories, which looks at the Blue Mountains fires, another useful educational tool for people living in bushfire areas. The Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute, with the support of the RFS, National Parks and Wildlife and Blue Mountains City Council, have made a powerful documentary that I'd encourage people to see. I would also flag the upcoming workshop by Blue ARC that helps you plan for your animals in a bushfire or other natural disaster. It is on at Springwood on 6 October and details are on my Facebook page. It would be remiss of me not to note that the banking royal commission is about to turn its attention to insurance, with the treatment of bushfire victims scheduled to be in the spotlight. After the Blue Mountains experience, I believe there is much to be done to ensure home owners' interests are protected and I look forward to seeing this come under the spotlight.
It is no secret that the largest hospital servicing my electorate, Nepean Hospital, is facing huge pressures. It recently secured the unfortunate distinction of being the most under-pressure hospital in the state. We all know an upgrade is urgently needed. The people bearing the brunt of the breaking point that this hospital has reached are the patients and staff, many of whom live in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury and work long hours to improve people's health. Ten per cent of patients wait almost 11 hours in the emergency department. There is a wait of 315 days for elective surgery, 285 days for knee replacements, 274 days for total hip replacements and nine days short of a year to get your tonsils out. You are lucky if you have a hernia, because the wait is only 248 days. Many of us think that elective means that it's not so necessary, but if you're waiting for a cataract operation and can't drive it has a massive impact on your life. If you're waiting for a new hip or knee, the consequences of coping with pain for nine or 10 months takes its toll on your work, life and family.
By contrast, the government says people at Blue Mountains District ANZAC Memorial Hospital are receiving their elective surgery within the clinically recommended time frame. But there are plenty of things that don't happen at Blue Mountains Hospital at Katoomba. That's because there is no MRI machine. The public MRI machine at Nepean Hospital is working around the clock. It's needed to investigate or diagnose soft tissue conditions, so it's used for dementia and stroke patients, for sports injuries, dodgy knees, cancer patients and spinal injuries.
Right now patients' treatment is delayed while waiting for an MRI, and doctors in Katoomba have the inefficiency of having patients travelling up to an hour to Nepean for a diagnostic scan, and that assumes that patients will even come back to Katoomba and not just stay at Nepean, placing further pressure on beds. The sensible decision will be to have an MRI machine in Katoomba Hospital. Doctors tell me it would speed up treatment of patients. It would certainly spare many the two-hour return journey and help reduce pressure on Nepean's MRI, meaning a better service for everyone in the west. Labor knows the impact the shortage of MRI machines is having. We have promised 10 new machines for public hospitals and 20 all up. Patients and medical experts in the Blue Mountains have said to me loud and clear, 'We need an MRI at Katoomba,' and I'll be fighting for that.
It isn't just the mighty Melbourne Demons that are storming home to glory this year. Spring has arrived, and many Goldstein sporting clubs have been buzzing with the opening of their seasons. I had the honour of rolling the jack at the Bentleigh Bowling Club season opening only last week. It will be the third season since the completion of the surface upgrade that was done in 2016. When I went to the club only last week, I thought I was the only person who remembered my insufficient bowl of the jack at the opening of the year before. I trained and went to the gym at every opportunity to be able to get a better bowl. Sadly, when I arrived at the club many others remembered that I was short on distance as well. But I'm proud to say that we bowled that jack and started that season with the gusto and thrust that would excite any bowling enthusiast. So I would like to thank those people who organised the opening of the season: president, Ron Gleeson; vice-president, Steve Brady; secretary, Stephen Elmer; treasurer, Rob Michael; house manager, Alan Walker; greens director, David Young; and, let's face it, the most important person at all bowls clubs, the bar manager, Peter Watson.
I also had the privilege of opening the Brighton Croquet Club and kicked off their season. For 108 years the club has welcomed croquet enthusiasts on its incredible lawns in the middle of Brighton. If you're a beginner looking to get involved, croquet coaching classes will be underway in October—and it's not as easy as it looks, I can tell you. I started with an insufficient and inadequate knock through the first hoops but we got there in the end. I would like to acknowledge: president, Marguerite Russell, who did a wonderful job opening the season and raising the flag; Pam White, club secretary; Juerg Stolz, club treasurer; and Lesley Cavalier, croquet coach. But let's not forget that there is a group of people at any croquet club that deserve particular commendation and that is of course the caterers. The afternoon tea that followed the opening of the season was truly magical, particularly the mushroom soup.
The Sandringham Bowls Club also started their season, and I'm very honoured to be their patron. Sandy Bowls Club has offered healthy recreation, a social environment and companionship to the community for over a hundred years. So thank you to all the office bearers for their ongoing efforts as part of the opening of the season. I was joined by the Liberal candidate for Sandringham, Brad Rowswell, and of course the retiring member, Murray Thompson. They joined so many club members who had a wonderful day and incredible weather as well. I want to thank: president, Cathy Spencer; vice-president, Rob Elliot, who rolled the first jack; secretary, Alan Watson; treasurer, Terry McVey; bowls director, Tony Rogers; assistant bowls director, Bev Warby; director of greens and grounds, Tony Smith—you may have something in common with him, Mr Speaker; director of house, Glenys Yeowart; director of projects and sponsorship, Ken Fuller; the appointed director for outside functions, Ingrid Edelmaier; and again, the bar manager, Ken Fuller.
I would also like to acknowledge Ted Monford, the secretary of the Sandbelt Bowls Region, who was also there for the opening, as was Graeme Ludecke and Matthew Gallop from the Sandringham Community Bank, who do an incredible job in the Goldstein community, supporting so many community projects—and the major sponsor of the club as well as of course Murray Thompson.
It wasn't just bowls; it's not just croquet; we are coming to the end of the footy season and as the proud co-No. 1 ticket holder of the Old Brighton Grammarians Football Club, we had plenty of success to celebrate yesterday at the victory premiership of the under-19s for the flag for 2018. With the co-No. 1 ticket holder, Felicity Frederico, we presented the cup. So congratulations to the premiership players, Tom Wallace and Max Burtfor, polling highly in the league's best and fairest.
Last Friday we had a Goldstein community morning tea where we honoured many people who have given wonderful service to our community and people who got Queens birthday honours: Clair Seoud, who hosted a one-hour radio program on local community station Southern FM; Zara Harrington and Jade O'Shannessy, who were selected for the GSV netball team; Sarah Fitzpatrick, who was selected in the School Sport Victoria football team; Eliza James, who was selected for the School Sport Victoria football team; Deanna Bottalico, who was selected for GSV representative soccer; and so many others who have contributed through their sporting community and prowess to make Goldstein great.
House adjourned at 20:00
Today is World Suicide Prevention Day. The theme for this year is Working Together to Prevent Suicide. This theme was chosen because it highlights the most essential ingredient for effective global suicide prevention—that is, collaboration. We've all got a role to play. We know that in Australia eight people die by suicide each day. That's more than 2,800 lives lost every year. There are 65,000 people who attempt suicide and hundreds of thousands of people who think of suicide. I think we should just take a moment to contemplate the pain and suffering that is felt by every single person impacted by suicide. Suicide cuts across all walks of life. It affects men and women, young and old. It has particularly devastating impacts for our First Nations people, our rural communities and for men in their 30s, 40s and 50s. As policymakers we have a critical responsibility to drive the legislation that can help turn this around. But, equally, we play a vital role in each of our own communities.
I'm pleased that my home city of Newcastle is one of the first trial sites for the Black Dog Institute's LifeSpan suicide prevention trial. In this trial, health services, non-government organisations like suicide prevention experts Everymind, local businesses, and people with lived experience work together to implement evidence based programs. I want to give a special shout-out to Jaelea Skehan and her terrific team for driving this, as well as to the Newcastle Herald for being a very proactive partner in this important project.
While organisations and services have a role in preventing suicide, so does every community member. We know that people will often talk to a family member, friend or colleague first. Each and every one of us needs to know how to ask that question: 'Are you thinking about suicide?' And we need to know what to do if someone says: 'Yes, I am.' We want at least 6,000 members of our community in Newcastle to sign up to do what is known as the QPR—or Question, Persuade and Refer. This one-hour online training module helps people build the knowledge, confidence and skills to recognise and respond to a suicide crisis. Just as we all know the benefits of CPR, we also need to know QPR skills. We know people who are struggling can reach out to anyone at any time, including us as local members. (Time expired)
It seems like the way this great nation funds its hospitals continues to be a form of political water torture for the Labor Party as they dredge around for the scare campaign that'll save them at the next election. It's regrettable that a once great party is limited in its re-election strategy to scurrying around and capitalising on, often, the lack of aptitude of their voter base to confuse them about how hospitals are funded. It's actually very disappointing. It's really important that, as elected representatives, we are raising the understanding of our hospitals' work, not capitalising on voters' low level of understanding, which is something that, fundamentally, the once-great Labor Party is doing at the moment.
There's no doubt that the only way for a Labor Party to be re-elected is a scare campaign. Either they have a good one and get elected or they have a bad one and they don't. It doesn't really say much about the vision of where Australia will be in 20 or 30 years when you have a party that is simply incapable of talking about what we need for the next generation of hospital systems. I thought, in my electorate, let's try something a bit novel. Let's just get face to face with the state Labor Party and debate hospital funding, and let's take one hospital as an example.
As you know, with a Commonwealth based system of payment transfers based on activity-weighted units, it's not that easy to dive down into the rats and mice of what's happening between hospitals to find out the status of Redland Hospital, but I'm determined to do it. I have set a time and a place, and I'm going to debate the relevant state MP. You see them scurry like mice as soon as you try and set a time for a debate. It's almost impossible. They're slithering around like ice on a hot surface, trying to get away, and the minute you try and engage them, of course, they find some other indignant reason why they can't be there.
We're grateful that the local newspaper, the Redland City Bulletin, has raised this issue. We're going to meet this weekend. With great sadness, we acknowledge that the Labor federal candidate is unable to attend for personal reasons. We fully respect that, and we pass on, as everyone would, our condolences that he cannot attend. But let's have another convenient date and not have it pushed out to the election campaign. Let's not have the preposterous suggestion that, 'We're not going to have a debate unless every other candidate is there,' as though it is impossible to debate hospital funding unless you've got One Nation and a Greens candidate present. This is ridiculous.
Funding of hospitals is complicated, but the level of granularity that the Commonwealth can access is limited by regions because the states report activity and payments are made on a calculation. We want to know what they are for each hospital. My state and city want to know what my hospital is getting as growth funding. It's a fundamental right of my city. We are demanding that MPs elected to a job just do their job and show up and justify how dollars are spent at a hospital. There are too many sick kids, too many long waits in casualty and too many crises in car parking for us to ignore this great issue. As elected reps, let's meet up and have a debate on hospital funding. It's not that hard. (Time expired)
L'shanah tova. From sunset yesterday, Jewish Australians marked the start of Rosh Hashana. It's one of the holiest days for our Jewish community and signals the beginning of the new year and the High Holidays, a period of celebration which lasts 10 days up to Yom Kippur. What better place to mark this time than with family, friends and community. The shofar, a trumpet made from a ram's horn, is blown to acknowledge the start of this occasion. With the old year now past, it's a special time of introspection, reflection and forgiveness. Stale bread is thrown out to represent throwing away the sins. As with any new beginning, Rosh Hashanah is an opportunity to look to the future and renew optimism about a prosperous year ahead. Sweet fruits of the season are shared, with apples dipped in honey as a symbol of hope for a sweet new year ahead. I want to thank those constituents from my community who popped into our office on Friday to offer such gifts and to symbolise Rosh Hashana.
Jewish Australians have made and continue to make a significant contribution to our national life and, indeed to the local community that I represent. On 16 August this year, I was quite fortunate to join many leaders and representatives of our community for the celebration of the 70th anniversary of the Maroubra Synagogue, a pillar of the thriving Jewish community in the electorate of Kingsford Smith. The synagogue was established in 1948 by Holocaust survivors, with the support of their family and friends. Building the synagogue was an act of faith, belief and defiance. It stood as an everlasting memory for the relatives and friends who perished during the Holocaust. But it also marked the start of a new chapter for the Jewish community in Maroubra and beyond. More than 400 member families now belong to the Maroubra Synagogue. It's known for welcoming, caring and inspiring services, along with opportunities for educational advancement through the Mount Sinai College. Mount Sinai College began as a kindergarten in Snape Street, in a little house, and has now grown into a thriving primary school. I know this because I attended the kindergarten as a student prior to going off to school in Maroubra.
I was honoured to attend the synagogue's 70th anniversary jubilee dinner. The focus was on celebrating the past, acknowledging the present and embracing the future. I want to thank Rabbi Yossi Friedman, Daryl Robinson, Dr Archie Platt and the Maroubra Hebrew congregation for the invitation to join them all for this special occasion. I pay particular tribute to all of those volunteers who've built that synagogue into the wonderful service that it is today. Once again, happy new year, L'shanah tova! (Time expired)
Today I rise to celebrate an important milestone in the vibrant cultural life of my electorate and indeed all of Sydney: the 60th anniversary of the Ensemble Theatre. For six decades, the much-loved Ensemble has presented to audiences some of the finest international and Australian playwrights. This is a remarkable achievement. One of the keys to the Ensemble Theatre's success is that it has held true to its vision of creating diverse, accessible live theatre of the highest quality that entertains, educates, enlightens and challenges. Some of our greatest actors have walked its stage—names like Russell Crowe, Rachel Ward, Jacki Weaver, Penny Cook, Max Gillies, Kate Fitzpatrick, Reg Livermore, Lorraine Bayly, Andrew McFarlane, Greta Scacchi, Garry McDonald and Georgie Parker, to name but a few. So many owe their first start to the Ensemble.
The Ensemble Theatre started with humble beginnings. It began with a series of short plays by Tennessee Williams at the children's library in Cammeray in May 1958 under the guidance of its US-born founder, Hayes Gordon. This unnamed troupe of actors were quickly named the Ensemble Theatre in tribute to the fact that there were no stars, only an assembly of actors. Growing audiences meant that the company had to move to a hall in Miller Street, North Sydney, before it too became inadequate to meet the theatre's growth. So Hayes Gordon went looking for a home for the group and found a boatshed in Careening Cove, Kirribilli. Lorraine Bayly has been quoted as saying that initially she was horrified because the Ensemble's proposed new home was so rudimentary, you could see the harbour water through its floorboards. However, despite these objections, it was to become a wonderful venue, located as it is on one of Sydney Harbour's most beautiful bays.
Hayes Gordon went on to be one of only three artistic directors that have served at the Ensemble Theatre, stepping down in 1986. The legendary Sandra Bates took over the reins and held the position for 30 years. Sandra stands as the longest-serving artistic director of any theatre company in the country and is rightly regarded as one of the greats of Australian theatre. In 2011, Sandra invited Mark Kilmurry to share the role of artistic director. Mark took over as sole artistic director in 2016, and the theatre has gone from strength to strength under his leadership.
The Ensemble Theatre has done so much to foster a love for theatre, whether it be by exposing audiences to the classics, presenting new plays or encouraging emerging and established directors and actors. Remarkably, it has survived and flourished without regular support from government. Indeed, when I took Senator Mitch Fifield to the theatre in 2016, it was the first time a federal arts minister had made a visit. While it has not called regularly on government for support, I am pleased that I was able to secure funding to help provide the solar panels which now adorn its roof.
Congratulations to everyone who has contributed, supported and performed at the Ensemble Theatre over the last 60 years. Long may they continue. (Time expired)
Food manufacturing in Australia has a proud history, particularly in my electorate of Bendigo. Whilst the broader manufacturing sector is unfortunately declining in some areas, food and grocery manufacturing experienced growth last year, in 2016-17. According to the recent census, there are actually more people employed in food manufacturing today than there have been for quite some time. A report that was released a few weeks ago highlighted that in northern Victoria roughly 22,000 direct jobs contributed to food and grocery manufacturing.
The statistics for my electorate of Bendigo speak loudly about the importance of this industry to central Victoria. Bendigo electorate's food and grocery manufacturing industry generates over $2 billion of output annually and directly employs over 4,200 people, including 2½ thousand people who work in the local meat and meat production industry. I have talked many times in this place about the jobs at Hardwick in Kyneton, the jobs at Don KR in Castlemaine and the jobs in our chicken and poultry industry. Whilst there is some work to do to make sure that there is a skilled, ready workforce, ensuring that there are locals for local jobs first, I know that our region would be lost without these vital jobs to keep our local economy going. The industry also does well with value adding, which is reported to be close to half a billion dollars. An area that is at the top of the list for value adding in relation to food manufacturing is meat and poultry products. I've mentioned Don KR, and I'd be in trouble if I didn't mention also Moira Mac's, which does the chicken process adding.
Whilst we are doing well when it comes to food manufacturing, we are not doing well when it comes to gas and gas prices for many of these industries. The Bendigo Manufacturing Group, as well as other chambers of commerce, continually raises with me the problem of securing long-term gas contracts. Labor's commitment last week on a national gas reservation policy is so critical to keeping gas prices, and long and sustainable contracts, affordable for our food manufacturers. If we are to continue to have a bright future when it comes to food manufacturing, we need to ensure sustainable gas for these industries. I call on the government to match Labor's commitment on gas and to implement the policy that was announced last week.
In the past few hours, two Australian champions have won at the US Open in Flushing Meadows. Ash Barty just raised the women's doubles trophy with her partner CoCo Vandeweghe, and the great Dylan Alcott just claimed his sixth grand slam in wheelchair tennis. These are great achievements, but no more than these champions deserve for their dedication and hard work.
While we all love watching champions on the world stage, every champion starts at their local community grounds, where it's more than just about growing world-beaters. Community sport is where we get fit, build friendships and build communities. This is why local sport is so important. Today, I would like to reinforce the unwavering support I have for sporting organisations across my electorate of Bennelong and others across the country. In particular, on Sunday, 26 August women of all ages played in a competitive soccer competition run by Roselea Football Club in Carlingford. Despite the miserable weather, the dedicated and extremely competent team of Mel McMillan, Jeff Saul and Roger Fernando brought forth a very successful day of sport. It was a true testament to the achievements made when these inspiring members of the community come together. With over 160 players participating—some older, some young and some who had never kicked a ball before—it was truly a pleasure to see this event take place. Australia is one of the world's leaders in women's soccer, and it is fantastic to see so much involvement in an activity that strengthens women's participation in sport and brings our community so much closer together.
Also in recent weeks we celebrated the end of another great season at the Eastwood Ryde Netball Association. On Saturday, 1 September I visited the grand finals ceremony to watch very competent young women be rewarded for their achievements in the netball competition. I would like to thank personally the president of the association, Karen Waud; the vice-president, Di Bills; the sponsorship coordinator, Anne Doring—known as Adoring; the secretary, Edwina Brown; and the treasurer, Katrina Doring. They put together a memorable award ceremony that confirmed the great skill and hard work that is distinctive in our area. ERNA and Roselea Football Club have continually provided the women of Bennelong with opportunities in sport and group activities, which have done a great service for the area, and I thank them dearly. These organisations are perfect examples of how community organisations serve so many constituents. I congratulate all involved for bringing our community together through sport.
As you would know, Deputy Speaker Georganas, on Tuesday, 4 September the Marshall Liberal government handed down the Liberal Party's very first South Australian budget for 16 years. Sixteen years is a long time in the wilderness, and you would have thought that they had learnt a thing or two, but this was a budget made up of cuts, closures and privatisations. Just today, we see the state's prisons locked down because of the threat of privatisation of the Adelaide Remand Centre. We could talk about their cuts to health, where the effects will be seen in our electorates in the future.
It's also the budget that announced the closure of seven TAFE campuses. The Marshall Liberal government want to shut down the Port Adelaide campus, the Tea Tree Gully campus, the Urrbrae campus, the Roxby Downs campus, the Coober Pedy campus, the Wudinna campus and the Parafield campus. The Parafield campus, which is based at Parafield Airport, adjacent to my electorate, teaches aviation maintenance courses. It would seem to be a good place to teach those courses. Of course, if those courses aren't picked up then those TAFE students, or anybody who wants to study that important skill, will have to move interstate to continue their studies.
So we've seen the short-sighted closure of seven different TAFE campuses around the state. It is primarily an assault on the job opportunities of young people and people who may have been made redundant as part of the automotive closures, or something like that, who are seeking to and need to upgrade their skills. This is the reaction from the state Liberal government: closure of TAFEs, closure of courses and closure of opportunities—closure of employment opportunities in particular.
If I were the member for King or the member for Newland, who both have margins of less than two per cent, I would be very worried. Paula Luethen in King and Richard Harvey in Newland should be bashing down Steven Marshall's door and trying to get him to reverse these cuts and closures. If they can't do that then they're going to be held accountable. They're going to be held accountable in the northern suburbs, and they're going to be held accountable in the north-eastern suburbs. There's an opportunity at the next federal election to send those members a very clear message, not just about federal politics but about the state Liberal budget. It is a budget that has TAFE closures in their local areas, with the closure of skills, the closure of job opportunities and the closure of progress in our state.
I want to take this opportunity to talk about just a few of the activities and achievements of note that are taking place in my local schools. I readily acknowledge that these are just the tip of the iceberg and that every day, in schools across my electorate and around the nation, the dedication of our teachers, support staff, parents and volunteers helps to create places of learning and engagement that are challenging and shaping our leaders of tomorrow.
It's one of my great joys as a federal member to visit my schools, and it always leaves me inspired and amazed by the achievements of both staff and students. Recently, I had the pleasure of visiting Elanora State School as part of National Science Week, to view the incredible work that their students are doing in science. To see the enthusiasm, inquiry and energy these students had for scientific learning was such a credit to the school and a great sign for the future. I note that Elanora State School also conducts a special coding, drone and robotics club after school to encourage students in these pursuits. It's a fabulous opportunity for these primary school students to gain and grow an interest in science and technology and to help develop skills that we know are so valuable and so important for the future. As an engineer by profession, my own love for science is obvious and well known. I know many other local schools with special science programs who take part in competitions like F1 in Schools, which I have supported over many years, and other enrichment activities that give students practical experience in how science helps shape our world. Congratulations to the staff, students and parents at Elanora State School. I especially acknowledge and welcome their new principal, Toni Robinson.
In the short time I have left, I want to talk about the community work being done and supported in our schools. Once again, I know that many schools conduct special charity fundraisers for worthy causes, often driven by the students. Earlier this year I visited St Augustine's school, where their social justice team was busy preparing care packs with essential toiletries to give to those in need in the local community. I was also delighted to meet with the Marymount College Interact club and support their efforts by donating a hamper for them to raffle. The club fundraises for St Vincent de Paul to help those in our community who are doing it tough. These are just a few recent examples of exactly the sort of social engagement and community care the Prime Minister was talking about when he spoke about bringing Australians together. I commend the schools in my electorate and I look forward to catching up with them not only during their school visits here but also back in the electorate.
Luana and Kathleen are both loving mothers in their 30s from my local community. Jarrau is an 18-year-old recent graduate from Woodridge State High School, also in my electorate. None of them thought they were cut out for university or it that was a realistic option for them, but I'm so delighted to say that all three of them are now studying at Griffith University's Logan campus in my part of the world. All three of them are the first in their immediate family to attend university and all three are role models for their loved ones. They can credit their own dedication, commitment, sacrifices and drive for making the transition from thinking that further study wasn't for them to enrolling in and attending uni to advance their prospects in life, but I know they would also acknowledge that the terrific outreach, support and mentoring services provided to them by Griffith have helped and are still helping them throughout their journey.
Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, as you know, higher education shouldn't be just for people from the wealthiest suburbs or the fanciest families. It's a disappointing reality that only about 17 per cent of people—less than one in six—aged 25 to 34 in my local community have a bachelor's degree or higher. When you compare that to the national average of 35 per cent, you see that people in my local community are less than half as likely to have a uni degree as the rest of the country. This needs to change. Going to uni or TAFE should be about harnessing the talents and efforts of people right around Australia including, if not especially, in communities like mine. That's why I'm so proud and pleased that Labor last week announced a $174 million package to go towards mentoring and supporting people from disadvantaged communities and underrepresented groups to go on to further study at TAFE or university. It'll be vital for ensuring that communities like mine with low graduation rates will have those opportunities. As Kathleen, whom I mentioned at the outset, said in her own words:
If I could turn back time, I would have gone to uni straight out of school. At the time, I didn't think I was smart enough to go, but now there are all these programs to make the pathway easier.
Kathleen, who is now 38, studies nursing and has encouraged her kids to pursue university degrees. One of the staff members in the programs at Griffith University, Kwan Borden, who is a friend of mine, summed up the benefits of these kinds of programs well when he said:
The programs are really about raising aspirations for university study, so people can see university as an option for them to raise their outcomes in life.
I thank and acknowledge the members for Sydney and Maribyrnong in particular not only for their announcement last week but also, more than that, for believing deeply in educational opportunity and, in doing so, believing in my community and the people who make it terrific.
On occasion, we members of this House rise to mark the passing of leading citizens from the various electorates that we represent, and on some occasions it relates to a good friend. I rise today in relation to the passing of Professor Steven Raine of Toowoomba, whom we buried after a wonderful ceremony—a very meaningful ceremony—at Burstows funeral home just last Friday. There was a massive crowd and, given Steven's legacy, people tuned in from around the world.
A Brisbane boy and UQ graduate, Steven came to Toowoomba in 1995 as associate head of the University of Southern Queensland's faculty of engineering and surveying, in the area of agricultural and environmental engineering. He went on to hold a number of key leadership positions in our wonderful university—for example, acting dean for the faculty of engineering and surveying and, most recently, executive director of the Institute for Agriculture and the Environment, from 2013, now known as the Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment. I had a great deal to do with Steven when he was in that role, although I'd interacted with him over many years. It was a great honour indeed to help him and the university establish that centre, to collaborate with the department of agriculture in Queensland and to facilitate coordination with the Grains Research and Development Corporation.
Steve had a great vision for our region. He was involved in irrigation and soils research. He focused on the sustainability of the cotton, grain, sugar, fruit and vegetable industries, and he was recognised for his efforts around the world. His focus on the co-existence between agriculture and the resource sector was a tremendous legacy for our country, not just for Queensland, and he was recognised very much as an industry champion. He was very much involved in Food Leaders Australia, again in an effort to focus on the future of our region; the GasFields Commission Queensland; and the Inner Darling Downs Community Consultative Committee for the Inland Rail. He was a bike rider of some repute, he was focused on Fiat motor cars, and he was recognised as an academic and researcher extraordinaire and, as I said, an industry champion without peer.
'Steve had an irrepressible enthusiasm and was known for his energy and drive. He will be fondly remembered as a person with warmth, compassion, integrity and dignity.' So said the USQ Vice-Chancellor, Professor Mackenzie, last week. I was touched by Steve's warmth and compassion from time to time in my life. We will truly miss him. Vale Professor Steven Raine.
In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
I join with many members on this side of the House in lending support to the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018. We know that this out-of-touch government just does not understand the crucial role that penalty rates play in assisting families with their everyday lives. Families are under cost pressures, and the cutting of penalty rates affects their ability to pay bills, put food on the table and meet mortgage repayments. For many families in my electorate of Fowler, in south-west Sydney, penalty rates are crucial. They are the reason they give up quality family time, to which there is a penalty attached. The reason so many Australians sacrifice weekends is that penalty rates are not simply that little bit extra; they make a real and significant difference to the lives of many.
Labor will continue to fight to support penalty rates and, indeed, to support all working Australians. Unfortunately, this government has repeatedly demonstrated a total lack of regard for battling working-class families. This government shows no understanding of the daily household pressures—rising health costs and rising cost of living in general—that families are faced with at a time when we have stagnant wage growth. This is a government that engages in policies to advance wage stagnation, restricting the growth of workers' wages while starving the economy of spending and, more importantly, starving the economy of confidence.
On the question of wage growth, it must be quite embarrassing for those opposite that the government's then Treasury secretary, John Fraser, stated this:
There are a number of structural trends that are undermining our capacity to raise the revenue that we have come to expect from a growing economy.
One such trend is a shift in the composition of growth away from wages and towards corporate profits.
Yet this is the mob that wants to give an $80 million lift to the big end of town. Despite the evidence, the government has persisted with its misplaced policies. It also created the vacuum allowing the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates. The government gave no incentive not to do that, and it did not join with Labor in opposing it. As a matter of fact, the government did not take any of the eight opportunities to join with Labor to oppose the cutting of penalty rates.
This is a cut of up to $77 a week for the lowest paid workers—people in retail, people working in accommodation and people working in hospitality. In my electorate of Fowler, this represents almost 10,500 people—the last census showed—that work in accommodation, hospitality or retail. They are low-paid workers. Mine's not a rich area. There are many things to be particularly proud of in my area, including being the most multicultural community in the country, but it's not a rich area, and $77 a week means a hell of a lot to those families that are struggling as it is. People might want to say they are aspirational. I think they do want to deliver better lives for themselves and their families. They work very hard to do that. This government has shown no inclination to support them. It's certainly shown more than an inclination to support the top end of town. If you're one of the four banks, all those caught up in the royal commission at the moment for nefarious activities involving normal people, you'll get a big tax break too. But the government attempted to buy these people off with a $10 a week tax cut, and yet they will lose $77 a week by losing their penalty rates.
This is a government that is hopelessly out of touch. This is a government that does not understand what it is that working families need to do to put food on the table, to make a difference in the lives of workers and their families. The government doesn't know what it needs to do to assist these families in the long run. We've seen what the government wants to do in terms of education. We've seen what it wants to do about health. Now we see what it wants to do about moving the parameters towards big business and not working families. This is just another example that this government is out of touch. (Time expired)
Last week's national account figures confirmed what millions of working Australians already knew: Australia is in the midst of a wage crisis. While company profits continue to climb, workers' share of GDP has fallen to record lows. In fact, company profits are now growing at five times the rate of pay packets. That's right—five times. Meanwhile, household costs are at near record highs, thanks to the failure of this government to rein in distorted tax concessions, and power prices look set to climb thanks to the gaping void currently sitting where the government's energy policy should be. Unsurprisingly, given all this, household savings are at a decade low. Whatever measure you consider, it is clear that life is getting harder and harder for many Australians.
The government have proven time and time again that they just couldn't care less. A compassionate government, faced with this diabolical set of figures, would have done all they could to boost wages and give working Australians a leg-up. But, no, not this lot. When looking at the acute cost of living pressures and stagnant wages facing millions of Australians, what do they do? They cut penalty rates. They refuse to reverse their opposition to increasing the minimum wage. They reiterate their plan to give people earning $200,000 a year a $7,000 tax break, while a retail worker earning $35,000 gets a measly tax break of $3.85 a week. This tells you everything you need to know about the priorities of the Liberal government. While the personnel may have changed over the last couple of weeks, the antiworker agenda remains exactly the same. Don't be fooled by this new Prime Minister's honeyed promise that he's your best mate and that he's got your back.
The loss of penalty rates at the hands of the Turnbull and Morrison—and whoever might be next—governments has been a vicious blow for some of the lowest-paid workers in Australia. In my community of Newcastle as many as 13,000 people, or one in five workers, work in industries affected by the cuts, and they're losing as much as $77 per week from their pay packets. Penalty rates are a legitimate recognition of time spent working antisocial hours—time that you cannot spend with family and friends. They mean that hundreds of thousands of Australians can afford to pay their power bill, send their kids on a school excursion and fill the tank of the family car with petrol for the week.
The idea that cutting penalty rates will create jobs is just about as senseless as the idea that handing over tax cuts to the multinational companies will somehow do the same. Businesses take on more staff when there's greater demand for their products and services, not just because their coffers are growing. Thanks to this government, workers now have less to spend in local businesses, meaning that there's less money flowing in regional economies, like mine in Newcastle. This is just the thin end of the wedge. Today it's retail, food and accommodation, but we've already seen other industries mobilised to drive down pay for their workers too.
If Mr Morrison is genuine about being on the side of Australians, he needs to stand up and reverse these cuts. I suspect he won't. The recent savage ousting of the member for Wentworth from his job and his seat creates a window of opportunity that means we need only one or two Liberal-National MPs to find some courage, cross the floor and roll back these damaging cuts. Given this, I urge members opposite to think of the working Australians in their electorates who are being slugged with the triple whammy of insecure work, skyrocketing living costs and cuts to their penalty rates.
Whatever happens here today, one thing is crystal clear: Labor will restore the penalty rates of up to 700,000 Australian workers. Not only that but we're going to reform the Fair Work Act to put the bargain back into enterprise bargaining. We will call time on the exploitation of so-called permanent casuals. We'll lead a national crackdown on dodgy labour hire companies and ensure that those who do the same job get the same pay. While the Liberals are determined to back the privileged and the powerful, only Labor looks after Australian workers.
I'm very pleased to rise today to support the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018. This private member's bill was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition quite some time ago now, but it remains increasingly evident how important this bill actually is.
We were faced with the decision by the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates for some of the lowest-paid workers across our communities. In response to that, Labor called on the government in a bipartisan way to legislate to protect penalty rates so that the Fair Work Commission had guidance from the parliament about not cutting the penalty rates of workers, particularly unilaterally. We're all aware that there's a better off overall test and sometimes a negotiated outcome is reached where someone gets the offset of an improvement in a benefit for a change in penalty rates. That's a process that legitimately goes on in bargaining. This was not that. This was a unilateral cut to an entitlement that so many workers needed to make ends meet. The government was incapable of coming to an agreement that we should do something about it, so we persevere with this private member's bill.
I think it is rather telling that, as this bill comes up for resumed debate in this place over these sitting weeks, there are very rarely any speakers from the other side who are keen to jump up and defend this particular outcome. I think that says a lot about how much they know it's really affecting people in their local areas. Just as an example, in my own seat of Cunningham, where there are just over 66,000 workers in total, there are 6,054 who work under the 2016 retail trade agreements; under accommodation and food services there are 5,190; and under retail, accommodation and food there are 11,244. So, in my electorate alone, there are well over 20,000 workers who are under the awards that have been affected by this decision, and it means significant loss of income for them. For example, if you were on the fast food award as a casual level 1, you would be losing $1,098 a year. That's a lot of money for a low-income earner. Under the hospitality award, if you were a full-time or part-time level 6 worker, it is $1,271. If you're on the retail award as a full-time or part-time level 6 worker, it is $1,792. These are families who really rely on that compensation for working hours when the rest of us are having time with our family and in our communities. They're working those hours, and they're losing the compensation that was appropriately paid for that sort of work. While we're all able to continue to go to a restaurant, have a coffee or do a bit of shopping on the weekend, they're losing pay because of their requirement to work those sorts of hours.
I think the most frustrating part of this is that the Fair Work Commission and advocates, particularly across the business sector, told us that this would be great. In fact, the member for Gilmore in my own area said it would be a gift and that we would see more jobs and people working longer hours.
An honourable member: The Gilmore gift!
As the member says, the Gilmore gift. I think that has been proven to be a very inaccurate description of this decision.
I just want to draw the House's attention to an Illawarra Mercury report that came out at the end of last year on some work that was done by Dr Martin O'Brien and Dr Eduardo Pol from the University of Wollongong and professorial fellow Ray Markey from Macquarie University. They asked the question: after the application of this cut for a certain amount of time, had it actually created more jobs or given people additional hours? They surveyed 1,000 workers across the sectors. Their findings were very clear that this had not increased jobs and, in fact, existing workers were not getting additional hours, so they were doing the same work and getting less pay. That was the reality.
The brake that it's put on confidence, particularly in rural and regional communities in places like Cunningham, is that people no longer have that additional discretionary spending and they're not spending in their own local little businesses. They're not going out themselves, so it has a cost to our local economies, and you can see that in some of the data that comes out about retail sales and so forth. So it's bad for the individual families, it's bad for our local communities because of its impact on the small business sector, and it's bad for the national economy. A really bad decision needs overturning. (Time expired)
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.
You have heard the truism many times before: small business is the engine room of the Australian economy. I am proud to be part of a coalition government which values and supports the aspirations and hard work of private enterprise. Equally, I am proud to be part of a government which is investing a record $200 billion in the Australian Defence Force's capabilities. As we on this side of parliament know, increased investment and strategic policy environments drive economic and employment growth. With our government's already record jobs growth achievements, I look forward to the added benefits that will bring.
The Ryan electorate is home to Gallipoli barracks, Australia's second largest Defence base, and is also a short drive from RAAF Amberley and has a large contingent of veterans and retired service men and women. The Ryan electorate is also home to a number of niche businesses, partnering with our defence industry. The coalition government is investing in our defence industry, creating jobs all around Australia. To demonstrate the significance of small to medium enterprise involvement in defence projects, I refer to BAE Systems Australia and their contract to build the nine anti-submarine warfare frigates. BAE have already prequalified more than 550 companies, small and medium enterprises, in their supply chain around Australia. It is a national project, and included in the 550 companies are 57 from Queensland. These are 57 local companies, employing local workers and making a significant contribution to our economy. There are 4,000 jobs directly attributable to the project and in the direct supply chain.
Closer to my electorate of Ryan, I refer to the announcement of Rheinmetall as the successful proponent to deliver Australia's new combat reconnaissance vehicle, the Boxer, for Land 400 phase 2—mounted combat reconnaissance capability. During the 30-year life of the vehicles, Australian industry will deliver two-thirds, or $10.2 billion, of the acquisition and sustainment, which will create up to 1,450 jobs right across Australia. As a former serviceman himself, Rheinmetall Defence Australia's Managing Director Mr Gary Stewart, a local Ryan resident, understands the importance of the contribution that specialist small and medium businesses have for his company's large defence project.
The coalition is growing Australia's defence industry, and we are ensuring that companies like Brisbane based Haulmark Trailers will get that work. Haulmark Trailers will build 800 trailers in Brisbane as part of the trucks, trailers and modules contract that was recently announced. Also consider Varley Group Australia's joint venture with Israel's Rafael for the Spike LR2 fifth-generation missile system, manufactured and supported in Australia for the Land 400 program. We are literally opening doors for Australia's businesses to engage in opportunities never before seen.
I have not mentioned Labor's contribution to Defence during my speech because, well, there's nothing to mention. Under Labor, spending on Defence dropped to 1.56 per cent of GDP, the lowest since 1938, the last year of appeasement. Because of the coalition's management of the budget and the economy, we will achieve two per cent of GDP in 2020—a year ahead of schedule, a year ahead of what we had promised. It is simply because we are pulling our weight. We want to be a good ally and we want to look after Australia's national interests. The Leader of the Opposition's war on business is a war on jobs. His war on business is a war on growth and a war on the Australian economy. It is also a war on family businesses and small and medium enterprises, and a war on wages. Significantly, the manufacturing of parts and service offerings of Australia's small businesses not only are for use for our home-grown defence industry but also demonstrate a huge export potential. Again, investment in industry by the coalition is a core tenet of good economic management and ensures that Australian small businesses have a large, big impact.
Australia's defence industry has a range of world-leading capabilities and is well positioned to meet our current and future capability needs. The coalition government is ensuring that our ADF, whether it is the Army, the Air Force or the Navy, has the capabilities to keep us safe in the 21st century. To do this we rely on the skills and expertise of Australian small businesses, and I encourage all of them to explore opportunities to supply their products and services to the ADF. I thank my colleague the member for Fisher for this motion and look forward to working with Queensland counterparts to encourage and grow private sector involvement in the defence industries. I commend this motion to the House.
As the member for Herbert, I'm extremely proud to represent the largest garrison city in the nation. Last week the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, and the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, Amanda Rishworth, visited Herbert to make two significant announcements. Firstly, Labor announced that a Shorten-led Labor government would look to increase the presence of the Royal Australian Navy's amphibious assault ships, known as LHD vessels, at the Port of Townsville. This will create new jobs and further diversify North Queensland's economy.
Townsville is the natural home to expand the nation's capacity in relation to the ADF's amphibious capability. Increased port activity will support real local economic development for Townsville, helping to grow a local defence maintenance industry. That is something that the Townsville business community has been looking to expand further over a number of years. The regular docking of LHD vessels at the Port of Townsville would allow for a continuous program of maintenance work, which is expected to support between 200 and 400 new jobs that will be ongoing for local residents.
This announcement will also facilitate important exercise activities, including, most critically, those related to the joint amphibious capability of the Australian Defence Force. I lobbied strongly for this announcement, as I believe that our city needs to keep developing a local defence industry that creates a sustainable deep maintenance industry. On average, 500 Defence personnel annually transition out of the ADF into my community. This initiative will provide new future employment opportunities for these men and women whilst also creating additional local jobs, including apprenticeships. I want to commend the detailed work undertaken by the Townsville City Council, the Port of Townsville and Townsville Enterprise to secure a greater presence of LHD vessels and their support for a strong defence industry for our region.
With a number of major new naval platforms coming online over the next decade, existing port arrangements are coming under pressure, making our capacity to meet all of our defence posture requirements increasingly unsustainable, as recognised in the government's own 2016Defence white paper. Labor recognises the future need to balance port arrangements through providing complementary options in logical locations to take the pressure off permanent bases such as Garden Island in Sydney. Townsville will be a major beneficiary in meeting these requirements and is a logical location for a contemporary port for the LHDs, given we are home to the Army's multirole and rapid response 3rd Brigade and the amphibious light infantry battalion, 2RAR. Townsville is also uniquely placed to support forward ADF operations in the region, including humanitarian assistance, and bilateral and multilateral activities with our regional partners. This initiative is great news for Townsville and is part of Labor's plan for real jobs in regional Queensland.
But Labor hasn't stopped there in announcing policies that will support our current service and ex-service men and women and veterans. On the same day, Labor announced that a Labor government will sign and establish Australia's first military covenant, a formal agreement that will ensure our nation's Defence Force members are fully supported during and after their service and that will recognise the significant commitment that our armed services make in serving our country. What is most important about this announcement is that Labor will also introduce legislation that will require future governments to report annually to the parliament on how they are meeting their responsibilities in supporting our service and ex-service personnel. The inclusion of accountability ensures that we are measuring outcomes and not just speaking words. The covenant will be similar to the United Kingdom's Armed Forces Covenant, a document of principles promising those who serve or have served in the armed forces, and their families, will be treated fairly. Labor will work with the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and ex-service organisations to draft relevant wording for the military covenant and associated legislation. The covenant will make sure that those in need do not simply fall through the cracks.
I want to acknowledge the strong advocacy work of ex-service organisations, particularly ADSO, and especially local Townsville advocate Ray Martin, whose work and advocacy for the defence covenant over the last nine years must be recognised in this place. Those who put their lives on hold to serve our country deserve to know that we acknowledge the sacrifice they and their families have made in serving our nation and that we are committed to being there for them in their time of need. Signing the covenant builds on Labor's previous commitments to the current and ex-serving Defence community, including our $121 million veterans employment policy and our family engagement and support strategy. I call on this government to make a bipartisan commitment to getting behind Labor's policies. (Time expired)
It's a pleasure to rise today to speak about the government's record investment of some $200 billion in the Australian Defence Force's capabilities. More importantly, with that $200 billion investment pipeline being rolled out, I want to speak today about the positive impacts being felt by small business across Australia. The program provides an outstanding and unique opportunity for Australian business, and the economic and social benefits of it are good not only for businesses but for the communities in which they're located.
A perfect example of this is located in my electorate of Forde. The engineering company Holmwood Highgate has been successful, in conjunction with Haulmark Trailers, in winning a key part of the $1.4 billion Australian Defence Force contract better known as LAND 121. This project will see the replacement of the ADF's fleet of ageing vehicles and trailers, many of which are in excess of 30 years old and are costly and difficult to maintain. Holmwood Highgate was first established in Brisbane in 1950 to supply road tankers to companies like Shell and Caltex. Sixty-eight years later the company is recognised as a great example of dedication to task, good management and a commitment to excellence. This has resulted in steady and measured growth, and today Holmwood Highgate employs 140 people at its Loganholme manufacturing facilities. The awarding of the Defence Force contract is great news on a variety of fronts, not least of which is the creation of new jobs.
To carry out this ADF contract, the company will employ an extra 60 people, providing work at least until 2023. That's 60 more jobs added for years to come at a small business in my local community. It's absolute confirmation, if ever it was needed, that this government's support for investment in small business in our nation means jobs and security for workers and their families. But I'm pleased to say that it doesn't end there. The government's program also means that Holmwood Highgate will invest $2 million in additional capital equipment to carry out the LAND 121 contract and will outsource more than $25 million of associated works to local businesses. It's a multiphase program, providing the Australian Defence Force with the next generation of high-capability field vehicles, modules and trailers. The project will include 1,044 vehicles, 812 trailers and 872 modules. These will be used for military contingencies, for resupplying combat operations and for supporting the ADF's assistance to Australians after natural disasters such as floods, fires and cyclones. It deserves repeating that this government's injection of funds into Holmwood Highgate through the LAND 121 project will provide employment and business opportunities for the people in my electorate for many years to come.
Australia currently ranks 13th in the world for defence expenditure, but is only the 12th-largest exporter. There can be no doubt that the opportunity is there for Australian companies to compete in this lucrative export market. In fact, many Australian businesses who first supply defence materials to the Australian government go on to export these products overseas. I know from my discussions with Holmwood Highgate that that is exactly what they are looking to do. Their CEO, Wade Mellish, has spent significant time in the US talking to the US defence industry about how the technology they have developed here could be of use to the US. The government's efforts to develop the Defence Export Strategy to guide and measure these defence export outcomes will also support our capabilities in this space.
Overall, this shows that it's the government's commitment to ensure that Australian small and medium-sized businesses have an opportunity, through the defence industry statement and through the Centre for Defence Industry Capability, to take part in the opportunities that will be created through a $200 billion long-term investment in building our national defence capabilities. Once again, it is a practical example of this government delivering what is needed for our country on an everyday basis to ensure we have jobs and a growing economy.
If any of those opposite bothered to actually speak to a microbusiness, speak to a small business or speak to a medium-sized business trying to contract with Defence, they would quit with the high-fiving that we have seen in this motion. I used to be a microbusiness, contracting to Defence and to government agencies. I did it for 10 years before I entered politics. I know the challenges of getting on a panel. I know the challenges of having to provide years of records and years of references—virtually, your firstborn—just to get on a panel. I know the challenges of getting work once you are on the panel, and I know how many highly skilled and experienced microbusinesses and small businesses are being forced to contract to primes and multinationals just to get work. If those opposite actually had a conversation with microbusinesses and small and medium businesses, they'd be hearing this firsthand and they would quit with the high-fiving that we see in this motion.
I've also spoken to business chambers across Australia in my role as shadow assistant minister for defence. I've spoken to them about their frustration at getting a fraction of the work on Defence sites, particularly in remote and regional centres like Katherine. I've spoken to microbusinesses and small and medium businesses about their frustration at having to subcontract to primes, and often to subcontractors to those primes, just to get a fraction of the Defence work, and about the fact that they are billed out by the primes or subcontractors at $500 an hour and are getting paid $150 an hour. If those opposite bothered to speak to microbusinesses and small and medium businesses, they'd be hearing this firsthand. They would be hearing that these businesses are carrying a load of contracts and are not acknowledged for their work; they are bringing significant intellectual property to the contract, which is often required to be passed on to the prime or the subcontractor; and they are bringing agility, innovation, new ideas, invention and efficiency to a contract, which is again attributed either to the prime or to Defence. They would be hearing that CASG's new contracting arrangements compel microbusinesses and small and medium businesses to contract to a handful of consortia. They would be hearing about the lack of certainty of work and time lines and the fact that these microbusinesses and small and medium businesses have to lock into long-term rates for short-term contracts. This is the current environment in CASG at the moment with these new contracting arrangements.
If those opposite bothered to speak to microbusinesses and small and medium businesses, they'd hear about the risk aversion in Defence and the comfort and ease it gains from dealing with the big end of town—the large multinational contractors and Defence primes. This is so very different from what we see in Israel, where risk is managed and mitigated but is seen as important for cutting-edge, leading-edge technology, innovation and new ideas. There is an acceptance of a level of risk in Israel, which is at the forefront of so many defence innovations. If those opposite bothered to speak to small and medium businesses and microbusinesses, they'd hear about the fact that those businesses just want Defence to buy one of their products—just one. This is what I heard from Penten, which is coming up with some amazing ideas here in Canberra. They just want Defence to buy one of their products, to test it, to trial it, just to get a foot in the door. And they speak about the fact that they want a brave Public Service to support local industries and support Australian-made defence products here in Canberra and right across the nation.
I ask those opposite this very important question: hearing all those comments from microbusinesses and small businesses, how do they know that so much Defence work is going to the SME sector? In its report of December last year, Australian government procurement contract reporting, the Australian National Audit Office found that multinational primes such as PwC and EY are being incorrectly tagged as small to medium enterprises. The ANAO found:
… a number of businesses with large numbers and values of contracts in 2016-17 that appeared to have been classified as SMEs. These included major consultancy/accountancy firms and other Australian arms of large global business with thousands of employees.
In other words, the official statistics that showed that between 24 and 42 per cent of government work is being won by SMEs are wrong. They are wrong because the use of multiple Australian business numbers by major firms is leading to their miscalculation as SMEs. I say to those opposite: quit the high-fiving and focus on a reality that misleading government statistics are hiding, so that we have no idea about the scale of the problem. (Time expired)
The Federation Chamber will suspend until the chair is resumed.
Sitting suspended from 11:39 to 11:43
Defence and the defence industry sector are incredibly important to the economy of the Northern Territory. Many Territory businesses supply quality products and services to the Australian Defence Force, and NT business groups advise that things have improved a bit in recent times, which I'm glad to hear. There is still room for improvement. That was my message when I recently spoke at a defence industry event. I'm always happy to acknowledge when there is some progress by the government of the day in relation to local companies having a better go at getting defence contracts. However, I also acknowledge that there is still some way to go, and I'm very glad to be part of the process in the opposition of developing policy that is going to go even further in improving access to defence work for companies, particularly in regional areas like the Northern Territory.
As the member for Fisher noted in his motion, many Australian businesses who first supply defence materials to the Australian government go on to export these products overseas. This is a very important issue because, in addition to the immediate economic benefits of defence work to our local communities, longer term it helps to build the capacity of the Northern Territory and other regional economies because there is a flow-on effect to the economy at large. Defence work helps to build skills, knowledge and experience, and catalyses other opportunities across construction, marine engineering and resources.
Last week, I attended the LAND FORCES 2018 conference in Adelaide. It was a great chance to catch up with Territory businessmen like Paul Sharp from ENZED service centre in Darwin and other Territorians, such as Janet Phillips from Territory Surgical Supplies; Anthony Bellottie from Norship; and, of course, Kerryn Smith, our CEO of the Australian Industry Defence Network Northern Territory. Kerryn introduced me to many other Territory businesses and also to Rob Forbes, who is the national president of AIDN-NT, and Paul Johnson, who is the co-chair of the Centre for Defence Industry Capability. It's very important that we use every opportunity available to us to improve the access that Territory businesses have into the defence industry opportunities that abound.
I appreciated speaking to all those Territory businesses about some of the challenges and opportunities they see for accessing defence work, and also about some ideas about how we can better work together to help Territory businesses get more of those defence contracts. I was personally proud, whilst at the LAND FORCES 2018 conference in Adelaide, to make connections between Territory businesses—the primes—and those in the defence industry who are making the decisions on where the work goes.
Recently, I spoke to the AIDN-NT about the importance of doing business with the US military in the NT. Again, I want to thank Kerryn Smith, the CEO of AIDN-NT for her great advocacy work to help Territory businesses get some of that work and succeed in the industry. Jim Eadie from Sunbuild spoke at that event, and it was great to hear from a construction manager who has been successful in getting some of that US government work. Bill Savarino also spoke. He has a long history of helping companies get contracted work with the US government.
We're getting feedback from Territory businesses that we're on the right track in terms of getting more of a go for SMEs, but there's more that we can do. Territory businesses have really appreciated the opportunity to speak with the shadow minister for defence, Richard Marles the member for Corio. Territory businesses ultimately just want a level playing field. They're not asking for special treatment via special tax zones at this stage, but they know they can compete with the best that Australia and the world has to offer. With more of a level playing field, they will go from strength to strength, becoming an important part of our national defence industry network.
It's a great opportunity to speak in relation to this motion on an area where there's a lot of potential for bipartisanship. Of course, on our side we have been more than happy to engage in that open-armed approach to make sure that Australian industry has the maximum opportunity to participate in the defence industry space as it's going forward with the potential that new technology and programs that are coming on stream offer to them.
Unfortunately, the current Minister for Defence, the former Minister for Defence Industry, tends to play shameless politics in this space. He's claimed that they're the ones who have done everything in relation to promoting small and medium enterprise participation, but it simply isn't the case. What we have seen during the five years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has been, firstly, a period when a lot of stuff was derailed through the captain's picks of the Abbott era, but also the rebadging of what were Labor programs. I remember very vividly, as part of the Defence portfolio, the programs that we put in place to assist small and medium enterprise, which included the defence export unit. The defence export unit was very successful in enabling about 240 companies, from 2007 onwards, to get contracts in excess of $760 million. That was under Labor. We established that defence export unit. We established the Australian Military Sales office for facilitating commercial-to-government and government-to-government sales, which also resulted in many millions of dollars worth of deals. We established the Global Supply Chain Program, which enabled 90 per cent of the value of our activities in that space to fall to SMEs—262 contracts for 59 companies, with over $550 million worth of opportunities achieved.
We had many other industry support programs that provided great assistance to industry, like the Skilling Australia's Defence Industry, or SADI, program. Under that scheme, 26,500 training places were made available, including 3,000 apprenticeships. We've seen 140,000 apprenticeships disappear under this government, which is quite a stark contrast to what Labor was able to do in government in supporting those companies. There were 200 companies that participated in that SADI program. We established the Defence Industry Innovation Centre, which assisted hundreds of SMEs. Five hundred and seventy different companies were introduced to formal agreements to enable them to develop their technologies, their innovations and their business space to participate in defence industry.
In addition to all of those measures, I could go on for quite some time to talk about other mechanisms that we established. But there are still a lot of issues out there for Australian SMEs, which I talk to all the time in my role as the shadow defence industry minister. They particularly relate to dealing with Defence and dealing with primes, and the relationship between SMEs and primes. There needs to be a greater investment in facilitating that relationship and making sure our SMEs are dealt with fairly in working with primes. That includes getting paid on time, which otherwise creates severe buffeting for a lot of them. The CDIC process that the government established, which was meant to facilitate and assist industries, is not working anymore. It's broken because it cannot keep pace with the volume. Effectively, we need something with much wider scope and capable of facilitating the participation of SMEs in these processes and their development. The SADI program was axed by this government and replaced by a really ad hoc private operation which has not met needs. I talk all the time to companies that would like to see the SADI program brought back, because they got great value out of it.
What we've also seen with the massive shipbuilding effort, which will arrive over the next couple of decades, and with projects like Land 400 is that the skilling plan is just not there. We have seen a glossy pamphlet but no substance behind it. All the industry participants out there say to me all the time that they can't see how they're going to deliver the skilled workforce of the future. It would be Labor's intention in government to seriously address the issue of defence industry support, providing better identification of capacity and facilitating the further development of that capacity. In addition, we'd make sure there was a national, coordinated effort to build the skilled workforce needed to deliver these projects into the future. It's a great opportunity, but it needs a government that's not divided, inward-looking and focused on its own issues but looking at the future for Australia.
There being no further speakers on the motion, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I am pleased to rise to speak on the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018. Many on the Labor side of the House have had our names on this bill for quite some time. When it was first tabled in the parliament, we welcomed that we were finally seeing an individual put forward a private member's bill to phase out long-haul live sheep exports.
I have to say, at the beginning of my contribution, that I'm not quite sure whether the member who moved this motion, and her seconder, still wish to proceed. If we take the media reports, it is our understanding that the member for Farrer has actually said she's going to abandon this bill, which would see the orderly phase-out and ban of live sheep exports. The member for Corangamite, who originally seconded this bill, has also said that, given her elevation, she is going to abandon this bill. Those two members need to come into the chamber to clarify their position on this bill that is before us. Are they going to proceed with what they said back on 21 May that they'd do, which is to cross the floor on legislation that would see the phase-out of live sheep exports? Are they going to continue to support their own private member's bill, which is before us and which we are debating right now, that would see the phase-out of live sheep exports?
Labor do support the bill that is before us because we believe that this cruel trade must come to an end. This bill would immediately suspend the trade during the northern summer months, which are between 1 June and 30 September. We are still in the midst of this period. Like many in this place, my inbox has been inundated with emails and letters from people very concerned about the welfare of sheep on long-haul live exports. I will mention a few. I have received over 1,200 individual emails and letters from locals expressing their concern about the treatment of sheep on long-haul live exports. I will read a few words that I have received. Rosemary said:
It's unjustifiable that gentle sheep are 'cooking alive' on export ships.
Another constituent, Terry, said:
I can't actually comprehend that they are still permitting these vessels to go.
… … …
Voters have been waiting for political action …
They have called for all of us in this place to support this bill. Paige, who lives in Bendigo, said:
It's also so wrong that sheep could be sent overseas during times of hot weather. It's clear that … heatstress is a terrible way for animals to be treated.
Christina from Elmore said:
The latest heart-breaking expose of the live-export industry shows the horrifying conditions endured by nearly 64,000 sheep sent from Fremantle to the Middle East last August. Approximately 2,400 of those sheep died from heat stress … the deaths of so many …
They want to see our parliament act. Those are just some of the words of people in my electorate who have contacted me to urge me and others in this place to support this bill. It's time that this parliament got on with phasing out live sheep exports. We have said that it should be done in an orderly way over a period of five years, which would give us time to establish new markets for these sheep and would give us time to work with the industry to establish where they could be processed as we convert from the export of live sheep to chilled processing. I have a meatworks in my electorate. When I spoke to them I asked if this could be done, and they said yes. With the right support and with the right industry engagement, this could be achieved.
As I stated at the beginning, the media reports are correct, and both the mover and the seconder of this bill have now declared that they're abandoning their support for this bill. Where are we today? They should come in here and clarify their position.
by leave—I know that I have already made some comments on the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018, but I think it's very important to restate some of those things. Many people who have spoken before and after me on this particular bill have highlighted the cruelty of this trade, the absolute horror that we have seen in TV and newspaper reports of these animals who are absolutely mistreated in scorching heat on these hell ships, where they die, get diseases and are not treated well. We should be very proud of the way we treat animals here in Australia. We should stop this trade immediately to ensure we can treat our animals in the right way to add value to the industry by processing those sheep here and exporting them to markets overseas.
I rise to speak on the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018. Like most of Australia I have been shocked at the vision we have seen over the past few months. I know that every Australian agricultural producer would be equally shocked at these scenes of cruelty. We understand that. It is time for this cruelty to be stopped. It is time for us to support the industry to transition. Thankfully live sheep exports have been in decline for many decades. We need to support our sheep farmers to make sure they're sustainably profitable and to create more jobs in Australia.
I was brought up in St George in the Balonne Shire out in Western Queensland. The first dollar I earned was working in a shearing shed with the McCoskers at Dundee Station. I know the importance of supporting our farmers and making sure we get the balance right. The major primary industry of the Balonne Shire when I was a kid was the sheep, wool and beef industry. It has now become much more diversified. Things like cotton have taken off. I grew up surrounded by hardworking Australian sheep producers, graziers and shearers. I know how hard they work. I know that welfare for their livestock is always paramount. Sheep Producers Australia in a media release in April this year said:
Producers want best animal welfare outcomes. We want to know the same high standards of animal care are maintained once our sheep leave our properties. We are pleased that the livestock export industry is moving to make changes and we look forward to the trade's animal welfare outcomes being improved in future.
Supporting the sheep industry to transition from live exports will not only ensure the welfare of our livestock but also produce more Australian jobs. I am the son of a butcher, two of my brothers were butchers, my grandfather was a butcher and my uncle was a butcher, so for me, supporting the transition away from live exports will mean more jobs in Australia, with the meat producers having more to do with the slaughter of animals. Treating our animals properly and keeping jobs in Australia are things I care passionately about, and I'm sure most Australians would support them.
We shouldn't back this just when it is politically convenient; we need to back this piece of legislation because it is the right thing to do. This bill was introduced by the member for Farrer and seconded by the member for Corangamite. The member for Farrer has been firm in her support for this bill. In a speech in parliament on 21 May she said that the live sheep export trade was 'built on animal suffering' and:
The case for continuing long-haul live sheep exports fails on both economic and animal welfare grounds.
Where are those members now? It would appear that they've sold out their convictions for political promotions. They have put their own political welfare above animal welfare. They have chosen self-interest over doing the right thing by farmers and their livestock. They have abandoned this private member's bill to phase out the live sheep trade and support farmers in that process. They have forgotten the shocking treatment of 60,000 sheep who suffered on board the Awassi Express in the height of the searing Middle Eastern summer. They have forgotten the outrage after the community was confronted with those shocking scenes. I haven't forgotten, and neither have my Labor colleagues.
This problem is not going to solve itself. There are three inherent flaws in the current business model for live sheep exports: first, it's reliant on the wretched Northern Hemisphere summer trade, and there is no way to reconcile appropriate animal welfare standards with that trade; second, the cruel conditions imposed on livestock promote higher payments to sheepmeat producers engaged in that trade and disadvantage domestic processors here in Australia; and third, the community will not tolerate the cruelty inflicted on Australian animals in this live export trade. The reality is that this trade can't continue.
I applaud the member for Farrer for initially introducing this bill. It is important that there is an organised transition so that Australian sheep farmers are supported and that markets adjust appropriately. But once again we've seen that members of the coalition, whether they're Liberal or National or Liberal-National, won't stand for anything that gets in the way of their own political ambitions. While the members for Farrer and Corangamite will no doubt be celebrating their promotions to Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories, and Assistant Minister for Social Services, Housing and Disability Services respectively, this bill will lie abandoned, the convictions that were so strongly advocated just a few short months ago quickly tossed aside. We need to make sure we get the balance right. We need to look after Australian jobs, and to do that we need our sheep to be slaughtered in Australia appropriately under Australian conditions.
There being no further speakers on this bill, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I'm very pleased to speak on this motion, but it is a very sad point to discuss. The leading cause of death for young Australians aged 16 to 24 is not car accidents, it's not alcohol-fuelled violence and it's not cancer; it is suicide. For every death, every completed suicide that occurs, there are 200 young people who either attempt or contemplate suicide. In my community, we have had townships that have been rocked by suicide. There is a ripple effect from the loss of so many lives. It causes such immeasurable loss for families, for parents—I don't know how they can go on—for the network of friends, for the local school, for workplaces, for our whole community. We all grieve the loss of lives gone far too soon.
In light of those statistics, I was relieved to hear the Minister for Health announce the government is committed to making the mental health of young Australians a priority. With that commitment in mind, I want to read one of the key findings from a recent Mission Australia report into the mental health of young people in regional and remote Australia. Mission Australia said:
Mental health knows no geographical … boundaries; however, the provision of services does.
We know that young Australians are suffering in silence, both in townships and in the country. We know it makes no difference where you live. However, the regional divide does make all the difference with respect to the opportunity for young people to manage those mental health issues and to seek support and get access to services. We know that, sadly, the risk of suicide increases as the distance from the major cities increases. Regional Australians like my constituents on the southern Fleurieu are battling long waiting lists, high costs of services and a frustrating lack of public transport. Their isolation exacerbates this issue. It is for these reasons that I am campaigning for a permanent headspace centre at Victor Harbour, and this report makes it clear that securing this service is absolutely critical.
In July this year I joined my community for a youth mental health forum in Victor Harbor. Across the three Fleurieu councils of Alexandrina, Victor Harbor and Yankalilla, we are home to more than 6,200 young people aged between 10 and 24. What was clear from the discussions was that the young people in the area desperately need the same services as their metropolitan counterparts. A few hours of service a week, an email address or a telephone number just don't cut it—it's not the same. We need face-to-face services and a headspace centre of our own, like the one that was recently opened in Mount Barker.
Securing a shopfront in Mount Barker took months of campaigning by our community, which I was very pleased to lead. It was eventually opened in December 2017, but the demand was so great that, even then, as soon as it opened there was an instant backlog of clients, and every day, some nine months later, the demand still shows no sign of abatement. For example, the youth complex care program has supported 682 clients in the Mount Barker office and a further 250 young people through outreach on the south coast. Even those in the complex care program, where needs are most acute, must still wait at least two to three weeks before they can see a clinician. Mental health knows no boundaries, but it would seem that access to affordable and age-appropriate mental health services does depend on your postcode, and for young people living on the Fleurieu access is incredibly difficult. This is just not good enough.
If the Morrison government is serious about the mental health of young people in the regions, it needs to commit to funding affordable and appropriate face-to-face services in the regions. The rollout of headspace services is not complete. We cannot say we have ticked this off. Many young people right across Australia are still desperately in need of face-to-face services. As I said, a phone call is simply not enough. We have a duty to support our young people in Australia, to provide them with the services and skills they need to equip them to become happy and productive members of our community. With the right supports for all young people, no matter their postcode, I believe our young Australians have the great capacity to live successful and fulfilling lives.
I will start my contribution to this motion on mental health by noting some of the statistics on mental health. They are both confronting and, as the member for Mayo just said, heartbreaking. It is important for the House to recognise that we have a national problem. The government deserves congratulations for the steps it has taken thus far, but it is taking a short-term approach that lacks a clear vision.
Around four million Australians aged 16 to 85 experience mental ill health, which represents about 20 per cent of adults, or one in five Australians. In addition, around 600,000 children and youths between the ages of four and 17 are affected by mental ill health. I note that, when I held a youth forum in my office recently, mental health was one of the biggest issues raised by those young Territorians. Incredibly, in the lucky country, our magnificent country, Australia, there are around 65,000 suicide attempts each year. That is almost 180 people a day. That is a cause for national shame. The Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that in 2016 suicide was the leading cause of death among all people aged 15 to 44 and the third-leading cause of death among those aged 45 to 54. Suicide continues to impact Indigenous communities disproportionately, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people twice as likely to die by suicide as non-Indigenous people. That is a statistic that adds to our national shame in relation to mental health. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in the 15-to-17-year age group have a suicide rate more than five times as high as their non-Indigenous peers. Unfortunately, in the Top End, in the community I represent, we have had a spate of youth suicides recently. That is why we are continuing to consult with the community in particular and to work with the trial site to ensure that we can do something about this national shame.
At the 2016 election, Labor's mental health policy had a strong focus on suicide prevention. It included adopting the National Mental Health Commission's recommendation to reduce suicide by over 50 per cent over 10 years. The health and welfare of our veterans remains a priority area for Labor and for me personally. We support the National Mental Health Commission's review into mental health services for our veterans, and we supported the establishment of the Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel.
I congratulate the government for adopting Labor's policy to roll out 12 suicide prevention trial sites across the country. I recently visited the Jamie Larcombe Centre in Adelaide and spoke with a number of mental health professionals and research professionals. I acknowledge Paul Flynn from the Hospital Research Foundation and Karen May from the PTSD centre of excellence, and also Mark Reidy, himself a veteran, for the great work that he is doing not only with Invictus but with local veterans in Adelaide and from around the country through The Road Home. Whilst in Adelaide I met with the incoming CEO of Soldier On. With Soldier On and the support of those others, we will establish in Darwin a facility to support our veterans and first responders as they struggle with issues to do with mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression.
I'm passionate about veterans' mental health but, as federal Labor's men's health ambassador, I also know how significant the issue of men's mental health is. It's an incredibly important issue for men to discuss, as men's health outcomes tend to be worse and, as we know, blokes don't tend to communicate as much about how they're feeling, so we've got a lot of work ahead of us. We need to do more to educate ourselves—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12 : 15 to 12 : 29
As I rise to speak on this motion here today, it is estimated around four million Australians aged 16 to 85 are affected by mental ill health. This represents about 20 per cent or one in five Australians—that is, one in five people in each town or city, each workplace and each community. This covers a range of illnesses, from mothers struggling with postnatal depression to young people in schools, and from employees facing stress and anxiety in the workplace to some of our ethnic minority communities who face a high incidence of some conditions. The mental health of our LGBTIQ community is also of concern, with lesbian, gay and bisexual Australians twice as likely to have a high to very high level of psychological distress than their heterosexual peers. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in the 15 to 17 years age group have a suicide rate more than five times higher than their non-Indigenous peers. These are our people, and we must do more.
In 2016 the ABS revealed that suicide was the leading cause of death among all people aged 15 to 44 and the third most common cause of death among those 45 to 54 years of age. In 2016, 2,866 Australians died from suicide: 11.8 people in every 100,000; around eight people every single day; one person every three hours. There are around 65,000 suicide attempts each year in Australia. That's almost 180 people a day who want to end their lives. These statistics are heartbreaking and confronting.
Along Tasmania's north-west, in my electorate of Braddon, we have some of the highest rates of suicide in the country. We know that there is a prevalence of mental ill health among those living in regional, rural and remote areas. Tasmania's youth suicide rate is the highest in the country, which is why a Shorten Labor government would commit to restoring $4.5 million in funding to TAZREACH, which is a specialist access program that the Liberals cut in 2016, and to creating a headspace centre in Burnie.
There exists unspoken discrimination regarding mental health, like the vast inequalities in funding for research, and like the lack of mental health training for many health department staff. Whether in GP surgeries, outpatient clinics, emergency departments or our first responder units. Primary care professionals are telling us they need more training in mental health than they have. A lack of understanding of mental ill health seems to characterise parts of the social security system, and there is a willingness in this government to overpromise and underdeliver when it comes to providing care for those suffering from mental ill health.
The WHO predicts that by 2030 depression will be the leading cause of disease around the world. People can lose years off their lives as mental ill health undermines their physical health too, increasing their vulnerability in the face of cancer, heart disease and other killers. Mental health must be at the top of the agenda for this government and governments to come. When the new Prime Minister was asked on radio last week for his views on the fundamentalist Christian practice of gay conversion therapy, his response was:
… it's just not an issue for me and I'm not planning to get engaged in the issue.
Well, Prime Minister, allow me to be the first of many to tell you: it is an issue for you. It's an issue for the nearly five per cent of the Australian teenage homosexual population who live in fear of being subjected to a therapy that's been discredited by experts and can have dangerous and sometimes deadly consequences. Real leaders don't wash their hands of serious problems and say, 'That's got nothing to do with me.' They take a stand. They stand up for the mental health of our LGBTIQ population. They stand up and do more to tackle homophobia within religious organisations. They stand up and lead for the people, not fellow Christians. They stand up and vote with a clear conscience, not abstain or vote with a religious conscience.
Mental health is as much an economic challenge as it is a social challenge. The extra physical care necessitated by mental ill health costs the health system several extra million dollars a year. The criminal justice system also picks up the bill. More than one in four of our prison inmates report being on medication for a mental health disorder. Not just do our public services bear the brunt of mental ill health; Australian businesses do too, in time off work and unproductive days at work. Mental health conditions cost Australian workplaces $4.7 billion in absenteeism and $145 million in compensation claims. This costs our economy much more than we can afford. Labor knows there is much to do to ensure Australians living with mental ill health have access to the services they need no matter where they live. Good mental health doesn't start in hospital or the treatment room. It starts in our workplaces, our schools and our communities, and it starts with this government.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) increased immunisation of children, which is essential for protecting them against diseases including pneumonia, polio, rotavirus diarrhoea, meningococcal and measles now saves the lives of 2 to 3 million children per year globally but, nevertheless, 1 million children globally still die each year from vaccine-preventable diseases;
(b) in 2017, 85 per cent of children globally received the full course of the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine, a key measure of vaccine coverage, however, this left nearly 20 million children not covered by this vaccine;
(c) globally, 85 per cent of children receive the polio vaccine, however, gaps in polio vaccine coverage allow some children to contract the disease, with 15 cases in 2018 so far in Afghanistan and Pakistan;
(d) Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to which Australia has been a consistent contributor, has supported the vaccination of more than 640 million children, and saved an estimated 9 million lives; and
(e) in December 2018, Gavi will hold a mid-term review to assess what changes to its strategy are needed to achieve increased and equitable access to vaccines;
(2) recognises that:
(a) Australia co-sponsored a resolution at the 2017 World Health Assembly to accelerate access to vaccines, calling for the extension of immunisation services beyond infancy, increasing domestic financing, and strengthening international cooperation to achieve global vaccination goals; and
(b) current funding by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), to which Australia contributes, is due to decline significantly as polio nears eradication—this funding covers one fifth of the World Health Organisation's costs, and accounts for a high proportion of the health and vaccination workforce in several countries; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) participate in planning to accelerate progress in making vaccines available to all children, including through the Gavi mid-term review; and
(b) work with countries now receiving polio support and multilateral agencies to ensure that transition from GPEI funding results in increased resources for other health and vaccination programs.
This is a motion that will save millions of lives, and I can say that without hesitation. Immunisation and vaccination have saved many millions of lives in the 20th and 21st centuries and will continue to do so provided we are vigilant. In this day and age, there are still between 1½ and two million children every year who die from vaccine-preventable disease. Many more suffer from the long-term sequelae of vaccine-preventable disease. It is an issue that, in a developed country like Australia, has bipartisan support, and I thank the member for Bennelong in particular for seconding the motion and also the member for Batman and the member for Lindsay for speaking in support of this motion.
I am a member of the first generation to have population-wide polio vaccination. I can still remember children a little older than me who had caught polio and were just ahead of me at school, suffering the sequelae of polio. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, of which Australia is a long-term member, has markedly improved vaccine coverage over the last decade or more in the developing world, and it is in countries where children are most at risk and most vulnerable that Gavi has done its best work. It's vaccinated over 600 million children so far and aims to vaccinate over 300 million children over the five years between 2016 and 2020.
One challenge that Gavi faces as it rolls out vaccination in countries that are developing is that, as countries' per capita income increases, Gavi gradually withdraws its funding, and it's found that there is a slip in the number of children being immunised in those countries that are transitioning from Gavi funding. So they need to be ever vigilant in that area, and they are working with the World Bank to see if funding can be obtained to cover the shortfall in countries as their per capita income increases.
Vaccine-preventable disease, to me, is a real issue. I've seen many of the diseases that are now prevented by vaccines, such as measles, mumps and chickenpox. I worked at the children's hospital in 1977-78 in Sydney, when we had the last huge measles outbreak in Australia. I saw some children die and many suffer the long-term consequences of severe measles. I have seen many children with mumps and chickenpox, all of which are now vaccine preventable. I've seen children with congenital rubella. Unfortunately, even in Australia, we're still seeing children with congenital rubella in Australia, although thankfully very rarely now with widespread vaccination. These children are often left severely handicapped, with blindness, deafness, intellectual disability, cardiac disease and seizures. Luckily we don't see them. We still see the occasional child with Haemophilus influenzae and pneumococcal meningitis. Very rarely, we see children with epiglottitis, which is a severe airway obstruction due to Haemophilus influenzae, which is completely vaccine preventable. I have even seen people with polio and diphtheria in my working career. So these are diseases that still have the potential to recur, and we must be ever vigilant. In New Guinea, recently they've had 13 cases of polio, and this could have been prevented by population vaccination.
I want to make the point today that immunisation is a victim of its own success, because these diseases are out of the common knowledge. Many of the general practitioners, and even many of the younger paediatricians working in Australia these days, have never seen many of these diseases, including a disease that was very common when I was training, which is measles. We just don't see those diseases anymore. It's out of people's consciousness, and it's very easy for people to forget about the importance of immunisation. It's also very important we make sure that we promote immunisation programs through Gavi and others in our near neighbours, particularly in developing countries, because what occurs in developing countries comes to Australia in this era of rapid transport. I commend this motion to the House. I thank the members for their support.
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion. Thank you to my friend and colleague for raising this important issue today. We are lucky to live in a country that places a strong emphasis on the health and safety of its citizens. Our vaccination rate for five-year-olds is at 94 per cent. The coalition government has been highly successful in offering free vaccines for people aged 65 and over under the National Immunisation Program. The benefits of immunisation are undebatable. Its practice has saved millions of lives worldwide and has protected individuals, their families and their communities from some of the most damaging diseases on this planet.
I am proud to represent an electorate that is leading the charge in developing the very vaccines that go on to save people's lives, with Bennelong playing host to a wide range of pharmaceutical research and manufacturing companies, including Sanofi, who provided the over-65s—a very important age group—with Fluvax this year. Its social benefits for our community are matched with the economic benefits it has provided, with Macquarie Park the fastest growing business district in New South Wales. Despite this, more work needs to be done to ensure that no person in our communities, or in our wider communities globally, is left unprotected against these deadly diseases.
The rates of immunisation worldwide are impressive, especially considering the extent to which medical knowledge has advanced over a relatively short period of time. However, in a population that is growing at an exceptionally fast rate, it is easy to disregard the seemingly small percentage of the population that is still not able to access this protection, with the number often being labelled as immaterial. I do not see how the deaths of 1.5 million children each year from diseases like pneumonia, polio and meningococcal are immaterial. I do not see a lack of vaccination coverage for tetanus or pertussis for 20 million children globally as being immaterial. Yes, we have come a long way and, yes, we are protecting more communities than ever before, but it is still unacceptable that so many children each year are falling victim to diseases that are so easily preventable. I think we would all be in complete concurrence here when I say that 13 cases of contracted polio in 2018 is still 13 too many.
Thanks to organisations like Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, Australia is able to actively contribute to the access and delivery of immunisation services to people living in the world's poorest countries. In June 2014, the Gavi board improved the implementation of a five-year strategy which, through emphasising the access, efficiency and sustainability of immunisation delivery, will see the vaccination of 300 million children in developing countries, saving five to six million lives long term. Through cooperation between the private and public sectors, we can ensure that the health and wellbeing of people comes first, in our own and broader communities, and that our people are able to prosper and live healthier lives. Australia is also proud to be a co-sponsor of the 70th World Health Assembly, which places an emphasis on global cooperation to meet vaccination goals. Our involvement in these initiatives sends a clear sign that we are prioritising the health of our national and global citizens to ensure that a person's socioeconomic status does not have an impact on the health services they receive.
If we wish to continue being a nation that encourages strong and safe communities' participation in global initiatives, promoting the availability of vaccines to children is imperative. Supporting their strategies and working closely with these initiatives will deliver immeasurable rewards, and providing education on how to carry through these strategies for generations to come will surely lead to the decline and potential eradication of these diseases. Therefore, I urge this government to continue and advance its participation in global vaccination schemes to ensure that every child, regardless of background, is given the same opportunity of survival as everyone else.
I rise today to support this motion. I thank the member for Macarthur for his work on this issue, and I thank the member for Bennelong for seconding the motion. As a registered nurse, the importance of this motion—moved by a doctor—is not lost on me. It outlines the success that vaccines have had in preventing disease and saving lives. As a mother of four, I feel incredibly fortunate, as indeed all of us should feel fortunate, to live in an era where vaccines now save the lives of two to three million children worldwide every year.
Immunisation support is one of the most proven and cost-effective investments in global health, human security and international development. Vaccination represents an excellent access point for strengthening health systems, based on the goal of universal coverage. While it's easy to get caught up in the meta when talking about this topic, it's worth remembering that those two to three million children who receive life-saving vaccines are more likely to have the opportunity to grow up, follow their dreams and live a long and productive life.
Australia has a successful story to tell when it comes to vaccination. We were among the first countries to introduce vaccines against polio and measles. As a nurse, I have cared for people who have lived in iron lungs for decades, for years and years—all their adult lives well into their 50s—as a result of polio. Not many people would be able to experience meeting someone who's lived their entire life in an iron lung, but I have. I guess I should be grateful that not many people have had that experience—because of vaccinations we don't see that very often anymore—but as the member for Macarthur said, things like that that are out of sight are also out of mind, and we need to be ever vigilant. My own father suffered terribly from tuberculosis, another disease that is extremely preventable by simple vaccinations and, as we heard, has often in very recent times raised its ugly head here.
Our First Nations community also has a fantastic story to tell. Five-year-old Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children have higher immunisation coverage than non-Indigenous children of the same age. Coverage for these five-year-olds is on track to meet the 96 per cent immunisation goal set in the implementation plan for the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2013-2023, and one-year-old children have coverage rates also exceeding the 88 per cent goal in the plan. That is a fantastic outcome.
Globally, Australia has played a significant role. We are consistent contributors to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, who have supported the vaccination of more than 640 million children and saved an estimated nine million lives. Australia also co-sponsored a resolution at the 70th World Health Assembly in 2017 to accelerate access to vaccines, calling for the extension of immunisation services beyond infancy, increasing domestic financing and strengthening international cooperation to achieve global vaccination goals.
On a more personal note, I am in awe of the way vaccines have developed in my lifetime and career. When I was a little girl mums used to have chickenpox parties so the kids actually got chickenpox over and done with. I got chickenpox so severely I was almost hospitalised. Pustules were in my throat. I couldn't swallow. I was dehydrated. They were in my ears and on the inside of my eye cavities. It was terrible. They were so dense in my hair it became a bloodied, matted mess. I was only five years old, and I remember it well! My poor mother set up a camp bed in my room so she could observe me during the nights. Why would any mother want their child to be that sick when there is absolutely no need? Chickenpox of course is not life-threatening, but so many preventable illnesses are. We never again want willingly to see a situation where parents put their children through experiences like that.
As a nurse working in the 1980s and 1990s we did not have to deal with seeing huge numbers of children being struck down by or dying from preventable diseases. Now, as the motion states, there is more work to do: 1.5 million children die each year from vaccine-preventable disease. That is why we are calling on the government to participate in planning to accelerate progress on making vaccines available to all children, including through the Gavi mid-term review and work with countries now receiving polio support and with multilateral agencies to ensure the transition from global polio eradication initiative funding results in increased resources for other health and vaccination programs.
Australia has a great story on supporting global vaccination programs, and this should continue. It is something we can be proud of.
I rise momentarily to speak on this very important motion moved by the member for Macarthur. I am surprised that in my own electorate a number of constituents continue to raise the issue of immunisation with me based on a preponderance of ill-informed misinformation. This is gravely concerning to me. Listening now to the member for Batman talking about how her mother used to throw chickenpox parties reminded me of how my mother did exactly the same thing for us. As the eldest of five children it was a case of not only inviting our friends around to ensure they could contract chickenpox at the earliest possible age to avoid its detrimental effects at later age but also playing closely together with all of our siblings. Well intentioned though it may have been, the further development of Australia's immunisation processes has meant that that is no longer a necessity. That was occurring only a little over 30 years ago. I think this motion stands in great stead about the progress that has been made and the importance of not only the government taking the action that is called for in part 3 of this motion but also continuing to spread the good word about immunisation not just in Australia but globally. I support the motion before the chamber.
It's my privilege to rise today in this chamber to acknowledge the motion moved by Dr Freelander, my colleague, about the importance of vaccines and immunising children. The motion notes that two million to three million children per year are saved by vaccines and talks about our country's incredible vaccine program, but also that 1.5 million children still die each year from vaccine-preventable diseases. Our strong immunisation program is critical to eradicating life-threatening diseases. Failure to vaccinate is a threat to public health. As leaders of this country we need to do everything possible to ensure that parents, family members, carers and the general community know about the deadly risks of failing to vaccinate children—1.5 million children die every year of preventable diseases. Immunisation is one of the most cost-effective public health inventions to date, averting the deaths of two million to three million people per year globally. That is a phenomenal number. It's something we should all be supporting and not taking for granted.
Immunisations have directly affected the eradication of polio, with only three polio-endemic countries remaining. I put on record my thanks to Rotary, who do a great job with their polio eradication program. I also recognise the great work of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which has managed to bring together the public and private sectors with the goal of creating access to new and unused vaccines for children living in the world's poorest countries, something we can and should help with. Gavi has saved an estimated nine million lives and supported the vaccination of more than 640 million children in those countries.
I know firsthand the effects of meningococcal disease, how horrendous it can be and the cost to a family. My only sister contracted the deadly disease 17 years ago. She spent weeks and weeks in an overseas hospital and was actually in a coma. The impact of what she went through has left its mark on my family. The possibility of not bringing her home was very real. The meningococcal B vaccine was not available at the time. I notice that we've had some very critical developments in managing and vaccinating against meningococcal, and we have not seen as many outbreaks as we had previously seen before the vaccine was more widely available. I note that the recent shortage of that meningococcal B vaccine has been resolved, and I'm pleased that that action has now been taken to protect children from this devastating disease.
Any steps that undermine our population's health always should and need to be called out. We need a national education campaign that delivers the message that vaccines are safe, effective and absolutely save lives. This should be included in advertising and information based on reliable science, not Dr Google or opinion. The government needs to do more to ensure that strides are made in making vaccines readily available and accessible to all children, rather than cower to the voice of a minority in the Senate as a sap for a vote, including saying that vaccines lead to autism. I would still rather raise a child on the autism spectrum than face having to bury that child.
It is vitally important that our public hospital system is not placed under any more duress. Out in Lindsay, where I live, our hospital is always under-resourced and under pressure, and there are no plans to put more staff in the hospital currently. So an outbreak from unvaccinated people would certainly cause that hospital to go even further onto its knees.
It's now up to all of us in here to make sure that vaccines, which are a preventative health strategy that supports our health system, are continued. The importance of them is that they save us money as a country and they save lives. A strongly supported vaccine program results in herd immunity. That's where strong members of the community who can be vaccinated are vaccinated in order to help those who are weaker and unable to be vaccinated because they're vulnerable—they're either too ill or too young or they're immunocompromised.
We have seen that this government has been unsupportive, in the past, of the Gardasil vaccination program, which was designed to support girls and women against human papillomavirus, most notably because they said it would lead to promiscuity among girls. However, we now see that it's prevented 70 per cent of infections that can cause cervical cancer. I note, though, that those same MPs weren't out in an a chorus of opposition to Gardasil when we extended it to the boys. I place on the record my support for this private member's motion, and I do so knowing that vaccines are important.
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.
Sitting suspended from 12:56 to 16:00
It's been 17 months since the report of the inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee into serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers and Manus Island and Nauru was handed down. To date, the Liberal government hasn't acted on a single recommendation. I am deeply concerned that refugees in Australian funded offshore-processing centres are being denied access to the medical treatment they need here in Australia. It's utterly deplorable that there seems to be one set of rules for refugees needing medical treatment and another for au pairs with links to a ministerial office. To deny vulnerable people the care they need isn't being tough on border control; it's being cruel and barbaric. But that's what happens when you have a government that sees compassion as a weakness and human rights obligations as an irritant.
Medical transfers should be determined by doctors, not politicians. We don't need a federal court order for Australia to fulfil or understand its duty of care. It's time for the new Prime Minister to step up. The health care and needs of refugees and children must be paramount. The time is up, new Prime Minister. Here's a great opportunity for you to learn from the errors of your past and set the record straight.
Last Wednesday I had the privilege of attending the All Abilities Football and Netball Carnival, organised by Valley Sport, at the Mooroopna Recreation Reserve. The Mooroopna football and netball carnival was the largest combined football and netball carnival in regional Victoria for people with a disability, with well over 150 participants taking part in this year's event from places as far away as Horsham, Bendigo, Echuca and Wangaratta. It's a huge event from Valley Sport. Over four football teams and eight netball teams certainly had a great day. There were smiles of excitement, and expectation was there for all to see. I thank the parents and carers who came from all over Victoria to be there to enable their children and loved ones to have this amazing day of football and netball.
I also make special acknowledgement of Valley Sport all abilities project officer Jarryd Cutler, who organised the entire event. Pam Ferrari was there from Netball Victoria, as were local students from SEDA College. They did the officiating—umpiring, goal umpiring, boundary umpiring and umpiring the girls, as well. Darren Hall of the Mooroopna football club should be congratulated for having all of the facilities available. To Mooroopna netball club and Colin Smith and Allan Parker of the Mooroopna Lions Club: thank you very much. To everyone involved, what a great day it was. (Time expired)
The Prime Minister du jour has said some questionable things during his first fortnight, but I want to draw attention to just one comment. Speaking to a football coach over the weekend, he invited the man to Canberra to 'give the boys a bit of a rev-up'. Let me repeat that: 'the boys.' I'm not here talking about sport; I'm here talking about gender equity and what message that comment sends to girls and women in Australia who are contemplating a parliamentary career.
The Liberals now have more than three men for every woman in their party room. There was a higher share of women in the Liberal party room two decades ago than there is today. There is a higher share of women on Australian ASX 200 boards and in the judiciary than in the federal Liberal party room. Labor, thanks to its adoption of quotas during the 1990s, is now nearly at parity. That's made a difference in how we think through issues such as the tampon tax, reinstating the time-use survey and standing against attempts to water down our progressive tax system and shift the tax mix towards consumption.
Labor has drawn heavily on the important work that's been done showing gender bias within the tax system and the importance of thinking about tax reform through a gender lens. I acknowledge the hard work of experts such as Miranda Stewart, Guyonne Kalb, Meredith Edwards, Maria Raccionero, Sarah Voitchovsky and Pamela Katic, and thank the Women in Economics Network for hosting me to speak about these issues at their forum in Sydney last week.
On 31 August it was my great pleasure to officially open the Pingelly Recreation and Cultural Centre, a building destined to become a Wheatbelt icon. This exceptional building is completely made of wood and is the biggest civic timber construction built in Western Australia since World Two II. Much of the hardwood came from the timber town of Manjimup, also in my electorate of O'Connor. Aged jarrah floorboards were salvaged from the old Pingelly Pavilion and have been repurposed as panelling and decorative features. A big thank you to Pingelly Men's Shed for their hard work dressing these old floorboards, which have been incorporated into the public bar and viewing areas. Using traditional methods of joinery, this building took 18 months for 18 highly skilled artisans to complete, with the project managed by Sime Building Company of Narrogin and Esperance, also in my electorate.
The total project cost was around $9.8 million, with $3.9 million granted through the federal government's National Stronger Regions Fund. The shire itself contributed $4.8 million, with the community chipping in: $10,000 from The Pingelly Times, $5,000 from the Pingelly Development Association, $4,300 from the Pingelly grains focus group and $1,400 from the Pingelly recreation and cultural focus group. Thanks also to Lotterywest, Bendigo Bank, the Forrest Products Commission and CBH for their generous donations.
This wonderful centre is a testament to the vision of former shire president Shirley Lange and CEO Gavin Pollock, who chose the timber design because it will age beautifully. Congratulations to current shire president Bill Mulroney and his team at Pingelly Shire for developing such an iconic building project. It was my pleasure to open a building which will enhance the community's delivery of sporting, cultural and social activities.
We get many visitors to Parliament House—lobbyists and the like, and not all of them are cute and cuddly—but today some of our native animals, including koalas, ringtail possums and even a Tasmanian devil, came into Parliament House. Sadly, they all had one thing in common. They are threatened species. Today is Threatened Species Day. I loved the furry koala photo op as much as anyone, but the point of the visit was that the existence of these species is threatened. That was the message to all politicians in this building. We ignore the pleas of these species at their peril. The legacy by which we will be judged will be the planet that we leave for our children and grandchildren.
Moreton is less than 10 kilometres from Brisbane's CBD but still has a koala habitat that I walk in every morning. Toohey Forest comprises 640 hectares, one of Brisbane's green lungs, and is home to many native plants and animals, including koalas. Like all koalas, the ones in Toohey Forest are under increasing threat. Koalas feed on eucalypts. Gum tree leaves provide all the nutrients and moisture that koalas need to survive. Unfortunately, climate change is causing the leaves to change in composition. They are becoming less nutritious and contain less water. Koalas are climbing down from their trees in search of food and water, thus putting themselves in danger from motor vehicles and domestic pets like cats and all those dogs that run off-leash in Toohey Forest. If we're serious about protecting our threatened species, we need a government that is serious about acting on climate change. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has done nothing to prepare our nation and protect our children and grandchildren against the worst impacts of climate change. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
Before I call the next speaker, I issue a general request. I need to be able to hear the speakers. The level of conversations happening on both sides of the chamber is at times too high.
Thank you for bringing us to order. We're talking NBN. We know the deep and abiding passion on the other side of the chamber to take six years to connect 50,000 premises. This is the one-in-200 policy for the Labor Party over six years. They have constantly traduced our efforts to connect 11.8 million households in just seven years. That's a fair bit better than 50,000 if there's any arithmetic left on the other side. We're using mixed technology like every other nation in the know. It is a mixed technological approach. It has different cost efficiencies in different locations, depending on your points of interconnect, but all that is too much. The most these guys know about the NBN is where the local coffee cart is. They wouldn't know anything about high-tech communications infrastructure, but my locals in Birkdale, Ormiston and Alexandra Hills know about decent NBN services, as will Wellington Point and Cleveland when they are connected in October.
An honourable member interjecting—
I've got some interjections from over there on that side, where they connected 15 houses in their six years, depending on how close you were to a Labor minister. We have moved beyond the politics of dishing out NBN connections according to how senior you are in the Labor government. We're going to do 11.8 million connections—in the same time that they did 50,000—using mixed technology. And we've got the answers for Australians living in black spots that Labor were never going to fix. They became experts—like the North Korean Great Leader: he pointed at things, he looked at things, but by goodness he never fixed anything whatsoever.
This Wednesday is Thank You For Working In Aged Care Day. In the last week I've been fortunate enough to visit two aged-care facilities in my electorate and to meet some of the wonderful, dedicated staff who make up this workforce. As with other vocational sectors that have high levels of female participation, there's no doubt that the commitment of aged-care staff is too often taken for granted and too often used to hold down wages and conditions. And that's wrong. Like early childhood education, aged care is a distinctive and critical labour of love, precisely because the very young and the very old represent special and vulnerable groups in our community. Caring for the oldest and the youngest Australians starts with caring for the people who work in those sectors.
I have been privileged to meet with United Voice aged-care delegates, to understand their experiences and to hear their stories—stories of carers being so rushed by rising client-to-carer ratios that they don't have the time to help people do basic things like wash their hair; and stories of staff reaching into their own pockets to buy basic toiletries, or linen, or even clothing. It shouldn't be like that in Australia in 2018. It cannot be like that in the future. We need a government that puts the right resources and framework in place to ensure that aged-care workers get the pay and conditions that reflect the vital work they do. Unfortunately, that's not the government we've got currently.
But to every person working in the sector, I say: thank you. What you do matters. What you do is valued. And we need to support you better.
Last week in La Trobe we had a National Disability Insurance Scheme information session in Pakenham. Can I first of all thank the organisers who attended: Ben Leigh, the CEO of Latrobe Community Health Service; Chris Cahill, who is an acting director of NDIS; Sharna Goulding, Assistant Director, NDIS; and Debra Inverarity, Early Childhood Early Intervention Manager. In particular, I want to thank all those people who attended who have a disability, and who have waited so long for the NDIS to roll out; and all those carers who have a child with a severe disability, who've always been so concerned about who would look after their child when they can no longer do so.
This was a fantastic day and the great news is that at the moment in La Trobe there are roughly 5,000 people who receive disability support services. This number will increase to 10,000 people, and it will ease the great burden which has been placed on so many families, especially when it comes to those special needs for equipment, and the one-on-one support that people with disabilities need. This will take the burden away from the parents, in particular, who have been carers for so long. It was a great session, and I very much look forward to this rolling out throughout La Trobe in the next 12 months.
After launching the Oxley Parliamentary School Program with a group of year 7 students at The Springfield Anglican College earlier this year, I was pleased to be at Kruger State School in my community last week for the second instalment of this very popular activity for students and teachers. The program is designed to give students who may not have an opportunity to travel to Canberra to see parliament in action a chance to participate in their own House of Representatives debate in the classroom. The students at The Springfield Anglican College earlier this year and at Kruger State School last week have made the program a huge success, and it was fantastic to see the students really embrace their roles in the parliament, and act out a debate on a bill to ban homework. Not only did the students do a tremendous job; they also showed respect towards one another as they debated the merits of the bill. After much debate between the parties, and the crossbench, the bill to ban homework was defeated. Complete with students acting out the roles of Speaker, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and members of parliament, the program allows students to experience how legislation is debated and passed, and how the country is governed.
I want to specifically thank the teachers and other staff at Kruger State School. All the students and teachers are to be commended for their fantastic participation in the program. I look forward to taking the Oxley Parliamentary School Program to more schools in my electorate to provide students and teachers with an opportunity to participate in their own House of Representatives debate. Thank you to Kruger—and well done Kruger Crocs!
The Lane Cove community in my electorate has always demonstrated a selfless community spirit. Last weekend was no exception, with local residents joining together to support two major fundraising events for exceptionally worthwhile causes. The first was held on Saturday at St Michael's Catholic Primary School to raise money for our rural communities experiencing the devastating drought. With an incredible spread that would have done the CWA proud, 150 people came together to help raise $22,000. All these funds are being donated to support Drought Angels. I would like to thank Roslyn Carberry and Sarah Martin and their team for the time and effort given to arranging the fundraiser, as well as St Michael's for making their school facilities available and Jacky Barker for promoting the day through In the Cove.
On Sunday morning, a different type of event was held: the third annual Lane Cove Fun Run. 'Fun' and 'run' are two words I wouldn't normally combine, so I was delighted to again be asked to fire the starting gun for the five-kilometre race rather than to don running gear. This important event continues to grow, and around 2,000 people participated this year—a record number. Over $30,000 was raised for Lane Cove Public School and two children's charities, KIDS and The Pyjama Foundation. That is an incredible achievement. Special thanks go to the race director, Katie Sykes, and the team of volunteers who support the fun run—sadly, far too many for me to mention today. For everyone organising and participating over the weekend, thank you for your contribution and for nurturing the vibrant and generous heart of the Lane Cove community.
Under this dysfunctional Liberal government, critical jobs at the Bureau of Meteorology in Tasmania are in danger of being cut, supposedly in the name of offering a greater level of service. This is despite statements made by Liberal senators that this government would deliver more federal Public Service jobs for Tasmania. Now, true to their bad form, Tasmania is in fact to lose jobs. Staff at the Bureau of Meteorology are concerned that their jobs are on the chopping block. These are Tasmanian jobs that deliver critical services to the Tasmanian community—critical services that are very highly valued.
The local knowledge with which our weather forecast is delivered to our local community every day cannot be replicated simply by automated weather sensors operated remotely from Brisbane or Melbourne. I certainly believe services can be enhanced by technology, but not replaced. Our weather forecasters have been critical during extreme weather events, such as the bushfires that we experienced in Dunalley and floods in Northern Tasmania, Latrobe and Launceston. Without these local forecasts, many lives would have been lost at sea, in the air or in the Central Highlands. This is not just about more federal Public Service job losses in Tasmania; it's about providing the critical services Tasmanians need to keep them safe. All Tasmanians need to fight to retain these essential services that are underpinned by local knowledge and experience in Tasmania.
I rise to inform the House of the excellent work being done by our police officers in my electorate of Bennelong and to welcome Superintendent David Waddell to the area as Ryde's new police area commander. Superintendent Waddell joins our community after his predecessor, Detective Superintendent John Duncan, recently moved to the Eastern Suburbs in May after seven years of excellent service to our community.
Superintendent Waddell has had a long and distinguished career in the New South Wales Police Force, having spent a good period of time working up on the Central Coast. I was very impressed with Superintendent Waddell's proactive approach to fighting crime in the local area by involving community leaders and local businesses to keep an eye out in their local communities and report crime. No doubt, he will bring a wealth of experience and leadership to his new role, and I greatly look forward to working with him in the future.
Additionally, Superintendent Waddell and I discussed the ever-present need to push for affordable housing. The out-of-control prices in our overinflated Sydney housing market have locked out many police officers from owning homes close to their work. As a result, many officers have to spend home time commuting each day. This was another reminder of how important it is for government to take timely and effective policy action to resolve this pressing issue.
If there is anything at all that the sideshow opposite has taught us over the past month, it is their absolute obsession with power. While the now Morrison government play musical chairs opposite, they have also released a draft bill that could give them access to your online data, based on their own assessment, without any sort of independent overview. This is an important issue.
Several of my constituents from Darwin have spoken with me about their concerns. They spoke about what it could mean for all of us—individuals and businesses—and for public safety and the economy if the government compels the creation of online security vulnerabilities. It's fair to say that what they are really concerned about is that the government wants to do this with no right of appeal, no oversight, no review committee and no judicial scrutiny—just the Attorney-General. The bill says that it is the Attorney-General himself or herself who must be satisfied with the Attorney-General's own request that it's reasonable and proportionate. I guess this is what passes for a decision process in this government. Meanwhile, Labor believes that, when designing laws to protect the Australian community, it is essential we work to uphold the rights and freedoms that our nation has proudly defended since Federation.
Many talented and gifted people in Australia are in my electorate of Dunkley. The 12 recent recipients of Local Sporting Champions grants are no exception to this. It was my absolute pleasure to have hosted a special afternoon tea last week in my office to meet with several local sporting champions and their families. The Local Sporting Champions grants help young people pursue their sporting dreams. I was pleased to present a certificate to each outstanding and well-deserving recipient of a Local Sporting Champions grant.
I would like to publicly recognise and congratulate the local sporting champions in my electorate: Jacques Carstens of Langwarrin South for competing in the national hockey championships; Jaide Anthony of Mornington for competing in the Australian junior indoor cricket championships; Amber Khamal of Langwarrin for competing in the Australian junior athletics championships; Brodie Imlach of Langwarrin, who attends Elisabeth Murdoch College, for competing in the Australian indoor cricket junior championships; Rhys McKenna of Langwarrin, who attends Patterson River Secondary College in Seaford, for competing in the indoor cricket junior national championships as well; Matthew Johnston of Mount Eliza for competing in the Australian baseball national little league championships; Cooper Drummond of Seaford, who attends John Paul College in Frankston, for competing in the Australian baseball national little league championships; Lachlan Imlach of Langwarrin, who attends Rowellyn Park Primary School in Carrum Downs, for competing in the Australian indoor cricket junior championships— (Time expired)
Another day, another NBN tale of woe in Canberra. First, we weren't even on the NBN rollout map. We were just one big blank space. Second, when we finally did get on the map, we kept getting moved further to the right in terms of the actual rollout. Those lucky enough to get the rollout have had all sorts of headaches, such as technicians who are meant to turn up never turning up.
I have this story of Canberran Brian Kiel. He contacted me about his experience. Brian is part of Legacy's IT committee. He's preparing a report outlining recommendations for moving Legacy onto the NBN. The report is to go before the Canberra Legacy Board. The building is located in Deakin, where the NBN is currently being rolled out. Brian was interested in getting the building directly connected by fibre instead of relying on fibre to the node. He understood that this would need to be paid for, so he contacted NBN Co to get a quote on how much that would cost and to see if the building met the requirements. Guess how much Brian was told? He was told it was $660. To his surprise, that was not to actually connect; that's the cost of making an application for an initial quote. The quote itself will attract an additional fee. It's $660 to apply to get an answer to a question.
This is absolutely outrageous. Canberrans and our community organisations are paying a small fortune just to get their foot in the door to ask a question of NBN Co. (Time expired)
During the last sitting week Edwina Cooke of St Peter's Anglican College came to Canberra for work experience. I asked Edwina to give me a potential 90-seconder. These are her words—and I can only say thank you:
Before working with Ann Sudmalis, I felt the same way about politics as I did about parliament house. That it was confusing, huge, and a bit overrated. When I got the chance to actually be in the thick of it I got excited by how fast paced and chaotic it could be yet I was amazed how smoothly things seemed to run. I was impressed by the way the politicians were able to run with the punches and think on their feet, the way that they stood up for their beliefs, and how they protected the lives of the people they represented.
During my time there, politics and the workings of parliament house became clearer to me, and the more time I spent there, the more I understood it. Politics is more than paper pushing, it's about personality. Having the people skills to communicate the wants and needs of the people you represent and the team work skills to work with people that are doing the exact same thing.
I saw that this is not an easy job, nor is it for the faint of heart, but I learnt that there are people who do the job well. I was proud to work with Ann and see how caring she is about the people of Gilmore, I saw her passion for representing the farmers and making sure that they have a good quality of life. I was amazed at her back bone and her ability to strike up a conversation with anyone.
My time in parliament was wonderful and I learnt a lot about myself and the people that represent us.
I'm happy to have been able to give a young teenager a great opportunity to come and visit our house and see the workings in such an amazing week.
Last month the world lost a champion. Ian 'Edna' Drake dedicated his life to the cause of the worker. His work and the work of so many others in the trade union movement has ensured we have the quality of life and working conditions so many take for granted today. With a lifetime dedicated to a fair go for workers and serving his community, Edna represented the very best of unionism. Edna joined the Boilermakers' and Blacksmiths' Society in April 1968 prior to its amalgamation into the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union—over 50 years of continuous membership and service. While working as a boilermaker, Ian served as a shop steward—delegate—for many years, as a state councillor, as a national conference delegate, as a state admin committee member and finally as a state president.
It's people like Edna, who have fought their entire working life, that I take inspiration from. He stood up and campaigned for a fair and equitable Tasmania, universal health care, great education and training, and dignity in retirement. Edna represented hundreds of workers in all areas of manufacturing around Tasmania, including food and confectionary; metal and engineering; printing, design and packaging; technical, laboratory, supervisory and administrative; and vehicle building, service and repair.
I want to take this opportunity to express my condolences to Edna's family, friends and comrades. As to how he got the name 'Edna', apparently it was so long ago that nobody really remembers the story. But he did have an Aunt Edna, who he was very close to and who would keep him very well stocked with cakes and goodies. And that's a very good reason to have that as your namesake. Vale, Ian 'Edna' Drake.
I rise to congratulate two amazing sporting clubs in my electorate who played in the local rugby championships last month. Well done to the talented players and their coaches who competed over the grand final weekend from both local Brisbane clubs, GPS and Brothers. GPS entered their first-grade match as the underdogs but went on to beat University 23-16 and claimed the Queensland premier rugby title, breaking a 22-year premiership drought. The last time GPS had the premiership trophy was in 1996. Well done to head coach Anthony Mathison and the fantastic performances of all the players, but particularly Dan Gorman, Michael Richards, try scorer Alfonso Horomia and reliable goal kicker James Tittle. Congratulations to GPS's Matt Gicquel, who won the Tony Shaw Medal for Player of the Match in the grand final.
Turning now to Brothers Rugby Club, while they didn't make the first-grade grand final this year, they were in the grand finals for all eight of the other grades. Four of these Brothers teams won their grand final matches at Ballymore, making Brothers Brisbane's most successful rugby club in 2018. Brothers also won the Doherty Shield, awarded annually to the champion Brisbane club based on competition points won across all participating teams. Big congratulations also to Harry Wilson, who won Player of the Year.
Next year I hope to see GPS and Brothers both in the first-grade grand final, because what a great match that would be.
I rise to express my solidarity with the more than 500 inner-west residents who gathered yesterday to protest against the New South Wales government's decision to close Globe Wilkins Preschool, located in my electorate. The school's been operating for over 20 years, from dedicated classrooms on the grounds of Wilkins Public School in Marrickville. It's one of only 20 preschools right across Australia to hold an Excellent rating awarded by the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority.
There is a national perspective for this, because Globe kindergarten was relocated after the third runway was built, because it was deemed to be inappropriate to have a childcare school right under the flight path in its location in Marrickville. I've been informed that the level of care and quality of teaching at Globe Wilkins is second to none. The team of educators at the preschool are highly valued by children and parents for their dedication to their work and to the community.
The New South Wales education department has told them that, when the lease of their premises expires in 2019, Wilkins Public School will require the classrooms to return to school use during the day, which will result in the preschool's closure. Ironically, the New South Wales government has announced in its budget a commitment to increasing preschool numbers. You don't support early childhood education if you're closing a vital local community facility. The New South Wales government must reverse this decision.
Taylor's Removals started in Toowoomba in 1918. It was started by WG Taylor with his horse and dray, transporting goods to and from the Toowoomba railhead. It was the equivalent of what these days we would call a significant intermodal freight terminal. One hundred years later, the company has a fleet of well over 25 vehicles, more than 20 employees and two significant warehouses. Importantly, it is under the leadership and guidance of managing director Melissa Taylor, the first female in four generations to join her family business. Melissa and her father, Ray, are good friends of mine. It's impressive to see her continuing the Taylor ethos of hard work and service to one's community. She's focused on youth and female career development in general and specifically on the opportunity for her own employees to complete qualifications in their chosen roles. She is a strong supporter of our local arts and community organisations and is the Queensland Trucking Association's 2015 Trucking Woman of the Year. In 2015, Taylor's was also inducted into the Heritage Bank Business Excellence Awards hall of fame by the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce. It's small and medium businesses like this that we need to continue to support to grow our economy and job opportunities, especially in regional Australia. I'm certainly proud to be a friend of the Taylors and to be part of the Morrison government's focus on doing just that—growing our economy and job opportunities, especially in regional areas.
The light drizzle didn't dampen the spirits of those who joined me in the Grant McBride Memory Walk at Long Jetty on Saturday. With 368 registered walkers and more than 300 extra donations, we raised $20,000 for Dementia Australia. It was an incredible effort, and I want to sincerely thank everyone who supported us and took part. We had walkers from near and far. Members of the Forget Me Not team came all the way from the UK and raised $530.
Thank you to our top five individual fundraisers: Wendy Lee, Samantha Boyce, Mary Trotter, Simon Wood and Georgina Chalker, who ran a personal best. Thank you to the top fundraising teams: Integrated Living, Team Dotty, the McBride family—thank you to my mum, Barbie, and all of my family—Total Recall, and the A-Team. Thank you to Westfield Tuggerah and Wyong Rugby League Club for your generous donations. Thank you to Dementia Australia CEO Maree McCabe for your best wishes and to Megan Thomas for your support. Thank you to The Entrance Men's Shed for the barbecue and $250 donation, to Wyong Lions Club for your support, and to Lots of Watts for the use of your PA. Special thanks go to Central Coast Dementia Alliance, to YODSS, to StarFM and to NBN TV for your coverage, and to other Central Coast media for your generous promotion.
I want to thank my team, especially Lisa, and our hardworking volunteers. Finally, thank you to my colleagues: the member for Werriwa, Anne Stanley; the member for The Entrance, David Mehan; the member for Wyong, David Harris; Central Coast Councillors Chris Holstein, Jeff Sundstrom and Kyle MacGregor; the Labor candidate for Robertson, Anne Charlton; and the member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten, for your best wishes and commitment to improving the lives of Australians living with dementia. I am so pleased to have been able to hold the Grant McBride Memory Walk and raise $20,000 for Dementia Australia.
In rising, may I also associate my comments with the member for Dobell and congratulate her on an outstanding event.
Like many members, I recently received dozens and dozens of requests for a portrait of our monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I've had the honour of being the member for Robertson five years now, but I have to say that never before have I received so many requests in such a short space of time. Being a constitutional monarchist myself, I was pleased to be able to provide a portrait of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh to local residents on the Central Coast.
With so many people writing to me expressing their admiration of the Queen and the royal family, I invited them for afternoon tea, and we had a delightful conversation over cups of tea, cucumber sandwiches and scones with jam and cream. We spoke about the wonderful work of the Queen and her contribution to our nation and the Commonwealth over more than six decades.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:35 to 17:12
I move
That this House notes that:
(1) this Parliament condemns the exploitation of workers and communities by unscrupulous shipping and port operators;
(2) exploitive deals with unscrupulous dictatorships are not acceptable;
(3) contracts with unscrupulous dictatorships and dictators will not stand in the international shipping community; and
(4) companies that are linked to harsh dictatorships, responsible for the suppression of democracy, are not welcome in the Australian shipping industry, and that:
(a) such companies negotiating contracts with dictatorships are on notice; and
(b) exploitative industrial behaviour will not be tolerated on our shores.
I rise to speak on my motion about one of the darkest and most disturbing parts of the shipping and transport industries—namely, port operators who operate below the radar, making deals with unscrupulous individuals, putting lives at risk and undermining the viability and sovereignty of Australia's shipping industry and port operation. One such company has expanded its operations to over 29 ports in 18 countries across the world, including right here in Australia. I'm not talking about countries that play by international rules and the norms that we're accustomed to. I'm talking about some of the most dangerous and hostile countries, led by dictators, by people who have been accused of genocide, of war crimes and of crimes against humanity, sometimes working hand in hand with these very people who have a finger in most of the companies that set up in their nations. We have a situation where port companies and port operators that do deals with these companies want to do business in Australia. In fact, one such company has its operations in the Port of Melbourne. If you have a company that does deals with despots, dictators and tyrants, who don't respect democracy and human rights, what kinds of working conditions do you think its employees are going to be working under in Australia and in other countries? Quite often, workers find themselves facing conditions that include harassment and coercion. Are we surprised when we know that the company is doing deals with some of the most dangerous dictators around the world?
Today in Australia we have a government that turns a blind eye to companies that earn a buck while exploiting workers. On top of this, workers' fundamental rights to associate freely, to join unions and to bargain collectively have been suppressed. We have examples of workers facing harassment and bullying in the workplace, and this is unacceptable. One might ask, 'Why doesn't the workforce just report this?' Victoria International Container Terminal conducted an independent survey that found that 75 to 80 per cent of people were unhappy with the management of one of these unscrupulous companies doing business right here in Australia while at the same time doing business with some of the most dangerous despots around the world. Workers overwhelmingly said that management was untrustworthy. One worker was quoted as saying, 'How can a survey go so bad and nothing happen?' How can it? Nothing was done.
Let's go back a little bit. According to a report from the International Transport Workers' Federation, the chairman and president of one of the offending companies dealing with these horrendous countries that are void of democratic governance, when asked why his company deals with countries such as Syria, Sudan, the Congo and many others, said:
I'm very bullish about Iran, Congo and Cambodia. We're taking a very long-term view. We've learned from past experience. It's okay to say that if you make investments in bad places, right now, over time, you'll gain without competition.
Let's analyse that. What does that mean? It means that, if you go into a country that doesn't respect democracy and human rights, you're doing business hand in hand with some of these despots and dictators. We need to be very careful with these companies when they come here to Australia to do business. We don't want a race to the bottom when it comes to working conditions and wages. We want safe workplaces. We want workers treated fairly here in Australia but also in some of these Third World countries where there've been all sorts of allegations about the way they treat their workers.
We've seen similar degradation in the shipping industry, more generally than I mentioned before—for example, with foreign flags that take over vessels in order to sack the Australian workers and to exploit workers. I, for one, can't stand by and watch workers screwed while shipping and port operators walk away with huge profits, not just here but in countries that have no human rights and where human rights are not respected and neither is democracy. We could easily turn a blind eye to this and a blind eye to companies that are like this. We could say: 'It's happening overseas. That's how they do business over there.' But these are companies that are breaking human rights laws and international laws and are seeking to do business here. One of them is already here in Melbourne. I personally can't stand by, and none of us should stand by and just watch this. We have international obligations, and we need to make sure people are safe. This isn't just happening overseas. It's happening here as well.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I'm pleased that the member for Hindmarsh has moved this motion. It's an important topic. The exploitation of workers in communities around the world by unscrupulous shipping and port operators should be condemned by this parliament. I have a long background in connection with the shipping and waterside workers in the industry from my time 20 years ago representing the suburb of Port Melbourne on Port Phillip council, which is the home of Australia's maritime industry, with a long and proud history for over a century. Through that I came to know and appreciate the dedication and professionalism of generations of waterside workers in the MUA, the old painters and dockers, and the marine and power engineers more recently.
It's no understatement to say that the destruction of the Australian shipping industry by the Liberal Party is deliberate and calculated—which is a much broader debate. Suffice it to say the government have, in their courage and wisdom, fielded no speakers on this motion! A recent report released by the International Transport Workers' Federation into the operations of one such company should appal any reader. I went to the launch of the report, I read it and I was moved to speak on the motion.
The International Container Terminal Services company, a name which is surely designed to be forgotten, is renowned throughout the maritime industry as a company that exploits its workers and local communities. It preferences company profits over worker safety and fundamental rights. It uses harassment and coercion to manage its workforce. It pays poverty wages and underpays its employees, who are often overworked. It uses violence and intimidation to stamp out union activity and profits from partnerships with corrupt regimes implicated in crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. This company operates 29 ports across 18 countries and looks set to continue to expand its exploitative antiworker business model across the world. It holds contracts with some of the world's most brutal regimes and has only ended contracts with them when it became commercially unrealistic to continue operations.
Shockingly, this company now operates right here in Australia, care of the Liberal Party. In 2014 the then Victorian Liberal government awarded it a major contract to operate the Port of Melbourne's third container terminal. Dockworkers in Australia report that its local subsidiary has brought its antiworker mentality to Australia. It often attempts to override safety measures in order to achieve productivity targets. Trained safety representatives are not respected, with frequent attempts by management to override safety instructions. There are also reports that workers in Australia have been targeted by this local subsidiary for union activity, and they're now too scared to talk for fear of being fired. They're being intimidated by their employer.
Globally, as the member for Hindmarsh said, this company has close relationships with some of the worst regimes for human rights abuse. For instance, it entered a joint venture with a Democratic Republic of the Congo state owned enterprise under the direct control of the President. The DRC is one of the world's worst kleptocracies and is increasingly being sanctioned by the international community for its use of state sanctioned sexual violence. This company says, 'Let's be friends.' It also partnered with the Assad regime in Syria up until December 2012, well into the country's civil war, which has now seen over half a million people killed and over 5.6 million people flee. It also operates a port out of Honduras. Following the granting of the contract to ICTSI, an intense campaign of worker repression began, including attempts on the life of Mr Victor Crespo, the general secretary of the trade union. Family members of Mr Crespo died in related attacks, and the Honduran military was deployed at the port to quash union activity following job losses. This is the type of business this company practises. I could go on.
In short, it is a global corporate extremist. Its own chairman summed it up, as was stated by the member for Hindmarsh. He said:
I'm very bullish about Iran, Congo and Cambodia. We're taking a very long-term view. We've learned from past experience. It's okay to say that if you make investments in bad places right now, over time, you'll gain without competition.
What a business philosophy! To be clear, it also operates in Sudan. The US labelled the Sudanese government a state sponsor of terrorism. At the time the Liberal government in Victoria signed a contract with this company to come into Australia and run the Port of Melbourne's terminal, the President of Sudan was wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. They still have two warrants for his arrest. If the Victorian Liberals knew all this at the time, why did they contract with the company? If they didn't know, how is it they didn't know, and what went wrong?
Now we hear that this company is going to be seeking deals in other Australian ports. I say to any state and territory government who may be even thinking about awarding contracts to this company: think again. Just say no. Don't do it. This is not a company that Australian governments should be contracting with. Its human rights record and its antiworker attitude speak for themselves. (Time expired)
I thank the member for Hindmarsh for bringing this motion to this chamber. As a member representing an island state, I know that a reliable shipping service and maritime industry is absolutely crucial. Over 99 per cent of Tasmania's freight volume is moved by sea—12.5 million tonnes through the main ports and another 2.4 million tonnes out of Port Latta. Tasmania is also serviced by three Australian owned and crewed shipping companies—Toll, Searoad and TT-Line. Our stevedoring companies, which are critical in the supply chain, also play a pivotal role.
At sea and onshore, it is important that the workforce, customers and community are not manipulated for commercial gain. I am pleased our maritime operations do the right thing. I wish I could say the same about the foreign shipping companies that visit Tasmania. As recently as July this year, a foreign flagged ship, the Xing Ning Hai, was detained in Devonport over the nonpayment of hundreds of thousands of dollars to its Chinese crew—$338,400, to be precise. Unfortunately, this is commonplace, and all too regularly we see examples just like that.
Sadly, in Australia our ocean workers are being manipulated, as evidenced by the events in Devonport in July, but this exploitation is commonplace in international ports. One company responsible for this exploitation is the Philippines based global port operator International Container Terminal Services Inc., or ICTSI. It has gained a foothold in Australia at Webb Dock in Melbourne, thanks to the former Victorian Liberal government's granting ICTSI's subsidiary VICT a contract.
A report last month by the International Transport Workers' Federation raises a number of serious questions that this parliament should be addressing, and it's disturbing that there is not one government member speaking on this motion. The report found that ICTSI operate in some of the poorest and most exploited nations in the world. They use their Australian operation to somehow demonstrate they are a legitimate operation. But, when you operate in Sudan, Syria and Congo, that cannot be the case. The report found ICTSI's workers are underpaid and overworked, and are harassed and coerced. Workers face violence and intimidation in retaliation for raising workplace issues. The report also found that ICTSI proudly proclaims that its presence in developing nations with questionable regimes is good for business. The ITF report contains a quote from Enrique K Razon, Chairman and President of ICTSI, which I shall now read into Hansard:
Africa is a very good place for us. There is very little competition and they need the investment badly … Returns are best there with high yields in the handling business. To handle a box in our terminal in Yantai, [China], we charge about $45-$50. The same container in Africa easily goes for $200-$250.
Who ultimately pays for this? It is the people, which is just unacceptable. Fortunately, ICTSI has not set foot in Tasmania. However, with former state Liberal governments in Victoria awarding them a contract, we need to be vigilant that the Tasmanian state Liberal government does not do the same. What we need is a set of principles that foreign owned companies who want to operate in Australia must adhere to.
While I am very confident the community would not tolerate the sort of exploitative practices we have seen from ICTSI in Third World countries, I believe governments in developed nations like Australia should play a number of roles. Firstly, we should not allow companies to legitimise their international operations by operating in Australia with such a record while at the same time exploiting some of the poorest people in the world. Secondly, our political leadership should be doing everything they can at an international level to put pressure on companies like ICTSI to change the way they operate. Thirdly, there should be a full and proper investigation as to how a company with such practices was allowed to gain a foothold in Australia.
By any reasonable standard, the exploitation of developing nations and their people is abhorrent. It is intolerable. I commend ITF and the member for Hindmarsh for bringing this issue to the attention of the parliament. It is shameful that members of the government are not speaking on this important motion.
I am glad for the opportunity to speak on this motion, and I thank the member for Hindmarsh for bringing it forward for our debate and consideration. I acknowledge the contributions of all members. The member for Hindmarsh raises a very important issue. You wouldn't like to think that in Australia today you could have a company or companies operating in our ports, or anywhere else for that matter, with a track record of labour rights violations and safety standards breaches, not to mention other kinds of exploitative behaviour.
This week in the parliament we'll debate the modern slavery legislation, which looks to combat the scourge of employers—if you can call them that—who prey on vulnerable people and subject women, men and sometimes even children to work practices and conditions that are characterised by coercion, danger, wage theft and abuse. You wouldn't like to think that any company with a record of such conduct would get a foothold here in Australia, and you would think that, in an island nation like ours, where shipping is our lifeline and where port efficiency and safety are critical to our wellbeing, we would be particularly wary and watchful of such conduct in areas like stevedoring and shipping.
Yet, as the member for Hindmarsh and other members contributing to the debate have outlined, concerns have been raised about the Victoria International Container Terminal company, an offshoot of International Container Terminal Services Inc., which, since 2014, has operated at Melbourne's Webb Dock. The parent company, ICTSI, seems to concentrate its operations in countries that suffer from and struggle under authoritarian regimes, apparently seeing in these circumstances the opportunity to profit from the lack of regulation and systemic integrity. There have been reports of ICTSI port operations in countries like Nigeria, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Honduras and Syria, among others, that include worrying examples of conduct that is not consistent with basic workers' rights or with international efforts to sanction oppressive autocratic regimes.
A Victorian offshoot of ICTSI has now been established, and it may be the company intends to expand operations at other ports. I note that the terminal licences in Fremantle are currently out for tender and under negotiation for renewal. It may be that ICTSI in some form or other is interested in those licences, just as it was interested in the Melbourne operations. That would be a concern, based on what appears to be the record of this company in other countries. All of the opposition member contributors to the debate—and we're the only contributing members in this debate—have essentially argued from a simple principle: there is no place in the world for companies that undermine or attack workers' rights. They are fundamental human rights, and Australia should be active and uncompromising in protecting those rights in our country and advancing the protection of those rights elsewhere.
That's why the larger issue here is about having the right filters in place. We should be able to, and we must, screen out operators with a track record of seriously bad conduct. I'm glad that Labor is prepared to consider a regulatory framework at the national level to ensure that companies with a history of involvement in illegality or corruption are blocked from access to Australian government procurement processes or other contractual arrangements. Without such a framework, which is commonly known as a debarment policy, there will always be the potential for companies with a track record of unacceptable and illegal conduct to bring their dodgy practices to Australia or to run away from their responsibilities and failures elsewhere.
When the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions reported on Australia's business fraud and anticorruption integrity protections operations back in 2015, it was the lack of a transparent and government-wide debarment framework that was noted as a persistent shortcoming and something that should be addressed. The imperative to put this in place is probably sharpest in relation to critical infrastructure, and there is no better example than our ports. They are literally the gateway into and out of Australia for the vast bulk of our material engagement with the world. As I've noted before, the government decided to walk away from Labor's work on the National Ports Strategy, just as they have walked away from Australian shipping and Australian seafarers. Both these forms of neglect put us at serious risk. They present an economic risk, of course, because bad practice in our freight network places a layer of cost and inefficiency over everything. But the risk goes further than that. The absence of a careful and supportive ports and shipping strategy also puts our sovereign self-sufficiency in jeopardy. It means we're not in control of the import and export gateways that are essential to our social and economic wellbeing.
In conclusion, I support this motion. Really, it should be a pretty cut and dried approach in this area. Companies that have a record of exploiting workers and breaching human rights standards and companies that work hand in hand with oppressive regimes and, indeed, seek out those opportunities because they mean less scrutiny and more profit should not be able to waltz into Australia and set up shop here.
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'd like to acknowledge and thank the member for Forrest for moving the original motion, because we, as the Liberal government, are doing fantastic things in the infrastructure space. My community in my electorate of Boothby is seeing firsthand the benefits of our government's record $75 billion investment in infrastructure and transport projects. Infrastructure is the No. 1 priority for the Morrison government, and it's the No.1 priority for me in my electorate. Whether it's fixing the Oaklands crossing or making it easier and quicker and safer to get across South Road or along South Road at Darlington, whether it's getting the freight train out of the hills—again, for really important safety reasons—or stopping trucks from coming down Cross Road, this is my focus.
As we heard today in question time, the Morrison government is busting congestion. We are congestion busters, as the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population told the parliament today. We are doing this so my local residents can get to work more quickly and get their kids to school more safely and so we can all get around our community more easily, whether that is getting to Flinders Medical Centre, which is Adelaide's biggest hospital, getting to Flinders University, which is where I went to university, or just getting to the local shops. When I was the candidate for Boothby and, now, as the member for Boothby, I have fought for and secured funding for a range of different road and rail projects. This is because I listened to my community very carefully about which roads were bothering them most and about which rail lines needed to be worked on.
At the top of this list, without a doubt, was the Oaklands crossing problem. We have had a problem in my community for 40 long years at the Oaklands crossing, and I am so proud that I was the first member of parliament to ever secure a funding commitment—a very significant funding commitment of $40 million—to fix the Oaklands crossing once and for all. I was then able, once elected, to secure an extra $55 million to see this project go ahead. The overall project to fix Oaklands crossing is worth $174.5 million and it is already underway.
I remember doorknocking when I was the candidate, and after I'd been elected: people didn't believe that this would ever be fixed, because it had been a problem for four decades. Well, as my local community and my local residents know, it's being fixed right now. The construction is well and truly underway, and I am absolutely delighted. I'm delighted for the 41,000 motorists who sit at the boom gates every single day trying to get through. I'm delighted for everyone who's trying to get to work, or to go shopping at Westfield Marion, and for all of our wonderful young and not-so-young people who swim at the Olympic-standard aquatic centre. This project helps them get there more quickly and more safely. And I'm delighted for all of the mums and dads—and, I know, a lot of grandparents as well—who do the school drop-off and pick-up every day at a lot of the local primary schools nearby. This is what our government is focused on: fixing these terrible traffic problems for people.
I'm also really proud of the fact that I was able to secure a $43 million commitment to get the Tonsley train line extended up to Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University, which will finally link this incredibly important precinct with the city. It will also link Flinders Medical Centre with all of the fabulous health, research and hospital facilities that are now on North Terrace near the train station. It will also help my local residents to get to Flinders Medical Centre in particular, but also to the university, which will take pressure off parking at the site, which is absolutely critical.
At the same time as doing the rail-line extension of Tonsley up to Flinders, we have invested $496 million of federal money into the Darlington upgrade. On the weekend we saw the transportation and installation of the northern section of the Ayliffes Road bridge. This is an engineering feat. It is so exciting. The manner in which they have built and moved these sections of bridge into place has been an Australian first. I encourage everyone to jump on to Facebook and see the videos.
We're doing so much more. I note the former assistant minister here, who did some wonderful work on black spots and the Roads to Recovery program that's fixed so many road problems for people in my electorate. I will continue to fight for the people of Boothby to bust congestion across my electorate.
I thank the shadow infrastructure minister, the member for Grayndler, for his amendments to this motion. My electorate of Herbert has received zero funding for infrastructure from this coalition government in the last two budgets. In fact, prior to the last two budgets I wrote to the then Treasurer and now Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, calling on him to match Labor's commitments for the following vital infrastructure: $100 million for long-term water security, $200 million for energy infrastructure, and $75 million for the Townsville port expansion. But, sadly, none of these were delivered in either budget. Labor has been on the front foot regarding these really vital infrastructure projects, because Labor is aware that these projects will create much-needed local jobs, boost the economy and increase industry confidence.
However, last week the newly elected Prime Minister came to Townsville and, in a great show of catch-up—and 197 days after Labor announced their $75 million for the port expansion commitment—the LNP government has committed to this project. Just like with the stadium, the funding has been dragged from this government when we have brought them kicking and screaming to the funding table. The question is: why is this government always playing catch-up? Clearly, it is because they are so out of touch with regional communities like Townsville. The port expansion project is a no-brainer. It has been in development for over 10 years. It has had a business case that stacks up, demonstrating the positive impact for the Townsville community. But we witnessed 197 days of inaction from this chaotic government—inaction that Townsville continues to experience from this government, especially regarding the extremely important water security and energy infrastructure projects. Where are the Prime Minister and his government on water and energy infrastructure for Townsville? How long will my community have to wait until we see real action from the Morrison government? Another 197 days or longer?
The people of my community are not fools. They are well aware that Labor has led the charge on the Townsville port expansion, just as we did on the Townsville stadium. I find it absolutely laughable that the Morrison government believes that just because you change your leader you have changed the inaction of the past. The people of Townsville will not forget this out-of-touch government and the fact that it is not taking our water security and energy infrastructure needs seriously. As the Treasurer, Scott Morrison delivered nothing for our community. Why would we expect anything to change just because he has changed his job?
Nevertheless, where the coalition is failing, Labor is certainly leading and delivering. Recently Labor announced that we will invest $500 million to deliver a staged upgrade of Queensland's inland road network. This will deliver up to 3,000 kilometres of better, safer roads and up to 300 wider, stronger bridges. Labor's announcement will see an estimated 13,000 direct and indirect jobs in Queensland over the next decade, along with an additional $2.5 billion in economic growth to the regional Queensland economy. Half of Queensland's economic activity takes place outside of Brisbane. Queensland is Australia's most decentralised state, and for far too long crucial regional roads have not received the attention that they deserve. Queensland transports a greater volume of cattle by road than any other state, and that makes up half of Australia's cattle herd. The industry employs around 20,000 Queenslanders. This investment not only improves safety on key freight routes but will help reduce the cost of transporting cattle to market. This investment is a big boost for the Queensland economy, particularly regions that are feeling the impact of the drought. Just like every infrastructure project that Labor invests in, we will insist on Australian materials and Australian jobs, and we will make sure that one out of every 10 people working on these projects will be an Australian apprentice.
I must commend the strong advocacy and work of the Inland Queensland Road Action Plan, which brings together 28 local government areas, five Regional Development Australia committees and the RACQ. I know how hard they have worked on this, and I am proud to stand with the united Labor team that will see this project come to fruition.
The coalition government has cut infrastructure investment from $8 billion in 2017-18 to $4.5 billion in 2021-22. Commonwealth investment will fall from 0.4 per cent to 0.2 per cent of GDP over a decade. This coalition government fails the fairness test on infrastructure and it certainly fails the investment tests in areas like Townsville. The country is at a standstill, and it is because of this government. Only Labor will invest in the infrastructure that regional communities need, and only Labor will invest in infrastructure that will kickstart the country again, create Australian jobs and boost the Townsville economy.
The Australian government is committed to investing an unprecedented $75 billion in transport infrastructure across Australia over the next 10 years. It's because we know that infrastructure matters and, as a key ingredient of our modern life, it affects the competitiveness of every business in Australia. It gets food to our shops, power to our homes and workers to their jobs and allows us to export wealth and natural resources to our foreign markets. When we invest in infrastructure, we invest in growth, we invest in jobs and we invest in tomorrow, which is why the government is investing $75 billion in transport infrastructure, as I said.
That's why I totally reject the amendment put forward by the member for Grayndler. I know he knows much better, but the underhand political shot is in the DNA of the Labor Party. Selective quoting and misrepresenting of budget figures is stock in hand, and so it is here. The member for Grayndler—and the member for Herbert just backed it up—well knows that the federal government has a wide range of investment models, including direct grants, which the member for Grayndler quotes while disingenuously ignoring huge equity investments like the NBN, Snowy Hydro 2.0, Badgerys Creek or the rerailing of the Adelaide to Tarcoola railway line in my own electorate. He ignores government loans which provide the bankability for higher risk programs and, importantly, provide the multiplier effect. The half-truth is anything but the truth. An intentional half-truth is a lie. That is the premise of the amendment put forward by the member for Grayndler, and I reject it.
In my electorate, the advent of the coalition government in Canberra and, more latterly, the Liberal government in South Australia has breathed new life into infrastructure. I'm particularly pleased to have been able to deliver a suite of critical improvements to surface transportation under the new investment plan. Two weeks ago I was joined by the Deputy Prime Minister and minister for infrastructure, Michael McCormack, the state minister for infrastructure, Stephan Knoll, and the state member for Narungga, Fraser Ellis, to announce a long overdue overpass just north of Port Wakefield. It will extend from the dual carriageway, which is currently two kilometres to the south, through the town, and a little over a kilometre to the north. It will have $72 million from the Commonwealth and $18 million from the state in an 80-20 split.
The overpass will provide a proper long-term solution to the congestion, particularly at holiday times, at the junction of the Copper Coast Highway, commonly referred to as 'crash corner'. Every parent will breathe a sigh of relief as they send their kids off back to Adelaide at the end of the long holidays and avoid the two hours of backed-up traffic around Port Wakefield. It's a vital investment to improve flow and safety of tourist traffic and the ever-increasing freight load—to the north, all the way to Darwin and, to the west, all the way to Perth.
Another example of the government's commitment to infrastructure improvements in the electorate of Grey is the duplication of the Joy Baluch AM bridge in Port Augusta. The 50-year-old bridge is a link in the national land transport network and the national tourist routes and it binds the city of Port Augusta together. But it provides only one lane in each direction and, since the closure of the historic Great Western Bridge to foot traffic in March last year, carries all the foot traffic on a narrow, unprotected walkway within centimetres of trucks weighing more than 100 tonnes. Sometimes traffic flows are interrupted by accidents, and the alternative route, more than 35 kilometres around, is not an all-weather route. Emergency services in Port Augusta are all based on the east side, which means that the west side is totally exposed.
I personally brought Ministers Chester, Frydenberg, Tehan and McCormack to see the bridge firsthand and illustrate the urgency of its duplication. That is why I'm so pleased that the government has recognised the urgency of this project and will push forward its $160 million investment in this long wanted and waited-for project. Consequently, the duplication of the bridge is expected to be completed in 2021.
Port Augusta is the crossroads of the nation. Similarly to Port Wakefield, everything travelling north, east, south and west travels over that bridge at Port Augusta, including the Sydney traffic. Both of these projects, Port Wakefield and Port Augusta, are incredibly important pieces of infrastructure. Sadly, neither was possible until we had a coalition government in Canberra and a Liberal government in South Australia. It is this side of politics, despite all the huffing and puffing from the other side of the chamber, that actually understands the true potential of rural and regional Australia and is willing to invest in it and back it to the hilt.
I just wish those opposite would realise the true potential of their nation's capital and make the appropriate investment in infrastructure for that, too.
Government members interjecting—
Do you want to hear the figures? Those opposite have got up and talked about the importance of infrastructure to a regional centre's or a suburban centre's prosperity, to its economic future, to its—
Government members interjecting—
You have talked about the importance of infrastructure investment to an area's prosperity and its future, yet for some reason Canberra is just one big blind spot. This is your nation's capital. This is a population of 415,000 and growing. It's a population that—
A government member interjecting—
So, because it's the most highly educated population and because of the average income, we shouldn't get investment? Do you want to hear the investment figures, or the lack thereof? Do you want to hear about the complete disdain that those opposite have for our nation's capital? The fact that we're getting lip from that side—
A government member interjecting—
What? So these people here, these Canberrans, all have two heads, do they? They all have two heads, they earn too much money and they're too well educated. So all of you up here do not deserve any investment in infrastructure according to those opposite. Do you want to hear the figures?
A government member interjecting—
You're going on about how fantastic it is, a $75 billion investment in infrastructure. You're high-fiving—how fantastic it is! Do you know how much Canberra got in the last budget? We got 0.2 per cent of the national infrastructure investment last budget. As you can see, Canberrans are doing handstands down Northbourne Avenue as a result of that investment!
This is what those opposite think about our nation's capital. This is what they think about the people who live in our nation's capital, what they think about our public servants, our servants of democracy, who are actually serving their government. This is what those opposite think about you, Canberra. This is what the Morrison government, formerly the Turnbull government, formerly the Abbott government, think about you: in this budget 0.2 per cent of the national infrastructure investment and in the last budget the princely sum of 0.004 per cent of the investment in infrastructure.
We have everyone in the chamber very much face-down now, looking at their emails—
A government member interjecting—
What was that? A bit more investment than 0.2 per cent of infrastructure investment would be greatly appreciated, and bit more than 0.004 per cent. Essentially, what those opposite have said—and I'm looking forward to sharing this with Zed Seselja—is that Canberrans are too highly educated, they earn too much money, and essentially everyone here has two heads; therefore we are not worthy. In 2018 the nation's capital has a population of 415,000 and services a capital region of about 800,000. Those opposite basically don't think that you are worthy of infrastructure investment. The figures that we had from the budgets this year and last year underscore that. There was a $75 billion investment in infrastructure, and Canberra got 0.2 per cent this year and 0.004 per cent last year.
In the short time I have available, in defending my community from the disdain and contempt of those opposite, I'll point out that in 1996 we saw this community absolutely decimated—15,000 Public Service jobs gone. Under you lot we've lost 10,000 and we're still counting. You have nothing but complete disdain, scorn and contempt for our nation's capital and the people of Canberra. It is a community that serves your government. They are proud to serve your government and they do it professionally, willingly and with loyalty. How do you repay them? You repay them with complete and utter contempt and disdain.
Because you're too educated and because you earn too much money, you're not going to get any infrastructure investment, Canberra, even though you are our nation's capital. That's what those opposite think of you—0.2 per cent of infrastructure investment in the budget this year and 0.004 per cent last year. It absolutely underscores the contempt and disdain the Liberals have for our nation's capital.
Firstly, I congratulate the member for Canberra, who is a passionate advocate for her community. Whilst I don't agree with many of the things she said, she is definitely a passionate advocate. Can I say to the member for Canberra: in the gap between parliamentary sittings, in my home state we had seven fatalities in seven days on the Bruce Highway. I don't think that anyone in this place would take away an opportunity to reduce those risks. I acknowledge that there are lots of people who do work here in Canberra on behalf of the public and I congratulate them on their work, but I'll be the first to advocate that we should share that wealth with the rest of the country, and I am a supporter of decentralisation.
Back to the matter at hand, I point out to the member for Herbert, who stated very publicly in her contribution that there was no infrastructure spending in Townsville in the seat of Herbert, that I'm fairly confident there is a giant brand-new stadium in Townsville. I'm very confident that there has been money invested in roads. In fact, Townsville received a city deal under this government, which has been of great benefit to the people of Townsville. I acknowledge Phillip Thompson, who has been picked as the Liberal National Party candidate for Herbert, a veteran and advocate for veterans. I think he will do an outstanding job, and I'm sure he looks forward to the contest.
Coming back to the matter at hand, I have to say that the Labor Party can be a bit cute, particularly the member for Grayndler—he does cute exceptionally well. His claims there are cuts in infrastructure budget—they're just making them up. You need to consider the fact that there is equity, that there are loans and that the total investment package is enormous. We are investing $75 billion over the next 10 years under our Infrastructure Investment Program. The member for Grayndler also makes points about payments. Payments are made for milestones. Unless the member for Grayndler is suggesting that the Australian taxpayer should pay for things which have not yet been delivered, I think he may well have his numbers incorrect. Things change on projects all the time, particularly ones which are large. I know it hasn't rained for some time in your area, Mr Deputy Speaker Gee, but it actually does rain, and that affects projects. Things shift and, unless you meet your project milestones, you don't get your money. They are taxpayer funds after all.
Let's look at what is happening in Queensland, my home state. I congratulate the Minister for Infrastructure Transport and Regional Development and the previous infrastructure ministers on their commitment to the Bruce Highway. That coastal highway is the lifeline into regional Queensland. Some $10 billion has been committed since 2013. Unfortunately, if you are killed on a national highway, odds are you were driving on the Bruce Highway in Queensland. We are looking to invest as much as possible to improve the safety of that incredibly important piece of infrastructure.
The people of my electorate are concerned. We've upgraded a number of intersections: an $8 million upgrade near Childers; $6 million for an overtaking lane north of Howard, a small town in the middle of the electorate; $4½ million to widen a four-kilometre stretch near Adies Road at Apple Tree Creek; $7.1 million for the widening of the highway for 2.2 kilometres near Wongi State Forest south of Torbanlea, where we tragically had an incident which resulted in a fatality just months ago; $700,000 for widening the seven-kilometre stretch near Booyal; $3.4 million for road-widening works near Pig Creek and Little Pig Creek between Childers and Torbanlea; and $14.9 million towards the Apple Tree Creek upgrade. This is real money that makes real improvements to safety on those roads. It also makes them less affected by flooding, which is very important in Queensland, where we get the monsoon in the north and very unstable weather patterns.
When we're looking to build our economy, this linking infrastructure is incredibly important. Just last week in conjunction with the Bundaberg Regional Council we announced $2.5 million for an upgrade for Buss Street at the Port of Bundaberg under the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. This is an area where our economy can continue to grow. The Knauf factory in the regional town of Bundaberg has now been completed and is manufacturing plasterboard for distribution throughout Queensland. That couldn't have happened without support for a gas pipeline, and they do need the connecting infrastructure. The port already exports wood pellets and sugar. They are looking for further opportunities, so connecting infrastructure is incredibly important. Under the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative in the last budget some $3.5 billion was committed towards that linking infrastructure. In Hervey Bay $500,000 was announced just last week for heavy vehicle parking at Nikenbah under the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. This will allow a safe area for the disconnection and decoupling of B-doubles and semitrailers to allow them to move safely into the city of Hervey Bay. These are important things for the people we represent. The linking infrastructure helps build our economy. A stronger economy means more jobs, which is what we're all about, particularly in regional Australia.
I acknowledge the previous speaker's points in relation to regional Australia and the importance of good roads that save lives. It is true that we have a lot of road-building to do, but I thank the member for Forrest for moving this important motion and bringing to the attention of the chamber this issue of the need for infrastructure investment as it gives me the opportunity to expose some of the false and misleading claims by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. The previous speaker talked about the Bruce Highway. In the lead-up to the 2016 election, I remember coalition members congratulating Labor on their previous investment in the Bruce Highway, which was four times that of the coalition.
I'm very sorry to say that this lack of commitment to investment in infrastructure extends to the Northern Territory. We heard the honourable member say, 'What about regional areas?' I come from a regional area, the Northern Territory. It's had a 75 per cent reduction in infrastructure spending over the forward estimates. That's in the latest budget. That's for the Northern Territory, not Canberra. All jurisdictions need funding for infrastructure, because it grows the economy. Canberra needs it; the Territory needs it. Quite frankly, territorians, whether they be in the ACT or in the Northern Territory, are sick and tired of being treated like second-class citizens by this muppet government and those opposite.
I do support the motion's first paragraph, because Labor too recognises the importance of infrastructure to the nation's future prosperity. However, I can't support the spurious claims made in the rest of the motion. Frankly, I'm surprised at the audacity—perhaps naivety—of the member for Forrest in bringing forward this motion, which exposes the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison muppet government's neglect of investment in infrastructure for our nation's future. As has become abundantly clear and as those opposite understand, this government, in what has culminated over the past few weeks, has shown that it has absolute interest only in its own survival and in clinging to office, with no interest whatsoever in the future of the nation. Infrastructure—roads, rail and ports—takes years to plan and build, beyond three-year parliamentary terms. It needs vision to look at the longer term. The previous speaker talked about linking up infrastructure. I am not an expert on the inland rail, but I understand that it doesn't actually link anything to any ports whatsoever. Perhaps its purpose is different, other than the national interest.
It's pretty clear that this government doesn't have a 10-year plan. We have seen recently with leaks in the Herald Sun that have come from the coalition government that it is only going to release details on infrastructure plans when it suits it politically. Regardless of regional businesses in the Northern Territory—in Darwin and Palmerston, the electorate that I represent—it has already been 510 days since a city deal was promised. This is infrastructure for Darwin that was promised 510 days ago, but the leaks from inside the current federal government tell us that it is only interested in cynical politicking and will only announce its commitment to our city deal during the election. I hope the election is in the next couple of months, but it may be as much as nine months away, and this government is going to hold on to this infrastructure announcement until then. That doesn't speak to the national interest. It doesn't speak to the importance of Darwin, as the northern capital of Australia, to be a real driving engine of the Australian economy. It just reeks of the politics that those opposite have shown us in spades in the last month.
The time allotted for this debate has now expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I inform the Federation Chamber that, pursuant to standing order 110, Mr Hill has fixed the next sitting as the day for moving notice No. 3, private members' business.
Deputy Speaker Gee, as you know, this is an important issue for the people that we represent, because right now they cannot pay their power bills. It doesn't matter whether you are representing the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker; it doesn't matter whether you are representing a large organisation like Alcoa; it doesn't matter whether you are in the outback, on the coast or in the city—quite simply the cost of electricity in this country is far too high. We find ourselves surrounded by natural resources, by gas, by coal and by water. We can utilise those resources, as we have done in the past, to generate cheap and reliable electricity. But we find ourselves surrounded by decisions, particularly driven by state ideology, which are not based on engineering and physics.
South Australia is the prime example. You do not need to go and reflect; you do not need to engage a consultant. You can simply look at South Australia, which is the test case for this nation. A 50 per cent target for intermittent wind and solar has resulted in the most expensive electricity in the world, and it is unreliable. As an engineer, I know one thing: if you can find me a solar panel that will generate in the dark, I will be 100 per cent supportive. But what we find now is that the mix of our generation capacity simply has not been planned well enough, and all governments should accept responsibility for those decisions and those errors.
We find ourselves in a position where we have an ageing fleet of coal-generated power stations across the country, and we should absolutely place the responsibility for that where it lies. That responsibility lies with state governments. This is not a Federation issue. The National Electricity Market, in my view, has been a complete failure. It has not driven new investment, but it has made some organisations and some state governments very, very rich. They have robbed money from consumers. Look at the Queensland state government: they own every retailer in town north of Gympie. There is only one. It is owned by the Queensland state government. They own all of the poles and wires. They own 70 per cent of the generators. They are robbing $1.1 billion every single year from the pockets of electricity consumers in my home state, in my home town and in my electorate. They should be accountable and responsible for those decisions. They set the price. It is not the federal government.
We find ourselves in the position where action needs to be taken. I commend the Minister for Energy, Angus Taylor, on the decisions he has taken already to focus on price and reliability, because without them the lights will go out. It is that simple. I spoke in this place in 2015 against the Renewable Energy Target for a couple of very simple reasons. My view—and can I say in my considered, educated, skilled and qualified view—was that it would put up the price of electricity and it would be paid for by the poorest people in this country: the ones who cannot afford to put solar on their rooftops, the ones who rent, the ones who do not get the opportunity to reduce the price that they pay every single year. And that has been the case. We find ourselves in a position now where our economy, where our nation, where our businesses, where our people and where our seniors cannot afford to pay their bills. That is not helping us to drive jobs growth. That is not helping the nation, it is not helping the economy, it is not helping businesses and it is certainly not helping our exporters.
I have a foundry in my electorate which has been there for over 125 years. The biggest issue they have right now, in terms of their viability, is the ability to pay their power and gas bill. They have been training apprentices and trainees for over a century. They have been the driver of people with skills and with trades into our economy for over 100 years, and they find themselves on the brink of disaster because they cannot afford to continue to pay.
So in this place we need for put aside our ideological views. We need to stand up for what is necessary to build a better country, and that is cheap energy. Intermittent wind and solar have their place, and there are lots of places where they will help and reduce the cost, particularly where there is an engagement, for example, with diesel generation, because that is a stored fuel. But we should take those opportunities where the physics and engineering say that it will drive down the price. You cannot run this country on an intermittent supply through wind and solar. It doesn't matter what you may or may not believe in terms of your ideals—this is purely engineering and physics, and we have to make decisions based around those things. As a government, we need to decide how to drive that, and if the states don't want to get on board then we should dismantle the National Electricity Market.
Is this motion even relevant? The simple fact is that here we have a motion praising the LNP government's National Energy Guarantee, and now the NEG has been scrapped. Surely this motion is no longer relevant. We have no idea what energy policy the LNP are supporting, because they are creating policies on the run. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was elected because of his climate change and renewable energy stance. Then, due to government in-fighting and a lack of action on energy, a completely watered-down NEG was agreed to by the LNP—but then Prime Minister Turnbull lost his job, it seems, due to the NEG policy. Is anyone else confused about this? I surely am.
Meanwhile, LNP members opposite are changing energy policies as quickly as they are changing leaders, and it is the Australian people who are suffering with high energy prices. Right now, Australia is left without any energy policy. I can't even stand here today and debate the LNP government's energy policy, because there isn't one. The NEG is off the table. But I will stand here and debate this government's continuous attack on a just transition. Whether the LNP like it or not, renewable energy is more affordable, and it certainly provides cheaper electricity prices than a coal-fired power station. This is a fact. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the cost of electricity from a new high-efficiency, low-emission coal-fired power station is $134 per megawatt. This is compared to solar, at less than $80 per megawatt. Coal-fired power stations are so uninvestable that none of the major banks or the finance or energy industry will provide any funding or loans to any new coal-fired power station—yet there are LNP members who still spruik the merit of coal-fired power stations. Renewable energy is real and it does deliver.
Even though there are LNP members who say their party is 100 per cent supportive of coal, once again, the facts are clear: members opposite, including the Prime Minister, do not support coal. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has stated:
These new HELE plans would produce energy at an estimated two and a half times the cost of our existing coal-fired power stations.
That was the Treasurer's 'Guaranteeing the essentials – a foundation for fairness' address to the Australian Industry Group in Adelaide in July 2017. Again, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has said on coal-fired power stations:
…let's not think that there's cheap new coal, there's not.
… … …
…new cheap coal is a bit of a myth.
That's his speech at Wombat Hollow Forum, 12 August 2017. Then there is the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Matt Canavan, who claims to be the biggest coal supporter, but in actual fact is quoted as saying, 'Due to the significant reserves of baseload power in Central Queensland with Callide, Stanwell and Gladstone power stations, constructing another local coal-fired power station wasn't a top priority.' Minister Canavan has eloquently summed up the LNP's views and action on energy—not a top priority. Whilst the member for Hughes and the member for Dawson continually give false hope to the people of Central and Northern Queensland by making grandiose promises that they know will never be delivered—that is, a new coal-fired power station—and whilst the LNP are changing leaders and flip-flopping on their own policies, Australians and businesses are suffering. This lack of policy is felt deeply in regional areas, and there isn't a regional energy policy or strategy nationally, either.
In 2014, Townsville missed out on a multimillion-dollar project that would have created more than 150 jobs, all because the then Abbott government made renewable energy uninvestable by lowering the national Renewable Energy Target. In 2014, Meridian Energy shelved plans to develop a hydropower project in North Queensland. The chief executive, Ben Burge, said:
…the federal government's protracted efforts to reduce the renewable energy target have made long-term capital investments in energy assets in this country nearly impossible.
This was a huge missed opportunity for Townsville, and we cannot allow this to continue to happen.
Where the LNP have failed, Labor will deliver. That is why federal Labor has committed $200 million towards hydro on the Burdekin Falls Dam. Labor is getting on with the job of delivering on policies, with our plan to transition Australia's energy system to 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. Australians are sick of the LNP government's lack of action on energy. My message to the LNP Morrison government is: you say you are getting on with the job, so let's see some action and get over the words. You have the numbers, so get on with the job and start doing your job. Develop energy policy and govern this great nation.
Do you know what, Deputy Speaker? I think Australians have had an absolute gutful of this debate and the delay that has been the energy debate for successive governments, including Labor.
This is the same Labor who want to introduce a 50 per cent renewable energy target. If we want an example of how not to do things: when I was an apprentice carpenter, I made a mistake once and I got a kick up the backside from my trade school instructor. Then I made the same mistake twice, and the foot was even harder the second time. If you want to look at stupidity and why we shouldn't be doing things, look to the South Australian model. Just like success leaves clues, so does stupidity. Why would you do something like South Australia? Why would you try to replicate what they have done there when it has been nothing other than an abject failure? But that is exactly the path that Bill Shorten, if he ever became Prime Minister, wants to lead us down. It would be an absolute travesty.
On this side of the chamber, we are focused, firmly and squarely, on getting the cost of energy down. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his appointment of Angus Taylor as the Minister for Energy—as he called him, 'The minister for getting energy prices down.' Before Angus came on board, we were doing a reasonable job at getting energy prices down. I know that those opposite want to keep talking about how prices have gone up, but let me tell another little story. I was having a chat with my wife the other night about an investment property—a commercial property—that we have. Since we changed from AGL to Alinta Energy we have saved nearly $300 a quarter in energy bills. That's not just from the previous month, that's from the previous year. So we're comparing apples with apples for the cost of air conditioning, the climate and the weather, and we are saving nearly $300 a quarter.
I say to the good people who may be listening out there: if you are with AGL or another current energy provider then shop around, because chances are that you can save yourself hundreds of dollars by shopping around. I know it's a pain in the backside to do it—I know it's difficult and that we're all busy—but it's worth it. It's in everybody's interest to shop around, because you can get some terrific deals out there. If I had known just how good a deal I could have got I would have shopped around a lot earlier.
Getting back to the great job that I know Angus Taylor—the Minister for Energy—will do: for almost three decades, he was a guy who followed the national energy agenda very astutely. As a consultant in the agriculture, infrastructure and resources sectors, the minister has seen the critical importance of affordable energy to our nation's prosperity. At a local level he founded or advised many small start-up businesses in the agriculture sector, so he understands the importance of energy costs and reliability to business of all sizes.
As a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, the minister researched the competition policy which will be so vital to getting the energy market working in Australia. He did a fantastic job as the Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation and he excelled in the role of Minister for Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity just as he will excel in this role. He takes over from a minister, now the Treasurer, who had already made important progress in facing up to this difficult challenge.
We have already turned a corner on power prices, with reductions announced in Queensland, New South Wales and, believe it or not, South Australia from 1 July 2018. Through the minister's and the former Prime Minister's tough actions, we secured more gas for Australians. This has driven down the cost of wholesale gas by as much as up to 50 per cent. Some of us know that the price of electricity is linked to the wholesale price of gas, so we should start to see significant reductions in our electricity costs. And, if we don't, we need to start whacking the retailers because the retailers are gouging the market. I encourage everybody to shop around as much as they can.
They say that timing is the essence of all great comedy. Well, the member for Hughes has truly outdone himself with the motion before the House today. Despite the National Energy Guarantee being used as a stalking horse to destroy Malcolm Turnbull's leadership during the last parliamentary sitting week, and despite the current Prime Minister declaring the National Energy Guarantee to be 'dead' just this weekend, the motion before the House sings the praises of the NEG, including the extraordinary claim that the NEG 'provides certainty for investors in new and existing power plants'. Monty Python's dead parrot sketch was less absurd.
Australia's energy crisis, a situation where we see the extraordinary trifecta of rising carbon emissions, rising prices and falling reliability, is entirely the creation of the dysfunction in conservative politics in this country. Labor has attempted to be a responsible partner in solving this crisis in the national interest. At every step of the way we've been willing to work with the government to find a genuine solution to the energy crisis. We were willing to work with the government on the emissions intensity scheme. We were willing to work with the government on Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel's clean energy target. We were willing to work with the government on the National Energy Guarantee. But at every step of the way a coherent national energy policy has been made impossible by a Liberal Party lacking leadership and unity, and consumed by personal hatreds and ideological obsessions.
Now we hear that the Morrison government will abandon any pretence and any attempt to reduce emissions in the energy sector at all and will focus exclusively on price. Putting to one side the moral cowardice and policy incoherence of this position, what are we supposed to make of this claim in light of the government's previous statements on the NEG? If you believe what the current PM and his deputy said in their previous roles, the NEG was all about reducing consumer prices. Indeed, they constantly cited modelling claiming that the NEG would reduce consumers' power bills by $150 a year. Yet, in their new roles, the PM and his Treasurer are abandoning the NEG and these lower prices in the name of lower prices! I guess that $150 of consumer savings goes the same way as the $500 of savings we were promised by the Abbott government for ripping up Australia's previous energy policy or the member for New England's $100 roast lamb. It's all just a nonsense.
In 2009, after being ousted as the leader of the Liberal Party, Malcolm Turnbull despaired:
… on this vital issue of climate change we—
the Liberal Party—
are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted.
He was right nine years ago and he is right today. Ousted again from the leadership of the Liberal Party over climate change and energy policy, Malcolm Turnbull in his farewell speech as Prime Minister said:
In terms of energy policy and climate policy, I think the truth is that the coalition finds it very hard to get agreement on anything to do with emissions.
It's difficult for the Labor Party to be a responsible partner for the coalition when they can't even agree with themselves. The troglodytes in the coalition party room have a veto on energy policy in this country. It makes it difficult for sentient human beings in this parliament to engage with them—no ideas, no policies, no hope.
Labor has real policies with real outcomes for all Australians. The core of our plan is our 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. This target will drive up investment in renewable energy, including in firming technologies like batteries and pumped hydro. Labor's policy will create almost 30,000 new renewable energy jobs, and Labor's policy will exert downward pressure on power prices for households and businesses. Our policy will reduce pollution and deliver real action to tackle climate change. Where Labor is for renewables, innovation and lower prices, it's clear that the coalition is just for coal, the status quo and the higher prices driven by the chaos and dysfunction of conservative politics in Australia.
When the Prime Minister presented each of his ministers with an Australian flag lapel pin, really he should have given each and every coalition MP a lump of coal like the one that he brought into the chamber—a lump of coal to remind the Australian people whose side the coalition is really on: the side of ideology and idiocy, as was so aptly put by the former Prime Minister. They were the parting words of the coalition's former leader as he gave up on his former colleagues and flew the country for a New York holiday.
As the member for Goldstein, I will never get those last five minutes back. Deputy Speaker, what are we talking about today? We are talking about what we are going to do, as a parliament and as a government for this country, to make electricity prices more affordable. In the words of the new Prime Minister, we are for Australians. We are on their side.
Let us remind ourselves who is affected by the debate around energy: it is, of course, the pensioners, who go from payment to payment, fortnight to fortnight, making sure that they can afford to pay their contribution towards their energy bill. In many cases, including in the electorate of Goldstein, they have to live in a single room of their house during winter or summer, because they can't afford the heating or cooling for the whole home. They understand the consequences of electricity prices. They understand, in their lived human experience, what it means when you have bad government policy—the legacy of our opponents—that has driven up electricity prices year after year.
We are talking about those businesses in the south-east corridor of Melbourne, across Dandenong, that, for instance, consume a large amount of electricity as part of their activities. There are the die-casting businesses that contribute components to our new defence industries, as well as car component manufacturers all across the world who have to liquefy different types of metals as part of their die-casting process, or who consume huge amounts of energy in producing their products, and who have experienced year-on-year increases in their wholesale electricity prices—and, in some cases, have had to sign contracts of 200 or 300 per cent over future years. These are the people who experience the human consequences of high electricity prices. And it flows on to the number of people they can employ, the jobs they can create and the opportunities they can provide for constituents within the south-east corridor of Melbourne, and that is replicated across the whole of this great nation.
This dates back particularly to the era where the former Labor government dramatically increased the obligations on the Renewable Energy Target, forcing highly expensive, unreliable energy into the market. We have continued to live with the legacy and the commercial consequences ever since. And the focus of this government has been: how do we deal with the consequences and the legacy of bad Labor policy? It's like dealing with the consequences after the long era of tariffs and protectionism, where the market has become so distorted and so perverse, rewarding the wrong incentives and doing little to reward the best, lowest cost outcome for consumers. The task for this government has been: how are we going to address this and fix this?
While we have been doing it, and dealing with these real consequences for the Australian people, what have we seen the irresponsible opposition do in the meantime? They haven't said, 'We've learned from our errors and mistakes or from the punishment pensioners have experienced because of our bad policy.' They have not turned around, admitted their errors and accepted responsibility for the consequences of their policy. They have said: 'No, no, no; we know better. We're going to double down. What we are going to do is turn around and say: "No, no; the Renewable Energy Target isn't big enough. Rural obligations aren't big enough. We're going to keep forcing in electricity, regardless of whether it's cost-competitive or not, whether it's reliable or not, or even whether it cuts greenhouse gas emissions or not."' Those opposite have put ideology ahead of the practical application for Australians. We have seen them make increasing commitments to cut their emissions without any understanding about how that's going to be done. And that is not just in the energy sector. They have no understanding of the impact it will have on agriculture, land use and land clearing policy, the impact it will have on transportable energy, or the impact it will have on future emissions in the industries where so many of the people that they claim to represent—that they falsely claim to respect—work.
At every point, this government has said, 'We will seek to solve these problems for the nation and for the people of Australia.' What we face at a state level is obstruction from the Queensland and Victorian state Labor governments. Now is the time to put an end to it, and we are doing so. (Time expired)
When the motion we're dealing with today was first proposed on 18 June this year, the government's National Energy Guarantee, the NEG, was spruiked as a policy device that would lower prices and bring certainty to the electricity network. The then Prime Minister, the former member for Wentworth, was lauded for getting his party room's endorsement of the NEG. It was said to be a boost to his leadership. However, since then, if you believe the commentators' opinions—something which I have to say I normally take with a grain of salt—that same NEG has now brought an end to that leadership. Years from now, when people look back on this rather unusual and unstable period in Australian politics, a common thread will be the amount of navel-gazing and policy uncertainty in this place and how at odds and out of touch it was with the problems faced by the wider nation.
The supposed big debates of the last decade have for the most part been isolated to this building. While we have squabbled in here, the experts, the industry and the public have made up their mind and moved on. Examples are numerous: broadband, marriage equality, the funding of education, and of course climate change and energy policy. The Australian people deserve better from their government, and their disgust is borne out in the numerous polls and surveys. We must stop the bickering and reach a consensus, bipartisan policy on energy to drive down costs for households and businesses and to mitigate the effects of greenhouse gases on our climate.
Last year the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, of which I'm a member, produced a report called Powering our future: inquiry into modernising Australia's electricity grid. The message was clear from the submissions received, and in both public and private hearings: in Australia and overseas, a well-functioning grid needs policy certainty. Policy certainty will address pricing and supply. Policy certainty will allow investment in power generation and provision. It will allow further research. It will make the provision of alternative methods of power generation possible by funding research and implementation. Certainty will provide the stimulus for investment in both plant and innovation to supply Australian businesses and consumers with affordable, accessible power. Conversely, continual policy uncertainty guarantees that businesses will not invest and may make choices to locate overseas. Last year the committee heard evidence that the inability of this government to provide certainty in energy policy over the last decade has placed the equivalent of a $50 a tonne carbon price on electricity generation.
Australia has long been at the forefront of embracing new technologies, from televisions to computers and mobile phones, and electricity has been no exception. The take-up of rooftop solar has risen exponentially in the last decade. Some of this growth obviously was helped by subsidies from previous federal and state governments, but that growth has continued well after the subsidies have disappeared. It seems there are many reasons for the continual trend, bill reduction always being a primary concern, but a wish to provide cleaner energy and a lower carbon footprint are also determining factors. With well-thought-out policy settings, the amount of generation behind the meter can be assessed, modelled and then incorporated into planning for the grid and for future production to ensure stability.
Last year the committee also heard evidence that innovation of behind-the-meter generation can negate the need to build extra power generation, such as new large-scale power plants. I'm aware of an initiative led by the organisation ShineHub, called the Sydney Community Solar Program. The initiative is looking to buy solar rooftop and batteries on behalf of consumers in the hope of creating Sydney's biggest virtual power plant. Their primary selling point is they are getting on with real solutions, instead of waiting for politicians who waste their time squabbling in corridors. While an exciting and innovative initiative, which I will keep a keen eye on, it is a sad indictment of this parliament. The initiative also points to the need for a clear approach from government with support from all sides of politics, underpinned by equity. We need an approach that ensures consumers, particularly those on low incomes or renters, are not left to shoulder grid costs as those more able to afford rooftop solar and battery leave the grid.
For the Australian public and industry, the most important function of the electricity grid is to provide reliable, dependable power when they need it. The government needs to provide certainty of policy so that businesses can get on with the provision of reliable generation for Australia's future needs.
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.
This bill, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2018, will remove the constraints that the Commonwealth government shamefully placed on the legislative powers of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory in 1997 at the behest of one of our current sitting members. This bill restores the democratic rights of citizens in the territories by removing a constraint on the legislative authority of their elected representatives which does not exist anywhere else in Australia or for any other Australians. The bill recognises that territorians deserve the same democratic freedoms as other Australians. This bill will ensure that the parliaments of both the Northern Territory and the ACT and the people they represent can interrogate the issues in a time and manner of their choosing with the benefit of recent legislative work in the area—that is, the rights of the terminally ill.
I want to acknowledge the work and the contributions which have been made by my colleagues the member for Canberra, the member for Fenner and the member for Solomon in this place and my mate Senator Malarndirri McCarthy in the Senate. Shamefully, the Senate refused to restore these rights to Australians living in the territories of the ACT and the Northern Territory.
This bill is not about euthanasia, as some want it to be. It's about the rights of the territories and the rights of territory citizens. Why are we treated as second-class citizens? Why is it justifiable for the Victorian parliament to pass assisted dying legislation last year in 2017 without interference from the Commonwealth, because the Commonwealth simply can't interfere in that bill, but, because the Commonwealth has the power under the constitution to determine ultimately what passes for legislation in the legislatures of both the Northern Territory and the ACT, it sought to override the will of the people expressed in the parliament of the Northern Territory over euthanasia legislation now 20 years ago? That was shameful. It can't do it for any other Australians, but our Senate colleagues—some of them on my own side—had the gall very recently to hide behind the euthanasia debate as a mechanism to oppose this legislation. Well, that was shameful.
We territorians should have the same rights as every other Australian. We territorians should elect, and do elect, our own territory governments. Who we elect is our responsibility. The laws they pass are ultimately our responsibilities. But what we're seeing now, as a result of opposition of the legislation in the Senate, is a desire by this parliament to continue the stupidity of a colonial regime which says, 'We, the masters in Canberra, can override the rights of territorians, whether they live in the ACT or the Northern Territory.' I put it to you: it is plain wrong. It is morally wrong. It's unjustifiable. That doesn't stop territorians debating issues to do with euthanasia and other issues, and to choose to make their own decisions, nor does it prevent people in this place having a debate about euthanasia and deciding what their position is on euthanasia. But that's not what this bill is about. This bill is purely and simply about making sure that the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT have the same rights—the same rights—as every other Australian.
We're held captive because of a constitutional arrangement of over a century ago. It's time to actually understand that we live now in 2018—2018 is our opportunity. Our opportunity is to make sure that every Australian is treated equally under the law and before the law, with the right to make laws of their own in their own jurisdictions, whether they are in the ACT, the Northern Territory or Victoria—where it has already been done—without any interference from the Commonwealth.
I don't think there is an argument here. I would just say to those people who have hidden behind euthanasia to vote against this legislation in the Senate: wise up and understand that every Australian deserves the same rights as you have in this place. If you're representing the ACT here, you don't have the same rights as someone from New South Wales. That is wrong. I should have the same rights as every other Australian. (Time expired)
I commend the sentiments and words of the member for Lingiari and his passion on this issue. He's been advocating on this issue for as long as we can all remember, being the longest serving member currently in the House of Representatives. As he walks out very wearily from this Chamber, he's still there fighting for the Territory, and that's the main thing. So hats off to the member for Lingiari for his passion and continued advocacy for the Northern Territory.
I want to take this opportunity to thank my two territorian friends the member for Fenner, who's on the other side of the lake from my electorate, and the member for Solomon for bringing forward this private member's bill on territory rights, a topic that I can't believe that we're still debating in 2018. I've got to be frank: I can't believe that we are still debating this. We're still fighting for territorians to have the same rights as those in the states and to have the equality that the states enjoy in the way they are governed and represented and the way that their voice is heard. In 2018, we're having this debate about equality and enfranchisement of the people of the territories.
How would you feel, Deputy Speaker, if your state or your community did not have the opportunity through the state government to legislate on whatever it wanted? How would you feel about that? You would feel angry and resent the fact that your community does not enjoy the rights of someone over the border. My community does not have the same rights as that of the member for Eden-Monaro, 20 kilometres away. You have complete equality for those 20 kilometres away from where we are now, yet here in the territory my community does not enjoy equality in the way it can govern and the way that the people are represented.
It wasn't until 1966 that federal representatives in Canberra were given full voting rights here in this parliament. Then, 23 years later, the first Legislative Assembly was elected, and Canberrans were finally given the power to decide the future for their own communities. In those early days of self-government, I worked for the first assembly elected and for the first ACT chief minister, Rosemary Follett, who was the first woman to lead an Australian state or territory government and was very proudly from Labor.
Canberra has been progressive since its inception. The whole idea of Canberra was created on the notion of democracy and equality. Yet here in this nation's capital, which physically and philosophically is designed to embody those notions of democracy and equality, unfortunately those democratic equal rights are denied to the people of Canberra because they live in a territory, because of the constitutional baggage that this nation has inherited—as my colleague the member for Lingiari said, the colonial powers that still exist and that deny territorians the same rights as those in the states.
It's not just our legislative rights, our ability to pass whatever legislation we want without the federal government intervening in our democratically elected Legislative Assembly; it's also the fact that we are significantly underrepresented.
I know that some of my colleagues here are from Tasmania. It is usually a source of great contention in Canberra—this is meant with the greatest of love—that Tasmanians are incredibly well represented, and I will just keep it at that. Compare Tasmania, 500,000 people, to the ACT, 415,000 people, and we have a unicameral assembly of 25 representatives. We now have three representatives in the lower house and two representatives in the Senate. The representation in the Northern Territory is similar to that, in terms of numbers. Let's not talk about Tasmania. It's a great pleasure and honour to speak on this bill tonight. It underscores the fact that we want equality here in the territory, and we want democracy here in the territory in 2018.
The time allotted for this debate has expired, and the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter raised by the member for Calare. I notice the member's focus is on drought as no doubt his community and many others are struggling through some very terrible circumstances, but I have to ask some questions.
Where was this government when Tasmania was in the was in the grip of its worst drought in history between 2015 and 2016? Where was this government while farmers were coping with—and are still coping with—the ongoing $1 milk price war between the supermarkets? Where was this government when the milk price was slashed by Murray Goulburn and Fonterra, causing a dairy crisis in May 2016? Where was this government when the June 2016 floods in Tasmania devastated not only our dairy farmers but the entire agriculture industry in my region? I see the member for Calare congratulates the Prime Minister and others for the touring drought affected areas, which is always a positive thing, but why did the coalition leadership not visit my state and talk to our farmers as they were hit with one crisis after another? I correct myself: they only visited our state during elections. I wrote to the former Deputy Prime Minister, not during an election, and asked him to visit Tasmania to meet our farmers, and, in particular, our dairy farmers. However, he failed to acknowledge this request. The offer still stands for the current Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, and I have spoken to him directly on this.
Why did this government not act on extending Farm Household Assistance in 2016? Even today in my electorate I'm advised that there are up to 24 farming families still receiving Farm Household Assistance from the 2016 dairy crisis and other farming related issues. Other families have now come off household assistance, but I am sure they would have appreciated that extra bit of assistance that this government is now providing—had they only acted two years earlier. This side of the Chamber supports measures to increase farm household assistance to farmers in financial crisis. To put it simply: this scheme is a dog's breakfast.
In 2016 when farmers cash flows were in crisis, they faced long delays in having their applications processed. They were desperately in need of help. Many were living off food vouchers and receiving other community support. The IT program processing the claims was not fit for purpose. My office had to intervene to help a Circular Head couple get access to this assistance after they had waited over three months for any help. Even after this family received their household assistance, the problems continued, as, after 12 months, they were cut off due to a glitch in the system. Again, my office had to intervene.
Rural Business Tasmania, in a recent submission to this government, states the following:
We believe the Farm Household Allowance has potential to be a successful output of the IGA but that the delivery mechanism needs further review.
Issues over the life of the FHA included: telephone 132316—the person phoning may have to wait up to an hour or longer to gain a Helpline support person
Complexity of the application process (including number of forms)
Delay in outcome (in some cases up to 10 weeks) and clarity of requests for further information can provide frustration.
Many families have experienced all of the above. Rural Business Tasmania succinctly summed up the issue further in their submission when they stated this question: 'What can be improved?' Their answer was: 'The Farm Household Allowance and concessional loan processes.'
When it comes to delivering farm household assistance, Labor knows it can and must be done better. This government has gutted Centrelink, contributing to the delays in accessing the farm household allowance. Labor will rebuild Centrelink by employing an additional 1,200 properly trained full-time staff. In my electorate of Braddon 50 Department of Human Services officers will be employed, with some given the specific responsibility of visiting regional communities as outreach. Many of these don't have access to reliable internet, thanks to this government, and many want to talk to people face to face to avoid the long, long wait on the phone. Unlike those opposite, who talk up a big game of supporting farmers, Labor will take practical steps to support the sector, to ensure farmers receive the support they deserve when crisis hits. And just maybe the member for Calare could say sorry on behalf of his government for ignoring Tasmanian farmers in their hour of need.
I rise to speak to this motion. One might ask why an outer suburban MP who represents a large growth-belt seat with lots of young families shifting into the area, even though his new seat does take in farmland, would speak on a motion moved by the member for Calare about drought in New South Wales and in some areas of Queensland, although there are some areas of Victoria that are drought affected as well. The reason that I'm speaking on this matter tonight is two exceptional people in the suburb of Doveton: Ruth Murray and Jenny Colvin, who have seen the plight of farmers and heard the tales of hardship and devastation suffered by those farmers experiencing drought, particularly in New South Wales. They are two women with not much money—Doveton is a working class area—who are tremendously community minded and who decided to do their bit to assist the farmers in need.
Why did Ruth and Jenny from Doveton get involved in a fundraiser that will be held in October? I'll tell you why. The media has done a good job of late talking about drought. I lived on a cattle station in Kalgoorlie when I was younger, so I know about arid countryside. This is a very serious drought. Some are saying the drought in New South Wales is worse than the one in 1965. For those who are watching in the non-farm areas in my constituency, I will reflect on a discussion reported in an article about the effects of drought in The Guardian, which quotes a doctor based in Tamworth. I mention this because this is what Ruth and Jenny saw and what motivated them to take action. The quote is from Dr Alison Harris, who is based in Tamworth. She said:
I don’t depend directly on the land for my livelihood but many of our patients do, and the farmers and their families are struggling.
We live 10km out of Tamworth. Our garden is dying, we have no grass except the little bit watered by the grey water outflow. Everything is dusty and so dry. I have been buying water for most of the last year, every month another truckload.
Normally you don’t see roos except at dawn and dusk—now we see them any time of the day, they have come out of the hills and are in the paddocks, eating the last of the tall dead grass … They are even coming into town, eating any grass or plants they can find. They are desperate.
Even the indigenous trees are dying. Driving in through the pass in the hills behind Tamworth, the gums on the ridgelines are starting to die—dead leaves, dead branches on almost every tree.
There are no frogs—the last six months we have hardly heard any frogs at all.
We are losing things that are precious to us – the breed lines for the farmers, the special trees and plants in our gardens and parks, the lovely green lawns we used to have. It seems so long since we have seen green grass, since we have heard rain on the metal roof. It is a hard slog, minimising water use, shuffling buckets of water out to the remaining treasured plants, knowing that it may all be useless unless the rain comes.
And yet, on the mainstream news bulletins, it is as if we don’t exist on the other side of the sandstone curtain. Weather reporters blab on about lovely clear skies and sunny weather as if the cities were all that mattered. But how will the people in the cities eat if the country isn’t producing food for lack of water?
Good people like Ruth and Jenny, who have been community icons in Doveton, decided to do something about it. These little Aussie battlers with very little money decided to create a community event at the John Pandazopoulos Hall on 7 October this year. Because Jenny had a connection from her time singing in a band called Country Pride, a lot of musicians from all over Australia are coming to Doveton on 7 October to sing, free of charge, to do their bit. It says a lot about the quintessential Australian character that, when people know the extent of the suffering of our farming community, they don't play politics; they do what Australians do in a time of crisis—pull together and do their bit. They have no money, but by dint of their will and commitment to their community they have encouraged people from all over the country to come to the John Pandazopoulos Hall on 7 October to play music for about five hours to raise money to send to the farmers in need. That says a lot about Ruth Murray and Jenny Colvin but also a lot about our great country. Let's hope that small dint will do something to help those farmers that have been devastated by the drought.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18 : 56