For the information of honourable members, I present report No. 33 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 26 November 2018. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 23 October 2018.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 23 October 2018, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 26 November 2018, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs:
Breaking barriers: a national adoption framework for Australian children
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am
Speech time limits—
Ms Banks—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Mr Wilkie: To present a Bill for an Act to require certain employers to obtain certification of compliance with an equal pay standard, and for related purposes. (Equal Pay Standard Bill 2018)
(Notice given 23 October 2018.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 Ms McGowan: To present a Bill for an Act to establish the National Integrity Commission, and for related purposes. (National Integrity Commission Bill 2018)
(Notice given 23 October 2018.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 Ms Husar: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that 23 November 2018 is White Ribbon Day (WRD) followed by the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on 25 November;
(2) recognises that WRD aims to prevent violence against women by increasing public awareness and challenging attitudes and behaviours that allow gendered violence to continue;
(3) supports the United Nations UNiTE to End Violence against Women and the 16 days of activism campaigns which are held internationally from 25 November to 10 December each year;
(4) understands that:
(a) this year, as of 15 October 2018, 55 women have been killed by violence in Australia;
(b) one in three women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by someone known to them;
(c) each week on average one woman is killed by a current or former partner; and
(d) domestic and family violence is the principle cause of homelessness for women and their children;
(5) acknowledges the high economic cost of violence against women, which is estimated to cost the Australian economy $21.7 billion a year; and
(6) asks all Members to show their support for the principles of WRD.
(Notice given 15 October 2018.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Husar—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 Mrs Marino: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) on Remembrance Day on 11 November 2018, we commemorated the Centenary of the First World War Armistice;
(b) from a population of less than five million, more than 400,000 Australians enlisted to serve, and of these, more than 150,000 were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner and more than 60,000 made the ultimate sacrifice giving their lives for their country; and
(c) this was an enormous toll for a young nation like Australia with nearly every family and community across the country having experienced a loss of some kind; and
(2) acknowledges:
(a) the service and sacrifice of Australia's current and former serving men and women;
(b) the unwavering commitment of the families who support our veterans on the home front; and
(c) and thanks all current and former defence personnel for their service.
(Notice given 23 October 2018.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
Mrs Marino—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Mr Dick: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Brisbane's southside hosts a vibrant Vietnamese-Australian community; and
(b) Vietnamese migration is a successful case of multiculturalism at its finest and has strengthened the social fabric of Australian society;
(2) recognises that:
(a) Australia must continue to advocate for freedom and the respect of human rights for the people of Vietnam and for all people around the world;
(b) international human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch, have become increasingly concerned about abuses to human rights in Vietnam;
(c) Vietnam's prisons currently hold at least 140 political prisoners; and
(d) during the first five months of 2018 alone, at least 26 rights activists and bloggers were put on trial, convicted and sentenced to long prison terms; and
(3) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) exert pressure on the Vietnamese Government to allow thorough examination of claims of human rights abuses;
(b) seek the holding of those responsible for these abuses to account; and
(c) help protect vulnerable citizens from human rights abuses in Vietnam.
(Notice given 27 June 2018; amended 13 August 2018.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Dick—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 Mr Evans: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS):
(a) is a cultural institution of international renown; and
(b) has been central to the development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander studies;
(2) notes that on Monday, 15 October 2018 AIATSIS unveiled its Strategic Plan 2018-2023 in Parliament House;
(3) congratulates the dedicated team at AIATSIS for its ambitious strategic plan;
(4) commends the work of AIATSIS in helping to forge a national identity that embraces, celebrates and preserves the unique cultures of Australia's First Peoples; and
(5) encourages honourable Members to raise public awareness of the institute's collections and the great work being done by AIATSIS to assist and promote the study of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages and culture.
(Notice given 23 October 2018.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Evans—5 minutes.
Other Members—6 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Ms Kearney: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) a recent report into CEO remuneration found that the average total pay of ASX 100 CEOs rose by 9 per cent last year—4 times the pace of average wage growth;
(b) the median ASX 100 CEO earned more than $4 million, and the average pay for ASX 100 CEOs was 75 times the average pay of full time workers, meaning a CEO takes home in a single year what it would take the average worker nearly two careers to accrue;
(c) excessive remuneration was not always the norm, given in the late 1970s, the BHP CEO was earning only around 6 or 7 times what an average Australian worker took home; and
(d) there is widespread public concern about inequality, and in particular that CEO salaries are growing at an unfair rate and leaving workers behind;
(2) recognises that:
(a) large firms in the United States and the United Kingdom are required to report ratios between CEO pay and workers in their firms;
(b) excessive CEO pay makes firms less profitable than they should be, with experts noting that an excessive gap can hurt employee morale and reduce productivity;
(c) remuneration ratio transparency is not an affront, but rather a complement, to a market economy; and
(d) extending current market reporting requirements for public companies helps inform investors as they calculate risks and decide where to invest their money; and
(3) calls on the Government to support Labor's plan to implement reporting rules requiring large listed firms to publicly release the ratio of total CEO remuneration and median worker pay.
(Notice given 23 October 2018.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Kearney—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day
1 Local governments: Resumption of debate (from 25 June 2018) on the motion of Mr Falinski—That this House:
(1) recognises the important role that local government plays in Australia;
(2) notes the continuing support that the Australian Government provides to local governments around Australia including:
(a) Black Spot Program funding;
(b) the Bridges Renewal Program; and
(c) the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative; and
(3) recognises that strong local government is important for strong and healthy communities.
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
WHITE RIBBON DAY: Resumption of debate on the motion of Ms Husar—That this House:
(1) notes that 23 November 2018 is White Ribbon Day (WRD) followed by the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on 25 November;
(2) recognises that WRD aims to prevent violence against women by increasing public awareness and challenging attitudes and behaviours that allow gendered violence to continue;
(3) supports the United Nations UNiTE to End Violence against Women and the 16 days of activism campaigns which are held internationally from 25 November to 10 December each year;
(4) understands that:
(a) this year, as of 15 October 2018, 55 women have been killed by violence in Australia;
(b) one in three women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by someone known to them;
(c) each week on average one woman is killed by a current or former partner; and
(d) domestic and family violence is the principle cause of homelessness for women and their children;
(5) acknowledges the high economic cost of violence against women, which is estimated to cost the Australian economy $21.7 billion a year; and
(6) asks all Members to show their support for the principles of WRD.
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices—continued
4 Mr Christensen: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service was renamed as Open Arms: Veterans and Families Counselling Service, by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on 19 October 2018 to coincide with the Invictus Games;
(b) veterans of the Vietnam War were the first to recognise the need for specialist counselling services for Australia's returned service personnel—their lobbying resulted in the establishment of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service, or VVCS, in 1982;
(c) since its establishment, VVCS has assisted thousands of veterans and their families with mental health and relationship issues, as well as building resilience and wellbeing; and
(d) over the years, the focus of this service has expanded to include veterans of all conflicts, their families and other members of the veteran community and the new name recognises this broader focus; and
(2) acknowledges the significant legacy of Australia's Vietnam veterans who have ensured that future generations of serving men and women will have access to specialised mental health and wellbeing support.
(Notice given 23 October 2018.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Christensen—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 Mr Dick: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there are approximately 1,500 new car dealers in Australia that operate 3,500 new vehicle outlets;
(b) 85 per cent of new car dealers are private or family owned businesses; and
(c) the Australian Automotive Dealer Association is the peak industry body exclusively representing franchised new car dealers in Australia;
(2) recognises that:
(a) the economic impact of the new vehicle retailing sector to Australia is significant, contributing $14.91 billion dollars to the national economy and employing almost 70,000 Australians;
(b) vehicle manufacturers in Australia are increasingly behaving in a way that makes it very challenging for new car dealers to run a viable business;
(c) relations between manufacturers and dealers is currently governed by the Franchising Code of Conduct; and
(d) this code has failed to protect dealers as it does not account for the highly technical nature of the automotive industry and the scale of both dealers and manufacturers relative to regular franchisees and franchisors; and
(3) calls on the Government to support Labor's plan to implement an industry-specific auto dealership code that will deliver clear ground rules for manufacturers and dealerships, including obligations under the Australian Consumer Law and consumer complaints, warranty and repair processes, dealership agreements and the ability to make variations to them, and termination notices.
(Notice given 15 October 2018.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Dick—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day - continued
2 Volunteering: Resumption of debate (from 13 August 2018) on the motion of Mr Vasta—That this House:
(1) recognises the fantastic contribution that volunteers make to the community of Bonner, and to Australia in general;
(2) notes there are 8.7 million volunteers around Australia in organisations like sports clubs, charities and schools;
(3) congratulates the Government for allocating $20 million in funding to support volunteering; and
(4) notes that volunteering efforts make an estimated annual economic and social contribution of $290 billion.
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Notices - continued
6 Ms Sharkie: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the scientific evidence for both the existence of climate change and the anthropogenic factors that cause it is overwhelming and compelling and should no longer be held in doubt;
(b) climate change is projected to create serious risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and economic growth and that action on climate change is of critical importance to future generations of Australians;
(c) the Australian Institute's report entitled Climate of the Nation 2018 found that 73 per cent of Australians are concerned about climate change, up from 66 per cent in 2017, and that only 11 per cent of Australians do not think that climate change is occurring;
(d) in March 2007, the then Opposition Leader, the Hon Kevin Rudd, stated that 'Climate change is the great moral challenge of our generation.';
(e) in February 2010, the then Member for Wentworth, the Hon Malcolm Turnbull, stated that 'Climate change policy..is an exercise in risk management and no reasonable person could regard the risk as being so low that no action was warranted.';
(f) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018 special report entitled Global Warming of 1.5°C concluded that human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels;
(g) that same report concludes with high confidence that global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate;
(h) climate related risks are projected to substantially increase with global warming of 1.5°C and seriously increase with global warming of 2°C or higher; and
(i) serious Government action on climate change in Australia has badly stalled; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) maintain its commitment to the Paris Agreement and its targets; and
(b) take:
(i) genuine and meaningful action to meet those targets; and
(ii) significantly greater action to reduce Australia's greenhouse emissions, and as soon as possible.
(Notice given 16 October 2018.)
Time allotted—45 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Sharkie—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day - continued
REMEMBRANCE DAY: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mrs Marino—That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) on Remembrance Day on 11 November 2018, we commemorated the Centenary of the First World War Armistice;
(b) from a population of less than five million, more than 400,000 Australians enlisted to serve, and of these, more than 150,000 were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner and more than 60,000 made the ultimate sacrifice giving their lives for their country; and
(c) this was an enormous toll for a young nation like Australia with nearly every family and community across the country having experienced a loss of some kind; and
(2) acknowledges:
(a) the service and sacrifice of Australia's current and former serving men and women;
(b) the unwavering commitment of the families who support our veterans on the home front; and
(c) and thanks all current and former defence personnel for their service.
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The government is committed to arming our financial services regulators with the powers need to take strong action to protect consumers and to deter and prosecute corporate and financial sector misconduct. This is not only necessary to ensure that individuals and corporations who do the wrong thing are appropriately punished but also an essential part of rebuilding community trust in the financial services industry.
It is clear, through the work of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, that some financial institutions have engaged in conduct that falls well short of community expectations. This is not acceptable. This bill delivers a clear message to those financial institutions and individuals that complying with the law is not negotiable. If the law is breached, the courts will have a broader range of penalties to impose, which will act as a significant deterrent.
The bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to more than double maximum imprisonment penalties for some of the most serious white-collar crimes, bringing Australia's penalties in closer alignment with leading international jurisdictions.
This bill will increase several penalties for individuals by more than fivefold and increase civil penalties for corporations by more than tenfold.
Courts will also be empowered to consider even greater penalties where the profits from misconduct are high or where the company's annual turnover exceeds $105 million.
For example, in circumstances where a financial institution breaches its licence to provide financial services efficiently, honestly and fairly, at the moment there is no penalty apart from taking licensing action, including taking their licence away. Under the new law, individuals could face a maximum civil penalty of three times the benefit gained, or just over $1.05 million, and companies could face a maximum of $10.5 million or three times the benefit gained, or 10 per cent of annual turnover (capped at $210 million).
Courts will have the power to strip people of their ill-gotten gains to ensure contraveners can no longer profit from their misconduct.
This bill includes important reforms that put consumers first. In addition to the stronger penalty framework, the Corporations Act will be amended to ensure courts prioritise compensating victims over collecting penalties from offenders.
The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was consulted in relation to the bill and has approved the bill as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.
The government is committed to taking action to reform the financial sector. These reforms are part of the government's comprehensive reform agenda, which has already:
(1) created a framework to hold banking executives accountable for their actions under the government's Banking Executive Accountability Regime;
(2) boosted banking and financial services competition to benefit consumers; and
(3) provided the Australian Securities and Investments Commission with an additional $70 million of funding, significant new powers and also appointed an additional deputy chair, in Mr Daniel Crennan QC, with a key focus on enforcement action.
A stronger penalty framework is one more step towards restoring the public's confidence in our financial sector, establishing a clear deterrent to financial institutions breaking the law, and ensuring consumers are protected from misconduct.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's advisory report on the Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018 and the Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's advisory report on the Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018 and the Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. These bills form a part of a government's response to the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review. The review's major recommendation was that Office of National Intelligence, ONI, be established in the Prime Minister's portfolio. The review has noted that ONI:
… would be headed by a Director-General who would be the Prime Minister’s principal adviser on matters relating to the national intelligence community. The Director-General would not be empowered to direct the specific activities of agencies, but should be able to direct the co-ordination of the national intelligence community to ensure there are appropriately integrated strategies across the suite of agency capabilities.
The bills continue the former Office of National Assessments, ONA, as ONI, with a revised mandate to lead the national intelligence community. The ONI bill further extends ONI's assessment and evaluation functions from that of the ONA, provides ONI with a specific, open-source collection function, and positions the Director-General as the head of the national intelligence community. The Director-General's responsibilities include keeping the Prime Minister informed on matters relating to the national intelligence community. The Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 repeals the Office of National Assessments Act 1977 and amends 18 other acts to reflect the proposed operation of ONI.
During its review of the bills, the committee examined how the proposed legislation reflected the recommendations from the Independent Intelligence Review. The committee also examined whether ONI was given adequate powers and functions to lead a better coordinated and more integrated intelligence community, and examined whether the bills impacted on the existing roles and statutory functions of the other Australian intelligence agencies. The committee received three submissions on the bills and held a public hearing on 16 August 2018 in Canberra. The committee made six recommendations in relation to the bills. The first, that the comprehensive review into the legal framework of the national intelligence community currently under way examine the consistency of the provisions across national intelligence community legislation which enable these agencies to cooperate with foreign authorities. The second, that the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence be unable to delegate his or her powers to authorise ONI to engage with foreign partners. The third, to remove a secrecy offence from the bill, consistent with the committee's recent advisory report on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017. The fourth, that ONI's privacy rules are made public except to the extent those rules contain classified information. The fifth, that the Prime Minister consult with the Privacy Commissioner when making privacy rules for ONI, and the sixth and final recommendation, that, subject to implementation of these recommendations, the bill be passed.
I commend the report to the House.
I rise to contribute to the debate on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2018. On 15 July last year, acting on intelligence, police arrested two men at Sydney Airport. They were accused of plotting to blow up an aircraft flying from Sydney to Abu Dhabi, by hiding a bomb in a meat grinder which was to be taken aboard as carry-on luggage. Those men are expected to face trial next March; I won't go into further detail, because that would not be appropriate. But their case highlights the ongoing risk of terrorism to this nation and across the globe. That threat places the onus on governments to deliver the highest levels of security in our nation's airports that is practicable. It is unfortunate that these levels of security are necessary. They cost money and they cost time through lost productivity. But this is the reality of life in the 21st century, and it is an important job for this parliament to provide security at levels which are commensurate with assessed risk.
The bill before us is based on the view that one existing security requirement, the creation of what are known as transport security plans, is placing an unacceptably high administrative burden on small airports that are assessed as less at-risk than large airports in our major cities. There is no suggestion of any change relating to our major domestic or our international airports. But we do have to ask ourselves whether it makes sense to require operators of a small airstrip in a rural area to adopt the same security measures as, say, Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport or Melbourne Airport. This legislation responds to expert advice which concluded that, when it comes to these smaller airports, the level of red tape involved in the TSP process is excessive when weighed against the security threats which these airports face. Accordingly, the legislation proposes the creation of a model TSP for small industry participants. This model would ensure that operators were aware of their responsibilities under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. It would allow operators of airports assessed as low risk to focus on implementing and maintaining the robust measures in their plan rather than focus on red tape and reports for the Commonwealth. It is an issue of informed risk management.
It's important to note that most of these smaller airports are owned by local government. Local ratepayers pay sometimes substantial funds in terms of a proportion of a small rural or regional local government body as a percentage of their overall budget. Therefore, reducing the administrative burden on these airport operators is really common sense. The opposition will be supporting this legislation. It has broad support across the aviation sector and across the owners and operators of these airports. It has also been positively examined by the appropriate Senate committee.
Arrangements concerning TSPs are contained in the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. A transport security plan sets out the measures and procedures that industry participants need to implement to meet their regulatory obligations. The plans must demonstrate that operators are aware of their responsibility to contribute to the maintenance of aviation security; have in place an integrated, responsible and proactive approach to managing aviation security; have the capacity to meet the specific obligations imposed under the act; and have taken into account their local security risk context in developing activities and strategies for managing aviation security.
Transport security plans are assessed and approved by the Department of Home Affairs. When it comes to our busy capital city or major regional city airports, transport security plans are critical tools for the maintenance of public safety. It's appropriate that major airports develop plans that are specific for the infrastructure and the local environment that those airports operate in. The major airports must not only commit themselves to safety but also be able to demonstrate their preparedness to act when action is required. But, when it comes to smaller operators with lower security risks, the government has concluded that reform is necessary, and I think that the government is right.
At this point, it is appropriate to consider exactly how the Department of Home Affairs assesses risk when it comes to airports. Accordingly to the explanatory memorandum, risk assessments are informed by intelligence and characteristics of industry participants, such as location, proximity to important pieces of infrastructure, passengers numbers and the types of services being provided. Risk profiles can change based on changes to these factors. For example, an airport might experience a sharp increase in passenger numbers, or it might commence new services involving larger aircraft.
The bill before us would release smaller airports with low-risk profiles from the requirement to create individual, tailor-made transport security plans. Instead, the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, or that person's delegate, will be able to give an airport a secretary-issued transport security plan. Essentially this is a model transport security plan. Instead of having to spend considerable funds developing unique plans, this model will be able to be applied across smaller airports. This model will set out the operators' obligations, but it won't require them to produce detailed planning documents and assessments explaining their obligations, based on the fact that they have been assessed as low risk.
It's always been my view, on issues of transport safety, that the parliament should work collaboratively and heed the advice of the experts. The real question we face with this bill is whether we can be assured that, in reducing red tape for small airports, we will not be reducing security standards. The Australian Airports Association, which represents 340 airports, ranging from small airstrips in rural and regional areas to large international airports, has come to the view that the changes will support current security outcomes. The Northern Territory government, which administers many of the smaller airstrips that will be affected by this change, also supports the bill—in fact, it's been arguing that it might not go quite far enough.
The Senate's Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has examined the bill and correctly focused on the critical question of the need to weigh risk against expense and red tape. The committee recommended that the parliament support this legislation. It said in its recommendations:
The committee considers security in aviation to be critically important in ensuring the safety of all Australians. However, security requirements should be commensurate with the level of risk, as should the administrative burden imposed by such requirements.
The committee considers that the bill provides this kind of risk-based approach to security requirements in the aviation industry. The measures in the bill would benefit government and industry, as well as the general public, by reducing the regulatory burden on certain industry participants while maintaining security outcomes.
This is a sensible approach on behalf of the Senate committee.
I make this point. I have expressed some concern about aviation security being transferred to the Department of Home Affairs, because the Department of Home Affairs doesn't have the same level of expertise that historically aviation security, being placed within the department of infrastructure, with an experienced aviation sector, has had. I have cautioned the government to ensure that, whenever it proposes an increase in security measures, it ensures that this is indeed practical. If you increase arrangements in regional airports to the point where those regional airports cannot operate commercially and shut down then you have achieved an objective of ensuring there can be no security incidents because you won't have any passengers and you won't have any flights! I think that some of the proposals that have been floated raise that very concern. I say to the members opposite—there are members here who represent regional communities, and I know that those communities rely very much upon aviation—they must ensure that those proposals are examined critically. I take the view that—and I have said this to the minister—aviation security should never be an issue of partisan debate in this parliament, ever. We have not done that. When I was the minister, that didn't occur either. We work on the basis of the national interest when it comes to these issues. But I am concerned that people might literally be put out of business if we take the advice of some people who regard themselves as security experts, who don't have the practical experience of the reality of running some of these smaller airports in our regions.
I say that in a spirit of cooperation about the legislation before us today, which does represent common sense. It is a commonsense response to an issue that some would regard as a loosening of provisions. I don't regard it as that. I regard it as just a commonsense provision that will produce outcomes that are just as secure but without having the cost that individual transport security plans currently incur.
We have a view that we should always listen to the experts on issues of transport security and safety. Equally, we must always work cooperatively in this parliament to secure the best outcomes. Last time we were in government, we made some difficult decisions, rolling out the latest security technology at the nation's airports, including next-generation body scanners, multiview X-ray machines and bottle scanners capable of detecting liquid based explosives.
These issues are difficult. Indeed, when we proposed the introduction of the full-body scanners, there were some who suggested that this would undermine civil liberties and would create privacy issues. We ensured that we used the best technology possible. We even had installed, up on the second floor, full-body scanners so that members of parliament, staff and journalists could go through and see precisely what would occur in practice with the operation of these full-body scanners, which of course don't identify anything other than a generic male and a generic female when they go through those body scanners. The issues of privacy which were raised have not arisen, and I'm not aware of any controversy at all behind the implementation of that policy. The then opposition, under Warren Truss as the shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, worked cooperatively with me.
I say to the government that that cooperation needs to continue as it moves forward and we address new challenges raised by the fact that those who would do us harm are nimble, from time to time, and government responses therefore have to be nimble as well. When we were in government, we also improved cargo screening and tightened arrangements around the Aviation Security Identification Card scheme, and we improved training of screening staff. We take aviation security very seriously, as we should as a parliament.
I commend this bill to the House. I congratulate the government on coming up with a proposal that will, I believe, maintain security while reducing costs. That's a good outcome for the nation.
I thank the member for Grayndler for his constructive comments and respect the fact that everyone in this House takes the issue of aviation security very seriously. I thank him for his comments and his constructive approach to the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2018, which is before the House.
There are very good reasons for very sound security whilst maintaining the viability of airports, which differ so greatly around Australia. We've always seen different risks and challenges, ever since air transport became so widespread. It's brought us closer together, but there have always been those who have wanted to use some form of terror to disrupt that unity and opportunity. We saw a striking example of this at 9/11 and there have been numerous examples in the past. As far back as 1933, an aircraft was destroyed by a bomb. I think nitroglycerine was the probable cause at the time. It was apparently linked to a Chicago gangland kingpin, who was the suspect, but the case remains unresolved. It was the first proven act of air sabotage in the history of commercial aviation. The first example of an in-flight bombing was in 1962, when a Continental Airlines aircraft was blown up by a passenger over Iowa in the US. More recently was the Lockerbie tragedy where Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed by a bomb on board and crashed into a very quiet little Scottish village, killing all passengers, plus 11 people on the ground.
That's why everyone in this House takes aviation security seriously. As every new incident has occurred, there've been corresponding improvements to airport security. There's also been a change and a rise in different forms of terrorism around the world. We are now all used to the significantly increased measures at our major international gateways such as Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and those around the world. As incidents occur, there is constant innovation and new technology available in the security measures applied to respond to the new threats. A clear example of this followed the 2009 failed al-Qaeda bombing in the US. Full body scanners, as we know, were introduced. These enhanced security measures have been responsible for preventing incidents right here in Australia. In recent times as well, we saw a plot to blow up a flight to Abu Dhabi foiled by security procedures at Sydney Airport, saving hundreds of lives. So all of us in this House, I believe, understand why enhanced security arrangements at airports are so important—why they exist and what they're meant to prevent.
However, as we've heard from previous speakers and as we know as rural and regional members, not all airports around Australia are the same and not all airports face the same level of risk. We have relied on the recommendations of experts in relation to the content in this bill, managed by the Department of Home Affairs. It's important to ensure that security plans are fit-for-purpose for the risk that exists at each individual airport dotted right around Australia while we continue to preserve the integrity of airport security systems. Reducing the regulatory burden on smaller aviation providers and on local airports is really critical whilst we maintain our airport security system, but there's a variety of smaller airports right around Australia and there are those that we cannot expect to have the same or similar levels of security that we see at airports in Sydney or Melbourne. In so many instances we see different levels of risk and we need different risk based approaches to them. As well, we want to make sure that the regulatory burdens and cost—there is always a cost—on regional airports and other participants in the regional aviation industry are actually appropriate for the level of risk at a particular point and the services provided at a particular location. We need to balance the need for aviation security whilst maintaining a viable regional aviation sector.
I see the member for Grey sitting beside me. He will expand on this further. The smaller airports around Australia, particularly those in rural, regional and remote areas, are frequently owned by the local government and they frequently have to deal with the additional costs that go with any new imposition, which makes it difficult for them to continue to provide the services that are so critical in rural, regional and remote Australia. But this bill will allow the secretary of Home Affairs, or their delegate, to give a model transport security program to a lower risk aviation operator so that they don't have to go through the process of developing their own, again reducing cost and red tape. A participant in the industry is required by law to have a TSP, and the bill sets out the measures and procedures that must be in place to meet that regulatory requirement. The Department of Home Affairs undertakes rigorous compliance activities to make sure that participants meet their obligations to maintain the appropriate level of security.
There is broad support across the industry, as we've heard, for the measures in this bill. Currently, the law requires all industry participants to maintain a comprehensive and unique TSP. That's all aerodromes, regional airports and regional air operators, despite the differences in risk and in the size, sophistication and complexity of their operations. We know that there are some airports that have very few flights coming and going. Equally, they might be freight based. So we see a diversity around this great nation that we have.
The Busselton-Margaret River Regional Airport in my electorate was significantly upgraded in recent years through contributions from a then Liberal state government, as well as our federal government. I'm looking forward to the development that will occur in the region as this airport gets up and running, both in freight and passenger services. As a federal government we contributed to upgrading the length of the runway and enabling it to take 747s, A320s and A330s. This really increases great commercial opportunities, as well as the opportunities in planning and working on a freight hub.
Given the products that come out of my region of South West, this is a great opportunity. These improvements to the airport will allow services from eastern capitals like China, Indonesia and other Asian cities, and other international destinations. It will also enable exports going out—whether it's dairy, chilled or fresh meat, abalone or marron, flowers, fruits, vegetables, or truffles from the broader South West region, or packaged products—to all sorts of markets and countries, including China, the UAE, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan. It is an exciting and new development, and it has the potential to supercharge our region in terms of exporting the best-quality products to the rest of the world and bringing visitors directly to our beautiful South West region, including the Margaret River and Busselton, our geographic region—and this airport is owned by the City of Busselton.
We have to make sure that the future of the airport is not compromised by being overly burdened at this time by security requirements. Under this legislation, the Department of Home Affairs, as I said, can lessen that red-tape burden by providing the airport with a TSP for its current requirements. The department can also, at a different time, upgrade those requirements as the risk level changes and as the activities of that airport change. So, if the department assesses the airport as being of lower risk, which it currently is, it could be given a secretary-issued TSP—the work has been done, basically—rather than have the administrative burden of preparing a specific, bespoke TSP that is not proportionate to the security outcomes.
Looking at other parts of this bill, the TSP will set out the minimum security requirements that the participant must comply with to safeguard against unlawful interference. That's the critical part that the Department of Home Affairs will get right, but the requirements must be appropriate for the operation or locations covered by the program. Member for Grey, you'll be very pleased about that part of it—'appropriate'. Under the TSP, the participant has to have the relevant procedures to manage and coordinate security within the operation. Technology, equipment and procedures that will be used are to be covered, and a plan for how participants will respond to any security incidents. This is really important. The Australian Airports Association has supported the proposals in this bill.
We also know that the TSPs that are already there can be used as a model by the secretary, and this is a very clear and simple way of reducing the regulatory burden—the red tape. I think all members of this House—and particularly the member for Grey, who is sitting next to me—are aware of the layer upon layer of red tape that we hear about from the industry, whether from small to medium enterprises or, in this instance, a small regional airport. They express to us, on a regular basis, their frustration about the mountains of paperwork, and we know that some of these are very small operators and so may not have the people to dedicate to it; they cannot afford to do so, in many instances. Yet there is a continuous rise in the amount of paperwork that's required. Yes, they will meet their security arrangements, and they need to, and they know they need to. However, we need to make sure that these airports remain viable.
I've looked at the numbers of airports around Australia, and they vary considerably not only in their location but also in the types and numbers of services that are provided. In my part of the world, there is the Busselton airport. During the boom in the mining industry in the south-west, Rio Tinto had flights coming out of there, with the fly-in fly-out workers, and they still do. We have a number of charter flights that come and go from the area. But that in no way resembles what would happen at Perth Airport, Sydney Airport or some of the other major airports.
So I commend the bill to the House. As has been said previously, it's supported broadly by the industry. I think a Senate inquiry looked at this bill as well and supported it and recommended its passage. I commend it to the House.
It does give me great pleasure to rise to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2018, because it addresses some issues that I had raised with the minister and in the party room about the impact of the security rearrangements—the toughening of security—at regional airports across Australia, which, I thought, stood to impact very significantly on two of my airports in particular, and on one in a very dramatic way. Australians, of course, need to be assured that they are safe. We need, as a government, to do everything we can to ensure their safety. And it is right for us to act. Of course the accompanying legislation, if you like, with the proposal to stipulate full scanning for commercial flights in Australia that have seating capacity for over 50, is a change from the previous legislation, introduced in 2012, where the qualifying flights went from a 30-tonne to a 20-tonne take-off weight. We've operated under that system for the last six years. And now, of course, it's going to a 50-seat configuration.
As to the reason I have raised concerns about this, I'll go first to the least affected airport, Port Lincoln. It's quite a busy airport, Port Lincoln—in fact, the second-busiest in South Australia. There are two airlines operating out of Port Lincoln, and last year there were 89,000 outbound passengers. The trade is split roughly 50-50 between two airlines, Qantas and Rex. Under the new assessment, instead of the 20-tonne take-off weight, the 50-seat configuration will mean that Rex will not have to comply, as they've not had to do under the 20 tonnes. Qantas have been flying Q300s out of Port Lincoln, and they have a take-off weight of under 20 tonnes but they have over 50 seats, and so they will be swept up in this new configuration. If there are 89,000 outbound passengers a year and half of them fly on Qantas, that's 44½ thousand.
It costs around $800,000 a year to run the scanning services. We know this because previously we had scanners in the Port Lincoln airport. One of the reasons it costs $800,000 is that, under the relevant union awards, there is a minimum work space of four hours. Should an airport have one flight in the morning and one flight in the afternoon, that will entail two shifts of workers. While they might be required only for an hour or an hour and a half, they actually have to be paid for four hours. Consequently, running these scanners costs around $800,000 a year. It's also worth noting that they cost $800 to $1,000 to install but the government, quite rightly—and I congratulate the minister and the government—have offered to pay for those installations.
So the airports are faced with the ongoing costs of regulation—in this particular case, as I said, around $18 a seat. That is very significant, and whether or not the service continues I guess will be up to Qantas themselves. It is a severe impost on the people of Port Lincoln, a place that, interestingly enough, is 6½ hours from Adelaide by road but only about 45 minutes by aeroplane, because the flight cuts off so much distance. It is such a viable way to travel to Adelaide and very important for medical services, for people getting professional services of all sorts, and for connecting to the rest of the world.
Now I come to Whyalla. Whyalla is a city of around 22,000 or 23,000 people. It's the biggest regional centre in my electorate and it is only four hours drive from Adelaide. Once you get into that three- to four-hour driving time from a destination, the biggest competition for airlines is the car. You've got to spend time travelling to the airport, you've got to wait a while before you get on, you get on the plane, you travel down there, and then you need a car to get into the city or wherever you're going. So the numbers of passengers out of Whyalla are significantly lower than out of Port Lincoln. There were 31,000 outbound passengers last year. The same two airlines, Qantas and Rex, are operating there. Qantas—and these are just rough figures but around the mark—shifts about a third of those passengers, and Rex shifts two-thirds. So Qantas is shifting 10,000 passengers a year out of Whyalla. It's using the Q300, which under the current regulations does not qualify for full scanning. But the Q300 will come in for attention through the 50-seat configuration, as I mentioned before.
Ten thousand passengers a year equate to around $80 a seat. Clearly, while we can't be sure what any airline might do in the future about the economy of a particular run, should Qantas be forced to pay that and Rex not be forced to pay it—and that will be an airport decision—the chances of that service continuing are greatly diminished. In fact, even if the cost were put across the full 31,000 and the airport were to stipulate that Rex pay that fee as well, that service might be threatened as well. So it's a very serious place we're going to.
This legislation, of course, allows for variation. In spirit it says that not all airports are created equal, that there are differences—and the member for Forrest, who spoke before me, went through some of those differences. Certainly that is the case now. There is a difference in traffic throughput and a difference in the prominence of the airport, therefore increasing the attraction for people who might want to disrupt flights. Exactly how this legislation is interpreted by the regulators will be something I will be watching, but at least there will be the flexibility in the system to deal with the issue at hand. I'm very hopeful that a combination will be found and that the severe impost—these incredible increases in ticket prices—will not be inflicted upon these communities, allowing airlines to get on with the job of shifting people safely and quickly to where they need to go.
But I thought I might recap a little bit of history while I'm here speaking to the chamber. I haven't checked my records, but I feel as though I have given a speech very, very, very similar to this one once before, back in 2012, when, in fact, the regulations were changed at that time which brought the trigger point for scanning down from a 30 tonne maximum take-off weight to 20 tonnes. At that time, the only airport in my electorate that had two competing airlines—Qantas and Rex—was Port Lincoln. Qantas was using Q400s to fly in and out of Port Lincoln and they were over the 20 tonne maximum take-off weight. That triggered the requirement that we should have scanning at the airport. So the scanners were installed, at a cost of around $800,000, and they were operated for almost two years, using 12 staff, at an annual cost of a bit over $700,000. The outcome was that Qantas changed aeroplanes. They went to a Q300, which was under the 20 tonne take-off weight. Consequently the 12 workers lost their jobs, the scanners were taken out of the airport and stored out the back, and Qantas were able to compete on an even footing with Rex and the flights have continued.
So what was that all about? We were chasing down a threat to air safety. The airline configuration changed, the same number of passengers were being shifted, but all of a sudden the scanners were not required; they were required for one flight but they are not required for the other flight. It is a really difficult area, and I don't envy the minister in trying to step his way through what is a legislative minefield that has completely varying implications for communities all over Australia. The great recognition here in this legislation is that they are varied, that one size does not fit all and that regulators need the flexibility to act within the legislation to bring about the right kind of outcome for each particular community.
So I recognise the work that the minister has done here in allowing for this legislation addressing those concerns that I have. I hope it is going to fit the bill because, as I've said, it will remain up to the regulator how they interpret the legislation. But they can be assured, as can the people of Grey—the people of Port Lincoln and the people of Whyalla—that I will be watching that space very closely to make sure that this legislation is used in a way that does not unduly impact on these airports, does not selectively impact on these airports, to the point of bringing in large cost increases in flights and in seatings and, in the end, threatening the very services that we so desperately need in the country.
I thank all of the speakers who have contributed to this bill. I thank the member for Grey. He has a lot of passion for his local area and I very much appreciate the representations that he and other colleagues have made to me in relation to this very important issue.
The Australian government's first priority is and always will be to keep Australian safe and secure. Aviation is an enduring and attractive target for terrorists, and this was evidenced in July 2017 by the disrupted attack in Sydney which would have seen a bomb exploded on an A380 flight to the Middle East. The planned attack marked a significant shift in the threat and risk to our aviation sector, demonstrating a level of sophistication not seen before in our country. This bill was introduced to ensure that Australia's security framework remains responsive to the evolving threat environment while maintaining security requirements that are commensurate with risk.
Currently all security regulated aviation industry participants are required to prepare a comprehensive and bespoke TSP regardless of the differences in the size, sophistication or complexity of their operations. This places a higher administrative burden on smaller industry participants that often operate in regional Australia. The bill today will enable the secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to give a model transport security program, or TSP, to a lower risk aviation operator. Introducing a model TSP for these industry participants will maintain security outcomes while reducing the costs and administrative burden of preparing a bespoke TSP. This will allow industry participants such as smaller regional airports to direct their finite resources towards implementing and maintaining robust security measures.
The measures in this bill demonstrate the government's commitment to maintaining a sustainable aviation sector while ensuring Australia remains a trusted destination for trade and travel. I thank members again for their contribution to this debate, and I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor will be supporting this bill, the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018, because it makes a number of improvements to the existing regime for protecting the rights of artists and others whose livelihoods depend on them being paid for what they create, whether that's music, movies, television programs, books or any other form of intellectual property. Labor supports this bill because it will strengthen the current regime under which a court can make orders blocking access to websites that have the primary purpose, or the primary effect, of infringing copyright.
While the digital revolution has created enormous benefits for our society and our economy, it has also been highly disruptive. The rapid expansion of online services has also created many new challenges for law enforcement. But we in Labor do not believe the online world should be allowed to exist as a lawless frontier. To the contrary, we in Labor understand the importance of effective regulation in this area, whether it's to stop the selling of illegal weapons, to shut down the vile trade in child pornography, to prevent online radicalisation of Australians by terrorist groups or, as this bill does, to prevent the theft of intellectual property.
This bill makes important improvements to the Copyright Act that will help to ensure it continues to protect intellectual property rights in the digital age. We in Labor recognise the vital importance of Australia's creative industries. Our musicians, our filmmakers, our TV production industry and our artists all contribute enormously to our society in both economic and cultural terms. The stories that Australians love most are our stories—stories about our nation, our history and our people. Whether on TV, on the big screen or in books, these stories are all produced by people who rely on copyright laws to protect their creative work. It is copyright laws that ensure that those in our creative industries are paid for the work that they do.
Chapter 9 of Labor's National Platform is entitled 'A fair go for all'. At paragraph 300, the ALP sets out the importance of maintaining copyright in the following terms:
The legal framework of copyright is necessary to ensure the income generated by arts, culture and heritage is fairly distributed between the creators and the institutions and entrepreneurs who make it available. A successful copyright framework will support the education, arts, culture, and heritage of Australia by:
Our policy on copyright is consistent with our long-held view about the importance of arts and culture in our lives.
Gough Whitlam talked about the arts as central to the lives of Australians, and his words remain fresh today:
In any civilised community the arts and associated amenities must occupy a central place. Their enjoyment should not be seen as something remote from everyday life. Of all the objectives of my Government none had a higher priority than the encouragement of the arts, the preservation and enrichment of our cultural and intellectual heritage. Indeed I would argue that all the other objectives of a Labor Government - social reform, justice and equity in the provision of welfare services and educational opportunities - have as their goal the creation of a society in which the arts and the appreciation of spiritual and intellectual values can flourish. Our other objectives are all means to an end; the enjoyment of the arts is an end in itself.
When last in government and over the last five years of opposition, Labor has been working to support sensible changes to our copyright laws to ensure that they remain fit for purpose in protecting our creative industries and our artists. One of the most significant threats to the music and screen industries since the advent of the internet has been the rise of online piracy, because online piracy undermines the capacity of creators, including musicians and screen industry professionals, to sell their work.
To help reduce online piracy, in 2015 Labor worked with the government to introduce amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 that allow the courts to issue site-blocking orders that oblige carriage service providers to block access to identified pirate sites. These site-blocking injunctions can only be issued by a judge and only for websites outside Australia that are proved to have the primary purpose of infringing copyright material. This regime under section 115A of the Copyright Act is necessary because many pirate sites operate in overseas jurisdictions with lax copyright laws. The pirate sites operating in these foreign jurisdictions are generally out of reach of Australian law enforcement, yet the damage their sites do to our creative industries and so to our economy is considerable.
Representatives of our creative industries and artists in Australia are very supportive of the regime introduced by section 115A, and since 2015 these reforms have been successfully used to block a number of pirate sites, with a measurable drop in the rates of online copyright infringement in Australia. However, rates of online copyright infringement in Australia remain high in contrast to comparable overseas jurisdictions, and new forms of copyright infringement are always being developed as the digital world rapidly changes.
This bill responds to the ongoing challenge of online piracy by strengthening the site-blocking regime in section 115A of the Copyright Act. In summary, this bill will, first, expand the services that can be subject to injunctions to include online search engine providers such as Google, in addition to carriage service providers such as Telstra, to compel the provider to take reasonable steps to not provide search results that direct users to copyright-infringing websites. This measure is intended to reinforce the regime by ensuring that searches do not provide easy pathways to already blocked copyright-infringing sites through alternative pathways and web addresses.
Secondly, this bill will allow injunctions to be sought to block access to sites with the primary purpose or the primary effect of infringing or facilitating the infringement of copyright. This addition of the words 'primary effect' is a significant expansion of the scope of the site-blocking scheme, which had been limited to sites with the primary purpose of infringing copyright only. Stakeholders had been concerned that new websites such as cyberlocker sites, which are frequently used for copyright infringement through file sharing of music, movies and TV shows but which it is difficult to prove exist for that primary purpose, fell outside the scheme. It's expected the addition of a primary effect test will bring such sites within the scheme but without unduly widening its scope.
Thirdly, this bill will also allow the courts to issue more flexible injunctions that can be adapted to maintain a blocking order without the applicant having to return to court for a new injunction when pirate sites change addresses or access pathways. These adaptable injunctions will provide for the blocking of additional domain names, IP addresses and search results, by agreement with the copyright owner and the service provider.
Fourthly, this bill will also help to avoid wasteful and difficult evidential inquiries for applicants to establish the location of web-hosting sites by putting in place a rebuttable presumption that an online location is outside Australia.
Finally, this bill includes a measure that will enable a minister, by disallowable instrument, to declare that particular online search engine providers or a class of those providers are exempt from the scheme. This last measure is essentially a safeguard to ensure that injunctions are directed only against larger service providers facilitating the infringing of copyright.
Creative industry representatives in Australia that Labor has been consulting with have already indicated support for the changes proposed in this bill. This includes our music and screen production industries. We know that the search engine providers have been actively involved in the battle against online piracy, and we trust they will continue that battle. Although some companies and individuals have expressed concern about the potential for this bill to be used inappropriately to shut down legitimate sites, we in Labor are satisfied that the bill contains adequate safeguards to prevent its misuse. In particular, I would point out that injunctions can only be issued in narrow circumstances by a Federal Court judge, with the onus of proof on the applicant seeking the injunction. In making a decision whether to issue a site-blocking injunction, judges may take into account a wide range of factors. Under subsection (5) of section 115A of the Copyright Act, the court may take the following matters into account, among others:
(a) the flagrancy of the infringement, or the flagrancy of the facilitation of the infringement …
… … …
(c) whether the owner or operator of the online location demonstrates a disregard for copyright generally;
(d) whether access to the online location has been disabled by orders from any court of another country or territory on the ground of or related to copyright infringement;
(e) whether disabling access to the online location is a proportionate response in the circumstances;
(f) the impact on any person, or class of persons, likely to be affected by the grant of the injunction;
(g) whether it is in the public interest to disable access to the online location;
… … …
(k) any other relevant matter.
And any decision by a judge to issue an order under section 115A is also, of course, subject to appeal.
We in Labor are pleased that the protection of copyright is an area of bipartisan agreement. In the past, we've been concerned that some of this government's ill-considered announcements on policies would roll back copyright protections, such as in relation to safe harbour laws. However, Labor stood with Australia's creative industries in opposition to the government's reckless plans to diminish copyright protections and we were pleased to see that the government backed down on those proposals. Labor is pleased to see that the government has come around to understanding the importance of regulating to protect the rights of our artists and the economic viability and cultural value of our creative industries in the digital era. We support this bill as a means to further these important objectives.
The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018 is about protecting property. It's about protecting a specific type of property, intellectual property, and it is about protecting the intellectual property of a pretty special group of creators—those who tell our stories through film, television and music. These are the people who will particularly benefit from our legislation to stop online piracy, and these are the people who deserve our protection.
We haven't done a great job of protecting our artists and creators in the past. Our protection of intellectual property has not kept pace with technology. For too long, people have been able to illegally access content created by the hardworking people who put their time and effort into films, TV shows or music and risk their money to do so. These people are writers, producers, directors, actors, singers, musicians and all the people who support them, from sound engineers through to costume designers. Our creative industries form part of what is more broadly known as copyright industries. According to the PwC's The economic contribution of Australia's copyright industries 2002 -2016 report, Australia's copyright industry employed over one million Australians—that is, one million and 22,000 people—and constituted 8.6 per cent of the Australian workforce. They also generated economic value of $122.8 billion, the equivalent of 7.4 per cent of gross domestic product, and generated over $6.6 billion in exports, which is equal to 2.7 per cent of our total exports.
Copyright industries are the third largest income generator in the Australian economy. More specifically, we know that our music economy contributes around $4 billion to $6 billion a year to the Australian economy. Boosting our music exports would also generate more income and more tourists might come to visit to see our bands. Already live music generates revenues of $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year alone. In my home state of South Australia, in any one month, around 70 per cent of live music gigs are performed in our pubs and hotels. I was delighted to recently see Jen Cloher, a fantastic Australian musical talent, at one of those fabulous hotels, the Grace Emily. That is an iconic live music venue in Adelaide.
Our pubs and their employees are a very important part of our live music scene. If we are not protecting the content these musicians create, their ability to survive—much less thrive—and to create is lessened. The flow-on effect hits our pubs and venues, and it has a cultural impact as well. Most of our musicians are small business people. They have to create, market and sell their content. They might employ other small businesses to help them do this and they might use subcontractors. These are all the people who suffer if a musician is not being paid for their content and if people are stealing that content through illegal sites.
This is also the case for our Australian film and television industry. A 2014-15 Deloitte Access Economics report, Measuring the economic and cultural value of Australia's screen sector, found that:
… the total economic contribution of the Australian screen sector for Broad Australian content is an estimated $2.6 billion in value add and almost 20,160 in FTE jobs.
Broad Australian content refers to any screen content that is made under the creative control of Australians, including feature films, drama, documentaries, news, current affairs, light entertainment, reality shows, lifestyle shows, food shows, travel shows and sports content. Australian expenditure on the production of feature films; TV dramas, which includes miniseries; telemovies; serials and online drama, according to the 2016-17 Screen Australian Drama report, totalled $1.3 billion. Of this, there were 29 foreign projects, totalling $610 million; 41 Australian features, totalling $284 million; 46 Australian TV drama titles, worth $321 million; 13 Australian children's drama titles, worth $48 million; and, measured separately for the first time, $14 million in overall expenditure for Australian online drama.
We need to encourage our creatives to create and to tell our Australian stories, whether it's through music, film, art or literature. That means that we need to ensure they are properly rewarded for their creative efforts. I'm particularly passionate about protecting intellectual property because, before being elected to this place, I was a newspaper columnist. My income was reliant on my creative output. It was also reliant on my employers, The Age and then The Advertiser, being paid for their content. Whether you're a newspaper columnist, like I was; or whether you're a writer, a director, an actor, a musician or any of the people involved in our creative industries, you need strong copyright laws to protect your income and intellectual property.
This has been ever more challenging in a world where technology has outpaced the law. Letting online providers give away content for free, or turning a blind eye while others do, undermines artists', labels' and newspapers' income and their fundamental right to protect their creative efforts and their property. As AC/DC famously sang: 'It's a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll'. So let us not make it any harder for our artists, our musicians, our filmmakers, and our TV producers to do so, and let's protect their intellectual property when they do get the very 'long way to the top' that it takes to create, establish, and support a career.
This bill ensures that property owners can more quickly and easily enforce their property rights when their rights are infringed. A 2016 Productivity Commission inquiry report into intellectual property arrangements highlighted that:
Intellectual property (IP) arrangements offer opportunities to creators of new and valuable knowledge to secure sufficient returns to motivate their initial endeavour or investment. In this respect, they are akin to the property rights that apply to ownership of physical goods.
Copyright protects the material expression of literary, dramatic, artistic and musical works, as well as books, photographs, sound recordings, films and broadcasts. In addition to being instrumental in rewarding creative and artistic endeavour, many creators value the recognition that the copyright system provides. It does so by granting creators the exclusive right to reproduce or adapt their work in material form as well as to publish, perform, and communicate their work to the public. Exercise of these rights is commonly licensed to intermediaries, such as publishers, record companies, film studios, broadcasters and copyright-collecting societies. We must support those Australians who tell our stories and who, by doing so, show us who we are, remind us who we were, and suggest to us who we one day might be.
This is highlighted by the findings of the 2015 Deloitte report in relation to our film and TV industry, which found that the total audience value of Australia's broad film and TV content viewing in 2014-15 was approximately $17.4 billion in consumer welfare benefit. This is almost seven times the size of the total value-add for broad Australian content. The report also found that Australian screen content was unique, with almost two-thirds, or 64 per cent, of Australian film and TV content considered to be fairly, very or completely different from foreign-based content, based on qualities such as storyline, setting, acting, music and camerawork. The role of our artists is not just important locally, it is critical to explaining our culture and our way of life to the world.
Online piracy hurts Australia's creative industries and is particularly damaging to our local film and television production sector. It results in lost remuneration for creators and investors, and provides a disincentive to produce new creative works. The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018 strengthens the existing successful website-blocking scheme introduced by the coalition government in 2015 by allowing more pirate websites to be targeted and by making it harder for pirates to circumvent blocking measures. Specifically, this bill will enhance the current website-blocking scheme in the Copyright Act 1968 by allowing a broader range of websites engaging in piracy to be blocked, by allowing injunctions to be made against online search engines, and by clarifying the Federal Court's power to make responsive orders to enable parties to agree to the blocking of future pathways to an existing blocked site . This means copyright owners will have the right tools at their disposal to fight online piracy.
Under the current legislative framework, the Federal Court can issue orders for internet service providers to block access to infringing websites. The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill will ensure a broader range of overseas websites and file hosting services widely used for sharing music and movies are within the scope of the scheme, and will provide a means for proxy and mirror pirate sites to be quickly blocked. The amendments will also further empower copyright owners to seek Federal Court orders requiring search engines to demote or remove search results for infringing sites. This bill is an important measure to address online copyright infringement in Australia, which negatively affects our content creators and investors.
As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Music and as a member of the House Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, I'm particularly passionate about protecting the Australian music industry and film and TV, so I want to take a few moments to talk about these more specifically. Australian musicians, as I've already noted, are small-business people. They make a significant contribution to our nation. Our Australian music industry is a wonderful success story whose interests are tirelessly supported by bodies like APRA AMCOS, ARIA and the PPCA who, like me, are keen to see this industry grow and artists rightfully compensated for their intellectual property. In particular, I would like to mention the following people whom I have come to recognise as passionate advocates for the music industry: chair of APRA, Jenny Morris OAM; chair of AMCOS, Ian James; and APRA AMCOS chief executive, Dean Ormston. The chair of ARIA, Denis Handlin OA, and CEO, Dan Rosen, are excellent advocates for their sector. I would like to mention Stephen Ferguson, the CEO of the Australian Hotels Association, for his support of the live music industry and all of the pubs that support our musicians. Over the past two years, here at Parliament House we have hosted talented artists like John Paul Young, Kasey Chambers, Ian Moss, All Our Exes Live in Texas, Daryl Braithwaite, Diesel, Daddy Cool, Eskimo Joe, and Montaigne, which has spread the message about the importance getting of our policy settings right in this area.
I was delighted to recently attend an event in support of the Make it Australian campaign, here at Parliament House, where we heard from renowned actors, writers and producers, including Judy Davis and Richard Roxburgh. I hope everyone in this place is an avid supporter of the television series Rake. I was delighted to meet Richard in person and spoke with him about how important it is to support our Australian television and film content. While legitimate content streaming providers like Spotify, Pandora, Stan and Netflix have opened up new ways of enjoying content and enabling Australian artists to be appropriately awarded for their efforts, the internet continues to create major challenges for the Australian arts industries.
Online copyright infringement reduces the livelihoods of Australian creators and investors, and foreign based websites continue to illegally distribute the content of Australian copyright owners. The operators of these sites are often difficult to find and are located in countries that do not have similarly strong laws. The impact of not getting these policy settings right is clear. That's why I'm delighted to speak on introducing this bill today and strengthening our existing successful website-blocking scheme, introduced by the coalition government in 2015, by allowing more piracy websites to be targeted and making it harder for pirates to circumvent blocking measures. As I have noted, online piracy hurts Australia's creative industries and it is particularly damaging to our local film and television production sectors. It results in lost remuneration for creators and investors and provides a disincentive to produce new creative works, whether it's in TV, film, music or other creative arts.
Finally, I want to quickly mention that, on Friday, 16 November is an excellent initiative started by the music industry in Australia and Support Act: Ausmusic T-shirt Day. Support Act is a registered charity founded in 1997 by the music industry for the music industry. It was established in recognition that a career in music brings unique rewards and challenges, sometimes including periods of financial hardship. Really, that's why we're here today: to make sure that people are paid for the work that they do. Ausmusic T-shirt Day celebrates our wonderful Australian music industry acts. I hope that everyone in this place will join me as we support the music industry on Friday, 16 November by making a donation and sharing a picture in your best band T-shirt. Mr Deputy Speaker Kevin Andrews, I'm sure you have many ready. You can use the #AusmusicTShirtDay to demonstrate your support and raise money for artists and music workers who are experiencing financial hardship, ill health, injury or mental health issues.
In rising to speak on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018, I want to pick up on a point that the member for Boothby made—that the internet poses challenges in this area. Yes, it does, but the big challenge is the freeing-up of copyright to ensure that innovation can spread more widely and to face up to big rights holders and the types of hysterical arguments we get in this space. As lawmakers, just because we might get a selfie with Richard Roxburgh—I love Rake as much as anyone else—or a political party gets a donation from a rights holder, does not mean that we should stop looking at how to make the types of reforms that balance the needs of creatives and the needs of producers versus the needs of consumers.
No-one supports piracy. No-one should support piracy. Piracy is theft—I totally get that. We support this bill, but the problem is that the bloated, greedy, resistant-to-change rights holders will always refuse to reform in this space. Copyright reform is used as their way to shield themselves from the modern era, to shield themselves from new ways of doing things. The internet is not a challenge to rights holders; the mentality of rights holders to move with the times is the biggest challenge to rights holders in this country. Piracy is their go-to lever—'We're all about fighting pirates.' Apparently there are pirates all over the place who we have to be watching out for, who are ready to rip people off, who are demonising these hardworking rights holders. We get this argument all the time. These rights holders think that, by constantly using legal mechanisms through this place and elsewhere, piracy will disappear. The reality is that piracy is a reflection of a market failure. I do not excuse, condone or support piracy, but I do recognise that it is a reflection of market failure, where producers are making an offering that is not in line with consumer expectations and the access is not in line with consumer expectation.
What we are providing for with these types of bills, which the rights holders all champion, support and claim credit for, is a form of regulatory hallucinogen, where they think that, if they get this type of regulatory reform through, piracy will disappear. No, it won't. When rights holders get serious about the consumer offering and the way in which they're helping consumers access content in a much more affordable way, that will have a bigger impact. This isn't some sort of highfalutin, 'utopic' view about this.
Utopian.
Thank you, Minister. If you look at times past where there was piracy enabled through file-sharing platforms, you had the rise of Steve Jobs, Apple and the iPod, then leading to the creation of iTunes, and their pricing structure for music basically made a consumer think deeply about whether or not they would take pirated content, with all the risks of malware and copyright breach, versus the simple process of buying a single for 99c through iTunes. So the proposition was changed. The rights holders even resisted Steve Jobs initially but then ceded way for him, because they figured that Apple's market share at that point in time was so small—why bother? But they also had pressure coming from a firm called Napster, which had opened up access to music in a way that had never been there before. When the member for Boothby talks about Spotify or someone else talks about iTunes, just know that the only reason those things existed was that Napster created the pressure on rights holders to reconsider their offering and the way that they did things. All the innovation that flowed through improving file transfer over communication networks happened because a bunch of teenagers on the other side of the Pacific thought differently about the way they would spread content.
But it would never have happened with rights holders, because they just want to maintain the existing arrangements to squeeze the maximum amount they can out of consumers. So in this debate I speak as someone who's standing up for consumers. I don't speak for this pro-producer legislation per se. I do support its ability to crack down on piracy, absolutely. But I think the voice of consumers needs to be heard more. And we'll have people who'll argue passionately for this but will also argue, at the same time, that we need trade liberalisation. I mean, the coalition argues for it all the time in this House. There are massive benefits, and I'm a supporter of trade liberalisation. My arguments are consistent. Opening systems up has delivered benefits to economies and communities. The old way of always dragging down on the regulatory lever to see certain things occur has short-term benefit but long-term loss. Trade liberalisation opened things up. So if you're in favour of trade liberalisation, you can't argue against the refusal to reform copyright in the way that we hear often being advanced.
The coalition bring forward this type of legislation because they don't have the guts to stand up to the rights holders. They will not stand up to the rights holders on key reforms in copyright like safe harbour reform—too hard for them. They will not argue for it because the big rights holders continually beat down on any move to open up in this space. Some of the arguments these rights holders use are incredible. Graham Burke, from Village Roadshow, likened Google to big tobacco. That's what Graham Burke said as a rights holder. It's embarrassing that that is the level of advocacy by rights holders. But this is what these people think.
This bill will allow what Graham Burke and all the others want, which is: 'If other countries in the world can curate what you find on a search engine, we should be able to do it too but for rights holders.' That's what they press for. This is the type of argument that's been put forward. And they want someone else to pick up the bill—be it a telco that has to respond to a court case where someone has launched, as a rights holder, this type of thing. They'll do that. The rights holders want their rights defended, they want other people in the economy and the business community to pay for it and they want consumers to have less choice. In the meantime, technology advances to such a point that it renders those business models obsolete.
As I said, no-one supports piracy, but I don't support regulatory hallucinogens like this—where they just think that, if they clamp down on piracy, their need to reform their business model goes away. Wrong. There are some big rights holders who fight modernity, who want to see everything on the internet have a dollar sign in front of it or for content to constantly sit behind a paywall—and then have that offering out of step with what consumers are prepared to pay for. Let me give an example. Most online media subscriptions will cost you anywhere from $25 to $30. You can go onto Spotify and get a subscription to all the music you want for 12 bucks a month—half of that. on Spotify. I have to pay 30 bucks for maybe 30 to 35 issues of news content through News Limited—it's 32, I don't want to mislead the House—versus what you get on other offerings. Now, there is a rightful case to be said about the way in which the model may be undermining the ability for us to have quality journalism. I totally get that, and it is a right And there are also people who argue against Spotify not providing the artists the income levels that they need. I think that is a fair argument too, and it needs to be had. but we don't shut down the platform because it threatens a rights holder's model.
I'll argue this case consistently, like I said a few moments ago. Trade liberalisation and opening up pathways are very important. We opened up the economy in the Hawke-Keating years. We had a lot of people, particularly those whom we represent here, who were impacted on by those reforms. We didn't say, 'We won't do it because it'll have a negative impact.' We look at the transition on the way through.
I don't argue this with any vested interest, either. Just like when my side of politics said, 'We're going to change negative gearing rules,' I didn't say, 'I've got an investment property and, therefore, I'm not in favour of negative gearing reform.' I never said that. I think it is important to reform negative gearing and it is important to open up the economy. I challenge rights holders and those in the creative community and say, 'Why is it that you're resistant to reform but everyone else in the economy has to go through it, changing the way that they work, providing for lower cost in the system, providing for a better form of remuneration down the track through changing the way systems operate?' Those are the things that should be looked at—not us being used, in this chamber, to advance commercial interests for people who refuse to move with the times, which is exactly what we get when it comes to copyright.
There is a failure of this place to be able to see genuine reform on safe harbours where new digital platforms are emerging in this country, created by businesspeople in this country, that provide a new way for artists and manufacturers alike to create a new income flow. We say, 'It's too hard to have the legal sword that hangs over their heads because they could be challenged by someone in any part of the world.' In the case of Redbubble, as I've previously told the House, they were challenged and taken to court by the Hells Angels because they thought their copyright had been breached by Redbubble, which was operating out of Melbourne and providing hundreds of jobs and huge economic opportunities for content generators—artists and the like. That's what exists. Redbubble was taken on by Sony because of apparent breaches to do with Pokemon. The legal case was upheld and Redbubble was charged the princely sum of $1 as a fine by the court because Redbubble had a whole series of mechanisms in place to be able to respond to concerns about copyright breach and to ensure that artists were looked after. We need to find a way in copyright reform to rightly protect artists and their income and livelihood but also to allow other innovative companies be able to generate, through innovative ideas, new ways of getting things done, to create commercial value in the growth of those firms—such as Redbubble, Bardot, 99designs and the like—and to have those firms and platforms thrive, survive and grow. That's what should happen.
Like I said, by all means, let's support this bill. But let's not support this sort of camouflaging of reality that exists where the rights holders don't do anything about their business model—they just ring the bell and get us to rush in here with another bill about piracy while they don't actually keep step with modern times. It's just inconceivable that we continue to allow this to occur. Again, if we clamp down on piracy in the way that we're doing, we need to see an equal effort by rights holders to demonstrate how they are offering new ways of getting thing done and providing accessible, affordable content to users. If they don't do it, other market providers in other parts of the world are going to do it and our people—Australian consumers—will find a way around it.
I imagine at some point we're going to have a debate in here about banning VPNs because they allow people to access content on other sides of the planet that aren't able to be accessed here. At what point do we see the rights holders make that argument? I wouldn't be surprised if we see it soon. If we got some rights holders saying, 'Google's as bad as big tobacco,' I don't hesitate to think that they'd come back with that proposition. Again, we've got to find a way to protect and enhance artists' income but also allow other innovation to occur in the Australian economy without always having this binary debate that says, 'Copyright reform is completely bad and can never be countenanced.' It's just not sustainable.
The legal framework of copyright is necessary to ensure the income generated by arts, culture and heritage is fairly distributed between the creators and the institutions and entrepreneurs who make it available. I want to make some brief remarks on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018, which makes important improvements to the Copyright Act that help to ensure it continues to protect intellectual property rights in the digital age. Labor will be supporting the bill because it makes a number of improvements to the existing regime for the blocking of websites that infringe copyright.
In turning to the digital age in which we find ourselves, the digital revolution has created enormous benefits for our society and our economy. But it has also been highly disruptive. Around the world—and we should never think that this is particular to Australia—lawmakers continue to grapple with the regulation of the internet. Indeed, earlier this month, the Minister for Communications and the Arts delivered a speech to the Sydney Institute entitled, 'The internet: not an ungoverned space'. But, of course, in Australia we have long moved on from the question of whether or not the internet is governed. While the minister for communications may only have recently become alive to it, Australia has long recognised the internet as a governed space—and, indeed, has regulated it.
Well over 20 years ago, the Parliamentary Library published a research paper entitled, 'Can the internet be regulated?' Among other things, that paper—which was written in 1995-96—noted that legislation that was being considered by the Australian states and territories provided an incentive for establishing a code of conduct, and the then Australian Broadcasting Authority had announced an inquiry into the regulation of content online services, proposing the exploration of various strategies, including codes of practice, complaints procedures and education programs, in addition to devices for blocking or filtering certain material and offence provisions.
Following that, early legislative reforms directed at regulation of the internet in Australia included amendments in 1999 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which established a regulatory regime for internet service providers and online content. Other early legislative measures included the Cybercrime Act 2001 and the Spam Act 2003. Alongside these developments at the turn of the millennium, the High Court of Australia delivered its landmark case in Dow Jones and Gutnick, which had repercussions far beyond defamation litigation, for which it was concerned. The speech by the minister for communications this month stated that it is important to recognise that the internet is 'not the "Wild West", where the rule of law and standards of decency shouldn’t apply'.
However, the question has long been not whether to regulate the internet but how to best regulate the internet. Copyright scholars were quick to recognise the impact of code, governance and regulation of content on the internet. In her review of 'Law and Internet Cultures by Kathy Bowrey' in the 2005 Sydney Law Review, Kim Weatherall stated:
As a teacher of Internet Law, I often see debates in class divide between those who fear too much control, and those who are confident that law is futile here. The dichotomy makes for an easy debate, but one that is ultimately cynical and unsatisfying. Not only does the discussion degenerate to technical issues that are a matter of conjecture, but, convenient as such dichotomies may be, they conflict with our intuitive sense of the way things actually work. We know that both the early cyber-libertarians and cyber-cynics were wrong, and we know that the future is neither one of perfect control, nor of powerlessness.
It's instructive to go on further, because she states:
Ever since the earliest writings in Internet Law Scholarship, commentators have tended towards one of two opposing views. One the one hand, we have what you might call the Orwellian vision: that formal Law, in partnership with Technology will tend towards the ‘perfect control’ of the citizenry, whether by public or private entities.
This basic ‘Code is Law’ idea has been discussed, refined, developed and critiqued, but it remains influential in current debates. In copyright law, for example, the fear of ‘digital lock-up’ through a combination of technology and law continues to surface in current discussion of anti-circumvention law. It can also be seen in debates about privacy law, reflected in fears regarding the digital potential for omnipresent surveillance and data collection, facilitated by privacy laws that are insufficiently protective of individual rights.
While it is great to see the Minister for Communications catch up on the idea that laws and norms, including copyright, should apply in the virtual world, just as they do in the physical world, the fact is that a nuanced and detailed debate about copyright and the digital economy has been going on for a long time.
In 2012, the Australian Law Reform Commission received terms of reference for an inquiry into copyright and the digital economy. The ALRC was asked to consider whether exceptions and statutory licences in the Copyright Act were adequate and appropriate in the digital environment and whether further exceptions should be recommended. The issues considered by the ALRC covered a broad range of topics, from caching and indexing to cloud computing; online use for social, private or domestic purposes; transformative use, such as mash-ups or sampling in music; and retransmission of free-to-air broadcasts. The inquiry also looked at issues affecting libraries and cultural institutions, such as preservation and digitisation, contracting out of copyright exceptions and orphan works—that is, works where the owner of copyright cannot be easily established.
I want to look at Labor's calls for stronger restrictions. Over the last five years in opposition, and when we were last in government, Labor has been working to support changes to our copyright laws to ensure they remain fit for purpose in protecting our creative industries and our artists. One of the most significant threats to the music and screen industry since the advent of the internet has been the rise of online piracy, because it undermines the capacity of creators, including musicians and screen industry professionals, to profit from their work. We in Labor recognise the importance of Australia's creative industries. Our musicians, our filmmakers, our TV production sector, our artists—all of them contribute enormously to our society in both economic and cultural terms. A successful copyright framework will support the education, arts, culture and heritage of Australia by including, developing and maintaining a national identity in the Australian creative industries; protecting the intellectual property rights of content creators; supporting new and emerging Australian creative talent; meeting consumer expectations of speed to market; securing the supply and diversity of Australian-produced intellectual property; promoting creative, competitive, sustainable and innovative Australian creative industries; and promoting exports of Australian creative product to foreign territories.
To help reduce online piracy, in 2015 Labor worked with the government to introduce amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 that allow the courts to issue site-blocking orders that oblige carriage service providers to block access to identified pirate sites. These site-blocking injunctions can only be issued by a judge. This regime, under section 115A of the Copyright Act, is necessary because many pirate sites operate in overseas jurisdictions with lax copyright laws. The pirate sites operating in these foreign jurisdictions are generally out of reach of Australian law enforcement, yet the damage their sites do to our creative industries is considerable. Representatives of our creative industries and artists in Australia were very supportive of the regime introduced by these amendments, and, since 2015, these reforms have been successful in blocking a number of pirate sites, with a measurable drop in the rate of online copyright infringement in Australia. However, the rate of online copyright infringement in Australia remains high in comparison with overseas jurisdictions comparable to Australia, and new forms of copyright infringement are always being developed as the digital world rapidly changes.
This bill responds to the ongoing challenge of online piracy by strengthening the site-blocking regime in section 115A of the Copyright Act. In summary, this bill will expand the services that can be subject to injunctions to include online search engine providers, such as Google, in addition to existing carriage service providers, such as Telstra. It will compel the provider to take reasonable steps not to provide search results that direct users to copyright-infringing websites. This measure is intended to reinforce site-blocking orders by ensuring that searches do not provide easy pathways to blocked sites through alternative pathways and web addresses. It will allow injunctions to be sought to block access to sites with the primary purpose or primary effect of infringing or facilitating the infringement of copyright. This is a significant expansion of the scope of the site-blocking scheme, which had been limited to sites with the primary purpose of infringing copyright. Stakeholders have been concerned that new websites—such as cyberlocker sites, which are frequently used for copyright infringement through the file-sharing of music, movies and TV shows, but may not exist for that primary purpose—fell outside of the scheme. It is expected that the addition of a primary effect test will bring such sites within the scheme.
This bill will allow the courts to issue more flexible injunctions that can be adapted to maintain a blocking order without the applicant having to return to court for a new injunction when pirate sites change addresses or access pathways. These adaptable injunctions will provide for the blocking of additional domain names, IP addresses and search results by agreement with the copyright owner and the service provider. This bill will help to avoid wasteful and difficult evidential inquiries for applicants to establish the location of web hosting sites by putting in place a rebuttable presumption that an online location is outside Australia. The bill will enable the minister, by disallowable instrument, to declare that particular online search engine providers, or a class of those providers, are exempt from the scheme. This last measure is essentially a safeguard to ensure that injunctions are directed only against larger service providers facilitating the infringement of copyright.
In conclusion, creative industry representatives in Australia, with whom Labor have been consulting, have already indicated support for the changes proposed in this bill. This bill that is now before us is primarily aimed at preventing digital piracy for the benefit of Australian creative industries. The online world has created many challenges for law enforcement. We know that search engine providers have been actively involved in the battle against online piracy, and we trust they will use the tools these amendments provide to continue that battle.
We, in Labor, are pleased that the protection of copyright is an area of bipartisan agreement. In the past, we have been concerned by this government's ill-considered announcement on some policies that would roll back copyright protections, such as in relation to safe harbour laws. However, Australian creative industries united in opposition to the government's plans at that time to diminish copyright protections. We were pleased to see that the government, in that case, backed down. Labor is pleased to see that the government has come around to understanding the importance of regulating to protect the rights of content owners in the digital era, and we support this bill as a means to further that objective.
I rise to speak on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018, and thank the member for Greenway for her considered contribution. I'll say from the outset that Labor supports this bill. Labor has a long track record of supporting Australia's arts community and creative industries and all the jobs that come with that. That especially includes supporting them by ensuring sensible reform to our copyright laws so that they are fit for purpose in a fast-changing industry.
The digital era is upon us, and it brings its own challenges for the creative industries and the artists who have input into them. I know the blood, sweat and tears that go into making a piece of creative work, whether it be a film, something on the screen or the small screen; on the page, like poetry or a book; or even through the airwaves. A small part of the author or the artist is left behind when they put out their piece of art. It must be especially galling when a creative work is used without permission and without the appropriate payment to the artist and those who support the artist. Fundamentally, to do so is theft. But it also shows a lack of respect for the artists.
Online piracy is a significant threat to the music and screen industry in Australia. As fast internet now allows us to download in record time, online piracy has taken off. Labor has already done some work with the government in this area in 2015. Those changes allowed the courts to order providers to block access to identified pirate sites through an Australian Federal Court injunction. That was important because many of the pirate sites operate in overseas jurisdictions and are out of the reach of our own Australian laws. Blocking the sites themselves means that Australian audiences are unable to access these pirate sites. Those reforms were successful. However, it is not easy to obtain an Australian Federal Court injunction. It takes time, and there are costs associated with it. As soon as that door has been largely closed, what do unscrupulous operators do? They find another door or they make a door ajar with their crowbar and push through. Our laws need to keep up with an ever-changing copyright infringement landscape.
So this bill will expand the services that will be subject to the previous reforms. Online search engines will be included. A Federal Court injunction can compel a search engine to take reasonable steps to not provide search results that direct users to copyright-infringing websites. Sites that have the primary purpose or primary effect of infringing or facilitating an infringement of copyright can now be blocked. That is the intent of the legislation. This is a significant expansion of the previous reform, which was limited to blocking sites with the primary purpose of infringing copyright.
This bill will also allow more flexible injunctions so that, when a pirate site changes its address or access pathway, the injunction can be adapted without the need to return to court. To streamline the court process to obtain an injunction, this bill adds a rebuttable presumption that an online location is outside of Australia and therefore within the blocking mechanism of this legislation.
So that is why I support this bill and why the Labor Party will support this bill. It is important that Australia's creative industries are protected and fostered. Our musicians, our filmmakers, our TV production industry, our artists, our authors—they're all important to our culture and, significantly, to our economy, as so many jobs are associated with these artistic endeavours. The continued prosperity of our creative arts community is dependent on our creative artists being able to protect their original work and negotiate compensation for its use. So we're also looking after publishers, film distributors and all sorts.
The voice of Australians needs to be heard in our Australian books. We need stories that are told by Australian writers. I'm a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Books and Writers. My co-chair is Senator Linda Reynolds, who has continued her role after gaining a ministerial position. It's great to work with her. This year, Senator Reynolds and I hosted the announcement of the writers short-listed for the Miles Franklin award, and it was a wonderful night. These writers told the stories in their books about us—about Australians. They have a national focus. They also reach out all around the world, obviously, but they're still Australians telling Australian stories. Who else is going to tell those stories but Australian writers?
Obviously, I particularly note the Australian publishers who support those writers. Without them, we would not have the enjoyment of all of those books—well, from my youth, and from going to teachers' college, books such as Such is Life by Joseph Furphy, all of Thea Astley's work, and the works of Janette Turner Hospital and David Malouf. I know that has a particular Queensland flavour, but there's also Henry Lawson and so many other great Australian writers who have told our stories. They make us what we are as a nation—a nation with the longest history, the longest culture, the oldest culture, on earth. The oldest word on earth is an Indigenous word. But Australian writers also meld that with the modern Australian story—the story from all around the world that makes Australia what it is. How will our children hear these stories unless our writing community is able to prosper and thrive?
I'd give a particular shout-out to one of the recipients of the Queensland Premier's prize for literature, Michael Bauer, who I used to teach with many years ago. I congratulate Michael.
We have such a wealth of talented writers in this country, like Michael Bauer, but all of them struggle to make a living. It is so important that we protect their reward for the work that they do. Not all of them get to tell their stories to overseas audiences, so it's important that we protect every dollar that comes their way.
It is also important that the faces of Australians are seen on our screens and that the stories that they tell are our Australian stories written by our Australian screenwriters. Protecting their industry protects our Australian stories for generations to come. Australian films have been acclaimed for many, many years. A friend who works in the film industry, Chris Holton, has always loved movies such as Breaker Morant and Gallipoli, and obviously the Mad Max movies. But Australian movies do so much—movies like Lantana;The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert;The Castle; Muriel's Wedding and Death in Brunswick, and I'd even throw in there The Rocket and Master and Commander, to name just a few of my favourite movies. They're all Australian stories, or largely Australian stories, that will now live on forever.
In another life, I was also in a band that still plays occasionally; we play together every three years as a fundraiser. We didn't make too much money from our musical endeavours—largely written by John Carozza, who is the lead singer as well—but we did play in our own voice. They were songs that we wrote and we played, and it was part of our Australian story. Obviously, the best Australian music has an Australian voice, whether it be country music, classical music, modern pop music, rap music—all of those voices tell our story. I'll mention a couple of my favourite bands, also with a Queensland flavour: The Saints, from Brisbane, who were at the cutting edge of punk, with Chris Bailey and Ed Kuepper and the gang doing so much for punk music back in the seventies; also The Go-Betweens with Grant McLennan and Robert Forster, who are renowned songwriters; and I'd also have to mention The Triffids, from Perth. The point being, we will all have our favourite Australian authors, Australian TV shows, Australian movies and Australian musicians. We must always be prepared to look after our artists. This mechanism, this bill we have before us today, will help us to do so. People must be prepared to support Australian artists, and this legislation will go some way to making it easier to do so.
I'm pleased to rise to speak on this Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018, which is actually quite a small but sensible change to our copyright law, which seeks to protect rights-holders in a time of incredible transition.
I wasn't originally going to speak on this today, but I heard my colleague the member for Chifley speaking earlier, and I felt the need to add a little bit of nuance to the debate. I worked for the Association of Independent Record Labels, which was the trade association for small record labels. We represented about 95 per cent of the independent sector during the time of Napster. We knew Napster was coming because, some seven years earlier, a man called Jeff Paterson, who was about 19, started a business called the Internet Underground Music Archive at the University of California, Santa Cruz. That was 1992. It was a music download site that was so popular that it crashed the servers at the university, and they had to ban music downloads for quite a few years while they caught up with it. And then Napster was there from 1999 to 2001.
I wanted to say that these changes are not just about the consumer and the rights-holder. In fact, in many ways, they're not about that at all. If Napster had charged the consumer and the artists had been paid for all those transactions, it's the distributor who would have been the loser. The major owners in the music industry back then was actually the people in the middle—the distributors. As the music industry went towards economies of scale, where you made more and more money the more you produced, large distributors that were capable of shifting large amounts of products moved into the middle, and they took 60 per cent of retail—they were actually the big owners. And they happened to also be the big record companies—all the major record companies have major distribution arms, and it was the distribution side of it that was actually under threat by online trading. Even if the artist was paid, the distributor was the one that would lose.
In some ways we're in a similar situation now. We have seen a move in the music industry—and all the copyright owners, industries, and all the IP industries, for that matter—from economies of scale, backwards, to economies of scope. Economies of scale is where you reduce your cost of production by creating many more: so if you make 100,000, your cost of production goes down, compared to making one. We all know what that is, and in the industrial age economies of scale was the source of competitive advantage. The bigger you are, the cheaper you make your unit cost of production, the more you make. But, particularly with IP, we’re now moving into a world where economies of scope is the determinant of competitive advantage, and it's quite different. The old theory of economies of scope—when we were giving lectures about it in the arts industry some 30 years ago—is that if you made two or more types of goods, you could do that for less cost than making two separate goods. That's called economies of scope, and you see it in advanced manufacturing.
But, in the arts industry, you always knew that it wasn't about the goods that were made; it was about the selling of them, because in the arts industry we hadn't been industrialised. We didn't just create a product, which is a piece of art; we actually created a relationship with our consumer. We called it our fan base. What we needed to do—because we put on concerts, where you put on one night and thousands of people had to turn up—was build relationships with our market, and our market relationship was as valuable as anything. In fact, it was the thing that helped us survive.
Economies of scope, we knew, would be when you could sell two or more products to the same market, rather than have to develop different markets for each product. So economies of scope, we knew 30 years ago, would make our market the product, as the world moved out of the industrial age into what we then called the information age. We knew that the market—the people who bought your product and your relationship with them—was going to be the source of your competitive advantage.
What we have now in the online world is a whole range of new organisations slipping into the middle between the consumer and the artist and actually starting to own the relationship. They're moving into that middle space because they know—the Amazons and even, in restaurants, the Deliveroos; all of those, they all know—that, if they can collect the appropriate relationship and the data about that relationship, they can sell more products to that one market than by providing different markets for each product. It's economies of scope. It's a major change in where the economic advantage is, and we can see it happening every day.
It's not going to stop. It's actually a really interesting change. It's on its way; it's not going to stop. But, as we transition from the old model where the artist owned their relationship with their market to a world where someone else inserts themselves in the middle and owns the market, we're actually losing a significant part of the assets of the artist. We have a very difficult transition if an artist cannot actually own the information and the data on their own market, because we have someone else inserting themselves in the middle. It is really interesting, and we're already hearing stories out of countries where Amazon, for example, is much more powerful about the increasing inability of artists to launch their new product, because they no longer have their fan base.
I want to tell you how important that is. When I was working for the Lyric Opera of Queensland back in the mid-eighties, the internet was kind of not there. We had a database then that I built where we knew the names and addresses of everybody who had bought a ticket to see an opera company for the last 10 years and when they bought it relative to our marketing spend. We knew, if we mailed them, how long it took them to buy. We knew exactly. We knew that, if we put up television advertising, these people were most likely to buy, so we didn't do direct mail to them. We had worked out when they bought relative to what we spent over about 10 years, and that was in the mid-eighties. We knew that our capacity to reach our market made us viable, and our capacity to reach our market was our source of competitive advantage.
So I would just say to my colleague the member for Chifley: this is a much more nuanced argument. This isn't just an argument about the copyright as we know it now; it's an argument about the value of the data, who owns it, how it's created and how it's managed. The whole structure of the viability of artists is now changing. Some of the change will be for the good; some of it won't.
Even back in the days when the internet was very early, we brought out Jeff Patterson. I brought him out. I ran a national conference on music in the internet in the early nineties, and we brought two people. One was Jeff Patterson, who'd started the Internet Underground Music Archive. He looked like a child. He was 19 years old, and he created this thing that crashed the entire US internet. And we brought out Bill Kreutzmann, who was the drummer for the Grateful Dead. I did that for a really simple reason: The Grateful Dead allowed you to copyright it—to steal anything. You could take a video camera into their concert, videotape it and sell it. You could bootleg. You could take in a recorder, record it and sell it online. You could bootleg; you could do whatever you wanted. They were the biggest-grossing live band in the world because they actually used online as a way of promoting their next gig.
But what they were doing was using their online pirate network to build their fan base, which they were then able to own. So they used it in a different way. We had another young man at that time, whose name I can't recall, who had been seriously pirated in Japan and a few countries that he had been to before that. But it worked in his favour because it actually built his fan base. That's not the case for most. We need to protect copyright for artists because, for every exemption to the rule, there are many others who need that protection—and this legislation is a part of that.
This is a much more nuanced issue than we think. When the economic model does fully change and we have a completely different world where economies of scale are not it—where economies of scope and your relationship with your market and your ability to know and reach that market is the entire source of competitive advantage—we want our creative industry to still be there. We don't want it to be knocked out on the way because we failed to adjust our laws to provide them protection through the transition. At some point in the future—and it won't be far away—we're going to have a very serious discussion about the nature of copyright and the nature of protection and the nature of things of value. What is of value in a post-industrial world? We're going to have a very serious conversation about it. For the moment, this amendment, which seeks to protect the rights of copyright owners now as this transition continues, is incredibly important because, at the end of the day, we still want them to be there when the transition is complete. Thank you.
I thank all of the members who spoke in this debate in the House on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018. In particular, I to thank and acknowledge the member for Parramatta for her remarks which, of course, drew on her deep lifetime experience as an artist, an arts administrator and an arts business person. She talked about the bill's importance for artists, for creatives and, indeed, for fans of Australian artists. And I have to admit I enjoyed her gentle rebuke of the member for Chifley, who, disappointingly, characterised this bill as being pro rightsholder and anti consumer, which is not true. In stark contrast were the remarks we heard from the member for Parramatta and the remarks we heard earlier from the shadow Attorney-General, who expressed his support and the support of the Labor Party for creatives and rightsholders. I acknowledge the support of the opposition for this important bill which is an important step in modernising Australia's copyright laws.
Australian films, TV shows and music are more accessible and cheaper than they have ever been. We can all enjoy this entertainment, this content, on a range of devices, at home, on the bus to work or travelling on holidays. The passage of this bill is getting the legislative settings right so those settings complement and support the very positive technology and business led developments we've seen in the sector. We can be very proud of the fact that Australia's creative industries are thriving and world class. Their contribution to the crucial fabric of our nation is enormously significant. Their contribution to our economy is also significant.
As the Minister for Communications and the Arts has said, government support for the creative industries has been boosted in recent years, including through small business tax relief and our Location Incentive Program. Our government will not tolerate the hard work of our creative industries, underpinned by targeted policy settings, being undone by allowing online piracy to go unaddressed. That's why this bill will update the website-blocking scheme in the Copyright Act 1968, which since 2015 has provided an effective means for copyright owners to address large-scale copyright infringement by overseas operators.
I would note for the record that any criticism from the other side of the House concerning the coalition's safe harbour reforms are unfounded. Those opposite did nothing for six years on this front. It was our Liberal-National government which progressed reform in this area.
The measures in this bill will strengthen our ability to fight online copyright infringement. As with previous copyright bills dealing with matters such as disability access and service providers, there has been broad consensus in this chamber to take action to positively reform Australia's copyright system. I would also like to express the thanks of the government and of the minister to all of the stakeholders who were consulted on this bill and provided feedback. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That orders of the day Nos 3, 4 and 5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
My home town of Townsville is a strong and resilient community, but the collapse of Queensland Nickel saw our community brought to its knees, so I know better than most how important this bill is for workers. More than 800 people lost their jobs at Queensland Nickel through no fault of their own. They went to work every day, they worked hard every day and they put their trust in the executives of that company to do the right thing. Unfortunately, the company did not look after the workers and, when those 800 works lost their jobs, they were also told that they would not be paid their entitlements. Those entitlements were rightfully theirs and they had every right to expect that those entitlements would be paid to them. QNI workers had collectively more than $74 million in outstanding entitlements to be paid. Luckily for those 800 workers, when Labor was last in government we created a scheme to protect workers in scenarios exactly like what unfolded at QNI. It is a scheme that protects workers where a company has collapsed and the workers are not paid their entitlements through no fault of their own. Labor established a safety net, and that scheme was the Fair Entitlements Guarantee.
In 2012, Labor passed the Fair Entitlements Guarantee legislation, which delivered the strongest protections for workers' entitlements that this country has ever seen. Labor established the Fair Entitlement Guarantee because we believed that employees should not be punished when an employer's business fails and workers lose their legal entitlements, like unpaid wages and leave, through no fault of their own. Legislating protections for workers is in Labor's DNA. Labor is the party of jobs and Labor is the party for workers.
In contrast, this out-of-touch LNP government tried to abolish the FEG in 2014. The same government tried to abolish a scheme that more than 800 workers in my community relied upon. This simple fact alone should always be remembered when considering this government's priorities when it comes to workers. The LNP is clearly not the party that stands with the worker who has lost his or her job through no fault of his or her own but due to the fact that the company folded and there was no money to pay workers' entitlements. The government's priorities are not with the workers but, rather, with the big banks and, especially in this case, with big business that tried to dodge their responsibility to workers.
Back in 2016, the LNP government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to pay the QNI workers their entitlements from the FEG scheme. Not only were the workers being let down by the company that employed them; they were also being let down by this LNP government. Whilst this government was refusing to pay workers, Labor's shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, Brendan O'Connor, and Senator Doug Cameron came to Townsville to meet with the former QNI workers. The differences in the commitment to workers could not have been more stark. The coalition had no real commitment to protecting these workers' entitlements. In fact, the best my predecessor could do was cry on television about it. No-one should ever forget that, when it comes to the FEG, this government's primary motivation is to reduce the fiscal cost to the Commonwealth, rather than having a true commitment to protecting workers' entitlements.
As the creators and guardians of workers' rights, Labor will do whatever it takes to protect the FEG, as it is essential to providing a safety net for Australians and it is essential to former QNI workers in Townsville. After many rallies held by Labor, the AMWU, the ETU and the AWU, the LNP finally released the fair entitlements to the QNI workers, but many of these workers have still not been paid their full entitlements.
That brings us to the bill before us today, the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018. Once again, the current LNP government has enacted a bill after being brought to account by Labor. On 24 May last year, the shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, the shadow Assistant Treasurer and the then shadow minister for small business and financial services announced a suite of Labor policies to crack down on abuse by directors and the real problems associated with phoenixing in this country. One of those measures was that a Labor government would introduce an objective test for transactions depriving employees of their entitlements. Labor also announced that we would reform provisions for accessorial liability. This government bill adopts and implements those measures. I support the changes in this bill 100 per cent, as hopefully they will see a greater degree of recovery for employees who are owed entitlements. And hopefully the government will be able to use these new capabilities to recover more of taxpayers' money to replenish the thousands, indeed millions, of dollars currently being paid out under the FEG scheme.
This bill will strengthen the Corporations Act to better reduce the incidence of dodgy companies structuring their arrangements in a way that evades paying employees' entitlements and deliberately shifts liability for unpaid employee entitlements to the Commonwealth via the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. The Corporations Act currently contains a criminal offence provision that covers what is commonly known as illegal phoenix activity—that is, where a director forms a company structure or enters into an agreement with the intention of avoiding having to pay workers their entitlements. Essentially, they walk away from their business, leaving employees without what is owed to them. Too often, the director or business just starts up again as a new company with no liabilities. While this criminal offence has been in the act since 2000, there has never been a conviction recorded. Labor announced in May last year that we would reform the criminal offence of deliberately avoiding employee entitlements to make it easier to prove and to make it easier to prosecute accessories. I'm pleased that the government has, more than a year later, adopted Labor's policy in this bill.
This bill will amend the Corporations Act to make it easier to prove the criminal offence of entering into an arrangement to avoid paying employee entitlements by including recklessness as a fault element; significantly increase the maximum fine for the offence of entering into an arrangement to avoid paying employee entitlements; introduce a new civil penalty provision for avoiding paying employee entitlements, with an objective reasonable person test; give the Fair Work Ombudsman, the ATO and the Department of Jobs and Small Business the standing to commence compensation proceedings to recoup moneys paid out via the Fair Entitlements Guarantee; extend liability for unpaid entitlements to a related corporate entity; and extend ASIC's power to disqualify directors and other officers, either directly or on application to the court, when they have a track record of corporate contraventions and inappropriately using the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme to pay outstanding employee entitlements.
Although Labor supports this bill, it could still be improved to give registered organisations standing to commence civil proceedings under the new provisions for compensation and the recovery of unpaid entitlements. At this point, it's worth noting that the increase in the financial penalty for the criminal offence is significant. At the moment, the penalty is minor in comparison to the monetary amount that many of these individuals and body corporates are squirrelling away into complicated mechanisms. The current penalty is 10 years of imprisonment or 1,000 penalty units, which equates to $210,000. The new penalties are for an individual to be imprisoned for 10 years or a fine of the greater of the following: 4,500 penalty units, which equates to $945,000; three times the total value of the benefits obtained by committing the offence or both. For a body corporate, it is a fine of the greatest of the following: 45,000 penalty units, which equates to $9.45 million; three times the total value of the benefits obtained by committing the offence or 10 per cent of the body corporate's annual turnover during the 12 months before the body corporate committed or began committing the offence.
The substantial increases in penalties are important, because unfortunately we are witnessing companies deliberately structuring their businesses and their arrangements to avoid paying workers' entitlements. The average annual cost under the FEG scheme has more than tripled from $70.7 million in the four-year period between 1 July 2005 and 30 June 2009 to $235.3 million in the four-year period between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2018. According to the government, the startling fact behind these figures is that the increase in the FEG claims can be attributed to a small number of corporations shifting liability. The FEG was always designed to be there asking a safety net, as a guaranteed way that employees could be paid their entitlements in a timely manner and not wait for drawn-out processes before they were able to receive a cent. Hopefully, these substantial increases in penalties will reinforce the serious nature of these crimes and will also be a substantial deterrent for persons who may otherwise seek to engage in these evasive types of behaviour. It is also the case that the civil penalty provision will make it easier to hold directors and companies liable for avoiding liability for employee entitlements.
I'm happy to support this bill and subsequently Townsville workers. I only wish that this bill had been presented and legislated before 2015 and then hopefully this would have provided more support for former Queensland Nickel employees. It is timely to remember that although the FEG has provided a huge safety net for many workers and is paying the majority of entitlements to former QNI workers, there are still Townsville workers who have not received their full entitlements. There are people like John from Burdell, who still has not received $10,000 in entitlements. Laura from Burdell still has not received $7,000. Chris from Deeragun has still not received $15,000. Chris from Bushland Beach has not received $10,000. Cheryl from Mount Low has still not received $9,800. Peter from Kirwan still has not received $10,000. George from Kirwin still has not received $10,000. Glen from Gulliver still has not received $10,000. Nigel from Mundingburra still has not received $7,000. There is Peter, who has six children, and he told me personally that he still hasn't received $25,000 in entitlements.
These entitlements must be paid. I call on those responsible to pay these workers. I will not be threatened or intimidated into silence. I certainly won't be bullied into silence by an out-of-town billionaire. If the former member for Fairfax, Clive Palmer, thinks that he can bully North Queenslanders into silence, then he does not know North Queenslanders very well at all. The former member for Fairfax, Clive Palmer, is trying to revive his political career, like he's trying to raise Titanic II. But he is not fooling anyone. His barrage of advertisements won't work. They are instead a continual and painful reminder to the former QNI workers. Today I am happy to support this bill. I will always support a bill that will benefit workers and—as an extension of that—taxpayers, who will have their valuable tax dollars returned to them.
I rise to speak in support of the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018 and to support the amendment moved by the member for Gorton. I'm pleased to speak after my colleague the member for Herbert, a strong advocate for members of her community affected by the collapse of Queensland Nickel. What a shameful rollcall of unpaid entitlements we have just heard from the workers in Townsville. This bill will strengthen the Corporations Act to better deter dodgy companies and their associates from structuring their arrangements in a way that evades paying employee entitlements and deliberately shifts liability for unpaid employee entitlements to the taxpayer via the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme.
The Corporations Act currently contains a criminal offence provision which covers what is commonly known as illegal phoenixing activity. This is where a director or a company structures their company or enters into an arrangement with the intention of avoiding having to pay their employees' entitlements. Essentially, they walk away from their business leaving employees without what is owed to them—what they're entitled to—and, too often, the director or business just starts up again as a new company without any liabilities. While this criminal offence has been in the Corporations Act since 2000, there has never been—as the member for Herbert has noted—a single conviction under this Act. Labor announced in May last year that we would reform the criminal offence of deliberately avoiding employee entitlements to make it easier to prove and to make it easier to prosecute accessories. We are pleased that the government has in this bill adopted this Labor policy.
This bill will amend the Corporations Act to make it easier to prove a criminal offence of entering into an arrangement to avoid paying employee entitlements, by including recklessness as a mental element; significantly increasing the maximum fine for the offence of entering into an arrangement to avoid paying employee entitlements, introducing a new civil penalty provision for avoiding paying employee entitlements with an objective reasonable person test; giving the Fair Work Ombudsman, the ATO and the Department of Jobs and Small Business standing to commence compensation proceedings to recoup monies paid out by the Fair Entitlements Guarantee; extending liability for unpaid entitlements to related corporate entities; and extending ASIC's power to disqualify directors and other officers, either directly or on application to the court, where they have a track record of corporate contraventions and inappropriately using the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme to pay outstanding employee entitlements. Labor believes this bill could be improved by giving registered organisations, such as trade unions, standing to commence civil proceedings on behalf of their members under the new provisions for compensation and the recovery of unpaid entitlements—after all, looking after members' interests is what these organisations do every day.
It is worth noting that the increase in the financial penalty for the criminal offence is significant. At the moment, the penalty is minor in comparison to the sums many of these individuals and body corporates are squirrelling away in complicated mechanisms. The current penalty is 10 years imprisonment or 1,000 penalty units, which equates to $210,000. The new penalties are as follows: for an individual, imprisonment for 10 years or a fine of the greater of 4,500 penalty units, or $945,000, three times the total value of the benefits obtained by committing the offence, or both; and, for a body corporate, a fine of the greatest of 45,000 penalty units, or $9.45 million, three times the total value of the benefits obtained by committing the offence, 10 per cent of the body corporate's annual turnover during the 12 months before the body corporate committed or began committing the offence. These substantial increases in penalties will reinforce the serious nature of these crimes and will also serve as a substantial deterrent for persons who may otherwise seek to engage in these types of evasive behaviours.
I'd like to turn to story of someone in my community whom I met in a local shopping centre. This woman, Abby—who had just found out that she was pregnant—was distraught. Her husband had been working as a subcontractor—I note this bill doesn't directly refer to subcontractors, but I know that our shadow minister, the member for Gorton, has mentioned subcontractors—and her husband's subcontracting company was not paid. The company just disappeared and set up locally again soon after. They were a young family struggling to get started, and this company deliberately avoided paying him and many others and set up very soon nearby in the same community.
These substantial increases in penalties will reinforce the serious nature of these crimes—and so they should—and, hopefully, serve as a substantial deterrent for persons who may otherwise seek to engage in these types of evasive behaviours. The civil penalty provision will also make it easier to hold directors and companies liable for avoiding liability for employee entitlements.
Labor established the FEG scheme because employees should not be punished, when an employer's business fails, by the loss of their legal entitlements: leave, superannuation and unpaid wages. Legitimate businesses do from time to time fail, but it is particularly disturbing that workers can lose their entitlements where a company deliberately structures its arrangements to avoid paying them. The average annual costs under the FEG scheme and its precursor, the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme, have more than tripled from $70.7 million in the four-year period between 1 July 2005 and 30 June 2009 to $235.3 million in the four-year period between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2018. According to the government, the increase in FEG claims can be attributed to a small number of corporations shifting liability.
Labor passed the Fair Entitlements Guarantee legislation in 2012, which delivered the strongest protections for workers' entitlements in this country. In contrast, this government tried to cut the FEG in 2014. It has no genuine commitment to protecting workers' entitlements. The FEG was always designed to be there as a safety net, as a guaranteed way that employees could be paid their entitlements in a timely manner and not wait for drawn-out processes before they receive a cent. It was not intended as a mechanism to allow unscrupulous employers to shift their obligations to pay workers' entitlements to the taxpayer.
While these reforms strengthen the legal regime to punish and deter dodgy employers and companies, they're only a start. On 24 May last year, the shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, the shadow Assistant Treasurer and the then shadow minister for small business and financial services announced a suite of Labor policies to crack down on abuse by directors and the real problems associated with phoenixing in this country. One of those measures was that a Labor government would introduce an objective test for transactions depriving employees of their entitlements. We also announced that we would reform provisions for accessorial liability.
This government bill adopts and implements these measures. The government first announced its intention to address corporate misuse of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme on 5 October last year. While we accept that the government engaged in consultations on the drafting of the bill, it nonetheless could be further improved. In the end, we support the premise and intent of the bill, as we see that it will benefit employees and, as an extension of that, taxpayers, who will have their valuable funds returned to them.
Labor is glad to finally see a bill which will have some benefit to workers come onto the government's agenda. This government needs to do so much more. This government should restore penalty rates. This government should do something about stagnant wages. This government should address underemployment. This government should address insecure employment and employers systemically underpaying employees.
In contrast to the abuses seen under this government, a Labor government will protect workers and ensure that they get a fair deal, by tackling unfair labour hire and cracking down on dodgy labour hire companies that rip off and exploit workers. Labor will restore penalty rates in our first 100 days of government and legislate so that they can never be cut again. Labor will ensure that collective bargaining is not undermined by corporate gaming of our industrial relations laws, including by preventing the use of sham enterprise agreements and employers simply terminating agreements instead of bargaining. Labor will abolish zombie Work Choices agreements. Labor will restore Fair Work by reforming the definition of 'casual' so that it is used for the purposes for which it was originally intended.
We will prevent employers forcing their workers into sham contracting arrangements to avoid direct employment, and we'll work to close the gender pay gap so that women don't work until February each year for free. Labor will address worker exploitation by introducing a national labour hire licensing scheme, reverse the onus of proof for franchisor liability for underpayment of wages and increase penalties for employers and dodgy directors who deliberately avoid paying their employees' entitlements. As I said earlier, Labor is committed to supporting the working people of this country.
I am actually going to congratulate the government on the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018. There's some really good stuff in this bill. It's rare for me, particularly in the area of workplace relations, to say that the government has put forward a bill that has some real merit. But I am quite surprised that, given it's also a billthat will help recover taxpayer funds and save the taxpayer dollars, there are not more government speakers on this bill. Usually there's a long list of speakers every time they go after getting back Australian taxpayers' dollars. They talk about how they're going tocrack down on all these dodgy behaviours so they don't waste taxpayers' money—particularly if it's somebody that's on a Newstart payment; they're very quick to champion the fact that it is taxpayers' money. But I note that this bill actually talks about stopping companies from ripping off the taxpayer, and stopping individuals in business from ripping off the taxpayer, so maybe that's the reason why more government members aren't speaking on this bill, or maybe they just don't understand the importance of FEG, the Fair Entitlements Guarantee.
Before entering this place, as many people know, I had the great honour and privilege of working for United Voice , representing cleaners and security guards. Far too often, I would sit with cleaners or guards whose contract cleaning company or security company had gone 'broke' , gone into receivership, force d the m to fight to keep their jobs and forced the m to apply for a Fair Entitlement s Guarantee , only for the company to reappear the next day , or a week after, under a different name.
One of the last major cases that I worked on was the Bendigo Marketplace cleaners. That was actually a day of high drama in this place , be cause, unfortunately, we changed prime ministers that day — although I did miss most of the commentary because I was working so hard with the cleaners to get their forms completed. The company that the Bendigo Marketplace cleaners had worked for was Swan Cleaning. Swan Cleaning were a national cleaning company, one of the largest cleaning companies in Australia. They had gone into receivership , and the biggest creditor was actually Judy Swan, who was the wife and partner of the business owner. I understand that case is still working its way through the system. But the taxpayer had to pick up the bill in that particular case because the cleaners had lost their entitlements, yet again—because it's not just once or twice that it happens to cleaners in the contract cleaning industry.
Far too often, the companies that many of our cleaners work for—where 80 per cent of the cost or , in some cases , 90 per cent of the cost is labour — go into receivership , expecting the Commonwealth government and the Australian people to pick up the tab for what's owed to employees in entitlements. I do want to acknowledge the work the former Labor government did to change GEARS to the Fair Entitlements Guarantee. Under GEARS, there was a cap that didn't adequately reflect what people were owed. The FEG also means a quicker processing time. In the case of the Bendigo Marketplace cleaners, it took some of them six months and some of them 12 months, but they did get what they were entitled to.
F or a lot of those cleaners, though, it has happened far too many times. Robbie had worked at the Bendigo Marketplace since it opened . She had been one of their core , stable cleaner s there, the day supervisor, since it had opened . She has what she calls 'changed her shirt' at least five times. Now, that might not be a lot if you've worked in the same place for 50 years, b ut that's five times in just over a decade. The cleaning company had lost the contract, a new contractor had come in and you had to fight for your job — or a cleaning company had gone into receivership , as in this situation, and then into liquidation, where the cleaners lost everything and had to fight to get their jobs and entitlements back.
We know that it is occurring everywhere. Unfortunately, more bad corporate behaviour means that it is occurring more and more. Since being in parliament, other workers who have come to see me who are navigating the Fair Entitlements Guarantee process include people working in construction and people working in transport. They might say to you, 'Well, I was working for Bill . H e has shut the business , but told me to come back and apply for a job with him in three weeks time. I have to apply for the Fair Entitlements Guarantee to get my annual leave and my entitlements that are ow ed to me. He says not to worry: " Take a short holiday and come back to work in four to six weeks time. " ' That's just not fair. What is wrong with corporate Australia that we have businesses who deliberately and knowingly force their business into receivership and into liquidation, shafting their employees, and rely upon the taxpayer to pick up the bill?
I believe that's the government's real motivation behind this bill. Yes, it should have been brought on sooner. Yes, it should have been before us quite some time ago. But I believe the real motivation behind this government is not really to help these vulnerable employees—these people who've worked hard but have not been paid, who have not had access to their entitlements—it's more about trying to save money from the Commonwealth. But, whatever the motivation, we'll support it and accept the bill that is before us because it is good reform. It does start to say to businesses, to bosses, to corporate Australia: 'This rogue behaviour is unacceptable. It's bad for the government, it's bad for workers and, quite frankly, it's also bad for local economies.'
This bill strengthens the Corporations Act to better deter and reduce the incidence of dodgy companies, and their associates, restructuring their arrangements to avoid paying employees their entitlements. These companies, in some cases, deliberately shift liability for their unpaid employees to the Commonwealth via the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. This bill amends the Corporation Act to make it easier to prove criminal offence in entering into an arrangement to avoid paying employees' entitlements. It significantly increases the maximum fine for offences. It introduces a new civil penalty for people who try to avoid paying entitlements, with an objective 'reasonable person' test. It gives the Fair Work Ombudsman, the ATO and the Department of Jobs and Small Business the standing to commence proceedings to recoup money that has been paid out. So if someone has been paid out—but then the company reappears or they've all of a sudden got assets under another name—it gives the ability for departments to come back together. It extends the liability of unpaid entitlements to related corporate entities—so critical, as others on this side of the House have raised, in relation to the Queensland Nickel situation. And it is not just Queensland Nickel but so many other situations where companies link up—not just cleaning or transport companies but mining companies—and splinter their employees through a number of entities just to avoid paying entitlements. The bill extends the powers of ASIC to disqualify directors and other officers.
Those changes are all welcomed. I acknowledge that the government, in this bill, has adopted a number of the sensible propositions that have been put forward by Labor in this space. It's a bit humbling—and I guess it's a sign that we're on the right path—when the government starts to adopt the work of the opposition. The measures in this bill will be welcomed by good employers in the sector, employers who are doing the right thing, particularly in those contract exposed industries that do complain about the fact that they know a company who has gone into receivership, or only into liquidation, and is ripping off workers. They're in direct competition with the firms that do the wrong thing, the dodgy firms—it is part of their business plan, it is part of their building model; you see the same companies doing it over and over again.
And I strongly urge the government not to finish the work here but to adopt Labor's other proposals in the space of phoenixing. Phoenixing is a massive problem in Australia among a number of industries, and the government should now proceed to adopting Labor's proposal on phoenixing—the private member's bill that has been put forward, the reforms that have been suggested. The FEG was always designed to be there as a safety net, but it's not in itself a solution to the broader problem of dodgy companies deliberately using the FEG as part of their business structure and part of their model.
We should also remember that this is just a new acceptance by the government about how important the FEG is. Back in 2014—I remember that budget night and some of the reading of the papers after that—the government actually tried to cut the FEG. They tried to go back to the old GEERS, making it very hard for workers who may have worked a long time for a company to get the full entitlements that they were owed. I think this is why people in our community are so protective of the FEG and outraged. These aren't people looking for a handout. These are people who have worked hard and earned this entitlement. It's a bit like wage theft—the company hasn't paid them out. They've done the work. They've done the hours. They've worked hard. Yet they haven't received their reward and payment for that.
Wage theft is a problem more broadly in our community. Every day in the papers there's another case of wage theft, where an employee has done the work but not been paid by their employer. The extent and endemic nature of it in our industries is such that we now have the Labor government in Victoria committing to making wage theft a crime. A lot of people thought, 'Wow, that is a very big step for a government to take: to introduce a criminal offence for employers who deliberately—knowingly—underpay their staff, ripping them off when it is built into their business model.' This is something that may be adopted by other states. So, in many ways, the dodgy bosses and companies of corporate Australia are on notice. They have to clean up their act.
I know that there are some employers who say compliance is now their biggest worry, and they want to work proactively with people in this place on how they can improve compliance. There are also the employers who constantly get undercut by companies who don't put enough away to ensure that they can pay employees their fair entitlements. Again using the security industry as a model, take the example where a company enters a government contract, say it's with the National Gallery of Victoria. The contract is for five years. If the company doesn't put enough aside for any component of annual leave that hasn't been taken or any long service leave that a worker may be entitled to—and, in some cases in security, a worker is also able to have their sick pay paid out on termination. If the company doesn't put that aside and they lose the contract, it then has to pay the worker what is owing. But what happens far too often in the security industry, like the cleaning industry, is that the company will go into receivership, not pay that entitlement, and leave it to the Commonwealth to pick up the tab. That worker is out of pocket for a significant period of time, and then the company will re-establish itself a few months, weeks, or, sometimes, days later—under a different name. There is more work to do to break the back of this issue and to crack this model. Far too often, workers are missing out. Far too often, other employers are being made to compete against these dodgy employers. And far too often, the Commonwealth is stepping in to pick up the tab.
If only the government showed this kind of understanding and compassion for all workers. We have slow wages growth in this country, and the government is doing very little about it. We have a minister for this area who constantly belittles and criticises unions—who only stand up every day to make sure workers get paid. If we didn't have union organisers, officials and other people assisting workers to fill in and complete their paperwork and supporting people where English may not be their first language, then the government's workload in processing these FEG forms would be more complicated. I remember, back on that day, I spent about 10 hours at the Bendigo Marketplace supporting our cleaners to secure their jobs, to get the paperwork ready, and to know what to do to apply for their Fair Entitlements Guarantee. We worked very hard to make sure that all of them would get every dollar that they were owed. It's just what you do when you're someone who represents low-paid workers and others who work in a number of these industries where they're exposed.
Under this government, wages are stagnant, unemployment is stubbornly high—particularly for young workers—and exploitation is rife. There's an increasing level of insecurity at work, meaning that more and more workers, unfortunately, will be turning to the government for FEGs to get their due entitlements—as more and more workers are made redundant and lose their jobs because of unscrupulous, bad behaviour by employers. I urge the government to do more in this space, and to pick up Labor's proposals to make sure we combat illegal phoenixing behaviour. We announced our plans in May last year, and it's about time that the government got on board. I urge the government to support the amendment that is before us and take real action by cracking down on phoenixing behaviour. Don't just look at FEGs. Look at the problem across the board.
I rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018. I'm pleased to see the government implementing a Labor initiative to protect workers' entitlements. The Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme, or the FEG, is an important scheme that ensures workers cannot lose hard-earned pay that they have accrued over time and have not had the chance to materialise. They are entitlements that are often put at risk when a company or business fails. The FEG is a safety net as a guaranteed way for employees to be paid their entitlements in a timely manner. In 2012, Labor passed the Fair Entitlements Guarantee legislation, which delivered the strongest protections for workers' entitlements ever seen in this country. We legislated because Labor is the party of jobs and Labor is the party for workers. In contrast, the government actually tried to cut the FEG in 2014. It has no real commitment to protecting workers' entitlements. These entitlements—like long service leave and accrued annual leave—belong to the workers. They are, for all intents and purposes, part of their wages and conditions that, once earned, should not be taken away from them or kept at bay by long and complicated processes.
From my experience in the union movement, both at the nurses' union and the ACTU, I have too often seen workers left bereft when the company they work for goes under and they lose their job. They often had absolutely no idea that their job was even at risk. To lose your job and all you have accrued in good faith is devastating, and to go through weeks, months or years of legal proceedings to try to recover the loss too often means getting very little or nothing of what you are owed. But, even more galling than that, is for those workers to discover that the loss of their entitlements had been engineered by their employer as an egregious act designed deliberately to deprive their workers of what is rightly theirs. That's right: as unbelievable as this sounds, some employers devise schemes to avoid paying their workers what is owed to them. Imagine how those workers feel when they see their ex-bosses opening up another business—often identical in nature, and even with the same directors, but under a different name and guise. This is known, of course, as phoenixing. No industry is safe from this. I have met workers who have lost entitlements in this way in aged care, manufacturing, hospitality, construction, the beauty industry and more. Low-paid workers who can least afford to lose a single cent should not go through this. And yes, better-paid workers, too, find themselves in dire straits trying to pay mortgages and meet commitments made under the assumption of having a decent job. Losing thousands of dollars, or even hundreds of dollars, in this way can break a family. It puts strain on stretched budgets and breaks dreams. It's hard to imagine what sort of person would deliberately deprive their employees like that. But that type of person, sadly, exists out there—way too many of them.
Labor understands the importance of protecting such entitlements. We understand the impact on workers losing their hard-earned pay, not only financially but mentally as well. So many workers have suffered stress, anxiety and depression at the hands of unscrupulous employers. It is most unusual for this government to put on the table a bill that, while falling short on some measures, does actually have some benefit to workers, because it is the nature of this government to attack workers and workers' rights every chance it gets. This government has done its best to attack workers' rights, like the right to be represented by a union and the right of the unions to properly represent and fight for their members; the right to have their superannuation protected from the greedy banks; and the right to be paid penalty rates.
Under this government, wages have stagnated, threatening livelihoods and our economy. Some jobs simply do not pay enough to give anyone a decent life. A job that doesn't give you a living is not a job; it is exploitation. Under this government, underemployment has grown, with workers needing more work to survive. Zero contract hours, casual employment and short-term contracts all add up to people living anxious lives, with little hope of planning for the future. Under this government, the use of the shadow economy is rife. We have exploited migrant workers with the sickle of deportation hung over their head, being forced to accept below-award wages, working long hours, being harassed and being charged exorbitant amounts of money for things like substandard accommodation and training or not being paid at all.
Under this government, labour hire firms are underbidding for the jobs of longstanding employees who have bargained in good faith for decent wages and conditions. Workers are finding themselves dumped and out of work, replaced by insecure, low-paid and often less-skilled workers employed by labour hire firms at award or close to award rates. In fact, under this government, the number of those working on award rates has increased dramatically, a significant contributor to wage stagnation. Under this government, we have seen good, steady public service jobs disappear by the thousands and, as a result, Australians are finding themselves without the provision of adequate services. Just try to ring Centrelink or NDIS and you'll see the devastation that severe cuts have had on our public services, or ask child protection workers how overworked they are. You may well wonder how we are supposed to stop corporate tax avoidance when the ATO has lost thousands of jobs. Under this government, closing the gender pay gap for working women has languished as a priority. Under this government, accessing child-care payments has been made more difficult for working families. If you have the misfortune to find yourself out of work—like the people this bill is concerned with—heaven help you trying to survive on welfare payments. And so it goes on and on.
This government is not normally concerned with looking after workers. It is more concerned with protecting banks' profits and making sure the big end of town does better and better at the expense of everyone else. So, whilst we acknowledge that some good will come of this bill, we are not under any misconception that the motivation for these amendments are any more than a government trying to protect its own bottom line.
The average annual cost under the FEG scheme has more than tripled, from $70.7 million in the four-year period from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2009, to $235.3 million between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2018. According to the government, the startling fact behind these figures is that the increase in FEG claims can be attributed to only a small number of corporations deliberately shifting liability to the scheme. We're pleased to see the changes to Corporations Act contained in this bill which will hopefully see a greater degree of recovery for employees who are owed entitlements and, hopefully, the government will be able to use these new capabilities to recover more taxpayers' money, to replenish the millions of dollars currently being paid out under the FEG scheme.
This bill will strengthen the Corporations Act to better deter and reduce the incidents of dodgy companies and their associates structuring their companies in a way that evades paying employee entitlements and will hopefully deter them deliberately shifting liability for unpaid employee entitlements to the Commonwealth via the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. The bill will amend the Corporations Act to make it easier to prove the criminal offence of entering into an arrangement to avoid paying employee entitlements. It will significantly increase the maximum fine for the offence of entering into an arrangement to avoid paying employee entitlements. It will introduce a new civil penalty provision for avoiding paying entitlements with an objective reasonable person test. It will give the Fair Work Ombudsman, the ATO, and the Department of Jobs and Small Business standing to commence compensation proceedings to recoup monies paid out via the FEG. It will extend the liability for unpaid entitlements to related corporate entities and, importantly, it will extend ASIC's powers to disqualify directors and other officers where they have a track record of corporate contraventions and inappropriately using the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme to pay outstanding employee entitlements. Labor believes this bill could be improved to give registered organisations standing to commence civil proceedings under the new provisions for compensation and the recovery of unpaid entitlements.
We are pleased to see the changes to the Corporations Act contained in this bill, that will hopefully see a greater degree of recovery for employees who are owed entitlements—entitlements that are their own hard-earned money. The changes in the bill will also aid the government, who will hopefully be able to use these new capabilities to recover more taxpayers' money, to replenish the millions of dollars currently being paid out under the FEG scheme.
The new financial penalties for the criminal offence are significant both for individuals and for body corporates. This will reinforce the very serious nature of this crime and, hopefully, better deter dodgy bosses from engaging in what is an abhorrent practice of keeping employee entitlements, their hard-earned entitlements, away from those workers. Directors and companies will also be on notice, as they will be made liable for avoiding paying employee entitlements.
While we welcome these changes to the act, we are alive to the motivation of this government in making them, remembering that this government is no friend at all of workers. We also expect that the new measures will indeed be enforced and that resources will be made available to ensure quick and decisive action when offences occur. There is no point in having these new measures if organisations like ASIC and the Australian Taxation Office don't have the means to use them properly—if they don't have the people employed and the resources to follow up these egregious issues. And, whilst this government remains irreparably divided on all manner of issues, from proper climate policy to its own leadership, it remains united in its attacks on workers and workers' rights.
These reforms are only a start of the changes that must be made to wind power back from employers to workers, to restore the great imbalance that exists right now. I am proud to be part of Labor, who in government will do a great deal more to restore that balance, because it is that balance that will make people's lives better.
I rise to follow on from the member for Batman. Today I acknowledge her lifetime service and commitment to improving the lives of working people and acknowledge the commitment that she not only made as an union official but now makes in this parliament as well. I am honoured to follow her fine words.
It's been a long time coming, but finally before us today we have a piece of legislation from this government to provide better support and better protections for the workers of this country, the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018. The workers who drive the economy, the workers who have been neglected and forgotten about by this government, are finally getting a bit of the attention that they deserve.
As the member for Fenner has detailed in his second reading amendment, under this government, wages are stagnant, underemployment is stubbornly high, worker exploitation is rife and work is increasingly precarious. All of this comes after the government has been pulling the levers of the economy for the past five years. There can be no excuses, no blame game and no finger-pointing to explain why workers in this country are getting a raw deal and are being ripped off by this government.
Members of the government will tell you that we have so-called turned the corner, but the truth is very different. Whilst the government will try to spin the data to make it suit them, the facts are vastly different. Wages growth remains at historical lows, coming off an all-time record low of just 1.9 per cent late last year, which has contributed to inequality being at a 75-year high. No wonder Australians are feeling like they've been left out and left behind by this Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. While the demands of work increase along with huge increases in the costs of living, they are not seeing this reflected in their take-home pay.
This is not a government for working Australians; this is a government for the top end of town, which is out of touch with what the community expects. This was made very clear by the Reserve Bank last week, which noted that Australian employers are finding 'ways to avoid lifting wages for their staff', as reported by The Guardian on 16 October. Earlier this year, in February, the RBA governor said it would be a 'welcome development' if wages begin picking up substantially, because it would help to create a stronger sense of 'shared prosperity' amongst workers—not that this government would know anything about that. The RBA governor:
… told an economic forum in Sydney, in the context of Australia's workers enduring their longest period of declining living standards in more than 25 years—
and I will say that again for the members of the government in the chamber today: workers have endured 'their longest period of declining living standards in more than 25 years'—
that rising wages would be necessary to return inflation to normal levels, and to lift the economy out of its ultra-low interest-rate funk. He said households were worse off now than they were six years ago, and with large businesses enjoying record profits, workers would benefit from a lift in real wages.
It's not just wages growth that has become a major issue for Australian workers under this government. Local residents in my community are telling me more and more that underemployment is the new curse sweeping through our community. Six-month contracts here and there, a bit of part-time work and a bit of casual work is not what we would call sound job security, and this is only getting worse. In fact, underemployment has overtaken unemployment as the major concern when it comes to jobs. As data from the ABS shows, the gap has been widening for the past four years. This has particularly affected women and young people the most.
In the past 10 years alone, the underemployment rate for young people aged 15 to 24 has almost doubled from 12.25 per cent to 22 per cent. Media reports also point to ABS data that has recently revealed that:
… that the average weekly hours worked by Australians is falling, down to 30.7 hours in the June quarter which was the lowest figure for eight years.
It also showed that more than 1.1 million Aussies were underemployed and the number of overtime hours we worked grew to hit 135,553 hours, the highest for four years.
It's clear that life for Australian workers under this government is not easy. We know that. When you go to the shopping centres and coffee shops and visit the clubs and pubs in my area, people will tell you the same story.
That's why, on this side of the House, we welcome the reforms put forward by the government today. They will start, in a modest way, to help to level the playing field. This bill, as we heard, will strengthen the Corporations Act to better deter and reduce the incidence of dodgy companies structuring their arrangements in a way that evades paying employee entitlements and deliberately shifts liability for unpaid employee entitlements to the Commonwealth via the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. This is despite—and this is an important fact—the fact that only a few short years ago many of those opposite voted to support the government's legislation to cut the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. You can see why many of my Labor colleagues and myself are sceptical about what the government says when it comes to authentically protecting workers' rights.
Nonetheless, this bill will amend the Corporations Act to make it easier to prove the criminal offence by entering into an arrangement to avoid paying employee entitlements by including recklessness as a mental element; significantly increase the maximum fine for the offence of entering into an arrangement to avoid paying employee entitlements; introduce a new civil penalty provision for avoiding paying employee entitlements with an objective reasonable person test; give the Fair Work Ombudsman, the ATO and the Department of Jobs and Small Business the standing to commence compensation proceedings to recoup monies paid out by the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and to extend liability for unpaid entitlements to related corporate entities; and extend ASIC's power to disqualify directors and other officers, either directly or application to the court, where they have a track record of corporate contraventions and inappropriately using the FEG scheme to pay outstanding employee entitlements.
All of this is very sensible. These are long overdue measures to improve conditions for Australian workers. But it's worth noting that the increase in the financial penalty for the criminal offence is significant. We agree that the substantial increases in penalties will reinforce the serious nature of this crimes and will also act as a substantial deterrent for persons who may otherwise seek to engage in these types of evasive behaviours. When thinking about this bill, one can't help but think of the former member for Fairfax, who still owes former Queensland Nickel workers superannuation entitlements along with life insurance, total and permanent disability payments and income protection payments. I will say it today: this is someone who is reported to be spending upwards of $1 million per month on an advertising campaign in an attempt to buy his way back into this House. All of this is going on while liquidators try to claw back the hundreds of millions of dollars that is owed to Queensland Nickel creditors, including almost $70 million under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee safety net, to cover workers' entitlements.
In 2012, Labor passed the Fair Entitlements Guarantee legislation, which delivered the strongest protections for workers' entitlements ever seen in this country. We legislated because Labor are the party of jobs and Labor are the party for workers. We established the FEG scheme because employees should not be punished through the loss of their legal entitlements—leave, superannuation and unpaid wages—when an employer's business fails. However, the annual cost under the FEG scheme has more than tripled, from $70.7 million in the four-year period between 1 July 2005 and 30 June 2009 to $235.3 million in the four-year period between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2018. According to the government, the startling fact behind these figures is that the increase in FEG claims can be attributed to a small number of corporations shifting liability. The FEG was always designed to be there as a safety net, as the guaranteed way that employees could be paid their entitlements in a timely manner and not wait for drawn-out processes before they received a cent. This is especially hurtful for workers who lose their entitlements where a company deliberately structures its arrangements to avoid paying them. Once again, I'm really proud that it's Labor, under the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, who is taking the lead on this activity, known as illegal phoenix activity.
On 24 May last year, the shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, the shadow Assistant Treasurer and the shadow minister for small business and financial services announced a suite of Labor policies to crack down on abuse by directors and the real problems associated with phoenixing in this country. While the government won't release the latest report on how much this illegal activity is costing the economy, estimates from 2012 put the number at approximately $3 billion per year. Under Labor's plan, announced by the member for Fenner last year, all company directors would be required to obtain a unique director ID number, with a 100-point identification check; penalties associated with phoenix activity would be increased; an objective test for transactions depriving employees of their entitlements would be introduced; the availability of compensation orders against accessories would be clarified; and there would be consultation on targeted integrity measures based on the recommendations of the Melbourne Law School and Monash Business School phoenix research team.
So, while these reforms we are debating today strengthen the legal regime to punish and deter dodgy employers and companies, they are only a start. Far too often in this political climate, the government continues, as we see every single day, to be divided and to be in chaos, always focused on themselves, not the Australian people, looking for the political fix to sort out their own internal issues and fighting amongst themselves. That is why I'm really proud to be a member of the opposition, who's leading the way on measures such as these and the economy as a whole.
Let's not forget just what this government has delivered. We know that the deficit has blown out to almost four times worse than forecast in the Liberal's first budget. Gross debt has crashed through to half a trillion dollars and is now sitting at $540.1 billion, and we know the debt has doubled since those opposite came to power. As I mentioned at the start, this comes at a time when wages are stagnant, underemployment is stubbornly high, worker exploitation is rife and, let's face it, work is increasingly insecure.
So, whilst we support the bills before the House today, there is much more work to be done, and it starts with standing up for workers' rights, like penalty rates. On this sides of the House, under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, who is at the table now, we are a united team who is so committed to ensuring that Australian workers get a fair go and that, if we are privileged to be elected, a future Shorten Labor government will, in our first 100 days, restore penalty rates and legislate so they can never be cut again.
I conclude on this remark: this is in stark contrast to the government led by the Prime Minister, where every single member—including the member for Corangamite, the member for Reid and the member for Berowra, who are all in this chamber—voted eight times to support cuts to penalty rates. I just want to finish on this matter. The day of reckoning is coming when those members of the chaotic, divisive Morrison government will face their communities at the election. Members of this side of the House will be joining forces with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and union members across this country to remind people that, when those members had the chance to stand up for penalty rates, when the member for Corangamite had the opportunity to stop the largest pay cut in Australia's history since World War II—
No, the retiree tax! I think you forgot the retiree tax.
they sided with the decision to cut the income of thousands of workers in her electorate. I take the interjection from the member for Corangamite. She's proud of it. She's proud of the fact that she cut the wages of young people and of people working in retail, hospitality and pharmacies. She's proud of it. I'll tell you who is not proud of it, and that's Libby Coker. She is standing up every single day, fighting those cuts. We stand beside Libby Coker. We stand beside her as she takes it to the community in all of those government electorates, because they need to be held to account for the damage and the cuts to wages they've delivered.
I think it's fair to say that what the member for Oxley was just saying points to the fact that this is not a government which puts the interests of workers first, generally speaking. He gave just one example around penalty rates. With this bill, the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018, I am happy to say that there are some benefits for working people. The Prime Minister has been saying he wants to see people have a go and then they will get a fair go. Well, there are plenty of people working hard, putting in a hard day's work, having a go and contributing, as the Prime Minister likes to say, but those opposite have cut their pay. If they're on penalty rates, that is true to say. On this side of the House, we are concerned they're not getting a fair go, and we want to see that they do get paid what they're entitled to.
We've seen all too often companies structure their affairs to avoid paying their workers. In my electorate of Solomon, the Fair Work Ombudsman has found that several businesses are underpaying their workers. The ombudsman did an audit of 54 businesses in Greater Darwin and found that 25 were not paying their employees correctly and 16 were not keeping accurate records or providing pay slips. One example was a Darwin cafe that underpaid three workers almost $5,000 over 10 months and did not pay weekend penalty rates at all. As a result of these audits, the ombudsman recovered over $20,000 in unpaid wages. In another case, the Fair Work Ombudsman ordered an Adelaide transport company which transports bulk petroleum into the Northern Territory to pay 10 of their drivers $374,000 in outstanding wages.
This bill contains sensible reforms to the Corporations Act to better deter and punish directors and companies who deliberately avoid liability for employee entitlements. Labor have announced policies to crack down on abuse by directors and the real problems associated with phoenixing in this country. One of those measures is that a Labor government would 'introduce an objective test for transactions depriving employees of their entitlements'. We also announced that we would reform provisions for accessorial liability. This government bill adopts and implements these measures. We are pleased to see the changes to the Corporations Act contained in this bill that will hopefully see a greater degree of recovery for employees who are owed entitlements. We also hope the government will be able to use these new capabilities to recover more taxpayers' money to replenish the thousands—indeed, millions—of dollars currently being paid out under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme.
This bill will strengthen the Corporations Act to better deter and reduce the incidence of dodgy companies and their associates structuring their arrangements in a way that evades paying employee entitlements and deliberately shifting liability for unpaid employee entitlements to the Commonwealth via the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. The Corporations Act currently contains a criminal offence provision which covers what is commonly known as illegal phoenixing activity—that is, where a director or a company structures their company to avoid, or enters into an agreement with the intention of avoiding, having to pay their employees' entitlements. Essentially, they walk away from their business, leaving employees without what is owed to them, and, too often, the director or business just starts up again as a new company without any liabilities. While this criminal offence has been in the act since 2000, there has never been a conviction under it.
Labor announced in May last year that we would reform this criminal offence, of deliberately avoiding employee entitlements, to make it easier to prove and to make it easier to prosecute accessories. We are pleased that the government has, more than a year later, adopted this Labor policy in this bill.
This bill will amend the Corporations Act to make it easier to prove the criminal offence of entering into an agreement to avoid paying employee entitlements, and to include recklessness as a mental element. It will significantly increase the maximum fine for the offence of entering into an arrangement to avoid paying employee entitlements. It will introduce a new civil penalty provision for avoiding paying employee entitlements, with an objective reasonable-person test. It will give the Fair Work Ombudsman, the ATO and the Department of Jobs and Small Business standing to commence compensation proceedings to recoup moneys paid out via the Fair Entitlements Guarantee. It will extend liability for unpaid entitlements to related corporate entities, and it will extend ASIC's power to disqualify directors and other officers, either directly or on application to the court, where they have a track record of corporate contraventions and inappropriately using the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme to pay outstanding employee entitlements.
Labor believes this bill could be improved to give registered organisations standing to commence civil proceedings under the new provisions for compensation and the recovery of unpaid entitlements. It is worth noting that the increase in the financial penalty for the criminal offence is significant. We agree that the substantial increase in the penalty will reinforce the serious nature of these crimes and will also act as a substantial deterrent to persons who may otherwise seek to engage in these types of evasive behaviours. It is also the case that the civil penalty provision will make it easier to hold directors and companies liable for avoiding liability for employee entitlements.
Labor established the FEG scheme because, when an employer's business fails, employees should not be punished by the loss of their legal entitlements, whether those be leave, superannuation or unpaid wages. It is even more egregious for workers to lose their entitlements where a company deliberately structures its arrangements to avoid paying them.
The average annual cost under the FEG scheme has more than tripled, from $70.7 million in the four-year period between 1 July '05 and 30 June '09 to $235.3 million in the four-year period between 1 July '14 and 30 June '18. According to the government, the startling fact behind these figures is that the increase in FEG claims can be attributed to a small number of corporations shifting liability. The FEG was always designed to be there as a safety net, as a guaranteed way that employees could be paid their entitlements in a timely manner and not have to wait for drawn-out processes before they received a cent. In 2012, Labor passed the Fair Entitlements—
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, when the member for Solomon can seek continuation. Are there any statements by honourable members?
Since coming to government, Prime Minister Morrison has tried to run the country like he ran Tourism Australia—with stunts, slogans and a healthy dose of incompetence. Now the bloke who couldn't sell Aussie beaches to British backpackers is trying to sell the Australian public on a rebrand of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. The voters of Wentworth sent the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government a resounding message on the weekend, in the form of the biggest swing against the government in by-election history. In response, Prime Minister Morrison, in a raving speech on the night, shouted right back at the Australian public that he would stay the course and change nothing. True to his word, the coalition returned to parliament this week, and the coalition that promised stable government and delivered the Muppet Show has been straight back at it, squabbling with each other all week.
Today, we've witnessed the former Deputy Prime Minister publicly fighting with the current Prime Minister about whether the former Prime Minister should represent Australia at an international forum in Bali. It's all part of a broader fight within the coalition about who's to blame for Wentworth—Malcolm Turnbull, Alan Jones, the member for Dickson, Peta Credlin or the members for Reid and Chisholm. We see on The Australian editorial page, 'The sookening has split the party in its search for a scapegoat'. Like another famously out-of-touch aristocracy, they've learnt nothing and they've forgotten nothing. It hasn't occurred to any of them that the public don't have a horse in these internal Liberal-National fights. They want a government that listens to them—and the government should call an election and give them a chance.
I rise to acknowledge several community organisations in my electorate who have been awarded our government's Armistice Grants to mark the Centenary of Armistice this November. Berowra RSL Sub Branch members supported Mount Colah resident Scott Wilson to research and document 33 of the 41 names on the Berowra War Memorial, commemorating local service men and women who died in the First World War. Mr Wilson's book, In Good Company, is a milestone contribution to our local history. I extend congratulations to former Berowra RSL Sub Branch President Bob Dobson AFSM OAM on this project, and I acknowledge Vice President Frank Miles, Secretary Sandra Hawkins and her husband Ray.
Redfield College will establish a learning centre displaying First World War memorabilia. The centre will commemorate the sacrifice of Australian soldiers and inform students through artefacts and storytelling. The school will also host a presentation by historian Paul Martin on 12 November. I acknowledge Mark Anderson at Redfield who spearheaded this project with invaluable help from librarian Justin Lockley.
The India Club are creating a digital honour board in remembrance of the Indian soldiers and Anzacs who fought together in Gallipoli. Congratulations to Shubha Kumar for drawing attention to the 15,000 Indians who fought with the allied troops at Gallipoli.
Hornsby RSL Sub-Branch will host an art exhibition to commemorate the Centenary of Armistice. I would like to acknowledge Terry James, the president of Hornsby RSL Sub-Branch, for leading this excellent remembrance event, along with a series of memorial services and events to mark the Centenary of Armistice.
I rise to table a petition. Aged care, as we know, is an issue facing many Australians, particularly as we see a greater number of the population getting older. The difficulty in finding proper aged-care places and facilities is an issue affecting communities right across Australia. Last week, we tried to put a petition into the parliament from 2,000 local residents about the need for aged care in Doreen and Mernda, and it was stupidly knocked off. Fortunately, we found some very intelligent members of the government who accepted the petition and understood it was actually from the community and for the community and was not actually attacking the government but actually saying that we need it. We were able to split the petition, and we have another petition today that I will present to the House. I don't need to seek leave, because it's in order and has been checked by the Petitions Committee. So we won't go through the farce that we had to last week that caused a petition not to be presented.
The point raised is that we have a government in this House that has failed on every single criteria when it comes to aged care, through the inability of the minister to actually manage his portfolio to the inability of the government to actually supply services. There are 88,000 people waiting for stage 4 home care, and this government sits on its hands. All the government is worried about is giving its former Prime Ministers free international travel and a few of its 'envoys' that they've got—which is the pay-off for being knifed—extra staffing. It's actually costing millions of dollars. It's not fair, and it's not on.
I am therefore pleased to present the petition.
The petition read as follows—
[Document not available at time of publishing]
Petition received.
I'm really pleased today to talk about the government's Regional Growth Fund and the fact that Nannup Timber Processing Pty Ltd has been invited to submit a full business case to meet the assessment requirements for the next stage of the Regional Growth Fund. I congratulate Vince Corlett and his team at Nannup Timber Processing, and I'm looking forward to the full business case presentation, because this will involve the construction of the Nannup Plywood Veneer Peeling Facility, and that project will employ 30 people in the construction process and, as Vince said to me recently, up to 85 people when it's up and running.
For Nannup, this tiny little town with a population of around a thousand people, 280 kilometres south of Perth in the Blackwood Valley, this project would be bigger than Ben Hur. You can imagine what it means to a tiny little community with regard to the opportunities for value-adding. It will enable far better use of their existing residues and waste, and it means great opportunities for young people in this small community. Think of a thousand people and a project like this, with 30 people employed just in the construction and up to 85 once it's up and running. This will breathe new life into Nannup and the whole region, and the timber industry.
I was out doorknocking recently in Reservoir, and I met a young mum who was doing it pretty tough. She told me her kids go to Reservoir East Primary School, their local state comprehensive school. She said it's one of the best things in their lives. She told me that, if she's having a particularly tough day, she rings the school principal, James. James hops in his car, drives to her house, collects the kids and takes them to school without any fuss or drama. I hear stories like this all the time about James. His school, Reservoir East primary, has a significant number of kids from tough backgrounds. James constantly goes over and above, not just to educate the kids but to care for them and their families.
Schools like Reser East are the reason I'm so thrilled Labor has committed to an extra $14 billion for public schools, with a $3.3 billion commitment in the first three years. This money will mean a good education for all kids, no matter their circumstances. It's a game changer for public schools—the biggest investment in public schools in Australian history. With this money and increased principal autonomy, public schools will be able to deliver smaller class sizes, more teachers and more one-to-one attention. Most importantly, for schools like Reser East, it will mean they can provide supports like speech pathologists, social workers and family liaison officers. This is crucial to schools in my electorate. More than anything, I want a Shorten Labor government to be elected so we can deliver this and give public schools and the kids they educate the funding they deserve.
This Friday is World Teachers' Day, a day for us to say thank you to teachers and acknowledge the incredible work that teachers are doing to shape our next generation of leaders. Education underpins our society, and without it we wouldn't have the country we have today. No matter what profession you choose, we all have to start somewhere. Although the foundations of education start with our parents, they are nurtured and strengthened by teachers as we navigate our way through kindergarten, primary school, high school and then tertiary education. During the school years, we learn not only to read and write but also to navigate personal growth and problem-solving. We learn how to make friends and how to work as a team. We learn that as individuals we each have our own voice and our own opportunity to make a difference in the world. Our teachers are constantly empowering our children to become the next leaders, influencers, and innovators of our nation. As the husband of a former teacher I understand the extra voluntary hours they do, and as the father of three school-age boys I understand the personal contribution their teachers make to their education. I want to thank all the teachers in my electorate, especially on this Friday, World Teachers' Day.
I rise to talk about the planned continuation of job cuts to the Bureau of Meteorology in my electorate. This week in Senate estimates, the director of the Bureau of Meteorology was unable to say how many people are employed in the Northern Territory BOM, so I decided to go and have a bit of a look myself. I found out that, lo and behold, when those opposite took government, there were 80 staff employed by the Bureau of Meteorology in the NT, but that's being cut by 25 per cent. When I asked the Minister for the Environment about this last week in this place, she failed to confirm that forecasting jobs will not be lost from Darwin. What a disgrace!
The Minister for the Environment, the member for Durack, is in an area that's hit by cyclones. The honourable member should be aware that the Bureau of Meteorology being able to forecast and track cyclones in an area that's hit by cyclones is kind of important. Perhaps, because she lives in Perth, she's unaware. Those opposite, especially those from Western Australia, should know that the BOM's important. So, again, I say to them: stop cutting jobs from the BOM.
The incredible generosity and kindness of all Western Australians—indeed, many people across Australia—is truly remarkable. This year's Perth Telethon raised a record-breaking $38 million over the 26-hour marathon TV broadcast and from events held throughout the year. I was very pleased to participate in a number of those events. Thank you to the Prime Minister and the federal government for our contribution of $3.3 million to Telethon. While it's important to see our government and taxpayers contribute, ultimately it's the personal donations of mums and dads, and even kids, which break the donation records to Telethon year after year. With this year's $38 million, the total raised by Telethon in its 50-year history is more than $300 million. This is vital fundraising for state-of-the-art equipment for children in hospital and critical services for children with disabilities. The support and generosity of so many Western Australians has a major impact on dealing with the life-threatening diseases our children face, including brain cancer and leukaemia.
Thank you to all the volunteers and staff at Seven Perth for making Telethon weekend such a success. And thank you, again, to the people of Western Australia, who have once again dug very deep. Your donations mean so much to the lives that you are helping to change.
Colleagues, I was delighted to welcome to Parliament House this morning parents, teachers and students from Eildon Primary School. The Eildon community is on the banks of Lake Eildon on the Goulburn River, in the foothills of the Great Dividing Range, and it's home to some of the largest employers in the Murrindindi shire. I give a call-out to the Outdoor Education Group for the terrific work they do in providing education. The students tell me what they love about their school is it's a friendly place. They love the BMX track. They love the teachers. And they tell me it's very beautiful.
Eildon, I have to say, is very beautiful. One of the things that makes it so special is the growing houseboat industry that's developed right around the deepwater harbour of the Eildon weir. In excess of 10 apprentices and many, many builders work there, in conjunction with up to 5,000 visitors who come to Lake Eildon at a busy time. Innovation is happening in the houseboat industry. There are self-contained houseboats five and six storeys high, all connected up with solar electricity. Amazing work is happening.
I call out to my colleagues: if you're looking for a holiday, if you're near Melbourne, go north to Eildon, to the Great Dividing Range. I'd also like to acknowledge the CEO and the mayor of Murrindindi Shire Council, who visited parliament last week.
In February next year, it's 10 years since the Black Saturday fires. There's still unfinished business, and I'm working with Murrindindi to make sure that community is ready to do what it needs to do.
With the Australian economy growing at 3.4 per cent and unemployment down to five per cent, you can see why this Liberal-National government has economic management as its strong suit. Only last week, we brought forward tax cuts for small and medium businesses. Only last week, we ratified and passed through the TPP-11, opening up new opportunities for businesses. But a strong economy isn't the endgame. It's the means. It's the means by which people can have a job and can have money in their pocket. It's the means by which we can pay for the bridges, the roads, the highways, the railways and the airports. It's the means by which we can afford vital public services. It's how we have the hospitals and the schools. It's how we pay for the teachers, the nurses, the doctors and the soldiers. It's how we have a strong economy. But it's at risk, Deputy Speaker. It's at risk because of those opposite: the Labor Party. Only this morning, we heard reports that 32,000 jobs in the construction sector would be abolished due to the negative gearing policy of those opposite. These are people that work hard every day to put food on the table—those opposite will rip that away. We need to do everything we can to keep this economy strong, and that means keeping them out of this side of parliament.
Under the state Liberal government in Tasmania, Tasmania's health system has lurched from crisis to crisis. Our two main hospitals, Royal Hobart Hospital and Launceston General Hospital, are particularly affected—ambulances parked so far up the ramps that patients have to be discharged on the street and wheeled into emergency from the street; and emergency wards so full that patients are being forced to sleep in corridors and staff are contemplating turning storerooms into ward rooms. Kids and teenagers with mental illness have nowhere to go. Women cannot access publicly funded terminations in the state. There are long waiting lists for surgery. People are unable to access services in the regions that I represent. And now, in today's Mercury newspaper, we read that nurses are finally at breaking point. Theatre nurses are working five and six hours of overtime every single day, and there's been at least one nurse who's worked a 24-hour shift. Can anyone here imagine working 24 hours in a theatre in surgery?
Dr Gillespie interjecting—
The member for Lyne is saying he can. Maybe he can offer a contribution about what it's like, and whether it's good practice for the health system to do that. It's absolutely unacceptable. The Liberals are failing health in Tasmania and they're underspending by $100 million— (Time expired)
More than 109,000 people have signed a change.org petition launched by the Queensland Dairyfarmers' Organisation calling for Coles and Woolworths to apply a 10c levy on all their milk products, and I encourage everyone to sign it. Coles and Woolworths' decision to restrict the 10c drought levy to some of their private-label milk completely undermines the Queensland dairy farmers' proposal. The levy needs to go on all milk, and the funds need to be paid through the processor back to the farmers. I'm appalled by all of this nonsense that Coles and Woolworths have nothing to do with farmgate prices. Coles and Woolworths heavily influence the value of the supply chain. They slash the price of milk and cut the price they pay processors. Their actions force the processors to cut the price they pay to farmers. It also puts the squeeze on branded milk to be competitive with supermarket private-label milk. When I hosted a dairy forum in my electorate recently, everyone there agreed the Queensland dairy industry faces extinction unless Queensland dairy farmers get a fair price for their milk. It's high time for Coles and Woolworths to play fair. The calls for a royal commission into their dodgy practices are growing. The world is changing and their business-as-usual rip-offs will no longer be an option.
I'm sure it came as a surprise to many in this place when they read in The Australian today that Senator McKenzie is moving her electorate office from Bendigo to somewhere in Indi. I think what came as a surprise to most people, though, is the fact that they didn't know she even had an electorate office in Bendigo! I mean, for someone who lives in Melbourne who thinks it's pretty far to travel from Elwood to Bendigo, I wonder what she's thinking about having to travel from Elwood to Benalla, or Wodonga, or perhaps even Beechworth. There is a bit of form here from this government. We know how successful it's been in the past when the conservatives preselect a Melbourne based person and parachute them into the seat of Indi. We know how successful that's been for them in the past. I do have to say, though, it's not going to be a loss to the people of Bendigo and Central Victoria if the senator does move her electorate office, because she is rarely there. Working out of her office is considered to be one of the loneliest jobs in politics because they are on their own the whole time.
It's not a loss to Bendigo that this electorate office goes. It's just a demonstration, again, of how the National Party and the Liberal Party have let down the regions. They're happy to put their signs up, happy to rent space in the mall, but not happy to be there to serve the people of regional Victoria.
All of Central Queensland relies on the Port of Gladstone, which is about the fifth-largest port in Australia. The port access road has been a discussion point for many years. An initial plan put up by the port authority to build a road into the port had no legs because it did not access the other roads into the port—roads like the Dawson Highway, the Capricorn Highway and the Bruce Highway. There was no interconnection with the Gladstone Port Access Road. So, at the moment, the state government, the Department of Transport and Main Roads, the port authority and local road groups are working on a suitable access road that will interconnect with these important roads.
We want to expand the Port of Gladstone. It has so much potential. It's becoming a terminal for wheat, timber, coal and of course aluminium, which it already has, but also a containerisation port. This will take heavy-lift cranes et cetera. But we still need to get the road-train access into the port. We should be able to do this as soon as the government finish off their plans and finish off their costings on the desired route to connect with these three other major highways but also to make it interconnected with the— (Time expired)
I'd like to draw to the attention of the House that I've officially declared today the festival of Julia Gillard. In this place today, we have unveiled a portrait of the former member for Lalor. It is an incredibly proud day for everyone in my electorate. I'd like to draw the House's attention to three of our locals sitting in the gallery today who are here to help celebrate their Julia getting her portrait unveiled for eternity in this place.
We celebrate our Julia having become the 27th Prime Minister of Australia. She did so in June 2010. She served for three years and three days. And there are other things that we celebrate about our Julia. One of those was the work she did before she came to parliament, where, in Victorian Labor, she got a 33 per cent commitment for women in winnable seats. It was a game-changer, long before she changed the game in this place as a member and as a Prime Minister.
The portrait is magnificent. It is beautiful. The distinguished artist today summed up the person that we know and love locally by saying that she put him at ease. He summed her up, because that's exactly what she spent all of those years in Lalor doing: putting constituents at ease and representing them. (Time expired)
I rise today to highlight the importance of the thoroughbred-racing industry to our economy. It's an industry that's often seen by the public through the prism of the glitz and glamour of race days, and the importance of the industry to the local and state economy is either misunderstood or underestimated. The thoroughbred-breeding industry alone in Australia is responsible for a whopping $1.16 million contribution towards the national economy and sustains nearly 9,500 people in full-time work. This employment leads to almost $560 million in salary and wages for those within the breeding industry and downstream industries such as the fodder transport, veterinary and tourism sectors.
In my home state of South Australia, there are 377 breeders employing 116 full-time staff and an additional 173 part-time employees. The total value of the contribution to the South Australian economy approaches $20 million. Breeders like Sam Hayes of Cornerstone Stud, Angaston, who was here in Canberra yesterday with Thoroughbred Breeders Australia, and Chris Watson of Meningie, who I had the pleasure of meeting last year, make such a significant contribution.
While the races are sometimes seen as events enjoyed by the wealthy, particularly during the Spring Racing Carnival, I want to highlight the many tens of thousands of people who are employed as part of the breeding and racing industries and follow-on industries such as retail, hospitality and other industries. It's an important sector that deserves our support. (Time expired)
Over the last few weeks, our Prime Minister has been very keen to promote himself as some dopey Joe from the 'burbs, with a cap for every occasion, who had absolutely nothing to do with the knifing of the former Prime Minister. If you were to believe this bloke, some time on 24 August he got a random call from the member for Mitchell, who said, 'Hey, ScoMo, what are you doing this afternoon?' and ScoMo said—
The member will refer to people by their correct titles.
'Not much, mate.' 'Do you want to be Prime Minister?' I mean, fair dinkum! Give me a break. This is the bloke who dumped his big corporate tax cuts despite being their No. 1 fan. This is the bloke who only weeks ago dumped a very sensible energy policy despite saying that it was essential for the future of our country. This is the bloke who dumped a sensible Middle East policy because he thought it was worth a few votes in the seat of Wentworth. This is the bloke who was doing the numbers to outfox the minister for border protection at the same time as he had his arms around the former Prime Minister, devoted to him, and saying he's 100 per cent loyal. We now know all of this because David Speers has written a new book which has revealed that the Prime Minister was the man who pulled the crucial five votes over the line to get rid of the former Prime Minister. Every day, we ask the Prime Minister, 'Why is Malcolm Turnbull no longer the Prime Minister?' We know the answer. He got— (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, I know that you've heard of it—Bundaberg Brewed Drinks and their famous ginger beer—but what you might not have heard is that, last week, this icon of our local region, of my home town, of our country, has announced that it will construct a super-brewery in Bundaberg. It's a $156 million investment in regional Australia, with support from the Australian government in terms of our Regional Growth Fund to the tune of $19 million. Mr Speaker, I know that you've got some regions around you with a little bit of agriculture. To give you an idea of just how big this will be: right now, that applicant—Bundaberg Brewed Drinks—uses 650 tonnes of ginger. By 2028, that will be 6,000 tonnes just in ginger alone into this plant. It is 45,000 square metres in size. It will create 213 jobs in construction and 147 jobs post-construction. In our view, this is the biggest manufacturing project in our region ever. There has never been a larger manufacturing project than this. So, with support from the Australian government in terms of the $19 million contribution from the Regional Growth Fund, we ensure that this national icon remains in regional Australia, remains in its home town and remains where it came from. This is a family owned company that is transporting this product right around the world to some 44 countries. Long may they continue to promote that name, and congratulations to them.
We've all worked in this chamber on by-elections, so we know what happens the night before a by-election: you're there, ready, working for your party to be successful the next day. Those opposite have blamed the former Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, whom they knocked off before their demise in the Wentworth by-election. But what were the Bellevue Hill branch, in the heartland of Wentworth, doing on Friday night, the night before the by-election? They had their special interest night. Tony Abbott MP, Andrew Hastie MP, Senator Jim Molan and Craig Kelly MP—a gaggle of nut jobs, a gaggle of right-wing nut jobs—
The member for Grayndler will withdraw that.
I withdraw. They were in a forum saving Australia from the Left. You can imagine what it was like: 'How can we subsidise coal some more? How can we punish asylum seekers more? How can we support more discrimination?' These are the precise policies that drove the people of Wentworth away from the Liberal Party. They were there, in the heartland of Wentworth the night before, essentially campaigning for Kerryn Phelps, because anyone who was there that night would have been driven away from the Liberal Party—the right wing of the Liberal Party, frightened of the present but terrified of the future.
On Saturday I was in Central Mangrove for the 55th annual Mangrove Mountain & Districts Country Fair. The fair, which started in 1963, is an amazing show of the local talent, produce and agriculture of our mountains region. It's an annual fundraising event organised by the Mangrove Mountain & Districts Country Fair Committee in partnership with local businesses and organisations, with more than 200 volunteers helping out. All proceeds are given back to the local community, and all the local groups pitch in to make the day a success.
I have to mention a highlight of the fair, the inaugural Great Chicken Run, which, I have to say, was a crowd favourite and something quite unique to the Mangrove Mountain country fair. To the 2018 country fair committee—Mick Gow, Shane Eastman-Wheeler, Jean MacLeod, Mike Breheny, Sue Douglas, Jodie Swan, John Jessup, Stephen Peruch and Poppe Zoroudis—congratulations on another wonderful country fair. And congratulations to all the groups involved: Central Mangrove Public School; Community Technology Group; the Dharug and Lower Hawkesbury Historical Society; the Kulnura Garden Club; the P&C and public school at Kulnura and the Rural Fire Service; from Mangrove Mountain, the district soccer club, the districts community group, the computer club, the emergency planning committee, the play group, the Rural Fire Service, the Union Church, the Mountain Community Children's Centre, the district pony club and the districts association; from Peats Ridge, the CWA, the public school and P&C, and the Scouts; from Somersby, the Mangrove Guides and Brownies, the CWA, the public school and P&C, and the school of arts. Thank you for all you do. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
We have joining us on the floor this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Chile. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning the Prime Minister spoke glowingly of his predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull, saying, 'I have no doubt Malcolm will represent Australian government policy and the Australian nation extremely well.' As the Prime Minister clearly thinks so highly of his predecessor, would he please finally tell the Australian people: why is Malcolm Turnbull no longer the Prime Minister of Australia?
I thank the member for his question about the former Prime Minister's attendance at the summit in Bali. Eight weeks ago when I met with President Widodo, he indicated to me that the former Prime Minister had expressed his willingness to attend that summit. This is an important summit, both for Indonesia and more broadly, about the future of our oceans. I was unable to attend that summit because of my other commitments, and we discussed the issue, President Widodo and I, and we thought it would be a good opportunity if the former Prime Minister were able to attend that summit, given their very strong, close working relationship.
I will always put the diplomatic and national interest of Australia ahead of any other considerations. What I will do is act in the national interest of Australia, and I look forward to the former Prime Minister being able to represent us on that occasion. The decision was taken weeks and weeks ago. I believe it was the right decision for Australia and I will continue to work constructively with former prime ministers, whether they continue to be in this chamber—the member for Warringah, who's doing a terrific job out there working hard on getting Indigenous children into schools. I was very pleased to welcome the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard to this chamber this week, and I'm very pleased that she has been here today and has been recognised with the unveiling of her portrait here in the House.
But I remember this is what was said in Paul Kelly's Triumph and Demise about what two former Prime Ministers thought of the Leader of the Opposition: 'The distrust between Rudd and Shorten 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.' How insightful!
Opposition members interjecting—
Government members interjecting—
Members on both sides! The member for Brand! The member for Griffith is warned.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how the government is acting to ensure that Australians keep more of what they earn? Is the Prime Minister aware of any risk to this approach?
I thank the member for Dunkley for his question and I thank him for his strong belief, like all members on this side of the House, that our government believes in a fair go for those who have a go. That means we believe that Australians should keep more of what they earn. We want them to be able to keep more of what they earn and pay out less. That's why we announced this week that we will continue to build on the work that we've put in place as a government to get electricity prices down by, firstly, ensuring that we take the large energy companies to task so they do the right thing by their customers and we get those large energy companies in line with the tougher powers and the other measures we're putting in place to achieve just that. But it's also about not adopting the reckless international targets that the Labor Party will pursue if they are in government which would see a 45 per cent emissions reduction target and which would see a bigger impost on the household bills of mums and dads, pensioners and small and family businesses than the carbon tax they inflicted on the Australian people, the one they said they wouldn't introduce but then did introduce that our government got rid of when we came to government.
Secondly, we're doing it through lower taxes for wage earners, a legislated $144 billion worth of income tax cuts for all Australian wage earners. We are abolishing an entire tier of the tax system so, as people go out there, as they work more, year upon year, they won't be dragged back because of bracket creep. Our government has taken action on bracket creep. Those opposite want to cut those income tax cuts in half and rip $70 billion of tax back from the hardworking wage earners of Australia. We've done the same thing for small and family businesses, legislating to cut their taxes to 25 per cent.
We're keeping spending under control, with the lowest rate of expenditure growth of any government going back 50 years. Not only does that mean we are able to keep expenditure under control, which is getting the budget back into surplus and retaining our AAA credit rating a year earlier on that return to balance as projected; it also means we are able to keep taxes under control. Those opposite can't keep taxes under control because they can't keep spending under control. That is why they're going to force Australians to pay more and keep less of what they earn. They're going to do that by whacking up their taxes, by abolishing negative gearing as we know it and by putting up the capital gains tax, which will rob construction workers and tradies of their jobs and undermine the value of the one thing Australians work so hard for, and that is their own home.
My question is for the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government is reducing taxes right across the economy? What are the risks for hardworking families of high-taxing alternatives?
I thank the member for Bowman for his question. I know that he is working hard for the more than 14,000 small and medium-sized businesses, the more than 25,000 retirees and the thousands of families across his electorate. They know that the Australian economy is strong and growing. Growth is up. Unemployment is down. Over the last financial year, more than 100,000 young people have got a job—the highest number on record.
All of this is put at risk by a Labor Party that will tax you from the cradle to the grave. In fact, they've got a new agency. 'Births, Deaths and Taxes'—That's their new agency! They have a $200 billion down payment—increased taxes on your income, increased taxes on your business, increased taxes on your electricity, increased taxes on your savings and a despicable increase in tax on your property with their changes to negative gearing and capital gains.
We've seen today from Master Builders Australia what the impact would be of Labor's policy—32,000 jobs lost, including for plumbers and carpenters. There would be an $11.8 billion hit to the Australian economy and 42,000 fewer dwellings would be built because of Labor's policy. So, as a result of Labor's new property tax, not only will rents go up, not only will jobs go down, but the value of the family home, the No. 1 asset, will be hit.
The Labor Party has flip-flopped on company tax. The Labor Party has flip-flopped on the retiree tax. It's only a matter of time before the Labor Party lacks the courage of their convictions to take this disastrous property tax to the Australian people.
My question is to the Treasurer, and I refer to his answer just now. Given that the modelling he just referred to does not model Labor's reforms to negative gearing, and does not recognise—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
If the member for McMahon could just pause for a second—the Leader of the House needs to refer to my statements on both days of this week. It is very disturbing. I can't hear the question. Can the member for McMahon begin again.
My question is to the Treasurer and refers to his answer just now. Given that the modelling that he referred to does not model Labor's reforms to negative gearing and does not recognise that Labor's policy grandfathers existing investments, and given that the government's own Treasury modelling shows a modest impact from Labor's policy of negative gearing reform, will the Treasurer now apologise for misleading the House and misleading the Australian people?
I thought I'd just had a Dorothy Dixer! Beware those who protest too much—that's what I say. This is what the Master Builders Australia CEO said: 'We didn't need to consider the grandfathering because we're looking at future investment, so the hits in terms of increased housing mean that future investment is less likely, and therefore we will see a downturn in the housing sector as a result of Labor's policy.'
We know that Labor's policy will hit those who have invested in the property sector—the teachers, the police officers, the emergency services workers, the nurses. And we know that the Labor Party's policy is a new Labor Party policy, because what did the then Treasurer of the Labor Party in Australia, the member for Lilley, say when Labor was last in government? What did the member for Lilley, Euromoney's man of the year, say about negative gearing? This is what the member for Lilley said when he was Treasurer: 'It would be economically disastrous to do anything on negative gearing'! 'Economically disastrous'! Now that the member for Lilley is the incoming president of the Labor Party, maybe he can change this disastrous Labor policy to increase property tax on hardworking Australian families.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen will cease interjecting.
I'd like to inform the House we have joining us in the gallery this afternoon former member the Hon. Yvette D'Ath, Queensland Attorney-General. On behalf of the House, a warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Education. Minister, last week I spoke at the Regional Universities Conference hosted by Southern Cross University. We discussed how regional higher education institutes support workforce development, create jobs and drive regional growth. Education, employment and infrastructure provide the anchors for regional population growth and need to be part of any population policy. Minister, can you give us an update on how regional education will be integral to population policy, and an update on the government's response to the recommendation of the Regions at the ready report for a national regional higher education strategy?
I thank the member for her question. She knows, as all members in this House who represent regional and rural electorates know, the importance of regional education to our regions, and not only the importance of education but also the importance of employment and of infrastructure, and, with anything that this government does to help drive population growth into the regions, she can rest assured that education will be central to that, that infrastructure will be central to that and also that employment will be central to that.
I advise the member that, currently, there are 400,000 primary and secondary students living in regional, rural and remote Australia. This is compared to around 214,000 tertiary students who are living in the regions. What we want to see is many of those students at the primary and secondary level going on to either a first-class tertiary education or first-class vocational training. That is what we are trying to do, and we know that that will help when it comes to population growth. The Regional Universities Network, the conference at which the member spoke, has estimated that between 60 and 80 per cent of their recent graduates are now currently employed in regional areas. That is proof-positive that, if we can educate our children in the regions, they will stay there and they will be employed there.
I was also asked about progress on the Regions at the Ready report. I commend the member for Murray, who chaired that committee. It is an excellent report. It rightly points out that local education and training that is engaged in its community is pivotal to regional development and decentralisation. That's absolutely true. I am looking very closely at the recommendations in that report which are relevant to education, and I will have more to say on those matters. And I know that the relevant minister is also looking at the broader report and will have more to say on that very shortly. It is an important piece of work when it comes to advising the government on what we should be doing to grow our regions in a very sustainable way and in a way which encourages our young to not only look to the capital cities but to look to their own communities as places where they can be educated, where they can go on to build families and where they can go on to be successfully employed. That is what we want to see as a government. I thank the member for her question.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Minister, how is the government supporting regional communities through tax relief and investment in infrastructure? Are there any risks to this approach?
I thank the member for Cowper for his good question. A strong economy means we can have more jobs. A strong economy, built upon by the strong economic policies of the Liberals and Nationals in government, means regional communities such as Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie can prosper now and into the future. That's what we are delivering—strong prosperity and strong growth, certainly in regional economies. What it all boils down to is jobs—jobs for today, jobs for tomorrow. When you have a strong economy, businesses have the confidence to back themselves. Small businesses in particular back themselves—such as Eagle Copters in Coffs Harbour. They are a wonderful decentralisation story. They moved to Coffs. They've expanded their operations. They've employed more people. They're the sort of business that puts on apprentices and puts on older Australian for perhaps a career-changing move. That's what we want to back. We also want to back infrastructure—because infrastructure backs employment, backs jobs—such as Bardens Bridge. For those opposite—I can hear them yell out—Bardens Bridge has replaced a timber bridge.
Opposition members interjecting—
You might laugh, member for Watson, but it's connecting little Crossmaglen Public School, it's giving them the connectivity they need. The Minister for Education might like to know that the school has a student population of just 11. They need the connectivity just like any other community. I was there with those 11 students and their wonderful principal the other day on that new concrete structure and they were delighted. They were delighted by the member for Cowper's advocacy, delighted that he delivered that vital infrastructure piece. That's what we're doing. It's part of an overall $75 billion pipeline of investment. It's connecting regional communities. It's making sure that there's less congestion in capital cities. It's making sure that little communities like that get the bridges that they deserve, that they need and that they know are going to make sure that their connectivity is there for today and for the future.
What I see opposite are Setka's sentinels, yelling out and carrying on as usual. Setka's sentinels, that's what they are. We saw a little bit of a glimpse of it in Melbourne yesterday. That's what we saw. What will happen if the member for Maribyrnong ever becomes Prime Minister? Let's hope that day does not occur. What we saw yesterday was just a little glimpse into the future if ever that should happen.
What we want to do is back people like Stan Smith from South West Rocks, an 83-year-old retiree who doesn't want his savings stripped away. He is a self-funded retiree who is going to lose a lot if ever Labor becomes the government. We don't want that to happen. We want to back people like Stan Smith. We want to back people who are working hard and creating job opportunities for other Australians. (Time expired)
My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure. I refer to reports in the Herald Sun on 2 September that, in the budget, funding for 10 infrastructure projects—including the Rockhampton Ring Road, the Mackay Ring Road stage 2, the Linkfield Road overpass and the Western Sydney rail—were all secretly approved but not announced. At a time when road toll is rising and congestion in our cities is worsening, why is the government sitting on these projects and not delivering them?
We are delivering the infrastructure that Australians want, expect, need and deserve. We are rolling those infrastructure projects out. I would have thought that the shadow minister for infrastructure, having sat with me in a very bipartisan way about road safety, would not have brought road safety into that question. I know the shadow minister for infrastructure has road safety on his mind, just as I do. I've heard the shadow minister for infrastructure talk about the Kempsey bus crash.
With the $971 million Coffs Harbour bypass, he has talked about it; we have actually delivered it. We're getting on with the job of actually building it. That's what we do. Those opposite talk. We deliver. We build. We build for road safety. We build for better connectivity. We're getting on with the job. We have $75 billion—a record amount—worth of infrastructure that we are rolling out. We're rolling it out now. We're rolling it out into the future. It's a decade-long pipeline of investment. That's what we're doing. That's what we'll continue to do.
The member for Grayndler, on a point of order.
It goes to relevance. It was a specific question about the 10 projects that they've funded but they won't do anything about actually announcing, let alone building.
We are getting on with the job of building these projects and others. We will continue to do it. We will continue to employ Australians, and we will continue to make sure local procurement is something that is important for all of those projects that we are rolling out. They are creating jobs. They are creating opportunities. The member talks about the Rockhampton, in Capricornia. We've got on and we're investing in the $176 million Rookwood Weir. Those opposite could only dream about water infrastructure. The member for Watson, when he had carriage of that portfolio, wanted to take the water away from the irrigators.
We're building infrastructure to make sure that we store more water, because it is Australia's most valuable resource. That's what we're doing. Not only are we building infrastructure; not only are we building the rail, with $9.3 billion for the Inland Rail, which is that 1,700 kilometre corridor of commerce between Melbourne and Brisbane; not only are we developing our ports; not only are we developing remote airstrips and getting on with the job of building better roads but we are also building confidence and we are building strength in our economy. You know what? We'll keep doing it—now, next year, the year after that and the year after that. Australians know it. They have every confidence in us to deliver that pipeline of investment. You'll talk about it. We'll just get on and we'll do it.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on measures the government is taking to improve housing affordability, including in my electorate of Bennelong? Is the Treasurer aware of any higher taxing alternative ideas?
I thank the member for Bennelong for his question—I remind the House: a victor over Senator Keneally in straight sets! The member for Bennelong knows that Labor's plan to get rid of negative gearing is turning into a big negative for them and anyone who would elect a Labor government. The benefit of having a strong, growing economy is it will create more jobs, there's more money in people's pockets and they have a better chance of getting into the housing market. Over the last financial year, more than 115,000 first home buyers got approval for a loan, the highest number since 2009. It's a result of the policies that we are putting in place. APRA, the prudential regulator, has tightened the lending for investors. We have put in place our first home buyer super saver scheme. We've made it easier for seniors to downsize their property and to put the proceeds of sale into their superannuation. And we have tightened the rules around foreign investors in the residential home market.
This is what is helping to change the dynamic in the housing market from investor-led growth to owner-occupier-led growth. This is also leading to an orderly unwind in the housing sector. For 12 consecutive months, housing prices have come down in the capital cities. But this orderly unwind and this stability in the housing sector is at risk from Labor's new property tax grab—a new tax grab with their changes to negative gearing and capital gains. Standard & Poor's have said that, if house prices were to fall sharply in Australia, this would increase risks to Australia's AAA credit rating. It would increase the risk to Australia's economic growth and to financial stability. RiskWise has said that Labor's policies could put downward pressure of up to nine per cent on the family home. Citigroup has said that Labor's policy would accentuate the cyclical weakness. CoreLogic has said that Labor's policy would have a negative impact on buyer confidence. We know that 58,000 teachers, 41,000 nurses and 19,000 people in the police forces and emergency services with negative geared properties would all be worse off as a result of Labor's policy. No wonder the member for Lilley said it was economically disastrous to change negative gearing. Only the coalition can be trusted to protect the value in your family home.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of a newspaper article written by Sharri Markson, 'Scomo Dumps Mal As Envoy'. I quote:
Furious PM to stop Mal's duties on the international stage.
It reports that the Prime Minister is 'done with' Malcolm Turnbull and won't ask him to represent Australia in the wake of his failure to help in Wentworth. Given that only this morning the Prime Minister said Malcolm Turnbull would represent the nation extremely well, is that report correct? Is the Prime Minister really ruling out— (Time expired)
It's not.
My question is to the Minister for Energy. Will the minister update the House on why the government's focus on reducing power prices is so important for small businesses and households, including in my electorate of Robertson? What are the risks for families and small businesses from different approaches?
I thank the member for her question and I acknowledge the hard work she does for the families and small businesses of Robertson. I was very pleased to visit her electorate just a couple of weeks ago up on the Central Coast. We visited a business there called Simply Smashing—a car repair shop in West Gosford. Simply Smashing is literally being smashed by higher electricity prices. They made the point that electricity prices doubled under the previous Labor government.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left! The minister will pause for a second. Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Lyons, who is in conversation with the member for Solomon—which is good at one level, because he's not interjecting—is warned!
The cost of energy is holding Simply Smashing back from employing more apprentices and paying their employees more.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a).
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
Families and small businesses up and down the Central Coast will benefit from our plan for more affordable, reliable energy, announced by the Prime Minister and me yesterday. Our plan will lower power prices by stopping the price gouging from the big energy companies. We'll be bringing legislation forward to this parliament this year. Our plan will lower power prices by establishing a price safety net to be in place by 1 July with a down payment from the big energy companies from 1 January. We're backing investment in fair dinkum reliable generation, with a short list of projects by early next year. From 1 July, we'll require energy companies to invest in that fair dinkum electricity generation years ahead, to meet customers' needs.
The rip-offs have to stop. The AEMC has found that customers on standing offers could be paying up to $832 more than available market offers to those households. But it gets worse, because small businesses could be paying up to $3,500 more in higher electricity prices than alternative offers in the market. This shows just how outrageous those standing offers are.
The member asked about risks posed by alternative approaches. We know what the alternative is. The alternative is a big, new carbon tax. Labor's targets are way higher than they were last time and their carbon tax will be way higher than it was last time. Their tax will drive up prices, just like they have in Labor's experiment in South Australia, as we saw in Blackwood just last week. We are on the side of Australian households—(Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that the Prime Minister has dumped Malcolm Turnbull as his envoy because he didn't help the government. Can the Prime Minister please explain to the House how Malcolm Turnbull has been unhelpful to the government but the government's other envoys, the member for New England and the member for Warringah, have been good for government unity?
The reports are false. I would encourage the opposition to spend a bit more time focusing on questions about the economy, about drought and about electricity prices and get their heads out of the Canberra bubble.
My question is to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. Will the Minister update the House on how the government is helping retirees and pensioners to earn more and live better? Is the minister aware of any different ideas that would raise taxes and hurt self-reliant senior Australians?
I thank the member for Goldstein for his ongoing interest in our senior Australians. As a young man, it's great. We are focusing on senior Australians. One of our key strategies is Ageing Well. In that key strategy, we're looking at the fitness and sporting initiatives that will encourage senior Australians to become active. Equally, social connectedness is important. There are two points in life in which we are going to have senior Australians stop for a moment, think about their life on their journey to 100 and undertake two checks. In both intervals they will have a health check. They will have a look at a career check in case they wish to change their minds and look at some options. The other one that's important is a financial check. Their financial check will enable them to see if they have sufficient funding for their retirement years and their aged care. On that basis, what we will see is that they will make some judgements about the security of their future.
But that future is only secure if there's no risk. Let me say that Labor's franking credits policy is a risk. It will detract from their capacity to pay for the little things that are important to them, like the paint job. Those thousands of dollars that are important to their life and to their cost of living will be impacted on. We see that 84 per cent of those people have a salary of less than $37,000 annually. That's going to hit them quite hard, when you think of the thousands of dollars that will be taken away by your tax. In addition, 900,000 Australians, including retirees and other low-income earners, receive dividends, and those dividends mean everything to them.
Honourable members interjecting—
I hear some interjections, but if we are serious about caring for older Australians then we won't hit them with that level of funding. A vote for Labor policy—
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen is warned.
will see them lose significantly. What's important is that you don't take their money, that you don't dip your hands in their pockets and take what they've worked for over a period of time, making a contribution to their life and to their planning.
That's why those two intervals of 45 and 65 give them the opportunity to financially plan for a future that gives them security and the opportunity to make use of their money for their holidays, for their way of life and for the little things that are important to them and their grandchildren and their children. So I want all of them to think about Labor's policy, what that means for them and the impact that voting for Labor will have on their lifestyle.
My question is to the Prime Minister. When the now Prime Minister was Treasurer, he cut over $83 million from the ABC. Last night at Senate estimates, the Acting Managing Director of the ABC said, 'Those sorts of budget reductions aren't achieved without major disruption.' Will the Prime Minister now reverse his cuts so the ABC won't be forced to cut services, including the vital service it provides to Australians who live in rural and regional Australia?
The Leader of the Opposition may not be aware, but for many, many years, unlike all other government agencies, who were subject to an efficiency dividend, the ABC never were. They were never subject to that efficiency dividend. What we've basically done is that the future growth profile in their spending has been adjusted. It still goes up every year. A billion dollars a year is spent on the ABC, and our government simply formed the view that, if it's okay for every other government agency and government service delivery in the country to be living within its means, then, frankly, it's okay for the ABC too.
A few minutes ago I challenged the Leader of the Opposition to get his head out of the Canberra bubble and start asking me questions about jobs and the economy and about drought, and what does he ask me about? He asks me about the ABC budget. That's what he asks me about. Well, the ABC budget is going up. It's going up each and every year, and we're asking the ABC to make sure that they do things efficiently, like all other parts of the government do, right across the board.
If the Labor Party think that the ABC should get a special deal on funding, as opposed to all the other agencies of government, they can make that case. But we believe the ABC should be run efficiently; it should be run independently; and it should do a great job for taxpayers. I believe it does do a great job, but it has to live within its means like every other part of government.
My question is to the Minister for Jobs, Industrial Relations and Women. Will the minister update the House on how the government is helping to support the prosperity of small businesses and employees? What are the risks associated with different approaches?
I thank the hardworking member for Boothby for her question. Our government stands for greater prosperity for all Australians. We don't subscribe to the divisive and harmful rhetoric that is spoken by the member for Lilley, when he says that we should have a class war, that we should divide Australians, we should pit them one against the other. We stand for successful Australians, for those Australians who want to be successful, and we're interested in backing them and making sure that those Australians who want to have a go can in fact have a go. We want to put more money back into their pockets, and we're doing that by bringing forward tax cuts for all Australians, to make sure that 98 per cent of those who have small businesses in this country have a tax cut. We know that when small business have a tax cut they can invest more in their business, and when they invest more in their business they can grow the job opportunities for their businesses and bring forward higher wages for those people who work for their small businesses.
We also want to make sure that we protect the superannuation savings of those people who work hard in this country. We are putting forward, with our bills in the Senate, protections for those people who would otherwise be ripped off by the changes made by the Leader of the Opposition, the rorts and rip-offs of those people who have low-balance accounts.
I'm sad to say that those opposite have a very different approach when it comes to ensuring the prosperity of all Australians, because they are hopelessly under the thumb of militant unions in this country. We have already seen it with their approach to the TPP, where they would shut down the opportunity for those people who want to export to countries overseas—our farmers, our manufacturers, our service providers. But that, of course, is just the start. At their party conference in December, those opposite will quietly sign up to industrial relations policies straight from the last century. In fact, it won't surprise me if the Leader of the Opposition strides onto stage with flares and platform shoes, because he is going to take the industrial relations policy of the Labor Party back to the 1970s. It is going to be a return to the dark days of mass walkouts and city-wide shut downs. We all got a little taste of it yesterday courtesy of the ACTU. We're going to see a return to the shut-down of our cities with widespread blockades, with picket lines, which will of course cause damage to small business, to the people who work for them and to the prosperity of the millions of Australians who rely on them. (Time expired)
My question's to the Minister for the Environment. Does the minister rule out approving new nuclear power plants?
I thank the member opposite for his question. There is no change to government policy.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of strong, consistent and well-developed border protection policies? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would threaten Australia's border integrity?
Everybody knows in this country that the government needs to keep control of its borders, and people know that when Mr Howard left office in 2007 there were four people in detention, including no children. We know that when Labor took office they brought 50,000 people in on 800 boats, 1,200 people drowned at sea and 8,000 children went into detention, and it was a disgrace.
We have spent every day since then cleaning up Labor's mess. We have got all of the children out of detention and closed 17 detention centres in Australia. We are working to get the people off Manus and Nauru that Labor put there. We have an arrangement with the United States. We've now had 439 people leave Manus and Nauru to go to the United States. We've reduced down to around 52 the number of children on Nauru. People are living in the community and we are getting them off methodically, as we have done.
An honourable member: Bring them here.
I hear an interjection saying, 'Bring them here.' 'Bring them here,' Labor says. Let me say this: if you want to see children in detention, vote for Labor.
Dr Freelander interjecting—
The member for Macarthur!
If you want to see deaths at sea again, vote for Labor. If you want to see those 17 detention centres reopen, vote for Labor. The fact is that Labor, when they were in government under Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard, were making exactly the same mistakes as we are seeing now by this Leader of the Opposition. Imagine our surprise when we received a letter this week from the shadow minister for immigration and border protection—no-one knows who he is but he sits on this front bench.
Ms Rowland interjecting—
The member for Greenway!
Imagine our surprise when he announced by way of a letter on email late one night—at almost 10 o'clock—earlier this week that Labor had changed its policy on border protection again. It was the second proposal around legislation in two weeks.
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The member for Eden-Monaro!
And now we know, from a report in The Sydney Morning Herald
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The member for Eden-Monaro is warned!
that it wasn't anything about good policy, it wasn't anything virtuous. It was an attempt to head off a messy discussion in Labor's caucus on Tuesday. That's what it was about; it was about politics. As we know, there is division within the Labor Party on border protection, like we saw in the Rudd and Gillard years. We are cleaning up Labor's mess. We are not going to allow those boats to restart.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The member for Lalor!
We are not going to allow the US deal to be undermined. We are not having people come to our country who would pose national security risks to our country. We will do what is in the best interests of this country. We are not going to take advice from those opposite, who continue to preside over dysfunction in relation to border protection policy.
My question is to the environment minister and I refer to her previous answer. What is the government policy on new nuclear power plants?
Currently the legislation does not allow such nuclear plant development.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the status of people subject to the regional processing arrangements in Nauru? How is the government managing this issue?
I thank the member for his question. In addressing this issue it's important to put the matter into some context. Australia has one of the most substantial refugee and humanitarian programs in the world. This program year we will welcome 18,750 people to Australia on humanitarian visas. Per capita, we're one of the most generous nations in the world. In fact, among the major developed nations, only Canada is comparable. Secure borders are fundamental to an orderly humanitarian program. Without secure borders we lose the capacity to make choices about the composition and nature of our humanitarian program.
I remind the House that, in relation to Nauru, there are 65 medical professionals contracted by the Australian government there, including 33 mental health professionals. I would also like to amend an answer I gave yesterday in relation to the total number of transferees on Nauru. The correct figure is 608, somewhat less than the figure of 635 which was provided to me yesterday. Those transferees on Nauru have the same ability to move around the island as the other 10,000-plus residents of Nauru. They are not in detention. In addition, numerous refugees in Nauru are employed in a variety of occupations and a number have started businesses there.
This government will never allow Australia's immigration policies to go back to the humanitarian catastrophe that was wrought by those opposite when they were in office—50,000 people arrived and, tragically, 1,200 people died at sea, including children. We will never know how many children perished, but we do know that we must never allow the evil trade of people smugglers to start again. We know that Labor forcibly placed 8,000 children into detention during its time in government. In June 2010, they opened the Curtin Immigration Detention Centre in WA. By July 2013, the flow of boats was such that 1,687 people were detained at that centre that Labor opened. In June of that year, 114 children were confined behind its fences. And it wasn't just there. In December 2011, the Labor government opened the Wickham Point immigration detention centre. By May 2013, 1,988 people were confined in that centre. In August 2013—and this is a very important point—in the dying days of the Labor government, there were 409 children confined in Wickham Point Detention Centre.
They opened the Christmas Island detention centre; we closed it. We stopped the boats, we got the children out of detention and we closed the overflowing immigration detention centres. And we did all this while running a generous humanitarian program matched by very few countries in the world. We will never go back to the Labor Party's approach to this area.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. On Sky News this morning, the minister confirmed that she had now looked at the IPCC report closely. As the minister is aware, the greatest threat facing the Great Barrier Reef is the impact of climate change. What is the IPCC report's conclusion regarding the likely impact of 1.5 degrees and two degrees of warming on the Great Barrier Reef?
I thank the member for his question. The government respect the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and, as we have said in the past, we will consider this report and other relevant information on climate change in our decision-making. The IPCC makes no recommendation to government. What it does is give its view on a variety of things with respect to the environment, including reefs around the world, not just the Great Barrier Reef. It presents a series of model pathways to limit global warming. I might point out that those model pathways include a range of technologies in the energy mix beyond 2050, and, just as Dr Alan Finkel, Australia's Chief Scientist, has said, the debate should not be about technology when we're talking about emissions with respect to climate change.
We on this side are very determined to protect the health of the reef. We are the ones who have invested significantly in the reef. Unlike those opposite, who had it on the watch list, we've got it off the watch list. We are particularly committed to those 64,000 people who rely upon a job with respect to the reef, and those billions of dollars that the reef contributes to our economy. I should think that the people in the member for Herbert's electorate would care about what we are doing for the reef. You would think that. What about the member for Dawson? Do the people in his electorate care about how we are investing in the reef? I think so. The member for Leichhardt cares very deeply about what we are doing about the health of the reef. We will continue to review the IPCC report. The people of regional Queensland know they can trust us. They can't trust that lot.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how a stronger economy enables investment in new, life-changing medicines and improves the affordability of private health insurance? What would be the outcome for those relying on the supply of those medicines, recommended by experts, if different approaches were pursued?
I want to thank the member for Tangney, who is a great advocate for new medicines being listed on the PBS. I was honoured to join him recently in his electorate, at Fiona Stanley Hospital, where we announced support for Simponi, a medicine to assist those with the agonising condition of spinal arthritis. More than that, he knows that you can only continue to list medicines if there's a strong economy, if the budget is able to pay for it—if we aren't facing a crisis.
I am delighted to be able to inform the House that we have announced today that $80 million will be invested in the listing of two new medicines for chronic eye conditions. In particular, we are supporting 4½ thousand Australians with eye conditions for blocked veins in the retina and also for macular degeneration. These medicines—Ozurdex and Lucentis—would otherwise have cost in one case $5,000 and in the other case $7,000 a year and would have been beyond the reach of many elderly patients, of many patients with lower incomes. So this is literally giving the gift of better sight and potentially saving sight of patients because of those investments. I also know that we have maintained that throughout our time in government.
One of the claims made yesterday by the member for Ballarat was that we had in some way deferred the listing of a whooping cough medicine. I thought, 'That doesn't seem right, but I'm going to go and check the facts, because I'm not going to take what the member for Ballarat said on face value.' And do you know what? I was right to check the facts, because what the member for Ballarat said was that the PBAC recommended that the whooping cough vaccine for pregnant women be listed in July 2016. No, it didn't. It said that, provisionally, there had to then be a critical study by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation—some of the most respected medical professionals in the country. And do you know what? They did that with their consideration in February and October 2017 and provided their final advice to the PBAC. The PBAC made their recommendation in February 2018. We announced our listing in May 2018 and we delivered it on 1 July 2018. The member for Ballarat misled the House. I'm not saying it was deliberate; I am saying it was incompetent.
The minister will resume his seat for a second. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
The minister's making a claim that should be made only by direct motion. I ask him to withdraw.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right, I don't need your assistance. An identical point came up from the other side by the Leader of the House. I've made it very clear: unless the term 'deliberately mislead' is used, that doesn't apply. The minister is in order. The minister has the call for 10 seconds.
The member for Ballarat may want to approach the box and apologise for misleading the House.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Is the minister aware that his own department—
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Ballarat will pause. The Treasurer and others will cease interjecting. I'm going to allow the questioner to ask the question in a manner that I can hear it.
Is the minister aware that his own department provided a list yesterday of 83 medicines that have been recommended by the independent experts but not listed on the PBS? Is the minister aware that the list includes medicines that were recommended as far back as 2016? How can the minister stand by his previous answer on PBS listings when he has delayed access to some life-saving drugs for more than two years?
Let me make this absolutely clear. I did a little bit more research on their claims yesterday. I saw the list that the member for Ballarat put out—I think it was in August—of eight medicines that she claimed had been deferred. None of them had been deferred by government policy. And, do you know what? I looked at two things. I looked at major new listings that we've done recently and then I looked at what they did. These are the major new listings that we've done recently: breast cancer, Kisqali; SMA, Spinraza; cystic fibrosis, Kalydeco; cystic fibrosis, Orkambi—all done within 3½ months.
The Minister for Health will pause. If the member for Ballarat is rising on a point of order on direct relevance, the minister is only about 30 or 40 seconds into his answer. I'm listening carefully. She can raise the point of order now—it doesn't bother me—but that will be it.
I'll wait, Mr Speaker.
Okay. The Minister for Health has the call.
Well, that was effective! In terms of the list last published by the member for Ballarat: very interestingly, she claims that a hepatitis C medicine was deferred. We did a little bit of research and we discovered that the company, even though they wanted the listing, didn't have the medicine available and requested that the government delay until they had the medicine, so that, once it was announced, they could supply immediately. That medicine is Mavyret for hepatitis C, the company is AbbVie and the advice was provided by the company. But the total period for the medicine she talked about was an average of eight months to listing. Then I compared that with Labor's deferred medicines—the seven medicines that they deliberately delayed by policy. An average of—
The minister will resume his seat. The member for Ballarat on a point of order.
On direct relevance: I was asking about the information provided by the minister's own department overnight that shows that you have not listed 83 medicines, some from as far back as 2016.
The member for Ballarat will resume her seat.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
I've just got to call the minister, then he can go. The minister has the call.
Our policy is absolutely clear. We will list every medicine that the PBAC recommends. Their policy was absolutely clear: that they would defer the listing of medicines until such time as fiscal circumstances permitted. I also did a little bit more research, as to the Senate committee. And what did the Senate committee say about their policy at the time? 'It constitutes a major unnecessary and unwelcome change in government policy.' What did the Consumers Health Forum say?
Consumers do not want a situation in which drugs are listed on the PBS to win votes or boost opinion polls.
That was what they said about the Labor government and the Labor policy at the time. What did SANE Australia say about the Labor government and the Labor policy at the time?
The decision to defer the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Council … to list medications jeopardises the integrity of the PBS process.
So now is the time for the member for Ballarat to apologise for incompetently misleading the House yesterday, in relation to hepatitis C and in relation, in particular, to whooping cough. Caught out—caught red-handed. And time to apologise.
The member for Ballarat, seeking to table a document.
I'm seeking leave to table the notice that we received from your own department of the 83 medicines that you have delayed.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government is supporting families in my electorate of Grey with the cashless debit card, including getting people off welfare and into work? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would not help families in this way?
I thank the member for Grey, who has been a very strong advocate for a fair and sustainable welfare system, including championing the selection of Ceduna in his electorate as a location for the first trial of the cashless debit card—the arrangement under which 80 per cent of your welfare benefit is paid onto the card and you can't use it to buy drugs, to buy alcohol or to purchase gambling products, but you can use it to buy the necessities of life.
The results from the assessment of the trial in the first two trial sites, including Ceduna, vindicate the member's confidence, because 41 per cent of participants who drank alcohol reported drinking less. Forty-eight per cent of participants who used drugs reported using fewer drugs. What did the mayor of Ceduna, Mr Allan Suter, say? He said: 'We think the cashless debit card is probably the best thing that has ever happened for our community.' What did the chief executive of the Ceduna Aboriginal Corporation, Mick Haynes, have to say? He said, 'We have turned a corner. The card is working.'
Where is Labor on this issue? When the member for Jagajaga was the minister, she consistently supported income management and expanded the arrangements across a number of regions. With the Cashless Debit Card, the next generation of income management, what is Labor doing? Labor are opposing it. It's quite extraordinary. Labor are more interested, it would seem, in the votes of the Green left types, munching on their quinoa and goat's cheese salads in their multimillion dollar terrace houses, than they are in a practical welfare reform which is helping remote communities function better, helping vulnerable Australians stabilise their lives and helping put food on the table for children in welfare households.
Our approach, will get people off welfare and into work. We've generated 1.1 million jobs since 2013 and unemployment is now at five per cent. The best form of welfare is a job. Labor's approach, by contrast, is to impose economy-killing taxes, to stifle investment and economic growth and to drive up unemployment. Labor's approach is to drive people out of work and onto welfare. That would be the effect of Labor's policy. I say to the other side of the House: give up this leftie posturing and do something that will actually help vulnerable Australians—support the Cashless Debit Card.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer to reports that the minister told the former president of Kiribati:
I know why you're here. It's for the cash. For the Pacific, it's always about the cash. I have my cheque book here. How much do you want?
On Wednesday in question time the minister 100 per cent denied making that statement, but on Thursday she couldn't recall the complete conversation but apologised anyway—and yesterday the minister was again in denial. How can the minister not remember what she said and at the same time be 100 per cent confident she didn't say it?
Thank you for the question. We've got so much to talk about in this place. We on this side have achieved an awful lot for the economy and also for the environment.
Opposition members interjecting—
The way that the conversation was reported by Patrick Dodson was incorrect. I said that in the past—
Opposition members interjecting—
Because of the words that were used.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister explain why the government believes in supporting our farmers? What is the government doing to act on that belief, by providing support, assistance and market opportunities to food and fibre producers?
I thank the honourable member for his question. He understands the importance of agriculture and the challenges that we are facing currently with drought. It's important to understand that, while there has been some good rain in eastern parts of the country, some parts have missed out. So it's important that this government continues on this journey of ensuring we support our primary producers.
On Friday we'll bring together the stakeholders to ensure that we have a policy fit for the future. We've put over $1. 8 billion on the table already. But it's important that we coordinate that with state agencies, who have the responsibility of looking after animal welfare. It's the federal government's responsibility to look after the farmer welfare. We have done that, and we are making sure that we continue to do that not only for farmers but also for those small regional communities that support them.
We've increased the amount of farm household assistance to $37,626. It's important to understand that that doesn't just go to household expenses; it also goes into the shops—the butcher and the baker—in those small towns, keeping people employed. We've put more rural financial counsellors on the ground, an extra 39, to complement the 116 that are already there. They are real jobs in regional communities—putting dollars into those communities. We've invested a further $1 million into each drought shire to ensure that councils can invest in projects and use local businesses to procure local resources to keep those local economies going. It's not just farmers who hurt in this; small business also hurt in this. It's important that we understand that, unless we have a policy that goes right through the economy within these small local communities, they all suffer.
So it's important that we continue on that journey and invest for the future. We are investing in the future in water infrastructure. There's been $2.5 billion put on the table, with $500 million of that being spent to build eight nation-building projects—to build not only resilience and preparedness for drought but also greater productivity and profitability for our farming sector. It's important that we have these nation-building projects to ensure that agriculture goes to the next level, to take advantage of the trade agreements that we've put in place. We invested $313 million in this year's budget to protect our biosecurity, to keep our green, clean image, to make sure that our farmers get the returns that they deserve.
But the biggest investment that this government has made since the drought has been declared is the additional money invested in our farmers' mental welfare. We have invested a further $11.4 million in programs to be run on the ground, to sit around farmers' kitchen tables to help them through. We've made sure that the Medicare rebate has been extended for them to be able to sit in the sanctity of their own home and ask for help.
And I say—I plead—to every primary producer, to every person who is in regional or rural Australia or to any Australian: you should never feel ashamed to ask for help. We live in a great country, and you should always be prepared to ask for that help. I say to each and every one of us: reach out to someone we know and ask, 'Are you okay?'
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for 2017-18.
Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
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 a letter from the honourable member for Grayndler proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's failure to invest in nation-building infrastructure.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
This week, the Prime Minister went into his party room, and he spoke about how they couldn't do the hokey-pokey. They couldn't move to the left or the right, and it reminded me of Reservoir Dogs. It reminded me of the scene with Mr Blonde and Marvin. There's Mr Blonde torturing Marvin, like this government's torturing the Australian people, and in the background is playing Stuck In The Middle With You, by Stealers Wheel:
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you
That's this Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who's incapable of moving to the left and incapable of moving to the right.
They're incapable of having an energy policy. They're incapable. Even when they put funding in the budget for infrastructure projects, guess what? They don't announce them. They just sit there. We rely upon not the Treasurer on budget night to announce projects but the good burghers of the Herald Sun to announce important projects like the Rockhampton Ring Road, the Mackay Ring Road stage 2, Cairns southern access stage 5 or the Linkfield Road overpass, in the member for Dickson's electorate. It goes between Dickson and Petrie.
Guess what? We've already announced funding for that project. We've already announced it in conjunction with the Queensland state government.
Western Sydney rail—there's an idea. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, announced funding for that at the New South Wales ALP conference in June. The North-South Corridor in Adelaide—we've already seen projects like Torrens to Torrens open recently and new projects that we announced in the lead-up to the 2016 election.
What's in common with all of those projects is that Labor has been out there, once again, leading from opposition when it comes to infrastructure. The Adelaide tram extensions—when we proposed support for AdeLINK in the lead-up to the 2016 election and in the lead-up to the South Australian state election last year, continually, those opposite dismissed that program.
And then they have the city deal fund. The city deal fund, so-called, is projects in Geelong and in Darwin: Darwin, $100 million; Geelong, $150 million. We know what they are. We know what the projects are, but they won't actually announce them, in terms of Geelong, until after the Victorian state election.
When it comes to infrastructure policy, the government are all about the politics and not substance. That's why they have sidelined Infrastructure Australia—a system established so that you could have business cases submitted, a proper assessment and then government decisions made on the basis of that objective evidence, rather than on the basis of the electoral map. What they did when they came to office was cut funds from projects that had been approved by Infrastructure Australia, such as the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane and the Melbourne metro project, and funded projects, some of which—Perth Freight Link, for example—even state governments didn't know what they were for or where they went to. You had projects that had been on the list, like the East West Link, which had a cost-benefit of 45c return for every dollar invested. They moved funding away from projects that had been through a process and gave it to projects that hadn't.
When you look at the actual investment of this government, in the 2017-18 budget there's some $7.2 billion. That declines over the forward estimates to $4.5 billion in 2021-22. It's 4.5; it was 7.2. That's less. There are cuts each and every year. Indeed, over the decade—the Parliamentary Budget Office has independently analysed it—infrastructure investment will decline by half, from 0.4 per cent of GDP to 0.2 per cent over that period. What's more, even when they do make announcements on budget night, they don't actually deliver them. In the first four years, the difference between what was announced on budget night and what was actually invested in projects like black spots, Western Sydney road infrastructure, and the heavy vehicle safety program was $4.7 billion.
It's not surprising that they don't know what they're doing. We've had five infrastructure ministers over the last five years. We've had countless urban infrastructure ministers. They come and they go. I can't even keep count of them all. Most of them disappear from the parliament. On this side of the House, we've had one shadow infrastructure minister during that time. The fact is that the mob opposite have denied communities investment over five years. What that does is: if you don't have a pipeline of projects, it's a drag on economic productivity, it's a drag on jobs, and it has an impact on economic growth in the medium and long term.
The government will say that they do have some projects. They'll say that they're investing off-budget in projects like Inland Rail. When the Inland Rail project was first assessed, by the ARTC, it wasn't intended that the concept of 'inland' be taken quite so literally. This is a project that doesn't go to a port anywhere. It doesn't go to Brisbane. It doesn't go to Melbourne. You'll have double-decker trains that will stop at Acacia Ridge and will then have to be put onto trucks and carried—I'm not quite sure how they'll get to the port. They did that, of course, to distort the economics of the project, because the most expensive bit of a project is that which goes through urban areas, through the city of Brisbane. That distortion is very much there.
The government also say, 'We've got money for the Melbourne airport link.' Now, everyone knows that public transport projects are beneficial to the national economy. What they don't do is make money. What they don't do is produce fare revenue that's higher than the maintenance and operating costs. On average, it's between 20 and 25 per cent. So the benefit to the national economy is indirect. But those opposite would have you think that not only will the Melbourne Airport rail link not produce a return in terms of operating and maintenance costs, it won't even begin to pay back the original capital. If you're going to have an equity investment, that's what it has to do. That's what commerce 1A suggests needs to happen. That's what the head of the ARTC, for example, John Fullerton, has said before Senate estimates, just won't happen, in terms of a return on capital on the Inland Rail. So those opposite are looking for false ways in which to pretend that they're investing, when it won't actually happen.
When it comes to high-speed rail, of course, there's a billion and a half they're going to announce for a high-speed rail project somewhere—or faster rail, whatever that means—rather than actually getting serious about high-speed rail down the east coast of Australia. The fact is that those opposite are so divided that they're incapable of action. The only thing that's worse than a government that is doing the wrong thing is a government that's actually doing nothing. We see it in this chamber with the failure to back up their own legislation with speakers. We see it with their failure to actually get out there and announce projects that have been announced months ago by the Herald Sun and were included in the budget in six months time. Perhaps it's the case that what they have is investing in the never-never, in 10 and 15 years time, because for a lot of their projects that's exactly what they have done. They have no vision on infrastructure and they have no investment. (Time expired)
I am very happy to speak on this MPI. I note there was not a lot of energy on that side of the House as the member for Grayndler was speaking on his MPI. It was virtual silence. I think maybe there might have been a bit more energy last Wednesday night, when the member for Grayndler was DJing for everybody. You might not have known it. He got onto the records DJing on Wednesday night, the opening song being 'What about me?' which he played trying to get the attention back onto himself.
In relation to the infrastructure spend which we're spending, we are making record investments right across this nation in great nation-building projects, in congestion-busting projects in our major capital cities. I'd like to spend most of the time in my remarks on this MPI focussing first of all on the two big capitals, Melbourne and Sydney, and discussing the major projects which we have going on there. Also then I'd like to discuss some of the other large projects and do a contrast with what the opposition have put up and what they put in place when they were last in government, when the member for Grayndler was the infrastructure minister for six whole years.
Let's start with Melbourne. The three big projects which this government has supported with real money on the table, which would be transformational for the fastest-growing city, Melbourne, are the following. Firstly, the Melbourne airport rail: $5 billion to finally connect the second busiest airport in Australia to the rail network. That's what we have done. Second is the Monash-Rowville rail. It will finally connect the largest single university campus to the rail network. 55,000 students attend that campus in Clayton. Our project, our money, $475 million worth, will connect the rail network to Monash University and then on to the Dandenong line.
Look at those two projects. Where was the member for Grayndler, with six long years as the infrastructure minister, in relation to the airport rail? He didn't do anything. That airport's been there for 50 years. He didn't do anything. Where was he in terms of connecting up the largest university campus in Australia to the rail network? He wasn't there. In relation to the third project that I mentioned—the real one—it is a project that would finally, in essence, create a ring road for Melbourne. It would connect a major freeway, with four lanes each way, from the eastern suburbs to the other side to finally connect up and create a ring road. That project is the East West Link.
Where was the Labor Party in relation to the East West Link? They spent $1.3 billion cancelling the project. Every single resident of Melbourne—particularly those in the communities of Deakin, in the communities of Menzies Creek, in my own electorate and right across the eastern suburbs of Melbourne—knows that, had that project gone ahead, by this time next year that project would have been built. It would have been completed. But in the meantime, when the member for Grayndler was the Deputy Prime Minister of the country, the Labor Party supported the cancellation of that project for six long years. They supported burning $1.3 billion to scrap that project. The good news is that, in a month's time, the Victorian people have an opportunity to vote for the East West Link. They know that if Matthew Guy becomes Premier then we will have $3 billion ready to commit towards that project to finally get it going. It could have been done by next year, but it won't be. I'd like to have a commitment from the opposition to support such a project.
Let me touch on Sydney. The two largest transformational projects in Sydney are the Western Sydney Airport and the WestConnex. Let's have a look at Western Sydney Airport. It's an enormous, groundbreaking project. Again, billions of dollars of our government's money is going into that to finally build this project.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
I look across to the member for Grayndler. He is proudly proclaiming his fantastic record. He was Deputy Prime Minister for six long years. He was the infrastructure minister for six long years. He actually supported the Western Sydney Airport. He actually supported it, but could he actually get it through his caucus? Could he get the money through cabinet? Could he make this project happen? Absolutely not. Hey, he was only Deputy Prime Minister! You can't expect him to have any weight in the cabinet when he's Deputy Prime Minister and he's Infrastructure Minister for six long years! It again falls on us to find the money, to get it done, to make the hard decisions and to get the Western Sydney Airport built. We're the ones who will actually deliver that.
Mr Laundy interjecting—
As Mr Laundy, says behind me, we will deliver this particular project, which the member for Grayndler, despite being Deputy Prime Minister for all those years, could not. The other project is the WestConnex project. It's a fantastic, groundbreaking project that will transform the traffic in Sydney right across the city. It is a game changer for that city. It will remove 4,000 trucks off Parramatta Road daily. It will deliver more than $20 billion in economic benefits for New South Wales.
I will give the member for Grayndler credit, he actually did support this project initially. But then we went into the 2016 election and the Greens started jumping up and down, so what did the member for Grayndler do before the 2016 election? He said, 'No, no. I no longer support this project.' He did actually support it, but then he said, 'No, no. I'm not going to support the project in the 2016 election.' That was because the Greens started to challenge him in his seat and so he backed away. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, had to override his deputy leader and say, 'No, no. We will actually proceed with this particular project.' He maintained his support.
On this side of the chamber, we are the ones delivering the groundbreaking, transformational projects that the Deputy Prime Minister at the time could not deliver. Across Melbourne, we're the ones doing it. Those opposite wouldn't do it. Across Sydney, we're delivering the game-changing projects which the member for Grayndler, who was the Deputy Prime Minister for six long years, could not deliver. And you could go right across every other capital city: the M1 in Brisbane; Metronet, which we're delivering in Perth; the north-south road in Adelaide, in which we are getting on with the job and creating a huge piece of infrastructure to enable residents of Adelaide to move from the north to south; and we're getting on with the job in Darwin, in Hobart and in other cities. We are getting on with the job of delivering the national infrastructure. Look at the cross-jurisdictional pieces of infrastructure that we are doing—this wasn't being done by the member for Grayndler—such as the Inland Rail. It's $10 billion that we've put on the table, which we are delivering. Again, where was the member for Grayndler? He could have done this project. He was the Deputy Prime Minister. He couldn't get that done.
You could look at other infrastructure, outside of road and rail, such as funding for the Mobile Black Spot Program, a fantastic program. We're going to deliver 867 stations to fix up those mobile blackspots across the country. How many did the Labor Party deliver when this man here was Deputy Prime Minister? They didn't have a program. They didn't have a program at all. It was a big, fat zero.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
He raises the NBN. Again, on the NBN, we're delivering more infrastructure, which is transforming the country, to enable people to connect faster. So whether or not you're looking at roads in our big capital cities or rail in our capitals or across the country, whether or not you're looking at mobile blackspots, whether or not you're looking at NBNs, whether or not you're looking at water infrastructure and building dams, we are getting on with the job. We have a very proud record—record expenditure—making the tough decisions, which the member for Grayndler, when he was the infrastructure minister for six long years, could not do. And he'll be the same again, if he's re-elected.
I'd suggest the minister might like to visit Western Sydney and ask them about WestConnex. I'll tell you what it means. It means $8 to get your kids to the soccer, on the weekend, and it means $2,275 per year already in tolls, with a four per cent per year increase for 43 more years, above inflation. That's a four per cent increase every year for 43 years. Come out and talk to the people of Western Sydney about your great WestConnex project. We already had a road to the city and, quite frankly, we got one extra lane that then goes to three lanes and then goes to two lanes as you get towards the city. And we're going to pay thousands of dollars extra every year, in tolls, to get it.
We in Western Sydney live the experience of poor infrastructure investment by this government. We live it. We live it in Third World internet speeds in one of the great economies of the nation. We're the third-largest economy and we've got Third World internet speeds. We've got avoidable traffic congestion that causes people in Western Sydney to spend an hour or more additional time getting to work, every single day. We are already a population of 1.9 million. We're expected to grow to three million within the next 15 or so years. We will carry two-thirds of Sydney's population growth and we should expect, at this point, that investment in infrastructure will be going up not down. Instead, what we've got from this government across New South Wales is infrastructure plummeting by 70 per cent over the forward estimates, from $2.7 billion in 2017-18 to just $825 million in 2021-22, when we've got population growth carrying two-thirds of Sydney's population.
We are extraordinary in Western Sydney. I quite often say about our community that with the way the world's going, in terms of international trade, services and high-speed internet connection around the world, with people's work moving across borders, we are the place you want to be. We speak every language. We have people in our community who can navigate any city of the world without a map. We have cultural diversity. We know how to work in every single culture. We have many individuals in Western Sydney who are already exporting into China and India. But with the growing trade in services and these free trade agreements that this government spruiks so much we need the infrastructure in Western Sydney that allows us to benefit from the extraordinary community that we are.
For a start, we need decent fibre. When we designed the NBN it was a major infrastructure investment. This government has continued to invest, but it built something that is already essentially worthless. New Zealand has a gigabit economy and gigabit towns, like Singapore and countries to the north. We have Third World speeds, and countries around the world already have gigabit economies. If you put fibre in, you can expand to that, but copper cannot go faster. Copper is already at capacity. We cannot extend the capacity of fibre to the speeds we need with the 'fraudband' that this government has delivered over the last five years.
'Fraudband'—that's nice!
Yes, 'fraudband'. New Zealand is a gigabit economy. I bet New Zealand are really pleased that they didn't join the Federation in 1901. If they did, they'd be rolling out copper now instead of being a gigabit economy. Western Sydney cannot be the economy that it is capable of being with this rubbish infrastructure that you've given us. You cannot increase the speed of copper. It has reached its physical limits.
I'm really pleased to say that federal Labor are committed to doing something about traffic congestion in Western Sydney. We've committed to spend $6 billion on Sydney West Metro and the Badgerys Creek rail line. We will build the Sydney West Metro rail line from Sydney to Parramatta. There will be 400,000 additional people moving into that corridor over the next five to 10 years. We need to upgrade our rail system, and Labor will do it. We will build the rail line to Badgerys Creek airport, new connections from Macarthur to St Marys and link St Marys to Sydney Metro at Rouse Hill.
We will invest in what Western Sydney needs. We will give Western Sydney what it needs to flourish. We are the only ones who will do it. Really, you should visit occasionally, Minister.
I'm getting a little old. I think I might need glasses because when I first read the MPI I thought it said: 'The Victorian Labor government's failure to invest in nation-building infrastructure.' I thought the member for Grayndler was being insightful in realising what has been going on in Victoria. I know he's a New South Wales boy and I know he loves to be a good DJ, but I didn't realise he had visited Victoria recently.
Mr Hill interjecting—
The member for Bruce will remove himself under standing order 94(a). He has been warned.
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
If he had visited Victoria recently, he would realise that the MPI 'The Victorian Labor government's failure to invest in nation-building infrastructure' would have been very accurate.
He's walking out on you.
My friend is leaving me because he knows I have capable hands. If you look at the Victorian government's failure to invest in nation-building infrastructure, you will see the Murray Basin Rail Project. You might be familiar with this project. This government committed $240 million to this project. The previous Victorian coalition government committed $200 million to this project. I got to see it being built—well, I got to see part of it being built. The Mildura line was built, but then it stopped getting built. Then they had to fix it up. Another two lines were going to get built—the Manangatang line and the Sea Lake line. What's happening to them? They've been pushed out to 2022. They might get built.
When it comes to the delivery of projects in Victoria there has been a complete failure by the Daniel Andrews government. In fact, they have delivered three things for Victoria. They all begin with the letter C. They have delivered corruption in Victoria, they have delivered congestion in Victoria and they have let crime get out of control in Victoria.
Isn't one of your MPs facing fraud charges?
The member for McEwen is warned.
There was $1.3 billion for a road that wasn't built. I was in Melbourne the other day. I visit there, unlike the member for Grayndler. When I was there I could see what could have been built. I don't mind a road not getting built, but I think Victorians object to spending $1.3 billion to not build a road. I think that is the thing that really frustrates people about the Daniel Andrews government. In their time—and they've had four years—we've had more corruption than we have ever had, more congestion than we have ever had, and more crime.
The member for Grayndler on a point of order?
I'm reluctant to intervene in an MPI, but we're not going to stand here and have members of the Labor Party accused of breaking the law. He should be able to give a speech without going to those matters. So I ask that he withdraw, and then he can go on with his speech.
Assistant Minister?
I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. But I will say it is good if the member for Grayndler decides to come down and look at the road that was not built—$1.3 billion to not build a road. So, when you sit in congestion in Melbourne, I want you as a voter to think, as you come up to the Victorian election on 24 November, that you didn't have to sit there. In fact, things could have been built.
In my patch, we have seen what can happen if a government does want to build things. The federal government in my patch has delivered money for airports. The federal government has delivered money for roads, and we have driven on those. We have delivered mobile phone towers across the electorate of Mallee and across the country, including the state of Victoria. These have not been delivered by the Daniel Andrews government.
The member for Grayndler put up this MPI on the Victorian Labor government's failure to invest in nation-building infrastructure. I've got to say I commend him for putting that up as an MPI. People will make a judgement call in the state of Victoria in a little over a month, and they will say to themselves, 'Why am I sitting in congestion and yet paying money?' They will say to themselves, 'Why couldn't I make a mobile phone call in that country area?' They get nothing. I've got to say: you have a choice, people in Victoria. The people in Victoria have a really clear choice: a government who can deliver for them, which will be the coalition government in Victoria, or a government that will spend their money and deliver nothing, and that will be Daniel Andrews. Throw him out. He's not worthy of it. What people want is taxpayers' money to deliver things, not taxpayers' money spent and still having nothing to show for it.
As with everything that the Morrison government claims, the facts simply don't match the rhetoric. Nowhere is this more apparent than when it comes to infrastructure spending. Let me just quote some of the facts. Under the last Labor government, average annual infrastructure funding doubled from $29 billion to $58 billion. Under the coalition, average annual infrastructure investment has fallen by 17 per cent, to $48 billion. In last year's budget, there was no new money in federal infrastructure funding to the states, territories and local governments. That funding is declining each year. In 2018-19, the figure is $6.3 billion. The next year, it's $5.6 billion. The year after, it's $5 billion. In 2021-22, it's $4.5 billion. The facts speak for themselves. This is at a time when the population of Australia is growing, cities are more congested than ever before and Australia needs more infrastructure, not less.
Now let me turn to South Australia for a moment. I notice that the minister, in his response in this debate, did not mention South Australia once. For South Australia, this government's infrastructure funding track record is appalling, and it would be even worse were it not for the projects that were initiated by the last Labor government. In 2018-19, South Australia will get $504 million. In 2019-20, it will get $311 million. In 2020-21, it will get $136 million. That is just three per cent of the infrastructure budget. South Australia has seven per cent of the population and 11.8 per cent of the nation's roads. Even worse, the money allocated is never expended. South Australia's supplementary local road funding of $20 million per annum, which has been paid to South Australia for almost two decades because of an anomaly in the national distribution of those funds, was cut during the first years after this government came to office.
Let's see what the South Australian business community had to say about the government's 2018 infrastructure budget. This is not the Labor Party's response; this is the business community. I'll quote directly from a statement put out by the South Australian chamber of mines and energy, the South Australian Freight Council, the Royal Automobile Association and the Civil Contractors Federation South Australia when they slammed the federal budget as 'a misleading, untimely, and inauspicious deal for South Australia'. Evan Knapp, the executive officer of the South Australian Freight Council said:
This year’s Federal budget is all smoke and mirrors and delivers none of the promise of the pre-budget announcements.
Victoria Griffith, acting CEO of the Civil Contractors Federation, said:
South Australia cannot afford to have delays and gaps in the infrastructure pipeline. We require clear detail from the Government as to how these projects will come to fruition.
These organisations know exactly what infrastructure money they will get, because they depend on it. They do the figures better than anybody else, and when they criticise the government, as they did, the facts and the picture is absolutely clear.
Equally inciting South Australians was that South Australia was allocated a measly $3.7 million, or one per cent, of the government's Roads of Strategic Importance program. It froze the financial assistance grants to councils for three years, when most of that money goes into infrastructure funding. Again, who misses out? The councils and the infrastructure that they were going to build.
This government simply doesn't get it. Infrastructure funding is an investment. It's an investment in jobs, it's an investment in productivity, it's an investment in raising the living standards of all Australians and it's an investment that makes this country competitive with countries around the world. And yet what we see is a government that is prepared to come into the parliament year after year and talk about having 'infrastructure prime ministers'. But when it comes to really delivering the dollars that are going to build the infrastructure that is needed, we don't actually see them. What we see is a shifting of money from one side to the other; re-announcement of projects which have already been committed to and re-announcement of projects that were committed to in previous years as well.
Infrastructure is not built with spin, it is built with real dollars. This country has, according to some estimates, an infrastructure deficit of around $800 billion. It is time that this government—the Morrison government—understood what that really means in terms of this government's productivity and so on. We can only be serious about building the infrastructure that this government needs to build if we put the dollars on the table that are needed.
I'm very pleased to stand here and talk about the $75 billion infrastructure pipeline that this government has. Part of what I want to talk about is probably the one that I think is the most important: water projects.
We all know that water in Australia is liquid gold—that's my view. It's what underpins so much of rural and regional Australia. If I look at the projects that the government has already committed to, over $570 million of capital funding is from the fund and loan facility. The government is absolutely determined to tackle issues around water infrastructure.
Every day, we're getting on with the job of building the water infrastructure that's going to take us through the 21st century. As I said, there is $580 million for the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund and $2 billion in the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. This is really critical in my patch when we look at the lesser amount of rain that we've been receiving. If we look at one of the very important projects, the Myalup-Wellington project, that is really going to make a huge difference in my part of the world. This water project that this government is investing in will actually prevent between 60,000 to 110,000 tonnes of salt from entering the Wellington Dam every year. This is a great project and it's part of the pipeline of the government's projects ahead. This will boost agriculture, horticulture and the forestry industry that is very much part of this. It will create local jobs, without any question, and it will create economic uplift. It's going to attract even further investment in our region—that's what this investment by our government in water infrastructure is doing—and it will help to diversify the economy in WA's south-west.
The Wellington Dam is the second-largest reservoir in Western Australia. When we look at this project, the irrigation system that we have in the Darling Scarp is probably one of the most environmentally sound projects you will find. It's a gravity-fed system, and the piping that's been done in the Harvey irrigation system has seen all of the channel losses disappear and all of the evaporation disappear. So it's much more effective, efficient and sustainable as a result. This project is going to add to the Collie irrigation system. As well as desalinating the Wellington Dam, it plans to pipe the Collie River Irrigation System, which heads further south wrote down towards Waterloo. We'll see efficiency gains, both in channel losses and evaporation out of it, and much better quality water, because it will desalinate the water, as well. This is what really builds small communities and regional communities right around Australia.
This project will be a key part of underpinning the prosperity of the region and our small communities. Where does the water for our dairy farms come from? It comes from this type of irrigation infrastructure, as does the water for our beef farms and for those involved in fruit production and vegetable production all throughout our marvellous south-west. Not only is it a quality water that comes out of our Stirling Dam closer to Harvey, once this project is completed and we see the desalination in the Wellington Dam, were going to see that same opportunity. The two lots of grasses, those that exist with the Stirling Dam and those that exist with the Wellington Dam: at the moment it's like comparing chalk and cheese. We've lost a number of farmers because of the lack of production capacity because of the effect of the salt.
When we talk about real nation-building infrastructure, this is exactly what we are talking out and why the investment by this government is so important. These types of projects, as I said, will underpin these small rural and regional communities and add to economic growth, productivity and sustainability. There is nothing better than this. When you go to wash a dairy yard and you don't need to turn on a pump—because the actual head on the water, because its gravity fed, if you turn the actual hose on fully it could lift you off the ground—you know you've got a very effective and sustainable system. That's exactly how this works. I am particularly pleased that this government is investing in nation-building infrastructure like the critical water infrastructure that we see through the Myalup-Wellington project.
I've been sitting here listening to this, and you've got to laugh. We're talking about infrastructure, one of the most important things that governments can build, and the government is too lazy to get their infrastructure minister out here. They get out here a minister who is responsible for robodebts. You can rely on him to go and attack pensioners, but he's got no idea about infrastructure. They make all these claims about the East-West Link. Let's put some truth on the bone. The East-West Link would have tied up road funding in Victoria for the next 10 years. There would have been no road funds at all. Look across my electorate of McEwen, one of the fastest growing areas in Australia. This government has not invested one cent in infrastructure. It is the laziest, most incompetent government in the history of this nation.
Let's compare that to when Labor was in government. We invested in new quarantine facilities. We invested in roads. We invested in the NBN. We hear those opposite sprout the continual lie they make day in and day out about mobile phone towers. When you're in government, you're responsible for taxpayers' money. These guys aren't. They just think they responsible for their own money. We were smart. We said, 'Right, if we're going to build a tower, let's make it multiuse. Let's make it do mobile phones. Let's make it do mobile broadband.' That way, instead of having towers everywhere you have one that does everything. Those opposite stopped that when they destroyed the NBN. So then they go into an area like mine, which has suffered the worst natural disaster in Australia's history and put one tower in. Then they sit there and said, 'We've done really well, we've put one tower in!' The government actually scrapped the third round of the Black Spot Program after getting communities to tell it whether they wanted mobile phone towers, so they could take that money to pay off their pork barrelling in their own electorates.
We heard the member for Mallee. He's normally a pretty good bloke, but clearly he's been drinking the water downstream from the member for Forrest's dairy farm. He talked about there being no infrastructure and about the Victoria government. He may want to think back a couple of prime ministers ago to the one who's still here, who sits up the back, who said that the East-West Link was a referendum at the last Victorian election. Guess what? A first-term Liberal government got kicked out of power for Daniel Andrews to get in. The referendum was clear. People did not want all their road funding tied up in a road that delivers nothing.
I sit back and think of the last election. The member for Grayndler was talking about road projects in our area and how we were going to duplicate Craigieburn Road, how we were going to duplicate Bridge Inn Road and the work on the interchange at O'Herns Road—all these big congestion-removal infrastructure projects and not one of them was committed by the Liberal Party. In fact, in the last two terms of government, there has not been one piece of road infrastructure in the fastest-growing area in Victoria. In fact, the hapless Deputy Prime Minister responded to a letter to me saying, 'Oh, the East West Link—we're going to build that. That's a project in your electorate.' It's a minimum of, I think, 60 kilometres away. It has absolutely nothing to do with our electorate at all.
Victorians are sick and tired of this inept, morally bankrupt government ripping us off. Seven per cent of infrastructure funding goes to Victoria, even though Victoria has 25 per cent of the population. We haven't seen a single major project under the last two prime ministers or the last four infrastructure prime ministers. In fact, the biggest project they came to look at was the quarantine centre, which Labor funded. All they did was come. We had the member for New England come and cut a ribbon. That was the single biggest investment that they put in the area.
When your ministers don't know where Victoria is and don't know the funding in Victoria, you sit there and say, 'We have a major problem'—we have a major problem with the inability of an inept government to actually do its job. They want to attack Daniel Andrews. Well, let's have a look at the Mernda rail—a $500 million investment in rail in our communities. One of the biggest things that's been happening in the fastest-growing area of Victoria was delivered by a Labor government. It was not delivered under the four years of the Baillieu and Napthine governments. Whenever Victorians vote, think about one thing: every time there is a Liberal government, you get done over on infrastructure, you get done over on hospitals, you get done over on schools and you get done over on social services. This is a government that has spent too much time fighting itself and not fighting for you.
I'm delighted to speak on this MPI. I thought it was a Dorothy Dixer. Thank you, member for Grayndler. I've been gratified by the expenditure and investment in infrastructure that's been going on in Grey over the last five years, since we came to government. One of the sticking points, as you would well know, Mr Deputy Speaker—this seems to happen when I talk about Port Augusta; you're in the chair and it's your hometown—is the duplication of the Joy Baluch AM Bridge. There is $160 million from the federal government and a deal with the state government to get on with it and do the job that probably should have been done some years ago. In recent times—only three months or so ago—once again in conjunction with the new government in South Australia, was the announcement of the $90 million dual-laning of the highway through Port Wakefield and the overpass to the north to open up the bottleneck that happens around that Yorke Peninsula turn-off. That will really free up the traffic on that main highway, I must say. In the longer-term, I think I'll be pushing for dual lanes all the way from Port Wakefield through to Port Augusta as the traffic load continues to increase, but, at the moment, these are huge improvements and investments.
There is the rerailing of the Adelaide-Tarcoola line. It includes $80 million worth of steel orders to support the Whyalla Steelworks. It's a project of about $180 million, replacing 600 kilometres of rail with heavier rail through to Tarcoola, which means we can put another eight tonnes of axle-load on a wagon. That is a quantum. It's an increase in the productivity of the nation. It is investing in national infrastructure.
I'm very pleased to announce—I've said this before in this chamber—that the redistribution in South Australia has granted me some new and interesting areas. The electorate of Grey now reaches right down to within 30 kilometres of Adelaide, down to Two Wells and into the Adelaide Plains Council. The Adelaide Plains Council is going to be a major beneficiary of the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme. There will be $45.6 million from the federal government to provide an extra 12 gigalitres—this is not coming out of the Murray, even though it may have originally—of recycled water to increase the horticultural output of the Adelaide Plains. It's a national infrastructure project of great import.
I heard others speak about the NBN. I can report NBN in the electorate of Grey is 99 per cent enabled. As the former, the former communications minister Malcolm Turnbull said when we first came to government, 'We will concentrate on those areas that have the worst service first, and get them wired up.' That's exactly what's happened.
We've had over $40 million worth of investment come through the Building Better Regions Fund, BBRF, and its predecessor in the five years since we have been in government. That's ticked off a whole lot of projects across the electorate of Grey, including: more than $8 million into the Peterborough sewer system, a fish unloader out of Thevenard, aged care facilities in Whyalla and Port Broughton, and a whole host of major sporting facilities—very important pieces of infrastructure for those local communities.
The Coober Pedy community benefited from a hybrid power station. Through ARENA, $18.4 million from the federal government went into the project. For the solar reserve project, once again in Port Augusta, $110 million is still committed and waiting for a business plan to be completed. This will collect the sun's rays and store them in molten salt. So it provides baseload generation or dispatchable power to the South Australian network, which is very much needed, it must be said.
The Regional Growth Fund, it was announced last week, will provide $10 million support towards the development of a new port on Spencer Gulf, on Eyre Peninsula. For a number of years now, South Australia has been victim to a monopoly shipping organisation. We badly need this competition in the system, and I'm pushing for the development of that port. Although not exactly infrastructure, through the Regional Jobs and Investment Package, we've seen an investment of over $20 million in the Upper Spencer Gulf to provide jobs for people.
In South Australia, generally, just as I close, the investment in the north-south link through Adelaide is absolutely national infrastructure of vital importance. In case anyone on the other side wasn't listening, there's been a decision by this government to invest in major naval shipbuilding industry in South Australia. If that's not national infrastructure, nothing is. (Time expired)
I want to thank the member for Grayndler for this matter of public importance on nation-building infrastructure. It's an important one for the Northern Territory and for the North in general. I will focus on the North and on the NT in particular. It's very obvious to Territorians that this government lacks vision and commitment to Northern Australia, and the investment statistics that I will go into in a short while show that. They also show that the government's rhetoric is different to its actions.
Why have the government failed to invest in nation-building infrastructure? I don't know; it's a question for those opposite. I could suggest that perhaps their arrogance, their focus on themselves, their vision and their internals have meant that they've had no national vision for infrastructure development. I've got plenty of local examples from my electorate. The member for Grayndler referred to the leak from within their own side about the Darwin City deal, and I will get to that. There's also been the NAIF, which has been very slow to get funding out the door—in fact, only one project and a small amount of money for the Humpty Doo Barramundi farm. This is obviously very welcome, but very little has been done in the Northern Territory.
The Defence spend, like most of the infrastructure spend, is being pushed out into the never-never, into the years out to 2022, when we really need infrastructure funds to be flowing into our community now. The budget forward estimates show that the federal government will be investing $222 million in Northern Territory infrastructure in 2018-19, and that figure will fall over each of the following four years to $61 million in 2021-22. That is a whopping 75 per cent reduction over four years!
Infrastructure spending in the Northern Territory under those opposite is falling off a cliff—a 75 per cent reduction. It is unfathomable. No government that claims to be a government for all Australians could treat the Territory or any of its jurisdictions in that way. It's an absolute disgrace. Over the past four years, less than a third of what was promised has come to fruition. There's been $224 million less delivered than was promised. The underspends are everywhere, particularly on major road projects like the Black Spot Program and on the Bridges Renewal Program and the promised Northern Australia Beef Roads Program. Those programs have had massive underspends. In other words, those opposite make big announcements, the rhetoric is that there's be hundreds of millions of dollars for these roads projects, but it just doesn't come to pass. Every major federally funded project currently underway in the Northern Territory was identified and funded by the former federal Labor government. Despite being in office for over five years, the federal coalition still hasn't initiated one new major project for the north. So the rhetoric about the critical gateway to Asia, the food bowl and connecting Australia through these roads is just not happening in the Northern Territory.
I mentioned the Darwin City Deal. There could be many examples of how those opposite are not supporting my electorate, in Darwin and Palmerston, or the rest of the Northern Territory, but I think the Darwin City Deal is the most stark example of this government's failure to invest in nation building infrastructure in the capital of the north. We need that City Deal for Darwin, and Territory businesses are sick and tired of the political game playing. It's been 554 days since it was promised. We know from internal leaks from that side that for the Darwin City Deal they're going to meet the NT government's $100 million with $100 million from the federal government, but it has not been signed. So it's of no use to us. We need the funds, and I call on the Prime Minister to come to Darwin and sign the Darwin City Deal.
It's an absolute delight to address this matter of public importance in relation to nation-building infrastructure, because when it comes to that vital investment the runs are on the board for the coalition government. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
I've been impressed to hear from a number of my colleagues on this side about investment in road, investment in rail and investment in water infrastructure, particularly now, in times of drought. We know the people of Australia, those who recognise the importance of our agricultural industries, whether they work in them or simply depend on them, want to look into the long term. They talk about water infrastructure in the long term—dams, pipelines—and we know that this government is leading the charge, finally, to prioritise those sorts of projects and that it is working as hard as it can with relevant state governments to bring projects to the fore. Colleagues have spoken in particular about regional benefits right across the country from significant infrastructure investment.
I want to take this opportunity to talk about a couple of examples that relate to my home city of Toowoomba, my electorate of Groom and the wonderful Darling Downs. If we reflect on Queensland media just today, there's significant reference to the exciting plans of South-East Queensland mayors, chaired by the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Graham Quirk. The deputy chair of that group, the Council of Mayors South East Queensland, is my own mayor, Paul Antonio, the Mayor of Toowoomba. A whole range of initiatives that they're talking about in South-East Queensland—again, road and rail in particular—touch in part on Toowoomba and the Darling Downs. The reference to fast rail and the reference to a specific passenger rail feasibility study project that was announced earlier this year by the government under our Major Project Business Case Fund prove that we talk about the long term—the decades to come—not just the political cycles which those opposite seem to focus on at the expense of the long term.
Can I refer to the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, something of which I'm very proud, that will bring benefits to the whole eastern seaboard. This has been spoken about since the middle part of last century. Federal and state Labor when they've been in power over the years have proven they were not interested at all, never, ever prioritised it with Infrastructure Australia, never showed any interest at a local level about this vital piece of infrastructure—something that's underway now—the biggest inland road project in our country, $1.6 billion, which will be completed by the early part of last year.
It's a project I know a bit about. Sure, it affects my home town, but it's a project that former Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss led the charge on when he was infrastructure and transport minister. It's a project that at that time the state LNP government led the charge on; the Toowoomba Regional Council led the charge on. After decades of discussion, it took these three levels of government to pull it together. The proof is there, and I know because I signed the deal on behalf of the then state government as Acting Treasurer of Queensland.
I refer to Inland Rail that will bring benefits to Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. It's been spoken of for 100 years. Who's delivering it? This coalition government—the 2016 budget; the 2017 budget. I can recall pundits and commentators suggesting maybe this coalition government may contribute in the order of $1 billion to get this thing going to show they're fair dinkum. We contributed over $8 billion for this nation-building project. Labor couldn't organise it; we're now delivering. We're dealing with the challenges of how that might impact on landholders right through those three states and making sure they don't have to wear all of that, and dealing with the benefits for agriculture, for trade, for international trade, for regional communities, as I said, through those three great states.
Those examples prove a long-term vision—long-term vision that focuses on future generations, not just electoral cycles, not just political debates in this place but a fair dinkum long-term commitment to nation-building infrastructure. That's what we've proven through these projects. That's what our $75 billion long-term commitment to infrastructure is all about. I celebrate the fact that we finally have this long-term vision, courtesy of the coalition government.
The discussion is now concluded.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report entitled 'Options for greater involvement by private sector life insurers in worker rehabilitation.'
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
When I was speaking previously, I cited a couple of examples where the employees, workers in my electorate, had been done out of their entitlements. I spoke about the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and welcomed the increases in penalties for those companies that deliberately try and do their employees out of their entitlements.
At the moment, the penalties are minor, it must be said, in comparison to the monetary amount many of these individuals and body corporates are squirrelling away into complicated mechanisms. The current penalty is 10 years imprisonment or 1,000 penalty units, which equates to about $210,000. As I said, I welcome the new penalties, which for an individual are imprisonment for 10 years or a fine of the greater of the following: 4,500 penalty units, which equates to about $945,000, or three times the total value of the benefits obtained by committing that offence, or both. For a body corporate, a fine of the greatest of the following: 45,000 penalty units or about $9.45 million; three times the total value of the benefits obtained by committing of that offence; or 10 per cent of the body corporate's annual turnover during the 12 months before the body corporate committed, or began committing, that offence. So we agree, as I alluded to previously, that these substantial increases in penalties will, hopefully, reinforce the serious nature of these crimes and will also act as a substantial deterrent for persons who may otherwise seek to engage in these types of evasive behaviours. It's also the case that the civil penalty provision will make it easier to hold those directors and companies liable for avoiding liability for the entitlements that are owed to those employees.
No-one should ever forget that when it comes to the Fair Entitlements Guarantee that this government's primary motivation is to reduce the fiscal cost to the Commonwealth, rather than any true commitment to protecting worker entitlements. As the guardians of workers' rights in this nation Labor will do whatever it takes to protect the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, as it is essential to providing a safety net for Australians.
We've seen with penalty rate cuts, and other initiatives from those opposite, that cuts to the rights of workers in this country, unfortunately, are in this government's DNA. We saw it with WorkChoices back in the times of former Prime Minister John Howard. We see it in this divided party and that is, unfortunately, one of the very few things that unite the conservative forces in this country and that's attacking workers' rights.
Under this government wages are stagnant, and even the business community is starting to be worried about that. Underemployment is stubbornly high, worker exploitation is rife and work in our nation is increasingly insecure. That's not good for Australian families and that's not good for the Australian economy. While these reforms that I have spoken about today, and other speakers have spoken to, will strengthen the legal regime to punish and deter those dodgy employers and companies they are only a start. We need to do more.
In the end, we support the premise and intent of this bill, as we see it. It will benefit employees, and as an extension of that the taxpayers who will have their valuable funds returned to them. There is a growing concern amongst workers in our nation that the federal government has not got their back. That they have been too keen to make sure that the top end of town is looked after, rather than those workers out in our nation who provide for their families and are what makes our country tick. It is the workers of our nation who really need to be supported. It is, obviously, the small- and medium-sized businesses as well that generate employment in our country. We recognise that, but we also recognise that strengthening the penalties for when people—people in positions of power and people in positions of great wealth and influence—take the opportunity to screw their workers out of the entitlements that they're owed it's not good. That is why the Fair Entitlements Guarantee was formed, to ensure that those workers aren't left behind, but we need to strengthen these penalties and, as I have outlined, hopefully, these penalties will send a strong message to those who would seek to subvert what those workers are entitled to. I welcome the bill.
I support the passage of this bill. I would like to read out the title of this bill: Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018. That's the thing, the amendments to this bill are about employee entitlements. In particular, I believe that the strengthening should include superannuation. It is incredibly important for employees to be able to recover superannuation, through the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, where their employer has become insolvent. Sadly, there have been many cases in my electorate where employees have been left out of pocket substantially, particularly with respect to superannuation.
The Fair Entitlements Guarantee is a very valuable and necessary scheme that activates on behalf of an employee when their employer goes insolvent, providing access to up to 13 weeks of unpaid wages, unpaid annual leave, long service leave and other benefits beside. However, the guarantee needs to be strengthened further, because there is one huge blind spot, as I have just mentioned: unpaid superannuation.
I have spoken multiple times in this place on the scourge of unpaid superannuation to employees by unscrupulous employers. The Australian Taxation Office estimates that Australian workers are victim to almost $2.85 billion of unpaid super each and every year. Those employers are robbing not just the employees but also all Australian taxpayers, because they are leaving people without the opportunity to have a decent super to retire on, and therefore they will be entirely reliant on the pension.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not good enough. The government needs to do more to protect both employees and the businesses that are doing the right thing. My second reading amendment calls upon the government to amend the Fair Entitlements Guarantee to align access to unpaid superannuation with claimable unpaid wages. Now, government says, 'Oh, this is a huge cost!' Well, last time I looked, we're talking about just over 9 per cent, and we are talking, fortunately, about a small proportion of Australians in this circumstance. It is small, but I think it is an important step to address the blight on the future of Australian retirees and, ultimately, the public purse that unpaid superannuation presents.
Really, this is about sending a message that superannuation is important. If we don't include it in here; if we don't see it as an employee entitlement; and if we just see it as a nice, little added extra that most employers pay, then we are losing the whole point of what superannuation is supposed to be. I formally move the amendment as circulated in my name:
That all words after "the House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"calls on the Government to consider amending the Fair Entitlements Guarantee to include up to 13 weeks of superannuation guarantee contributions, to align it with claimable unpaid wages".
Who is the seconder for this motion?
I second the honourable member for Mayo's most excellent amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Gorton moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with the view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Mayo has now moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'the House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mayo to the amendment moved by the member for Gorton be agreed to.
In rising on this, the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018, it is with deep regret. When I moved from the state parliament to the federal parliament, I realised that in this place the minister is not sitting at the dispatch box when legislation comes forward and the head of the department is not here. So, we talk, but we talk into an empty brass cylinder. The people that we want to get through to, the minister and, probably more importantly, the head of the department, should have to sit in this place and cop it for their incompetence, or be praised for their excellent work. In this place, they hide out in their ivory towers, both the minister and the head of the department, so we can't get at them.
If ever there was a trail of destruction in this country—and I don't wish to have a go at Clive Palmer, because I have no idea of the rights and wrongs of this case or how he was involved. All I know is that the company that owned the nickel plant did not pay workers and they did not pay suppliers. Hundreds of millions of dollars was not paid. That was a big case.
The Kagara zinc case—we were having lunch discussing it with an investigative journalist from The Sydney Morning Herald in a cafe in Sydney. The lady waiting on our table was a schoolteacher, but she had to work at a cafe as well to meet the debts she had because she was told that 'these were good investments'. One of those investments was Kagara Zinc. She was just a little schoolteacher in Sydney and she lost $25,000, which to her was a king's ransom. She picked up the word 'Kagara' from our conversation and she said, 'Is there any chance of us getting our money back?' In that case, four members of the board said: 'This company is in deep trouble. We had better put it in the hands of a liquidator.' They chose the liquidator. The liquidator sold the assets back to the four of them—I am exaggerating but only slightly—so half the board owned these assets afterwards but with no debt. They had written off $1,000 million worth of debt! These people they owed money too were ordinary little contractors—electrical contractors and engineering companies; there were hundreds of these little people—and also the employees. If it doesn't raise a red flag when the people on the board sell the assets themselves, shorn of the debt, then I don't know when you would raise a red flag.
I can go into case after case. I remember one case in Mount Isa 20 years ago which was worth $3½ million dollars. It was the third time the company had gone broke. When I say the company had gone broke, the principal of the company hadn't gone broke at all—he was as rich as Croesus—but, of course, he never paid anyone in Mount Isa. In this case, most of those jobs were government jobs. The government, before they pay the contractor, surely has a responsibility to ensure that the subbies have been paid. This is hardly an onerous obligation to say: 'Before I write you a cheque for a million bucks, mate, I want the names of all of your subbies—it's a criminal act not to give them to me—and I want a statement from them that they have been fully paid.' It is a very simple device. Four governments in a row came in in Queensland and said, 'We're going to address this problem.' But it is still not addressed.
We are talking here about protecting superannuation, and I support the member for Mayo's amendment here and will vote for it. I do wish that people, when they are moving amendments, would know what they are moving and why. It is hard for us to make decisions without knowing what the hell is going on. The thousands of workers in the Kennedy electorate that have not got paid—those standards remind them of the incompetence of several successive state and federal governments. The unions, in some cases, have been very lax—they have never fought the fight as it needed to be fought—and some unions have been very good insofar as they have fought those battles.
Going specifically to superannuation, I had an agency and, mostly, I sold superannuation through that agency. I could, with great pleasure, sell that agency in the knowledge that 60 per cent of that money that went into superannuation went into government securities by law. There was a 60-40 rule. Sixty per cent of all superannuation went into government securities—as safe as a house. They can be nothing safer than government securities.
Now, 51 per cent of all superannuation is going on the stock market. Go down to the TAB! The stock market—this is a secure investment? The Australian stock market has collapsed three times in the last 30 years, and I mean serious collapse. Too bad for you if you retired during that period of time. Twenty-six per cent is going on the Australian stock market and 25 per cent is going on the American stock market. If you're telling me that a fund manager, who is pretty typically under 30 years of age, is going to be able to tell you what is a good investment on the American stock market, well, I'm not going to believe you. My wife and I own a couple of old superannuation policies. I'm trying to get out of the superannuation arrangements because I consider 51 per cent very, very insecure indeed. Another 25 per cent's going on the property market. The property market in Australia—that's a solid investment? Heavens! The average price of a house in Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong is $800,000. Everyone knows that that can't be sustained. So, when you say you've invested in property in Australia, let's get really scared here. Let's get really scared.
Our superannuation is simply not secure. The wise people that ran Australia for 120 years in this place said 60 per cent of that money goes into securities. So you can't play games with it—your stock market games and your property games. You can't play games with it, like Goldman Sachs and Enron and these people did in the United States. We're going to see that it's rock-solid—it's in government securities. And I, as a humble little bloke selling superannuation, could say to these people, 'Mate, this is a really solid investment.' The irony is it's an AMP agency. They were rock-solid. I was very proud to be associated with that company—a very, very conservative, very prudential company. They joined the Johnny-come-latelies: 'Make the big bucks real quick and don't worry too much about tomorrow, because I won't be the CEO tomorrow.'
Before I conclude my remarks today, I will say that I remember reading an article by a very famous Australian—probably one of the most powerful people in the nation's history—a bloke called Bob Santamaria. He had a column in The Australian newspaper. He wrote in that column that the superannuation funds of Australia were being invested by fund managers who were in their 30s. They were investing hundreds of millions of dollars and they were being paid millions of dollars a year. I read that and I thought, 'This bloke Santamaria's lost his marbles! I mean, this is ridiculous—outlandish, extremist rubbish,' and I stopped reading his column. Two years later, Nick—I'm trying to remember his second name—brought down Barings Bank, the oldest bank in the world. He brought it down, and Santamaria was wrong: he wasn't in his 30s; he was in his 20s. He was not being paid a million dollars—Santamaria was wrong; he was being paid tens of millions of dollars a year. He wasn't investing hundreds of millions of dollars, as Santamaria said; he was investing thousands of millions of dollars. This rogue brought down Barings Bank.
Barings Bank was brought down, and two of the biggest banks in the world were bought down during the GFC, in a market that everyone knew was collapsing—the American housing market. Many made billions of dollars short-selling because they could see what was coming. We did not get caught in Australia, and the banks went around congratulating themselves. The only reason we didn't get caught is that Australia is one of the few countries on earth where the banks have recourse lending.
If, in America, you can't make the payments on your house, you jingle-mail—send the keys to the bank—and you walk away with no debt. In Australia, you don't; you walk away with debt that the bank can pursue you for till the day that you die. That debt stays in place till the day that you die. So you become a debt slave to the bank, with all their charges and the murderous, punitive interest rates that they apply in these situations, and you carry the debt for the rest of your life. In America, the debt terminates. You lose your house and all the money you put into it, but the bank loses because they have to sell the house and it's not worth what it was originally worth. So the bank shares the loss, and so they should.
When I was at an agency and I was selling investments, if we sold to people that did not keep up that contract, we lost the agency. There was prudential oversight by what were called insurance companies—AMP, CML and MLC in those days. If there were rogue traders, if someone like me went rogue, once people were found not to be keeping up their payments—you had made bad contracts—then you lost the agency, and so you should. Now we have rogue traders everywhere in superannuation and banking. As for prudential oversight, what a joke.
Look at ASIC. There was a sugar mill sold by liquidators for $2 million. A sugar mill is $100 per tonne. If it's a 200-tonne mill, it's $200 million—it must be a million dollars a tonne. A two million tonne mill at $100 a tonne is $200 million. So a $200 million sugar mill was sold out from under the farmers for $2 million. I think we met with ASIC officials 17 times before we went to the then Treasurer, Wayne Swan. He had his people check up on the case, and he was horrified that ASIC, a government body, had done absolutely nothing about this appalling piece of thievery that had taken place. And I use that word 'thievery' because those people got huge benefits for doing the dirty on the poor farmers. The Treasurer ordered ASIC to meet with his people. There was no satisfaction, so Wayne Swan ordered them to meet again, because he was absolutely disgusted with their behaviour. Then the government changed. Mr Hockey came in as Treasurer. He had a look at this case and he was shocked. He ordered ASIC to meet with his people. Nothing happened, so he was very enraged and he ordered ASIC to meet again. That's two treasurers, and ASIC treated them both with contempt. ASIC knew the mill had been sold out from under us for $200 million. They knew the 30 pieces of silver that the decision-makers had got out of the dirty, filthy deal.
So we went and did it ourselves. We could only get 39 of the 230 farmers to put up the money. So there were only 39 farmers, and we got a settlement out of court for $23 million. Those incompetents will burn in hell—because I do believe there is a hell, and they're going to be punished somewhere. They sure ain't going to be punished by this place, but they will be punished later on. They got away with their thievery and roguery. They got away with tens of millions of dollars at the expense of the farmers. Were we right? Of course we were right. (Time expired)
I speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Gorton with respect to the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018. This is a matter that I have spoken about previously in this place—in particular, when I was making comments about phoenixing and what happens when businesses, often deliberately, go bankrupt in order not to meet their financial obligations to others, and then the operators of those businesses move on to a new business—quite often in the same line of business but simply under a new trading name—and establish, once again, the same cycle of deceiving others and, effectively, taking their money. This legislation implements greater protections for people who lose their entitlements when such a person becomes bankrupt. Therefore, if there are greater protections, it is something that we on this side of the House will support.
In particular, the legislation targets those who deliberately structure their businesses and financial affairs so that they avoid their obligations to their hardworking employees whilst, at the same time, transferring assets out of the business before it goes into liquidation. I stress the word 'before' because, quite often, the people who operate these shonky businesses know exactly what is likely to happen in the months ahead and then quite clearly and deliberately restructure and resell their assets prior to the business going into liquidation. Even worse, they quite often sell them at discounted rates either to a friend or family member or to an entity that they themselves have an interest in. They effectively keep the assets and leave the company bone-dry in terms of its responsibility to other creditors.
This legislation also makes it easier to prove a criminal offence when this occurs, and it increases the penalties for those offences. The legislation also introduces a new civil penalty for avoiding paying employee entitlements and gives the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Australian Tax Office and the Department of Jobs and Small Business powers to pursue the funds owing to those employees. ASIC's powers are also extended. The legislation also gives ASIC the power to disqualify directors and other officeholders where they have a track record of corporate contraventions. I think that that is a good move. It's about time we did that. Someone who has a track record of being what I would refer to as a shonky operator shouldn't be entitled to re-register and have the opportunity to do it again. As I say, all of those measures are welcomed by this side of the House. However, I suspect that the changes are more so motivated by the government's attempt to reduce its obligations—that is, its financial obligations—that arise through the Fair Entitlements Guarantee than through its concern for workers. But whatever the reason, the legislation is welcome.
I point out that, in terms of where we are at with the Fair Entitlements Guarantee payments, between 2005 and 2009 there was about $70.7 million paid out. That figure rose to $253 million between 2014 and 2018. Clearly, the figure is on the rise. It's not on the rise because workers are getting paid more. As we know, wages have effectively stagnated. It's on the rise because perhaps more businesses are going bankrupt or more businesses are deliberately going bankrupt. That is of real concern because, as we all know, working people in this country are struggling enough as it is with the cost of living. To then suddenly find that your employer has gone bankrupt and you will not be entitled to your wages, let alone to your long-service leave and other entitlements that you might have otherwise expected, is particularly galling. It is certainly galling for employees who have been there sometimes for years, put their heart and soul into their work and supported the employer.
I have no problem with supporting those workers. When the Fair Entitlement Guarantee was brought in, it was a good move because at least it provided some opportunity to get people the entitlements that they had earned. I understand that last year there were some 7,700 corporate bankruptcies in Australia. The Fair Entitlement Guarantee, over the same period, paid out almost $165 million to some 10,822 claimants. Of those payments under the Fair Entitlement Guarantee, $39 million was recovered from liquidated companies. The rest had to come from the fund—that is, a fund that is underwritten by the Australian government and the Australian people.
However, there is another aspect to this that I wish to touch on when we talk about liquidated companies, because it's not just the employees of the business who may suffer when their employees go bankrupt. Quite often, it is other businesses who are also owed considerable amounts of money—other businesses, subcontractors, the tax office itself, and other government entities might all lose out when a business goes into liquidation. The flow-on consequences when a company goes broke stretch far and wide. Indeed, I suspect that, quite often, when one company falls, it causes the fall of a series of other companies.
I refer to one particular company that I have some familiarity with. The owner of that company contacted me only a few months ago. The Adelaide company was dealing a company interstate which went into receivership. The first question was, 'Did it really need to go into receivership?'—because there are doubts as to whether it should have. But when it did, the Adelaide company was left owed $1.7 million. It's a substantial amount of money. For that company, the $1.7 million debt could have brought about its own downfall—and nearly did. And that would have meant that its operations—which extend across Australia; a company that employs about 50 people—would have also gone into bankruptcy. Fortunately, it was able to prevent itself from going into bankruptcy and the company is still trading and, I understand, is still able to continue to operate in South Australia with the full workforce that it had before it was left with the $1.7 million of debt.
Some matters arise from the experience of this company that are worth bringing to the attention of this House—that is, that the company that owed the $1.7 million was then put into liquidation. Two matters arose from that. There was an attempt by the Adelaide company to retrieve some of its outstanding money, and, to do that, the company had to engage lawyers. The cost of the legal expenses that the Adelaide company incurred was enormous. The first matter was that there seemed to be an unfair situation where this company, in order to try and retrieve its outstanding money, had to engage lawyers, which cost a huge sum of money. But even worse was that, when the company went into liquidation, the liquidator was able to secure funds for the liquidation and for the liquidators' entity but, effectively, left nothing for the creditors.
We need to look at how liquidation in this country actually occurs, because I suspect two things are happening. The first is that liquidators are charging unreasonable amounts for the work they do. And by doing that they are prepared to keep money for themselves whilst others who are owed money lose out. But secondly, in dealing with liquidation, my understanding is that often assets are liquidated at below market value, in what could be referred to as a fire sale, which sometimes is unnecessary, and perhaps a better rate of return could be made for those assets. That, in turn, would leave more money for the liquidator to pay the outstanding creditors, who are quite often people who cannot afford lawyers and who have no other way of getting their money back. Whilst I appreciate that this legislation goes a long way to supporting workers in this country who are entitled to their wages and so on when a company goes into liquidation, I believe we should also look at the effect of liquidation on other companies and the impact it has on them—because ultimately, they also lose out, and that means workers also lose out because of it.
To wrap up my comments on this, looking at the issues of additional penalties, new penalties, and making it easier to penalise those people who deliberately breach the law and deliberately engage in activities which ultimately result in workers losing their entitlements is something that is long overdue. I would like to think that we don't just pass legislation in this place but also adequately resource the ATO, ASIC and others to do their jobs, to ensure that this doesn't happen as much as it has been to date.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to speak on the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2018, and I can indicate to the chamber that Labor will be supporting this bill. The original National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Bill passed parliament on 28 June 2018, with Labor's support. At that time, no opportunity remained for the House to consider any amendments to the bill put forward by the Senate given that the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation was slated to be established on 1 July 2018. Labor didn't want to delay the establishment of the body and the board being put in place, so we reached agreement with the government to withdraw our amendments and allow for the bill's expedited package. But that was contingent on the government providing a written undertaking to introduce and support a new bill in the spring sittings containing the amendments we'd intended to put forward in the Senate, and this bill honours that commitment.
Labor were pleased to see the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation established and begin preparatory work in the lead-up to its first bond issuance, expected next year. This, of course, represents the realisation of Labor policy. It's important to note that, while the coalition government flagged its intention to establish the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation in the 2017-18 budget, that was a month after Labor's plan for housing affordability and jobs in April 2017. That plan built on our existing policies to reform negative gearing and capital gains tax and contained Labor's commitment to establish a bond aggregator to drive increased investments in affordable housing.
Labor's commitment to establish an aggregator recognised that, while the community housing sector in Australia has grown significantly in recent years, it still remains relatively small. We have a chronic shortfall of affordable rental and social housing, and that means that sector has to achieve greater scale and sophistication. Among the constraints have been restrictive loan tenor from lending institutions, the high cost of financing and organisational fragmentation. Labor, having established the benefit bond aggregators have delivered in comparable countries, such as Britain, determined that a body of this nature in Australia would help community housing providers access cheaper finance, secure longer loan terms and help the sector build up institutional capacity and scale. This was again another case of Labor leading the policy debate on a critical debate for Australia and the government playing catch-up.
The bill we're currently debating contains three amendments, including Labor's two sensible amendments agreed to by the government. Our amendments include a requirement that at least one director on the board of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation have relevant skills and experience in affordable housing gained in the community. This was proposed by numerous community housing providers during the Senate inquiry. For example, St George Community Housing Ltd stated:
… we would suggest that it benefits the objective of the NHFIC to have a Director or Directors with experience and expertise related directly to social and affordable housing and the economics and social benefits of related projects …
that is, in the housing provider sector.
A further amendment will bring forward the review of the operation of this act to as soon as possible after a period of two years beginning when this act commences. Such a review will allow for key issues surrounding the loan cap, funding for capacity building and the use of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to be canvassed.
The third remaining amendment contained in schedule 1 establishes a $1 billion special account for the purposes of the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator. This amendment will allow the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to draw down on a $1 billion line of credit to support the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator. The existing $150 million appointed to the bond aggregator will be credited to the special account. Regrettably, while Labor sees considerable benefit in a bond aggregator, the government is stubbornly refusing to address the related but fundamental issue that'll hold back community housing providers from using the aggregator to deliver affordable rental housing at scale, and that is that they have neglected to address the yield gap. Policies to address the yield gap are necessary to complement the work of a bond aggregator and they're a key feature of successful schemes overseas. This isn't just Labor's view; it's also a view widely shared among community housing providers and other key stakeholders.
Launch Housing, in its inaugural Australian homelessness monitor report, welcomed the establishment of a National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation but made clear that, as a stand-alone initiative without additional support, 'it will not provide a sufficient subsidy to increase the level of social housing'. The community Housing Industry Association, in their submission to the Senate inquiry, stated:
CHIA agrees that while the bond aggregator will reduce the cost of financing social and affordable housing, it will not be sufficient to address the funding gap between the operating costs and the rental income. This is because, by design, community housing providers ... charge rents below market rates to make housing more affordable for tenants.
The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute was similarly forthright on the government's submission. It said:
AHURI research has argued that there is a need to address a funding gap in the context of new finance:
Whether involving new finance or the redirection of existing housing subsidies, government financial support is essential to complement private financing of additional affordable housing supply. Inadequate government co-funding is the primary capacity constraint that providers currently face in their efforts to expand affordable housing ...
In taking no action on this issue, the Liberals have ignored calls from the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, their own Affordable Housing Working Group, and key experts and stakeholders to urgently address the yield gap. Labor have been consistent in our calls for the government to develop, as a matter of urgency, a policy framework that bridges the yield gap to address housing affordability and get better outcomes for Australians.
If you want to increase housing supply, improve productivity and help assist the disadvantaged, then the government must address the yield gap. It's abundantly clear that the coalition has no intention of doing so. Only a Labor government will tackle the housing affordability crisis. The fact is that our home ownership rate is now as low as it's been in six decades. Only a Labor government will increase the home ownership rate and put the great Australian dream within reach of low- and middle-income Australian families. Labor have announced a comprehensive series of policies to this end. Labor will have more to say on this issue in the lead-up to the next election. I commend the bill to the House.
As the member for Goldstein, it's a great pleasure to be able to rise to support this bill. I have to begin by referring to the speech by the member for Fenner. I've got to say that, in the context of his speech about this bill, it now seems that the phrase 'under a Labor government' rolls off his tongue so easily and with such predictability and hubris that sometimes you wonder whether he has jumped ahead of himself and the Australian people. In the end, every time he gets up and speaks in this place, it is with absolute confidence and conviction that he believes that he is just the factional apparatchik-in-waiting to take a ministry in a Shorten government. Of course, he is more than entitled to do so, if he wishes, but he has to actually recognise that this parliament is not over yet and we are not done yet. But it is a welcome thing to see him get up and speak on this bill, as it is to see the Labor Party moving it. At this point, they're not moving, as far as I can read on the board, with some sort of superfluous and pointless amendment to justify the extension of this debate and to justify dragging people down simply to vote on the purpose of a failed amendment. They're actually going to let this one go through, which suggests that they do think the bill's workable. The bill actually is the foundation of good policy. It's a bill that people need to make sure that we can provide the housing finance environment necessary for Australians who need the assistance and the backing of government.
No-one should really be surprised, because this government, at its heart, has the interests of Australians. The Prime Minister said this the day he was sworn into office by the Governor-General and took upon himself a flag to put on his breast—there was an image of the flag—to say that he was on the side of the Australian people.
Are you serious?
I know some people on the other side may mock this proposition but, when it comes down to it, they know the truth. They know the truth that this legislation, our legislation, and the full program of this government, is to deliver for the Australian people.
Housing is one of those issues that, when it comes down to it, is foundational for our sense of security within society. I often talk about people who wake up, get out of bed, go brush their teeth, dress themselves, go off to work and be able to invest in their own future off the back of their labour and investment in themselves and their families as the foundation for community and our great nation. But housing is a critical part of that. If you ever want to see people's lives disrupted and people's lives undermined, it's where they don't have a place that they call home. Home is not just the place where people store their sometimes limited possessions; a home is more than just a place. A home is somewhere where families come together, where people share time with their loved ones—sometimes private time—and with friends. It is their island in a world unpredictable. It is also critical for the foundation of every other part of success. It's like the foundation stone of building a life. So having a home is critical. We all know that, and I hope even the opposition would acknowledge the critical role of housing.
There's no greater security that can be achieved in life than the capacity to be able to go on and own your own home, to be the custodian of a property, and to be able to have the ultimate sense of security. But we know full well that not everyone is in the situation. There are millions of Australians who are on their way in life, having gone to school, maybe gone to tertiary education or maybe gone straight into the workforce, and they graduate from living at home—and, tragically, sometimes people can't even fulfil that—to then go on and rent and, ultimately, are in the position, if they're able to save, to get that ownership and foundation within society. But there are also many people who struggle even to achieve that—and, frankly, often, it's due to factors outside their control.
We as a nation—particularly one as wealthy as ours—cannot turn a blind eye to the plight and suffering of those people and say that we don't have their back; that we don't care about their need for security. But it can't always just be overcome with more labour or more work, particularly with the challenges we face in housing affordability on the private market at the moment. This government, working with the states and territories on this issue—which is a critical part of it, as we of course are oft a distant capital, and the states work directly with people delivering services—is keen to make sure that every Australian has not just a sense of security but also the foundation for a successful life, particularly those who are most vulnerable and have the least capacity to correct their situation—often young women who have had children and may no longer have a supportive spouse and really need the support of this place and the support of their fellow citizens. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation is part of that important framework, in operating a $1 billion fund under the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. It's a critical part of the overall national approach to addressing the challenges we face in making sure that everybody can have their own home—and we know how critical that is.
If we look around the country today—and there's plenty of data out there—we see a worrying trend. We see a decline in the rate of private home ownership across almost every single age group in the country. In fact, it's only in the top economic quintile of people over the age of 65 that we see an increase. Every other age group is seeing some form of decline. It's more modest in the 65-plus category, a little greater in the 55-plus category, a little greater again in the 45-plus category, but when you get down to home ownership rates amongst people under the age of 35 and 25, I make no apology: I'm concerned about it, seriously concerned about it.
Home ownership is not just about a place where people live; it is an investment in the status quo. If you want preservation of a liberal democracy, as I do, a society built on ownership and opportunity, home ownership is critical. Once people make an investment in the status quo, they have an interest in preserving it. If you're a true conservative—and I need to make that point—then you understand the critical role of housing and how it should be at the fore of the minds of everybody in this place if we want to preserve the best of the past and take it forward for the future.
I saw this directly in my former role, when I was human rights commissioner, particularly working with Indigenous communities. Of course, yes, you had people who were displaced from their custom, their culture and their land. What came with that was a legacy of displacement and disruption of a continuation of thousands of years of culture and tradition. But, when you removed that connection, you also severed that sense of security that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders hold. It is not the same as our modern title of land that we have, where people buy their own home. Yes, it can be on the basis of collective ownership. But the principle that sits behind it and the security that people derive from a place they call home, no matter the culture, can never be underestimated. This is what the Chinese Communist Party never understood when they sought to deal with issues around property rights—that people would stand there and fight, even against the tyranny and the oppression of the state that wanted to displace them and move them for some sort of collective ambition.
Private property ownership and ownership generally and having a place called home is foundational for any society that wants to seek to preserve itself. And part of the enduring challenge that we have in this place, when you look at all the well-intentioned but failed policies designed to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, is that we are constantly trying to repair the damage that we have done, to rebuild the connection to that sense, that cultural understanding, of a place called home. And it's no different in practice for so many people who lose their home in our modern society as well. But, if we're going to address the challenges around making sure people in whatever economic stage in life have access to housing that meets their needs, we must be realists. People cannot simply turn to the state to provide all of the supported welfare benefits that they wish or may seek. That suffocates not only the spirit of entrepreneurialism but also the sacrifice that's necessary to have a society that sustains itself. People should be encouraged to stand on their own two feet and to be able to take care of themselves not out of a selfish ambition but so they're in the best position to take care of themselves so they're not a burden on others and so that they can help others stand up too. But a critical part of that is also because then they leave open the space that others need to get support and assistance for other types of social support.
When people come to me and speak to me about the challenges around social housing—and I'm not seeking to play it down; it is a serious issue—there are challenges we need to face to provide the financial instruments, the bond structures, for governments, for the private sector, for community organisations and for civil society organisations to finance the development of new housing for people. But the greatest thing we can do to lessen the burden on the social-housing system is to have a private system that works, because the more people who can take care of themselves, the less people will turn to the social-housing system and say, 'We need assistance and support.' Free up the places that those less fortunate than ourselves depend upon. That should be our ambition in our housing policy: to make the private system work and to support those who can't.
That's part of what this bill is trying to address as part of a national strategy—again, working with the states and the territories because they are ultimately the service providers. Our $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility and its Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator can do enormous good in helping to change the landscape for more available housing, but that is only one part of that story. We need states to step up and meet the expectations of them, their obligations, and those are to be able to shift the regulations and the controls so that there is more housing available for different stages of life, in locations where people need to live, and to stop suffocating new development.
That's one of the things I have great concerns about in our opponents' policy come the next election. We saw modelling data out today, looking at the consequences of changing rules around taxing losses, which is what the Labor Party are proposing, should they win the next election, if people invest in housing. Most people talk about it as negative gearing. It's not; it's putting a tax on losses. It is possibly the most ridiculous policy proposal you could ever invent—to tax a loss. And what did the modelling show for the forward projections in terms of housing development? The introduction of this tax on losses will lead to 42,000 fewer homes developed in Australia, 42,000 families who will be denied the opportunity to secure their own home, 42,000 Australian families who will be pushed into the pool of those dependent on existing housing, so 42,000 families who will add to the burden on the social-housing stock—and why? Because our political opponents don't actually have answers to these pressing problems. Instead, they are going to tax losses and undermine confidence in housing development, rather than focusing on the sorts of policies that are in this legislation so that we can deliver the housing stock Australians desperately need.
I rise today to support the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2018. I know that the federal government is working with states and territories in this space and that states mainly are the providers of social housing, as we know, but this is a $1 billion facility. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, NHFIC, was established on 1 July 2018 as an independent corporate Commonwealth entity. NHFIC works in conjunction with the bond aggregator to provide cost-effective and longer term finance for community housing providers. NHFIC was formed primarily to increase the availability of rental and mixed development affordable housing stock available in the market through community housing providers.
There are four main amendments to the NHFIC Act, which commenced earlier this year. The current act provides that the board of NHFIC must collectively have an appropriate balance of qualifications, skills and experience in a relevant field, those being banking and finance, law, housing, infrastructure planning and financing, local government and public policy. The amendment includes a new requirement that at least one board member must have appropriate qualifications, skills or experience in social or affordable housing. This amendment is critically important, as it acknowledges that specialist knowledge is required to successfully operate in a field that is outside the usual experience of bankers, lawyers and property developers. The skill set required is significantly different, and demands are greater for people who run not-for-profit community housing providers, those with tenants who are financially disadvantaged and may also have special needs.
The easy answer from property developers, at times, is to build affordable housing on low-cost land on the fringes of urban areas, which can be far from jobs, schools, medical facilities, public transport and shops, and this therefore compounds the problems faced by financially vulnerable people, who need this housing. Board members with social and affordable housing experience know that increasing the distance from services creates problems of intergenerational unemployment and poor health and education outcomes. Our focus should be on infield development—that's what should be their aim—the creation of affordable housing in middle-ring suburbs. This will help to provide the most vulnerable members of our community with improved access to jobs and services, with the hope that, over time, they or their children may be lifted out of the poverty trap. We also need affordable housing of this type in rural and regional areas, which have people with similar needs.
The bill provides for the statutory review of the operation of the NHFIC Act to occur after a period of two years, rather than three. The bill also provides that NHFIC may now redraw amounts repaid by community housing providers to the Commonwealth government. The bill does this by bringing forward planned annual appropriations, and by the creation of a special account for the purpose of the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator. The amendments therefore, in practical terms, provide for the $1 billion to be reused and reused, and avoids the lapsing of any undrawn funds three years after the appropriation.
The provision of government funding for affordable housing through community housing providers is not new, of course. Previously, state governments provided financial assistance and land releases to facilitate affordable housing. Victoria has a long history of providing affordable rental accommodation through community housing providers. Successful examples of those operating in the field for decades include Common Equity Housing Limited and SouthEeast Housing Cooperative. New South Wales has a more diverse history, with both owner-occupied and rental affordable housing having been provided by a range of different organisations, using a variety of different means. Starr-Bowketts and terminating building societies provided members with low-cost housing finance based on a regular ballot system. Housing cooperatives historically borrowed state funds, supported by bond issues, to provide low-cost finance for the first home buyer members. These housing co-ops also previously ran ballots for first home buyer members for the release of state owned land at affordable prices.
The funds available through NHFIC will be provided for affordable rental housing and mixed developments. However, there's also a capacity for community housing providers to enter into arrangements to support affordable mixed owner-occupier and rental housing—the combination. As members would be aware, the price of owner-occupied housing in the market is gradually decreasing. However, as The Australian Financial Review online explained in its article of 5 September:
The proportion of household income taken to meet mortgage repayments widened nationally to 32.2 per cent in the second quarter from 31.5 per cent a year earlier as the average loan burden to first home buyers - whose numbers increased in most states - rose from a year earlier.
And further:
NSW remained the worst state for housing affordability in the June quarter, with the proportion of household income needed to meet mortgage payments rising to 38.1 per cent from 36.5 per cent in March and 38 per cent a year earlier.
In Victoria, the figure rose to 34.3 per cent from 33.4 per cent a year earlier.
So what are our options? There are many models that attempt to address the problem of affordability for owner occupiers. Low interest rates and stamp duty concessions for first home buyers can sometimes fuel higher prices. Rising interest rates increase mortgage stress and foreclosures. And so the question is, how is it possible to reduce the construction cost of affordable housing without reducing the value of existing housing? I'm aware that a number of community housing providers are working together with groups of potential owner-occupiers to project-manage and build their own affordable strata-title or community-title projects.
Community title is best described as horizontal strata title. The completed apartments or dwellings are available at cost to the owner-occupiers who committed their funds, time and skills to the project and to the community housing provider, who acquires a number of apartments or dwellings for affordable rental purposes. The funds may potentially be borrowed through the NHFIC. At the completion of the project, the NHFIC could be repaid or, alternatively, the funds could be re-used by the community housing provider to finance the next mixed-development project. There could be a continuous build. What we need is more affordable housing.
Discussions are currently happening with banks to gauge their interest in working with the community housing providers to support these types of proposals. This proposed mixed-development model focuses on affordable owner-occupier housing for people like police, teachers, healthcare and social welfare workers, low- to medium-income first home buyers and low- to medium-income people over the age of 55 who have previously owned a home but are no longer owner-occupiers due to life experiences, such as divorce, illness, unemployment or the death of a partner. Whilst the number of older women who are no longer homeowners is of particular concern, older men are also included in this category.
The aim is to provide owner-occupier housing for people who are currently priced out of the market and exclude people who have the income to purchase housing at market prices. The aim is not to reduce the price of existing housing but to provide a limited amount of housing for people who are on the margins of the market who would not otherwise be able to afford to own their own home. This really is a good opportunity for those who meet the criteria. It will require time and work over a two- to three-year period. The mixed-development proposal is just one of the options out there. I look forward to seeing more of that as the NHFIC moves on.
I want to briefly talk about the effects on housing of Labor's negative-gearing policy. We saw today that this could lead to a fall in new housing construction of up to 42,000 dwellings and 32,000 fewer jobs over five years. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released in August this year show a nine per cent fall in new dwelling approvals over the previous 12 months, so we know that Labor's policy will not actually boost the supply of housing or jobs in the construction sector at all. They forecast 8,000 fewer houses and 34,000 fewer apartments in the first five years.
We know that Labor is proposing to further reduce the attractiveness of investing in rental accommodation by abolishing negative gearing, as we heard. I don't know whether Labor quite understands that this will actually increase the number of investors leaving the housing market, thereby reducing the price of existing housing and decreasing the amount of housing stock available for rental. Changes to negative gearing and the reduction of interest-only loans will mean that investors will pull out of the rental housing market, further reducing the stock of rental housing and driving up rents.
Perhaps Labor should speak to Paul Keating about the 1985 Labor experiment with negative gearing. The Hawke Labor government changed negative-gearing laws in July 1985, only to reinstate negative-gearing laws shortly prior to the 1987 financial crash. What happened? As investors sold out of the market the availability of rental accommodation in Sydney and Perth plummeted, vacancy rates dropped to approximately one per cent and the price of rental accommodation in those cities surged.
Australians in rental accommodation are vulnerable if their landlords sell their houses or apartments due to the increased principal-and-interest mortgage payments or the loss of negative gearing. We know that in most states there are restrictions on the amount that rent can increase year on year, but there's no price protection when the renter moves from one home to another. The increase in rental stock being dumped into the housing market at a time of falling house prices would destabilise the housing market even further. If the value of the house drops below the value of the mortgage, past experience and prudent lending practices indicate that the banks would foreclose on the property and potentially bankrupt the former homeowner, who cannot pay the shortfall.
I want to finish by speaking on how important home security is. For a lot of the migrants who came to this country, the one thing that was an absolute priority was to own a home. They would go without in many other parts of their life, because they came from a country where they perhaps had lived in a landlord's property and never ever had the opportunity, as some of the Italians found, to actually own a home. When they came to Australia and they saw this wonderful land of opportunity, where they could get a job, be paid well for that job, save their money and use it, so often their priority was to put a roof over their family's head. That was an absolute driver. They saved and they saved, and they took abiding pride in being able to put a roof over their family's head and pay that house off simply by working hard. They were committed to the laws of this country and the opportunities that this country gave. So many of them were grateful to this country for the opportunity it gave them. But one of the most important parts of their security, and their security in older age, was having a roof over their head and having that home paid off. The NHFIC bill gives a further opportunity to Australians to do exactly that—to own their own home, to have access to affordable housing.
I met some young people recently when I was speaking at the Cape Naturaliste College graduation ceremony. It was interesting to hear those young people talking about how they aspired to having a smaller home than their parents had because they were determined to get into a position to own that home earlier. They wanted to have a range of opportunities along the way but they saw home ownership as a critical part of their security. When we get to later years, Mr Deputy Speaker, an important thing for all of us is to own the roof over our head. We're then in a position to manage whatever health or other personal challenges come before us. It's a key part of our security. I'm very pleased that the government is making further moves towards that through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. (Time expired)
I'm pleased to rise this evening to speak on the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2018. When not just we on this side of the House—not just Liberals, not just Nationals—but all Australians want some guidance on where we should be on a particular issue, there is no better place to go back to than what is known as the 'forgotten people' speech by Sir Robert Menzies. What did Menzies say about the importance of housing in that speech? He talked about homes material, homes human and homes spiritual. He said:
I do not believe that the real life of this nation is to be found either in great luxury hotels and the petty gossip of so-called fashionable suburbs, or in the officialdom of organized masses. It is to be found in the homes of people who are nameless and unadvertised, and who, whatever their individual religious conviction or dogma, see in their children their greatest contribution to the immortality of their race. The home is the foundation of sanity and sobriety; it is the indispensable condition of continuity; its health determines the health of society as a whole.
He continued:
I have mentioned homes material, homes human, and homes spiritual. Let me take them in their order.
And Menzies went on to talk about 'homes material'. He said:
The material home represents the concrete expression of the habits of frugality and saving "for a home of our own". Your advanced socialist may rage against private property even while he acquires it; but one of the best instincts in us is that which induces us to have one little piece of earth with a house and a garden which is ours: to which we can withdraw, in which we can be among our friends, into which no stranger may come against our will.
If you consider it, you will see that if, as in the old saying, "the Englishman's home is his castle", it is this very fact that leads on to the conclusion that he who seeks to violate that law by violating the soil of England must be repelled and defeated.
Menzies was exactly right. And, from his generation, we saw the greatest increase in home ownership our nation had seen. Yet, over the last decade, unfortunately, politicians in this place and in our state chambers and in our local governments have let our nation down. They have put artificial restrictions on the number of houses available with restricted zoning laws, and we haven't had enough homes being built in this nation compared to our increase in population, and that has pushed the price of houses up to where many in our nation—many young people—have simply said, 'Bugger it.' They've said, 'It's simply too hard to save for a home.'
We have to correct this. We have to take every step available to us to correct this. We have to give opportunities to young Australians to own their own homes. That should be one of the central priorities of this parliament, this government and this chamber.
The way to do that is quite simple. We have to go back to the good old-fashioned laws of supply and demand. If we're going to have a migration rate of 100,000, 150,000, 200,000—or even 300,000, which we saw during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years—we've got to make sure that we are building housing stock for the numbers of people who settle in Australia. And we are doing right to try and decentralise some of our migration intake. Yes, I know it's hard, and yes, we have to have jobs out in our country and regional areas. But that's what we must aim for. We have a broad and wide land mass in Australia, and yet we have everyone wanting to congregate in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, or even over in Perth, in high-rise apartments. We are building apartments and putting people in them, lined up like battery hens. It is detrimental to our nation's welfare. It is detrimental to the kids who do not have the opportunity, and the privilege, to run and play in their own backyard.
On this side of the House, we understand those problems and we are sensibly working through them. What do we see on the other side of the chamber? We see typical Labor policy—short-term solutions without looking at the unintended consequences of their policy, and a failure to learn from the mistakes of history. And here we go again. Labor's policy on housing is to have an attack on negative gearing because it sounds evil.
Let's be very clear about what Labor's attack on negative gearing is. Firstly, they try and make out that negative gearing is some dodgy tax deal that people are engaged in. It is a simple principle: if you are investing in an asset to try and create wealth, income and cash flow, your interest expenses are expenses that you can claim as tax deductions. That principle doesn't just apply to housing. It applies to shares, it applies to commercial property, it applies to machinery—it applies to every type of investment class that exists.
But the Labor Party want to deny schoolteachers and firemen and plumbers and small business people and middle-class Australians that opportunity. If you're from the big end of town and you've got your affairs structured through companies, you can of course still negatively gear property under Labor's policy. But, if you are a wage and salary earner, the Labor Party wants to take that opportunity away from you.
What are the effects of this policy? We've seen today modelling from the Master Builders Association. What would the effect of Labor's policy be? It would be 'a fall in new housing construction of up to 42,000 dwellings over five years', with 8,000 fewer houses and 34,000 fewer apartments. That is the consequence of Labor's ill thought out policy. What about the effect of Labor's policy on employment in the housing construction sector? The modelling says there would be 32,000 fewer jobs. That's plumbers, electricians, landscape gardeners, tradesmen, plasterers and bricklayers that rely on housing construction for their income—32,000 fewer jobs in that sector under Labor's policy. It would mean a $1.4 billion contraction in building activity in the first year alone, or a six per cent decline, in my home state of New South Wales.
That is the policy that Labor want to inflict on our housing market. This is happening at a time when the construction cycle is already in a decline. You couldn't pick a worse time to implement this policy. Like the majority of the Labor Party's policies, as we see, it hurts the very people that they think they are helping. We've seen this happen before, back in the 1980s. Labor thought this was a great idea and it could be very popular: 'Let's go after negative gearing.' What does history tell us? We know that, in Sydney, rents went through the roof. People who are renting, trying to save and put some money aside for a deposit, are going to be hit by Labor's policy. They're going to have higher rents to pay.
With that historical evidence, with what we are seeing in the housing cycle today, and with report after report that puts out how misguided, dangerous and counterproductive Labor's policy is, you would expect that they would say, 'Okay, we've got it wrong; we're going to fall back.' But, no, they're knuckling down. They're knuckling down on a policy that will actually harm the housing market, lead to fewer houses and push rents up. If they were ever able to implement this policy, the only questions would be, 'How much damage has been done? How many jobs have been lost? How much have rents gone up?' until they did what they did back in the 1980s. They realised they got it wrong, they realised the harm they were doing, and they reversed that policy. Let's hope they never get that opportunity.
Getting back to the specifics of this bill, it amends the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018. The government recently established the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, a new corporate Commonwealth entity dedicated to improving housing outcomes for Australians. It was established on 30 June this year, upon the commencement of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2013. The corporation operates the $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility and an affordable housing bond aggregator. This will provide local governments, registered community housing providers and other eligible applicants with finance for infrastructure that will unlock the supply of new housing. That's what we need to do. We don't need mad policies or counterproductive policies that attack negative gearing for teachers, for firefighters and for the middle class. We need policies that unlock the supply of new housing. That is exactly what this policy is aimed at.
The bill implements the amendments to the act regarding the composition of the board and the time frame for review of the operation of the act. The bill also amends the act to make provisions for the establishment of a special account for the bond aggregator function. The amendments concerning the composition of the board of the corporation and the time frame for review of the operation of the act are minor in their effect and a full commitment that the government gave to the opposition during debate in the Senate on the bill back in June 2018.
The bill will create a special account for the purposes of the $1 billion line of credit, appropriated to the Department of the Treasury, for the function of the commission. Upon the commencement of the bill, the $150 million already appropriated to the Commonwealth for that purpose is to be credited to the special account. The bill also appropriates the remaining $850 million of the $1 billion line of credit, which is to be credited to the special account over four years from the commencement of the bill. The bill will provide a schedule of crediting for the remaining $850 million. This is just a further example of what this House is doing and this government is doing to make sure that we can give as many Australians as possible the opportunity to own their own home.
I'd like to conclude—these comments are my own, not those of the government—by saying that I believe we need to look at giving young people the opportunity to use part of their superannuation savings as a deposit for their own first home. Anyone who goes into retirement without owning their own home will struggle. Instead, you could put aside your superannuation and, when you've hit the age of 65, you could take that superannuation money and then buy a house. Why not allow people to make the investment decision for themselves? They should be able to decide, with their money that they have earned, if they want to invest that in their housing for their retirement. That is good, but it needs to be done while increasing the supply of housing. That is what this bill is aimed at. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2018. It is a very important piece of legislation that addresses a very pressing need in Australia—that is, to facilitate better and cheaper funds for community housing providers. Just to put things in perspective—many of you already realise this, but I'll just repeat it for the benefit of the House—states have traditionally provided public housing, but there is a sector in that space called community housing. On a commercial basis, but with any profits rolled back into the community housing provider's coffers, community housing is used to grow more affordable housing.
The Commonwealth is already suppling—this is approximate, because I don't have the exact figures—about $4.4 billion over the forward estimates in Commonwealth rent assistance. Recently, some states, including New South Wales, have rolled some of their stock over into the community housing market so that it facilitates better management, an expansion of stock and an expansion of other houses and apartments. It also means that the tenants in the community housing are now eligible to claim Commonwealth rent assistance. That in itself makes many unaffordable rentals affordable, and the Commonwealth really does stump up an enormous amount of funds to support affordable housing.
We've also released, in the announcements made in the last 18 months or so, serious amounts of Commonwealth land in both Melbourne and Sydney for housing projects, and we've stumped up hundreds of millions of dollars for the remote housing agreement again.
This bill addresses the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation and some necessary amendments to the act that created it earlier this year. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation is a new entity, a Commonwealth entity, which has as its core function to be a source of funds for the community housing providers. It also establishes a bond aggregator, the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, so that it can cluster as a single borrower of funds through bonds for the community housing providers and get many basis points benefit for the community housing providers by the fact that they are borrowing funds in bulk.
There is a $1 billion facility that's already set aside. The NHIF, or the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, has been capitalised with $150 million.
What the amendments in the bill do is implement the recommendations that a Senate committee of review made. I'll just go through some of those. The bill establishes the criteria for the board appointment process, the skills that they require, and it also requires that the facility never has funds greater than $1 billion. It should be debited by the amount of the excess, and that excess amount is returned to consolidated revenue. It's a facilitator of cheaper funds. It may give the minister the regulatory power to direct that a specific amount be debited from the special account and returned to consolidated revenue. Obviously the minister would have to consult with the board.
These amendments also bring forward the planned appropriations that were outlined. I'll just go through those figures again. At the commencement of the bill, $105 million is credited, followed by $310 million on 1 July 2019, $270 million credited on 1 July 2020 and a further $165 million credited on 1 July 2021.
These amendments outline the skills and the qualifications required for the board members, and there should be an appropriate balance of qualifications. Like any board, you've got to have multiple skills for proper governance, but skills and experience relevant to that board's actions—that is, they have a legal or banking and finance background; experience in the housing sector; experience with infrastructure planning and delivery, local government or public policy; and obviously experience of how the community housing providers work.
The bill provides also for a statutory review of the operations of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation after a period of two years—very wise words, because it hasn't operated before. We've got to see how it's going and whether it's operating as it was purposed.
At the root of all this is the issue of affordable housing. Anyone who has lived in one of the major cities or has got family in the major cities realises that rents are sky high, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, and to a lesser extent in Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart—you name it. Wherever you are, capital cities in Australia have high rents at the moment. That is why the Commonwealth provides Commonwealth rent assistance. It's not only for community housing; it's also for people in the private rental market.
I would bring the attention of the House to the fact that decentralisation would be a great solution for the housing affordability crisis. We have many regional towns and cities that have room to move. They have the infrastructure, the water supply, the schools, the health facilities and industry. That's why the National Party is so committed to the principle of decentralisation. We have the Regional Growth Fund, which will allow successful applicants to grow their industries or their initiatives and provide infrastructure that will allow the economies in the regions to grow. Aside from Australia, other countries, such as Europe or America, have very decentralised populations. In Germany, for instance, there are only a couple of cities that have more than 600,000 people in them. But, in Australia, we've got Melbourne and Sydney vying to be 'super cities'. It's not logical that we put all our infrastructure and the majority of our population in two major centres when we have so many other areas that have all the recipes for much greater growth.
You need a catalyst, and that's why the policy of decentralisation is so important. If there are government bodies or statutory authorities that are more suited to a regional location, why shouldn't they be there? If you're administering the Murray-Darling Basin, being centred in the middle of Canberra is a long way from the Murray-Darling Basin. Admittedly, the Molonglo River goes into the Murrumbidgee, which then goes into the Murray, so it is part of the basin. It's the same with having fisheries near the fishing industry and so on and so forth. Relocating the APVMA to Armidale, next to the University of New England, where many of the APVMA workforce was educated—where we have airports, internet, brand-new buildings, a university culture and where a lot of the agricultural bodies have their head offices—is a natural fit. I can see they've already been swamped with applications to go and work there. So I think it's going to be a great benefit, and you'll see the New England area get another boost. When the New South Wales Department of Agriculture moved to Orange, there was kicking and screaming all around. But, if you now told workers and employees of the New South Wales agriculture department that they were moving from Orange, I think you would see a mass revolt.
Decentralisation really works for affordable housing, but the trick is to get industry, rather than just government authorities, to move to regional centres. We need to have facilities in place so that industry will move and operate in the regional cities. That's why connectivity is so important. That's why we put so much money into built infrastructure like the Pacific Highway, linking the eastern seaboard—all the cities of Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Taree and down to Newcastle. Virtually, when it's finished, you will be able to put cruise control on at the exit of Sydney and you won't hit a traffic light till you get to the Gold Coast. It's a great piece of work. Also important is the expansion of connectivity in a digital sense. Through the international satellite system, the NBN now has two new satellites, delivering a much better service for regional Australia. So businesses can operate wherever they want to set up, where they are near their product. All these things, cumulatively, make regional development possible.
That's the other thing: for regional centres to grow, like any civilisation, they rely on water. That's one of the first things when you're planning a city or a town—you have to have a reliable water supply. And that's why we're so committed to expanding the dams around the nation: because you won't get sustained population growth and you won't have sustained agriculture unless we have stored water. Everyone's familiar with the Snowy Hydro scheme, but that feeds into the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area as well. The expansion of dams in Queensland will allow vast swathes of irrigated agriculture, which will then allow population growth—around the nation and around the world—but it also puts a floor of primary production into regions. All those things will facilitate regional development—water supply, infrastructure, and digital connectivity, as well as physical connectivity with highways. That's why we're rolling out the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative. That's why we are putting money into the Bruce Highway and, as I said, the Pacific Highway upgrades, and upgrades in Victoria and South Australia, and all around the nation—all those things will facilitate growth in the regions.
This bill is a response to the Senate committee recommendations that will improve the governance and the regulation of this new facility, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, and the bond aggregator. These are both great initiatives. The community housing providers supply an awful lot of housing in a very cost-effective manner—much more than private developers. I'm not saying that they're inefficient, but the price and the affordability of the product is much better. To help them grow, if we can get them a source of cheap, long-term funds, all the better. That allows them to deliver a much larger product and many more houses. What I am very concerned about, as the member just spoke about, is the threat to the property development in this country—that is, the removal of negative gearing and changing the capital gains discount. That will seriously depress building activity. The Master Builders Association in their report outlined the figures. It's genuine modelling—they're hardly a political body; they are just worried about the negative consequences for affordable housing. We saw it happen decades ago. I'm old enough to remember when negative gearing was removed. Rents in Sydney skyrocketed. The same thing will happen again, if this was to come to fruition. That's why we on this side of the House understand these things— (Time expired)
It is fitting that this particular bill, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2018, is being presented to the House today when it was released by a very senior group, a very serious group, of experts today—
Mr Gosling interjecting—
Deputy Speaker, I would point out that the member is not in his seat.
Yes, I was getting to it: the member for Solomon is reminded that if he wishes to make a point of order, he can do it from his seat. Otherwise, silence is golden.
I think it is fitting that we should be debating this bill about affordable housing today, when a group of experts have had the time to analyse the Labor Party's ill-conceived thought bubble, almost—where the Labor Party felt that they could have a situation where they could end negative gearing and simultaneously drive rents up, drive prices down, and make sure that no-one can get into the housing market because no-one will be investing in it.
The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, the new corporate Commonwealth entity dedicated to improving housing outcomes for Australians, was established on 30 June 2018 upon the commencement of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act. NHFIC operates a billion-dollar National Housing Infrastructure Facility and the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator. The finance corporation will provide local governments, registered community housing providers and other eligible applicants with finance for infrastructure that will unlock new housing supply. The AHBA aims to provide cheaper and longer term finance for registered community housing providers. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill implements amendments to the NHFIC Act regarding the composition of the board of the NHFIC and the time frame for review of the operation of the NHFIC. The bill also amends the NHFIC Act to make provision for the establishment of a special account for the bond aggregator function for the NHFIC.
These things are important. The Labor Party like to sneer at people who want to have affordable housing. The Labor Party like to sneer at people who don't have quinoa and goat cheese salads on a Saturday morning and who don't get their almond milk activated. The fact of the matter is that, throughout Australia, in my own communities, there are people who are struggling to afford to live in a home of their own.
The Burdekin Association in my electorate of Mackellar does an extraordinary job of providing affordable housing for people who are elderly and have nowhere else to go. They have done so for almost 60 years. They provide a service that is truly extraordinary across my community and many other communities. This amendment, this corporation and this bond aggregation will make it possible for them to provide yet more services and more housing stock to people who are seeking to afford to buy their own home.
Then we have the situation raised by ANT Constructions. This is a construction firm that was handed down from father to son. The ANT Constructions CEO has made the point on many occasions that governments have made the problem worse, that every time we have sought to make housing more affordable we've made it less affordable and that every time we have tried to increase supply we have reduced supply. That's why this government is getting out of the role of telling builders like ANT Constructions and Ant Gleeson how to build a home. He knows more about building houses than I and everyone else in this place will ever know. But, somehow, the Labor Party think that they know how to tell people like that how to run their own businesses, and it's not good enough. The truth is that the people they've hurt are the most vulnerable, the people who don't have goat cheese on their salad and who sometimes get almond milk that isn't activated already.
The Labor Party represent the inner-city latte group, most of whom are professors and lecturers at university. They don't know about the real people, like in my electorate of Mackellar.
Mr Champion interjecting—
I see the members opposite interjecting and getting upset. They should try coming to my electorate, and I don't I mean just flying over it. I mean getting out of their aircraft and coming down and seeing the struggle on the streets of my electorate to sometimes afford those simple pleasures of life, like being able to put a roof over your head.
The fact is: every time you look at how housing got so unaffordable in Australia, at the centre of it, at the end of the path, is the Labor Party. In my state, New South Wales, you only have to say two words to know how bad it's going to get under them: Bob Carr. He is the bloke who had two choices: he could run a government or he could blame immigrants. Of course, being in the Labor Party, he blamed immigrants. He said: Sydney is full; go away. And at the same time, in Canberra, there was his good mate Kevin Rudd. I've been going through the index of the three-kilo biography, volume 2. It's almost as good as Clive's. In fact, you'd think they were in a race to see who could produce the heaviest autobiography.
Mr Champion interjecting—
It's a shame that the member opposite wants to be heard but no-one can understand him when they hear him. I had a look down the index and I couldn't find a bad word from former Prime Minister Rudd about the former state Premier, Bob Carr. And why would there be? At the same time Bob Carr was telling everyone to go away, because he couldn't be bothered building infrastructure—the New South Wales Labor Party made 33 infrastructure announcements and cancelled 35 of them—
The member will resume his seat. The member for Wakefield has the call.
A point of order: I don't want to be churlish, but the member—
Get to the point of order.
is hardly speaking to the bill.
I thank the member for Wakefield. It is a point of relevance. I note it but I'm satisfied the member is speaking in accordance with the bill.
I don't understand what the Labor Party doesn't understand, why they don't think this is relevant. This bill is about making housing affordable. They somehow think that when a member of the Liberal Party stands up—a member who actually cares about people who don't, when they order their salad, insist on different types of leaves from all parts of the world or else are shunned by their peers—and talks about affordable housing they're not talking to this bill. It says everything about them. No wonder the shadow Treasurer is a person whose education comes from Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek finance minister, who almost—almost; he didn't quite get there—bankrupted an entire continent. He learnt everything he knows from Yanis Varoufakis, and he's putting in into practice by introducing changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax—
Order! The member will resume his seat—on relevance. Speak to the bill.
As I was saying, the fact is that this bill does a lot of good for people who are looking to be able to afford to live in a home of their own or, if not their own, one provided by a community group. It is critical that this amendment bill be passed by this House so that we can get the expertise we require onto the board of the corporation and actually start to get the bond aggregator working. Bond aggregation is nothing new. It's almost like a form of social capital. It allows people to invest in affordable housing stock—people who live in my electorate and electorates like those of the member for North Sydney and the member for Lyne, members on this side of the House who happen to care about the people who really need affordable housing. I commend this bill to the House.
In summing up, firstly I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate, most noteworthy being the member for Mackellar, who spoke just a few moments ago.
The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2018 implements amendments to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018 that strengthen and improve the recently established National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation is a new corporate entity dedicated to improving housing outcomes for Australians. It operates a $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility and an Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator. The infrastructure facility will provide local governments, registered community housing providers and other eligible applicants with finance for infrastructure that will unlock new housing supply, while the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator aims to provide cheaper and longer term finance for registered community housing providers.
This bill makes explicit that the board of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation must collectively have an appropriate balance of qualifications, skills and experience in a relevant field of banking and finance, law, housing, infrastructure planning and financing, local government and public policy, and that at least one board member must have appropriate qualifications, skills or experience in social or affordable housing.
The bill also provides for the statutory review of the operation of the NHFIC Act to occur after the period of two years from the commencement of the act, rather than three. The bill provides for the creation of a special account for the purposes of the $1 billion line of credit appropriated to the Department of the Treasury for the bond aggregator function of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. Upon the commencement of the bill, the $150 million already appropriated to the Commonwealth for the purpose of the AHBA is credited to the special account. The bill also appropriates the remaining $850 million of the $1 billion line of credit, which is to be credited to the special account over four years from the commencement of the bill.
These amendments bring forward planned annual appropriations for the purpose of the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator and allow the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to redraw amounts repaid to the Commonwealth. The amendments ensure that the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation is better placed to respond to demand from community housing providers. The amendments also provide certainty over the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's available finance in future years so it can commit to potential own transactions. The amendments fulfil the original intent for the line of credit to be ongoing, by providing for the $1 billion to be reused and by avoiding the lapsing of any undrawn funds at three years after appropriation.
This bill will help secure and improve the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, a new independent corporate government entity, which will improve housing outcomes for Australians, particularly vulnerable Australians who need social and affordable housing. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
In summing up, I would firstly like to thank those members who contributed to this debate. The Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018 amends the Corporations Act 2001 to address corporate misuse of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. The FEG scheme should be a last resort. It provides financial assistance to employees left with unpaid employment entitlements when they lose their job due to the insolvency of their employer. Evidence shows that some employers are structuring their corporate affairs to avoid paying employee entitlements when their business becomes insolvent. This results in the improper shifting of costs of meeting employer liabilities that can and should be paid directly by the employer onto Australian taxpayers through the drain on the taxpayer funded scheme.
Corporate misuse of the FEG scheme hurts all hardworking Australians by placing an unfair burden on Australian taxpayers, who ultimately bear the cost of those employers improperly relying on the scheme. Corporate misuse of the FEG scheme also creates unfair commercial advantage over their honest competitor businesses who do the right thing by their employees.
The amendments in part 1 of schedule 1 of this bill strengthen enforcement and recovery options under the Corporations Act to deter and penalise company directors and other persons who engage in or facilitate transactions that are directed at preventing, avoiding or significantly reducing employer liability for employee entitlements in insolvency.
The amendments in part 2 of schedule 1 of this bill enable a court to make a contribution order against an entity in a corporate group or closely connected economic relationship with an insolvent company, where that insolvent company has unpaid employment entitlements; the other entity has unfairly benefited from the work done by the insolvent company's employees; and it would be just and equitable for the court to make the order.
The amendments in part 3 of schedule 1 of this bill strengthen the ability of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to disqualify company directors and other officers, either directly or on application to the court, where they have a track record of corporate contraventions and inappropriately using the FEG scheme to pay outstanding employee entitlements. The reforms are the result of extensive public consultation processes conducted during 2017-18. They have been developed with the government's insolvent trading safe harbour reforms in mind and are tightly targeted to deter and punish only those who seek to avoid their employee entitlement obligations and exploit the FEG scheme. They will not affect the overwhelming majority of companies who are doing the right thing.
The reforms build on other actions the government has taken to protect employees entitlements—for example, amending the Fair Work Act to more effectively deter unlawful practices that involve deliberate and systemic exploitation of all workers, particularly vulnerable workers; introducing legislation to tackle nonpayment of the superannuation guarantee by targeting employers that fail to meet their superannuation obligations; releasing draft legislation to combat illegal phoenix activities involving the deliberate avoidance of company debts, including employee entitlements, by company operators and pre-insolvency advisers who facilitate this activity; and legislating that a company must pay its employee entitlements when they fall due for its directors to rely on the insolvent trading safe harbour.
Through this bill we'll clamp down on sharp practices that result in improper reliance on the Fair Entitlements Guarantee. We will penalise company directors and others who engage in or facilitate transactions that seek to prevent, avoid or reduce liability for employment entitlements in insolvency. We will strengthen protection of employee entitlements in insolvency and ensure employers are held to account for meeting their employee entitlements when they can and should, even if their business fails. We will safeguard the sustainability of this very important Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme into the future. I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Gorton moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Mayo has moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'the House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mayo be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Gorton be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I would like to make a contribution on behalf of the Labor opposition on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Bill 2018. I will start by saying that Labor's very proud of its history in making sure that consumers are properly protected in financial services and, at a level of principle, any law that would seek to strengthen protections offered to consumers is one that Labor would support.
The bill before us has a title that's probably not well understood by members of the general public, but it's very important to how financial services are designed and marketed to them. The bill before us seeks to do two main things. It seeks to impose obligations on financial service providers to comply with new design and distribution obligations, and it gives ASIC new powers to intervene where products are causing, or are likely to cause, significant consumer detriment. Just in really plain English, the bill before us would give ASIC a new power to require financial services companies to actually provide specific design requirements to ASIC to get approval for those design requirements and, importantly, to explain to ASIC who the target audience for these financial products are. That's important because one of the big issues we've had that's come out of the financial services royal commission that is related to consumer affairs is that a lot of companies have been creating financial products and marketing them hard at groups that are never going to be able to access and use those financial products—essentially, selling things like junk insurance that are not appropriate for the community of people to whom those products are being marketed. At a level of principle, this is important. ASIC has asked for design and distribution powers and product intervention powers, but we do have some issues with the way that this bill has been framed and I'll talk about those in due course.
Under the changes that are being proposed here, financial service providers would be required to specifically determine the segment of the consumer market that they'd be targeting with their service and ensure that the product is distributed in accordance with that determination. Determinations are going to be made in writing, and they'll be made publicly available. That's important for the sense of transparency and probity that surrounds this area of law. Distributors or sellers of products will be required to ensure that the sale and marketing of those products is carried out in accordance with the target market determination. If the target market determination is not complied with, ASIC will have powers to require rectification and affected consumers will have a civil cause of action to recover losses suffered as a result of breaches of the obligation.
The example that I talked about before, which is one of the ones that's come out of the royal commission that's been very high-profile, is the targeting of funeral insurance products at people who are not going to get value from those products. In this instance, it was babies and young children who were living in remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. That type of misconduct in financial services is the exact target of the bill that's before the House.
The product intervention powers provide ASIC with the power to deal with financial products that are causing significant harm to consumers or are likely to cause significant harm to consumers in the future. ASIC will be able to proactively intervene by banning or preventing sale of products or making orders to require certain conduct to be avoided in relation to the product—that might be specific sales techniques, for example.
These are concepts that Labor are broadly in support of, but we do have some concerns about the detail of the bill. We bring those concerns to the table in the context of a long history and a lot of active legislating that Labor governments have previously done in the area of consumer protections. It was Labor that saw the damage that was being done to families and communities across the country through what has been revealed in Commissioner Hayne's interim report into financial services as a culture of greed. Labor advocated for a royal commission for about 600 days. We did that because the people who live in our communities, in our constituencies, were coming to us and telling us stories about the way that they were being treated by banks that were simply unacceptable. It became obvious over a period of time that this wasn't a case of a few bad apples in one bank or another but, in fact, a systemic problem that could only really be come to terms with through a royal commission.
We on the other side of the House had a very different approach, where the focus was—and always will be—on protecting the big banks and the big institutions that have caused so much harm. We had the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, the member for Cook, say that the royal commission was 'a populist whinge'. I have sat down and talked with victims of bank misconduct who have lost their homes, who have lost farms that have been in their family for more than 100 years, people who have suffered relationship breakdown and mental illness because of what has happened to them at the hands of the big banks. And to call that 'a populist whinge'! The Prime Minister called it 'the QC complaints desk.' I'm uncomfortable with that. With what we've seen through the royal commission, it's so obvious that this was justified and it is an important process that we're going through.
When the federal government's hand was eventually forced and the royal commission into financial services was eventually called, the commission was constructed in a way that meant a lot of the people who have been terribly hurt by financial services have not had the opportunity to share what happened to them in the royal commission. I think that's very regrettable. It is certainly not the fault of the royal commissioner, who Labor believes is doing an excellent job. But the government, having never wanted to have a royal commission into financial services, was dragged kicking and screaming into doing so, and then gave the commission just over 12 months to consider all of the misconduct across banking, across super, across insurance and across related financial services and to look at all of the regulatory systems and powers and laws that sit with the regulators. To examine all of that in just over a year is an absolutely mammoth task. Regrettably the royal commission has not been given the time that it needed to really hear the stories of Australians who've been so badly affected by this.
So that's the context in which we see the bill today. It's a bill from a government that is trying to look like it's doing all the right things and tick this box and that box, but its heart has never been in trying to address the problems that are faced by consumers of financial services—and you see a very, very different approach to this problem from our side of the parliament. The bill before us is one small part of what will be a very complex policy response to address the immense consumer harm that has been exposed in the banking royal commission.
As a result of the royal commission, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform the financial services sector for the good of the nation. It is essential that we get that reform right. It's essential that we achieve the twin objectives of protecting consumers and ensuring the continued viability and prosperity of our financial services industry. Those objectives are not mutually exclusive. If I read another article telling me that, , misconduct in financial services is somehow justifiable because we need our banks to be prudent and profitable—I'm sick of hearing that; it's not right. If there's misconduct in financial services, it's not good for the Australian economy, it's not good for consumers and, ultimately, it's not good for financial services.
Labor stands ready to do what is necessary to ensure that reforms introduced in the wake of the royal commission very significantly address the issues that have been exposed so far. I said that the general principle of giving ASIC power over design and distribution obligations and product intervention powers is one that Labor supports. That is the case. But we have very significant concerns that the bill, as it's been presented to the House, is cast too narrowly. We have referred the bill that's before the parliament now to a Senate inquiry, and we are going to be using that process to understand why it is that the exposure drafts that were provided to the public through this process were watered down, from draft to draft to draft, until we have a bill before the parliament today that does not reflect the powers that ASIC said it needed to properly address these issues.
We should be listening to ASIC right now because they're meant to be the tough cop on the beat that's helping us deal with these issues. ASIC has raised a lot of concerns about the exclusions that are provided in the bill before the House. Some of them relate to consumer-facing financial services. ASIC has asked the government to remove exclusions in the bill that prevent some services from coming within the scope, for example, of the new proposed product intervention powers.
In its submission to the exposure draft process, ASIC recommended that the government include consumer credit, covered by the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, within the scope of the design and distribution obligations. Just to put that in plain English again, the National Consumer Credit Protection Act regulates the normal financial products that you and I would probably use every day, and they're not included in this new power that we're giving to ASIC. So we can't allow any fanfare to be associated with a reform like this when the most fundamental products that guide the everyday interactions that Australians have with financial services are not even included in the scope.
ASIC was quite strident in expressing its view that consumer credit products should be covered by the design and distribution obligations. We're talking about things like credit cards. The credit card is probably the most commonly used credit product in Australia. It's the one where we're going to see significant issues around the exploitation of people who are disadvantaged and that sort of thing. Yet the government's bringing a bill before the House that doesn't even include oversight of those credit cards.
ASIC directly addressed and discredited the claim that has been made by some in the industry that existing protections were good enough already. In the submission they made, ASIC said:
… we consider that the responsible lending obligations and other consumer protections are not equivalent to, or an adequate substitute for, the proposed design and distribution obligations. We think the new obligations would provide a foundational framework for ensuring that credit providers have appropriate product governance processes and controls in place to ensure products are well designed and distributed with a view to consumers' objectives, financial situations and needs. This outcome is quite separate and distinct from the purpose of the responsible lending obligations, which is to reduce the potential for individual consumers to suffer hardship as a result of inappropriate lending.
That's sort of in ASIC-speak, but what they're really saying here is that it's great to have consumer protections which are focused on individual cases—the credit card that I might have with my bank, or the one the member for Wakefield might have with his bank—but this is about a systemic issue; this is about requiring financial institutions to say, 'This whole product set is going to be designed with a particular consumer need in mind, and we are going to market it to that particular consumer set,' and for ASIC to have some oversight of that so we can make sure that the right people are being targeted for the right products.
ASIC's proposals also included the emerging buy now, pay later sector in the scope of the bill, and it's a great opportunity for the parliament to ensure that ASIC doesn't have to keep playing catch-up with new players in financial services. ASIC has asked for buy now, pay later providers to be included, and it's pretty clear from media reports last week that a leading buy now, pay later provider, Afterpay, has actually agreed that it should be brought within the scope of this bill. So we have a situation where one of the providers of financial services who are out there trying to do something new, using a bit of technology in the way that they're going about their business, is actually saying to government, 'We want you to regulate us in this way.' And yet the government has designed a bill that specifically carves them out—specifically excludes them. Afterpay also told Fairfax newspapers that extending the bill to cover buy now, pay later providers would 'afford customers an additional layer of protection without compromising our business model'. They said that they want to come under the regulator's product intervention powers, as it would 'promote higher levels of consumer trust in newer services such as ours'. We've got a provider of financial services asking to be put within these regulatory powers, and the government is saying that they're not interested. They want to have a really narrow scope for this bill, a narrow scope for this particular oversight from ASIC.
These are just some of the examples of changes that Labor will be discussing with stakeholders through the Senate inquiry process. It's quite likely that we'll be looking at, potentially, some amendments to this bill that will make sure that the design and distribution obligations—which we believe have great merit—are actually doing the job that they should be doing, which is protecting Australians from being ripped off by financial services providers.
I want to comment briefly on one other matter of detail relating to consumer redress, where ASIC chooses to exercise its product intervention power. The use of the product intervention power will require that ASIC is satisfied that the financial product in question has resulted, or is likely to result, in significant detriment to consumers. Labor is concerned about the matter of retrospectivity of the product intervention powers. To be more specific, we're concerned for consumers who are affected by what ASIC later determines was a serious harm or detriment but might find that they are outside of recourse because of the way that this legislation has been framed.
Currently, the bill presented to the House only allows for ASIC to intervene to require changes to future conduct of regulated entities. So contracts entered into by companies that ASIC later identifies as having caused serious harm and detriment to customers are actually not within the scope of the powers. To put it another way, the customers whose experience will form the evidence base upon which ASIC decides to take action would be left behind when ASIC chooses to intervene in that product. The practical effect is that, if ASIC becomes aware that consumers are being harmed in a significant way, it won't be able to require the company to remediate customers who have already been affected by that conduct. I just note that as an area of concern. Again, that's something that we'll be exploring through the Senate inquiry. Under the bill as currently drafted, if you're a consumer who gets ripped off or exploited and your story spurs ASIC took intervene, you might be left with no recourse, and that seems to be a bit of a gap in the legislative approach that's been taken.
In conclusion, the bill before us relates to a power that ASIC has asked for, and that is a power that will enable them to require financial service providers to actually explain how they've designed a product, who that product is targeted to and how it's going to be sold, so ASIC can ensure that some of the terrible examples of misconduct that we have seen through the royal commission can't happen under Australian law. One of the most awful examples that many people listening today will remember from the royal commission is an instance where a company that was operating in the Northern Territory, in rural and remote Australia, was targeting its products to Aboriginal people—some of the most vulnerable consumers in the country—and were creating a financial product that was of no use to those people. It's an extraordinary example of misconduct. And, would you believe it, recent reports tell us that the company is still out there, still operating and still marketing these products at some of the most vulnerable consumers in the country.
We have to make changes. We have to make changes to the law and we have to make sure that the law, as it stands currently, is enforced. We are supportive of giving ASIC powers that it is telling us it needs to properly regulate financial services. But, when ASIC asks us for this power, it is not good enough for us to say, 'Thanks for the idea. Now we're going to carve out this section of the market, that section of the market and this other section of the market through the exchanges that the government is having with big business.' It's simply not good enough. This has to stop. When we talk to people about some of the issues in financial services, the issue that comes up again and again and again is the power of business—as they deal with governments like that which sits opposite me in the chamber—to get themselves carved out of oversight and out of regulation. We just can't allow that to continue to happen in this parliament.
I'll flag again that we're very worried that products that are regulated by the Consumer Credit Protection Act have been carved out of this bill. The fundamental products that all of my constituents use when they engage with a bank are not part of the oversight mechanism that's being proposed here. That's not good enough. Other organisations, like 'buy now, pay later', which is a really big issue—a big emerging area in the market—is not part of this bill. I'm very worried about that.
We're worried about some of the other aspects of the bill. We're supportive of the overall principle, but I flag that we're probably going to come into this chamber and discuss significant amendments to this so we can make sure that ASIC, who are trying to protect Australian consumers from the harm that's being done, are able to do their job properly. Thank you.
I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution in support of this legislation. I pick up from where the previous speaker, from the neighbouring electorate of Hotham, spoke. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Bill 2018 is not some grand experiment; it is simply a recognition of a power that ASIC has asked for to try and make sure we strengthen the financial products in the marketplace that consumers should be able to comfortably rely upon, knowing full well that financial products are geared and orientated towards them.
I recently had the privilege of serving as the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, including grilling some of the bank CEOs in the previous fortnight about some of the worrisome cases that have emerged out of the royal commission into banks and financial services organisations. When you go through the royal commission's report, it highlights a number of themes, including, of course, explicit examples of where financial institutions have done wrong. I don't think there's anybody in this chamber who thinks that, where there is wrong, there shouldn't be recompense and a pathway through remediation and redress. When people have what, in the end, are numbers on pieces of paper but their livelihoods are taken away from them because of misconduct or misjudgement or inappropriate conduct by banks, yes, there are dollars and cents that disappear, but, really, it's lives and the hard work and earnings of people that disappear. In fact, it is their accumulated effort, often over many years—particularly when people put their private homes down as a basis of security to be able to do things like grow their own business or try and secure a greater sense of opportunity for themselves and their family for generations to come.
But there are other themes that came out of this report from the royal commissioner, including challenges and competition. I know during the hearings last week, in particular, the member for Mackellar outlined concerns about what the royal commission raised and about whether there needs to be a greater injection of competition between the big banks as part of securing a more consumer orientated financial services system in this country. There were also big questions about the alignment of incentives. So, when people within financial services organisations go out into the marketplace and provide products for people, are they acting in the best interests of the consumer—meaning offering them a product that they want but, more critically, that they may need and that then goes on to meet their need? Or are people incentivised to provide products in the marketplace and to sell those products on to consumers based on what delivers them—the broker—profits, bonuses and a better financial outcome for themselves at the expense of the consumer?
I'm a great believer in the free market. I always have been. It's not because of some grand ideological obsession, though some people have accused me of that in the past. I see a South Australian member—the member for Wakefield; is that right?
That's it.
That's the one—who taunts me from the other side, but when I'm making a serious point. I'm a great believer in the free market. I think it delivers better for people. In the end, when incentives are aligned to deliver an outcome for people, the capital will flow because, ultimately, the greatest incentive that any business can meet is consumer demand through goods and services. But, when you have malinvestment or misalignment of incentives, you will get a distortion against people. And that's the great task of the people in this chamber, this building—to make sure that there is an alignment incentive for business and enterprise to grow and prosper, because they're delivering the best outcomes for people. That's why the recommendations out of this royal commission will be critical. It actually gives us a pathway of what we seek to redress. But, as part of the task of doing that, as the royal commissioner outlined, in getting the incentives right, in having financial products that meet consumer need—the task that's necessary to make sure that we have a banking system that does grease the wheels of our economy; that does build confidence; that does mean that people, for the first time, are able to go off and buy their own home; that does mean that people are able to go off and get the investment finance they need to grow their pie, to create greater opportunity for others, to get the capital that people need to be able to grow their business so that they can take it from an idea to something that may then go on to flourish and blossom, to take the capital they need to go on and employ more people and create greater opportunities for the rest of their fellow citizens—you need a system that has as its anchor and at its heart confidence. You need confidence from people in this chamber, confidence because we think they're doing the right thing, but also confidence of the Australian people. The only way you're going to deliver that is that it be well but lightly regulated, appropriately regulated, targeted in regulation. But also, as the royal commissioner has outlined, rather than going through a discussion around adding in new burdens, it's actually removing complexity so that banks and financial institutions know what they have to do, but, equally, that there is no excuse.
One of the great outcomes of the hearings from last week—and I see the deputy chair of the economics committee here now, and I hope he would agree with me—is that, if we are to go down the pathway of simplifying regulation in the financial services sector, there must then also be a complementary discussion about the punitive measures. I know the Treasurer has taken steps in this area recently as well. If you want to build the confidence of the Australian people in the system, that's how you do it: by recognising that, firstly, there are trade-offs, but also that these companies have to understand that the weight and the eyes of the nation are upon them, and that we trust them to do a critical and important role. Great power—and great concentration of market power, as exists in the banking sector—comes with a great responsibility. And I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't want to see people doing the wrong thing, and I would hope that the culture within these organisations is not geared towards doing the wrong thing either.
We have a bill before us that focuses on what we can do to make sure that financial service instruments and products are more consumer oriented. It enables the regulator to take appropriate action to make sure that there is transparency in the marketplace so that financial products deliver what consumers reasonably expect. It's not a particularly radical proposition, but it's clearly a timely one. The question for us now is where we go from here. I know there's a lot of partisan politics around—different views of things like the banking royal commission. Let's just accept it. Occasionally you'll get howls and crows from the members on the other side saying, 'Why weren't you this? or, 'Why weren't you that?' And one day, I'm sure that will be comfortably returned—
They're good questions. You should answer your own questions.
Don't worry, we're not done with you yet—sorry, Deputy Speaker; when I say 'you', I don't mean you, I mean the member for Wakefield. But the question now is: how do we as a parliament rebuild a sense of confidence at the heart of our economic system? That's what this legislation is seeking to address. Not in isolation, but as a critical part of rebuilding the confidence in the regulatory system so that ASIC can do its job.
I know that the royal commission also highlighted question marks about how ASIC were doing their role. There are differences of opinion amongst members about whether the burden and the obligation, and the volume of work that ASIC have—and, yes, sometimes there are debates around resources as well—raise a question about whether regulators can do their task. But when regulators come to us and say, 'We need a power to be able to do our job better,' we don't take it at face value—because I'm not a big fan of independent regulators, is the truth. But our task, then, is to at least seriously consider the consequences, the benefits, and whether we should go through it.
That's what we're doing in this piece of simple legislation today, as a result of the Financial System Inquiry. It recommended the introduction of design and distribution obligations and a product intervention power so that improved design and distribution practices would allow interventions to be made where there is a significant consumer detriment. So this is a bill that should be welcomed. It should be a bill that's a standard, or the foundation of, potentially, more to come. It should be part of a package of what we do in this place—absent the concerns of partisan politics—to focus on what we need to do to have the financial service system that this country needs to build and to grease the next stage of economic development of our nation's future.
This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Bill 2018, amends the Corporations Act to introduce design and distribution obligations in relation to financial products, and a product intervention power for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to prevent or respond to significant consumer detriment. Labor is backing these measures. We'll back any measures that protect consumers from harm caused by dodgy financial advice or financial products that are sold by unscrupulous financial advisors—and that's why we are supporting this bill.
We have to get this right and we have to do this properly. We need to understand the genesis of this reform and some of the other reforms that have been introduced into this place by the government. A lot of those measures have been knee-jerk reactions to the fact that the government, for many years, opposed a royal commission. This measure, the BEAR and others have been rushed and have been hurried through the parliament without proper consultation in the view of many that work within the industry, including those that have been harmed by the financial misselling of products. This was all to avoid a royal commission. We all know that the now Prime Minister, as Treasurer, opposed a royal commission up hill and down dale, saying that there was no need for one and that those calling for one were being overly dramatic in doing so. That's why we want to get this piece of legislation right and we want to make sure that it acts in the interests of customers and consumers. That's why Labor has referred this bill to the other place for inquiry.
Labor has been listening when it comes to the unscrupulous advice of financial advisors, the dodgy products that have been pushed on consumers and people being forced into products that aren't in their best interests. Labor has been listening for many, many years, and we've acted. We acted when we were in government, through the FOFA reforms. We acted in opposition in calling for a royal commission. We've also been out there defending the funding and the resources of the regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission predominantly, to ensure that they have the necessary resources and are a tough cop on the beat to crack down on the misselling of products that are aimed at in this bill. ASIC has asked for other amendments, through the exposure draft process, that haven't been incorporated into this bill.
Again, I will say that it has been rushed, including regarding the buy now, pay later providers and having at look at whether or not they should be brought within the scope of the bill. We should look at consumer credit and funeral expense products being covered by the design and distribution obligations. But, of course, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has given no encouragement to one of our key regulators. They have tried their best to gut ASIC and to undermine its ability to uncover and prosecute unconscionable conduct. We all know what occurred in the Abbott government's first budget in 2014, where they dramatically cut the funding for ASIC. That resulted in job losses and resulted in a loss of expertise for people who were grounded in the pros and cons of identifying financial fraud, the misselling of products and dodgy behaviour and a loss of expertise in making prosecutions. A lot of the people left the organisation in the wake of those 2014 budget cuts.
It's clear now, after some of the evidence that has been uncovered this week by the Labor Party through estimates, that the Liberals have cut nearly $200 million from the ASIC budget in five years. That is $200 million of funding cut from the regulator whose job it is to police the financial services sector. That was after all of the scandals and rip-offs, after the CommInsure rip-offs, after the dodgy behaviour that was going on in the Commonwealth Bank in their wealth management arms and after all of the banks being involved in bad advice for wealth management and having to go into reviews of their financial advice and their products. That was after the banks having to pay back customers, having people banned, having to pay fines, having to enter into enforceable undertakings, having the AUSTRAC allegations against the Commonwealth Bank and having the largest corporate fine in Australia levelled against the Commonwealth Bank. After all of these scandals that we've had in financial services sector over the course of the last decade, this government goes and cuts ASIC's budget by $200 million. They cut the budget of effectively the police who look after this industry, and yet they want to come in here and talk about reforms such as this and say that they're listening to the people who have been the victims of financial fraud in this country.
I'll tell you who the frauds are: it's those people who sit opposite in this place, particularly those National Party MPs. It blows me away that some of them have the hide to be interviewed by TV stations and radio stations about them being the ones who have been calling for a royal commission into banking and financial services in this country when they've come in here and, on 26 occasions, voted against a royal commission into banking and financial services in this country. Yet they slink back off to their electorates in the bush and, when they're confronted with those facts about voting against a royal commission, they say: 'Oh, no. That's not us. That's the Liberals, you see? That's the Libs. They don't want a royal commission. We want a royal commission. We're tough on financial fraud and financial services. We want a royal commission.' But they're spreading mistruths because they came in here and they voted against a royal commission. They joined with their coalition colleagues in voting against a royal commission on 26 occasions. That's the reason why we've had rushed legislation such as this. It was done to avoid a royal commission. The government put in place a number of reforms simply to avoid a royal commission.
We've all seen through the process of the royal commission the powers that they've had to get to the bottom of what has really been going on in financial services in this country over the course of the last decade. The government's response was: 'It's okay. We'll just empower the House of Representatives economics committee. They'll be able to do the job of a royal commission. We'll get the bank executives in once a year and we'll give the House of Reps economics committee the opportunity to question them.' Some of the evidence that came out of those inquiries was insightful. We had one last week. But what was uncovered was that that committee didn't have the probity powers or the time to really delve into what has been going in financial services in this country and provide the opportunity for victims to have their say and for justice to be done. That's the great beauty of this royal commission. They've had the necessary time, the powers and, indeed, the expertise of the royal commissioner and the counsel assisting to really delve into what is going on in financial services in the country.
Despite the depth of the ASIC cuts and their curtailed ability to help police financial services, this government continued to cut their budget and take zero action when it came to looking at a royal commission. We know that this government is out of touch. That's evident from the results of the weekend by-election. But it's desperately evident that they're out of touch on this issue of financial fraud and financial services. How could they be otherwise in opposing the FOFA reforms when they were originally planned, in saying there was no need for a royal commission and then in rushing legislation before the parliament before the royal commission has had an opportunity to report?
Australians will never forget that this government resisted those urgent calls for a royal commission into banking and financial services for 600 days. For 600 days, they opposed a royal commission. It was only after they got the green light from their mates in the banking sector that the Liberals and Nationals reluctantly relented and agreed to a short, sharp royal commission. Even now, there have been further calls from some of those victims. There have been thousands of submissions to the royal commission—9,000 to 10,000 submissions. Only 27 victims have had opportunity to put their case. If we're going to restore confidence and trust in banking and financial services, what do we say to those thousands who haven't had the chance to verbally put their case before the royal commission and have their concerns listen to? How are we going to restore that trust and confidence without the opportunity for those people to have their say? That's why Labor has been calling on the Prime Minister and government to consider extending the terms of reference to allow all of those Australians who have been the victims of these shocking rip-offs and financial fraud to have their say in the commission.
This government has a history on issues such as this of opposing the necessary reforms to crack down on dodgy financial advice. When Labor was in government, there were numerous inquiries into some of the collapses that occurred in this area. Trio Capital, Westpoint, Opes Prime, Timbercorp—there were all of these financial collapses where thousands of Australians lost their life savings. In some cases they'd retired and put all of their super into these products, maybe re-mortgaged their houses to go into further hock, on the advice of these financial advisers, and they lost the lot. They lost not only their retirement savings but their kids' inheritance as well.
In the wake of that, Labor acted, and acted strongly, in implementing the FOFA, Future of Financial Advice, reforms. What did the member for Warringah do at the time, and the likes of Senator Cormann, who was part of the inquiry that looked at the FOFA reforms? They opposed them. They opposed the catch-all provision—in the best interests duty—that ensures financial advisers act in the best interests of their clients. Believe it or not, up until that time there was no legal obligation on financial advisers and banks to act in the best interests of their clients. Guess what? Many of them didn't. And we're seeing the consequences of that now. Labor proposed that you had to act in the best interests of your client, and we put that in legislation.
We also proposed that a client had to opt in to the continuation of a financial service or financial advice on a two-yearly basis. Again, part of that provision was opposed by this government and its members. They voted against it in the committee inquiry and in the parliament. Do you know whose evidence they relied on in their argument, Mr Deputy Speaker? You can go and have a look at the dissenting report, which was drafted by Senator Cormann and other senators, from when the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services looked at this issue. They relied on the evidence of AMP. They said: AMP believe this would be disastrous for financial services in this country and would result in 30,000 jobs going in the industry. Well, we now know why! We now know why, after the evidence of AMP that was uncovered in the royal commission—of charging fees to dead people; of providing ongoing advice through legacy products when people weren't getting any services at all, and then having that looked at by a law firm on an independent basis and seeking to change the report that was going to ASIC. As a result of that, they had the royal commission recommend criminal charges.
That was the sort of evidence—from those sorts of people—that the government relied on to justify their arguments against FOFA. It says everything about their approach to protecting consumers and acting in the best interests of Australian bank customers and those seeking financial advice in this country. We know that when it comes to proper regulation, when it comes to cracking down on their mates in the banking industry, their heart's not in it, because it's not in their DNA to do that sort of thing, to regulate that sort of behaviour.
Today, here we go again. We've had ASIC and consumer groups calling for the government to have a look at this. There's going to be a Senate inquiry, and we encourage those who have issues with this piece of legislation to have their say. They've raised some concerns about the exclusions in the bill. They're asking why consumer-facing financial services are excluded from both design and distribution obligations, along with product intervention powers. Even the likes of Afterpay, a multimillion-dollar company, have reversed their position and are now calling to be covered by the legislation, yet the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has given up on this issue. Only Labor is listening to the victims and to our corporate regulator and key stakeholders. Only Labor is acting in the interests of Australian consumers and financial product clients.
I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws (Design and Distribution of Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Bill 2018. This bill will ensure that financial products are targeted and sold to the right consumers and that, where products are inappropriately targeted or sold, ASIC will be empowered to intervene in the distribution of the product to prevent harm to consumers. When I consider how we all interact with the financial system and the banking system, it changes throughout our lives. I look back to a small bank book where we made physical deposits and went into a bank branch to do so. Now we see the credit cards and the current financial products out there. It's a massive change, and they change as our needs change throughout our lives. Whether it's through bank products, insurance or retirement planning, credit cards or loans throughout our lives, in a number of ways we interact constantly with the banking and financial system.
I look back to my own time, initially when my husband and I got married as very young people who decided to take on what was an enormous responsibility: two very young people buying our very first dairy farm. The day that we got married was the actual day that we took ownership of the farm. My husband had been very blunt with me. He said, 'Please don't marry me for my money, because it's all printed in red.' As I've said previously in this chamber, he was entirely correct. It was a great challenge being two young people living in what was a better version of two Army huts joined together that had come from the Harvey ag school, from the internment camp where the Italians had been interned during World War II. We didn't have much to work with. It was a great decision to make.
My husband, as a young man, had worked for the local bank branch in Harvey for some time and the opportunity came. He was a passionate farmer. We had a great relationship with the local bank manager. That's what you could do at the time. His name was Mr Roenfeldt. I remember him very well. Here we were, two young kids, and he said, 'I know what you two can achieve.' He had the power of decision-making at the time—that's how it was—and even though Charlie and I had only $12,000 of equity between us, the debt we were taking on in those days was $118,000, which was massive. It was amazing how the world around us said, 'You two kids will fail.' But, as the bank manager, Mr Roenfeldt said to us, 'If you do, it'll take you at least two years to go broke, if you go broke—and I don't think you will—and you'll have two years worth of milk in your pockets and it'll give you a start in what's next.' What wonderful advice that was at the time. We took a very direct approach to income generation and keeping our costs low in our business. That's how we were able to grow our business.
There was the relationship with the bank manager. For our decisions, there was us, the bank manager and our accountant. That is what we used to make good decisions for all of our life in business. This was at the time when interest rates, at one point, went from 17 per cent to 23 per cent. When your interest and payments are $1,300 a month and you struggle to earn $2,000 a month in milk, it was a tough ask. We had a rundown old property that we were trying to build up, we had a very rundown herd and very little infrastructure, so it was a really tough job. But, when the next property became available, the bank manager said to us, 'You two kids need to have another go because you haven't got enough dirt where you are. If you're going to expand your business, you're going to need to get into this space.' It was a very direct discussion that we had with him. It took us a lot of years to get a weekend off or a milking off, but that's what it took to start and grow the business.
I must admit that, as you would understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, a lot of people said that we would fail and there were times when we didn't sleep much at night. I see that in so many other small businesses—not just dairy farming or farming but small business altogether—and we rely very much on that relationship with our financial providers, with the providers of loans and others.
So it really grieves me when I hear about—and I've seen—the change over the years in how banking services are provided and even the relationships that exist between the customer and the bank itself. I'm really hurt for everyone by the lack and loss of trust and even a loss of respect in our banking sector and the loss of those very close relationships that we were able to work with in those early years. I believe that there are still people who have very sound relationships with their financial service providers and banks, and they are able to do very good business that supports what they need to do as well. But I'm also concerned, I must admit, that there doesn't appear to be a lot of respect in the banking sector for customer loyalty. That's something that we've noticed even in our own business over the years. We've heard a lot of evidence at the royal commission that's concerned so many of us.
The new laws ensure that financial service providers have a very customer-centric approach to making initial offerings of products to consumers, like the product that Mr Roenfeldt offered us all those years ago when we were two young people trying to start a business and we needed good and sound advice. We depended on that good and sound advice from that local bank manager, and that's what we got. It was almost as though he was as invested in our business because he was local, because he cared and because he could see two young people having a red-hot go. He was very much part of our early journey. I know we lost Mr Roenfeldt a lot of years ago, but I want to thank him and those bank managers like him who actually were and are there for people like us who are having a go.
This new law also will give ASIC the powers to enforce new arrangements, which include the ability to request necessary information and, where necessary, issue stop orders where there is a suspected contravention of the law, and to make exemptions and modifications to the new arrangements. The government is acting in way that will give far more confidence and opportunities to people like us, starting out in business or already in business, and to people who are consumers just seeking a credit card or simple banking products.
There will be and are, as a result of this bill, civil and criminal penalties applying to contraventions of the new arrangements. The combination of civil and criminal penalties allows ASIC or the prosecutor, as the case may be, to take a proportional approach to enforcing the new obligations, and they are, as I said, important.
Equally, while the royal commission is continuing, the government through legislation like this is strengthening our financial laws to ensure that banks and financial institutions are actually held to account. We are getting on with the job of protecting consumers—consumers just like me and my husband in those early years. I see great young people and small-business people out in my community who are doing exactly what we did a number of years ago. They need to have just as much confidence in the providers of their financial products as we had in our local bank manager.
This particular treasury laws amendment bill is yet another step. It's targeted so that these products are those that are appropriate, and, if they are inappropriate, ASIC can, of course, step in. It fulfils the government's commitment to implement two recommendations from the Financial System Inquiry. The design and distribution obligations and the product intervention power will ensure that financial products are targeted and are sold to the right consumers. Whoever walks in the door of those institutions, or however they take those products and access those products, the products need to be the right products for that particular consumer. Whether you're a farmer or a small-business person or someone requiring a number of services from an institution, they need to be the right ones for you, and you need people to deal with who are prepared to provide that level of service.
This was particularly relevant in the examples we saw in the royal commission, where products that were totally inappropriate were sold to unsuspecting people—for instance, the fees for no service. This resulted in the most severe financial difficulties for people, where they couldn't meet the obligations they had signed up for. Where products are inappropriately targeted or sold, ASIC will be empowered to intervene. That intervention power will only be used to prevent harm to consumers. We want to avoid instances like those raised in the royal commission.
I want to see more people have the confidence that we did back when we bought our first property. Our government is committed to fostering an environment where businesses adopt and maintain a customer-focused culture, a customer-centric culture, where the relationship is a trusting relationship and where the advice provided is the best advice for the consumer's particular circumstances, where we, as the users of those particular products, can have a fair go and actually have confidence that the advice we're being given is the right advice and the right product in the particular circumstance.
Our approach to banking and financial services reform has focused on ensuring that the financial system is resilient, efficient and fair. We all interact with the banking system, and these reforms will benefit every single one of us. It means that we can approach the financial system with far more confidence that those who we're dealing with in the financial sector have genuinely approached the product that we're seeking with we the consumers in mind. In the same way that we went to see that wonderful bank manager, Mr Roenfeldt, all those years ago and said, 'We want to buy a dairy farm. We want to build a business. We want a future in this community. There are a range of products that we are going to need throughout our life, and we need a bank or a lending facility to help us through that,' I want others to have the confidence we had in that relationship and in the products that we got. There were things we could and couldn't control, as I said, throughout that process, with interest rates et cetera, but the actual products that were designed and the discussions that we had with our institution, meant that it was almost like we were in it together—and that's how it should be.
The government is really determined to encourage issuers and distributors to have an absolute customer-focused approach when they're designing, when they're marketing and when they're distributing financial products. I'd ask each one of those people, with whatever product they're providing or offering to the consumer—at the desk, at the table, online or wherever it is—to put themselves in the consumer's position and think: 'If it was me, what is the product that I would need to be able to do my business, to be able to stay in business, to be able to grow my business or to simply be able to access something as simple as a credit card?' We know only too well what happens if that's not the case, and ASIC will be in a position to intervene should that be necessary. This bill sets out exactly how and when ASIC will be able to intervene. The product intervention powers are a really important part of this bill before the House this evening.
What an amazing situation we find ourselves in today, to be finally discussing this piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Bill 2018. I want to pick up on the remarks that were made by the member for Forrest, because I thought she made some very interesting observations about the way banking used to be done and the way in which people used to be able to place trust and faith in their bankers. Only a few weeks ago, I held a meeting in my electorate with a number of customers of banks—farmers, small business owners, former small business owners, and people who just borrowed money to buy a home. I did this because of the short time that was being made available—
Debate interrupted.
I stood in this House a year ago yesterday and spoke on White Ribbon Day, our annual acknowledgement for those who have suffered domestic violence and our recommitment to do more. I stood in this place and I paid tribute to all of those who have suffered at the hands of a loved one around Australia. Indeed, some of those are within this House. I said in this place at that time that it shouldn't take an annual day of acknowledgement to recognise that violence against women is wrong, it shouldn't take yet another tragedy to prompt action on domestic violence.
Unfortunately, the federal government's budget this year—masterminded, of course, by the now Prime Minister—does next to nothing to support victims of domestic violence or those who might be at risk. Domestic violence and women's groups have described the budget this year as 'bitterly disappointing'. The Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services of Western Australia and the WA Council of Social Service wrote to me recently outlining their concerns about the decision of the Commonwealth to cease funding of $2.4 million for eight domestic and family violence specialist programs across Western Australia. Some of those programs were run by a local service in my electorate, Starick Services, which provides services and refuges to those in Perth's south-eastern suburbs. These were cuts that had already been brought to my direct attention by Starick Services. It's funding for programs that are about keeping women safe in their homes.
These community organisations and the services that are funded through this funding are deeply concerned about the ongoing impact of not being able to continue to offer these services within our community. I am also deeply concerned about the government's decision to cut $2.4 million in funding for these programs. Prior to my entering parliament, I began my legal career in a small, suburban legal practice that specialised in family law. I spent time on the board of Starick Services, one of those domestic violence services whose future in providing Safe At Home support is now uncertain. Starick has lost nearly $600,000 in funding for programs intended to keep women safe in their homes. This directly affects real people in my electorate, as well as those in the electorates of Swan and Hasluck. Fortunately the McGowan Labor government in WA has announced that it will pick up the federal government's slack to allow for these programs to continue in Western Australia, programs and services that have the capacity to intervene in domestic and family violence in a timely manner and keep women and children safe.
Earlier this month WA's first Minister for the Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence, Simone McGurk, led a delegation of Western Australians at the Reducing Violence Against Women summit. Ahead of the summit WA Premier Mark McGowan wrote to the Prime Minister seeking ongoing funding for initiatives including Safe At Home programs, like those run by Starick, to help reduce the unacceptable levels of family and domestic violence in our state. There have been 23 women, children and men killed in suspected domestic violence related murders in Western Australia so far this year. That compares to only 11 in the whole of last year. This clearly isn't a problem that is going away, and it is not one that can be swept under the carpet.
WA has the second-highest incidence of family and domestic violence in our nation, and this year's statistics are utterly shameful. Indeed, my electorate has the highest propensity for domestic violence in metropolitan Perth. Our state has done a lot to work with Western Australians impacted by family and domestic violence, but it is not enough. We already know that, nationally, one woman every week is killed by a current or former partner. The government has not reversed its $44 million a year cut of capital funding either, used for safe housing options for women and children fleeing family and domestic violence. These short-sighted cuts have only resulted in a growing unmet need for short-term and emergency accommodation.
Further to this, recently we debated legislation in this House to ensure that women will not be cross-examined by a family and domestic violence former partner in the Family Court. That commitment and that legislation are very welcome. However, it is unfortunate that, joining these cuts to Safe at Home services, the government has failed to fund legal aid in this regard.
In my electorate of Robertson on the New South Wales Central Coast, we've got more than 15,000 amazing small and medium-sized businesses. I think the Prime Minister put it pretty well during his recent visit to the Six String Brewing Company in Erina when he said that business owners on the Central Coast are really living the dream. Our small business owners are—they're living, working and employing other locals in what I think is the best region in the best country in the world.
We know how important a strong economy is—one that delivers more jobs and guarantees essential services—but we also know that a strong national economy isn't possible without local businesses that help create strong local economies. Our businesses are the backbone of our community and are such a big part of what makes the Central Coast the amazing community that it is.
Last weekend, I had the chance to join with the community in congratulating some of our outstanding local businesses at the 2018 Central Coast Business Awards, hosted by the New South Wales Business Chamber. Each and every finalist is really outstanding in their own category, and they are invested in the success of our region. The business awards are a prestigious event on the Central Coast, and they recognise businesses that are excelling in their fields.
I want to pay tribute to all this year's finalists and congratulate each and every one of the owners and their teams on their outstanding achievements. Congratulations to Australian Pest Specialists; Body Corporate Services; Fixx Events and Marketing; Gosford Micrographics and Scanning; Gosford RSL Club; Gosford/Erina & Coastal Chamber of Commerce; H & H Catering; Home Instead Senior Care Gosford; Hotondo Homes Central Coast; Job Centre Australia Ltd; Link Legal and Conveyancing; Nurses Now; Oddball Marketing; Peninsula Village Ltd; Playing in Puddles; Retreat Hairdressing; Ryan & Seton Lawyers; Silverscreen Designer Glassboards; and The Art House at Wyong.
I want to of course also pay special tribute to this year's winners and take the opportunity to share with the House some of the amazing work that they're doing in our region. Laura Prael is the founder of a fast-growing digital agency, LEP Digital Central Coast, and she was awarded the Outstanding Young Entrepreneur Award. Laura is a fantastic business woman on the Central Coast, and she now employs a young, all-female team. This year she took her business international, with some incredible success already.
The Australian Reptile Park's Tim Faulkner was named Outstanding Business Leader for his work as the general manager and head of conservation. Tim is truly dedicated to the reptile park, which is a key tourist attraction on the Central Coast. The Australian Reptile Park also took home the Excellence in Business award, a most deserved recognition of the important role that it plays in our region, employing locals as well as boosting the regional profile of the Central Coast.
The Excellence in Small Business award went to CostSmart, an integrated product management service based in Wyong. CostSmart is all about backing other small businesses and helping them to achieve their business goals in a cost-effective way. Gosford Private Hospital was recognised for its excellence in innovation, leading the way in many innovative health practices that are aimed at delivering better patient outcomes. Local rubber band manufacturer Bounce Rubber Bands, based in Wyong, was awarded for their commitment and excellence in sustainability, and notably their Bounce Back campaign. The Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council was awarded the Excellence in Social Enterprise honour for their ongoing dedication to improving the health and wellbeing of our community and the lives of Indigenous Australians across the Central Coast. The formidable Suzy Miller was awarded Start-up Superstar for her new endeavour, The Opportunity Collective. Suzy's a successful businesswoman in her own right, and she started The Opportunity Collective in 2016 to mentor other women into business leadership positions and connect women in business across the Central Coast. Marketing agency Milestone-Bellanova was named Outstanding Employer of Choice. Having operated on the Central Coast for more than 15 years, founder Barbara Ketley has formed an amazing team and business. The Wyong Regional Chamber of Commerce was named Local Chamber of Commerce of the Year.
I want to congratulate all award winners and wish them luck as they head to the New South Wales Business Chamber State Business Awards in Sydney. We now have some incredible businesses representing our Central Coast region, and I wish them all the best at the awards dinner coming up next month. I also place on record my thanks to Dan Farmer for his considerable work as the regional manager of the Central Coast NSW Business Chamber. He has been an outstanding and formidable leader and advocate: I thank you for all that you have done for our community.
Earlier this month, I had the very great privilege of taking part in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, where I spent three days living and working with Defence personnel at HMAS Stirling. Their base is on Garden Island, a 10-kilometre stretch of sand and limestone which sits just five kilometres off Rockingham in in my electorate, so not only was the program a chance to learn more about the great work of our Royal Australian Navy, but it was also a chance to spend some quality time with many of my constituents. I grew up around the corner from HMAS Stirling in Shoalwater Bay. In fact, HMAS Stirling and I grew up together: construction on Stirling's wharves and workshops began the year that I was born, and it was commissioned some five years later.
But the history of Garden Island stretches back much, much further than my own personal time line. The Noongar people tell Dreamtime stories of walking to islands like Garden Island and Rottnest Island off the coast of Western Australia. At the end of the last glacial period, the sea level rose, and the island then existed in isolation for 7,000 years. But that would change forever in 1827 when Captain James Stirling landed on the island, and he returned in 1829 to found the first European settlement. Earlier this year, HMAS Stirling celebrated its 40th year since its commissioning in 1978. The former member for Brand, and now Governor of Western Australia, the Hon. Kim Beazley AC, progressed the Two Ocean Navy policy when he was defence minister in the Hawke government. It was a tectonic shift in the force posture of this country's naval forces, but the strategic argument was overwhelming. As we are all well aware, Australia has interests in both the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, and the ongoing development of HMAS Stirling on Garden Island in Rockingham reflects that very important fact. Now, 720 people live on the base permanently—for the most part—while they are stationed there, and thousands more work there and travel there each day from across my electorate and further afield.
Twelve fleet units call Garden Island home, including the RAN's Anzac class frigates and the Collins class submarines, and it holds the only submarine escape training facility in the Southern Hemisphere, which was opened by Kim Beazley when he was the defence minister. Fleet Base West not only protects Australia's vast ocean shores but Garden Island ships are also sent throughout the world, as we know, to Amsterdam Island in the Indian Ocean and to the Persian Gulf. I was fortunate enough to tour the HMAS Ballarat frigate, a 118-metre long warship that was launched in 2002. The frigate had just returned to port after responding to the emergency call from two yachtsmen who were de-masted and injured while competing in an around-the-world yacht race. The crew had been on their first day of some pre-deployment leave but, as soon as the call came, they of course responded to that call and returned to support their fellow mariners out on the seas. There were stories told of people being on the tarmac on a plane and having to tell the service staff of the commercial aircraft that they now had to go back to the base, and were so returned. Some holidays were cut short, but all in the service of the nation and people in distress.
For those few days on the ADF Parliamentary Program, the Navy were very welcoming to me. I was able to don their uniform and had fun in the very relaxed Navy camo that they let you wear on this program. I visited the firefighting, training and emergency training areas, and also the submarine rescue facility. I even got to work in the galley, and there is a fine bunch of people that work in the galley, feeding the thousands of people that work on Garden Island every day. I had the chance to roll some cookie dough, and I have to confess mine wasn't as even as that of the cooks and chefs that worked there, and I asked the people in charge if they might put a note on my tray so that some sailor doesn't get in trouble, on a future day when they take it out of the freezer and find that there's a not-quite-up-to-spec bit of cookie dough.
It was a very great privilege to work alongside the sailors that work and live in my electorate. It's not every day you have the opportunity to share in the lives of your constituents in this manner. Garden Island is a beautiful part of the world. One morning I had the chance to join Polly Farmer Foundation students on a bike ride around the island, and at dawn I was able to look out over my home town, across Cockburn Sound over Mangles Bay to Rockingham Beach, which again made me realise how lucky I am to represent this incredible place.
I want to thank the men and women serving on HMAS Stirling for taking me in and treating me so well. In particular, I want to thank the commanding officer of HMAS Stirling, Captain Brian Delamont; CPO Lachlan Parsons; CPO Allen 'Nobby' Clark; CPO Todd Page; Leading Seaman Amelia Manderson; Leading Seaman Grahame Murray; and Able Seaman Joel Robertson. It's an honour to spend such meaningful time with the great women and men who serve my community and the nation as a whole. It's not every day an MP gets that experience. I am very grateful.
There has been some big news for Bonner recently. The winner of Queensland's best fish and chip shop was one of our very own in Wynnum West. Fish n Chip Co was named overall winner of the 2018 fish and chip awards at the Queensland Seafood Industry Awards—or the Queensland seafood industry Oscars, as they like to be called it. Was great to have a mobile office outside Fish n Chip Co the other day. I had a good chat with the owner, Demetri, about their success and the challenges of running a business in the current environment.
I know a little something about these challenges. I ran a few restaurants a number of years ago. I understand how every little thing adds up. Decisions that are made at the federal level mean the difference between surviving or having to lay-off more staff for millions of small businesses across Australia. That's why I'm happy to say, yet again, that this coalition government has delivered for Aussie small businesses. These are the small businesses, like Fish n Chip Co, that employ, when combined, almost seven million Australians and 408,000 people in Queensland alone.
Last month, we passed legislation to extend the $20,000 instant asset write-off for another 12 months to 30 June 2019. Local small-business owners continue to tell me how much this measure has helped them. Well over 1,000 local businesses in Bonner have benefited from this instant asset write-off alone. There are tax cuts for small- and medium-sized businesses that we delivered last week. Small- and medium-sized businesses will now pay less tax five years earlier than planned. This is great news for over 15,000 businesses in Bonner and over three million businesses across Australia. By fast-tracking this tax relief for businesses in Bonner, we will make a more immediate difference to the individual businesses and the people who work for them. It means more money for local business owners to employ more staff. When business owners like Demetri can keep more of their own money, they have more to invest back into their business. That means more jobs and increased productivity and growth.
This legislation builds on the first stage of company tax relief that we delivered in May last year. It stands in stark contrast to Labor's plans for higher taxes for small businesses, along with higher taxes on incomes, savings, property, power and more—around $200 billion in higher taxes. I look forward to seeing this government deliver more relief and more support for small businesses, like Fish n Chip Co, in my electorate. Congratulations again to Fish n Chip Co for their well-deserved award. It's always great to see outstanding small businesses in Bonner recognised for their high quality. I will just say that their fish and chips are truly some of the best that I've ever had.
I think I've made it pretty clear by now just how important my community is to me. I'm pretty lucky to live in such a beautiful part of the world and in a community with wonderful people. In my role, I've been fortunate enough to personally get to know so many of these wonderful people. I'm always proud to hear of their achievements. There are many really important people who have made some great achievements in my community, but I also get to hear about their struggles. Many people in my community have been let down by this government. They've been let down time and time again when it comes to their schools, their cost of living and their health.
People in my community are hurting. That's the reality. They need a government that will stand up for them. They need a government that will fight for them. They need a government that actually cares. What makes my community so special is that it's made up of real people. They are real people who want a fair go and who just want to get by. But when the cost of living skyrockets under this government and yet the median income has remained at just $580 a week, it can feel almost unachievable. Many of these people are vulnerable; many of them need our support.
There's a huge mental health issue in this country and in my community. From 2015 to 2016, the people in my community spent nearly 27,000 days in hospital beds due to mental health. That's about 73 years, collectively. These are people who were able to get support too. Tragically, from 2011 to 2016, 124 people in my community took their lives. That is 124 people too many. It's pretty clear that there's a big problem in our society. It's a huge problem, and we must work together to prevent and to reduce the impact of mental ill health and suicide.
I've heard from a constituent, a young woman living with her own mental health issues. She's strong, she's brave, but she still needs our support. She told me how she looked for support through the public mental health system. She'd been struggling for a while and, while she knew she needed help from a professional, she told me how it wasn't easy to find the strength to walk in and seek help. Somehow, sometimes, it's hard enough to just get out of bed. But what she said was the hardest part was hearing how long it would be before her next appointment. Having waited six weeks for her initial consultation, hearing that it would be nearly four months for her next appointment made her feel helpless. It made her feel alone. Right when she needed help, right when she was asking for it, she was made to feel like she didn't matter. No-one—no-one at all—should be made to feel like this, especially not someone who's already in a vulnerable state. She told me how she waited for some time—weeks, months even—but, after a while, she knew she could not wait any longer, so she looked to the private system. On a modest income, hearing that a brief consultation would cost her nearly $500 out of pocket—well, it almost put support out of reach. I mentioned before that the median income of a person living in Longman is $580 a week. I ask: how can someone living on that sort of income possibly afford a $500 consultation?
So I call on the Morrison government to stand up for these people. In government, Labor increased funding for mental health by 357 per cent, up to $2.4 billion. At the 2016 election, Labor had a strong mental health policy with a strong focus on suicide prevention. It included adopting the National Mental Health Commission's recommendation to reduce suicide by 50 per cent over 10 years. Today I'm standing here encouraging—no, nearly pleading—with this government to stand beside Labor and do the same thing. Last year, 128 people died by suicide—a nine per cent increase on the previous year. Clearly, there is a crisis in this nation. Clearly, we need to put aside party politics and address this issue. Together, we can support these vulnerable people when they need us. Together, we can make this change.
I rise to address the House about a very important topic—one that I believe holds the key to our growth and prosperity as a nation—that is, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, as it is more popularly known. STEM has received a great deal of attention in recent years, and rightly so. STEM affects almost every aspect of our lives, whether it is the food we eat, the clothes we wear, how we get to work or how we relax. STEM is indispensable to all these facets of our lives and many others. For our economy, STEM is the engine that will power our growth into the future. It is central to so many of the growing sectors of our community such as health, education, finance, mining and manufacturing. With this in mind, it should be clear to see why training in STEM must be an important pillar of our education system. All too often, people hear the term 'STEM' and think of it only as coding or technology. This is only partly true. As its core, STEM is a way of thinking. It's about how to critically analyse a problem and create solutions to that problem. It fosters critical thinking, lateral thinking and problem solving, irrespective of which aspect of STEM you study.
I would like to highlight the work of one particular organisation, Re-Engineering Australia, and their wonderful founder, the chairman, Dr Michael Myers OAM, for promoting STEM in schools. Re-Engineering Australia was founded in 1998 with a focus on encouraging students' interest and understanding of STEM careers through hands-on, applied learning programs. These programs, in turn, foster technical understanding of STEM subjects and employability skills, such as teamwork, collaboration, problem-solving, self-promotion and public speaking. Since 1998, more than three million students have been exposed to one or more Re-Engineering Australia programs. Over 35,000 young Australians are directly mentored each year.
Quite recently, we hosted the Bennelong Schools' STEM Challenge in conjunction with Re-Engineering Australia and our friends at Medtronic. It was a stunning success and featured dozens of schoolchildren using 3D software to design medical centres for the surface of Mars. It was an excellent opportunity for schoolchildren—many of whom were only in years 5 or 6—to show off their extraordinary talent of problem-solving and teamwork. We greatly look forward to hosting a new challenge next year and involving even more schools. Special thanks go to Dr Myers for his indispensable assistance and the whole team at Medtronic. Without them, the event could not have occurred.
Despite shining examples of STEM in schools such as this, there remains a great deal of work to be done to ensure our younger generations are being given sufficient instruction in the STEM disciplines. Evidence from OECD indicators suggests that Australian primary school children spend an average of only seven per cent of their time on science. This is far too low. However, it can only be rectified by introducing more STEM-qualified teachers into early learning in our education system and prioritising STEM teaching in curriculums.
I have every faith this government is up to the task of equipping our school systems to teach STEM. Already, the federal government has created a $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science Agenda, which includes $64 million to fund early learning and school STEM initiatives. In addition, the government has launched Digital Literacy School Grants, Digital Technologies Massively Open Online Courses and the Principals as STEM Leaders research project. These demonstrate that this government cares deeply about the role of STEM in our education system and is committed to expanding it. I wish them every success because, when STEM succeeds in our schools, Australia will succeed.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 19:57
A few months ago in this chamber I spoke of the proposed development of the Peninsula Kingswood Golf Course in Dingley Village in the great electorate of Isaacs. This proposal would have rezoned a piece of land zoned for special use, a golf course, to mid-density residential in the form of around 800 dwellings including six so-called superlots that could have been used for even more intense development. The development would have further clogged already congested local roads and robbed the people of Dingley Village of the very open space that attracted them to this great community in the first place. I'm pleased to say that last week the City of Kingston, the local government of the Dingley Village community, decided to abandon the planning scheme amendment that would have allowed this inappropriate development to proceed. The vote to abandon the scheme was unanimously supported by all nine councillors. An important point of planning law was made by the City of Kingston to developers—that is, developments that do not create a community benefit and do not accommodate the community that they wish to be part of can and will be rejected. Special use zoned land, of which there is much in Melbourne's south-east, is zoned this way to ensure open space or special use for their nearby communities. Special use zoned land will not and should not be rezoned to residential as a formality, simply because it was purchased by a developer.
I commend the Save Kingswood Group, which has worked tirelessly. In my last speech I thanked Simone Hardham, Michael Benjamin and Kevin Poulter. I now thank David Madill and Greg and Linda Jones, who have also worked tirelessly for their community. The proposed amendment to develop Kingswood golf course was rightly abandoned by the City of Kingston, but there may in time be another attempt by the developer to change the planning scheme. My message to them is this: talk to the community that you want to be part of, ask the residents what they want and work with them to get it right. Australia's major cities are littered with developments that overrode the desires of the community they were built in, and in nearly every instance a better option could have been taken. I thank the City of Kingston mayor, Steve Staikos, and all of the Kingston councillors for their ongoing work and understanding of the wishes of the residents. Developers need to get approval only once. It's important that communities and local governments hold them to account to get it right. I'll keep standing beside the residents of Dingley Village to make sure Kingswood golf course remains open space and that any development on it provides services and facilities that benefit this excellent community of Dingley Village.
Bennelong is a tightknit and supportive community. We are blessed with thousands of committed volunteers who help those around them ensure that no-one misses out on the great things we have around us. This is why I'm proud to address the House today on an excellent local organisation in my electorate which helps get people out and about, the Stryder bus service. Formerly known as Ryde Hunters Hill Community Transport, Stryder has an exceptional record of 30 years of service as a community transport provider and has recently rebranded so they can expand their services into other suburbs. For the elderly and less mobile in our community, a lack of safe, dependable transport can be debilitating. It prohibits them from doing simple tasks such as going to the shops or seeing a movie. This is why organisations such as Stryder are so important. They give the opportunity for movement to some of our most disadvantaged. In keeping with this mission, Stryder offers a number of different services ranging from shopping transport to individual transport and even social outings to places as diverse as the Central Coast, the Illawarra and the Southern Highlands.
Quite recently I visited Stryder's headquarters to meet their staff and inspect their new rebranded fleet of vehicles. They very kindly picked me up from the office and showed me firsthand the quality of their service. I was particularly taken by the attention to detail. Each bus is fitted with accessibility features such as collapsible supports at the bus doors and every vehicle was immaculately clean. We were driven around on the day by Stryder's most experienced driver, Yaqub Barikzai, who has worked there for over 20 years. I was very moved by Yaqub's story. He left Afghanistan in the early 1990s after the Taliban had come to power and has worked for Stryder, assisting the community ever since. Moreover, I would like to thank Mr Ian Dear, the president of Stryder, as well as Virginia Coy, the general manager, and the rest of their team for their exceptional work. I would also add that Stryder's work is made possible by dozens of volunteers, who give up their time to help the organisation and make the driving trips.
Stryder's motto is 'Going places'—a fitting motto for their service. But I would like to add that it embodies the spirit of their organisation and accurately reflects the culture of their service. They are certainly going places and our community is so much better off for that.
George Butcher, Lawler Sutton Byrne, Alfred Callaghan, Walter James Edward Callaghan, Sydney J Currall, George Arthur Dale, Frank Dalton, Frederick James Goodwin, Herbert Henry Gyler, Reuben Arthur Harvey, Harold Clement Hyde, Harry Lambert, William Middleton, Albert Edward Mitchell, Walter Charles Monaghan, Edgar Athling Morris, Thomas Partington, Walter Edward Peake, Edward Joseph Radford, Marcus Dill Reid, Herbert Leslie Rowley, Alfred Edwin Smith, Leonard Gilmore Smith, Leslie David Tynan—24 names, 24 men from Bankstown who went off to war over 100 years ago and didn't come home and 24 men that Bankstown forgot.
There is a memorial in Bankstown with the names of the local men who went off to war and fought and died in World War I. These 24 names are not on it. We discovered this a couple of years ago when I organised for a book to be written about the men on that memorial. Those names weren't on it. We don't know why their names weren't there or why they were forgotten. In just over two weeks, it will be 100 years since the war they fought and died in ended. As part of that commemoration, the names of these 24 men, these 24 Bankstown boys, have finally been added to the memorial. Every Anzac Day and every Remembrance Day, we make a promise. We promise that we will remember them, but we haven't done that—not these men, not for the last 100 years. They were forgotten. But that's not the case anymore. This Remembrance Day in Bankstown, at long last, we will make good, finally, on that old and solemn promise that we will remember them. Lest we forget.
Like many of my colleagues in this place, one of my very great honours and duties is to distribute Australian flags to local schools, community groups and individuals in my electorate who request them. These flags are proudly carried to all corners of the globe by exchange students. They are proudly flown at RSLs and at nursing homes. They are proudly carried and raised by school students every day of the school year. Increasingly, they're proudly displayed in community halls and in a variety of businesses.
Last month, on National Flag Day, 3 September, I distributed information booklets to my local schools about our flag. They were warmly received. I know that many schools took the opportunity to celebrate National Flag Day and discuss the origin, history and meaning of our flag. It's important that this sort of civics education is part of what our students learn at school. In the past few weeks, I was delighted to visit both Hillcrest Christian College and Elanora State School in my electorate to present them with an Australian flag. It's really heartening to see the excitement that this generation of school students has about our flag and what it symbolises. I know that, in many schools, students vie for the honour of being tasked with raising and lowering the flag each day. It's a leadership opportunity they take on with great pride.
I do want to put on the record today my unwavering support for our Australian flag. Our flag is part of our national identity. It's an enduring visual connection to our past, to the soldiers who fought under that banner for our freedom, to the sports people who received their medals as our flag flew, to the generations of students before us who raised our flag and sang the anthem and grew to contribute to our nation. It's really heartening to see that our flag is so prominently displayed at many of our celebrations and commemorations—on Australia Day, on Anzac Day, and on Remembrance Day. There's no doubt it is a symbol of unity and pride, and I'm proud to be one of the many Australians who have pride in our national flag.
We are now in our 30th year under free market policies—globalisation, deregulation, privatisation—and surely we must judge our policies on their outcomes. The first great initiative was in the wool industry by Mr Keating. He deregulated us. Within three years, the price had dropped to one-third of what it was before and, within 15 years, two-thirds, arguably three-quarters, of our sheep herd has vanished. The product that kept this nation going for 150 years was destroyed by the free marketeers, the ALP and the LNP. You did it. You can take the credit for it.
For manufacturing, there is a segment in OECD figures which is called 'elaborately transformed manufactures'. We have hardly anything in that sector. We don't produce any sophisticated anything. We can't produce a tyre for a motor car. We import all of our oil. We import all of our motor cars. All your motor cars, all your whitegoods come in from overseas. The last whitegoods factory closed in Orange two years ago and the last car manufacturing factory closed last year. There are those of us whose hearts beat in pride when two-thirds of the cars sold in Australia were Holden, Australia's own car. The ALP and the LNP are entirely responsible for the destruction of that great industry. When you write the history of Australia, the Holden car must still be in it. And I tell you what, when the next history books are written, the closure of that industry and the loss of jobs and future for Australia will be upon the consciences of the people in this place.
A house is built out of steel and out of cement. Steel is in the frame and trusses and the roofing iron. Cement comprises everything else. Around about half of our cement now comes in from overseas. Soon all of it will come in from overseas. The steel industry is doomed—that is not my comment but a comment by steel manufacturers—unless there is some change in the price of electricity. And don't let the Liberals go screaming about the Greens. It's got nothing to do with the Greens. It's the ALP's free market policies that did all the damage. It was their free market policies. Don't go around saying it was the Greens fault because their contribution was a 25 per cent increase. Your contribution of your free market took the price up 320 per cent—free market 320 per cent, Greens 25 per cent. I'm not on the Greens' side, I can assure you of that. And if you say, 'All these free trade deals have been great for Australia— (Time expired)
At 11:00 am on 11 November, just over two weeks' time, the world will pause to commemorate the centenary of the ending of the Great War, the so-called war to end all wars. Some 416,000 Australians enlisted to fight in that war when our population was just 4.5 million people. That's about one in 10 Australians. But if you consider that those who enlisted were males of a relatively young age, something like one in three of that cohort of Australians enlisted to fight in the Great War. No wonder it has such an enduring, ongoing, lasting impact in the life of this country. Of those 416,000 who enlisted, we know that 60,000 failed to return to this country. They are buried in the cliffs of Gallipoli, in the sand dunes of the Middle East and the muddy trenches of the Western Front.
So, on this Centenary of Armistice, the centenary of Remembrance Day, it is appropriate that, throughout this country and across the Tasman Sea in New Zealand, we pause to remember the sacrifices not only of those Australians generations ago but of every Australian who has served this country over the succeeding 100 years. And I'm sure I join with all colleagues in this place, whatever our political hue, in encouraging people in our own communities, our own electorates, our townships and our cities to participate in these celebrations. In my own electorate of Menzies on the Saturday the VetRide organisation is organising a ride—100 kilometres for 100 years—in which up to about 100 riders will participate in a ride from the Templestowe RSL into the Shrine of Remembrance and then on a big loop, returning to the Templestowe RSL later in the afternoon.
The next day, Remembrance Day itself, at the Doncaster RSL there will be an event, a cooee march commemorating the first of the great marches from Gilgandra to Sydney, in which people were recruited to enlist in the Great War. There will be a flyover by a Tiger Moth, a remembrance service and the usual events associated with Remembrance Day. There will also be a commemorative service at the Warrandyte RSL. In addition to that, the Real organisation, which is an organisation for disabled people, is mounting an exhibition as part of these commemorations of Remembrance Day.
We, as Australians, owe a great deal to those who have served in the uniform of this country over the decades leading up to today. At 11 am on 11 November, it's an appropriate time for all of us to remember them. Lest we forget.
I rise today on behalf of many constituents in my electorate to again call upon the government to proceed with the private members' bills and bills before the House calling for the phase-out of live sheep export. Every day I, like many in this place, receive emails, phone calls and letters from constituents calling upon all of us in this place to proceed with debating and passing the bill to stop live sheep exports.
Just in the last 24 hours, Leanne from Bendigo said:
This trade is still on my mind, although the vision revealing its true horrors was introduced so long ago.
She has never forgotten about what has happened. She calls upon the Liberal government to stop blocking MPs from voting to stop live sheep exports. She says that this trade is cruel and devastating.
I also had contact from Leanne, who lives in Kyneton, who said:
I'm devastated that the government ignored the legislation to end the hideous live sheep exports trade. Refusing to vote on this legislation will do nothing to improve the reputation of MPs.
We have discovered more and more about the impact of live sheep exports, and she says that she now has zero faith in the government to stop it, regardless of what they put forward.
An email from Angela, who lives in Woodend, said: 'Cruelty against animals like this is a huge concern for many Australians,' and the failure to support the live sheep export bill will play a big role in the decision not only of who she votes for but who many of her friends vote for.
I could spend hours in this place detailing the emails, conversations and letters that I've received from constituents in my electorate calling upon this government to allow the House to debate the bill. It's quite easy for current MPs to hide behind procedure. They say they're not going to cross the floor on procedure motions. I call on them to support the House in letting the House debate this bill. We know here have been MPs in the Liberal-National camp who've said they would support the private member's bill if we could debate it and if it were to go to a vote.
This is an issue of huge concern, even in regional electorates. Many raise with me the opportunity to create jobs by phasing out live sheep export. Animal welfare is a huge concern. People who live in my electorate who are farmers are horrified and shocked by the treatment of animals on the other side of the country. It is sensible that we have a phase-out plan—one that is planned, where we work with producers, farmers and industry to do it properly. Nobody is proposing to stop it tomorrow, but what Labor is proposing and what is in the private member's bill before the House is that it be done in an orderly and effective way, that it be phased out over five years. I urge the government to allow us to debate this bill.
My electorate of McMillan/Monash into the future comes alive in spring when thousands of people travel to and within the electorate to enjoy the dozens of events that bring jobs, money and employment to our local towns and communities. Many thousands of voluntary hours are given by local people in the planning and preparation in the months leading up to these events. The strength of our regional community shines through during these times. There are events like the Moe Cup, the Pakenham Picnic, Gardivalia in Baw Baw Shire, Korumburra's Oktoberfest at the Burra Brewing Company and the Phillip Island Motorcycle Grand Prix, an international event that brings thousands of people out of the cities to enjoy the undeniable atmosphere of regional hospitality and make a significant contribution to our local community.
The Moe Cup is a major event. By the way, a horse that I was associated with did win the Moe Cup at one stage; I just wanted to put that in. The whole town embraces
Honourable members interjecting—
We haven't been very successful ever since, I can tell you! Very expensive family operation. Thank you, Bronwyn! The Moe Racing Club was first established in 1890 and held the first race meeting the same year. Moe loves its cup day, and the community supports it by attending the races or shopping locally during the sales events that they have in conjunction. People travel from across Gippsland to enjoy the atmosphere and the hospitality of the Moe township. The Blackshaw family is one of the many names associated with racing in Moe.
Motorbikes—thousands of them—come from all over Australia and travel through McMillan down past where I live Families travel down past where I live to the grand prix held each year in Phillip Island since 1997. The streets of our country towns are often lined with motorcycles taking a break from their long journeys or local residents out watching the parade of many bikes as they head to Phillip Island. 2018 will see the world's best riders return to Phillip Island on 26 and 28 October.
The Burra Brewing Company is a microbrewery located in the beautiful rolling hills of Korumburra, the gateway to South Gippsland. The brewery was established in 2017 after years of planning by the owners. Currently Burra Brewing Company owners Narelle Jones and Phill Dempster brought Munich to South Gippsland on a recent Saturday along with pretzel-eating contests when they held the inaugural Oktoberfest in the south Gippsland town of Korumburra. Korumburra is becoming the place to stop on your way to South Gippsland and the Prom Coast, with new businesses like the Burra Brewing Company helping bring visitors and stimulate the local economy.
The Pakenham Picnic is a three-day event held around food, wine, entertainment and, of course, horseracing at the brand new Pakenham Racing Club in Tynong.
Every one of these events brings great activity and enjoyment to our communities and draws people together. I came to this place to bring people together and I will continue to do that.
On 12 October 2017 the then Minister for Defence Industry, Christopher Pyne, said:
The valley of death is over and we are now seeing a upturn of employment in naval shipbuilding in our state that will only continue to increase as these new projects gain momentum.
On page 30 of the ANAO report of this year there is a graph. That graph shows the valley of death. It shows how employment goes up and up and up during the Labor years and then slowly goes down and down and down until it hits the valley of death, and then it goes up again.
The member for Wakefield won't use props.
I knew the Deputy Speaker was going to say, 'You can't use props,' but this is an important graph, because it puts the lie to the minister's statements made last year. The fact is the minister and the parliament know, because of the ANAO report, about the terrible economic cost that is going to go on not just to individual workers who are being made redundant as we speak—I know workers who have been made redundant as we speak—but to the nation. This is a cost to future shipbuilding projects.
The ANAO report, on page 29 says:
Defence has not determined industry workforce requirements for the naval construction programs.
It goes on to say:
The assumptions of Defence's current workforce planning activities are not based on a cost-benefit analysis. In particular, whether maintaining the shipbuilding workforce between the Hobart Class Destroyer and follow-on surface-ship builds is the most cost-effective way of establishing the naval shipbuilding enterprise.
What that tells us is that the terrible cost of redundancies is not just going to be borne by workers; it's going to be borne by the shipbuilding industry. We're going to make all of these workers redundant, we're going to pay them redundancies, they're going to go out to the private sector and get other jobs, and then we're going to have to re-hire those workers, if we're lucky. If we're unlucky, they'll go off to other industries and we'll never see them again.
The destruction of one skilled workforce and the creation of the other is going to cost this nation hugely. It's going to cost us in lost productivity in future naval shipbuilding projects. This government is slowly walking South Australia's shipbuilding industry into a skills shortage, and that skills shortage will cost the nation. It will cost us in future productivity losses. It will cost us in future productivity costs. It will be a terrible blight not just on those individual workers who have lost their jobs but on the state of South Australia. This is something that the government should not be crowing about. They should be hanging their heads in shame because it's going to cost the country. Making these workers redundant—unnecessarily, in my opinion—is going to cost this country dearly.
I rise to welcome and acknowledge comments in Queensland media today about infrastructure needs, particularly in the broader south-east Queensland region, which encompasses my home town, my home city, Toowoomba. Specifically, media today refers to a proposal from the Council Of Mayors South East Queensland, chaired by Lord Mayor Graham Quirk in Brisbane. The deputy chair is His Worship Paul Antonio, the mayor of Toowoomba.
This a proposal for rapid rail network trains, travelling up to 250 kilometres an hour, carrying passengers to Brisbane from the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast or Toowoomba in under 45 minutes. This is a very ambitious plan. This media today repeats what was stated in the media back on 8 October, which talked about this ambitious plan and explained very clearly the blueprint for it was in a report by major infrastructure consultants SMEC, who were commissioned by the Council Of Mayors South East Queensland to look at transport, in that case, as part of the feasibility study into a possible Olympic Games bid for south-east Queensland in the years to come. That's very, very exciting.
That report referred to the inclusion of Toowoomba in that long-term planning. It suggested that another recent $15 million business case grant to determine passenger rail requirements between Toowoomba and Brisbane could bring that plan forward. I acknowledge that in particular because that's specifically the plan, the grant, I announced as the local member for Groom and as former Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government back at budget time on 8 May this year. I stress the budget papers say:
The Australian Government has committed $15 million for planning for the Toowoomba to Brisbane Passenger Rail … through the Major Project Business Case Fund.
It's committed. It's a proposal that I developed after consulting John Fullerton, the CEO of the Australian Rail Track Corporation. Certainly I have discussed it with Richard Wankmuller, the CEO of Inland Rail. That inland rail connection could give us the infrastructure on which to base passenger rail connection as well.
Here we are, almost six months down the track from that announcement. I say to the bureaucrats and the planners: we are fair dinkum about regional development, we are fair dinkum about managing congestion in major centres and we are fair dinkum about this Toowoomba-Brisbane passenger rail network. I'm concerned that after six months there appears to have been no progress on getting that study underway. I certainly will be following this up. I will not let this project slip away.
I rise today to talk about and support Qantas workers fighting for a better deal from Qantas. In two days time, the Qantas annual general meeting will be held in Brisbane, and this year Qantas will be voting on a particular item on the agenda: the remuneration report and the long-term plan for its CEO. Qantas has had a great year. We applaud that. They've had a 15 per cent increase in annual profits, with a $980 million net profit after tax this year following a $852 million profit the year before.
We all want Australian based companies to do well and to be successful, especially iconic companies like Qantas, which is so Australian. We all love it so much because it's an iconic Aussie business. But not at the expense of a loyal workforce. Qantas has had some tough times and workers have endured pay freezes dating back to 2014. They also endured 5,000 staff redundancies. While this has been happening senior executive salaries have grown, with packages sitting at around $53 million. The CEO of Qantas sits on around $2.125 million, with a cash bonus of just under $2 million. In 2017-18, the board chairman and directors have had increases in their packages of between $206,000 and $654,000. Pretty good work if you can get it.
There is no doubt in my mind that Qantas workers—the call centre staff, the check-in staff, the lounge staff, the baggage staff and the air crew—are an integral part of the success of this remarkable and iconic company. Those people work hard, they're dedicated, they love the airline industry, they love the airline they work for and Qantas is what it is today because of those Qantas workers. I'm always impressed by the amazing staff based in Adelaide, which I go in and out of regularly, and around the country. Success is a team effort. If you have a team that fails to meet the expectations of the travelling public, it will ultimately fail. Qantas hasn't failed because of the team it has and its workers. We only need to look at some of the less successful cases in the US to see how poor management culture filters down and destroys a company. That's why I'm calling on Qantas and its shareholders to support the workers. Do the right thing and come to the table with unions and workers to make the best deal possible. Linking a $2,000 bonus for the workers to the signing of a new enterprise agreement is absolute blackmail. So as the Qantas AGM meets in Brisbane in the next couple of days, I'd urge decision-makers— (Time expired)
Recently it was my honour to officially relaunch in my electorate of Dunkley the homeless meals service not only for those who are homeless but also for those who are vulnerable and in need. This is run out of the Chisholm Institute by the Frankston Churches Breakfast Club and Frankston Life, formerly known as City Life, who have worked with me and several other groups to get this service back up and running. It has taken a lot of dedication from all parties to do so.
I first started advocating to bring back the meals service more than a year ago, bringing together several groups across the community. Many people said it would be impossible and that I wouldn't be able to achieve this with the other groups, but our persistence has paid off. Thank you to everyone involved in our committee who have helped to get this crucial local service back up and running, including Frankston Life, the Frankston Churches Breakfast Club, Community Support Frankston, Frankston City Council, Lifegate, John Paul College, Theodora's Cheerful Givers, Seaford Housing Action Coalition combined with the Seaford Community Committee, That's The Thing About Fishing and Chisholm Institute. Thanks also in particular to Chisholm Institute's CEO, Dr Rick Ede, who was so willing to come on board to offer a site at the Chisholm campus to hold the meals service. The breakfast service is currently operating two mornings a week, and it is our hope to expand this service to include more breakfasts, and also dinners, for the less fortunate.
In addition to this, I have also been fighting to secure regular, permanent and free hot showers and change facilities in our local area to be available for those who are homeless, vulnerable and in need. During National Homelessness Week in August, Helena from Donation Chain spent a week during winter going without showers. At the end of that week, she used one of the cold showers along the Frankston foreshore. These public cold showers are the only option for those who need or want to use these facilities. It's really not an option, it's not a choice, and in the middle of winter it can be so cold. It provides no privacy either.
It is important that the community has worked together to provide assistance for those who may not have those facilities available to them. I recently announced $10,000 in federal government funding to put towards building these public hot shower facilities, subject to finding the location, as well as securing matching funding and support. Together we've been working with and advocating for Frankston City Council and others to come on board with a site. It was fantastic news to hear only a couple of evenings ago that Frankston City Council have matched our funding with $10,000 of funding to build a hot shower within the facilities of the comfort station in Frankston. This is a crucial step to provide essential extra services to those in need. Thank you to Helena and her team at Donation Chain in particular for their advocacy. Let's continue to go ahead with this project as well as the meals services.
Before I call the next member, can I state that, if no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes.
I speak today about a matter that is of vital importance to a large number of my constituents and indeed a developing crisis that's been on my radar since before the 2016 election. My concerns relate to the provision of transport infrastructure. We have a very rapidly growing population and massive development. Unless we actively invest in public transport, the gridlock on our local roads and our motorways will only worsen. We need to be doing all that we can to speed up our constituents' daily commute and make it easier and quicker for them to get back home to their families after a hard day of work.
Specifically, I wish to take this opportunity to speak on a lack of access to commuter car parking across the Macarthur electorate. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to other members that my community's commuter car parks are full most mornings by around 7 am. I'd imagine that many of them are experiencing similar difficulties in their electorates. I hear from my constituents on a regular basis, telling me stories about how they will drive to a local train station, arriving well in advance of peak hour, and yet they will be unable to find a parking spot. The sad reality is that oftentimes my constituents will have no choice but to drive the long distance to work. For my constituents, this will involve a trip along a motorway, such as the M5 and the M7, in bumper-to-bumper traffic with many other locals, also disgruntled about a lack of essential access to public transport. It's not unheard of in the Macarthur electorate for individuals to take two hours to drive to work in the morning and two hours to drive back home in the afternoon. No parent should be made to forego having dinner with their children of an evening because it takes them an incomprehensible amount of time to travel the 40 or 50 kilometres into the city and its outskirts.
In Macarthur, we have six widely used train stations which desperately need improvements to their commuter car parking. Leppington station in particular poses a safety threat to the broader community due to its lack of parking, with commuters forced to park kilometres away from the station, causing havoc to the local primary school and danger to commuters, particular in the early morning and the evenings, walking along very busy roads in the dark to their cars. I hear from constituents each time I visit Leppington station—it's one of my regular mobile offices—that many of them are made to walk along the side of the road for kilometres to get to and from their cars. Surely, with the rapid growth in my region, in Macarthur, and the fact that this station's usage will only increase with the new Western Sydney Airport, the time has come where we must do better with commuter car parking. State and federal Liberal governments have persisted in pushing massive development in Macarthur without public transport infrastructure, and this much change. It is putting people at risk and destroying family life, and the time has come for a better option and for better treatment of Macarthur residents.
Today I rise to acknowledge the achievements of Romilly Madew, a resident of Whale Beach, and her role in the growth of green building in Australia. Romilly attended Pymble Ladies' College before completing a Bachelor of Agricultural Economics at the University of Sydney, which is the same degree I have. Following her studies, Romilly embarked on what would prove to be a highly successful business career, serving as National Order Processing Manager for Link Telecommunications. I should add at this point—we did ask Romilly to give us some details, and she told us that she worked at Link Telecommunications from 1900 to 1994, making her currently 118 years old—I think she meant 1990 to 1994—and also as National Client Relationship Manager for King & Wood Mallesons from 1994 to 2002. During this time, she also acted as joint owner of the Madew grapefoodwine restaurant. In 2002, Romilly commenced work as executive director for the Property Council of Australia and was also executive director responsible for sustainability. This role allowed Romilly to become heavily involved in the green and sustainable building and construction industry, spaces which were beginning to grow rapidly in Australia.
It was in 2005 that Romilly made a move that continues to define her career today, joining the Green Building Council of Australia as a consultant while simultaneously authoring the publication The dollars and sense of green buildings. In 2006, she commenced leading the Green Building Council of Australia, a role which she continues in today. During her tenure, the council has grown significantly in terms of size, reputation and influence, and is today the second largest green building council within the 75-strong World Green Building Council network. Romilly has been an extremely effective leader in bringing together key stakeholders across the industry in order to drive the sustainable building movement and to impact Australian society in a positive manner. In 2017, Romilly was awarded the World Green Building Council Chairman's Award. This is in addition to numerous other awards such as being named Pittwater Citizen of the Year in 2016 by Pittwater Council, receiving an International Leadership Award in 2015 from the US Green Building Council, and being named as one of the 100 Women of Influence by the Australian Financial Review and Westpac in 2012.
Aside from business, Romilly has been an active member of the local community, serving as Deputy President of the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council, Independent Chair of the Currawong State Park Advisory Board in Pittwater, while also being a member of the Nestle Creating Shared Value round table. She is currently the club president, a surfboat rower and nipper age manager at the Bilgola Beach Surf Lifesaving Club.
In 1968, a group of parents in my hometown of Cessnock got together to ensure that their children with disability had a working future—that their children wouldn't be left alone on some form of benefit, sitting idle. Rather, they would have an opportunity to make a positive contribution to our economy and community. Thus was born an organisation known as Endeavour Industries, first as a laundromat then in later years as a packing shed and a provider of services to mow lawns and do gardening in people's homes. For 50 years that operation has been in place, and everyone who lives in Cessnock knows someone who works at Endeavour Industries, has become a friend to someone who works at Endeavour Industries and enjoys banter with someone who has worked there for many years—like Nick, who I see at the gym on a regular basis. He brightens my day every time I go there, because of his positive attitude to life, despite the very significant challenges he faces.
Sadly, Endeavour Industries has just gone into voluntary administration. As a result, 131 people will lose their jobs, most of them people with disability. Governments can't do anything about a situation like this—when a company goes into voluntary administration. It's like any other company. This one is a very special company, in that it employs people with disability, but the rules are the same and there is not much we can do but reflect on the sadness of management over the years getting it so wrong. I think the administrator is doing a pretty good job, trying, in the first instance, to have it continue as a going concern, but that looks like it's not going to be successful.
Thankfully, the assets are enough to ensure that both creditors and employees receive all the entitlements they have coming their way. But our key focus now has to be on placing those people into alternative employment. I want to make a pledge to my local community that I will work with the administrator, the NDIA and other organisations who employ people with disability in our region to ensure those people can be placed. I rose today to express my sadness and reflect on the work of so many good people at Endeavour over so many years, both those who were employed and former board and management members, and, again, to make that pledge to my community: working with the mayor and the local state member, we will do all we can to ensure that those people have a working future.
This morning I take the opportunity to speak about some very significant organisations in my electorate, the first being U3A Croydon, or the University of the Third Age, which has a mission to provide retired or semiretired people with opportunities to stay physically, mentally and socially active. U3A Croydon is one of the largest in the electorate and is joined by two others in the Deakin electorate: U3A Ringwood, established about 40-odd years ago, and U3A Nunawading, established 30-odd years ago. They combined have around 2,000 members, more than 200 courses and over 100 tutors, who freely volunteer their time. They provide an environment for retired people to be inspired to learn and also, importantly, to develop new friendships and relationships with people who have been similarly inspired. Because of the service of these volunteers, courses are provided at little or no cost, making them accessible for the broader community.
In August I was very fortunate to visit Croydon U3A. I'm always impressed to hear what they have to say about their growth, the breadth of their courses and the health of their organisation. Founded in 1992, Croydon U3A continues to grow, and is growing at an exponential rate at the moment. They have around 1,000 members who utilise 80 tutors and about 100 different courses that provide both intellectual and physical engagement. The reality for U3A Croydon is they are spread over a number of sites. It's becoming increasingly difficult to manage the sheer demand of the people that want to use their services and be a part of it. I committed to them to do everything I can to help Croydon U3A find additional facilities even if we have to build new facilities to support them and their work. I particularly mention those who I spoke to on that day, who have been doing an outstanding job at Croydon U3A, including the president, Jenny Higgins; the vice-president, Shane Watson; the secretary, Christine Hawkins; and the treasurer, Sue Martin for their work. There is a much larger committee, and dozens of tutors providing about 100 courses. It is a team effort, but the leadership of Croydon U3A is very strong. That's why we've partly committed to doing everything we can to help them have the facilities they need to deliver as many courses as they can to the increasing number of people who want to use Croydon U3A as a great outlet.
I've previously made clear my deep concerns about the safety of students from Adelaide High School when they are coming to and from their school, as a result of the traffic situation. I have written to both the federal and state governments to raise these concerns and to urge action as a priority. This week, we saw in the Adelaide Advertiser results of a study which was undertaken by Carnegie Melon University in conjunction with the South Australian government to identify the schools where road safety issues for students were most concerning. According to the report that The Advertiser ran this week, Adelaide High School had a number more than three times higher than any other school as most dangerous for students and pedestrians in South Australia: 172 people were hit by cars near Adelaide High during 2014, 2015 and 2016. It is clear that action is required urgently. It's worrying to note that the chairman of the Pedestrian Council of Australia was quoted in the paper earlier this year as saying:
… all of Australia should be worried about South Australia.
All of this parliament should be worried about the students of Adelaide High School.
I have no doubt that this is a situation that will be fixed. There will be changes made to the traffic lights. There will potentially be changes made to the traffic islands. The question is: is it going to take a tragedy before those changes are made? I'm calling on this government to ensure that it does not. We are talking about the lives of South Australians and, most particularly, we are talking about the lives of young South Australians just trying to go about the business of getting an education. It is clear this is unsafe.
I have received a response from the South Australian minister, Stephan Knoll, who has acknowledged that there are changes that could be made and that they will look into. But he says:
As you will appreciate, any project proposed will be the subject of a prioritisation process to ensure available funding is allocated to the projects where the greatest benefit can be provided to the community as a whole.
I'm calling on the South Australian government to prioritise the lives of Adelaide High School students and I thank the Adelaide High School community—the teachers, the principals, the governing council—for working so hard to ensure the safety of those students in the current circumstances—I know it's not easy—and for continuing to advocate for change. There is nothing more important than the safety of our community, and I urge both the federal government and the state government to stand up and immediately act to make these roads safer.
Earlier this year I met Sarah Joyce, an amazing young woman who at just 30 years of age began her battle with meningococcal disease. One night in August 2016, Sarah was having dinner with her parents on St Huberts Island, where she lives, when she began to feel unwell and later began vomiting and experiencing light sensitivity and fever. Within hours she was placed in an induced coma and was on life support for over a week. Doctors diagnosed her with meningococcal septicaemia W strain, one of the most deadly. Since that time, Sarah has been through dozens of surgeries, including the removal of her spleen, gallbladder and a large portion of her bowel. She endured the amputation of fingers and toes, and now requires dialysis three times a week in order to keep her kidneys functioning. All of this was caused by meningococcal and the damage it caused to Sarah's internal systems.
When I first met with her earlier this year, she shared her stories and hopes with me. Sarah told me she was fighting really hard to overcome this awful disease and that she was meeting with me for a single purpose—to raise awareness about meningococcal and the way it can change lives and families in a matter of hours. Sarah recently launched her foundation, the Sarah Joyce Project, at the Breakers Country Club at Wamberal and, with the wonderful support of Lions East Gosford, she raised $8,000 for the foundation. Sarah and her family worked for months on the launch and unfortunately, because she was admitted to hospital the night before, she wasn't able to be there but it was an honour to meet her mother, Karen. The function was really a celebration of her journey and her commitment to raise awareness about meningococcal and vaccination.
On the night, I also had the honour of meeting another local young woman of incredible strength, Anjini Rhodes, who, earlier this year, tragically lost her 19-year-old daughter, Michelle, to meningococcal. Anjini told me that like Sarah, Michelle was fit and healthy and began to feel unwell one Tuesday evening. After being admitted to Gosford Hospital and discharged later that night, there was no indication that Michelle might have meningococcal but, early on Wednesday evening, she passed away as a result of meningococcal disease's W strain, the same strain as Sarah. Anjini said it was not the fault of the medical staff at the hospital but she did tell me she is urging parents to make sure their children are vaccinated against all strains of meningococcal disease.
The Central Coast has recorded a number of cases of meningococcal recently, and I am pleased to inform the House that, as a result of the rise in the number of cases, this government has taken action and will make available meningococcal vaccinations for the A, C, W and Y strains for 14- to 19-year-olds starting from April next year. Anjini and Sarah have both told me they would love to see this extended to other age groups, and I will raise their request directly with the Minister for Health. But they have made it their mission to try to prevent more families from sharing their heartbreaking stories and the message to us is simple: check your vaccinations are up to date and be aware of the symptoms.
I rise to speak on Labor's Fair Go Action Plan and what a positive impact this will have in my electorate of Richmond, on the New South Wales North Coast. The fact is locals in my region and, indeed, across Australia have had enough of chaos of the Abbot-Turnbull-Morrison governments and are calling out for a united and stable government. They are calling out for a government that delivers for them and for their families and they want a future built on fairness, and it is only Labor that can deliver it.
Instead, all they've got now is this arrogant Liberal-National government which is so out of touch with Australians. After five long years of the cuts, chaos and crisis of this government, the people in my region know they've been abandoned by the Liberal-National party. Their hopes and aspirations are pushed aside while this government's infighting consumes them. In the past few weeks we have seen again the National Party talking about themselves and who leads them rather than focusing on the needs of regional and rural Australians. People in the regions have quite rightly walked away from the National Party because they don't protect their interests and they don't fight for them at all.
Here we have the situation with the cost of living increasing and wages failing to keep up, combined with the cuts to health, aged care and education. People in my electorate are especially hurting. So many frontline services have been cut by the National Party on the north coast at both federal and state levels. This is why we need a stable and steady Labor government to get the economy working for people again. Make no mistake about it: Labor is and will always be the only party that can actually deliver fairness. Only Labor has pledged an action plan to deliver a fair go to everyday working Australians.
Our fair go plan focuses on a number of policy measures that will help people living on the north coast. Firstly, we will fix our schools and hospitals by restoring funding cut by the Liberals and Nationals to ensure our community has quality public schools and hospitals. In our hospitals there will be much greater investment in our doctors and nurses and more beds for patients. Our recent announcement will deliver an extra $14 billion for public schools over the next decade, with $3.3 billion flowing in the first three years alone. Labor's plan will also ease pressure on family budgets by ending the Medicare freeze and giving important tax breaks to workers. We'll also better regulate power prices, with a new regulated cap protecting families and small businesses from price gouging by big energy companies. And, as always, Labor will stand up for the workers by protecting penalty rates, which are so vital in an area like mine with many people working in industries that do get penalty rates. They need to be protected. Only Labor will do that. Also, Labor will invest in cheaper, cleaner energy by delivering 50 per cent renewables by 2030—a major move.
Fundamentally, Labor wants to build a strong economy that starts working for all of us. The choice for my community on the north coast is very clear. Locals know the cuts, chaos and misery the National Party leaves behind every time they are in government. They have abandoned the north coast and, in fact, they've abandoned governing at all. In contrast to all of this, Labor stands united and stable, and we're fighting for a fair go for all Australians—a fair go that will make a very big difference in the lives of people living on the New South Wales north coast in my electorate. People are calling for fairness, and it's only Labor that will deliver a fair go. That's our pledge: a fair go for all Australians. It'll make a major difference to people living in my area on the New South Wales north coast.
Earlier this month, club members, flag officers and dignitaries were greeted with a sunny morning for the official opening of the Brighton Yacht Club season. In attendance was the Bayside/Glen Eira brass band as well as guest of honour, Commander Joseph Kempton RAN, to officially open the season along with Father Bill Goldman, who performed a blessing of the fleet. Thank you to Mandy Jackson's Nutrimetics and Kona Brewing Company for providing prizes to the all-in-pursuit race winner Laura Harding and her ring-in crew. Special thanks go to Kate Jenkins as lead organiser of the day and to Bruno Carreto, who organised the catering and entertainment.
I would like to wish the flag officers and general committee well for the summer: Commodore Paul Pascoe, Vice Commodore Peter Strain, Rear Commodore Peter Coleman, Club Captain Paul Jenkins, Honorary Treasurer Peter Demura and general committee members Brett Heath, Catherine Hurley, James Leckey, Marnie Irving, Niesje Hees and Steve Ingram.
Secondly, I want to acknowledge the Beaumaris Motor Yacht Squadron, who also kicked off their boating season, with their 59th annual sail past. It looks set to be another successful year of promoting recreational boating and providing a social environment for cruising, nav rallies and fishing for Beaumaris residents and beyond. I would like to acknowledge the BMYS office bearers: Commodore David Bell, Vice Commodore and Boating Director Les Sabo, Rear Commodore Michael Busuttil, Finance Director Hein Preller, Site Director Shayne Benedict, Fishing Director Brendon Hocking, Social Director John Giuliano, Club Secretary Simon Bartaby and Past Commodore Ross Popplewell.
I am also looking forward to attending and joining Commodore Gary Lokum for the opening day at Black Rock Yacht Club this weekend. Best wishes to the Black Rock Yacht Club committee for the upcoming season: Vice Commodore Lara Blasse, Commodore Mark Taylor, Immediate Past Commodore Mark Taylor, Secretary Mark Jackson, Treasurer Gary McLennan, Sailing Captain Andre Blasse and Rear Commodore Nik Wallis.
Finally, who could forget the mighty Sandringham Yacht Club? I trust all of their club members were well in their launch only a couple of weeks ago, which I wasn't able to attend, because I was out supporting other community events. I trust club members and visitors will be in good hands this summer with this important leadership, particularly Commodore Ashley Trebilcock; Vice Commodore Garry Anderson; Rear Commodore Sue Bowes; sail club captains Daniel Edwards, Simon Hemingway, David Suda; treasurer, Scott Sampson; and general committee members Paul Commins, Kevin Hibberson, Phil Simpfendorfer and Bill Stubbs.
All of these sailing clubs and yacht clubs play a critical part in the Goldstein social infrastructure to make sure that, at all stages of life, people are able to engage in healthy activities, outdoor activities, using the beauty and the natural asset that is Port Phillip Bay, which sits on the perimeter of the Goldstein electorate.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, I rise today to speak on the report on the inquiry into the quality of care in aged care facilities in Australia of October 2018. This inquiry was long overdue and, for many on the committee, it re-enforced what we already knew. Within the aged care sector, there exist myriad problems. We already knew this; the public already knew this—which begs the question as to why it has taken the government so long to take any action.
From the outset, I wish to make it clear that I support the government's decision to hold a royal commission into the sector. For some time, we in the Labor Party have acknowledged and championed action to address the state of crisis that the sector is in. We need a royal commission to thoroughly investigate and uncover the structural problems that we know occur in the aged care sector.
Call me a cynic, but I can't help but wonder why the committee and its findings weren't considered by the government before it announced its royal commission and terms of reference. I would have thought this report, which has just been handed down, would have been instrumental in setting the terms of reference for the royal commission. Policy on the run appears to be the norm for those opposite. I hold sincere fears that the government will delay taking any action to address the aged care problems until after the findings of the royal commission are handed down. We cannot afford for the government to neglect their responsibilities any longer. The crisis needs to start being fixed now—right now. Any delayed action to address this national crisis in the immediate future will prove the government hypocritical. They didn't wait for this report to be handed down before announcing a royal commission, so they needn't wait for the commission's findings to take the necessary steps to address problems that are occurring today, every day, in residential aged care and also in home care for those who are aged.
Through my experience on the inquiry, I would think the coalition's years of cuts to the aged care sector need to be front and centre. You wouldn't know it when they speak. They are always quick to blame their issues on governments past, but the reality is that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government have been in power for five years—five years. Think of all that Gough Whitlam achieved in a period of less than three years. The next time Scott Morrison and his mates try to blame their issues on a long-gone Labor government, we will speak out. The reality is that the Liberal-National government have cut billions of dollars from the aged care sector since coming to power. You can't fix aged care by cutting from it. Some responsibility for this crisis falls on the shoulders of those presently in power through their poor governance. The man with his hand on the tiller, Prime Minister Scott Morrison himself, shares a great deal of responsibility. He himself signed off on a $1.2 billion cut to aged care in his very first budget as Treasurer.
However, I want to take this opportunity to thank all those on this committee for their work in delivering this bipartisan report and specifically acknowledge the work of the committee secretariat, who have worked tirelessly, travelled extensively and delivered what is essentially a terrific report that underlines the problems that exist. In particular, I'd also like to thank the chair of the committee, the member for North Sydney, and the deputy chair, the member for Hindmarsh, for their tireless efforts in delivering this bipartisan report.
The report's recommendations that will improve transparency in complaints and complaint resolution, enhance access to medical practitioners in aged-care facilities, provide simplified ratings systems for facilities, guarantee access to a registered nurse in all facilities and establish unannounced audits of aged-care facilities, I believe, are of the utmost importance. We have heard some pretty harrowing evidence of late about aged care, both through this inquiry and through investigative journalism. We know Australia's population is ageing, and the demand for the provision of aged-care services is only going to increase in the coming years. We owe it to our older Australians, who have contributed to our society and, indeed, helped to build our nation in many ways, to ensure issues in our aged-care sector are addressed. From my vantage point, the inquiry demonstrated there are models of care that work extremely well, where people's needs are met medically, socially and environmentally, relationships are fostered, and families' individual situations are understood. However, best practice management is not available to all.
Other recommendations this committee made through this report include those which will contribute to an improved aged-care system in the future through the development of national guidelines. The individual needs of the patient must be considered first and foremost in addressing the level of care that's provided in aged-care facilities. To those who read the report, it's evident the committee is recommending a shift in focus for this inquiry, with a consumer-orientated approach deemed necessary. This may sound obvious to most Australians, but if we know anything from this developing crisis, it's clear the needs of the elderly, the real consumers, have not been made a priority.
As the chair of the standing committee, the member for North Sydney, Mr Trent Zimmerman, said in his foreword of this report:
Providing high quality residential care to older Australians is an obligation we have as a society and a parliament.
We require understanding of the increasingly complex medical and social needs of older people in residential aged care. Many of the problems we saw and stories we heard related to lack of understanding, poor governance, lack of transparency, under-resourcing and poor communication. As a doctor, I found it quite distressing to hear evidence that frail aged people are not receiving the best medical and nursing care that we can provide at the end of people's lives. In particular, difficulties getting adequate pain relief, difficulty accessing palliative care, problems accessing general practitioners and specialists as well as paramedical services need to be resolved urgently if best practice care is to be provided.
We know that high-quality evidence based care can be provided, but this requires (1) adequate funding. (2) adequate staffing levels, (3) adequate training of staff, (4) a patient focus, and, most importantly, (5) transparency. I'd like to echo the remarks of my friend and colleague the member for Hindmarsh, Mr Steve Georganas:
… older Australians deserve better, and they do deserve better. They deserve better from governments, from agencies, from aged-care facilities and from all who are involved with our older Australians. They deserve better from all of us.
This report is a sound place for the government to start, but I must stress they must start today and they must provide better quality care for older Australians who are in the twilight of their lives. This will benefit us all and is a requirement of a just and caring society.
It's always a pleasure to get the opportunity to speak in front of you, Deputy Speaker Laundy. Today I rise once again to add my voice to the countless voices of my community who are demanding that governments take action seriously to the threats to our population through lack of access to quality, affordable aged care. It's always good to follow my friend Dr Freelander, the member for Macarthur, who is very well versed and knowledgeable in this area. His expertise is something we are lucky to have on this side of the House.
The report highlights what so many in our communities are shouting from the rooftops: we don't have enough places to provide care, and we don't have enough carers to do the task with dignity and respect that our ageing friends and family deserve. It was only last week in the House that I was speaking on behalf of thousands of concerned residents who lent their voices to the Doreen Seniors Club petition 'Spotlight on Aged Care', which was calling on governments to establish an aged-care facility in Mernda or Doreen to meet the needs of the growing north. This is one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia.
The urgent need for increased access and service can be seen in full view. We know it, our communities know it. The only ones who don't seem to understand these issues, and haven't for years, are governments. Time and time again, on this side of the House, we've asked the government to address the fact that the aged-care system is in a state of crisis. With that in mind, I take this opportunity to once again address this issue that is critical to our community. I seek leave to table a petition signed by 2,000 local residents of Doreen and Mernda and surrounding areas. The petition calls on governments to take action in our local community and make the necessary investment to bring critical aged care to our community.
Leave granted.
I thank the intelligent members of the government for letting this through, because it's vitally important that we address all calls from the community, because that inquiry is just not enough. Reports like this one that we are discussing here today are important. But what's needed, as the member for Macarthur said, is real action and a real plan. There have been several inquiries over the years into problems in the aged-care sector, which the government has simply refused to act on. We know from this report, and from the stories we hear from local residents, that the quality standards and reporting system just aren't working. There aren't enough aged-care workers, and they aren't given the right pay or respect or support they need.
Despite what the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government might have you believe, you don't fix aged care by cutting funding. The opposition leader and the shadow minister for aging and mental health have already written to the Prime Minister, urging him to broaden the terms of reference of the recently announced royal commission to include a range of issues that at this point seem to be totally ignored. Billions of dollars have been cut from aged care in the last five years under the Liberal-National Party government. The current Prime Minister cut almost $2 billion in his first year as Treasurer, and we wonder why there's a crisis! There are 108,000 people on the Home Care Package waiting list; 88,000 of those have critical high needs, many living with dementia. Those 108,000 Australians deserve some answers, they deserve respect and they deserve dignity.
We should judge ourselves as a nation by how we treat our elderly and, right now, it's fair to say we are failing the basic test. How can we call ourselves a fair and generous country if we can't give elderly Australians the love, the care and the comfort in their sunset years that they deserve? With the ever-revolving cabinet door—three ministers in five years—and billions of dollars cut, the government has ignored dozens of its own reports and reviews of what's needed to fix the problem. Only after a shocking report on Four Corners did we see any movement. These reviews and reports have been allowed to collect dust instead of being acted upon. It shouldn't take bad press to get some action. We shouldn't wait for the minister to say, 'Look, if it lands on my desk, I might have a look at it, but otherwise let it go.' We shouldn't only care about ageing citizens when they are in desperate crisis.
We also know the roles of nurses and personal care workers in looking after of our older Australians are absolutely critical, and will become increasingly important as demand continues to grow. Labor also understand the important roles other health professionals such as GPs, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and dietitians play when you look at a holistic approach to the wellbeing of our older Australians. The number of people aged 85 years is rapidly increasing when comparing it with younger age groups; it is projected to double by 2032. What we are going to need is a tripling of the aged-care workforce in the next 30 years to provide a standard of living and care for this growing proportion of older Australians. Where is the plan to address the shortfall? It's nowhere. Where's the focus on quality training and retraining in the aged-care space? It's gone with the wind.
Reports show us that the predicted aged-care workforce will need to increase from around 366,000 people to around one million people by 2050. So what did the government do? After the 2013 election they dumped Labor's $1.5 billion workforce compact and supplement. That totally undid the groundwork for a comprehensive aged-care workforce development strategy to address those issues of training, staffing levels and an ageing workforce.
It wasn't until almost five years later that the government finally addressed some of these issues with the Aged Care Workforce Strategy Taskforce in the 2017-18 budget—a day late and a dollar short. We know that, in order to address the shortfalls in aged care and to meet the growing demand, the government must work with unions and aged-care providers to implement a clear strategy. I mean an actual strategy—one that considers issues such as the proposal for 24-hour registered nurse coverage at residential aged-care facilities.
Whether it is aged-care providers, workers or consumers, the message up till now has been frustratingly consistent. It has been one of reaction or inaction. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government can and should get proactive to ensure that we have an adequately skilled and equipped aged-care workforce to care for our population as they age. While the chaotic and divided Liberals have fought amongst themselves the care of older Australians has been neglected.
My analysis of the aged-care sector was clearly outlined in my contribution to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 debate in this place last week. The sector is in crisis. It has been for some time. The victims of the crisis are mainly the vulnerable elderly, although they do include some of the staff who work within the sector as well. The government has now announced a royal commission, which Labor supports. However, I repeat what I said last week: the royal commission should not be an excuse to delay changes that are needed immediately about matters that are well-known and have been for some time.
This report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport is one of many over recent years that have focused on the aged-care sector. Many of the other reports came to similar conclusions as this committee report did. Indeed, the Australian Law Reform Commission report of only a couple of years ago addressed many of the matters that the committee addressed and came to similar conclusions on many of those matters as the House standing committee did.
We have reached a point where we see that this sector, which has been exposed for its shortfalls and deficiencies over many years, continues to deteriorate rather than improve. We have reached a point where there are inadequate staffing levels, fewer allied health professional visits, less social activity within centres, deteriorating food quality, GPs cutting back or cutting out their residential aged-care facility visits, long waiting lists for home care packages, too much of the home care package funding being chewed up in administrative costs and other problems within the sector. All of those matters are known and have been known for some time. What I see from this government is simply more talk about the problems and more promises to do things in the future but no real change taking place right now.
Even today we have announcements about increased unannounced visits to aged-care facilities in the future—beginning some time next year. The reality is that those matters could be addressed right now and should be addressed right now. They don't require legislative changes. They could simply be administrative changes that the government implements. Those matters are well known. I have often asked the question: why did we not introduce unannounced visits in years gone by? Why was there a need to announce the visits in the first place? Regardless of whether we increased the number of visits, the fact that the visits were taking place with an announcement being made in advance seemed to me to defeat their very purpose. Again, the government claims that it will respond and act in that matter—but when?
In the course of the inquiry the committee heard considerable evidence. There were some 123 submissions, many of them confidential because they were made by people that work within and had very personal insight about the industry or by family members who, equally, had personal experience of how the facilities were operating. For fear either for their future employment within the centre or of retribution against the family member that was in those facilities they didn't want their submissions to be made public. I suspect that was simply the tip of the iceberg with respect to the number of people that would have loved to have come forward and talked about their experience within this sector but for one reason or another chose not to.
We have a royal commission now. One of my other concerns about the royal commission is that the government will effectively sideline the committee's report and defer any meaningful response until the royal commission findings are in. My understanding is that will be some 18 months to two years away, which effectively means that, again, matters that need to be dealt with immediately will simply be pushed into the future and, in this particular case, beyond the next federal election. I say to the government: if the royal commission is being called for no better motive than to defer action then I believe that the public will simply not wear it. I think it would be fair to say, certainly from the numerous people I've spoken to about this matter, that the public are looking for a response right here and now.
The committee came forward with some 13 recommendations. There are other matters that perhaps could have been dealt with, but I think the 13 recommendations are appropriate and in most cases should not be ignored and should be supported by the government now—and not wait for the findings of the royal commission. I won't speak about all of them; I want to talk about just half a dozen. The first is recommendation 2, which talks about penalties. To date the penalties imposed on providers of aged-care services that have breached their obligations is generally to have their accreditation or their licence to operate suspended for a period of time until they rectify the problems. To my mind no other types of penalties have ever been imposed. I believe the issue of penalties needs to be reviewed. The penalties imposed where serious breaches occur should be more than just a suspension and a 'please explain' letter from the department but, rather, a real penalty.
The second is with respect to the comment I made earlier about GPs not visiting centres as much as they used to and many others now saying that they will cut out or cut back on their visits in the future. That is an issue that goes to the heart of the Medicare Benefits Schedule payments the GPs receive, and that matter needs to be reviewed. If it's not and GPs don't visit people within these facilities then it is not good for the resident and it is not good for the public health system, because the resident ultimately ends up in a public hospital.
The third is the unannounced visits which I spoke about earlier. In my view unannounced visits are a no-brainer, but in addition to visits being unannounced, they need to also take place in the out-of-business-hours time periods: after 5 pm, on weekends and perhaps even on public holidays. My understanding from the feedback I've received is that's where most of the problems are likely to occur, and most of the criticisms made arise from the care provided during those out-of-hours times.
The other matter of real concern to the committee is the use of restrictive practices, whether it's the use of medication or other more direct restraint methods. I can accept in some cases the need to do that but in all cases where restrictive practices are used, two conditions should apply. Firstly, there should be the approval of a medical professional before a restrictive practice is used. Secondly, the family or carer of the person should be notified.
Lastly, I go to the issue of the My Aged Care website, where it ought to clearly highlight the complaints that have been received by a particular facility so that the public, which has the right to know, know how that facility stacks up in comparison to the others. I'm aware that the committee's inquiry will continue with respect to staff ratios. That's a very important matter. I look forward to the evidence and to the report of that inquiry when it's presented to parliament.
I'd like to thank the committee and secretariat for their work in producing what is a comprehensive review of the issues that are currently facing the sector and the challenges we are going to face into the future. Aged-care reform is a complex problem but it is a problem we must not ignore in this parliament. We must consider the financial impacts, the changing healthcare needs and, of course, the emotional cost on our loved ones. I know in my own electorate of Mayo that we have some wonderful homes which go above and beyond to care for their residents. But I also hear, day after day, from concerned constituents sharing their own stories of abuse and neglect. Indeed, since launching my private member's bill, I hear from people across the nation. Notwithstanding the scale of reform that is required, I'm confident we can harness the support evident on both sides of this chamber today to meet the inevitable demand for aged-care places, not with fluster but a carefully-prepared plan to manage the needs of our elderly loved ones.
Before I turn to the report itself, I note the appointment today of Ms Janet Anderson as Commissioner of the Aged Care, Quality and Safety Commission. A primary role of quality regulation is consumer protection. We know from recent examples in the media that this is a heavy responsibility and it will restore trust and confidence in the industry, and that's what we need. This report makes clear there is not going to be a simple pathway forward for reform. How can there be when aged-care needs are complex, the funding arrangements are complex and the health needs of our ageing population are changing? We know people are moving into aged-care homes when they are older, when they are more frail. We also have a shrinking workforce for our ageing population and so how will we, as a nation, ensure that the growing demand for services is met with an aged-care workforce and the right people to do the work?
While the reform required may be extensive, I believe the best way forward is to follow the recommendations of the report as well as the many reports and reviews previously completed and adopted. And we need to adopt a consumer-focused approach to aged care. This is perhaps best identified in the proposed charter of aged-care rights. I appreciate that the earlier charter received some criticisms during the inquiry, both for its legalistic language and for the fact that neither staff nor residents were aware of the document itself. But I believe there is some merit in such a document and I want to spend some time exploring the draft charter. Firstly, the charter is written in simple English rather than legalese, and I think this is very important.
I have the right to be listened to and understood. I have the right to complain. I have the right to be informed about my care in the way that meets my needs.
The words may be simple but the message is clear and powerful: the rights of Australians do not cease upon entering a residential care facility. As the minister regularly states—and I agree with him wholeheartedly—this is their home; it's just a different home. I accept that the charter of rights is only as meaningful as we choose to make it, but I urge the government, the service providers and their staff and the families of older Australians to pay attention to those words. If we are going to make a meaningful improvement in the lives of older Australians then we need to review and reform with the words of the charter at the front of our minds.
One way we can make a real change, a consumer focused change, is to provide families and residents with as much information as possible so that they can make an informed decision. This is a major financial investment for families and often involves selling the family home to meet the significant costs of care entry. This is one of the reasons I have pursued my private members bill, which calls for disclosure of staffing levels in all aged-care homes. The bill is currently in the inquiry phrase, with a public hearing scheduled for this Friday to consider the merits of the bill and the measures it contains. I'd like to spend a few minutes on why, in light of what has been said in the report, my bill is an important step in developing a consumer driven aged-care sector and one that is arguably consistent with the report.
Recommendation 4 of the report calls for the government to do two things in relation to staffing matters: firstly, to ensure that there is always an enrolled nurse on staff at all times—I think the Australian community is in shock that there is not an enrolled nurse, and nor is there a requirement for a registered nurse to be on duty at all times—and, secondly, to monitor and report on the relationship between standards of care and staffing mixes to guide on staffing requirements. I accept that the quantity of staff does not automatically translate to quality, and there can be no denying that appropriate staffing levels, with an appropriate mix of skilled medical professionals, will guard against abuse and neglect. But the level of care, and the number of staff to provide the care, is a critical issue for older Australians. The absence of that data has been noted time and time again, and that is the purpose of the bill. I appreciate that the release of staffing data will not be the panacea that we are all desperately searching for, but it is a start. I believe it is an important start and a start that we must make.
The royal commission is a welcome development, but I will not allow it to be used for an excuse to delay or deter further reforms. The committee report takes great pains to set out the previous reviews and reports carried out by government, the Productivity Commission, the Law Reform Council and various academics and stakeholders. It proves that we have so many good pieces of evidence before us. We need to ensure that action is now. I look forward to the hearing on Friday, and I thank the committee for its work on the report that's before us today.
I too would like to thank the committee for its report and also the member for Mayo for her comments. Before entering this place, I was involved in the aged-care sector for a decade and a half, and I have to say I find criticisms of the aged-care sector in Australia at the moment quite surprising. The reason I say that is that in 2004, when I first started in the aged-care sector, the level of care that was available to older Australians was at a much, much lower level than it is now. It was in fact extremely and extraordinarily poor.
There reforms of both parties in this place—firstly, the member for Curtin, Julie Bishop, and the member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews—introduced significant and far-reaching reforms in the aged-care sector that had the impact of inviting and indeed encouraging enormous amounts of private-sector capital into the sector, which has done nothing but massively improve the level of care that our tribal elders currently enjoy. The most egregious examples of our tribal elders being abused at the hands of aged-care workers and aged-care providers come not from a private-sector firm or a not-for-profit firm but from an aged-care nursing home run by the South Australian government—the Oakden home. When after audit after audit threw up red flags about this home and its service, the South Australian government and the nurses working at that facility blocked any further investigations. You see, there is a difference between clinical care, pastoral care or other care that we want our tribal elders to have in their final years. Seeing this issue, this challenge, that we face through the prism of an industrial instrument, an industrial dispute—indeed, promoting the interests of a particular union—does not, I think, actually provide the people whom we are seeking to provide care for with any further comfort. The fact of the matter is that aged care homes do not need more nurses; they need more carers. Indeed, one of the previous speakers, one of the Labor speakers, said that it is allied health workers who are required in these homes now more than ever. The fact that we don't have nurses on call 24 hours at nursing homes is not a matter that any Australian should be concerned about—in fact, quite the opposite. What they should be concerned about is the coming deficit in carers that we will need for the baby boomer generation who are about to enter our nursing homes here in Australia.
The other issues that have been brought up are around audits and why the audits are not all unannounced audits. The reason is that many of the audits, as part of their process, check the documentation that the nursing home keeps on the level of care that it is providing to residents. Why is this important? Because there are funding models between levels 1-10. That essentially ensures how much money each nursing home receives for each resident. If a resident is assessed as having a care level of level 10 then the nursing home receives a much higher level of subsidisation from the Australian taxpayer; at level 1, a lower level. Nursing homes are incentivised by their very nature to try and increase the amount of care that a resident is getting, regardless of whether they need it or not.
It was not possible and is still not possible for people to just turn up on a Saturday night and say, 'Can I see the documentation for what level of care a person has been receiving?' That is why we have announced audits. The unannounced audits, which we commenced under this government, have been massively increased and that's why we've seen a spike in rectification reports for nursing homes across Australia. The issue that we face is that when others come into this place and say, 'Despite the fact that the aged care sector is currently receiving and will continue to receive record funding now and into the future,' what they are talking about is that they want extra payments to go to people who are ripping off the system. They want to encourage nursing homes and nursing home providers to undertake a system whereby the Australian taxpayer is subsidising rip-offs. I cannot comprehend in any way, shape or form why we think that is a good way to treat fellow Australians, because, simply put, it isn't.
Of course, all of this is taking place in the prism of what is going on with home care packages. Those opposite talk about the waiting lists for home care packages, and they're right, but you have to understand or question the value of some of those home care packages. Are they audited? Not really. What sort of care are they providing? Many Australians would be surprised to find that the vast majority of home care packages are going on services that are not necessarily dedicated to care—things like cooking, cleaning and, indeed, gardening. I think we need to have a mature and sensible debate, which hopefully will occur in the royal commission, about whether this is the best allocation of our scarce resources as a nation in helping to care for people as they get older, because there is the other truth.
I doorknock, and I know the member for Oxley does a lot of doorknocking too. I'm sure he's had the experience of knocking at a five-bedroom house where there is currently one person, often very elderly, who has now found herself—or himself, in some rare instances—trapped in her home, socially isolated from a lot of the other people in her community and a lot of her family. In some instances, we may be inadvertently making their lives worse by encouraging them to stay in their own homes. I think these are the sorts of discussions a royal commission should have and needs to have.
So, when the member for Mayo comes in here and says that most Australians will be shocked to find out that there isn't a 24-hour nurse on in a nursing home, why would they be shocked? I think they would be more shocked to find out that we are not treating a nursing home as a home but rather as some offshoot of a hospital and that we are treating people in nursing homes as though they're just some sort of outpatient. No, this is, in most cases, their last home. They deserve to be treated with dignity. They deserve to be cared for. They deserve to be looked after. Part of that is, without doubt, clinical care. But it's a very small part of it. People who come into this place and say that we need to have nurse-to-resident ratios are missing the actual, crucial point of what nursing homes do in our society. I understand that people who say we should put much more money into home care packages think they're caring, but in some cases—and I don't know how many and, hopefully, the royal commission will get to the bottom of it—they're actually making the lives of the people who they think they're helping much, much worse.
If the member for Oxley had been listening—and I know he does a lot of doorknocking. He has met people in their homes who feel that they are being trapped in their own homes and they would welcome the opportunity to be placed—
Mr Dick interjecting—
Yes, Member for Oxley, I have heard of ageing in place. Have you? Do you know what ageing in place is? Do you even know what that phrase means? It means that, when a person goes into a retirement village, they have a continuum of care. It doesn't mean that we leave the person in their own home. I take it, from your silence, that we have finally found something that I know more about than you. So I'll just enjoy this moment while it lasts. The fact of the matter is—
Honourable members interjecting—
No, the member for Oxley's right: it's not a competition. All of us should come to this place, because all of us have a proud record to speak about when it comes to aged care because all of us, over many different governments, have made massive advances in the way that our tribal elders get looked after. But just simply providing more home care packages will actually make some people worse off. We think we're caring, but we're actually hurting them, and that's why a royal commission is important, because it's easy to pick on things and say, 'Look, let's just throw more nurses at nursing homes,' when, in fact, we need more carers, or, 'Let's just throw more home care packages at people,' when, in fact, we need better nursing homes. These are the issues that the royal commission, hopefully, will get to the bottom of. This is a serious issue, and both sides need to treat it as such.
There being no further speakers, debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
It's a real honour to stand up and speak about this in this House because, like many of the other members, I had the opportunity to meet some of the survivors who were here for the national apology on Monday. I met one of them in my office and I asked him a very, very simple question, and that question was: was the apology meaningful to you? We had a very emotional conversation and he assured me that, yes, absolutely, it was meaningful. It was meaningful to be heard, it was meaningful to finally be acknowledged and it was meaningful to be finally told that what happened to them mattered.
There was one thing that the opposition leader said in his speech that really raised a lot of emotion in me personally. That's because, in his speech in the House on that day, he paid heed to those who suffered sexual abuse as children who were not in institutions, and extended that apology to children who have suffered and survived sexual abuse in all situations.
It brought back some memories, some painful memories, I must say, for me. I grew up in the outer suburbs of Sydney. We lived in a very multicultural street, but across the road from me lived this Australian family. I would look at this Australian family and I would wish that my family was much more like them, because they did these Aussie things. They went to restaurants and movies and my family didn't, because my dad always said, 'Why should I go to a restaurant when your mum can cook me a meal at home?' I really wanted to be like that family, and I formed a friendship with the young girl across the road from me who was my age. I have many, many fond memories of growing up in the suburbs of Sydney with my dearest and my closest childhood friend. As we grew older in our late teens, that family moved away and I lost touch with my childhood friend, who I'd spent so many beautiful hours with, roaming around the bush around the Georges River.
A couple of years ago I got an email from her brother, who asked me if I was the same Anne Aly who grew up in the suburbs of Sydney. He asked me how I was doing and how my family was doing. I was very excited to receive this email, because it meant that I could possibly reconnect with my childhood friend. So I wrote back to him, and I said 'Wow, it's so fantastic to hear from you. How are you? How's your family? How's your sister?' He wrote back not long after and he said, 'I'm really sorry to tell you this, Anne, because I don't know if I should, but my dad's in jail and my sister was sexually abused by him from the age of six.' He ended his email by saying, 'I'm constantly shocked by how many people keep saying my father was such a nice man, because he wasn't a nice man at all.' I cried for days after that, and I felt this immense sense of guilt about how could I not have known—how could I not have known that my closest friend, the dearest person to me, my second sister, was being so terribly and horribly abused by her father all those years that we were growing up? Even though I know I was only a child too at that time, I just couldn't shake this feeling of guilt that I should have known and I should have been able to do something, and this feeling of helplessness that I couldn't have done anything for her.
Not long after that, she came to visit me in Perth and she spent a weekend with me. It was great to reconnect with my childhood friend. Many of the memories that I had of her came rushing back: the shy way that she giggled behind her hand whenever I said something a little bit controversial, her beautiful little elfin features. She hadn't changed much at all, and she was still that young girl that I remember growing up with. She spent a weekend as a house guest in our house, and we had long conversations about our childhoods. There was one thing that she wanted to know. The one thing she wanted to know from me was whether or not her father had also abused me. He hadn't, and when I told her that, it seemed to give her some kind of relief. It seemed to give her some kind of comfort. I know that it was the smallest thing that I could do, the very least thing that I could do, to at least provide her with some kind of comfort and some kind of relief.
So I wanted today to stand up here, acknowledge her and let her know that I think about her every day, that I hope that the national apology on Monday was also meaningful for her as it was for the thousands of other victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, both institutional and non-institutional and that I hope that, as a small gesture that it is, it goes some way to providing all people who have suffered some comfort that we're listening, that we care for you, that we acknowledge you and that you matter.
On behalf of my constituents in Darwin and Palmerston I rise to voice their support of the national apology to all those who suffered as a result of institutional child sex abuse. The people I represent in Darwin and Palmerston were not shielded from the atrocities committed. One of the case studies in the commissioner's report was that of the infamous Retta Dixon Home in Darwin. The Retta Dixon Home was established by the Aborigines Inland Mission at the Bagot Aboriginal Reserve in 1946 as a home for 'half-caste children and mothers and a hostel for young half-caste women'. The Aborigines Inland Mission was a non-governmental and interdenominational faith ministry established in 1905. It still operates today but has changed its name to the Australian Indigenous Ministries, or AIM. Some time in December 1947, the home was granted a licence by the Australian government to be conducted as an institution for 'the maintenance, custody and care of aboriginal and half-caste children'. Children stayed at the Retta Dixon home until they were aged 18. The home closed in 1980.
From 1946-1978, various laws permitted the Australian government to take Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children into institutional care. Many of the children who lived at the home now identify themselves as members of the stolen generations. The Australian government was the guardian of many children at the Retta Dixon Home. The Australian government also had a general responsibility to all children in the home, including for their care, welfare, education and advancement, until the time of self-government in 1978. The Australian government was actively involved in activities at the Retta Dixon Home. The home generally housed between 70 and 100 children at any one time. Children were housed in dormitory-style accommodation and most children stayed at the home until they were 18 years of age. They attended local schools.
Ten former residents of the Retta Dixon home gave evidence or provided statements to the royal commission about their experiences of sexual and physical abuse when they were children living at the home. Some of the survivors were here with us this week in parliament. The commission heard of the impacts of the abuse on their lives, including serious effects on their mental health, employment and relationships. They heard of their pain and suffering over a long period and the personal costs associated with dealing with the long-lasting impacts. Most former residents of the home who gave evidence said that they did not report the abuse at the time because they did not understand it to be wrong and later felt too ashamed and frightened to report the abuse. Other witnesses said there was nobody they could report the abuse to.
Children were forcibly taken from their parents and promised a better future but instead were subject to repeated abuse over the course of their childhood, in what the member for Lingiari has referred to as the 'cruellest double-whammy'. They were taken from their actual families and then abused by state-sponsored carers.
While Retta Dixon had some of the most horrific cases in my electorate, the abuse suffered by the forgotten Australians and former child migrants should not be overlooked nor should the tragedy suffered by the many children who were sent to institutions and foster homes to be looked after and cared for and who, instead, were abused physically, humiliated cruelly, violated sexually. They were left hungry and alone with nowhere to hide and with nobody, absolutely no-one, to whom they could turn. There were cases of children shipped to Australia as child migrants, robbed of their families, robbed of their homeland, regarded not as innocent children but instead as a source of child labour. It's a dark chapter of our history and we'll never be able to put this period behind us, nor should we. I'd like to acknowledge the work done by former prime ministers Turnbull, Abbott, Rudd and, of course, the leadership of Julia Gillard in getting us to where we are today and, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, we do not forget the contributions of the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin.
To the survivors in the Top End and anywhere in the Territory, my office is available to you if you'd like to find out more about the redress scheme or the support services available. In my electorate, Relationships Australia and Danila Dilba have received funding from the Department of Social Services as local service providers in Darwin and Palmerston. The NT Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation has been an outstanding advocate for survivors and their families.
To all victims, survivors, families and support providers, what you have suffered and have gone through was horrible, and it continues to shock Australians to this day. I know that many people out there will still be asking 'How was this evil permitted to go on for so long?' The healing may take a lifetime, but I hope that the belated actions of this parliament, given voice by the Prime Minister and our Labor leader, Bill Shorten, will go some way to acknowledging the pain and loss. To those victims of these terrible crimes, I add my assurance that you are believed and please take some heart in the fact that some very good recommendations have come out of the royal commission so that we can make our way forward.
We must do all that is possible to ensure that what you have suffered never happens again. But it is happening though. Somewhere right now in this country a child is hurting so let us use this week's national apology to urge action. If you suspect a child is hurting, act. If you are a perpetrator, get help now, confess now, apologise now. Do not hurt our young people or anyone. There have been too many young lives irreparably scarred, no more. Let us not see this national apology as a mission accomplished. Let us see it as a call to listen and let us see this national apology as a call to act.
This is an important debate on this motion, and I'm very pleased to support it. It's a debate about recognition. It's about justice, it's about responsibility, it's about healing and it's also about trust, accountability and power. I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in saying sorry. It's occasions like this when we can't help but be mindful that we are here as representatives, and I know on this occasion that I am saying sorry on behalf of all constituents in the Scullin electorate.
I also join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in accepting that saying sorry is far from enough. Much more needs to be done by all of us with the power to take action. For the victims and the survivors of such awful abuse—of sexual abuse—the royal commission and this debate in this parliament are important staging posts, not an end. They can't be an end for the reasons the member for Solomon so effectively set out just a few moments ago. I don't believe, in making a brief contribution to this debate, that it's for me to seek to tell the stories that so many brave survivors were able to tell, and were supported to tell, through the process of the royal commission. But I want to acknowledge their courage and my obligation, the obligation I share with all of us here, to do justice to their courage and to do more than simply offer an apology in respect of what was done to vulnerable people in the care of institutions—ultimately, in the care of all Australians.
Former Prime Minister Gillard deserves plaudits for initiating the royal commission that leads us to this debate, and I note that she's in this building today—I believe for the first time since she last left it before the 2013 election. I note that she acknowledged that this was one of the harder decisions that she has made, and I think it will be a very significant part of her legacy as a politician. I acknowledge her and also the member for Jagajaga for their roles, as well as the current Prime Minister and his two immediate predecessors, the member for Warringah and Malcolm Turnbull, and, of course, former Prime Minister Rudd. Their bipartisan leadership through this process and through this motion is something that deserves acknowledgement. It shows this parliament operating at its best with a shared purpose, assuming a shared responsibility to people who we have wronged. And make no mistake: we have wronged them.
I said it's not for me to seek to re-tell the stories that are set out in the royal commission, but I just want to note that, as the Leader of the Opposition said in what I thought was a tremendously moving contribution in the House, there are 17 volumes of that royal commission report. That is a pretty significant marker of the scale of the horror, the indignity, the hurt and the damage inflicted on some of the most vulnerable people. I think it's that weight that we all need to take our share in carrying as we seek to do more than say sorry, which is to do justice.
As well as acknowledging politicians and acknowledging, in the broad, the courage of survivors, I want to mention Leonie Sheedy, who would be known to many of us in this place, and the extraordinary work that she has done. My first meeting with her, more than a decade ago when I was in a very different capacity, is something I will never forget. She reminded me of it on Monday. The impression she made, the force with which she engaged with me, showed her qualities as a person and her passion as an advocate, not so much for herself, but, in particular, for her brother Anthony, who I'm thinking of now. I also want to pay tribute to her extraordinary drive in seeking justice from those of us who hold authority and wield power, but also in supporting those who needed her support to tell their stories. I know that she has given so much support to so many. Leonie, I acknowledge you in this place.
I want to end by going back to where I started, which was about what this motion and our wider response to the findings of the royal commission really means. Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, I know that you'll agree with me that the mark of a good society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. The royal commission represents the most shocking indictment of how we treated the most vulnerable members of our society. It showed that we failed. We know through the work of the Royal Commission and through the work of advocates and victims and survivors that we continue to fail, that lives remain broken and that there are many who are not survivors whom we need to think of as well. It goes back again to questions of authority. We've seen so many people's faith in any institution absolutely shattered. That was acknowledged in the debate in this parliament on Monday as older survivors contemplate their latter years, again, in an institutional setting, which is tremendously unimaginably confronting.
As we seek to do more than simply offer our apologies in this place and put real meaning into our efforts to do justice and to make reparation, let's also think about how authority operates, think about how power operates and make sure that we discharge our obligations to all of those who have suffered and to redouble our efforts to see that nothing like this happens again.
I rise to speak on indulgence to the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. There are some days in this parliament that stand out more than most. My first day in parliament was the day Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave the apology to the stolen generation. That was my first ever day sitting in this House. In fact, before that apology was given in the House of Representatives, there was the first ever welcome to country, right underneath the flag in the middle of the building. Even though Indigenous Australians had obviously been here for 50,000-60,000 years, my first day back in 2008 was when Matilda House gave the first welcome to country. That took place right in the middle of the building, underneath the flag pole.
This building is the people's house. I'm sure many wouldn't understand the architecture of it. The flag is right in the middle of it and then there are two crosses, effectively. One goes from the front of the War Memorial down through the middle of this building, under the great verandah, through the marble foyer and then through the Great Hall—the hall that belongs to the people. If you keep going through the doors of the Great Hall, you come to the flag and the fountain, which are right in the middle of the building, and then to the cabinet room and the Prime Minister's office. So, one line of that cross, which meets under the flag, is from the people through to the executive. That is the north-south line. The east-west line basically links the green carpeted House of Representatives, the people's representatives for the 150 electorates, through to the states representatives on the red carpet. That's the east-west line.
The reason I mention it is that on Monday, 22 October this year, the victims, survivors and supporters of those who suffered institutional child sexual abuse gathered in the Great Hall. They could have filled many more great halls. Members of parliament, the MPs, and many of the senators gathered in the House of Representatives and heard the apology to the victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse that was given by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. After that, some went to the Great Hall and some went out to the front of the building. The reason I mention people gathering in the Great Hall and the House of Representatives is its incredible symbolism. I have just come from an unveiling of the portrait of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who actually kicked off the royal commission that did so much to deliver this apology.
Monday was a day for acknowledging the pain, acknowledging the evil failings of many in our society and acknowledging that the apology is part of the journey but obviously not the final destination. Sadly, too many people never got far enough to hear the apology. There is a long road ahead for the survivors. Monday might have been a better day for some, but some of these days aren't easy. Most of us can't even imagine the pain that has been endured and is still felt each and every day, which people carry around in their head.
When I looked around the Great Hall yesterday during the apology, my heart broke to think of all those stolen childhoods, too many stolen dreams, too many shattered lives. There are so many stories. Some of those stories have been revealed. I've actually been hearing these stories basically since about 1992. Apart from the people I know in my own life—I was a school teacher and a lawyer. I know that two or three people that I taught with have since been convicted of being paedophiles, and I can think of two children that I taught whose parents had been convicted of being paedophiles as well. But there were so many other people that I taught or taught alongside, people I lived in the same street as—who knows. I first met my wife in 1992, who has worked in child protection, first as a frontline child protection worker and now as a lawyer working in that area, and I have heard horrible stories over that time. Obviously she would always be discreet and would never give names away or anything like that, but sometimes she had to vent just to cope with what she would see in her job. She's a pretty tough person, but she's still human.
I'm going to tell one story, because it's the one that has always jumped out at me. Many times she wouldn't tell me these stories; she'd go to the gym and work it out and then come home to our family and leave the horrors of the world at work. Many people can't do that job long-term, but she's been doing it for 30 years. You need to have coping mechanisms. But I remember one story she told of a young guy. Every sports day, one brother would select a child, ostensibly for special education or support or something like that, but it was really to be molested and assaulted. The kids knew, so every sports day, when the call would come out for so-and-so to go to see Brother Whoever-it-was, the kids were terrified. And the brother would pick on the most vulnerable children, because that's what paedophiles tend to do; they find the most vulnerable child, the child from a broken home and without a support network. So every sports day this would happen, and on this day the kid who was selected was so horrified of what was going to happen that he decided to put his foot in the lawnmower rather than experience that horror. That's just one story, and I don't know the details; I've only heard my wife telling me that story. It's not like you'd have to run the whole case the way she would or, worse, live with the horror that so many of those victims had to endure.
On Monday, as a nation, we were able to say sorry. It will not make up for such horrors, obviously—the physical scars, the mental scars, the taking of lives, the people who couldn't make it to the apology because they're in prison, because their childhoods were derailed. As a nation, we said sorry that we did not protect our children. We're sorry that we did not believe those children when they first spoke out. We're sorry that, even when the wrongs were acknowledged, we did not do enough to help them fight for justice. But saying sorry shouldn't be the end of the journey for the survivors or for those in this building. It is our responsibility to make sure that every survivor gets the justice they deserve. Our work is not yet done. The final report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse made 409 recommendations. Until we have delivered in full on all of those recommendations our work is not yet done. Until we can protect the unseen children who are still suffering abuse our work is not yet done. We cannot and should not rest until we can protect all of our children.
I acknowledge the work of former Prime Minister Gillard. Her courage and dogged determination finally brought this human tragedy into the public discourse where perpetrators had nowhere to hide. I also particularly acknowledge former Attorney-General Nicola Roxon and the current member for Jagajaga. I congratulate them both on their legacy, particularly Jenny Macklin, the member for Jagajaga, who did so much work to make sure it happened.
It is up to those of us who now walk the halls of parliament to keep up the fight, to maintain the courage and conviction, and to make right the wrongs of the past. An apology is just words unless it is accompanied by conviction to change the future. Monday, just like my first day in this building, will be one that lives with me forever. I hope that it will be one that gives some comfort to victims and survivors.
I thank the member for Moreton for his contribution, which really emphasises the fact that the trauma associated with these most horrible crimes, the abuses, extends throughout our communities. Those ripples that have been occasioned by the evil do not stop at one door; they flow right through our communities. As my friend indicated earlier, there are sometimes special days of national timeless significance here in Parliament House. Monday was particularly extraordinary as we delivered a national apology to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. I'm proud to have the opportunity to echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition—that the apology was offered with humility, with honesty and with hope for healing now. I'm proud to be able to add my voice to the chorus of voices that say sorry and to acknowledge the hurt, the betrayal, the abuse of power and the trauma that many are still dealing with today, including support workers.
I and my staff have had to sit face to face with constituents and hear firsthand of the abuse and trauma that they were subjected to as children. That is a small slice of the shameful part of Australia's shared history as a nation. I'm confident my colleagues—on both sides of the House, as this is a matter beyond politics—have had similar experiences. I have been transfixed by their stories, as I was transfixed this morning, and devastated by what they had to endure. I listened to those stories. Hearing the personal stories from survivors is made even more difficult knowing that there are likely some details left out—details too painful to speak or even remember, details that were held deeply within a vast cohort of bruised and injured children who are now adults.
I cannot imagine the trauma which cannot be vocalised for fear of further trauma and the shame that keeps a person silent and trapped in their memories, however traumatic the original offence, the subsequent treatment or lack of attention to their plight or calls for help. I take this opportunity to celebrate the bravery and strength of those who've shared their stories for the benefit of the next generation of Australian children. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse received 26,000 letters, 40,000 phone calls and held over 8,000 private sessions. Everyone who was willing to share their experiences of abuse as a child in an institutional setting is to be commended and celebrated. That took real courage—courage that needs to be recognised. And for those who could not face the demons visited upon them in their childhood, we must say that we understand and we support them. We understand how this trauma can be so significant that it cannot be disclosed. We must honour all victims and survivors of child sexual abuse by delivering in full on the promise of the royal commission and its recommendations.
We have a responsibility to ensure that the words we heard in this place on Monday, and the words uttered since then, translate into action. The Leader of the Opposition put it well when he said:
We are never going to get a better set of opinions than this royal commission. We are never going to be presented with a more comprehensive set of solutions than this royal commission.
I agree. This is not the time for either governments or institutions to haggle over dollars or to use the legal system to obfuscate and to delay the cause of justice. The words of the apology may not count for anything by themselves to the extent that these words are not matched by action, I respect that sentiment. To the people who have been denied justice for so long, a delayed apology without redress, without action, can seem inadequate. That is why our actions in the implementation of the royal commission, the actions of those who have been placed fairly and squarely in the eye of the royal commission for creating and/or maintaining a culture that did not protect vulnerable children, should be scrutinised so that governments and institutions are held to account. There must be a commitment to action, and a commitment that is renewed and tested regularly. Time will tell as to whether we will be found wanting or not. I commend this motion to the House.
National apologies are a point for a country to look at its past through the harsh eye of the present, and to own up to the wrongdoings of current or past generations. We think of the moment when Britain apologised for the treatment of protesters on Bloody Sunday, when the United States apologised for its internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, when the Papacy apologised for the persecution of Galileo, when Japan apologised for its treatment of comfort women and, of course, when Australia apologised for the treatment of the stolen generations.
These are not a moment in which the hurt goes away and in which all the harm is suddenly absolved by dint of an apology, but they are crucial moments for a nation to own up to its past and to say, 'We did the wrong thing and we will endeavour to do better in the future.' That's what this House is doing with this apology today to the victims of childhood sexual abuse by institutions.
Shortly before the apology, I met with Hannah Coleman-Jennings. She was 2½ when she was sexually abused in a day care centre in Sydney in 1996. She still experiences flashbacks, which she describes as PTSD. She has attempted to take her own life on multiple occasions and uses medication to get through the day—indeed, to get through the traumatic experience that was the apology. For her, sitting in the gallery was a difficult moment, even with the support of her husband, Connor Coleman-Jennings. As she told TheCanberra Times:
I am happy we are now talking about this. Evil happens in the darkness when we turn our backs. Hopefully by talking about this, by raising awareness and really focusing on the abuse of children we can stop it happening in the future …
Hannah thinks she was probably the youngest person in the gallery when the apology took place. She said that was particularly hard:
When people think of child sexual abuse, they think of something that's happened in a 1970s boarding school. It's hard for people to wrap their minds around the fact that this is still happening today. This happens. It happened. Society failed us by letting this happen and it should never happen again.
I acknowledge Hannah's strength and that of Connor and her mother, Nikki Coleman, who was there when I met with them on Monday.
Another Canberran, Damian De Marco, was made the 2015 ACT Local Hero after he spent four decades fighting to prevent other children from sharing his experience of abuse. He was sexually assaulted by a Marist Brother in the 1980s and battled for the perpetrator to be removed from the education system and brought to justice. He rejected anonymity, he risked his own reputation and in 2014 he was one of those who, like Hannah, gave evidence to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
One of the most awful stories which I've read is that of Wilma Robb, transferred from Parramatta Girls Training School to the Hay Institution for Girls as a 15-year-old. She was told at the time by an officer:
Welcome to Hay. We will either make you or break you. Your choice.
She said that girls as young as 13 were forced to perform hard physical labour. They had to look at the ground. They were forbidden from speaking to each other. Everything from toilet paper to food was strictly rationed. The girls were forced to march everywhere and were punished if they didn't sleep in the correct position: on their right side with their hands visible. She spoke of how she was sexually assaulted and the impact that that had on her. Now in her late 60s she is continuing as a campaigner for people who endured abuse in state-run institutions.
There were those who spoke out against the royal commission when it was announced and said that then Prime Minister Julia Gillard was simply playing politics. With the bipartisan apology I hope they have had an opportunity to reflect, now the evidence has come forward, on the statements they made at the outset of this inquiry. Labor welcome the national apology but believe we will be judged in this place not only by our words but also by our actions. There's no excuse for any state government, church, institution or non-government organisation to not join the national redress scheme. We believe the recommendations of the royal commission should be implemented in full. The former shadow minister for social services, Jenny Macklin, has said:
We strongly encourage the Turnbull Government to increase the maximum compensation amount to survivors to $200,000, as was recommended by the Royal Commission.
We believe that all survivors should be eligible for redress, including those who have sustained criminal convictions. We know that the cycle into which many of the victims of abuse were thrown did on occasion result in criminal convictions.
There are more than 60,000 survivors of institutional sex abuse, and in these short few minutes I have been speaking here I have covered only three tales. It is a tiny fraction of the harm that has been done, but we as a parliament recognise that harm, we apologise as a parliament on behalf of the nation to those who suffered abuse and we vow to do better in the future.
Monday was a significant day in the history of Australia, with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition delivering the national apology to victims of institutional child sexual abuse. It was a very moving day in the national parliament and I think it demonstrated parliament at its finest. Unfortunately the region I represent has been terribly blighted by this abuse. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the Newcastle Herald and Walkley Award winning journalist Joanne McCarthy in their Shine the Light campaign. This campaign was fundamentally instrumental in the Gillard Labor government establishing the royal commission. Indeed, in one of her last acts as Prime Minister, Ms Gillard wrote to Joanne. It's a beautiful letter, some of which I want to share with the House today.
Dear Joanne
I am sending you this letter in the very final moments of my last evening as Prime Minister. I do so with enormous pride.
Joanne, you are a truly remarkable person.
Thanks in very large measure to your persistence and courage, the NSW Special Commission of Inquiry and the federal Royal Commission will bring truth and healing to the victims of horrendous abuse and betrayal.
Please know that in your remarkable struggle to tell the story about this shameful chapter in our nation's history, you are not alone. Thousands of Australians share your passion for justice – I'm one of them.
I, too, pay tribute to Joanne McCarthy and the Newcastle Herald for the campaign that was critical to the royal commission.
At the time the commission was established, I was working for Minister Greg Combet, who was my predecessor in the seat of Charlton. He brought to the attention of the then Prime Minister and the cabinet the appalling abuses in the Hunter region and advocated very forcefully for the need for a royal commission. So I want also to acknowledge and pay tribute to the role Greg Combet and Julia Gillard had in establishing the commission. History will acknowledge this as one of the most significant achievements of her government.
One of the tragic stories covered by the NewcastleHerald in the lead-up to the royal commission was that of the abuse of John Pirona, who tragically took his own life. I refer to John partly because he was one of the original catalyst stories for the Shine the Light campaign but also because I know his father-in-law, Bert Moonen. Bert is a member of my own Labor Party branch and, in respecting his family's privacy, I want to acknowledge their contribution to the establishment of the commission. Greg Combet was particularly aware of the impact of abuse in the Hunter because of people like Bert, who had shared his family's story with him, and this story was conveyed to Ms Gillard and her cabinet.
Another important tribute to make is to Peter Fox, a detective chief inspector in the New South Wales police force. In a powerful letter to the Newcastle Herald, Mr Fox wrote:
Often the church knows but does nothing other than protect the paedophile and its own reputation.
… … …
I can testify from my own experience that the church covers up, silences victims, hinders police investigations, alerts offenders, destroys evidence and moves priests to protect the good name of the church.
The impact of Peter's powerful letter cannot be overstated. Just a few days after its publication in the Newcastle Herald, Prime Minister Gillard announced the royal commission. Because of the bravery and determination of people such as Peter, the royal commission became a reality.
The royal commission spent many weeks in Newcastle and heard from victims of abuse, particularly from the Anglican and Catholic dioceses. Many of my constituents attended St Pius X High School at Adamstown. The commission and the criminal trials over the past decade revealed that what should have been a sanctuary of security and stability for young adults was, for many, a cesspit of depravity and criminality. Former Archbishop Philip Wilson, who spent many decades in the Hunter, including as a teacher at St Pius, is the most senior Catholic cleric in the world to be convicted of the crime of concealing child sexual abuse. Like so many, I was very disappointed at the relatively minimal sentence Wilson received. However, he has been found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt of his crime and exposed locally, nationally and internationally as a criminal and, quite frankly, the scum of the earth for the heinous crime of covering up the abuse of innocent children. This is a moment of healing, but people like Philip Wilson should rot in hell for their crimes.
Having spoken about the role of the Hunter region in establishing the royal commission, I want to turn to some of the most damning findings of the commission regarding the response of the institutions to abuse, which is a fundamental aspect of this apology. The commission examined the sexual abuse of children in educational, recreational, sporting, cultural and religious institutions. This, of course, is a horrific truth to face as a nation. The commission stated:
The sexual abuse of a child is a terrible crime. It is the greatest of personal violations. It is perpetrated against the most vulnerable in our community. It is a fundamental breach of the trust that children are entitled to place in adults.
Regarding religious institutions, based on the information before the commission, the greatest number of alleged perpetrators and abused children were in Catholic institutions—institutions charged with the education, development and care of children. The findings of the commission in relation to the institutional failings of religious organisations are damning. Alleged perpetrators often continued to have access to children, even when religious leaders knew they posed a danger. Alleged perpetrators were often transferred to other locations but were rarely reported to police. The culture of some religious institutions prioritised alleged perpetrators and institutional reputations over the safety of children. The commission concluded that it is almost incomprehensible that religious leaders failed to recognise that the sexual abuse of a child is a crime, not a mere moral failure capable of correction by contrition or penance.
I will go further than the commission. How could any person who purports to be a religious leader, one whose primary task is the pastoral care of men, women and children, fail to recognise that the rape of a child is not merely some form of moral failing but the most reprehensible and disgusting of crimes imaginable? And then, being aware of these horrible crimes, the priority of these so-called leaders was not the welfare of children but the protection of the abuser and the status and reputation of the church. I find it so disturbing to speak these words, but what is beyond comprehension and most disturbing of all is the fact that institutions, being aware of abuse, then protected and moved on the abuser, enabling the abuse to continue. This is the most appalling and horrific of responses. There is nothing equivocal or ambiguous about this. Put simply: what happened should never have happened.
I want to end my contribution by personally paying tribute to the victims of child sexual abuse; to their families, friends and supporters; and also to those brave people who blew the whistle on the abuse, often against the most mighty and powerful organisations. It's a tragedy that, because of this abuse suffered, so many are not around to witness the apology.
This is an important week in confronting a terrible issue. The apology alone, although significant, is not enough. We as a parliament must commit to providing care, support and compensation to the victims of abuse and their families, and all those institutions responsible for the abuse must commit to the Redress Scheme. There can be no prevaricating or delaying on this. Survivors who have been traumatised deserve nothing less.
I end this speech by noting the fact that I have two young children. As with any parent, they are the most precious things in the world to me. My kids are currently in early education and my daughter goes to school next year. It's every parent's worst nightmare that any harm could come to their child at a school or any other place where trust is placed in others for their care. I end by echoing the words of Ms Gillard in hoping that the apology is a moment when we all commit to doing everything possible to prevent this dreadful systematic abuse of children's trust ever happening again. I repeat the message from the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader: I am truly sorry for the abuse. I am truly sorry for the abuse. I'm truly sorry that the institutions and the governments did not believe the victims of the abuse and I'm truly sorry that those institutions covered up that abuse.
I take this opportunity to place on the record Centre Alliance's endorsement of the national apology to the victims of institutional child sexual abuse. These crimes were committed with impunity in our orphanages, centres of so-called wayward boys and girls, group homes, charities, schools, churches, youth groups, foster homes and, sadly, also family homes. The Prime Minister is correct; there is nothing we can do to right the wrongs inflicted on our children. All we can do is publicly acknowledge the wrongs and then demonstrate that we have learned from this shameful history. Public acknowledgement, I believe, is important too, because for too long our abused children were silenced as we turned a blind eye to their pain and their suffering. No part of our nation remains unscathed by this shame.
There are many who live in my electorate who bear the scars of abuse suffered within many different groups and institutions, and my heart goes out to you. On behalf of our community I express my sincerest apology. However, it would be remiss of me not to mention one particular institution in my electorate: Eden Park boys' home at Wistow in the Adelaide Hills. This property began life as a grand country home of a wealthy family. It became a probationary school for boys and then a boys' home run by the Salvation Army under state government legislative control for eight decades. It had a chequered history in terms of the quality of care and the experiences reported.
It is clear from the evidence of the royal commission that institutional care is always harmful to our children but it is fair to say there were certain periods in Eden Park where the treatment of children was cruel beyond belief. Even a Supreme Court justice questioned how such a horrific place could operate for such an extended period, virtually under the noses of our community. There are probably many reasons, but no excuses. The least we can do for the children who suffered there is to give them the courtesy of acknowledging the crimes committed against them and acknowledge that they did happen. Some of the cases recorded by the royal commission are hard to read. Little boys were identified by number, not name. Boys were thrown into a six foot by four foot windowless lock-up for days of solitary confinement. Boys were raped, beaten, abused by their carers and by older boys.
In later years, the boys would go to the local high school for their education. One Eden Park resident who was there told of how he got into trouble for not getting changed into his sports uniform because he tried to hide the bruises from his latest beating. A teacher, learning the truth, tried to intervene but, when it was reported that he had seen the authorities, the student was punished with a beating that was so bad he couldn't return to school for some time. As a mother of boys, I feel sick to my stomach. I'm utterly bewildered by these cases. I am so sorry for your pain.
As the elected member for the area where this occurred, I offer a public apology for this abuse that was permitted to happen and for actions not taken that should have been taken and for your voices not heard. You were under the care of the state and our state failed you; our nation failed you. There is nothing we can do to right the wrongs inflicted but what I can do, to the best of my ability, as a member of parliament is ensure the royal commission recommendations that involve federal government action or involvement are followed through. I pledge to do all I can to make sure the National Redress Scheme helps and not hinders the survivors of those who suffered institutional child abuse. We cannot inflict more trauma on you. You have suffered so much.
It was a privilege and an honour to be in the House for Monday's National Apology to the Survivors of Institutional Sexual Abuse. In the chamber on Monday, as a parliament, we looked to moving forward, to redress. We looked to say sorry to the victims over so many decades of what can only be described as unbelievable crimes.
I recently attended a school reunion and caught up with many old schoolmates. I was educated in local Catholic schools in the electorate of Lalor. It was a celebratory event, as you can imagine. I caught up with Marie Cogan, whose life I shared through our secondary school journey and as housemates while I studied teaching and she studied nursing. I had not seen Marie in 25 years. A short, tearful conversation that night led to a long Sunday where Marie told me her truth. It was harrowing to hear, unimaginable to have lived. It was about an orphanage in Ballarat and about priests in Laverton in the electorate of Lalor. It was about her harrowing engagement over many years now with Towards Healing, the Catholic Church's first process that predated the royal commission. It was about giving testimony to Task Force SANO, the Victorian police sex crimes squad which was established as a special team of detectives to work in this space. It was about the trials and tribulations of making submissions to the royal commission.
I spoke to her again on Monday after the apology and after the unveiling by former Prime Minister Gillard of the CLAN painting. She was pleased that I had called. She had wanted to be here but couldn't get herself on the aeroplane to do so. She told me that she would never forget Bill Shorten's words that it is our moral duty to ensure that child abuse remains on the political agenda. For her, that is what is most important about this apology. She wants to know that every victim will be listened to and that every victim will have access to the redress that they need, so that they can move on with their lives.
She also told me that former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the former member for Lalor, had changed her life by naming her shame. She recently sent me a note quoting the American activist Maya Angelou, who said:
There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.
Listening to Marie's story and knowing that I shared a school journey with this woman, that I sat in classrooms with this woman, and that she had borne these incredible acts upon her body and upon her mind, gave me extraordinary pause for thought. And that story has been replicated around the country for so, so many. We're estimating that we are saying sorry to 60,000 people. That's 60,000 people, 60,000 families, who've been broken by privilege. Let's face it: the perpetrators were in privileged positions and their privilege caused so much pain to so many.
Marie is a hero, and she typifies the courage and resilience of so many who joined us on Monday and so many around the country. Marie returned to university to study social work when she first started engaging with her truth and engaging to tell her truth. She has now worked for 15 years for the Department of Human Services in Victoria in the Latrobe Valley, making an extraordinary contribution assisting other families with traumatised children.
I was struck on Monday by the impact the trauma has had on peoples' lives, and I'm sure every member here was. For Marie and for all those who found a way to speak their truth and to name the shame, and to those who have yet to find their way or who may never find their way, our love and our thoughts in this place hopefully go some way to helping you. The royal commission was about exposing the crimes, about believing the victims, about stopping the harm. Although I acknowledge that these are complex legal issues, I echo Bill Shorten's call on Monday: stop hiding behind the lawyers; face up and pay up. To quote the Leader of the Opposition, this cannot be done 'on the cheap'. So many lives have been damaged.
I want to finish today's contribution, as Marie has asked me to, in a tribute to Julia Gillard, who, half an hour ago, spoke of the sleepless nights she had making the decision to call the royal commission. I want to thank her for laying awake and thinking so critically about these people's lives, for listening to the stories, for taking the national action that needed to be taken. I want to thank both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their words in the chamber on Monday.
Ms Gillard, when she made the announcement, said she couldn't promise that there would be easy days ahead. Thank you for making the time, for taking the days, months and years out of your lives to make the rest of Australia listen. Like everyone in this place, I will commit to making sure that the redress occurs in a timely way, when the victims and the survivors are ready.
I think it's fair to say that Monday was a deeply emotional day, not only for people in the House but for those who were actually able to join us. We saw the parliament come together and unite to deliver the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sex abuse. That abuse was something that clearly should never have occurred, but it was something that did, and it occurred under our collective watch as the Australian government and as those in authority. This occurred, and it is only right that we say sorry. It's right that we say sorry for what occurred to children and apologise as profoundly as we can. We also say sorry for our ignorance and for our collective failure to listen to the words of children when they complained. As a nation, we accorded more respect to those in authority than to those who were laying the complaints, being children.
While saying sorry is a very small step towards justice for survivors, it's certainly a recognition that finally, after far too long, as a nation we are listening and we recognise these past injustices suffered by children at the hands of people who are and were entrusted with power. The apology is an acknowledgement that successive governments have grossly failed in their responsibilities to protect the most vulnerable in our communities, particularly children. To all those children who had their childhood robbed, and who no doubt suffered and continue to suffer abuse-induced trauma, the apology is not enough. Perhaps some will see it as simply words or simply being symbolic, but it is more. It is certainly a commitment that we, as a nation, must do better.
As I say, the apology is not just about words. I'm not referring to the adequacy or otherwise of the National Redress Scheme or the levels of financial compensation that follow. It does mean that we acknowledge the harm and the hurt that occurred to children and that continues to permeate through their lives and the lives of their families. It's significant that we acknowledge the abuse that occurred and make our apologies on behalf of the whole community. I understand that for many this will never be enough—nor should it be—particularly when they have suffered at the hands of people in positions of authority or positions of trust and respect within the community. No words can actually change the past, but it is a significant step that we, on behalf of the nation, acknowledge what did occur. It wasn't the fault of children; they were the victims in situations that were contrived, in many respects, to protect children. It was those very institutions that caused the harm.
It's most important for any government that we protect citizens. We always say it is the first role of government to protect our citizens. Probably coming ahead of that is the fact that we protect those who are vulnerable and, clearly, children were seen to be most vulnerable in these arrangements. We hear stories about those that have been abused by governments, police, courts throughout the law, foster parents, orphanages, teachers, schools, sporting clubs, scout groups, churches, charitable organisations—that's a very wide list in the community. It reflects on various structures and organisations within the community which are designed to actually do good, yet people have been able to use the power vested in them by the membership of those organisations to carry out evil. We acknowledge our failures in this regard.
We also acknowledge what is carried by the survivors and by those who regrettably did not survive. We heard on Monday of those who have already taken their own lives. They couldn't be there. Nothing will change those events, but we must make sure that they are not simply committed to another volume of Hansard. This must be a lived truth, one that we maintain; otherwise, it will just simply be words.
Having grown up, as many in this place have, with the benefit of faith based education, I've got to say that I was oblivious to these actions occurring. I find it hard to understand. It's utterly reprehensible that people of faith could contemplate such evil undertakings against children, hiding behind their position of trust, hiding behind what the community thought of religious leaders, sporting leaders and scout leaders. They hid behind their position to simply participate in evil. Whether they're your kids or my kids and now my grandkids, children require unconditional love. Unfortunately, these past injustices have in many instances not only destroyed the survivors' faith in humanity but also shaken their belief in God. How could this be allowed to occur?
There are many families who, regrettably, have been affected by this institutional abuse. One of my cousins had a very similar education to me. He also attended a Catholic school. But, unlike me, he was a victim of abuse. He suffered at the hands of a Catholic priest. Not only have I seen what this incident has done to him; I have seen the toll that it has taken on his family and those around him who love him. Good religious and charitable works administered by many of our institutions, whether they be schools, orphanages or institutions that look after people in need, have been undermined. It has destroyed much of the credibility of these organisations, despite their overwhelming motivation for good and for fulfilling a genuine interest and need in our community.
I want to pay tribute first and foremost to the victims and acknowledge the survivors who were brave enough to tell their stories to the royal commission. I also acknowledge those who are not able to be with us, having already taken their own lives. I understand that, for those who did present their stories to the royal commission, it must have been incredibly painful for them. We can't forget their courage in doing so.
Like the member for Lalor, I would also like to pay tribute to the courage and determination of the former member for Lalor, Prime Minister Gillard, for initiating the royal commission. I think it did take courage and determination on her part. It was something that she described as causing her many sleepless nights, but it has been shown to be the right thing to do. The commission was able to undertake the work that it did over a period of five years. I think it has been an incredible power of good in our community. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the royal commissioners and their staff, who have served their community well and listened to these incredibly heartbreaking stories. This apology does not mark the end of a journey but rather the beginning of a new level of protection for children.
I thank the member for Fowler, and I thank the chamber for allowing the member for Fowler to finish.
Proceedings suspended from 13 : 00 to 16 : 00
The question is that the motion be noted.
I want to begin my contribution on the apology to the victims of institutional child abuse today by saying to all victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse that I am sorry. I'm sorry for the unimaginable hurt, pain and suffering that you went through and I'm sorry that you had to wait for so long for our nation to acknowledge your trauma. I am sorry that this apology came only after decades of suffering in plain sight at the hands of people you should have been able to trust. The true scale of abuse that has occurred on Australian soil, and occurs still today, is still unknown. What we do know is that almost 17,000 people contacted the royal commission about institutional child sexual abuse; 9,325 victims and survivors provided oral and written testimonies, including children under the age of nine and adults over the age of 80. It is the courage of these people and their resilience—victims and survivors—that have spurred our national apology to you. You faced your fears, told your stories and fought for justice.
It has been a long fight. For advocates like Chrissie Foster, it has been a lifelong fight. After learning their two daughters, Emma and Katie, were raped by their local priest in the 1990s, Chrissie and Anthony Foster began their tireless fight for justice. They sued the church and gave damning evidence against the church hierarchy at the Victorian government's inquiry into this issue. Chrissie fought as her family suffered. To avoid haunting memories, Katie turned to drink, was hit by a car and is now permanently disabled. After her abuse, Emma began harming herself and died of an overdose in 2008. Anthony collapsed in his car and died in 2017. He was given a state funeral by the Victorian government.
For journalist Joanne McCarthy, receiving a call in 2006 began a journey that led to writing over 1,000 stories on this issue, stories that unravelled the truth about clergy child sex abuse and the institutional cover-up. When John Pirona, a firefighter and abuse victim, committed suicide in 2012, Joanne decided enough was enough. She wrote an editorial that called for the government to establish a royal commission into this issue. Soon after that, the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, ordered the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
On this note, I want to pause. I've been thinking a lot since Monday about the nature of what we're apologising for here. In one way, it's easier for me to comprehend the existence of evil in the form of perpetrators than it is to comprehend the response. There is something about the pure evil and perversion of offenders that will always be with us in one sense. But the fact that people could turn to people they ought to have been able to trust to call this behaviour out and to have those people turn the other cheek, to ignore these cries for help, is incomprehensible and that's the nature of what we are apologising for in this building today—the failure of institutional responses to the evil of child sexual abuse.
Without the perseverance of individuals like Chrissie and Joanne, this national apology and the royal commission would not have happened. Child sexual abuse took place under the watch of society's most important and trusted institutions in the most common places imaginable. Almost 90 per cent of the abuse happened in out-of-home care, schools and during religious activities. Ninety per cent of the abuse took place in an institution managed either by a religious or government institution. Children were abused daily at their homes, at schools and at places of worship and leisure under the watch of religious and governmental institutions.
This apology shows that, with enough perseverance and grit, individuals like Chrissie Foster and Joanne McCarthy can expose the failures of our nation's most powerful institutions. They exposed institutional norms and practices that not only protected perpetrators but also allowed these heinous acts to continue. Over and over, survivors shared experiences of powerful individuals protecting their reputations over the wellbeing of children who had been entrusted to their care.
Denis Ryan was a policeman in Mildura when he began investigating a local priest. He compiled a list of victims and sought to have the priest charged, only to be prevented by a senior police officer who was also a close friend of the priest. Denis wrote to then Bishop of Ballarat Ronald Mulkearns, but received no reply. The church and police protection of the perpetrator caused Denis to lose his career and gave a green light to paedophile priests in the vast Ballarat diocese.
When Paul Tatchell reported that he was raped by Brother Dowlan, a master at his primary school boarding house, he was expelled from the school. On the night he was raped, he fought back against the clergy man, ran from the room and tried to call his parents for help. The school's headmaster and other staff locked him in a closet until the morning.
These examples, and thousands of others, are examples of a child's welfare being trumped by institutional traditions, of powerful and revered individuals in our society protecting the reputations of the institutions that they were a part of over the rights of the child. Chrissie Foster, Joanne McCarthy, Denis Ryan, Paul Tatchell and countless others have shone a spotlight on the need to always question these longstanding traditions and to put children first.
This need to question institutions continues as we implement the recommendations of the royal commission. One of the most debated recommendation is 7.4, which recommends that information disclosed during a religious confession must be reported to child protection authorities in compliance with mandatory reporting laws. Perpetrators admit to abusing children during these confessions. One Catholic priest, Father Michael McArdle, in a sworn affidavit, said that he had confessed to abusing children 1,500 times to 30 priests over 25 years. He was told, in his own words, 'Go home and pray.' Not only were these disclosures during confession not reported to police, they were also used by perpetrators as a way to seek their own absolution.
The Catholic Church has already rejected this recommendation. When asked whether he would report an admission of child abuse made in confession to police, Ballarat's Bishop Paul Bird said:
What I'm trying to balance there is the tradition or the value of confidentiality, which in regard to the confessional for the church's history has been treated as absolute.
I would argue that never has it been the time to balance traditions with the safety of children, but now is the time to recognise that longstanding institutional traditions can be wrong and harmful, even to the most vulnerable members of our community. Now is the time to put child safety and welfare first. I am proud that in Victoria we have bipartisan support that child abuse admissions made under confession will not be exempt from mandatory reporting.
Whether we are in government or in opposition, regardless of our role in this place, we must make sure that this apology is not just a symbol; that it is not just well-meant and powerfully-spoken words, but there is substantive action to prevent these kinds of cover-ups continuing and to prevent the perpetuation of this abuse. We must put force behind our words. We must not allow the tireless work of advocates like Chrissie Foster and Joanne McCarthy to languish in an apology that is simply empty words.
It is incumbent on all of us in this chamber to continue the hard work and difficult decisions made by people like the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard; my predecessor in Gellibrand in this place, the former Attorney-General Nicola Roxon; and then minister for families, the member for Jagajaga, in their decision to establish the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. They finally said the government would not continue to turn the other cheek, but would shine a spotlight and expose what had been going on for so long. It is incumbent on all of us to follow through on turning the recommendations of the royal commission from words into actions. We must not allow this national apology to be a symbol alone, and I call on my colleagues to turn it into action.
I express my support, and that of the Calare electorate, for this motion. The sexual abuse of children occurred all over Australia, including places in our region like Bathurst, Orange and Molong. It was perpetrated by those in our society who often held positions of trust, respect and honour in some of our most trusted institutions. The victims were amongst our society's most vulnerable: the children. Some still find it hard to imagine that it happened, but it did. While the long arm of the law has caught up with some of the criminals responsible for these monstrous crimes, many never had to answer for what they did, and their victims never saw justice either. These crimes destroyed lives. Some of the victims weren't believed when they spoke up. Some were told it was their fault. Some victims took their own lives.
At the apology I was given accounts of abuse so cruel and degrading that they are difficult to comprehend. Amongst many emotions there was intense sadness at both the apology and lunch on the lawns of parliament afterwards. I was privileged to spend time at the apology with Aunty Mary Hooker, a proud Bundjalung woman who lives just outside Mudgee. One of the stolen generations, at age 12 in 1970 Aunty Mary was told that she was going on a two-week holiday. She was in fact forcibly removed from her family. Eight of her siblings were removed as well. She, one of her sisters and two of her brothers were never returned to her mother's care. She got to see her family briefly again some years later at her brother's funeral but, apart from that brief encounter, didn't see them again until about 1977, seven years after she was taken away.
During that time, aged just 13 years, she was sent to the now infamous Parramatta Girls Training School. What went on at that place was revealed during the royal commission, at which Aunty Mary gave evidence. The horrific nature of those crimes appalled the nation. She gave evidence that she and other girls:
… would steal pins and needles from the sewing room to self-harm because their treatment at the home was so harsh.
It was their way of releasing the pain. The rules were designed to dehumanise inmates. She said:
We had numbers, not names. I was 127.
She also told of the Parramatta Girls Training School's isolation unit, referred to as the dungeon, and the crimes committed there against her and many others. Aunty Mary has asked me to show you this. It is very painful for her to relive this and it takes a toll on her, but she wants the parliament and the nation to know what happened. This is the front page of The Daily Telegraph dated Friday 7 March 2014. The headline on the front page is:
HELL HOLE—Inside this sandstone dungeon, hundreds of children suffered the ultimate betrayal.
There on the front page is Aunty Mary as she was as a child.
Aunty Mary also gave evidence of the abuse she suffered at Ormond Training School, Thornleigh, in 1971, prior to being sent to Parramatta. The evidence of the royal commission told a story of abject cruelty, degradation, criminality and a total abrogation of the state's duty of care to these vulnerable young children. Make no mistake: this was institutionalised evil. When external social workers and child protection officers visited, the children were told to keep their mouths shut and say that everything was fine. Aunty Mary said that they were only allowed to talk about the weather and not the physical abuse, the bashings, the sexual abuse and the denial of food. She also gave evidence of the impact the abuse had on her family relationships. Although she eventually found her family again, she said of her mum, 'We were never mother and daughter again.'
However, Aunty Mary's story is not just about the abuse she suffered in our state institutions but also the sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of a family member before she was taken away from her mother. Aunty Mary told me about this horrific experience as we prepared this speech.
Yesterday Aunty Mary returned to the parliament, where we had time to reflect on the apology and what it meant. It was a lot to take in. She appreciated being able to talk to the Prime Minister and also royal commission chair Justice Peter McClellan. Aunty Mary said she hoped that the apology helped victims and survivors heal. I asked her how, having been through those experiences, she was able to carry on. She replied that, as a Christian, she was able to look into her heart and find forgiveness. 'The hatred that you have inside you can eat you up and destroy you,' she said. 'Forgiveness was like a weight lifting from my shoulders.' She has a generosity of spirit that is very rare. She's an inspiration.
I should add that this forgiveness should not be confused with a lack of desire to see the perpetrators of these crimes brought to justice. Aunty Mary wants her story to be told so that people understand what she and others went through. She said that she was also doing it for those no longer here to speak up. She wants to ensure that nobody else has to go through what she did.
She was accompanied to the apology by her husband of 35 years, Rodney, and her granddaughter Tracey, who attends Mudgee Public School and wants to be a police officer one day.
To be sexually abused by a family member, to be taken away from your family, to be abused by the institutions that were entrusted to care for you and protect you, to be told that you would amount to nothing and have your abilities denigrated—it's hard to imagine a more difficult start in life for a young child. Yet Aunty Mary's story is also a story of courage, conviction, faith, determination and love. Aunty Mary has achieved much in her life. She's an inspiration and role model to many, including the vision impaired. She's raised a family. She's a mum to Alan and Heather. She's a mother-in-law to Sarah and Chris. Aunty Mary is also a grandmother to Tracey; Violet; Dylan, who's in the Air Force and wants to be a pilot; Darren, who's an apprentice carpenter; Jackson; and Corey. I also have to make special mention here of Jackson's type 1 diabetes alert dog, Stormtrooper.
Of course, Aunty Mary is also wife to Rod. She is a highly respected Indigenous elder, a talented artist and an advocate for the vision impaired, for reconciliation and for justice for the victims and survivors of institutional sexual abuse. However, it's not only victims of institutional sexual abuse Aunty Mary advocates for. She speaks out about abuse within families as well and seeks greater support for those victims too.
Aunty Mary was present for the apology to the stolen generations on 13 February 2008, and while in Canberra this week she presented me with her apology day books, which contain newspaper articles, thoughts and comments from around Australia and around the world about that apology. We've been liaising with our parliamentary library to determine where they can best be displayed and preserved. I recently asked Aunty Mary what was next. Her answer was simple: she wants to complete the education that she was denied as a child and that they told her she wasn't capable of attaining, but she doesn't want to do it at a TAFE or other training centre. She wants to sit her HSC at a high school, with other students and teachers who want to see her succeed. It doesn't seem too much to ask.
The national apology can't take away the immense pain that is felt by victims. Nothing could do that. What the apology does do is let victims of institutional sexual abuse know that we, as a nation, recognise that this happened, that victims are believed and that all Australians are sorry. It also affirms the national commitment to never let it happen again.
On Monday of this week, the parliament came together for the national apology to victims and survivors of institutionalised child sexual abuse. This was not an easy day for anyone who was here in Canberra or for anyone else who was affected by this, no matter where in Australia they may have been. It was not an easy day for me, it was not an easy day for any of my parliamentary colleagues and it was definitely not an easy day for the survivors, their families, their loved ones and those who stood beside them, supporting them. It was an incredibly difficult day, an emotional day, for everyone. It was a day that was a very, very long time coming.
The Gillard-led royal commission that engendered this apology was commenced over five years ago now. But, sadly, even that inquiry should have been initiated long before it was. The suffering that has been experienced by many victims has been endured for decades now. This was not fair. This was not right. It should never have happened. The survivors were let down by us all. Over the years, they've been let down by successive governments who wanted to avoid confronting a very difficult topic. But what I feel truly makes things worse is that the governmental inaction was a grim reflection of our society. The atrocities that occurred within Australian institutions were nothing short of vile. They were abhorrent. For each of us, they were shameful. This was a shame that was felt by all Australians who had heard of these atrocities—a shame that disgracefully manifested itself as denial and as inaction. When these victims needed us, they were let down. Some were vilified. Many were ignored. Too few were offered the support they deserved, the support they needed, and for this, for everything, we are sorry. This is something that we as a nation will never forget. We will learn from this, but, more importantly, we will act.
I was there in the Great Hall on Monday. I stood alongside survivors. There were some from my community. Many were from elsewhere around the country. What I witnessed was sheer pain, grief and trauma in that room. I can't pretend as though I can possibly imagine what that feels like. But, as I stood there, my hand held tightly by a survivor beside me, I was able to recognise just how different the experiences of each of these individuals are. There was a man there whom I'd never met before in my life. His name was Adam. He was from Newcastle. I asked him if I could hold his hand. He said yes, and we held hands. At the end of the event, we embraced. He kissed me and said thank you. We were strangers, but, in that moment of holding hands—of sharing in his story, which he briefly shared with me—I will be forever grateful to be part of that day with him.
But, as I looked around the room, I also saw how differently people expressed that pain and grief and trauma, how differently people were personally dealing with that. There were people at many different stages of grief in that room, grief that not one of them should ever, ever have been burdened with. I know that many survivors were grateful for this national apology. I heard how, despite being words, it represented change, it represented a step forward. But I've also heard from survivors who felt this national apology did nothing. For them, it was nothing more than mere words from the mouths of self-congratulating politicians. And others are angry that this national apology brought up old traumas—psychological pain that they carry with them every single day of their lives.
I'm meeting with one of these survivors when I return to the community next week. She wasn't able to be here on Monday. I've known her for some time now. I've always known her to be a very courageous individual. She is a brave leader within our community. When we meet, I'll be there to listen. I'll be there to provide the support that she will ask of me.
I know that survivors and many others see this national apology as having no real consequence—of not being able to undo the past, of not doing enough for them, as survivors of vulgar abuses, now or into the future—and I hear them. For what it's worth, I don't completely disagree. But what I say here and what I say back in our community is that this is not the end; this is the beginning. Where once voices were silenced, now they are being heard. Now it is on us as a society to do the hard work to take the steps we can towards finding some kind of justice.
Sorry may just be a word, but it means a lot more. It means that finally, as a society, there has been a shift. It means that we are acknowledging the past and we are looking forward. It means that, while we can't undo our society's shameful past, we can do what we can to make the present—and, of course, the future—one that no longer causes pain but, instead, alleviates it.
I, too, endorse the fine words, the eloquent words, of the member for Longman and the emotion she showed in delivering them. I know it means a lot to her—it means a lot to each and every member of parliament—and I certainly agree with her that, for many of those affected, Monday's apology was not something that they sought and was not something that they felt that the parliament did to cover up what they endured. Those people will go on hurting, as will those for whom the parliament's words really meant something. It was a message that the parliament gave that meant a lot for those who spoke, those who gathered in the Great Hall and those who gathered on the lawns before this parliament. In country towns and regional cities, just as in metropolitan areas, the message from the parliament was and is this: we believe you, we support you and we are sorry.
Too many country communities and too many Australian communities were home to some of the most unimaginable events for young people, especially those in the care of people they should have been able to trust. Sadly, as history is written and more survivors find their courage and their voices, this picture of predatory behaviour expands to more and more people, more and more families, more and more communities. On behalf of a believing nation, we are sorry. I know each and every member in this Federation Chamber, each and every member of the parliament, says sorry. We say it today. We will repeat it tomorrow, and we'll go on repeating it. It's what we believe. It may not be enough for some people. I can't even start to imagine what they have gone through and what they continue to endure.
We in the regions have seen that far too often our young people are survivors of abuse—which is a good thing; they have survived; they've come through—but their stories happen in our communities too, happen in institutions that we held dear and, in many cases, still hold dear. We owe it to those who tell their story—city or country—to take the time to listen and to believe them. We're taking action. The National Redress Scheme has commenced. It's a critical part of recognising and in some way alleviating the impact of past abuse and providing some justice for survivors. I won't just say justice, but some recompense and some justice for survivors. It will provide survivors with access to counselling and all-important psychological services, financial payments and, if a survivor wants, one direct personal response from an institution where the abuse occurred.
The National Office for Child Safety is about prevention and detection. There was a wonderful cartoon in one of the papers of this blackened scene all around a little boy, a small child holding a teddy bear, clutching it. For me, that really told a story. What some of these small children endured—the pain they must have gone through when they felt that they couldn't go to anyone, when they had been abused in the most unspeakable ways. It's taken some of them many years to finally come out with the truth, and many years for people to believe them. Some of those people went to the grave never having been able to speak about the atrocities perpetrated on them. That is just so, so sad.
The National Office of Child Safety was announced as part of the response to the royal commission. It started on 1 July this year within the Department of Social Services. We are working with states and territories on the recommendations of the royal commission to ensure those who need our protection get the right help and the right advice, because it is the right thing to do. As a father, it is simply unimaginable that the people you charge with the responsibility of looking after and caring for your children would prey on them. The stories which were shared in the royal commission revealed just how the innocence of the young, their hope for the future and their belief in the goodness of people can be stripped away forever by those who were meant to protect them. Each story breaks your heart, each story is a happy life stolen, each story is a person.
While it's difficult to imagine just how those who were affected could pick themselves up and continue, the greatest insult is the stories of those who found, however shaky, the voice they needed to share their story, and then were not believed. They were heard but they were not believed. This is a gross injustice, and it only adds to a life of potential lost to predatory behaviour. For far too many, it's a life which would never recover, never speak up and never shine, thanks to these acts of pure evil.
Monday was their day. Today, tomorrow and every other day should be those people's moment to know that this parliament, this nation, was sorry and is sorry. By believing them, by saying sorry, by saying that it was not their fault, that day, Monday, was when this nation came together in grief and in support. I want to pay special tribute to a special lady, and that woman is Julia Gillard, who had the courage, who had the foresight, who had the vision to speak up and to make sure that the royal commission was held. On this day, when her portrait was revealed, it was a special day for her. But she put others first. She always did. Monday was, I know, a special day for her. In her own selfless way, when praise was being heaped upon her, as it should have been, she said, 'No, today's not about me; it's about the people around me, the people to whom we should be saying sorry'. That's the sort of gracious and good person that Julia Gillard was and is, and I pay tribute to her today. I think Monday was the day when we came together. I think when the people watch parliament act in a very bipartisan way, they know that that's when our parliament is at its best. It's a shame that we don't do it more often.
I also pay special tribute to those who exposed this evil—those in the police forces, those in community groups and those who've borne witness to tragedy and torment—for the courage they share in this sorry, sorry chapter. Investigating and exposing crimes of such depravity has cemented for ordinary men and women a place within the heart of this nation and a road to survival and recovery for some, but not all, of those innocent victims whose stories we share and hear this week in the parliament. They have helped us to come to hear tales of torment which should never have occurred. Investigators also have numbered in the hundreds, if not the thousands, over the years. I want to acknowledge our colleague from the New South Wales parliament, police minister and member for Dubbo, Troy Grant, a former police officer who investigated these crimes. I know for Minister Grant this was a special passion of his, if I could use that word. He was determined to make sure that evil was exposed and that justice was done, and I pay tribute to him as well.
These stories help motivate the police to take action and the nation to listen. Imagine how hard it would have been for those officers, in some cases in those small rural and regional communities, when the perpetrators were known to them—very well known to them—and they found out that, behind closed doors, that this sort of evil was being perpetrated. Those stories motivated good people, such as Minister Grant, into action. That's one of the reasons he ran for parliament. It's those stories which brought this parliament together on Monday. Each person believed is a person vindicated, a person made human, a story—a tragic story, in many cases—made real.
The speeches from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were a moment of the parliament at its best. I pay tribute to the members for Cook and Maribyrnong for the fine and eloquent words that they said and that they meant. They were real, they were raw, they were emotional speeches. They summed up the view of the parliament and of the people. It only comes because of survivors' courage, thanks to good people seeing evil and speaking up, and thanks to the people being believed. This was a day for bipartisanship such as we saw on Monday. We note the role all parliamentarians have played in establishing the royal commission and, I say again, particularly the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard in exposing the depraved, unimaginable evil and in supporting those who need it in the cities and in the regions. To those in the regions and all around Australia who shared that day on Monday, our message is, again, just this: we believe you, we support you and we earnestly apologise to you.
I'd like to commend and thank the previous member, our Deputy Prime Minister, for those moving words and also for his compliments to former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who is here today for the unveiling of that extraordinary portrait. It's a portrait that will definitely stand out in the parliament and will definitely be a significant drawcard and a feature of the parliament. She wanted it to be different because she was the first female Prime Minister, and that she's got. We have got a very powerful piece of portraiture there that conveys her personality, her dignity, her graciousness, as the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned, her sense of self and her humility. It's beautifully captured in that piece.
Thank you so much, Deputy Prime Minister, for those very moving words about what we saw on Monday and also in response to the former Prime Minister and the significant contributions she's made. Thank you so much for acknowledging that. We on the Labor side are very proud of what she's done in so many ways. We are very proud, particularly today and particularly this week, of the fact that she brought this apology about. She initiated the royal commission and she addressed those scars and those wounds that had been around for decades and decades. Thank you so much to our Deputy Prime Minister. Thank you for those beautiful words.
As our Deputy Prime Minister and everyone else who's spoken so beautifully today has said, Monday was a very significant day for this parliament, for every member of parliament and every senator but, most importantly, for those who had made the journey from all over Australia, who'd made the journey from all over the world to finally hear the apology after those decades and decades of pain, of abuse, of living with the demons from the past. How hard would it have been for so many of them to make that journey?
As the Leader of the Opposition said, words are good but what is the action? We have a moral duty as a parliament not to second-guess the royal commission but just to get on and implement its recommendations. As the Leader of the Opposition said, imagine the strength and the courage of those who made that journey from Canberra, from New South Wales, from across the other side of the country, from across the other side of the world who made that journey, and imagine what they were going through when they were making the journey, on the way here. How brave of them to actually come to the Great Hall, to come to the parliament in, as the Leader of the Opposition said, an exercise of triumph, of hope over experience. Because these are people who, as children, were let down by institutions. These were children who were not only let down by institutions but were abused by institutions. They were demoralised by institutions. They were disgraced by disgraceful people in institutions. The fact that they had the fortitude, the courage, the strength, the resilience to actually make that trek, that journey here to parliament, this institution, shows that they overcame, I imagine, so many fears and so many demons. I just think it is quite extraordinary. The fact that they were here is a show of hope, of strength, of courage, of resilience. I commend them and I thank them for being here for the apology, an expensive but gutsy move. And I thank them for coming and staring down those demons and for, as the Leader of the Opposition said, showing hope over experience.
My community, unfortunately, was not immune to the disturbing incidents that were uncovered by the royal commission. The royal commission exposed Marist College in Canberra as the most notorious of Catholic schools in Australia for child sexual abuse claims. In fact, it had its own volume. It found 63 claims of child sexual abuse were made against the school but the true figure is believed to be much larger. The sexual abuse of students at Marist College was happening in the seventies, eighties and nineties and it has affected many in the Canberra community. Marist College was not the only culprit but it was the worst offender.
I want to read an incredibly powerful piece that was written last year about this dark time in Canberra's history. It says:
About 20 boys crammed into the small hotel room in Wellington and the mood was sombre. Marist College Canberra's First XV had gathered to hold court.
The 1978 rugby tour of New Zealand was going well, but they weren't there to talk about football. The night before an incident had profoundly shaken the group.
One of the players had been called to a Marist brother's room on the pretence of treating an injury from that day's game. The coach tried to sexually assault the boy. He fled, told his closest friend, and word had spread quickly through the touring party.
The boys, aged between 16 and18, called a meeting. At its end they passed a resolution: the coach was to be banned from the change room, when the team returned to Canberra, the brother was to leave the school and the Marists were called on to guarantee that he would never teach again.
The shocking incident caused one 17-year-old to question a commitment. At school's end he had resolved to leave for Sydney, to train as a priest.
So he sought the counsel of another brother travelling with the group, a popular man who ran a movie club at the school.
When the boy confided his fears about the act of a man who professed to be a model of faith he got an unexpected response.
The brother's face darkened with fury: why would your vocation be affected by the actions of one man? The boy felt ashamed of his doubts.
… … …
Other reports emerged about sexual assaults at Marist Brothers in Canberra in the 1970s and 80s. Among the accused one name stood out—
And that is the name of the very well-known Brother Kostka—
In 1978, Brother Kostka had reacted with fury when confronted with the sins of his confrere because the questions of a child shone a light into his black conscience.
… … …
These shards of memory have been revived by the evidence given to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The breadth of the abuse is astounding, the damage to the standing of the Church permanent and the failure of its bishops unforgivable.
And one thing is clear. In 1978 a group of Catholic schoolboys was confronted with evil and called to make a moral decision.
They did so in the light of the best teachings of their faith. The vote had been unanimous. They demanded justice for their friend and that the threat to other boys be removed, forever.
This piece was penned by my husband, who was part of that rugby team in New Zealand. He was part of the group who stood up against the system to call out wrong, to call out evil, and it was ignored. The fact that this went on for so long and was ignored for so long is a great shame for Marist College and the Canberra community.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Marist College for the considerable effort in recent years—recent years—they have put into acknowledging what happened in the past, for apologising for the sexual abuse by staff in the past, for acknowledging the many victims, the survivors, their families and the current community of students, staff and parents.
I particularly want to thank ambassador for Bravehearts, Damian De Marco, who showed incredible courage and commitment in calling this out. There are thousands and thousands who have been incredibly brave, and I want to commend, acknowledge and thank them for their commitment and their courage. It must have been incredibly lonely for you for so long. You must have doubted yourselves for so long. You must have doubted your sanity for so long. You must have doubted your faith for so long. You must have doubted your trust in the system for so long. And you must continue to doubt. I can imagine there were so many nights and so many days where you were staring down so many demons for so many decades.
In closing, I want to again quote from Chris's article, because it clearly outlines that what is good and what is evil is crystal clear. There is no grey about this. It highlights that there is good and evil in life and that those who are in authority chose to ignore that. They knew that. They knew that good and evil was crystal clear and they chose to ignore it, and for that they are a disgrace. Chris writes:
In that room, on that day, those boys showed more moral courage and were better disciples than the princes of their Church. That is a triumph, and a tragedy—
at the same time. May this never, ever happen again.
I rise today to say a few words about the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. As so many other speakers have pointed out, it is a scar on the national psyche that the breadth and frequency and the extent of child abuse in institutions has been uncovered for all to see. It is so wonderful that now it is in the consciousness and there has been a national apology.
Earlier on, I was deeply involved with other ministers in this building in setting up the National Redress Scheme and dealing with some of the organisations that have formed to cope with the pressure and the consequences of child abuse. I, too, attended institutions but, fortunately I, myself, wasn't a victim of paedophilia or predatory older children. But it isn't a proud moment when institutions that you thought were exemplary turn out in retrospect to have been not isolated but not extensive—as was outlined by the member for Canberra—areas where child abuse was perpetrated by people in positions of authority, religious figures and ordained officers of the church.
But what was more shocking, I thought in my time in that portfolio and subsequently looking at pieces of the royal commission findings, was that not only had a blind eye been turned to it; there were sometimes cases where they were actively suppressing the information, moving the perpetrator around to other colleges, parishes or institutions. It was the same across all denominations and institutions: the Salvation Army, scouts, foster homes, government and non-government institutions. It was breathtaking how much of a scourge on Australian life this issue is.
A couple of years ago my wife and I got involved with Bravehearts in the Port Macquarie area so that we would empower teachers with skills to educate children on personal child safety, and we continue that commitment. But the apology was so necessary. There were a lot of people there. I was very pleased to see people that I'd worked with like CLANnies Tim and Leonie—they know who they are. There was a lot of cleansing of their conscience and their anger, and all of the emotions that they'd suppressed came rolling out on the day of the apology. It's quite understandable, but the fact that the Prime Minister and the nation stood up and said, 'We're sorry for what you've suffered. We appreciate the damage it's done to your life, to your psyche, how it has limited in many cases, your own personal achievements, your educational outcomes, your financial wellbeing, your emotional relationships with other people through the remainder of your life and also, in many cases, post-traumatic stress disorder responses,' has been very beneficial.
But all that apology is meaningless unless we as a nation are taking practical actions and deeds to make sure it doesn't happen again—and we are. We have set up the Redress Scheme. There will be a non-litigious way of them getting both a written and verbal apology, counselling support and a recognition in a financial sense for the damage that was done to them. As well as that, we have set up the National Office for Child Safety and we have announced and delivered the national child-safe principles, to be rolled out across all organisations—government, non-government, sporting clubs, corporate institutions. They can have child-safe principles in their governance, and that's really the thing that will be a lasting legacy of this. Now, because of the royal commission, Australia has set in train a lot of principles and a lot of actions which other nations will look to.
Unfortunately, the scourge of paedophilia and child sexual abuse has been in societies forever and still exists, so it's a matter of eternal vigilance and having systems in place so that it doesn't happen. Organisations like Bravehearts spring to mind, but there are many other organisations committed to it, and the nation is now committed. Having got the principles there, government organisations are rolling them out. The states and their organisations are rolling them out. The education will continue for parents, teachers and people who weren't aware of what can happen with our young Australians.
When parents are not there, we have to ensure children are put into the care of responsible people who aren't grooming them and leading them into danger. That's why we have working-with-children checks, which most people are familiar with, but principles of child safety have to be embedded into the governance of every institution—volunteer, community, state, federal, military; you name it—so that these things never happen the way they have happened in the past. The royal commissioners penned many wise words. We all thank the people that worked on the royal commission. It must have been harrowing for them to hear all these reports, but they have put a great body of work together. We have a system in place now. The redress scheme is up and running. It won't fix everyone but it is a great initiative for us as a nation to acknowledge together those that have suffered and to put things in place so that it doesn't happen again.
It's important to me that I rise in this parliament today and add some remarks about the National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse, for a couple of reasons. The first is that, as a result of sick children, I wasn't in the chamber on Monday when the apology was given, and I need it placed on the record that there is only one reason for that, but the bigger reason is that this has been an important undertaking of the parliament. The apology was a very important moment for this parliament, and the calling of the royal commission was a very important act by the previous government.
On Monday, as the speeches were given, whilst I was surrounded by illness and some unpleasantness, I was watching both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition address the chamber through the television. No matter what was going on around me at that time, you couldn't help but feel the sincerity of the words that they were saying. I place on record my gratitude to both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for the important roles that they played and the messages that they delivered on Monday.
It's also important to acknowledge the role of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Hindsight's a helpful thing at times, but we should never forget that this was an incredibly brave and controversial call at the time. Earlier today former Prime Minister Gillard was saying that she had sleepless nights tossing and turning over whether we should call this royal commission and open up a whole lot of wounds. She made the right call. We should acknowledge that this has been, no doubt, an incredibly painful process at times, with deeply uncomfortable information coming to light, but if we as a parliament are going to commit to ensure that we can stamp out this kind of abuse, we cannot tackle it head-on without looking at the clear facts and making sure that we address them, so I thank the former Prime Minister for her courage in getting that call so very right.
I also mention the commissioners who undertook this inquiry. Hearing some of the stories that we've heard in this parliamentary discussion, I can't imagine what it would be like hearing firsthand from victims and survivors—awful, unthinkable crimes being outlined in front of you, day after day—and what it would take to respond to that not just with anger and grief but actually with a clear-minded approach as to what is the best way forward and how we navigate our way from here. I thank them for that incredibly difficult role.
Most particularly I address my words to the victims and survivors and add my apology. I am so incredibly sorry that any child in this nation has been subjected to the kinds of stories we heard far too often throughout this process. I am so deeply sorry that the people who you thought that you could trust turned out to be full of an unthinkable evil, and that you were subjected to that. I'm so incredibly sorry that we had institutions and trusted organisations that failed to act and failed to have protections in place. And I am so incredibly sorry that for far too many of these children, now adults, when they did speak up, they weren't believed or weren't taken seriously.
There can never be any justice that can undo those wrongs which have occurred, but we will say here in this parliament that we are deeply sorry to you and that we are deeply sorry for the ripple effects felt by those around you. The parents feeling the guilt of not being able to fulfil that one primary function of protecting their children, thinking they were doing the best for them and sending them off into the hands of monsters. I'm so sorry that that happened to you.
Most significantly, I know that we have passed legislation in this parliament for the National Redress Scheme. We acknowledge that this process, that this apology, does not undo everything that's happened, that there will need to be ongoing support and counselling. We commit to ensuring that the government sees that through. But most of all, I just want to add in my remarks that this has been an incredibly important process, but it doesn't count for anything unless we do absolutely everything in our power to do better for today's children and for tomorrow's children, and to make sure that Australia is a country that stands up and says: 'Not on our watch. Not our children.'
There is not much that I can say that will alleviate the pain and suffering experienced by those children who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of abusers in a Christian church, those wolves who paraded in sheep's clothing and preyed on children in their care. But the New Testament is starkly clear on the mistreatment of children, especially by those in authority. They are words that chill me to the core, as they should all of us. I want to put on the record in this House, for those children who were betrayed by people professing Christ, specifically Matthew 18:1-6. It reads:
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "So who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a child and had him stand among them. "Truly I tell you," he said, "unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child—this one is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one child like this in my name welcomes me.
"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to fall away—it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea.
Those abusers stand condemned by the Master they profess to follow.
I take those words of the member for Canning, because I know he is a man of deep faith and how much it would have meant to him to utter those words. Today I'm humbled to stand here to join the chorus of voices in this parliament acknowledging what is Australia's great shame, acknowledging how we as a nation have failed so many Australian children—children from all generations, from all walks of life, from every corner of our country and, indeed, children from overseas.
As a member of this parliament, I am sorry. Under our watch and in our institutions too many Australian children endured abuse, leading to lives of heartbreak and loneliness. Those years can never be recovered and the abuse cannot be undone. If there is one thing we can learn from the thousands of people who testified before the royal commission, it is this—believe. When children report abuse, believe them. When children say they are being hurt, believe them. And act. Because it is clear from the testimony that so many children were abused simply because they were not believed. The trusted priest, the beloved uncle, the popular coach or Scout master—what chance did children have against these pillars of society? For decades, the survivors have lived with the abuse they endured. Some lived with it quietly; others campaigned openly for justice. I cannot begin to imagine the feelings that must have swum through survivors' heads when Julia Gillard announced the royal commission—perhaps something like 'At last!' mixed with a profound dread.
Throughout that commission, survivors told their stories, sometimes for the first time. The commission handled more than 40,000 calls and more than 25,000 letters and emails. It held more than 8,000 private sessions and made just under 2,600 referrals to authorities. Recently I read through some of the narratives that appear on the commission's website. The narratives are an important part of this process, providing people with a place to tell their story. The stories are graphic and confronting. Their publication is necessary, and I urge colleagues to read them. The specific detail of each story is different, but they are tragically all the same: happy, innocent children taken advantage of by adults they trusted. Linked by shared experiences of abuse, neglect, isolation and alienation, of growing up with poor mental health, the stories tell of children becoming withdrawn and angry and of far too many adults who failed to listen and failed to help.
A Tasmanian man told of his experiences growing up in a small remote town in the 1930s. He's carried this with him since then! His mother was a devout Anglican and occasionally would provide accommodation for a visiting Anglican priest. He would shower the young boy with compliments and gifts. In his testimony, the man said he was vulnerable to the attention but in hindsight recognises he was being groomed:
… he had the ability to make me feel good. In today's language, he made me feel valued. And that was terribly important to me.
That was the start of a period of regular abuse that lasted until this man reached his early 20s. That was in the 1950s and 1960s, and it's still with him.
A Tasmanian woman tells of the abuse she received from her father. Running away, she became a ward of the state before, at the age of 12, being placed in a convent where she endured further abuse twice a week for more than a year from nuns. She reported it to the mother superior, but was punished, and then to the child welfare officer, who laughed her off. Running away from the convent, she received what she says was good treatment from the police, who she believes did make a formal report to the minister but it was swept under the rug. At 13 years of age, she was placed in a hospital for the mentally ill. She stayed there till she was 18 and was subjected to abuse through those years. Describing the impact that the abuses have had on her life, she says:
It's like a nightmare for the last 45 years … and you never wake up. I can just sit at home and then just all of a sudden I'll start thinking of why they did this. For the love of God I'll never work out why humans do this. I just can't.
She has never been able to seek assistance as she doesn't trust doctors.
Many of the narratives contain similar experiences of being groomed by trusted pillars of the community, of families and friends not knowing what was happening under their roof, of staff in facilities, schools, organisations and clubs abusing children in their charge. Too many Australians have suffered and continue to suffer, both from abuse that occurred in the past and abuse that continues today. At least now, no Australian can ever say they are ignorant about the realities of the institutional abuse of children. Hopefully the abusers, the predators, will have a much more difficult time ahead than they had in the past. But we have a long way to go, and it starts with governments around Australia and the children in the direct care of governments.
According to statistics published in the 2016-17 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report on children in child protection, 48 per cent of children in child protection endured emotional abuse and 24 per cent neglect, 16 per cent were victims of physical abuse and 12 per cent were subjected to sexual abuse. The very first commitment governments around Australia can make is to identify and eradicate the abuse of children who are in government care. This will take money—for more child protection officers, for more mental health services, for more places of safety—but that is a small price to pay to save the lives of children.
It is clear the royal commission started by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard is like few others before it. It was both a commission of inquiry and a vital step towards healing for individuals, organisations and the nation. I thank the commissioners and all associated with the commission for the dedication that they showed during what I can only imagine must have been a very arduous, emotional journey. Yes, the commission was one step in a journey, but none of us must allow it to be the final step. The recommendations of the royal commission are comprehensive and confronting, and must be implemented in full and without equivocation.
Before I depart, I just want to make mention of the fact that we have thanked Julia Gillard, and I'm delighted to add my name to that. She has done a magnificent job in bringing this on. But, being a former journalist, I really do want to note the exceptional work of the Newcastle Heraldand Joanne McCarthy, backed by editors Roger Brock and Chad Watson. This all started back in 1997 in the Newcastle Herald with reporter Jeff Corbett, who reported on court cases involving allegations of pedophilia amongst priests. Back then, the church led a spirited defence of its priests and, in the years since, we've come to know that the allegations, of course, were more than true. So, if it weren't for the dogged determination of Jeff Corbett, Joanne McCarthy, Roger Brock and Chad Watson, print journalists from a little paper in Newcastle, who knows whether we would be having this national apology this week. Joanne McCarthy has written more than 1,000 pieces on this issue over the last 15 to 20 years. It has consumed her life. I've never met the woman but she is a national treasure. The Shine the Light campaign by the Newcastle Herald is a must-read. You must read it because it is undoubtedly that campaign that put us on the path to the royal commission and this apology.
With that, I thank all involved who got us here. It took far too long to get here, but I do wish to commend the role of journalism and journalists in getting us here and thank them for their service.
I humbly rise to speak on the motion of the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sex abuse. Like many of my fellow parliamentarians, I listened to the powerful words of the member for Lyons. It's an honour to follow his contribution and that of all members of this House.
Earlier this week, we saw the moving, emotional acknowledgements by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in front of hundreds of survivors who joined us in the House, and hundreds more who attended other events later in the day. This included a local resident—one that I'm aware of; there could have been others—from my own community who had made the trip down by himself, I believe, from the suburb of West Lake in my electorate of Oxley for this historic apology. I was able to speak to and have a chat with this resident to show my support for him and to acknowledge what a historic day it was. As friends and family gave support to survivors who wept, our thoughts also turned to those who have since passed and were not present to hear the apology, for it is their stories that will never be heard, their scars that will never heal, and their truths will never be told.
Whilst we can't undo the wrongs of the past, we can look to the future and work towards one where this never happens again. This will take a whole-of-community approach: to listen, to protect and, most importantly, to believe children and young people when they come forward, rather than turning a blind eye. As a member of the Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, I was proud to speak on the enabling legislation earlier this year. As I said at the time, the National Redress Scheme is a result of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which the previous Labor government, as we've heard, created under then Prime Minister Gillard in 2013. Over the subsequent five years, 16,953 people contacted the royal commission who were within the terms of reference. The commission heard from 7,981 survivors of child sexual abuse in 8,013 private sessions. It received 25,964 letters and emails and referred 2,562 matters to police.
I read this into the Hansard of this parliament because every single one of those people matter. Every single conversation of those people matter. These striking numbers only begin to scratch the surface of just how big this issue is for thousands and thousands of Australians. My Labor colleagues, and, I believe, everyone in this House, sincerely, genuinely, thank each and every single survivor who shared their story. I simply cannot imagine what amount of courage and composure this took. Words are simply not enough to describe the harrow and horror of the stories that came forward. The average age of victims when first abused was just 10 years old, with 85 per cent of survivors saying they had experienced multiple episodes of abuse.
Monday's National Apology delivered by the parliament was a result of one of the 99 recommendations handed down by the royal commission. I want to echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition to victims of abuse. He said on Monday:
Today we offer you our nation's apology, with humility, with honesty, with hope for healing now, and with a fire in our belly to ensure that our children will grow up safe in the future. We do this because it is right, because it is overdue, because Australians must know and face up to the truth about our past. But, above all, we do this because of you.
Words cannot heal the scars of the past, but they can acknowledge the hurt it has caused. I've seen this through my role in the committee, just doing a small amount of work overseeing the recommendations of the royal commission into child sexual abuse. As of 4 October 2018, the committee had accepted 41 submissions, of which 30 are from organisations and 11 are from individuals. The committee continues to work through key issues, which have been broadly categorised into the following areas: applying for and accessing the scheme; policy concerns and specific issues; and questions for the Department for Social Services, the Department of Human Services and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. It is really important that we make the redress scheme easily accessible for survivors to ensure a smooth pathway to compensation that minimises them having to relive their terrible experiences.
Today, I also want to specifically acknowledge Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and my home state of Queensland, which has signed up to the redress scheme. In announcing that the Queensland government will pay its share to survivors of sexual abuse in government run institutions, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said it was an important milestone acknowledging the suffering of those abused in care:
Although no amount of money can return a lost childhood, it's important that we acknowledge what these victims have been through.
Ten thousand Queenslanders are expected to be eligible—5,000 abused in government institutions and another 5,000 in non-government institutions.
It's events such as these that give great hope for the future. Listening to the heartfelt speeches from my colleagues across the political aisle and across Australia, everyone has in some way been touched and moved by the enormity of what this parliament has dealt with. It is such a privilege to be a member of parliament and to be able to honour, respect, recognise and pay tribute to all of those brave people who came forward, to all of those brave people no-one believed and to all of those brave people that simply suffered in silence. Over the past few days, we have heard the horror stories of the past. Today I reaffirm my pledge in my role as a member of parliament to do everything I can to ensure that the tragic events of the past are not repeated. I commend this motion put before the House and offer my unequivocal support to brave survivors who continue to show tremendous courage to ensure that others do not have to suffer the way they have. Together let's work as one to see that history does not repeat itself. Together we can achieve a better future for all.
I rise to join this parliament to say sorry. In November 2012, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. In December last year, the final report was released. In the five years in between, the truth about the horrific, life-changing experiences that children had at the hands of those who were responsible for their care was exposed. The telling of those stories was a long and difficult journey, and too painful for some. It was long overdue. This week's apology to the victims of child abuse in institutions, to all those who survived, and recognising so many who didn't, was also long overdue.
I am sorry that there were children who were betrayed by the very people who were meant to love them, care for them and protect them. In saying sorry, we need to acknowledge that, for too long, children were not believed, but the perpetrators were. We need to acknowledge that too many people turned a blind eye to the horrors of abuse. We need to acknowledge that events were deliberately covered up and perpetrators were protected. Our apology is to 60,000 survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. I acknowledge their hurt and suffering, their bravery and their survival.
It was an honour having Margaret Spivey in parliament for the apology. Margaret travelled from the Blue Mountains to be here, joined by her friend Mary—both survivors. Margaret lived in children's homes from the age of 18 months until she was 17. Her memoirs, Defying the Gatekeeper: One Girl's True Story of Resistance and Rebellion, tell her story, through childhood and adolescence into adulthood, of physical, emotional and mental abuse. She was lost within the welfare system of the 1960s and 1970s as part of the forgotten Australians. Being here in the chamber in Canberra to bear witness to the words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition was important to Margaret. To be here with Julia Gillard as she stood alongside the leaders saying, 'we see you, hear you, believe you, value you and we are sorry,' was very important.
In reflecting on the royal commission and the personal distress that was shared, it's also important to acknowledge those who made the recommendations that this apology take place. The commissioners, led by chairman Justice Peter McClellan, read and listened to evidence from 16,000 individuals, with more than 8,000 stories heard in person.
We also need to acknowledge the work of the journalists who broke stories about this and who then reported on it day in and day out to make sure we knew the depth of the betrayal that had occurred. The counsellors, psychologists, carers and family members who have been supporting victims through this process deserve mention, as do the parents whose trust was also betrayed and who thought they were protecting their children by entrusting them to some organisations. I am sorry to all those groups who have suffered through a process where we simply didn't do enough.
We all know the lifelong impacts of abuse, whether it's in an institution or a family, and we know that saying sorry isn't enough. For this apology to be meaningful, we need concrete actions. We need to provide redress for those who have been harmed. The National Redress Scheme for victims of child sexual abuse in institutions has already been announced but we know there is more to do. I want to acknowledge former shadow minister Jenny Macklin for her determination in seeing that justice is done and I hope that we will be able to carry on her work.
Institutions, schools, churches, youth organisations of all types have more to do to rebuild trust and ensure that history cannot repeat itself. For this apology to be meaningful, people really need to see that things have changed and will continue to change. They want to know what is changing in youth-serving organisations, and we must be transparent. They need to see child-safe strategies become standard practices
This royal commission, this apology, reminds us that there are other groups who were victims of abuse, whether it's people who have suffered in the military, people in aged care or people with disabilities. There is so much more for this parliament to do. Saying sorry can't undo what Margaret and Mary and tens of thousands of children experienced. It can't take away the hurt. It can't change the lives that they've led, but I hope it helps their future, our future, as we finally walk alongside them, knowing they have been alone for far too long. And we must be committed, on both sides of this parliament, to doing everything we can to make sure that the shocking, systematic abuse of children isn't allowed to happen again, here or anywhere else.
I also rise to join in the National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse and, in so doing, I say sorry to those victims, particularly those victims who suffered at institutions in my home town of Geelong, which housed more orphanages than any other place outside of a capital city, which, in turn, means that there is a significant proportion of the population of Geelong today who grew up in institutions of this kind. A tremendous validation to those who have suffered came from the National Apology that occurred on Monday, which is the subject of today's debate. It is incredibly important from that point of view. It was an act of a nation saying that those who suffered are being believed in circumstances where, for so long, they told their stories in a way which was not believed—not the way in which they told their stories but those who received the stories did not believe them and acted, all too often, in indifference to the way in which those children were suffering.
It is hard to understand exactly what motivates a person to engage in this kind of abuse. One thing is clear: there is an enormous power imbalance between the abuser and the children who are suffering. Those who have no parents, who grew up in orphanages were particularly vulnerable. There was no-one looking out for them and they were particularly the subject of those who sought to prey. It seems to me that there is something cold, indifferent and cowardly about choosing people of that kind as victims to satisfy whatever was sought to be satisfied. But what has also been clear in my work, as a patron of the Care Leavers of Australasia Network, is that people who grew up in orphanages, the kids who were being abused, grew up to be adults and they did so carrying a heavy burden with them and, in so many cases, with an enormous amount of damage which, for many, will be with them for the rest of their lives.
As we've heard over the last couple of days in talking about the experiences that people have, many end up taking their lives as adults. I remember speaking with Senator Andrew Murray, who himself was a child migrant, and he noted that the cost to the nation from the pain, the hurt, the dysfunctionality, the loss of productivity and the loss of being able to live a life of those who ultimately grow up is profound and makes this a national issue upon which there needs to be action. There was, as has been explained to me by so many of the people whom I've spoken to during my parliamentary career as a patron of CLAN, also an absence of familial love. Quite aside from the question of abuse, the idea of putting children without parents in large institutions, where no-one called them special, does a particular damage in a universal way to all those who grew up in those circumstances. For them, we say sorry.
On 16 November 2009, when the first apology to the forgotten Australians, as they were known at that time, was given, I very much remember the emotion of that day, the validation of it, and the same sense of being believed but also the acute pain that was on display from all of those who were in that room. This Monday was a reminder of it and an example of this parliament at its best, but there is a tremendous pain associated with this. Words are important in terms of healing, but much more needs to be done.
In saying that, there is an acknowledgement I would like to make of Jason Clare and Steve Irons, colleagues of mine in this place who have been patrons of CLAN as well from day one. We've worked very closely together to try to be advocates for this issue in this place. In the same vein, I would like to also mention Claire Moore, Amanda Rishworth, the late Steve Hutchins and so many more who have been patrons of CLAN and who have tried to raise this issue. Certainly, it is thought of and discussed in a completely different way now from how it was a decade ago. Those who have worked alongside me would agree with this: it's as important a task, it's as important work, as any we have done in this parliament.
There is an uplifting side to this story as well. What has been amazing to me are the people whom I've met on this journey and the strength that they've demonstrated—the courage and the ability to survive perhaps the worst set of cards that people could be dealt with on entry into this world, yet they have done incredible things. Leonie Sheedy comes to mind as the driving force behind CLAN. There are others: Joanna Penglase and Vlad Selakovic. Leonie is a force of nature. She is the single most determined activist I've ever met. None of this would have happened but for her. She's also an angel. She's a saint. There are the times that she has spent listening to people tell their stories—and these are really difficult stories to hear. It is difficult to place yourself in a position of exposure to these stories night after night, but Leonie does it. In doing it, she is tangibly engaging in the act of healing. She is a huge person in this country and has made an enormous difference.
In terms of the act of the profession that we're all engaged in, no-one stands taller than Jenny Macklin. I look at my colleagues here, and she is, to all of us, thoughtful, professional, eminently sensible and an inspiration for how you get things done—not being showy but just going off there and being diligent, working out the problem and getting an answer. She has done all of that. Julia Gillard, as mentioned, has been in this parliament today with her amazing portrait having been unveiled. The royal commission happened on her watch and would not have happened but for her. The achievements of the royal commission, the inquiry that went with it, the ability to have stories be told, the Redress Scheme that was passed through this parliament earlier this year occurred because of the likes of Leonie, Jenny and Julia. All of them can look with an amazing sense of pride about that.
But there is still work to be done. On Monday the Prime Minister mentioned the need to look at the ways in which those who have grown up in these circumstances enter into aged care. We do need to figure out that problem. We're aware of it, but we're perhaps not aware of the solution. It's also really important to establish a museum, a place, a touchstone for those who lost their youth. I know Leonie would have loved to see that established in her home town of Geelong.
I do want to finally mention Anthony Sheedy, Leonie's brother. He was, throughout his youth, entered into an orphanage. His number was 69411, and he was more often than not referred to by that number rather than his own name. He thought he had no parents, but, at the age of 12, Anthony's parents came and visited him. He thought maybe this was the moment he might be taken home, but sadly it was not that day. They left and he stayed. Can you imagine the confusion of having that experience? In handcuffs, he was taken as a youth to the Turana boys home. His life descended into alcoholic abuse, as an adult, and it was a life spent in homelessness, going between streets and shelters. But a long way down the path, he was discovered by his sister Leonie and in a sense rescued. And in the last nine years of his life he saw happiness. Some of that time he spent as a volunteer in my office, and it was a person who was cheeky and actually enjoying life who we got to meet. Saverina is here in the Chamber today, and I know that, at moments like this, we think about Anthony. He died suddenly back in 2011. He was able to see that first apology. Sadly, he did not experience redress. Indeed, in his personal effects after he died, a letter which would have begun or taken the next step in the redress process was there, and he was unable to pursue it. I'd like to acknowledge his life now. His journey is a vignette of what this story is about: pain, strength, survival but ultimately the fierce urgency of now in taking the next step down this path.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
I remind all members to use correct titles. Member for Corio, you referred to five members by their Christian names just then. I didn't want to interrupt you.
I want to start by acknowledging the brave men and women who attended Parliament House on Monday, 22 October to witness their long-overdue apology. They were robbed of their childhood. They were powerless children who were subjected to unspeakable and horrific acts of abuse that were physical, sexual and psychological. I want to acknowledge the courage and commitment of those who gave evidence to the royal commission. Your testimony and evidence has made the difference, and that is why we are finally here and you have finally received your apology. I acknowledge those who campaigned and lobbied tirelessly for the royal commission. Your efforts made it possible for so many to give evidence, and that has led to this apology as well. I want to acknowledge those family members and close friends who have provided support to many victims of abuse over many years and continue to provide that support today. I also want to acknowledge our First Nations people, who also suffered unspeakable abuse, often with no-one to stand by them. I acknowledge those people in my community who experienced such appalling abuse, people like Trish, who has had to live with her experiences for her whole life. This apology was for you too. And I acknowledge those who are sadly no longer with us, those who did not get to witness the apology. Many people have passed away on the journey to justice, sometimes by their own hand, often without revealing their pain to another human being and certainly without acknowledgement or validation, because they could no longer bear the pain; it all became just too much. Your voices have also finally been heard.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge those members of the parliament, both current and former serving members, who had the political will and strength to do the right thing, to launch a royal commission into this dark time in our history, into something that so many had swept under the rug for far too long.
I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their sincere words of apology on Monday to the victims of abuse. I also want to acknowledge the work of the commissioners. Their work was critical, but the impact of hearing of such horrendous abuse, day in and day out for years, must have also been incredibly difficult. I also want to acknowledge and thank former Prime Minister Julia Gillard for her commitment and her political courage in establishing the royal commission, because without her drive and commitment I am sure the royal commission would not have happened. She was the Prime Minister with the courage to stand up for the victims of abuse. She also declined to be restrained by the political nervousness and pressure from the powerful institutions. I also want to acknowledge my Labor colleague, the member for Jagajaga, the Hon. Jenny Macklin, who led the way on the royal commission. She worked tirelessly with victims, family members and advocates to ensure that this royal commission did its work.
The royal commission has forced the people of this nation to face a very dark truth. After five years, it found governments, schools, sporting clubs, churches, charities and other institutions had for decades failed to keep children safe. At 11 am on 22 October 2018, the Australian parliament assembled and said sorry to the brave souls who had been betrayed by men of God, by people in power, by people with a duty of care to protect innocence. We said sorry to the many people who had every reason to break but refused to be broken. And, with great humility, we honoured the people who had been spurned but lived to hear their parliament acknowledge their trauma and apologise.
The trust you gave those who were meant to care for you was broken, your innocence betrayed, and there is nothing that can ever be offered to rectify such a wrong. However, with great humility, the national apology offers a beacon of hope—a beacon of hope that says, 'Yes, we believe you.' Time and time again many tried to report injustices, and for years they were not listened to or believed. During this royal commission, as a nation, we asked you to do what would have seemed almost impossible: to tell your story again. You put in every ounce of hope, not knowing whether this time you would be heard, let alone believed. Allow me to offer the little reassurance that is all I can offer: yes, we as a nation believe you, and I believe you.
My mother-in-law was a victim of abuse in an orphanage in South Australia. She was a little girl when she and her sisters and her brothers were separated and put into orphanages. The neglect that she suffered at home was probably much better than that she faced in an institution. She never spoke about her experience at all, except to say that they were in and out of orphanages all the time as children. She lived with the torment of her experiences until she lay on her deathbed, when she had the chance to speak to a mental health nurse a couple of days before she died, and she talked to him about her experiences. She was 86 years old. She was robbed of her childhood and an education, which she would have dearly loved. She loved reading and she often said that she really liked school and that she did quite well but had to leave at the age of 14. I cannot imagine a little girl crying and cold at night with no-one to comfort her. But her story is not an isolated case. Sadly, as we have learned, it is very widespread.
The achievements of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse are a tribute to the victims and survivors, their families and their supporters. Their courage has helped create a culture of accountability and of trust in children's voices that helps all of us take responsibility for keeping children safe, secure and cared for.
But a sorry without action is meaningless. Right now we cannot guarantee that this won't happen again. In 50 years time, I don't want those who came after me to be standing here in this place issuing a second apology to those that we did not protect with carefully crafted legislation. The necessary changes to protect children must be made. From this day forward, this apology must be accompanied by action—actual meaningful change. The government has issued our apology, but we need to legislate to protect children. Failing to do so would make it possible to break the trust of those we said sorry to on 22 October, those who put their trust back in government after the apology to follow through with action to ensure that this does not ever happen again and that every effort is made to ensure that children will be kept safe into the future. If we do not do this then we will have failed those survivors.
I want to assure the survivors that it is our turn as elected representatives to take the baton now. The survivors have told their stories, the recommendations have been made and they have lobbied very hard for change. There will be no greater recommendations than those made by the royal commission. It is now our responsibility in this place to act. We have the power, we have the authority and we have the responsibility to turn these recommendations into action without caveats and without compromise. I make this commitment and I will work every day in this parliament to ensure that we make the changes that are necessary to protect vulnerable children, to ensure that your efforts and courage have not been in vain, to ensure that no child's voice will not be heard or believed again and to ensure that no child is ever a victim of such horrific abuse.
Here in our nation's parliament we have the fortune of meeting many Australians from all walks of life across our country. When we meet face to face, we get an understanding of their story. We get a glimpse into their life and a sense of what they've been through. On Monday in the Great Hall and with those outside, we could only imagine the road that had been travelled throughout their lives to be in Canberra on that day. We know it was a road that had taken them through hell, and yet they kept going. This was the road to the national apology to the victims and survivors of institutionalised child sexual abuse.
For those victims and survivors, telling their stories has taken courage and determination, and to all of them I say sorry. We say sorry. As a parliament, as representatives of the Australian people, we say sorry.
But yet a lot of sorrow remains. These are generations of lost children—girls and boys who've had their childhood robbed, their hopes for the future stolen, young Australians denied a safe childhood and a safe place to be, denied that most fundamental and basic of human instincts and human rights: the care of a child by an adult. We've heard stories of trauma and tragedy. Child sexual abuse is hideous. It's shocking, it's vile and it's a crime.
It's impossible not to share the anger that many of those survivors feel. You could feel it in the Great Hall on Monday. Whilst the speeches by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others were going on, there were a lot of interjections from people on the floor. I thought to myself: 'You know what? You interject as much as you want. You say whatever you want to say on this day, because you've earned the right to interject and to say what you think.'
The sense of betrayal from people they trusted—too many children were abused in too many institutions. For the victims and the survivors, it's been a life sentence, a perverse injustice where those who were wronged weren't believed and were shackled with the trauma. Too many adults in Australia, unfortunately, travelled down a dark and destructive road: those who committed the abuse and those who turned a blind eye or deliberately covered up these crimes. Many institutions that many Australians have trusted throughout their lifetime have been involved with multiple abusers who sexually abused children.
To those who were victims of this institutionalised abuse: we are sorry for that loss of trust. We are sorry for the loss of justice. That these crimes and injustices were carried out by those in authority, we are sorry for the price that you paid. Post-traumatic stress disorders, depression and anxiety—we are sorry for the nightmares, the sleep disturbances, the flashbacks and the disassociation. We're sorry for the alcohol and other drugs that you needed to use to cope with the trauma of abuse. We're sorry that the pathway towards substance abuse caused your physical illness, your relationship breakdowns, problems with your jobs and, in some cases, criminal behaviour. And to those who are incarcerated in institutions and who have been victims of sexual abuse, you deserve an apology as well. We're sorry for the addictive behaviours, including high levels of gambling, the difficulties with physical intimacy. We're sorry for the suicides—too many lives taken before they were due.
There are stories of the negative impacts not only on the survivors but also their family members, their partners and others in the community. There are also stories of extraordinary determination and resilience. Many of the victims and survivors, with professional help and with the support of others, took significant steps towards recovery. And yet we must accept that the abuse has been occurring in every generation. The risk to children, unfortunately, remains today. Institutions evolve, but it's a mistake to assume that the abuse in institutions will not occur again. Yet that is what this royal commission was all about: uncovering what had gone on and putting in place the measures to hopefully ensure that this never occurs again in our society.
It's now up to us, to those here in this parliament. It's no longer just about survivors, victims and their advocates telling their stories; it's up to us now to take action. On behalf of the community that I represent, I sincerely thank all of those survivors of child sexual abuse who told their story before the royal commission and in public. To all of those who couldn't bring themselves to tell their story, we thank you as well for your bravery. I specifically thank the references group, who did a wonderful job on behalf of those victims to act as advocates for the establishment of the royal commission, championing the recommendations and advising government about the apology that occurred on Monday. You deserve our praise and the compliments of all Australians. I thank former Prime Minister Julia Gillard for her bravery, her foresight and her courage in establishing this royal commission.
We've heard a lot over the last couple of days from parliamentarians about the apology and the words that go with it, but it's now time for action. This parliament now has a moral duty on behalf of those victims, and with future parliaments in mind, not to second guess the royal commission but to get on with implementing the recommendations, to get on with providing justice to those victims and ensuring that we put in place measures so that these actions are never again perpetrated on children in our community. This is a road that we must take. It's time for action on the royal commission's recommendations.
On Monday we saw a national apology extended to the survivors and victims of institutional child abuse. Along with my colleagues, I want to take the opportunity to endorse and support the words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, which were significant, sincere and critically important in providing a national apology to those children. So many of those children are now adults, but too many did not make it to adulthood. In adding my voice, I want to indicate that I know I do that as someone who sits here representing my electorate; I echo of the voices of so many people across my electorate who want that sorry said on their behalf as well. I do it in that spirit.
This was an almost incomprehensible evil that was perpetrated. We confronted that in this apology, and we have made a determination to do everything possible to not see that occur again. Like other colleagues, I've met with local constituents—I'm not going to name them—who came and sat in my office and bared to me the truly traumatic experiences of their childhood and the devastating, ongoing effects that had on their life. It was difficult to hear. It broke my heart, and I could only begin to imagine what bravery, what courage, what resilience it took for them to share that story in that small office where they met with me. For so many of those people to have shared that story, that experience, that pain through this process is an unfathomable recognition of their determination to protect children in the future from what had happened to them. I think we all pay the deepest respect to that witnessing that they did about their own traumatic, personal experiences, taking in good faith the determination of the royal commission to make sure they were heard, they were believed and that actions were taken to stop these sorts of events happening again. This is for people who, as children, were not seen, were not heard and were not believed.
I think all of us here cannot imagine the loneliness, the fear and the desperation of children who are dealing with a monster that's supposed to be responsible for providing care and sustenance and protection to them day after day. Imagine those children who tried to speak up, who tried to tell what their experience was, who tried to seek protection and were so often not only not believed but punished further for doing that. I think it's incomprehensible that those people went through that as children and turned around and told their stories. I want to acknowledge, in saying that, the role of advocates. Some of my colleagues have spoken about organisations like CLAN, advocates across the country who, for decades, have been the ears and the heart listening to those stories, before there was a formal way for that to be dealt with. I want to acknowledge the work of the commission, all of those people in the commission, who, day after day, did that really hard work, out of respect for those people and the stories that had to be told.
Of course, the royal commission was set up by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who was here this week for the apology. It has been progressed by all prime ministers since then. I think what was important in the apology provided by the current Prime Minister and the comments added by the Leader of the Opposition was that all of us, into the future now, carry a great responsibility to ensure that all the actions that were required out of that royal commission process are put in place and that we are determined to shine a constant, unwavering light into the organisations and institutions in this country that have a responsibility for looking after children, and that this is never repeated again. I think we would be failing the bravery of those who've told their stories if we are not vigorous at all times in making sure that we are doing that.
I want to recognise former leaders of not only this parliament but community organisations, police services and so forth who have been speaking out and trying to take action. In doing that, I want to very briefly acknowledge Joanne McCarthy of the Newcastle HeraldI come from Wollongong, and Newcastle and Wollongong share many things in common, including our local paper—and the work that Joanne did in exposing those stories.
I recognise Deputy Speaker Claydon, now coming to the chair, who was part of the reference group in the formation of the apology and Newcastle's strong links to this work. Joanne epitomises journalists who hear and listen to people and are determined to have a story told in the national interest, and I pay respect to her work as well.
In the time that's available to me, I just want to indicate that a constituent from my electorate attended the apology here in Canberra on Monday and reported back to me their reflections on the emotion and, indeed, in some cases, the distress of those that were in attendance. Our attendee from Wollongong had suffered whilst employed in the Defence Force. They advised there were a number of attendees who had suffered whilst in our armed forces. My constituent let me know that they were a little upset that they felt that the defence forces were not specifically mentioned on Monday. I want to acknowledge them and let them know that the Prime Minister yesterday, during question time, said:
There were many people yesterday who I know felt they weren’t recognised, and I particularly also want to recognise, if I can have indulgence on this one point, to recognise those in our defence forces who also suffered sexual abuse. I want to acknowledge them here today…
That was very important to my constituent, and I personally also want to ensure that they know that the apology is for them too. My constituent had previously never met anyone else from the organisation where their abuse had occurred, and Monday was the first time they were able to meet people who had a similar experience to theirs and they found that interaction to be healing. While acknowledging that Defence now has a number of processes in place for its employees through the White Card, they would love to see more opportunities for people, particularly from Defence, to create a permanent community, a place to be able to share their stories, relieve their isolation and provide support for each other.
My constituent felt that the apology on Monday was a step forward in breaking down the silos that existed within the life experience of so many people. They felt that yesterday also alleviated the isolation they had felt and, to some extent, some judgement they had felt about the way their lives had gone. For my constituent, in amongst all of those people, they felt completely understood and not judged. There was a sense of belonging. They felt loved and understood and, without any words needing to be spoken, they felt like all the barriers had been removed and that they belonged. I really appreciate the opportunity for my constituent to be there and I'm very proud to be able to put their reflections on the record in this place.
It is indeed a great privilege to be in this place at all but particularly to be able to make contributions like I seek to do today. I recognise what this parliament did when it came together at 11:00 on Monday. I acknowledge the contributions of all of my colleagues on both sides of the House in this debate and I especially acknowledge the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for beginning the long overdue apology. To me, it is inconceivable that anyone would engage in the abuse of children in their care. It is especially inconceivable that those charged with being the protectors of our society—the clergy, the Scout leaders and others in authority—would perpetuate the system and heinous crimes exposed in the royal commission.
It is absolutely appalling that this was the awful truth for too many of our children. They needed nurturing and protection and what they got was awful systematic abuses. As a parent, I would do anything to protect my children and grandchildren but I'd also protect other children in our family and any child I met. As adults, that's how it should be. We should nurture and protect the next generation so they have the best opportunities to succeed and lead wonderful, fulfilled lives. The 17 volumes of the royal commission's report stand testament to the fact that this has not been the case for so many children. Too many were not believed. Too many perpetrators were allowed to continue their heinous crimes. Instead of facing the law, they were moved to other places where more unsuspecting families and children were subjected to abuse and neglect. Our institutions knew. Our institutions knew and still continued to let this happen. Our institutions enabled child sex offenders and protected their reputations. What they should have been doing was protecting the futures of the children who did not deserve the abuse they endured. The experiences of these children have shaped the rest of their lives. They did nothing to deserve the abuse. They did not deserve the relationship breakdowns, the drug and alcohol abuse, the inability to get jobs or complete education, nor, for some, the incarceration. You have to wonder what their lives might have been like if they'd had the opportunity and had only received love and nurturing in these institutions that were entrusted with their care.
I recognise the work of the commissioners and the staff at the royal commission. Theirs was a difficult and confronting job, but they created a space where survivors and families could be believed and could tell their stories. For most, it seemed, it was the first time in their lives anyone had listened. The commissioners found ways that meant all could be heard, and I thank them for their work. I recognise the work of those who fought to bring these crimes to prominence so the royal commission could be set up. I recognise Julia Gillard, Nicola Roxon and Jenny Macklin, the member for Jagajaga, for their work. It's not easy to take on these institutions, especially those that hid the abuse away for decades. I recognise the work from members in this parliament: the member for Newcastle, who is in the chair, and the members for Swan, Barton, Ballarat and so many more.
Sorry means doing things differently. Sorry means that you don't do it again. Actions speak louder than our words, and we have to make sure that it never happens. It's now time for the institutions to do the right thing and help the healing of those they hurt. They should participate in the Redress Scheme. More importantly, they need to commit themselves to ensuring that this never be allowed to happen again. As many other members have pointed out, abuse of children does not only happen in institutions and it will not have stopped at the release of the royal commission report. We must redouble our efforts and ensure that all children are safe and that they are believed. In closing, I would like to add my voice to that of all of us in this place: we are truly sorry.
I add my voice to those of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to say how sorry I am for the abuse that occurred and was uncovered by the royal commission. I'd like to reflect on a couple of points.
The first is going back to reports on Monday, 12 November 2012 and the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard's words. It was reported on the ABC News website:
The Prime Minister said the commission would look at all religious organisations, state care providers, not-for-profit bodies as well as the responses of child service agencies and the police.
"The allegations that have come to light recently about child sexual abuse have been heartbreaking," Ms Gillard told reporters in Canberra.
"These are insidious, evil acts to which no child should be subject.
"Australians know … that too many children have suffered child abuse, but have also seen other adults let them down—they've not only had their trust betrayed by the abuser but other adults who could have acted to assist them have failed to do so.
"There have been too many revelations of adults who have averted their eyes from this evil.
"I believe in these circumstances that it's appropriate for there to be a national response through a royal commission."
… … …
"I commend the victims involved for having the courage to speak out.
"I believe we must do everything we can to make sure that what has happened in the past is never allowed to happen again."
I say those words to demonstrate how reflective those words from some six years ago are even today, because of how similar they are. What forthright judgement of Prime Minister Gillard at the time to have called that royal commission. Certainly what she said is very true about the need for an outcome and to ensure that this did not happen again. Again, how much does this show how the royal commission was set up for the right purposes. There was knowledge that there were these instances of abuse, and they needed to be explored.
I also pay tribute, as the member for Werriwa just did, to Nicola Roxon, who was the Attorney-General at the time and, in the parliament on 26 November, just a couple of weeks later, noted:
The submissions that have been received so far highlight a couple of important things: the importance of designing the hearing process appropriately so that victims feel supported through the process of preparing and giving evidence; and the need to appoint multiple commissioners with broad expertise. Legal expertise and child protection expertise are those that were most commonly mentioned in the submissions. Also the view of many who have put in comments to the government is that the commission should take whatever time is needed to get it right but also include timely reporting, with suggestions of every one or two years, with the recognition that the commission will need sufficient time to investigate thoroughly.
The fact that this royal commission was properly established with terms of reference that were so widely supported says so much about the people who believed in this process and who were finally in positions of authority where they could make that stamp and do it properly. Again this shows that we had such good people in positions of responsibility at the time, including Julia Gillard and Nicola Roxon.
In my remaining time I turn specifically to Joanne McCarthy from the Newcastle Herald, who won a Gold Walkley for her investigative reporting. It has been mentioned that Julia Gillard wrote to Joanne McCarthy to say:
Thanks in very large measure to your persistence and courage, the NSW Special Commission of Inquiry and the federal Royal Commission will bring truth and healing to the victims of horrendous abuse and betrayal.
Much has been debated about regional media and investigative reporting, and Joanne McCarthy herself noted:
I am a regional person, and I think only a regional paper could have done this. The truth is the truth. It doesn't matter where it appears. You just have to keep banging away.
I also think it is incumbent on us to recognise the importance of investigative journalism and where it fits these days in such an era of increased media consolidation and fake news. I draw to the attention of the House one of the attachments in a submission made by Dr Denis Muller, a senior research fellow at the Centre for Advancing Journalism in Melbourne. He wrote a case study in investigative journalism as part of a research project examining the civic impact of journalism. It's entitled How journalism got Australia the child abuse royal commission. It is an essential read. It starts out by noting:
In 1995, police in the Hunter region of New South Wales investigated Vincent Gerard Ryan, a Catholic priest, for sex crimes against boys spanning 20 years. Brought to trial in 1996 and 1997, he pleaded guilty to multiple offences … He ultimately served 14 years.
Apparently—I will go through some of the excerpts very briefly:
The Maitland-Newcastle diocesan office had become aware of his sexual predations in 1975 but continued to protect and promote him over those 20 years.
The article goes on. There was a sentencing of one Father James Patrick Fletcher:
The sentencing proceedings took place in the District Court at Gosford … The Newcastle Morning Herald assigned its Central Coast reporter, Joanne McCarthy, to cover the sentencing. She filed a brief routine report and returned to other duties.
However, towards the end of 2007, McCarthy was asked by the Herald's features editor to look into why enrolments at Catholic primary schools in the Hunter were dropping … she made a couple of phone calls, and in the second one the person on the other end said, "It might have something to do with the child sexual abuse stuff".
So the investigative journalism started—I acknowledge the member for Paterson in the chamber as well:
Still pursuing the falling-enrolments story and the possible link with sexual abuse, McCarthy visited the website of Broken Rites, an advocacy group established in Melbourne to support victims.
I think Dr Muller uses an incredible turn of phrase in this article:
… it was at this point that McCarthy cast off the school-enrolments story like an abandoned chrysalis: she was now in full pursuit of the allegation that Monsignor Cotter had covered up for Ryan. Cotter had gone to his grave seven or eight weeks earlier, hailed as a holy man.
It goes on:
This story was a watershed. "Suddenly I was just being inundated with calls that went beyond just Ryan. That was when I got a call from somebody I didn't know and this person said to me, 'You want to look at a priest by the name of McAlinden. You won't need a first name'.
It goes on, and I really recommend that members of the House have a look at this. It says:
The momentum for a royal commission was starting to build, and it was now that the Newcastle Morning Herald began to use the campaigning banner "Shine the Light", the introduction of which was accompanied by an editorial calling for a royal commission.
And a royal commission, of course, was called. The following Monday, they were in an office:
… when an ABC Lateline producer texted her to get to a television set immediately.
"We turned the TV on, ABC, and all of a sudden the TV crosses to Julia Gillard, and then with the first words she said, she was announcing a royal commission. Well I just fell apart. Just lost it. Absolutely lost it. I didn't hear one word that she said.
Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, I acknowledge your great representation of Newcastle. What a tribute to the people of Newcastle is someone like Joanne McCarthy. The work that she did really formed the basis of a lot of these inquiries. I acknowledge that there were other inquiries that came about, including the work of Strike Force Georgiana, and that snowball effect really combined to get us to where we are today.
I will end by saying that a lot of this has now been put into popular culture, and some excellent screen work has been done on this. Many people will have seen the movie Spotlight from a couple of years ago, where The Boston Globe uncovered incredible, appalling cases of child abuse. I note, and here I'm quoting from an article by David Pilgrim in The Conversation, that:
At the end of this film, the director makes a point of printing a long list of all the places worldwide where the problem has been exposed, leaving the audience in no doubt as to the continuing pervasiveness of the scandal.
At least we had the apology this week.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 18:17 to 18:33
I'm really proud to have been a member of a government, the Gillard government, which established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. What appears today to have been an obvious thing that had to be done, really wasn't back then. There were voices against it. There were some very powerful and strong voices against it, even within the parliament. Not everybody was in consensus on the view that this needed to happen. I was very proud to have been a part of it and very proud to have sat there, in one of those wonderful moments in parliament, where the Prime Minister and the leader of the other party, to which I belong, stood up and gave a great speech. The Leader of the Opposition stood up and gave a great speech. I was mindful of all of those who had put a lot of work into getting us to where we are. None of those people should come before the survivors and those who didn't survive in our acknowledgements in this debate before the House today. So let's start by acknowledging the survivors and those who didn't survive their encounter with institutional child sex abuse.
I should pay and I do pay tribute to former Prime Minister Gillard, former Attorney-General Roxon, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their heartfelt apology statements in Parliament House on Monday. I want to pay tribute to you, member for Newcastle, for your role as the member and as a person who had a lot to do with the survivor groups that led to the statement today, together with the member for Swan, who's not in the chamber with us at the moment but who I know took a very personal and energetic response to this issue, and to the member for Jagajaga, who is also not with us at the moment but who did a lot of work to bring the apology and the Redress Scheme before the parliament.
After young children have been systematically let down for so long, the events of Monday really do show how far we've come. Both sides of politics were working together for a vital cause, to say sorry, to commit to protect our young and to ensure that the horrors of the past do not happen again and that we don't create another generation of survivors. In another era, silence and ignorance let down so many children and led to their suffering. The message this week is that, for those who have been brave enough to come forward, we believe you and we will work to ensure that no-one needs to go through the same horrors that you went through—the offence, the cover-up, the denial.
This week has also been an important step about recognising our failures as a nation and learning from those grave mistakes. We can't change the past. We can only hope to bring justice to victims and to ensure that the perpetrators and those who covered it up receive justice or have justice visited upon them. Those who have covered it up and put the interests and the reputation of their church or their organisation or the clerics who work within it above the suffering of the abused have rightly been condemned. They do not deserve the protection of either the congregation or the law. While nothing can erase what has happened to the victims, we need to ensure that our Redress Scheme is fit for purpose, that it meets their needs. Apologies and the statements that we're making today address the past. Redress schemes address the past. We must, as a parliament and as community leaders, also address the future, and that's about prevention.
Because it's the faith which I was raised in, because it's the church or the religion which I affiliate with, I want to say a few things about the observations and the findings that have been made about the Catholic Church throughout the royal commission process and since. The Catholic Church provided data on complaints to the royal commission and that data is nothing short of extraordinary. Between 1980 and 2015 alone, over 4,400 people alleged incidents relating to more than 1,000 separate institutions within the Catholic Church. Of the complainants, 78 per cent were male, and, of the alleged perpetrators, 90 per cent were male; 62 per cent of the perpetrators were priests or brothers; seven per cent of all priests were perpetrators; and 20 per cent of all Marist Brothers and 22 per cent of Christian Brothers were perpetrators. Can you imagine any other institution in our country today where as many as one-quarter of its leaders were perpetrators, and we did nothing about it? I cannot imagine that. Today, as we debate this motion, as we respect that fundamental separation between church and state, it's also our role as community and parliamentary leaders to send a very clear message to the churches and other institutions: you must reform yourselves.
11.7 per cent of priests from the diocese of Wollongong, where I grew up, 13.9 per cent of priests from the diocese of Lismore, 14 per cent of priests from the diocese of Port Pirie and 15 per cent of the priests from the diocese of Sale were perpetrators. Five male religious orders—the Christian brothers, the De La Salle Brothers, the Marist Brothers, the Patrician Brothers and the St John of God brothers represent more than 40 per cent of all claims made to Catholic Church authorities. The first thing that strikes you about these statistics is the immensity of them. If you gathered in the Great Hall on Monday, you put faces to those statistics. They weren't just raw numbers; they were human beings, lives broken or interrupted, and we will never do anything to give them back their youth. To those people, as they sat and listened to the speeches of the apology it brought back that vivid memory of a younger self, the moment where their faith, their trust and their body was violated and betrayed by a person who they were taught to revere. This cannot be left to stand.
The second thing that's overwhelming about this is the sheer number of cases. Let's not forget that these were instances where complaints were made and documented. Many, many more complaints were not made or were made and were not documented, so the story is bigger than the statistical picture presented to the royal commission.
The third thing that becomes obvious is that over 62 per cent of all perpetrators came from an order which imposed a vow of celibacy. As we are sending a clear message to the churches from this place that they have a responsibility to the societies in which they operate and they have a responsibility to reform, we cannot look over these things and say, as many have said, celibacy has got nothing to do with it. The statistics speak for themselves. So one of the messages that must come from this place is a very clear message to the churches—and my church, the Catholic Church—is that you've got to question a lot of these practices that have been taken as an article of faith. The idea that there is something sacred about the seal of confessional, that a crime against a child can be confessed to a priest in the knowledge that that confession has with it a precondition that the person making that confession is either unwilling or unable to face the secular consequences? We can't be on about protecting that. If that was ever okay—and I don't think it was—it's not okay today. The same must be said about the vows of celibacy. We cannot deny the data. The churches must reform themselves as other, secular institutions are being required to reform themselves.
We can't change the past; we can affect the future. I thank the House for the opportunity to talk to these matters.
On Monday, we reached another milestone in our growth as a nation with the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child abuse. When in government, the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered an apology to the stolen generations in this very place. Sadly, many of those children were also victims of institutional abuse. I, along with all Australians, have been incredibly distressed by the revelations that were revealed during the royal commission which was instigated by the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. Julia's presence in the House on Monday was warmly acknowledged by all present and so very well deserved. Without her strength of conviction, the victims' stories may never have been told. During a time of political unrest, I'm sure the survivors of this horrific chapter in our history were heartened at the bipartisan approach to proceedings which culminated in the suspension of question time on Monday.
I know that in my electorate of Paterson there are many survivors of child sexual abuse trying to make sense of what happened to them. There are also many families of victims who could not continue to live with the memories and the pain, and they died too soon. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse opened a world of pain for many survivors and their families. For some, this would be the first time in decades they had allowed the memory of what occurred to surface. In many cases, families were not even aware of the burden their loved ones had carried all of their lives.
I was pleased to be able to meet Katie on Monday, who had travelled with her daughter to Canberra in our very small FlyPelican plane from Newcastle Airport, from my electorate, to hear the apology firsthand. Katie is a survivor. At the age of six, she and her sister were abandoned into the hands of the Sisters of St Joseph. In the orphanage, where she stayed for six weeks, she suffered unspeakable abuse. Yet at the age of 97, Katie found the strength to tell her story, to call her abusers to account and to attend here in the nation's parliament to receive an apology from her Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition stood together and said 'I'm sorry, and we believe you'. At the age of 97, it is well and truly long overdue, but so well deserved.
I want to add my voice to tell those who avenue suffered at the hands of people who were supposed to protect them, to the survivors and to their families of those who did not survive, I am sorry, I believe you and I admire your resilience.
I would also like to thank the tireless work of Newcastle Herald journalist Joanne McCarthy, who continued to listen to victims and, importantly, to write about their horrors at a time when it was incredibly difficult to do so. Joanne's empathy and advocacy in no small part led to the issue gaining momentum. I can still remember her shock and delight at receiving a letter from the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard, thanking her for her work in helping make the royal commission a reality. I know it is still one of Jo's most treasured possessions.
I just want to take leave from my prepared speech for a moment to also acknowledge the member for Newcastle, who sits in the chair of the Federation Chamber on this day in 2018. I want to thank her for her tireless effort in the representation of the people of Newcastle, knowing that it really was, in many points, the focal point for much of the abuse. Shine the Light ,which the Fairfax newspaper Newcastle Herald led, was important, but your advocacy was also very important for our communities.
I would like to recognise Pat Feenan. Pat is the mother of four boys. Her son Daniel is the eldest of those. Daniel was brutally sexually abused by the notorious Father James Fletcher, known as Jim Fletcher to his congregation, from the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle. One of the more shocking aspects of the case against Jim Fletcher was how the priest, who was a close family friend of the Feenans, set about grooming not just a young boy but the entire family. He was later found guilty of nine charges in a public trial in 2004. Jim Fletcher passed away in prison in 2006.
Pat was not to be defeated or worn down by the horrors that her family had endured. Not only was her precious boy completely abused, in every sense of the word, but her family were ostracised from the one thing that they had had in their life as their rock, the Catholic Church. Pat was not to be defeated. She set to and wrote a book called Holy Hell, and if I can commend any literature to anyone who is at all remotely interested in this story, it is powerful and personal, yet it portrays what happened to her family in a very sensitive way. I want to commend her for being brave enough to write it. The book is called Holy Hell. Thank you, Pat, for sharing it. I read it a number of years ago. Before I was elected to this place, I worked in the media. Talkback radio was the main part of the media that I worked in, and I had the pleasure of interviewing Pat. It was probably one of the hardest interviews I've ever done, as she recounted to me what she'd written about and what had happened to her family.
I also had the great honour of talking many times to Joanne McCarthy on the radio about her work. I asked: 'How do you keep doing this? How do you keep the strength?' She said: 'Meryl, the people keep coming to me with their stories. When you sit with them and hear the stories, there's just no way you couldn't write about them.' I'm highlighting these two individuals because they were brave enough to write about their stories. It's the way that we saw convictions come to pass. So, whilst the royal commission was incredibly important, the shared experiences and the bravery of those people is most important.
Returning to Monday, it was such an emotional day for everyone. While an apology to the victims and survivors of institutional sexual abuse is a start, it is not the end. In the spirit of bipartisanship that started this process, we must continue. The royal commission has made a suite of recommendations, and they must be actioned. Peter Gogarty, another survivor from Newcastle, has said it will mean nothing if we don't do something about the recommendations and put them into place. Doing nothing is just not an option. Justice is deserved, demanded and it must be delivered. Many of the recommendations included in the report focus on prevention. Sadly, there are still many children, for reasons that we don't know, who remain with their family members and find themselves in foster care and other types of temporary and permanent care today. In fact, I know that in the Newcastle and Maitland area there are up to 60 children, at times, every night in a motel room.
As a society, we must ensure that in another 20 or 30 years we are not hearing the same stories as those revealed during this royal commission. We must listen to those who lived the horrors and the experts who formulated the response and, as the Leader of the Opposition said on Monday:
It is now the moral duty of this parliament and future parliaments not to second-guess the royal commission but just to implement the recommendations of the royal commission.
To everyone who forced us not to look away, thank you and well done. I hope that this acknowledgement will help heal long-held trauma and emotional scars. Thank you.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:53