I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Isaacs from moving the following motion immediately—
That the House:
(1) notes there are obligations for statements made by Members to the House which do not extend to statements released outside the House; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Member for Chisholm to make a statement in the House at any time before 2 pm, for a time not exceeding 20 minutes, which responds to:
(a) widespread reports in the media about the Member this week;
(b) discrepancies in the Member's public statements this week; and
(c) questions which have been raised concerning her fitness to be a Member of the Australian Parliament.
This motion is being moved so that the member for Chisholm can explain the discrepancies between the extraordinary interview that she gave on national TV and—having given this extraordinary interview on national TV on Tuesday night, and when the wreckage from that interview became apparent to everyone in Australia, and particularly to people in this House—being prevailed on, apparently by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, to issue a statement that purported to clarify things. She claimed she was clarifying her denials or 'forgetting' of absolutely simple material. That is not to be believed. This House now has, from a recently elected member of this place, an absolutely extraordinary interview conducted by Andrew Bolt in which this member, the member for Chisholm, said as her excuse for her membership of these organisations that appear to be connected with the propaganda arm of the Communist Party of China that she couldn't remember and, therefore, she couldn't possibly have been a member of these organisations. Imagine if someone turned up to the compulsory drug testing for welfare recipients that this government wants to introduce and said: 'Oh, I can't remember; therefore, that's an excuse. Oh, and because I can't remember, I couldn't possibly have taken any drugs.' That's the equivalent of what we've had from this member for Chisholm.
Yesterday—this is why standing orders should be suspended to allow me to move this motion—we had a further absurdity piled on the absurdity of her interview with Andrew Bolt in which the member for Chisholm did not stand up before journalists, did not give a press conference, but simply issued a written statement, written for her—and it's apparent that it was written for her—by the Prime Minister's office and the Minister for Foreign Affairs—
Why is it apparent?
It is totally apparent because it's a parroting of—
Government members interjecting—
I'm asked why it is so obvious. It's because it is a parroting of words used by the Prime Minister and words used by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The statement is one in which she does not actually explain what the situation is in respect of her membership, or possibly former membership, of groups that are associated with the overseas propaganda arms of the Chinese Communist Party. This is a very serious matter. When this kind of extraordinary revelation comes to light, it goes to whether or not the member concerned is a fit and proper person to be a member of this House. That is the kind of matter, absolutely, that the member should explain in detail to the House—exactly what her status is in relation to this organisation, and, if it's a past status, exactly what her past status was in relation to these organisations. It is not good enough—and that's why standing orders should be suspended to allow this motion to be moved—for the member to simply issue a written statement. What she should be doing is standing up in this House and explaining to this House what her status was, or is, with these propaganda arms of the Chinese Communist Party. It is a very, very serious matter and she has not explained her situation.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen! The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. I will say to the member for McEwen that he is not going to bellow at me when I've asked him to cease interjecting. I want to hear the member for Isaacs in silence. As you can probably tell, I've got a bit of a sore throat, so I'm going to mete out punishment even more than I normally do. I'm not going to lose my voice. The member for Isaacs has the call.
It is absolutely standard practice for a member of this House who finds herself in the situation that the member for Chisholm finds herself in to come into this House and explain her conduct, explain what her association with these organisations was and explain why she said the extraordinary things that she said in answer to perfectly standard and proper questions that were posed by the journalist Andrew Bolt. She's done none of those things in the statement that she released yesterday. The questions that were raised by her extraordinary interview remain unexplained, and that's why it's appropriate that this House should resolve to call on the member for Chisholm to make a statement in the House in relation to these matters.
Let's go to some of the things that the member for Chisholm said in this extraordinary interview conducted by Andrew Bolt. She couldn't bring herself to support the bipartisan position taken by the Labor Party and taken by the Liberal Party of Australia in relation to the conduct of the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea. That position—to be absolutely clear—she could not bring herself to say was that the actions of the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea were in breach of international law. This is a standard position. It's one in respect of which the current Prime Minister of Australia outrageously suggested that there was some lack of patriotism in a former senator, who happened to be a Labor senator, and it suited the current Prime Minister of Australia at that time—
Government members interjecting—
to say that there was a lack of patriotism on the part of that senator—because of the statements that he had made about the conduct of the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea. Now we have a recently elected Liberal member of parliament who has said something virtually identical to the statements made by that former senator—statements in respect of which that senator ultimately resigned from his position in the Senate—and we've had nothing from the Prime Minister and nothing from the member for Chisholm in relation to this. Instead, she has not come and explained herself to this House but instead simply distributed a written statement that self-evidently was prepared for her by the foreign minister and the Prime Minister's office, self-evidently is not in her words and self-evidently is not the language that she herself chose to use when she was being interviewed by Andrew Bolt. The ridiculous hypocrisy of all of the people on the government benches, starting with the Prime Minister and including the member for Chisholm, is on full display for the Australian people to see. That's why standing orders should be suspended in order to have the member for Chisholm come into this House as she should, as convention would require she should.
She's run out of the House, as one of my colleagues reminds me. She was here when I started speaking, but she's now run out of the House. She doesn't want to speak to this House. She's not prepared to front this House, of which she is a member, and fully explain the mess that she made on national TV on Tuesday night. The unexplained matters remain unexplained by her written statement issued yesterday, which was obviously written for her. She needs to explain, and this is a serious matter. It goes to whether or not the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to occupy the government benches which she is presently occupying, and it's a matter on which we should also be hearing from the Prime Minister of this country, who stood after this member's first speech and glowed with pride that she had joined the government benches. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. It is important that standing orders be suspended for this matter to proceed and for the member for Chisholm to clarify certain matters that go directly to the public interest. There is a cloud hanging over the absolute majority that this government holds and a cloud hanging over whether or not the longstanding bipartisan position about the PRC's actions in the South China Sea is a position unanimously held by government MPs, and there are some important questions over fundraising and events that have happened over the past couple of years. The hypocrisy and false dudgeon by those opposite, who held one of our former Senate colleagues to a particular standard they now won't hold their own colleague to, is extraordinary! The false dudgeon and the hypocrisy of those opposite, who when in opposition trumpeted the importance of members making statements in this place—and not outside—where members are held to certain standards, is just extraordinary.
There are important questions that need to be clarified here and can only be clarified by the member for Chisholm coming in here and making a statement to the House on those questions. As I said, whether or not the bipartisan position over the PRC's actions in the South China Sea holds and is unanimously supported by members of the government is now in question. The member for Chisholm would not agree with the longstanding position between the Labor Party and the coalition that some of China's actions in the South China Sea are unlawful. That raises questions about the unanimity of the government's MPs on this important question. There are important questions that the member for Chisholm has not been able to clarify, because she's contradicted herself over the course of this week over her membership of certain committees. They can only be clarified by her making a statement in this House. And there have been further questions raised only over the course of this morning, some of which only the Prime Minister may be able to answer. But, before the Prime Minister can answer them, the member for Chisholm has to give a full reckoning to this House.
Now, we in this House all know—I thought those opposite in this House knew—that the member for Chisholm, like all of us, is not just another citizen. You can't just go out and make some clarification outside of this House when you're not bound by the rules set out very clearly to govern the members' obligations on statements in this House. Certainly when they were in opposition they trumpeted that principle very loudly indeed. I remember it. Most of the members on this side certainly remember it. There's selective amnesia going on with those on the other side.
This goes to some very important matters of public interest. It is critical that standing orders be suspended and the member for Chisholm be given the opportunity to speak for up to 20 minutes to clarify these matters.
Thank you. It's pretty awful stuff, isn't it? Earlier this week we had a condolence motion for the last living member of the Menzies government, who helped unravel the White Australia policy. And all these years later, this is where we are—what a lovely way to spend the morning! There are two fundamental propositions that are being put by members opposite. The first proposition is this: if you are associated in any way with one of the three organisations—or, indeed, others like them—somehow you are not a fit and proper member of parliament. That's the proposition.
Opposition members interjecting—
That's precisely the proposition that you are putting. Here are the three organisations that are in question: the Guangdong Overseas Exchange Association, the Australian Jiangmen General Commercial Association and the United Chinese Commerce Association. The fundamental proposition those opposite are putting is that a Chinese-Australian with a wonderful heritage, who overcame domestic violence, who came to this country and who has natural associations with Chinese organisations, by virtue of those associations, is not a fit and proper person to be here. The question is: are you fit and proper people to be here when you run arguments like that? That's the central question. Let me tell you this. Let me read this. This is the House of Representatives Register of Members' Interests for the member for McMahon:
On 26 April 2015 I travelled to Hong Kong and China for five days as a guest of the Australia-Guangdong Chamber of Commerce and the Communist Party of China … I engaged in high level meetings with Business and Government officers.
Does that make the member for McMahon a communist? Should we wheel out Senator McCarthy to ask a few questions of them? 'I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party between the years 1949 and 1956.' Is this what you have honestly reduced yourselves to? It is an absolute disgrace.
The member for McMahon might be a socialist, but he's not a communist because he had an association with the Australian Guangdong Chamber of Commerce. Nor is any Australian of Chinese heritage a communist or a traitor or something of that nature because they have had an association with the Guangdong Overseas Exchange Association or because as a Chinese-Australian they've turned up to meetings of the general commercial association, or because they have an involvement with the United Chinese Commerce Association. Might I add that, when you actually sit down and read the transcript in a calm and reasonable way—something they are incapable of doing—the member for Chisholm was asked, with respect to the Australian Jiangmen General Commercial Association, 'You have been an honorary president?' She confirmed that she had been. She said,
'Well, as the honorary president of the organisation, they didn't tell me everything that they do'—which is in the nature of these organisations.
Opposition members interjecting—
Well, was the member for McMahon told everything about the Australian Guangdong Chamber of Commerce? Can you cite their constitutional provisions for me? With respect to the United Chinese Chamber of Commerce—
The Leader of the House will just pause for a second. I'm not going to raise my voice, mainly because I can't, but I am going to remind members that I anticipate a vote is coming and, given their passion, they might want to be here for the vote, but 94(a) does apply, and I am ready to start exercising it. The Leader of the House has the call.
With respect to the United Chinese Commerce Association, the member for Chisholm was asked: 'You are also honorary president of the United Chinese Commerce Association?' 'You are'—present tense. She said: 'I don't think I am. In fact, I'm not any honorary president or chairman of any organisation at this point in time.' Totally correct. Totally, 100 per cent correct. She was then asked about the Guangdong Overseas Exchange Association—a very similar exchange association to the exchange that the member for McMahon went on. She said first, 'I can't recall' and then she said she hadn't been a member of the council—clearly a level of confusion, which she clarified in her statement. But if, out of those three things, there was some level of confusion about one organisation, which was clarified—and clearly there was confusion in the interview—
This'll come back to bite you in the arse!
but that was clarified—and that is the basis upon which members opposite—
The member for Gellibrand will leave under 94(a)—(1) for interjecting and (2) for using unparliamentary language.
The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber.
The Leader of the House has the call.
That is the sole basis upon which members opposite put the assertion that the member for Chisholm is not a fit and proper person to be in this place. That is outrageous. That is xenophobic and that is something that you should all be disgraced about. It's absolutely disgraceful!
The second proposition that they put, which is even more laughable than the first, is that there is some form of comparability or equivalence between Sam Dastyari and the member for Chisholm. Let's examine that proposition for a moment. Sam Dastyari declared that Yuhu Group, linked to the individual Huang Xiangmo, helped settle a private legal matter for him that reportedly cost $40,000. In August 2016, whilst he was on Labor's front bench, it was revealed that the same Sam Dastyari had had the Huang Xiangmo Top Education Institute pay a $1,670 private travel bill when he went over his parliamentary travel budget. That private payment to Sam Dastyari occurred in secret and was not disclosed until that disclosure was compelled. That's what happened there. It was revealed under pressure because it had never been disclosed in accordance with the requirements of this parliament.
Then, after that occurred, in June 2016 Sam Dastyari stood next to the same Huang Xiangmo at a press conference—again, a press conference organised in secret—and Dastyari and Huang Xiangmo both—
A secret press conference?
That's exactly what it was. Sam Dastyari was beamed into China so that he could parrot Chinese policy in the South China Sea, hoping that no-one here would ever find out about it. That's what happened. But we did find out about it, and there they both were standing behind white podiums with the Australian coat of arms on those podiums. Huang Xiangmo then promised to give $400,000 to the Labor Party but threatened to cancel the donation when Senator Conroy made critical remarks about China, prompting Sam Dastyari to intervene and make statements contradicting Labor Party policy. That is what happened.
What members opposite are putting before the parliament today is that there is some kind of equivalence or comparability between that and someone who made an error about their memory on the membership of an organisation, and that's it. That is it. That is the level of comparability. And what it indicates is that there is absolutely no depth that they will not sink to to smear a member of this government. But this member of this government has a remarkable and proud history. If a Chinese Australian with Chinese heritage, the first to join this parliament, has to suffer this type of outrageous slur on their character within the first sitting of this parliament—a proposition that she is not a fit and proper person to be in this parliament—
You're not a fit and proper person!
simply because she could not recall—
The member for Solomon is warned.
and made an error in an interview over a previous association with the Guangdong Overseas Exchange Association—and that somehow or other makes you not a fit and proper person to be in this parliament, there has to be more to it than that. Why on earth would you come in here with that proposition based on that absolutely outrageous and slender piece of evidence? There's nothing there. And as to the statement, the statement is absolutely clear. If there's something wrong with the statement, you tell us, but the statement is completely clear.
At the end of the day, you would have someone excluded from this parliament because of their heritage and their association with that heritage to a Chinese organisation in circumstances like many people here, as is indicated by the member for McMahon's own proper and dutiful disclosure about associations with these organisations. Indeed, he travelled under their auspices to China to meet members of the Communist Party. That doesn't make him a communist. Simply because someone has a Chinese heritage doesn't make them a communist. Simply because someone has turned up to a dinner doesn't make them a communist. (Time expired)
As a member of the crossbench, I say this matter is above partisan politics. This goes to the core of our democracy. This goes to trust. This goes to integrity—the integrity of each of us individually, as well as the integrity of us collectively. It goes to confidence—the confidence of the Australian community in us individually and collectively.
I would urge the government not to use its numbers in this place, its slim majority in this place—and we all remember what happened in the 45th Parliament—to run a protection racket. We are simply calling here for the member for Chisholm to make a statement in this place. If the member for Chisholm has nothing to hide and if the member for Chisholm has nothing to fear then the member for Chisholm will come to this place and make a statement about any questions and any concerns that not just people in this place but people in the wider Australian community have and are concerned about with potential alleged connections to communist China.
We have all seen the Andrew Bolt interview, as have many members of the Australian community. Again, the trust, the confidence and the integrity of this place rides on this matter. Don't think it doesn't. We are in a position, nationally, where decline in us and decline in this place is at an all-time low. We have an opportunity now and I would urge the member for Chisholm. The members of the crossbench are watching. I am deeply concerned and, in my conversations with my colleagues, we are deeply concerned about this. We only ask the member for Chisholm to make a very simple statement to this House, to detail her knowledge and her connections. It is a very simple thing for the member to do; it is the right and proper thing for the member to do. (Time expired)
The time allotted for this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion moved by the member for Isaacs be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill introduces amendments to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018 to implement the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme and establish a new research function within the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation.
The bill expands the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's functions to enable it to provide guarantees to improve access to home ownership, and undertake research into housing affordability, including supply and demand.
It has become increasingly challenging for first home buyers to save for a deposit to purchase their first home, despite their ability to service the loan, especially given historically low interest rates and relatively high housing price-to-income ratios.
Based on median household income and a 15 per cent saving rate (on before-tax income), it takes approximately eight years to save a 20 per cent deposit on a median priced home.
That is why the government is backing first home buyers through the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. The First Home Loan Deposit Scheme is designed to facilitate earlier access to home ownership for first home buyers—importantly, including those in rural and regional Australia.
The government will provide direction on the operation of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme and the research function component through an expansion of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's investment mandate. The investment mandate will include details of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, such as the relevant eligibility requirements.
As announced by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, from 1 January 2020 eligible first home buyers will be able to enter the housing market sooner. Up to 10,000 guarantees per year will allow eligible first home buyers to purchase a home with a deposit of as little as five per cent.
Applicants will be subject to a range of eligibility criteria, including taxable incomes of up to $125,000 per annum for singles and up to $200,000 per annum for couples in the previous year, they must be Australian citizens purchasing property in Australia and they must be taking out owner-occupied loans on a principal and interest basis.
Properties purchased under the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme will be subject to regional price caps. Regional price caps will be set with a view to ensuring equitable access to the scheme across Australia.
The coverage of the guarantee will be broadly consistent with parental guarantee products offered by some lenders. The guarantee will remain in place until a loan is refinanced or the outstanding loan balance falls below 80 per cent of the property purchase price—whichever comes first.
Access to the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme will occur as part of the normal home loan application process, with limited additional effort for first home buyers being required when seeking a guaranteed loan.
In addition to its role in administering the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation will take on an important new research function to examine housing demand, supply and affordability in Australia. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation will establish close relationships with other research organisations to ensure its research efforts on housing affordability are focused where they are most needed and that they complement existing housing related research.
The First Home Loan Deposit Scheme and new research function are intended to complement other existing measures the government has taken to reduce pressure on housing affordability including the First Home Super Saver Scheme, announced in 2017, which assists individuals to build a deposit for a first home inside their superannuation fund through voluntary contributions. This is in addition to other measures the government has implemented to improve housing affordability such as our City Deals, encouraging additional supply of dwellings, importantly. These measures combined with the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme's role in reducing the hurdle involved in putting together a sufficient deposit without the need, importantly, for lenders mortgage insurance will go a long way to help make the dreams of first home buyers a reality sooner.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019 (the bill) amends the Customs Act 1901(Customs Act). Similar to the 2018 act of the same name, this bill will streamline the implementation of our free trade agreements (FTAs) and help facilitate smoother trade between Australia and our existing FTA partners.
Australia's FTAs contain rules of origin for determining whether goods are eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the FTA. These include product specific rules of origin (PSRs). The PSRs apply to goods containing material sourced from a nonparty. PSRs are based upon the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, also called the Harmonised System.
The six FTAs addressed by this bill each have a separate PSR annex that is implemented domestically by being replicated in regulations (the FTA regulations). Currently importers consult both the text of the FTA and the FTA regulations in order to work out whether their goods are eligible to claim preferential tariff treatment.
The amendments in this bill mean that businesses importing goods under any of the FTAs covered by the bill will, in future, only refer to the PSRs in the FTA.
The 2018 amendment act resulted in the repeal of some 2,692 pages of regulations, reducing them to 48 pages. It is expected that this bill will significantly reduce the size of the regulations for the six affected FTAs, from over 3,000 pages to about 90 pages.
The changes proposed by this bill are technical in nature and are not controversial. They do not make any changes to the benefits that are available under any of the FTAs.
The changes proposed by this bill will also mean no delay in Australia implementing changes under the Harmonised System. It will reduce the likelihood of errors that could occur in prescribing the PSRs in FTA regulations. The bill will also greatly reduce the use of government resources in amending and updating large regulations in the future.
Importantly, the changes will make it easier for businesses new to using FTAs to understand their obligations by using consistent and simpler language across the legislation that implements the FTAs negotiated by the Australian government.
In introducing this bill, the government honours its commitments to its FTA partners to ensure our agreements remain up to date.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to speak in support of the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, but I would first like to make a few more-general comments about this difficult and fundamentally important area of public policy.
Children are the most vulnerable members of our community, and there is no crime more sickening than child sexual abuse. This is not a topic for scoring political points. It is not a topic for cheap whose-side-are-you-on politicking by the Prime Minister or his senior ministers. I make that point because there are signs that some members of the government are agitating to do precisely that, not with this bill but with future bills. It is possible to wholeheartedly and unambiguously support the objectives of a piece of legislation but disagree on how best to achieve those objectives or to disagree that a piece of legislation achieves those objectives at all, and yet during the last parliament this government's former justice minister said that a vote against the government's then mooted reforms to child sex offences was 'a vote to allow more paedophiles into the community'. That was a vile and contemptible statement, and I hope that we do not hear any similar comments from the other side of the House, let alone from a senior minister or the Prime Minister, during this term of parliament. It was, after all, this Prime Minister who said, 'What we need is not to disagree less, but to disagree better.'
The bipartisan nature of the commitment to protecting children from abuse is amply illustrated by this bill. It was a Labor government that established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, a royal commission unprecedented in its ambition. This Liberal bill implements a number of recommendations from that Labor royal commission. It does this by, firstly, creating an offence of failure to protect a child at risk of a child sexual abuse offence; secondly, creating an offence of failure to report a child sexual abuse offence; and, thirdly, strengthening overseas persistent child sexual abuse laws. As it happens, Labor supports both the objectives of this bill and agrees that the bill achieves those objectives in an appropriate manner. But there have been legitimate concerns expressed by some of the community about certain aspects of this bill, and those concerns have been expressed by people who wholeheartedly and unambiguously support the objectives of this bill. One of those concerns, expressed by the Law Council of Australia among others, relates to the application of absolute liability in respect of the reporting offences created by the bill. Labor members of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and the Labor caucus, ultimately accepted that in the very limited circumstances contemplated by this bill the application of absolute liability was appropriate to ensure compliance with the reporting regime established by the bill. However, as Labor senators also made clear, the operation of those provisions should be monitored closely following the passage of this legislation.
Concerns were also raised about the fact that, under the bill, an individual will not be excused from failing to disclose information relating to child sexual abuse on the ground of self-incrimination. The privilege against self-incrimination is, to quote the High Court: 'A basic and substantive common law right. It should not be abrogated lightly.' Labor has ultimately concluded that, in the very limited circumstances contemplated by the bill, the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination is necessary to ensure that all Commonwealth officers covered by the relevant offence provisions report abuse or take action to protect against abuse. That is, the abrogation of that privilege is necessary to ensure that the bill achieves its objectives. However, this is another matter that should be monitored closely and kept under review following the passage of this bill.
Finally, I note that the Law Council of Australia has argued that the reporting requirements in the bill could, in some circumstances, abrogate legal professional privilege. But I also note that the government has stated categorically the measures introduced by this bill will never require a person to breach legal professional privilege or any other legal obligation of confidentiality. That assurance is to be found in the explanatory memorandum, where the government states that the bill does not override existing legal obligations of confidentiality, such as legal professional privilege. And, separately, the Department of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's Department told the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee:
The offences do not require a person to breach legal professional privilege or any other legal obligation of confidentiality.
My colleagues and I have ultimately accepted those assurances from the government. But, at the risk of repeating myself, this is another matter that should be monitored closely following the passage of this bill.
To conclude, Labor fundamentally supports the measures introduced by this bill and so we will support its passage through the parliament. But we will, of course, be watching the government's next steps closely to ensure that those measures are appropriately and competently implemented. I commend the bill to the House.
I would like to thank my colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Combating Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, not just in this parliament but in the wider forums in which we all participate. It is, as many have said, a subject very close and very important to our hearts.
The protection of children is a key priority for this government. The measures in the bill are timely and necessary in responding to child sexual abuse, which is a global epidemic that is becoming more prevalent, more organised and more extreme. In the past year, 72 children have been removed from harm as a result of this government's efforts. In the same period, 83 people have been arrested by the Australian Federal Police in relation to child exploitation matters, resulting in 346 charges being laid. A further 244 referrals have been made to state and territory police. Importantly, 18 new victims have been identified. These are children depicted in child sexual abuse materials previously not known to Australian or foreign law enforcement.
However, more can and must be done. This bill strengthens the Commonwealth framework of offences relating to child abuse material, overseas child sexual abuse, forced marriage, failure to report child sexual abuse and failure to protect children from such abuse. The passage of this bill will respond to key recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and address difficulties that new trends in child abuse pose for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors.
This bill has been considered in detail by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Senate Standing Committee for Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I would like to thank both of these committees for their contributions. The important measures in this bill are part of the government's broader package of reforms to combat child sexual abuse. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes against Children and Other Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019 introduced by the Attorney-General yesterday will strengthen the way in which the criminal justice system deals with child sex offenders. Twenty-eight per cent of child sex offenders convicted of federal offences in 2018-19 did not go to jail, an appalling figure that mandatory minimum sentences will help to address.
The sexual abuse of children must not be tolerated in any form. The safety of our community, including its most vulnerable members, must be our first priority. I believe there is an expectation across our country that we send a strong message to these vile predators, that these crimes will not be tolerated. I trust the opposition will support this bill.
Finally, I note the extraordinary contributions of law enforcement agencies and personnel around the country. As someone who once had some portfolio responsibility for this area, the work we do in this parliament is important. The bipartisan nature of that work is vital. This work takes an incredible, intolerable day-to-day toll on the officers in the front line, sitting in front of their computers—the member for Moreton would know, because some of them are close to him in Brisbane—linking with their international partners. We can't do it without them, and we thank them for their efforts.
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.
This Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 concerns superannuation and the taxation treatment of superannuation. I can see members of the public who are in the public gallery now getting very excited about this subject matter!
The bill does three things. Firstly, it amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to allow individuals to avoid unintentionally breaching their concessional contribution caps. The concessional contribution caps of course are the concessional rates of tax that apply to employee contributions to their superannuation funds. Pre-tax contributions to a superannuation fund, or eligible contributions, attract the concessional taxation rate of 15 per cent upon those contributions, generally up to $25,000 per annum, as opposed to the marginal rate of tax that would otherwise apply to that portion of the employee's income.
It is the case that an employee that has multiple engagements could unintentionally breach this concessional contributions cap. It doesn't apply to a large number of taxpayers; it kicks in at around about $250,000 per annum. That's about what you would have to be earning before your natural contributions would exceed $25,000 per annum. So it's a small class of taxpayers who are working in a series of part-time jobs which are going to give them a compound annual salary of $250,000 per annum or more and, therefore, the SGL-driven contributions are a little over $25,000 a year. Perhaps directors who have multiple directorships on boards would trip the concessional contribution cap and there may be other highly paid professionals who fall into the category as well. We support the legislation.
Here's how it works. Instead of receiving contributions into superannuation, an employee may apply under the legislation to the commissioner to opt out of the SG regime in respect of an employer and negotiate with that employer to receive additional cash or non-cash remuneration. That part of the bill is absolute common sense and we're going to support it.
The second part of the bill deals with non-arms-length income rules for superannuation entities, which apply in situations where a superannuation entity incurs non-arms-length expenses in gaining or producing that income. These non-arms-length rules, quite simply, are designed to ensure that the concessional taxation arrangements for superannuation funds are not being abused; that the fund is being used not as a tax planning tool but as it was originally intended to be used by this place over successive governments—that is, as a means of saving for retirement income. So this part of the bill is about closing down loopholes and ensuring that the non-arms-length income provisions prevent the inflation of superannuation fund earnings through non-arms-length dealings. The amendments seek to remove any ambiguity and ensure that superannuation entities cannot circumvent the provisions by entering into schemes with non-arms-length expenditure. It sounds complex; it's not really. It will apply mainly to self-managed superannuation funds so that they are not being used to circumvent the proper purpose of the tax concessions designed to apply to them.
Finally, schedule 3 of the bill addresses the limited recourse borrowing arrangements. It amends the total superannuation balance rules to ensure that, in circumstances involving the limited recourse borrowing arrangements, the total value of a superannuation fund's assets is taken into account in working out an individual member's total superannuation balance. In Labor's view these are all sensible adjustments and we'll be supporting the bill in its current form.
I do want to note that this is not the first time this bill has come before the parliament this year. A bill was introduced in the Senate in June 2018, in the 45th Parliament, and that version of the bill did have a noxious provision within it. It included an additional schedule that would have introduced a one-off superannuation guarantee amnesty for employers who had done the wrong thing in not complying with payments of the superannuation guarantee to their employees—that is, they had not been paying their employees correctly. This schedule was not supported by Labor as it would have retroactively legislated to legalise employers withholding employee entitlements, something that, quite simply, we could not agree to. I'll say a little bit about this.
A parliamentary inquiry into the bill overwhelmingly found that the calls for an amnesty were coming from the employers—perhaps not surprisingly—and not from the superannuation industry, representatives of employees or, indeed, employees themselves. Labor welcomes the fact that that deeply unfair schedule has been removed from the bill in its current form. It does not obviate the need for us to do something about what I will describe as 'superannuation theft' in this country. The government should have attached to this bill an appropriate provision that deals with that matter.
Could I say something about superannuation theft. That's the way we should be describing it, because it is the deliberate nonpayment of an employee's superannuation entitlements, robbing the employee of a part of their pay and, more importantly, robbing them of the means to provide for a decent and secure retirement income. About 2.94 million workers lose around $5.9 billion—close to $6 billion—in unpaid superannuation a year. I'll say that number again because it's a very big number: about 2.9 million workers—close to three million workers—losing $6 billion a year in unpaid superannuation. Now, if this were occurring in any other area of the economy there'd be outrage, and quite frankly I can't understand why there isn't a long line of government speakers saying they want something done about this.
While unpaid superannuation affects every income decile, we know that low-paid workers are stolen from the most—particularly young workers, who are also more likely to miss out, reflecting their relative vulnerability to exploitation within the labour market. Since 2013, the number of Australian workers missing out on their superannuation has increased by more than 90,000, the equivalent of $300 million in unpaid superannuation. This crime warrants more of the parliament's attention. It's deeply disappointing that the government is not doing more to combat and to call out this growing issue. Six billion dollars; three million Australian workers not being paid correctly. They are being deprived of their right to save for a decent retirement income.
Another important thing to say about this is that those businesses who are doing the right thing, who are paying the superannuation guarantee levy or additional payments on behalf of their workers in accordance with the law and in accordance with the industrial instruments applying to their workplace, are being disadvantaged because of the unscrupulous acts of unscrupulous businesses who are not paying their employees correctly. They're getting a $6 billion per annum windfall, which is disadvantaging not only their workers but also their competitors. They are getting an unfair and illegal $6 billion a year advantage over their competitors because they are doing the wrong thing. It is incumbent upon this place—it is incumbent upon the government—to do something about this.
As with many pay disparities, the problem of unpaid super also disproportionately affects women. For example, women are more likely to be workers earning less than $450 a month in casual and low-paid work, and therefore quite often not eligible to take advantage of the superannuation guarantee legislation. Now, I note that recently the Australian tax office reported on its efforts to recover the superannuation of 250,000 workers. I commend them for going after the employers who are doing the wrong thing to those 250,000 workers. But when you compare the 250,000 workers who they were able to chase superannuation payments for to the three million workers who each year are being deprived of their lawful superannuation payments, you can see that this enforcement action is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a great need for more action by the regulators and the Australian tax office, but also an increase in penalties and compliance action in the growing number of superannuation theft cases.
Sadly, the government is going in the opposite direction. They've cut over 4½ thousand jobs from the Australian tax office over the last six years. Is it any wonder that we are only capturing a minute fraction of the superannuation theft in this country? Much more needs to be done. If the government want our full support in this area, they'll bring forward another bill into this House, one which has a fair dinkum go at addressing the growing problem of superannuation theft in this country. Three million workers are being robbed of $6 billion a year. That's simply not good enough. We support the amendments which are addressed at improving the circumstances for high-income earners, ensuring they do not unintentionally breach the contribution caps. But we'd like to see a lot more work done for the, on average, low-income workers who are losing $6 billion a year in superannuation payments. We commend the bill to the House.
As part of this government's commitment to an inclusive and transparent financial system, we are putting super funds' members first by streamlining the process by which super contributions are made and supporting fairer taxes. Today, anyone working more than one job may unknowingly exceed the concessional cap for super contributions simply because all of their employers are paying super contributions. Anyone breaching the $25,000 cap can face a heavier tax burden, leaving hardworking Australians in multiple jobs worse off.
It is an anathema to the spirit of this country when bureaucratic superannuation tax law penalises people working hard to get ahead. It is the government's role to provide the financial infrastructure to enable Australians to provide for themselves and their families, not to create regulations that catch honest people out for working more than one job to make ends meet. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 allows people with more than one employer to apply for an ATO exemption certificate provided super contributions are already being made. The certificate allows for their additional employers not to pay super contributions. Instead, the employee can receive a take-home wage in lieu of the foregone contribution. This puts money back into the pockets of mums and dads, which might otherwise have been taxed away. By empowering people working multiple jobs, we are bringing superannuation into the 21st century by recognising the rise of the gig economy.
With one in four Australians under the age of 30 now working multiple jobs, this bill is critical to reducing complexity and supporting the youth of this country. Superannuation remains a critical part of this country's financial and social health by providing people with the right to retire with dignity. This amendment will enhance superannuation to ensure that Australians can spend more time getting ahead, not getting caught up in legal tax minutiae. As part of the government's broad set of integrity measures, this bill is designed to strengthen our economy and keep accountability and transparency as the hallmarks of our financial system.
We are ensuring the consistency of the tax system through the non-arms-length income measure, otherwise known as NALI. Critical to this is treating non-arms-length expenditure at the full marginal rate rather than the concessional superannuation rate. By doing this, we are eliminating ill gained tax advantages and ensuring superannuation funds are not undermining the system by working around the contribution threshold. Healthy competition between superannuation funds ultimately creates the best outcomes for all Australians. However, fundamental to this endeavour, is a level playing field. This bill helps to eliminate practises which may create an unfair advantage. Current legislation taxes non-arms-length income, NALI, at the highest marginal income tax rate as opposed to the tax concessional superannuation rate. What current legislation fails to do is engage with non-arms-length expenses, which could be used to create tax advantages.
This bill similarly helps clamp down on any artificial financial arrangements that could inflate a super fund's actual performance. It will stop, for example, superannuation funds borrowing money from a member at a reduced rate or by purchasing an asset at below its market price from a related party and subsequently selling it at a market price. This sort of practice is blatantly unfair and ultimately undermines the system which so many Australians rely on for their retirement—the integrity of the super system on fair practice. More than anything else, this bill ensures that genuinely high-performing super funds stand out amongst their peers. Ultimately, superannuation funds should be judged on their overall performance, not on how well they game the system. This bill does not affect limited recourse borrowing arrangements by authorised deposit-taking institutions and other commercial lenders, nor should this bill affect related party LRBAs that currently meet ATO safe harbour provisions.
This government has zero tolerance for any institutional gaming of the superannuation system. The amendment combats this behaviour by preventing any workarounds for the $1.6 million limit on non-concessional contributions. It is critical to maintain the integrity of self-managed superannuation funds by protecting the rights of the members and the honesty of the superannuation system. Instances of using limited recourse borrowing arrangements by SMSFs to deliberately circumvent the contributions cap is a practice that this bill curtails. This amendment is about reinforcing the contributions cap, not about undermining self-managed super funds' capacity to borrow. Strong self-managed super funds are an important part of the superannuation industry and suit the financial needs of many Australians. We are focused on providing an equitable system which is about eliminating the misuse of limited recourse borrowing arrangements, not on banning them altogether.
This legislation is applicable only for arrangements between a self-managed super fund and a related party or those members who can make a tax-free lump sum withdrawal from their superannuation. By focusing on these groups, it will target specifically those who are engaging in gaming behaviour. Regardless of size, all super funds should be operating from a position of transparency, both for their members and for the integrity of the industry in which they operate. Because of the role that superannuation plays in our retirement savings, unlike many other financial services, the industry has a particularly important place in supporting healthy communities. It is critical that the trust the Australian people place in their super funds is respected by being transparent, operating with integrity and engaging in fair competition.
This industry cannot afford the trust deficit which has already opened when their members are relying on these institutions for their retirement. In an age of scepticism and doubt, when it comes to the financial industry at large, this bill is justifying the confidence that the Australian people should rightly have when it comes to their retirement savings. Putting the members of superannuation funds first and ensuring the integrity of the industry is the priority of this bill. It recognises how crucial superannuation is for maintaining the living standards of Australians into retirement, which ultimately contributes to healthier communities. We cannot afford to take shortcuts when it comes to the integrity of our financial markets or the institutions responsible for providing for the future of our citizens. For these reasons, I support this bill and highly commend it to the House.
The Australian superannuation system is the envy of the world. Established by a Labor government in the early 1990s, it's grown to a pool of $2.8 trillion in investment funds to boost growth in the Australian economy and, more importantly, to provide for adequate retirement incomes for Australians, particularly as the population ages. It provides a platform for Australians to retire comfortably and also to avoid having to rely on the age pension, which has budget implications for the nation moving forward.
Labor is supportive of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019, which seeks to tighten up the superannuation system and improve its efficiency. Schedule 1 deals with multiple employers and amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act to allow individuals to avoid unintentionally breaching their concessional contributions cap when they receive superannuation contributions from multiple employers.
Schedule 2 relates to non-arms-length income and ensures that non-arms-length income rules for superannuation entities apply in situations where a superannuation entity incurs a non-arms-length expense in gaining or producing the income. These rules are designed to prevent the inflation of superannuation fund earnings through those non-arms-length activities—for example, schemes involving non-commercial arrangements that stream income to the superannuation fund. These activities are sometimes used to evade superannuation contribution caps. These reforms will tighten that up to ensure that that evasion is reduced.
Schedule 3 of the bill relates to limited recourse borrowing arrangements and amends the total superannuation balance rules to ensure that, in certain circumstances involving limited recourse borrowing arrangements, the total value of a superannuation fund's assets is taken into account in working out individual members' total superannuation balances. Changes made to legislation in 2016 have led to attempts by certain self-manned super funds to use limited recourse loans to manipulate their total superannuation balance in order to retain contribution cap space and eligibility for certain measures. Under the changes, in certain limited circumstances the total value of an asset owned by the fund will be counted as part of the balance, even if there is an outstanding loan against it.
These changes will also go to ensuring that there's more certainty and less risk associated with certain self-managed superannuation funds. We all know how investing in the property market in Australia—or indeed internationally—can be a risky proposition. These rules will ensure that not only is the scheme tightened up but also some of that risk is removed.
We know that when it comes to superannuation there is, unfortunately, a campaign that's being waged by certain members of the government to undermine the planned increases to the superannuation guarantee levy. This levy—the compulsory levy of contributions for Australian workers—is currently at 9.5 per cent. But, of course, it was supposed to be at 12 per cent today, under the original plan that was put together by the previous government. The Abbott government's move to freeze the guarantee at 9.5 per cent has already left many workers thousands and thousands of dollars out of pocket. Since then, wages have barely moved as well. We all know the challenges that many workers and their families are facing in Australia at the moment, particularly related to cost-of-living pressure, because incomes haven't been increasing in Australia. We've had the wage price index data stuck stubbornly in that two per cent area for the last half a decade. Despite the fact that company profits have been increasing at generous levels, around 13 per cent a year on average for the last few years, wages have been stuck at that two per cent level. It means that many Australian workers and their families are under enormous cost-of-living pressure. Adding to that is the fact that the government doesn't have a policy on energy and electricity prices have been going through the roof. Private insurance and other necessary expenses that families are forced to undertake each year have been going up and up, but wages haven't. This has been putting a lot of pressure on family budgets.
When savings are inadequate and wages growth is sluggish, the Liberals want to short-change almost 13 million Australians out of super increases that they need and deserve and that, more importantly, were promised by this particular government and the Abbott and Turnbull versions of it. The party of wage stagnation, the party that has seen rampant wage theft under its watch is now going after workers' superannuation as well. And when the additional 2½ per cent should go into super, they would rather it flow to the already-high company profits that have been fuelling a record stock market.
The same party opposed universal compulsory superannuation when it was attempted to be introduced by Paul Keating in the early 1990s. They've frozen it multiple times. The Howard government froze increases to superannuation at the compulsory level, and as soon as the Abbott government got elected that was one of the first things that they did—they froze the increase in superannuation. This government has continued it and they've tried to abolish the low-income superannuation contribution scheme that the previous Labor government put in place, which was aimed at ensuring that more women are encouraged to be in the workforce and that there is not a tax disincentive to people being involved in the workforce when they're working casually or part-time. They can lose a lot of the benefit of that through taxation, particularly taxation associated with superannuation. So that incentive was put in there to ensure that workers who work on an itinerant basis have an incentive to remain in the workforce. And it boosts the nation's productivity. Well, they got rid of that.
Those opposite even tried to weaken penalties for employers who don't pay the right amount of superannuation. We saw that they wanted to have an amnesty for employers who'd been ripping off workers and not paying the right amount of superannuation for years and years. They wanted to say: 'Well, okay, we'll just let them have a holiday on that. But from this point in time we'll try to make them abide by the rules.' That demonstrates their commitment to superannuation and boosting retirement incomes for Australian workers.
It's a fact that those opposite have never really agreed with compulsory superannuation, because they can't get over the notion that workers do a better job at managing retirement income pools than do the retail funds run by the big banks and the big investment houses in Australia. The industry funds' fees are lower, their returns are better, they are not for profit and they're run by a collective of workers through unions and employer associations, managing those pools of investment and retirement funds, and they do a consistently better job than the banks. Those opposite have never gotten over that. They've never gotten over that and they do all that they can to try to undermine that scheme whenever they get the opportunity.
Their latest attack is many of those on the opposite side arguing for a permanent removal of the staged increase in compulsory superannuation. Many have heavily contested this proposal. They base it on the research—that is disputed—from a think tank report that claims an increase in superannuation would lower the living standards of some Australians. But this conclusion is partly driven by the tougher pension assets test which penalises retirees for saving, and which the government introduced, with the Greens, to cut the pension for 370,000 pensioners and kick 88,000 pensioners off the pension altogether. Australians know that these are just excuses aimed at undermining and diminishing the retirement income system that Australians are so proud of—the superannuation system that the Liberals and Nationals have never believed in from the beginning.
The Prime Minister and Treasurer say that the superannuation guarantee will go to 12 per cent on the legislated trajectory. But I don't think they can be trusted on this because we know that in the past they had those freezes when Howard was in government. We know that there are many on that side—and here is one of them coming into the parliament now—who argue that there shouldn't be an increase in the compulsory superannuation and savings rate in Australia.
That's not true! Mr Deputy Speaker, a point of order.
Look, before you raise a point of order, check that you know what a point of order is about! It's about deliberately misleading the House. He never used that term. You can resume your seat if you want to get up and speak in a minute.
The retirement incomes review could indeed become a stalking horse for more cuts to superannuation and worse, such as including the family home in the pension assets test. And yet the research from the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia shows there continues to be a significant gap between the $640,000 that it recommends and considers necessary for a comfortable retirement for couples and what people are actually retiring with in Australia and accumulating at the moment. That's why it's so vital that the superannuation guarantee be lifted from 9½ to 12 per cent on the current legislated timetable, and analysis by Rice Warner shows that, without the further lift in super, most Australians will be forced to rely on the age pension for most of their retirement income.
From a budget perspective, from a living standards perspective and from a productivity perspective, that's not a good outcome for our nation. We should be encouraging more Australians to save more for their retirement, and a compulsory system that achieves that should be encouraged. But a gradual rise to 12 per cent would provide most with an adequate income after they finish working. And the balance on retirement for median workers will rise by 20 per cent for men and 19 per cent for women if that scheme is continued. But it's the positive impact for the poorest Australians that underpins the case for this legislated increase. Workers in the bottom 10 per cent of the incomes distribution will retire with an additional 30 per cent in accumulated superannuation balances if this legislated increase continues, and Australia's retirement savings system needs to ensure that that occurs.
We already have a $2.8 trillion pool of savings. It's bigger than our gross domestic product. It's bigger than the GDP of all but seven countries. It provides an important pool of investment funds for infrastructure development, for growth in businesses and for improved productivity in our economy. It has some imperfections; there's no doubt about that. But lifting the guaranteed rate to 12 per cent by 2025 is not one of them. When the adequacy of retirement incomes is a pressing challenge and when our ageing population puts pressure on pensions, Australians need more superannuation, not less. So the government must ensure that we're doing more, not less, to increase the compulsory rate of savings in this country, and the best way to do that is to stick with the legislated increase from 9½ to 12 per cent.
The government also needs to be doing more to combat superannuation theft and underpayment. I mentioned earlier trying give a holiday to big employers to ensure that, if in the past they haven't been paying their correct superannuation, there would be an amnesty for employers. That sends the wrong message. That sends the wrong message to Australian employers and to Australian workers about the importance of the compulsory superannuation system and getting those payments right in a timely fashion. In that respect, I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House criticises the Government for not doing enough to combat superannuation theft and superannuation underpayment, which is costing Australian workers more than $6 billion every year".
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I'd like to start by correcting the record because, I'm sorry, but the previous speaker did mislead the House. The member for Kingsford Smith did mislead the House in stating that I said that we should stop the increase in the compulsory superannuation guarantee from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent. That is actually false. It is misleading the House. What I said was that we should consider whether people have the choice of taking increased superannuation or wages. If the member for Kingsford Smith, who is skulking out of the chamber now, is prepared to mislead and deceive the Australian people and this chamber in pursuit of his objective because he wants to justify his argument, we all know the weight and gravitas that can be added to his argument: somewhere between zero and nothing. There's not much of a cigarette paper between the two of them.
In saying that and clarifying the record—and I'm sorry and disappointed that I was not able to do that at the time when the misleading statement was made—this bill is quite straightforward in its intent. It's designed to ensure the integrity of the superannuation system for working Australians and to make sure that there's a pathway for people to comply with the law—to make sure they pay the appropriate amount of superannuation, that where there is an excess it's not being done through inappropriate means and that we build a sense of public confidence. That's a fundamental and worthy objective. It's something that we should all support as part of a robust system that meets the needs of Australians. But I have long held the view that we need to make sure that the system has integrity for everybody. What we have had is the development over a period of 30 years of a superannuation system which has progressively evolved with different legislative and regulatory arrangements to make sure that Australians can retire with confidence and dignity. The previous speaker, outside of his misleading statements, raised lots of concerns around the challenges of an ageing population—points and concerns which I hold very strongly—about making sure that people are in the best position to be able to stand on their own two feet for the entirety of their retirement.
But we also need to acknowledge that the evolution of the superannuation system has led to a particular design. What we have at the moment is a very fund centric focus around the superannuation system. We have a very fund centric process of legislation and regulation which focuses the design around how they should operate. But what's often missing in the discussion around compulsory superannuation is a focus on consumer choice. When it comes down to it, choosing your superannuation fund is the first significant financial decision that you will make, and, between that and buying a house, probably the most significant one you will make over your lifetime if you're the average Australian. That's why we should be encouraging and empowering Australians to (1) have choice rather than have them compelled to take up options under their industrial arrangements and workplace arrangements, and (2) have the choice between any different model based on what they think best suits their interests over the long run. That means we need comparability and transparency in the system, because at the moment the system is rigged in favour of some funds against the interests of Australians.
I'm making no apologies. I'm in this chamber to represent Australians, not capital interests, as some people seem to be, because they seem to want to constantly preserve the regulations that are in place to favour the few. When you have a fund centric approach, that's where you end up. When you have a consumer interested approach, you have legislation that guarantees the integrity of the system, like this one does. It makes sure that people have choices across models—whether it's self-managed superannuation funds, retail funds or, of course, industry funds—and they're not automatically thrown into one camp despite what their personal preferences may be; they're not defaulted into it. We don't discourage people from making active choices and we don't discourage people from learning about the choices and the options that are available.
Of course, there are huge benefits from fund aggregation, and nobody would argue otherwise. It enables them to do things like increase their borrowing capacity in wholesale markets. But when it comes down to it, we should want consumers and workers to be informed and to be literate, to be able to compare and to have transparency around the different options that they can choose from so that they can make informed decisions. That is the basis on which they make an informed decision. It is when people get a sense and understanding, as an 18- or 16-year-old who has started their first job, of the gravity and weight of one of the biggest financial decisions—certainly the first big financial decision—they'll make over their entire lifetime.
We want people to be engaged. One of the big problems with the superannuation system today—and the entire retirement system, of course—is that many people might default into a fund, and they don't really think about it apart from getting the occasional statement from their fund once or twice a year which they chuck in the bin. They don't engage until they're about 55, once the kids are off their hands and they actually have to start thinking about their retirement. That's not an uncommon story.
We want Australians to have a greater sense of ownership and empowerment and responsibility over their retirement, to understand the gravity of the situation that we all face, as individuals and as a country, to secure long-term dignity and choice through our whole life cycle. That doesn't come from default options. It's not just about comparability and transparency; it's also about portability. People may choose as an active decision, even if it's a default, to go into an industry fund or, if they decide they get better returns or better outcomes for themselves or greater empowerment and choice, they can move over to retail funds as they see fit. Then if they get to a point when they see it's to their advantage they can choose the alternative of going into a self-managed fund, as I have, and they won't be dissuaded and they won't face punitive measures.
We know that that is anathema to the opposition not just because of their obsession with only defending the interests of the few and the capital that they have influence on and control over but also because of their constant demonisation of the private sector. We saw very nakedly and clearly in the lead-up to the last election that just about every single policy they had in the economic space was designed to diminish the power of Australians to manage their own finances and their choices. Their policy around the abolition of refundable franking credits was designed to move people out of SMSFs and push them into industry super, where they have influence and control. They ought to be ashamed of themselves for shutting down Australians' choices in order to suit themselves. That's why some of us are so proud to have stood up against that agenda, the nefarious agenda of the opposition, which, no doubt, like the head of a hydra, will come back, and they will pursue it once again, because their objective at heart is not about the integrity of the system. Their agenda has nothing to do with the taxation system. Their agenda at every point has something to do with one thing—their control over Australians' lives. The same was true of negative gearing and their approach, when they wanted to shut down that pathway. They wanted to corporatise housing and create a pathway where the only people who got to invest in housing were their mates.
I don't think that's right. I think every Australian should be able to stand on their own two feet and take control of their own personal circumstances and not be pushed around by the Labor Party or their buddies. Some of us should stand up for the empowerment of 26 million Australians, not just of those who sit on that side of the chamber. If they think that some of us are going to sit here in silence and wait until they're able to achieve their nefarious ends, they're kidding themselves.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019. This bill is technical and non-controversial. Labor supports the bill, and I support also the amendment moved by the member for Kingsford Smith. One of the measures contained in the bill will amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to allow individuals to avoid unintentionally breaching their concessional contributions cap when they are employed by more than one employer. Another of the measures will tighten the rules relating to non-arms-length expenditure of superannuation funds. These are all sensible amendments.
A previous version of this bill was introduced during the 45th Parliament but lapsed when parliament was prorogued. The previous bill was examined by a Senate inquiry. Labor members on that inquiry did not oppose the non-controversial amendments that are included in the current bill. However, the previous version of the bill included an additional schedule of amendments that would have introduced a superannuation guarantee amnesty. Labor senators on the inquiry into that version of the bill were concerned about that measure, as would be all sensible Australians who want to have a decent retirement. Evidence to the inquiry revealed a lack of stakeholder advocacy for the amnesty and concerns that the amnesty could even be counterproductive to broader compliance efforts. Labor senators made comments about that measure. Superannuation theft is just as bad as wages theft. Dodgy employers should not be able to get away with stealing their employees' hard-earned money. I'm glad that schedule has not been included in the bill that is before the House.
The Australian Labor Party is rightly proud of Australia's superannuation system. It is one of our most significant financial and social reforms. The Keating government's brave reforms, way back in 1992, introducing the compulsory employer contribution scheme will continue to have life-changing impacts on Australians as they age and enter retirement. And, sadly, Australia's population is ageing; there is no denying it. In 2017 there were 3,794,062 Australians who were over 65. They accounted for 15 per cent of the population. It's estimated that by 2057—not that far away—there'll be 8,799,475 people aged over 65. They will account for 22 per cent of the population—so a jump from 15 per cent up to 22 per cent. It's because of the foresight of the Keating Labor government that many of those Australians will have a comfortable retirement funded through their own superannuation funds. Older Australians deserve a dignified and comfortable retirement, so Labor will always support sensible reform to Australia's superannuation system.
There are currently over 15 million members of Australia's superannuation system, and over 80 per cent of Australians aged 25 to 54 hold a superannuation account. There are around 28 million superannuation accounts in Australia. To break down the funds: there are 217 institutional funds, which can be broken down into 38 industry funds, 37 public-sector funds, 24 corporate funds and 118 retail funds. And then there are 517,000 self-managed funds with nearly $700 billion in assets. The Australian superannuation system currently manages over $2.8 trillion in assets, now more than 140 per cent of our GDP. By 2035, the superannuation system will be nudging $10 trillion. Under current settings, the median balance on retirement for full-time workers will be about $310,000 for women and $628,000 for men. For median workers, the average annual retirement income will be $28,000 for women and nearly $34,000 for men. For those women, that is only 65 per cent of the ASFA comfortable retirement income standard, and for those men it is 79 per cent of the ASFA comfortable retirement income standard. But it's even worse for workers who fall in the bottom 10 per cent of income distribution. Women in that category will be only 21 per cent better off than they would be if they were receiving the age pension, and men in that category will be 37 per cent better off. I'll come back to that gender gap in a minute.
Although our superannuation system is working for many—for most, even—it's unfortunately leaving some behind. The superannuation guarantee is currently legislated to increase to 12 per cent by the year 2025. For average workers, the balance on retirement for median workers will rise by 20 per cent for men and 19 per cent for women. The poorest workers, those in the bottom 10 per cent of the income distribution scale, will retire with an additional 30 per cent in accumulated super. For those workers this will make a substantial difference to their comfort and health, obviously, when it comes to their retirement.
The success of Australia's superannuation system relies on employers paying the superannuation of their employees. It's a simple contract, a simple concept. But, sadly, underpayment of superannuation by employers is a significant issue in Australia. You might have seen the television ads, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird . Industry Super Australia estimates that 2.85 million Australians have been underpaid—nearly three million Australians out of a population of 25 million—and that the underpayment amounted to $5.9 billion of their superannuation entitlement. This is a very significant problem, and it is increasing. Superannuation theft increased by 25 per cent over the three years from 2013-14 to 2016-17.
As I mentioned earlier, the amount of superannuation accumulated by women is considerably less than that accumulated by men. The average balance for men is 63 per cent higher than that for women. It is worse for older Australians nearing retirement, where the average balance for men is 72 per cent higher than that for women. Of those people nearing retirement without any superannuation, 13 per cent of men in the 60 to 64 age group are without any superannuation and 23 per cent of women in that age group are without any superannuation. The superannuation system currently is not working as well as it needs to for women. So I hope that the Morrison government has a plan to address this issue.
Too many Australian women are retiring into poverty. Older women, and particularly single women, are at a greater risk of experiencing poverty and homelessness in retirement. By the time they are 60, 34 per cent of single women in Australia live in poverty. Labor took to the election a plan to boost women's superannuation balances by paying the superannuation guarantee on paid parental leave, making it easier for employers to pay extra superannuation to women. Obviously, this is something that the government might look at, in terms of looking after women when it comes to boosting their superannuation balances as they retire.
More generally, while the superannuation system delivers strong returns for many Australians, many other Australians are trapped in persistently underperforming superannuation funds—not the industry funds, I would point out. As we heard during the royal commission, the industry funds have that perfect mix of employers and employees, outperforming, on a general level, always by one or two per cent and sometimes even more. Industry funds are lean and have made some strategic investments, particularly in infrastructure, not just in Australia but around the world. They've been doing great stuff. I urge them, as I've done privately in meetings, to perhaps start looking at the growing middle class in Asia, a region we have close contacts with, and start investing some of those $3 trillion in funds in income-generating infrastructure in some of those countries—perhaps our ASEAN neighbours. I know there's a risk consideration, but I look forward to funds like QSuper, who I had a meeting with about this a while ago, investing in some of those Asian nations to make sure we've got plenty of retirement options far over the horizon.
There are at least $269 billion in assets and five million members stuck in underperforming funds—as I said, not the industry funds. The superannuation fees are higher in Australia than those in other comparable OECD countries. Australians pay more than $30 billion a year in superannuation administration fees, which is 1.1 per cent of the total assets. So Labor supports the amendments in the bill before the House, but there's much more to be done in the superannuation space. I hope the government acts to improve the superannuation system so that all Australians can retire with dignity. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 and the second reading amendment. Of course, I echo the sentiments of the previous speakers—that the superannuation sector in Australia is something that our nation should be very proud of. It provides a great deal of security in retirement for millions of Australians and, in addition to that, a great deal of macroeconomic stability and other benefits for our nation.
By way of context, it's worth noting that 15 million Australians now hold a superannuation account, and, as earlier speakers have mentioned, there are over $2.8 trillion in assets, which is roughly 140 per cent of GDP. This is likely to grow to something in the order of $9.5 trillion in 2035 as our population grows and ages.
Our superannuation system is characterised by being a three-pillar system. There is the old age and retirement benefits system and there is the compulsory savings in the superannuation guarantee, and then there is, on top of that, the third pillar, which is voluntary savings. That structure is supported by international agencies, such as the World Bank. It is a structure which many commentators say balances and supports many different objectives. I think it's important to note that Labor has a very proud legacy here. The old age pension system was introduced by legislation passed in this place—or a place physically down the road a little bit, but metaphorically in this place—in December 1980 by the Andrew Fisher government. Clearly, that was one of the early Labor government's proudest measures and one that has truly stood the test of time and provided a great deal of protection against poverty for millions of Australians ever since. Of course, the second pillar of that system, the superannuation guarantee, was one of the great legacies in the eighties and nineties of the Hawke-Keating government. So our three-pillar system is built on two pillars which were landmark Labor social policy reforms and economic reforms that have truly stood the test of time.
As earlier speakers have indicated, some aspects of these profound economic reforms are now under threat from some members opposite, and that is something which we will defend to the utmost. But these pillars of this system are providing great protection for members of our community, and we need to ensure that those pillars are protected. And as the member for Moreton just outlined, some aspects of this system need to be strengthened, notwithstanding the fact that the system as a whole does rank very highly.
As earlier speakers on this side have indicated, we support this bill. It is a technical bill which supports integrity aspects of the superannuation system and is non-controversial. Schedule 1 amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to allow individuals to avoid unintentionally breaching their concessional contributions cap where they receive superannuation contributions from multiple employers. Schedule 2 deals with non-arms-length income and ensures that non-arms-length income rules for superannuation entities apply in situations where a superannuation entity incurs non-arms-length expenses in gaining or producing income. And schedule 3 deals with limited recourse borrowing arrangements. We support these arrangements and this bill, but I do think it's worth stressing that this bill goes only a limited distance, and it is very important to put on the public record that there are a number of aspects of the system that need further attention and that need it urgently.
As I said before, we have a three-pillar system, the structure of which is supported internationally and which is rated very highly by independent experts routinely. I want to just, for context, put on the public record that a pension system is there to achieve a number of objectives. And I just want to put those on the record because, when we think about what we need to do as a parliament in relation to our pension and superannuation system over the coming three years, we need to bear these high-level objectives in mind.
A number of different agencies and experts have different sets of objectives and they generally overlap. But I want to put the World Bank's objectives on the public record as ones that I think are very robust. The first objective that they stress for a pension system is adequacy—that the system provides benefits sufficient to prevent old-age poverty and a reliable means of smoothing income for the population as a whole, from working age to retirement age. Adequacy is clearly a prominent feature of the debate on the pension system in this country. The second is affordability—that the system is within the financing capability of individuals and society and doesn't unduly displace other social and economic imperatives. The third is sustainably—that the pension and retirement system is financially sound and can be maintained over a foreseeable horizon under a broad set of reasonable assumptions. The fourth is that it's equitable—that it provides income redistribution from the lifetime rich to the lifetime income poor. I'll comment on that a little bit more in some broader observations around some priorities that we should be putting on the agenda as a parliament in relation to our pension and retirement system. The fifth is that it be predictable—that benefits are, where appropriate, protected by law and not based on discretion or administrative fiat. The final one is that it be robust—that the system be able to withstand major shocks, including economic, demographic and political volatility. Of course, that's a very timely recommendation, given the world that we are in at the moment.
These are some objectives that I would argue any pension or retirement system should seek to achieve. Now, the three-pillar system is designed to try and achieve those multiple objectives by having multiple components, some of which have higher returns, some of which have more individual choice and some of which provide more protection against poverty. So it seeks to achieve multiple objectives through having those three different pillars.
I think it's important to note the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index, which is now in its 10th year. It's a very highly respected international ranking of international pension systems, and ours routinely ranks in the top handful. The Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index ranks international pension and retirement systems against adequacy, sustainability and integrity. Of course that overlaps with those more disaggregated outcomes that I just outlined from the World Bank.
I want to put on the record that when we discuss this system, I think we always have to bear in mind that we're trying to achieve multiple objectives. Adequacy is one, but there are others. There's equity, there's a surety of income in retirement and all of those other measures that I outlined before. And it's from that broad context that I want to talk about two issues. One is adequacy and the other is returns. This follows some of the comments made earlier by speakers on this side.
A lot of the debate at the moment in relation to adequacy focuses on the replacement rate and how that is associated with contribution levels and mandatory contribution rates. As speakers on this site have indicated, we support an increase in the superannuation guarantee. Others, on the opposite side, have been questioning that. I think that is an important thing to call out and challenge. We will defend the reform agenda that we have put on the record for a number of years now.
I want to stress that we have to drill down from the overall average contribution rate and the replacement rate that leads to, because there are groups in our society which won't necessarily be sufficiently assisted by increasing the contribution rates. As the member for Moreton spoke about, at the moment we see major gaps in account balances based on gender and also based on income levels. And so it's not enough, I think, for this parliament to look at the overall contribution rate. We're going to need to think more deeply about how individual groups within our population may or may not fare.
As the member for Moreton spoke about, there is already a significant gap. If we look at workers aged 30 to 34, the average balance is $45,580 for men and $33,750 for women. For workers near retirement, the gap is even larger. For workers aged 60 to 64, the average balance is $270,710 for men and $157,050 for women. Under current policy settings, the median balance on retirement—and I think the median is the more relevant one here, because it reflects the typical and isn't skewed by very high balances—will be $310,819 for women and $628,634 for men. This of course is exacerbated by the fact that women are expected to live longer, so they will have a longer period of life post retirement, on average, to provide for.
I simply want to make the point that adequacy is a very important debate. Obviously, it is being addressed to an extent by the broader debate about nine to 12 per cent, but I do think we need to drill down beneath that, because of groups within our society. The gender gap is one issue, but of course there is also a very wide income distribution. What we're seeing in society at the moment, and this is probably a trend we're likely to continue to see, is the hollowing of the middle class. So if we disaggregate by income, we may see significant account balance gaps for lifetime income earnings.
Of course, this is driven by a range of things. It is driven by the incomes people have over their lives, by differential income trajectories for a person and also by gaps in the workforce. If different people have different gaps due to unintended unemployment or, in the case of women, staying home to care for children—that may change over time, but at the moment that is still falling disproportionately on women—these are all different social phenomena that are having significant impacts on people's account balances. They will impact significantly on their incomes and also on the riskiness of their lives post retirement—not just on their average income.
The next point I want to make is in relation to returns. Again, it's a significant issue which this parliament is going to have to address. While we support a bill of this nature, we really need to see a much broader agenda being brought to this chamber to deal with some of these very fundamental issues.
I'd just make the very simple point that a dollar invested over 35 years at five per cent will return $5.51. A dollar invested over 35 years at 7½ per cent will return $12.50. That's a 2.5 per cent gap, which is not that much when looked at at an annual rate, but, if you sustain that over 35 years, it reflects over 2½ times difference in one's retirement income. So returns matter. There are a number of recent reviews. I won't be able to list them all, but they include the Cooper review, the financial system inquiry, the recent Productivity Commission review and, of course, the royal commission. They're all stressing how important it is that we look at returns, because there are a number of underperforming funds in our system, and that is affecting a number of people's retirement incomes.
I can look at a couple of basic stats. The Productivity Commission showed that at least $269 billion in assets and five million members are stuck in underperforming funds. Another statistic is that, if members in the bottom quartile of MySuper products were defaulted to top quartile, they would collectively gain $1.2 billion per year. Look at that on an individual level. A typical full-time worker could retire with 54 per cent less superannuation if they were invested in a bottom-quartile fund instead of a top-quartile fund. That's equivalent to 13 years' lost pay. This discussion about quartile funds sounds very technical, but it really matters. It matters in a very practical and profound way to somebody's quality of life when they retire. Again, it is not just quality of life in terms of their average income but quality of life in terms of their capacity to withstand shocks when they're retired.
Another really profound statistic for me is that a third of accounts—roughly 10 million accounts—are unintended multiple accounts and that together these erode members' balances by $2.6 billion per year in unnecessary fees and insurance. Now, I'm not suggesting that comparing returns is simple. We need to ensure that we compare funds over sufficient time periods. We can't just compare annual returns over a very short period, because that won't necessarily reflect funds' performance in a reasonable way. Secondly, we need to reflect risk-return trade-offs. Some funds might have a higher return but also have higher risk. So, rather than simply ranking, I believe we need to look at funds against a risk-return frontier to fully judge them in a sensible way.
Finally, we also need to look at fees. To compare apples and apples, if two funds are achieving the same risk-adjusted return over the medium or long term, I believe it is reasonable to say that if they're both achieving that same risk-adjusted return over the medium term then the lower-fee fund is doing a better job for its members.
So we need to look at all these issues. We support this bill, but the agenda should be so much broader.
Firstly, I thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The government is acting to improve the integrity of the superannuation system and streamline compliance with the superannuation guarantee. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 allows employees with multiple employers to opt out of the superannuation guarantee where they would inadvertently breach the concessional contribution cap. And this bill safeguards the integrity of the government's comprehensive 2016-17 superannuation taxation reforms.
The bill ensures that related-party transactions and, in targeted circumstances, limited recourse borrowing arrangements cannot be used to circumvent the contribution caps. This will prevent flow-on effects to people who are not engaged in gaming behaviour. All of the changes apply from 1 July 2018. I commend this bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Kingsford Smith has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The question now before the chair is that this bill be read a second time.
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 rise to express Labor's support for this bill. I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government must reassure the Parliament that it will take the necessary steps to ensure appropriate transparency and annual reporting with respect to the identity check direction and move-on direction powers provided for by the bill".
As we are all aware, airports are high-profile targets for criminals and terrorists. It is appropriate that police powers at airports are periodically reviewed and, if necessary, updated. Labor has listened to the evidence given by the Australian Federal Police. At present, they have to rely on inconsistent state and territory laws to exercise the sorts of powers contained within this bill. It makes sense to have a uniform law instead.
Airports can also be focal points for serious and organised crime groups, including those involved in the illicit drug trade. This bill will allow constables and AFP protective service officers at major airports to direct a person to produce evidence of their identity, direct a person to leave the airport or any other specified major airport and/or take a specified flight or any flight from these airports for up to 24 hours, or direct a person to stop or do anything else necessary to facilitate the identity check or move-on direction. These powers can only be used in appropriate circumstances, such as where a constable or protective service officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has committed, is committing or intends to commit an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a territory, or a law of state having a federal aspect, punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or more. A move-on direction must be provided in writing and requires the authorisation of a senior police officer if the direction is for 12 hours or more. This is an important safeguard built into the legislation.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security made nine recommendations in relation to this bill in the last parliament, and the government has agreed to all these recommendations. Those recommendations have resulted in important changes to this version of the bill, including additional safeguards. It's worth noting that in the last five years the bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has made over 300 recommendations to change and strengthen some 16 national security bills. I acknowledge the presence of the member for Isaacs in the chamber and his very significant work on that committee and in respect of many of those recommendations. What this speaks to is the important work of the PJCIS and the significance of the cooperative culture that characterises it. It is so important that that be maintained.
A key change that Labor wanted to see incorporated into this legislation was to ensure that the powers cannot be used to disrupt peaceful assembly or protest. We welcome the fact that the government has agreed to make that change. Given the nature of these new powers, Labor believes it is important that the government reassure the parliament that it will take the necessary steps to ensure appropriate transparency and annual reporting with respect to the identity-check direction and move-on direction powers provided for by this bill.
Labor will always be cooperative and constructive when it comes to ensuring that our hardworking police are fully supported in their work to keep Australians safe, and that is why we support this bill.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment, and I rise to speak in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019. The member for Corio has explained what is in the bill and its purposes, and has noted that the bill has been examined by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, of which I was a member in the last parliament, when the original form of this bill was considered, and, indeed, of which I am still a member.
In its original form, this bill had a number of issues, including in relation to poor drafting and a lack of clarity around the powers introduced by it. Whether the powers introduced by this bill could be used to disrupt peaceful assembly or protest is obviously a concern. It's something that was raised and discussed at some length in the public hearing that was held by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
As I said, the original form of this bill was introduced into the last parliament. It was referred to the PJCIS. After a public hearing and a small number of submissions were considered by the committee, on 13 February this year the committee handed down a bipartisan report which recommended passage of the bill, subject to implementation of the eight substantive recommendations that were made by the committee. The original form of the bill, of course, lapsed on the dissolution of the parliament before the election. The bill, in a revised form, is now before the House.
Six of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security called for amendments to the bill. This new version of the bill implements those recommendations of the PJCIS. The other two recommendations related to reporting requirements. Specifically, the committee recommended that the Australian Federal Police should be required to record the number of occasions on which the new powers were exercised, and for those records to be made public on an annual basis. The government has indicated that the Australian Federal Police policies and procedures will be updated to implement those recommendations. As you would expect, the Intelligence and Security Committee will be seeking assurances from the Australian Federal Police that this has, in fact, happened.
I'd like to make just a few brief comments about the committee's inquiry into the original version of this bill. Unlike a number of other Intelligence and Security Committee inquiries in recent times, the government allowed the committee's inquiry into this bill to proceed in a measured, rational and deliberative manner. There was no undue pressure placed on the Liberal or the Labor members of the committee to cut the inquiry short, and there were no hysterical press conferences by the Minister for Home Affairs demanding, for base political reasons, that the committee expedite its processes. Can I say that a calm, rational and deliberative process will usually result in clear and effective legislation.
While it is not perfect, this bill is certainly clearer and more effective than the original version introduced into the last parliament. It addresses many of the key concerns expressed by civil society organisations, such as by making it clear that the powers introduced by this bill cannot be used to disrupt peaceful assembly or protest. For those reasons, the bill is more likely to achieve its objectives, and it is more likely to enjoy public confidence, which, of course, should always be an objective with any laws that are passed in the national security area. When the Intelligence and Security Committee of this parliament is allowed to do its job, and when its bipartisan recommendations are respected and implemented by the government, the Australian people can have greater confidence in Australia's national security laws and in Australia's national security agencies. Those laws will be clearer and they will ultimately be more effective. That can only be a good thing.
Of course, our national security laws must be kept under constant review to ensure that they are, in fact, achieving their objectives and that they are not leading to unintended consequences. This bill is no exception to what I'm suggesting should be the ordinary process. That is precisely why the committee recommended that the Australian Federal Police be required to record the number of occasions on which the new powers are exercised and for those records to be made public on an annual basis. If this parliament and the whole community know how, and how often, new powers are being used, we can all properly make an assessment of whether they are being used appropriately. I commend the bill to the House.
I thank my colleagues for their contribution to the debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019. The first duty of this government is to keep Australians safe and secure. The national threat level has been at 'probable' since September 2014, highlighting the pervasive and continuing risk that terrorism poses to Australia and our way of life. Any loss of life as a result of the nefarious criminal acts of terrorists is devastating, and the Morrison government is committed to doing everything in its power to protect Australians from such tragedies occurring on our shores. This bill will enhance the capacity of police to protect the thousands of travellers who transit through Australia's major airports every day.
It is a sad and unfortunate reality that airports are an attractive target for terrorists. There are many examples over recent years which highlight the threat. In March 2016, three suicide bombers carried out coordinated attacks upon Zaventem airport and Maalbeek metro station in Brussels, killing 32 innocent people and injuring hundreds more. In the departures hall of Zaventem airport, two suitcase bombs were detonated at opposite ends of the terminal, with the second explosion catching terrified victims fleeing the first blast. Islamic State claimed responsibility for these horrific terrorist acts that were a tragic and transformative moment for Belgium.
In June 2016, only a few months after the tragic events in Brussels, Ataturk Airport in Istanbul was a target of a deadly terrorist attack. This devastating act of terror claimed the lives of 45 innocent travellers and workers, and injured more than 200 people. In March 2017, soldiers at Paris Orly Airport, France's busiest domestic airport, shot and killed a perpetrator after he had entered the southern terminal of Orly Airport and put a gun to the head of a patrolling soldier, taking her rifle.
As we know from recent experience, Australia is not immune to this threat. In July 2017, the New South Wales joint counterterrorism team thwarted a plot to conceal an explosive device on a commercial aircraft. The plot involved detonating the bomb on a flight from Sydney to Abu Dhabi. Two brothers, Khaled and Mahmoud Khayat, were subsequently charged with terrorism offences. Khaled Khayat was found guilty in May this year and he is awaiting sentencing. His brother Mahmoud will face a retrial. Had this plot not been thwarted, it could have led to the deaths of several hundred innocent passengers, and the flow-on consequences to the Australian community, our tourism sector and the economy would have been catastrophic.
In addition to the risk from terrorism, airports can also be a transit point for criminals and transnational crime. Around 70 per cent of Australia's serious and organised crime threats are based offshore or have strong offshore links. Protecting Australians and safeguarding our aviation network against the malicious activities of these organised crime groups is of paramount importance. To cite an example, in 2009 a violent brawl between rival outlaw motorcycle gangs resulted in the murder of a gang member in the domestic terminal of Sydney Airport. Countless travellers, including families and young children, witnessed the brazen and brutal outcome of an ongoing feud between the outlaw motorcycle gangs.
This bill addresses both these risks by equipping police with broader powers to detect and prevent security incidents. This bill will enable police to conduct identity checks at major Australian airports and to direct a person to leave the airport or not take a flight for up to 24 hours if they are believed to pose a security, safety or criminal risk. The bill also contains new offences for failing to comply with these police directions in appropriate circumstances. This bill seeks to close a gap in existing Commonwealth law that limits the ability of police to respond appropriately, proactively and consistently to serious security, safety and criminal threats that may arise in the aviation environment. It does not authorise police to undertake random identity checks in our airports or issue move-on directions arbitrarily. Use of the new powers will be based on very clear and specific criteria in the legislation and supported by the Australian Federal Police's specialist expertise and training.
The bill has been considered in detail by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I would like to thank each of these committees for their contributions. The government has fully considered the recommendations and views of these committees and incorporated these recommendations into the bill. In particular, the bill explicitly prevents the use of new identity-checking and move-on powers to disrupt or quell a protest that is peaceful and does not affect the public order and safe operation of an airport. The bill also ensures that a person subject to a move-on direction is made aware of his or her rights to seek judicial review or interlocutory orders in relation to the direction, including in expedited or urgent circumstances.
This government will uphold its duty to keep Australians and our international guests safe and secure against the unique nature of the terrorism and organised crime threats to our aviation network. The new identity checking and move-on powers are designed to keep the Australian public safe. With these new powers, police will be better equipped to effectively detect, deter and disrupt serious security, safety and criminal risks that are unique to the aviation environment. These measures are not aimed at the average law-abiding traveller but at the nefarious criminal actors and violent extremists that seek to exploit our aviation network for their own illicit gains. This bill strikes the right balance in protecting individual freedoms whilst also ensuring the continued safety and security of all Australians using the airport network. It is commonsense legislation. It is necessary legislation. I commend the bill to the House.
The question before the chair is that the amendment moved by the member for Corio be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting no.
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'm pleased to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Partner Service Pension and Other Measures) Bill 2019. The bill is designed to improve outcomes for former partners of veterans and, separately, to extend benefits available to Australian Defence Force members who served on submarine special operations. Like the government, Labor recognises that the Australian community expects that veterans and their families will be looked after and will get the best possible care and support. This bill fulfils these expectations.
In short, schedule 1 of the bill will improve financial outcomes for the former partners of veterans, schedule 2 of the bill extends benefits available to ADF members who served on submarine special operations and schedule 3 is a technical amendment to align marriage related definitions in veterans' legislation with the definition of marriage made by the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017, or the Marriage Amendment Act.
To go through each of these in more detail, schedule 1 of the bill proposes amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to align eligibility for the partner service pension by removing inequities that currently exist between married and unmarried former partners of veterans. The service pension is the payment made to eligible partners, former partners and widows or widowers of veterans. It provides regular income for people with limited means and is subject to the income and assets test. In this context, former partners include former de facto partners of a veteran; persons who formerly were in a registered relationship with a veteran; and persons divorced from, or separated but still married to, a veteran.
The amendments give effect to the 2019-20 budget measure removing the current inequity between married and de facto partners by extending the service pension for 12 months post separation to all formers partners. This is a positive legislative provision that recognises the differences in contemporary relationship types and removes any discrimination. Additionally, where special circumstances apply, including domestic and family violence or abuse, legislative instrument amendments will allow all former partners to remain eligible to receive the partner service pension after the 12-month period. The amendments will ensure that all former partners can continue to receive the service pension for 12 months after separating from the veteran, or until they enter into a new relationship, and beyond this period indefinitely, or until they enter into a new relationship, where special domestic circumstances exist or where the veteran dies within 12 months of separation.
This important practical and preventive measure comes out of the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children and will assist partners to leave a violent relationship by providing them with financial support. I understand this measure has also been developed in response to a range of evidence and stakeholder consultation and feedback, which is pleasing. Firstly, I understand it is based on findings from Flinders University research into families conducted in 2017, which highlighted the potential link between post-traumatic stress disorder and domestic violence, and the government's family assistance package. This package was part of the response to the 2016 Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, which Labor helped push to establish. At the time, the research and families package was workshopped with the Female Veterans and Veterans' Families Forum. It was also discussed with the Ex-Service Organisation Round Table, one of the key consultation forums for the veterans community, on a number of occasions, including as part of the legislative workshop held in 2017-18.
In addition, a Senate estimates hearing in February 2018 raised the issue of former partners, particularly those who'd experienced domestic violence, ceasing to be eligible for the partner service pension on divorce. In response to this feedback, the government has decided to include divorced couples in this measure, which is fair and sensible. Concern about non-married partners ceasing to be eligible for the partner service pension upon separating from a veteran also was raised by ex-service organisations, including the Partners of Veterans Association of Australia. I'm advised that the association has expressed its approval for the measure since its announcement and that the measure has been widely supported by the ex-service community more generally.
Of course, Labor has always backed policies that support women, including partners and families of current and ex-service personnel, as well as measures that address domestic violence. This kind of input to policy and legislation is reassuring, because veterans and the ex-service community have often said that military and veterans' families are not always being heard when it comes to discussions of support and assistance. We know the critical role families play in supporting and caring for their service or veteran partner. But we also know the nature of military life is unique and families can also be deeply affected by military service. That is why Labor took to the last election a policy of funding for a national family engagement and support strategy to better engage with and support families who experience suicide, suicidal ideation, PTSD and other issues pre and post military service. To the extent that this measure is broadly consistent with Labor's approach to supporting veterans' families, we support it. I note the measure will commence on 20 September 2019, pending the passage of this legislation.
The amendments that are proposed under schedule 2 would amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act to reclassify service by ADF members on submarine special operations during the period 1 January 1993 to 12 May 1997 as operational and qualifying service. This will provide access to the disability pension as well as eligibility for the service pension at age 60 and the gold card at age 70, covering medical treatment for all conditions. Further, the period between 13 May 1997 and 30 June 2006 will not require legislative changes and will be the subject of further determinations of non-warlike service, providing further support to eligible ADF members involved in submarine special operations.
These changes follow a review by the Department of Defence into the nature of service on submarine special operations. This is an extension of the current eligibility period under the act, which only covers service on special operations between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1992. It will provide a new cohort of submariners with greater access to treatment benefits, compensation and income support. Any claims arising from this service will be assessed under the more generous reasonable hypothesis standard of proof and be eligible for treatment and compensation for injuries and disease that can be attributed to their service. If passed, these amendments will commence the day after royal assent and eligibility will be backdated to 1 July 2019. Labor agrees that these measures recognise the unique nature of submarine special operation service and reflect our country's gratitude for the service and sacrifice of all veterans, so should be supported.
Finally, schedule 3 of the bill involves technical amendments arising from the changes to the definition of marriage made by the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017. These would amend the definition of widow and widower in the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act to ensure consistency with changes to the definition of marriage made by the marriage amendment act. The marriage amendment act amended the Marriage Act 1961 to remove gendered language within these definitions and restrictions that limit marriage in Australia to the union of a man and a woman and allowed two people the freedom to marry in Australia regardless of their sex or gender. The amendment would expand eligibility for subsidised housing loans and subsidies under the Defence Service Homes Act as well as pensions under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This will improve support for same-sex partners of veterans in a tangible way.
The remaining amendment under this schedule is a technical one that replaces a reference to a 'direction' made under subsection 5R(5) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act with a reference to the more appropriate term 'determination'. This is a positive measure that aligns both of these acts with current Australian marriage law. Labor previously supported changes to the definition of marriage made under the marriage amendment act, and we support modern legislative provisions such as this that recognise contemporary relationship types and remove discrimination. These amendments would also commence the day after royal assent.
In summary, Labor wants to work in a constructive and bipartisan way with the government to improve the system for our veterans and their families. To that end, we are supportive of these beneficial amendments which will mean better outcomes for veterans and their families. I commend the bill.
Before I start, I'd like to thank the member for Mackellar for the courtesy of allowing me to take his place in the queue; I have to be in the Federation Chamber soon. Unfortunately, Member for Mackellar, I still can't vouch you for my brother, who lives in your electorate, but I will pass on my good regards!
Labor is proud to support this. I think veterans' affairs is one of those areas where there is always great bipartisan support for the contribution that men and women of the armed services have made to our country. I note that there are at least two in this chamber today; there is the member for Solomon and the member for Herbert, both former serving members of the armed forces. We thank them for their service.
I rise today to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Partner Service Pension and Other Measures) Bill 2019. This bill is designed to improve outcomes for former partners of veterans and, separately, extend benefits available to Australian Defence Force members who served on submarine special operations. I am very pleased to be able to support this bill. Unfortunately, our veterans have not always seen the support they deserve, and I welcome the bill for prioritising the care and wellbeing of our veterans and their families.
Schedule 1 of this bill will improve financial outcomes for the former partners of veterans. As we know, the partners and former partners of veterans often shoulder a great burden. The amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 under schedule 1 align all of the partner service pension provisions for former married and non-married partners to ensure equity in treatment. This will ensure a modern legislative provision that recognises the differences in relationship types and removes any discrimination. Once this bill is passed, all eligible former partners of veterans will remain on a partner service pension after separation from their veteran partner for a period of up to 12 months. Additionally, where special domestic circumstances apply, including domestic abuse, amendments by legislative instrument will allow all former partners to remain eligible to receive a partner service pension until they enter into a new relationship. This preventive measure, part of the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, will assist partners to leave a violent relationship by providing them with financial support. These amendments streamline eligibility for PSP by removing the inequities which currently exist between married and non-married former partners and will ensure all separated or surviving partners are treated equally. The amendments will create a modern legislative provision which recognises different types of relationships and removes any associated discrimination.
Schedule 2 of this bill extends benefits available to ADF members who served on submarine special operations. Once this bill is passed, the service of veterans involved in submarine special operations between 31 December 1992 and 12 May 1997 will be recognised as operational and qualifying service under the VEA. Further, the period between 13 May 1997 and 30 June 2006 will not require legislative change. It will be subject to future determinations of non-warlike service, providing further support to eligible ADF members involved in submarine special operations. This cohort will benefit from being eligible for additional benefits, including treatment for conditions accepted as being due to their service and will be issued with a DVA health card - specific conditions, the white card, which will provide them with more streamlined access to treatment. They will be eligible for a service pension at age 60 and for gold-card benefits at age 70. Operational service also allows for the assessment of claims under the more-beneficial reasonable hypothesis standard of proof and allows eligibility for compensation for injuries and disease that can be attributed to their service.
Schedule 3 of this bill is a technical amendment to align marriage related definitions in veterans' legislation with the definition of marriage made by the marriage amendment act. The marriage amendment act amended the Marriage Act 1961 to remove the restrictions that limit marriage in Australia to the union of a man and a woman and allowed two people the freedom to marry in Australia, regardless of their sex or gender. The amendment also expands eligibility for subsidised housing loans and subsidies under the Defence Service Homes Act and for pensions under the VEA. These amendments will mean better outcomes for veterans and their families, and Labor is happy to support them.
It is fitting that we consider this legislation at this time, having last week marked Legacy Week, the annual national appeal to support the families of veterans who have lost their lives or their health as a result of their military service. Legacy is an outstanding community organisation. Members may have been—accosted is the wrong word—politely approached, perhaps, by the Legacy volunteers selling badges at the doors, I think yesterday. Legacy is an outstanding community organisation that provides invaluable services to some of the most vulnerable members of our community, including elderly widows, and children and dependants with a disability.
The health and wellbeing of our veterans should be one of this nation's highest priorities. Recently, my office has been working with a veteran, Brett—I'm using his name with his permission—with his application for invalidity benefits owing to a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. Brett did tours. He parachuted out of planes as a highly qualified solider. His last jump caused an injury which left him unable continue his operational duties. He received high commendations and was very proud of his service, but the injury put all that to an end.
After many months of trying to deal with his movement within the Defence Force, Brett had no choice but to request discharge. Like many soldiers, he did not at the time mention what was going on in his mind to the people who were asked to counsel him. After several attempts at taking his own life, Brett and his partner are now trying to struggle through it, but they're fighting the bureaucracy every step of the way to prove that he had PTSD at the time of discharge. I don't pretend the Department of Veterans' Affairs has an easy job managing many thousands of veterans but, I've got to say, I wish they did a better job. It just seems so inhumane the way some of these guys are treated. The bureaucracy has a duty of care to people like Brett that I don't think is being fulfilled. I note today that many members are wearing R U OK badges. We ask people: 'Are you okay?' And this week is World Suicide Prevention Week. Too many veterans are taking their own lives unnecessarily.
I come to these statistics: between 2001 and 2016, 373 serving and ex-service personnel took their own lives in this country. For service personnel and reservists, a smaller portion of those than in the entire population take their lives. But when it comes to ex-service personnel, it's 18 per cent higher. You've got an 18 per cent higher chance of taking your own life if you used to serve in the defence forces than if you had any other job in this country. That's just unacceptable. I know the member for Herbert is doing great work in this field and I commend him for that. We need to do a lot better. I know the minister is very committed to this and I commend him for that, but we just need to keep doing better. Brett and his partner are continuing the fight. They tell me it's a nightmare they can't wake from.
I have also previously mentioned Eric in this place. He's a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy. He lives in Bridgewater in my electorate, and my office has assisted him with accessing dental care through his DVA gold card entitlement. Again, it's not easy to do. You have to drag it through the department. Eric has expressed to me his frustrations at the way politicians often celebrate the service of military personnel. We're out there every Anzac Day, as we should be, and we're out there at the War Memorial, as we should be, but it's not enough to wrap ourselves in the trappings of this nation's military history and military service. We need to do better with the people who come home. We shake their hands. We hug them on their return. But I think we all too soon forget about them, about their service and about the struggles they go through with their mental health. Eric only asks that he and other veterans are looked after by their government and by their nation, that their contribution to defending their country is not forgotten, that their communities do not neglect them and that they can access the medical care, services and benefits they are so deservingly entitled to.
We, Labor, value our veterans and their families and we understand the unique nature of military family life. Those families are also deeply affected by military service. That's why prior to the last election, Labor did commit to support Legacy's family assist program. We developed a national family engagement and support strategy to identify improvements to family support. Unfortunately, many in our veteran community face ongoing difficulties upon their return to civilian life, often facing overwhelming bureaucracy and struggling with that transition.
A recent report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare provided the alarming insight into the plight of veterans who are struggling to put a roof over their heads. That report, Use of homelessness services by contemporary ex-serving ADF members: 2011–17, found more than 1,200 Army, Air Force and Navy veterans are either homeless or facing homelessness after being discharged between 2011 and 2017. There are 1,200 veterans facing life on the streets because our nation, collectively, does not do enough to make sure that when they come home, they have a home to go to. When veterans start using services nearly half are homeless, while more than half are at risk of not having a place to live—that's of the veterans who use this service. It found that veterans were twice as likely to describe themselves as rough sleepers and as having no shelter before using the services compared to non-veterans. It's the nature of these people; they're go-getters. They try to do things themselves and they seek assistance as a last resort. Of particular concern was the high proportion of younger and female veterans who are forced to access services, including 46 per cent of women who are single parents.
This report highlights the impact of factors such as mental health, unemployment, housing, financial stress, and domestic and family violence on homelessness among veterans. It's a worrying picture of ex-serving Australian Defence Force members and veterans. And, of course, their mental health continues to be an issue of significant concern. Veterans remain—too sadly, as I said—overrepresented in suicide rates.
I welcome the changes that the amendments in this bill provide—they improve support for veterans and their families—particularly the effort to support women, to reduce discrimination and to address domestic and family violence. These are modern legislative provisions that recognise the differences in relationship types and remove discrimination. But it's clear that we need to do better as a nation. Our veterans need the ongoing support of government and their community. I recognise the minister in the House today; I know he is personally committed to this. I can say to the minister that he will have this side's support in all his endeavours to do better by the veterans of this nation. It is incumbent on all of us to let veterans know, whenever we encounter them, that they have permanently earned the respect and the thanks of a grateful nation.
I firstly recognise the contributions of the members for Lyons and Burt to this debate. I particularly like the revelation that the member for Lyons's brother lives in my electorate. I have been looking for that Labor voter and I now know where to find him!
I'd also like to recognise the member for Herbert and his sacrifice and contribution for our nation, and the member for Cowper, who, while he did not serve in the military, served as an undercover police officer. I highly recommend his first speech to the House. I've heard many a wife say, 'He's just not the man I first started dating.' In the case of the member for Cowper, he had an earring and a mullet! But he had an excuse: he was undercover. I also want to recognise the efforts of the Veterans Centre Sydney Northern Beaches in my area, and its executive director, Ben Webb, who is a veteran and who has a particular insight into what veterans face—particularly those on the northern beaches—and some of the problems and challenges that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has in helping returning soldiers.
It is appropriate that this House debate this bill and these amendments a week after Legacy Week, so I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Partner Service Pension and Other Measures) Bill 2019. It is with this change to the legislation that we hope the government is able to show its admiration and appreciation for the service and sacrifices of all veterans and those around them. My electorate of Mackellar is home to the RSL war vets retirement village, which is the home of nearly a thousand residents who are veterans or the families of our veterans. Only a few weeks ago I attended their annual luncheon, to thank some of the staff for all the hard work they do. I congratulate the CEO, Laurie Leigh, and her chief of operations, Tim Twaite, for her and her team's work in looking after our veterans in their retirement.
For too long, partners of veterans have not been duly recognised for their relationships with our veterans. These significant members of our nationwide community and their former partners have faced gross inequality when receiving the partner service pension compared to veterans who have remained married to their partners or who have become widowed. This bill will significantly improve the equity of all partners of veterans, be they married or not, through the payment of the partner service pension to eligible partners, former partners, widows and widowers. Former partners include former de facto partners of a veteran, persons who were formerly in a registered relationship with a veteran and persons divorced from, or separated but still legally married to, a veteran.
The sacrifice made by any man or woman married to a veteran cannot be underappreciated. While they may not have been on the frontline of battle, they were absolutely on the frontline when the veteran returned home. After all, when governments of the past failed to care for the veterans of some wars, it was the partners who picked up the slack. The amendments would ensure that all partners, be they former, current or widowed, would receive up to 12 months of continued partner service pension after the end of the relationship with the veteran or until the partner begins a new relationship. In some special domestic circumstances, these payments could continue past the 12-month deadline.
The government has already provided $6.2 million for this measure over the forward estimates. Pending the passage of legislation, the measure will commence on 20 September 2019. The impact of this amendment is that it will significantly streamline the eligibility of partners for the partner service pension and remove the inequities that were previously there. In particular, it ultimately will help former de facto partners of veterans achieve a semblance of equality in comparison to married partners of veterans.
But this amendment also details what would happen if the veteran were to die during the 12-month period while the partner was still receiving the partner service pension and not in a new relationship. In this circumstance the partner would continue to receive the partner service pension until they entered into a new relationship. So long as the partners inform the Department of Veterans' Affairs, they can still receive their partner service pension so long as the separation is on or after 20 September this year. For separations that occurred before, it is still the same—only married partners would be able to receive the compensation of the pension. As an estimate, the government provided $6.2 million for these measures.
In the case of special domestic circumstances, there are three criteria that must be met to be considered eligible for the continued pension. The department of course wants to respect the partner's wishes and keep it as confidential and compassionate as possible. The three criteria that must be considered are: the former partner must not reside at the same address as the veteran, the veteran must have a mental illness that has been recognised by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and the partner must have found the veteran's behaviour unsafe or even abusive towards them or a child under their care. To determine whether or not someone is eligible for the special circumstances criteria, they will receive a short, non-invasive questionnaire that they can fill in as requested to determine their eligibility. In the case of domestic violence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has laid out extensive groundwork to support the victims. These include crisis payments and access to Open Arms counselling, and of course the department is working with the whole-of-government Fourth Action Plan to reduce violence against women and children. It is this framework that helps guide the policymaking within.
Not only does this bill rectify the inequality that was part of the partner service pension; it also looks into a change that stems from the review of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 by the Department of Defence. It wants to extend the service on submarine special operations between 1 January 1993 and 12 May 1997 and to class it as an operational and qualifying service. The submarine special operations are highly classified and sensitive. The nature of these operations is not publicly disclosed. Yet the review would allow for the participants in those operations to have greater access to treatment benefits, compensation and income support. It would even allow for the veterans of the submarine special operations to gain access to the service pension at the age of 60 and the gold card when they turn 70. Yet, due to the change in classification for the activities that were performed as part of these operations, the rest of the period—meaning 13 May 1997 to 30 June 2006—is classified as non-war-like instead of an operational and qualifying service. Those submariners whose performed in the non-war-like period will also receive benefits—just different ones from those classified within the operational and qualifying service.
Lastly, this legislation hopes to amend the definition of widows and widowers of veterans. Following the change with the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017, the definition of widow and widower of a veteran would be amended through the removal of gendered references to a former partner. Although not having previously impacted the widows and widowers of our nation, since any issue should have been amended by the 2017 marriage amendment act, it is a technical amendment that would align the existing definitions with those in Australian marriage law and thus modernise our legislative definitions. If possible, and where appropriate, the government should routinely make technical legislative amendments in similar situations and thus keep our legislative law and its definitions up to date. As such, the amendments would align the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Defence Services Homes Act 1918 with the Australian marriage law, making it overall a lot more cohesive.
In Australian politics we see great bipartisanship on a number of issues, but none more fitting than veterans affairs. Compared to the United States, where veterans and veteran related policies are often highly politicised, it is great to see members on both sides speak in support of this bill. We should not equivocate when it comes to supporting our veterans and their families. They have made great sacrifices for their country. The onus is now on us to support them. I commend this bill to the House.
I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Partner Service Pension and Other Measures) Bill 2019 and acknowledge the continued tradition of bipartisan support for the veteran community demonstrated by both the opposition and the crossbench. I would also like to thank my own ministerial staff and the staff of Department of Veterans' Affairs for the work they have done in bringing forward these very practical amendments.
The bill contains three sets of amendments. The bill will improve outcomes for former partners of veterans receiving the partner service pension, it will extend benefits available to Australian Defence Force members who served on certain submarine special operations and it will make technical amendments arising from the changes to the definition of 'marriage' made by the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act. The amendments relating to the partner service pension align treatment of former married and non-married partners. This will ensure a modern and equitable legislative framework that recognises the differences in relationship types and removes any form of discrimination. Once enacted, all eligible former partners of veterans will remain on the partner service pension for a period of up to 12 months after separation from their veteran partner.
Additionally, where special domestic circumstances apply, including domestic abuse, legislative instrument amendments will allow former married or non-married partners to remain eligible to receive the partner service pension until they enter into a new relationship. This preventative measure, part of the government's fourth action plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, will assist partners to leave a violent relationship by providing them with financial support.
The amendments will also extend the benefits available to Australian Defence Force members who served on submarine special operations. The service of veterans involved in submarine operations between 31 December 1992 and 12 May 1997 will be recognised as operational and qualifying service. This will allow access to the disability pension and assessment of claims for treatment and compensation as well as eligibility for the service pension at age 60 and the gold card at age 70.
Finally, there are technical amendments arising from the changes to the definition of 'marriage' made by the marriage amendment act. The marriage amendment act amended the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 to remove the restrictions that limit marriage in Australia to the union of a man and a woman and allowed two people the freedom to marry in Australia regardless of their sex or gender. These amendments will mean better outcomes for veterans and their families. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate concurs with the amendments made by the House to the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019 seeks to amend the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999 to improve the default insurance arrangements for superannuation. It aims to protect the superannuation savings of younger members and members with low-balance funds by removing the default life insurance options for these accounts. This is, of course, an objective which Labor fully supports—that is, the objective of preserving and improving the balances, particularly, of young workers and low-income workers.
Labor have always stood up for the rights of workers to get a fair deal on their superannuation. We believe that every Australian deserves to retire with dignity and independence, and our superannuation system is critical to that. In fact, Australia's superannuation system is one of our most significant financial and social institutions. It sits alongside the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme as one of those cornerstone contributions that have made this country both stronger and fairer. The bill seeks to balance the interests of providing affordable life insurance and effective life insurance cover to employees, many of whom would otherwise be uninsurable, against the public interest of ensuring that members' accounts are not eroded by insurance premiums.
Labor support these objectives, but we have some concerns about some of the consequences, whether they're intended or unintended, of those bills. We have some concerns, and in the consideration in detail of this bill we'll be moving some amendments which address those concerns and, we say, rectify the faults within this bill. The problems that we've identified are the consequences they're going to have for workers in high-risk occupations. We also have some concerns that have been amplified by some of the regulators and some of the funds themselves about the implementation time frames for this bill. We've also been quite mindful of some of the concerns that have been raised both by the Productivity Commission, which I do acknowledge recommended some of these changes, and by funds and other advocates about the consequences for the changes in this bill to increases in insurance premiums. We'll address those in our contributions.
I want to talk to the high-risk occupations, which we have raised with the government and others have raised through the Senate inquiry process, about the consequences of this bill. It is a fact that, by removing the life insurance cover that is available on a group basis through worker superannuation schemes, a lot of workers in high-risk occupations are no longer going to be able to afford a life insurance product—indeed, many of them are simply uninsurable or not insurable at a premium rate that they would be able to afford. You might ask, 'Why does this matter?' Well, let's have a look at the high-risk occupation group. Some interesting evidence that was provided by the ACTU in the Senate inquiry pointed out that more than one-quarter of all workers under the age of 25—and they're the cohort that is going to be caught by these changes—are employed in high-risk jobs with a real risk of fatality.
Between 2003 and 2016, tragically, close to 3½ thousand workers lost their lives at work. This is a real tragedy. Of that group, those 3½ thousand workers, around 335 were under the age of 25. More than 27 per cent of workers under the age of 25 are in high-risk occupations. People under 25 make up about 15.3 per cent of the workforce and suffer injuries at work. We believe that the bill goes beyond what is reasonable in balancing the need to protect member accounts and what is necessary and in the public interest, which is to ensure that a cohort of workers, young workers in high-risk industries, have access to affordable life insurance.
People listening to this debate, following the debate, might ask: what's magic about the age of 25 and what sort of insurance products are we talking here? The age of 25 has been identified as a proxy for the age at which an average worker is going to be married. Why does it matter if they're married? Because a life insurance product, for the most part, provides a benefit not to the worker who suffers a fatality at work, obviously, but to the family of that worker, the dependants of that worker. In identifying the age of 25, the intention is that it be a proxy for the average age at which somebody is married; therefore, if they tragically suffer a fatality at work then they will have a benefit to pass on to their dependants, who are going to suffer more than the emotional distress of losing their loved one. It will be a financial catastrophe for them as well. So, if people are asking, 'What's magical about the insurance product? What's magical about the age of 25?' that is the reason. It's intended to be a proxy date for the age at which the average Australian worker is going to have a loved one, a dependant, whom they could pass a life insurance benefit on to.
Nearly 30 per cent of workers aged under 25, more than 300,000 Australians, are employed in occupations and industries that are inherently dangerous. Some industries are extraordinarily hazardous. In 2016, half of worker fatalities occurred within the transport industry, the warehousing industry and agricultural industries. It would be an absolute tragedy if there were one, but over half of fatalities occurred within those industries. When we think of high-risk occupations, we don't always think of emergency services workers. We often stand in this place and pay tribute to the great work they do during natural emergencies—up in northern New South Wales fighting bushfires, as we speak, or in Queensland during a flood. Being a first-line responder keeping our communities safe, our houses safe, is an inherently risky occupation that's almost impossible to insure for outside of a group life insurance product. We could easily mention the police forces keeping our communities safe in the same breath.
While we're keen to see young workers protected from the erosion of their superannuation balance, it is important that, at the same time, young workers within these industries have affordable cover. I go through these statistics to make a couple of points. It is a truism—it is something that this parliament can take note of—that when a young worker starts work probably the last thing on their mind is a fatality at work, and a life insurance policy is not very high in the order of what they're seeking to purchase with their first, second, third or fourth pay cheques. So for those who say, 'Look, the default insurance product isn't needed, and if somebody really wants it they can simply go out and purchase it,' I think we have to take note of the fact that, for the average young person—and I know; I was in this category—rushing out and buying a life insurance product, whether or not they need it or think they need it, is not the first thing that is on their mind. It's more like a new car, saving for an overseas trip or something like that.
When we look at the data and see that 300,000 young Australians are employed in occupations and industries that are inherently dangerous—of course, not all—and 50 per cent of all of those fatalities are occurring in industries where young workers are employed, we need to have some balance. That is why, in the consideration in detail of this bill at the third reading stage, I will be moving an amendment to this bill which I hope enjoys the support of members opposite which carves out those young members in high-risk occupations. We've had fruitful discussions with crossbenchers in the other place. I hope it enjoys the support of the entire parliament on that issue.
I want to stress that we are not hostile to the underlying intent of this bill. It's about 95 per cent right. But we do say that currently structured it has either an intended or unintended consequence which is disproportionate to the malady that it seeks to remedy. People might sit up, object and ask, 'Are we just removing the right of anybody within that cohort to remove themselves from a life insurance product?' The answer is, of course, no. What we would be doing would be reversing the onus, if you like—giving these workers the right to opt out. But by default they're in, on the assumption that, as a young worker—having been a young worker myself—the last thing that you have in mind when you start a new job is taking out a life insurance product. Many young workers and workers with low-balance accounts would be able to access income protection or life insurance other than through a group insurance product, but, quite simply, this is not the case for those high-risk workers. They would simply be uninsurable.
I want to say something about the value of group life insurance, too, because I'm sure that might come up in this debate. There is next to no evidence to suggest the group life insurance cover—that is, the life insurance cover that is provided, particularly the death insurance—that is provided through superannuation funds is inherently bad value. There is no evidence to suggest that, as a whole, it is inherently bad value. In fact, if you look at the premiums—I've already identified them in my contribution to date—it's quite certain that many of those workers would simply be unable to afford the premiums if they were to try to seek private cover. So it's inherently good value for those workers.
Also, if you look at the way that claims are made on life insurance policies within a superannuation fund, the claims ratio is significantly better for workers covered by group insurance cover, as compared to somebody who has an individual policy in the general market. Of course, there is a reason for that. In fact, there is a reason for both of those things. The collective purchasing power of a superannuation fund operating on the basis of many thousands—in most cases, many hundreds of thousands—of members enables them to strike a better deal, and because they have experts at their disposal, it enables them to strike a better deal in terms of the way that claims are managed and processed as well. So, whilst I don't hold a candle out for the life insurance industry as a whole, I do argue that the cover that is provided within a group insurance policy through a superannuation fund, when compared to the cover that is provided outside one of those funds, is very good value indeed for the overwhelming majority of insured members.
The second amendment that I will be moving in during consideration in detail goes to the problem that has been identified by multiple fund managers, by multiple advocates from within the sector. You might say: 'Of course they would. Of course they're going to argue to that.' Perhaps it's in their interests. But the one we must take note of is the submission from the regulators themselves. They have an interest which sits above the individual interest of any member, any fund or any advocate group. This is particularly in relation to APRA, the Prudential Regulation Authority. They have an interest in the sound management of these funds—in the prudential management of these funds—so parliament must take particular note of the concerns that have been raised by APRA themselves.
I quote from some observations that the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority made to the Senate committee which inquired into this bill. They said of the putting members' interests first bill:
The PMIF Bill measures are also proposed to commence from the day after the date of Royal Assent, with the PYSP Bill measures applying after 1 October 2019 …
We should take note of that. Today, I think, is 12 September. It's due to apply in less than two weeks time. I can tell you from my own experience—I'm interrupting the quote here—that the consequences that were put in place from the previous round of reforms, which we supported, were overwhelming for the fund managers. They got absolutely smashed. Their call centres, which they staffed up, were unable to deal with the staff loads. Was it any wonder that they said:
… the PYSP Bill measures applying after 1 October 2019 to members with balances under $6,000 and new members under 25 years of age. Requiring superannuation funds to implement the changes in the required timeframe—
and this is important—
will pose significant challenges for industry, particularly given the extent and complexity of the changes that will need to be undertaken, and current legislative uncertainty around the product level application.
That's not a comment made by a Labor senator. That is not a submission made by a fund. That is not a submission made from a retail fund, an industry fund or a peak body. That is a submission made by the regulator themselves—by APRA themselves. They say in their submission—and this is important to our amendment:
APRA considers an appropriate implementation timeframe would be, at minimum, 6 months but preferably 12 months from the finalisation of both the PMIF Bill and proposed PYSP Act amendments.
That is a minimum of six months and a preferable maximum of 12 months. The amendment that Labor will move picks up the recommendations of the prudential regulator, and we call upon all sensible members of this place to take note of that recommendation and adopt the Labor amendments.
I would like to address some other comments that have been made in this debate, but, before I do that, I think it's important that we have an understanding of the human face and the consequences of what we are legislating on and what we are legislating for. Throughout the course of the consideration of this bill, I've had the benefit of looking at evidence that's been presented in the other place, consulting with industry and consulting with families of fund members who have tragically lost their lives at work.
I want to tell the stories of Jason and Andrey. Jason was a member of the Cbus fund. He finished his apprenticeship at the end of 2017 and decided to go to Canada on a working holiday. A few months in, he had a snowboarding accident that left him a quadriplegic. When Jason started his apprenticeship, he was attending TAFE and it was there that he heard about Cbus, and they recommended he join. After his tragic accident, his mum discovered that he had total and permanent disability insurance by default through Cbus. There is no way a young fellow in Jason's circumstance would have had that cover but for the cover through his insurance fund. It was unexpected, and she says: 'It was so unexpected. If I had to pay for my own insurance, I don't think I would have done it. Luckily default cover with Cbus was a lifesaver.' Nothing is going to bring Jason's mobility back—a tragic accident for a young man—but at least he and his family have some financial security because of the cover they were provided.
It is a similar story with Andrey Lockyer. He was also a Cbus member. When he was a third-year apprentice, he was at work one day unpacking a freight container, which had come in from China, containing 128 pieces of glass. Two straps were inadvertently cut, and 1.6 tonnes of glass came down upon him. Andrey suffered severe injuries to his back and limbs and, according to medical staff, he certainly would have been killed had he been a few inches taller. His wife was heavily pregnant at the time, and the first time he saw his newborn baby was in a hospital bed, recovering from surgery. Luckily for Andrey, his wife and his newborn child, he was insured. He had insurance through the default insurance cover through his fund. The young family used the insurance money to pay off their debt, to pay for groceries and to pay for the expenses associated with a newborn child, and they put money away for future rehabilitation costs. He's since finished his apprenticeship and his family has now welcomed their second child.
These are just two examples. There are thousands more, but sometimes it helps to put a face and a story to the legislation that we're considering in this place.
We think this legislation is 95 per cent good, and it will be 100 per cent good if all sensible members of this place back our amendments, which concern the reverse of defaulting arrangements for workers in high-risk occupations, and if they adopt the Labor amendments in respect to the time lines. I say 'Labor amendments', but they are the recommendations of the prudential regulator, so they should be given important note.
There has been a bit of noise around superannuation. Given that this bill concerns protecting members' superannuation balances, it's important to rebut some of the stuff that's been said in this place around the best methods for protecting and improving retirement incomes. We on this side of the House, as I said in my opening remarks, feel like we are protective guardians of our system of occupational superannuation and the legislative framework for increasing the existing contribution from 9½ per cent, through a very modest series of increases over a five-year period, to 12 per cent. We think it's important. We are very concerned that, when the Howard government axed the scheduled guarantees, workers lost between $60,000 and $100,000 in retirement income. We don't want to see that happen again, which is why I'm deeply concerned that the campaign that has been led by the member for Mackellar and the member for Goldstein—we're told there are 12 of them involved; let's call them the dirty dozen—does not gain momentum in this place, because a worker retiring today—
The minister, on a point of order?
That was very unparliamentary language against colleagues.
I ask the member for Whitlam to withdraw.
In deference to the honourable member, I withdraw. The behaviour of the 12 members invites a comparison to the 1967 war classic, The Dirty Dozen. It invites a comparison because their mission is to creep in behind enemy lines and blow up a system. That's what they're on about, and we, on this side of the House, won't stand for that.
The argument that I heard this morning put by the member for Goldstein beggars belief. He argues that if we cancel superannuation increases, which are certain by legislation and due to take place between 2021 and 2025—that is, in two years time—then workers are going to get a wage increase today. You would have to believe in pink unicorns to believe in that logic. It simply won't happen. They might succeed in cancelling superannuation increases, but workers will be dudded twice: they won't get the superannuation increases and they certainly won't get the wage rises.
What beggars belief is the hypocrisy of this argument. What the 12 members opposite need to answer is this: why is it fair for all members in this place to enjoy a superannuation contribution of 15 per cent, but the people who clean our offices enjoy a superannuation contribution of only 9½ per cent? Why should they be denied the legislated increase to take them from 9½ to 12 per cent? I don't know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh, but I wouldn't be able to look the people—those people who cheerfully come into my office once a week and empty the bins with a cheery word, and who look after us all in the best way possible—in the eye and say, 'I'm sorry; this is what's about to happen because a campaign has taken off to reduce your legislated superannuation increases.' Whether it's the people who clean our offices here or the low-paid workers everywhere, the people who are going to suffer are women and the people who are going to suffer are low-paid workers. The proposition that this is somehow an advancement of a fairness agenda is absolutely risible. So let's nip this in the bud. Every time one of those members opposite stands up, inviting comparison to that 1967 war classic The Dirty Dozen, we should call them out: why is it fair for you to get 15, but the people who clean your offices only get 9½? Every time they get up they should be called out on that, because it's not fair and Labor won't stand for it.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019 partially implements the remaining parts of the Protecting Your Superannuation package announced in the 2018-19 budget, and the bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act to prevent trustees from providing insurance on an opt-out basis to members who, firstly, are under 25 years old but begin to hold a new product on or after 1 October 2019, or, secondly, hold products with balances below $6,000. These changes would impact insurance arrangements that are in place before 1 October 2019, including the removal of default life, total permanent disability and income protection insurance. The bill seeks to balance the interests of providing affordable, effective life insurance cover to employees against the public interest of ensuring that member accounts are not eroded by insurance premiums.
Over recent years, there have been many inquiries and studies into making superannuation more effective and providing better value for money for workers, particularly younger workers and people who work in itinerant occupations. Unfortunately for some younger workers, the majority of or some of their balances can be eaten up during their life span through fees, commissions and products that they don't need. On the issue of insurance premiums, several studies have identified that, particularly where a worker may have multiple superannuation accounts—and that tends to be at younger ages, unfortunately—people may be paying for multiple TPD life insurance products through their group life policy in their superannuation fund. There have been many attempts to provide more information to people so that they can make active, informed decisions, and this is the latest go at it, if you like, from the government, in accordance with their budget announcement.
While Labor supports these objectives, we do have some concerns that, with the implementation time frame of the bill, there may be some unintended consequences regarding members in high-risk occupations and insurance premium increases for others across their superannuation account. We know that the whole purpose of a group policy is to spread the risk across the fund and therefore reduce the premiums. If you are reducing the number of people within a fund that have this coverage, obviously there's a risk the premium will increase. Labor is proposing some amendments to remedy some of these defects in the bill, including an amendment to extend the operative date to 1 July 2020 and to protect the benefits of workers in high-risk industries.
Labor will always look to ensure that workers, including those in high-risk industries, get a fair deal from their superannuation. We know that nearly 30 per cent of workers under 25 years, or approximately 340,000 employees, are employed in occupations and industries that are hazardous. In 2016, half of worker fatalities occurred within the transport, postal and warehousing, and agriculture, forestry and fishing industries. Labor want to ensure that younger workers are protected from erosion of their superannuation balance but at the same time we want to ensure that workers in hazardous industries have cover. Many would say that they've got cover for injuries like that through workers compensation and other schemes. But, as the member for Whitlam previously put on the record, there are cases where young workers get injured outside of the workplace. Let's face it: younger people tend to risk more hazards than older people, and the risks are increased. The deficiency is that, although they may have coverage at work, they may not have it outside work. In some cases, many of them don't even know they have coverage through their superannuation fund. The member for Whitlam mentioned the example of a young man who was involved in a skiing accident that tragically left him immobile; he wasn't aware that the policy existed and that he did have total and permanent disability cover. That's the value of it for younger workers. Group insurance has proved to be an affordable and effective means of providing life income protection and total and permanent disability insurance cover as part of a bundled superannuation account.
The bulk purchase of cover means that workers who would otherwise be unable to buy insurance because of the cost or because of their high-risk occupation can gain the benefit of that insurance, and superannuation funds have provided this as a standard benefit. But stripping police, construction workers, firefighters, transport workers and miners of their life insurance through superannuation, which may be the only life insurance they can access, may not be a reasonable step. These workers and their families may be faced with devastating hardship if they're unable to access life insurance in the face of a calamity. Workers who put their lives on the line deserve to be able to access affordable insurance that will protect their loved ones in case of need. If the government proceeds with the proposed changes in this form then there may be unintended consequences for workers in that area.
Something that has also been raised with Labor in our consultations with the industry regarding this is the operative date. Many see the operative date and the implementation date as unrealistic and say that it will result in member confusion and detriment. Let's not forget that in this industry recent changes to superannuation and insurance have seen many members having to ring their funds to ensure that they have appropriate coverage. We've heard stories of fund call centres having increased phone call traffic. Now, under these changes, you're going to ask people to do that again. It's going to be quite confusing.
It's proposed that the commencement date of 1 July 2020 will allow funds to renegotiate insurance contracts on reasonable terms, to make relevant systems changes and to properly inform members. But under no circumstances should it be sooner than six months after royal assent. That is the message that we've been getting from the industry and, indeed, representatives of workers, who want to make sure that workers are well informed about this change. The proposed time for implementation, less than two months from the passage of the legislation, will leave thousands of Australians stuck on the phone waiting for their super funds to respond.
The government has rushed this bill through. We believe that there hasn't been adequate time to consider some of these questions. There hasn't been a single public hearing in respect of this bill, but there is time for more consultation and there is time for the government to seriously consider the amendments that Labor is proposing here. We support the objectives of this bill. We want a reasonable balance to be struck in the operation of the superannuation system between providing coverage for people who need it and ensuring that members' balances aren't being whittled away in a fashion that sees money being wasted.
We propose amendments to protect workers in high-risk industries and we propose a second lot of amendments relating to the operative time frame to ensure that there is reasonable consultation and that members of superannuation funds are properly informed of these changes. What we're proposing is, we believe, a reasonable but not excessive amount of time for superannuation funds to implement these changes. These are sensible amendments that Labor has drafted in consultation with the industry. We urge the government to support them.
On the whole, this is an important piece of legislation. We want to make sure we get the balance right between protecting the livelihood and interests of workers in dangerous occupations and having a superannuation system that is fair and efficient and ultimately ensures that, when people retire, they have maximised the funds and assets in their accounts so that they can enjoy a reasonable retirement. This bill goes some of the way, but Labor's sensible amendments would make it a much better piece of legislation.
It's a pleasure to follow the members for Whitlam and Kingsford Smith in discussing the important bill before the House—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019. About 12 million Australians hold insurance—for life, total and permanent disability, and income protection—through their superannuation funds. Total premiums, according to the Productivity Commission, are around $9 billion. It's worth noting that not all of that money appears to be well spent. The best example of that is that the Productivity Commission estimates that, of that $9 billion, $1.9 billion is for unintended duplicate policies.
The Productivity Commission's report points out that current settings are more a function of history than of considered policy design. It notes that many members benefit from lower costs and the ready access of default group insurance in superannuation but that problems remain. The Productivity Commission points out that insurance accounts for one-third of the complaints made on superannuation. The Productivity Commission has noted that 'balance erosion can be can be excessive and highly regressive', giving examples where the impact could be as high as 14 per cent, or $85,000. It notes too that there are members who have policies that are of little use of them—so called 'zombie policies' that cannot be claimed against, with income protection being the main culprit, according to the Productivity Commission.
As the member for Whitlam has noted, Labor believes this bill is about 95 per cent right, but we're concerned that the process has been rushed and that the lack of a public hearing has compromised the ability to get things right. Labor wants to get the balance right, but we believe that to do so requires pushing back the operative date to allow for a reasonable period for superannuation funds to implement these changes. We did this when urging the government to push back the operative date for its changes to the GST low-value threshold, and I think it's generally acknowledged now, in retrospect, that Labor's move to delay that measure was the appropriate one to make sure we got it right. We'll also propose amendments to protect workers in high-risk industries, as the member for Whitlam has foreshadowed.
But this is just one of the ways in which member balances are being eroded. The Productivity Commission's same report pointed to the challenge of fees in the superannuation sector and the fact that, for many members, fees are simply too high. One of the real problems in engaging with the issue of fees is the number of funds that are snubbing the regulator—that are not reporting to APRA the true fees that they're charging on accounts. APRA, through the Cooper review, has look-through powers, but it's not exercising those powers with regard to superannuation funds. When the Productivity Commission looked at the fund-level data provided to APRA on fees, it found that an extraordinary 28 per cent of member accounts were in funds which were not reporting fees to APRA. That's predominantly a problem in the retail sector. Only five per cent of not-for-profit funds are reporting zero investment expenses to APRA, but a full 56 per cent of retail funds were reporting zero investment expenses to APRA. More than half of all retail funds are snubbing their noses at the regulator on this critical issue of fees.
What impacts do excessive fees have? Well, they can be pretty considerable. The Productivity Commission gave the example of a worker aged 21 starting off on a full-time salary of $50,000. The commission pointed out that if they were in a high-fee account they could end up with $100,000 less in retirement—a 12 per cent lower balance in retirement—as a result of being in a high-fee account. When it made comparisons across countries, the Productivity Commission found that Australian administration and investment costs were high, that our superannuation system had pretty high overheads compared to other countries. We have higher overheads than Greece, Switzerland, Mexico, Finland, Hungary, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Luxembourg, Germany and the Netherlands. Australians pay some $30 billion a year in fees in their superannuation accounts. So if the government is keen to tackle the $9 billion that's being spent on insurance products within superannuation, I hope they will move to the $30 billion of fees that is being paid. The Productivity Commission did note that fees have fallen over the course of the last decade, pointing out that that fall occurred after the MySuper reforms and is almost exclusively within retail funds. The Productivity Commission estimates that in the decade up to 2013 fees in retail funds were around 1.4 per cent. Since then, they have come down to average around one per cent. In not-for-profit funds, fees averaged around 0.6 per cent during that period.
But the Productivity Commission also noted that there is a tail of high-fee products. It said that in the super ratings dataset, 15 per cent of member accounts and 17 per cent of assets were in products with fees above 1.5 per cent, suggesting that about four million accounts—some $275 billion in assets—were in this underperforming tail. Indeed, some funds had fees that exceeded two per cent, an extraordinarily high level of fees to be charging account holders and, effectively, a significant tax on account holders who find themselves in these low-performing funds.
One excuse which is often given for high fees is, 'Well, that's okay, the high-fee accounts are returning high returns to members.' So you're paying a lot but you're getting a lot. It is the sort of hedge fund argument, that, really, it's okay to pay '2 and 20' if you're getting superstar returns. But a key finding of the Productivity Commission went directly contrary to that. Finding 3.7 by the Productivity Commission was that 'higher fees are clearly associated with lower net returns over the long term'. The Productivity Commission reviewed work by the Grattan Institute, which found that 'Australian funds that charge higher total investment and administration fees deliver lower net returns once fees are accounted for'. It cited work by Basu and Andrews, finding 'a statistically significant and negative relationship between gross returns from Australian superannuation funds and expense ratios incorporating investment and administration costs'. They found a one per cent decrease in fees was associated with a 0.1 per cent increase in gross returns. So this gives the lie to the notion that we should be comfortable with high-fee accounts because they're delivering high returns. In fact, high-fee accounts tend to deliver lower returns to Australians.
I was quite surprised when, in a parliamentary hearing, Ms Helen Rowell from APRA was uncertain as to whether APRA supported this finding by the Productivity Commission, suggesting that there might be evidence which ran in the opposite direction. APRA agreed to take on notice my question as to whether they could produce evidence contradicting the Productivity Commission's finding 3.7. That answer on notice was returned, with APRA saying they had searched the literature and found no such evidence. So APRA now appears to concur with the Grattan Institute and with the Productivity Commission's excellent report, led by Karen Chester, that high-fee accounts deliver lower returns. That means that the issue of fees ought to be front and centre for APRA. It's not good enough for APRA to simply focus on high-level prudential management; APRA should also take as part of its mandate a concern about the underperforming tail of Australians who are stuck in high-fee funds which are taking away a goodly share of their money without producing better returns—indeed, while producing worse returns—for these fund holders.
The Australian superannuation sector is headed towards $3 trillion. It's one of the reasons why our current account deficit has been coming down in recent years; we have this large pool of savings. But if we're going to reduce reliance on the age pension, which must be the principal objective of superannuation, then we need to tackle high-fee accounts. There are too many high-fee accounts in the market right now, and APRA should be playing a much more vigorous role in ensuring that high-fee accounts are addressed.
I commend the government for its willingness to tackle the issue of insurance costs and superannuation, but I call on the government now to do the same with high-fee accounts, to recognise that high-fee accounts erode balances and that it's predominantly a problem in the retail sector. It is not exclusively retail funds that have excessive fees but, overwhelmingly, excessive fee funds are retail funds. The problem of underreporting of fees to APRA, again, is predominantly a challenge in the retail space. Labor will move amendments to this sensible bill. We hope the government can get it right and will continue the process of reforming Australian superannuation to the benefit of all Australians.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
I rise today on national R U OK? Day to remind ourselves that, while living our busy lives getting stuff done, we should be observant and thoughtful about those with whom we interact—that as we go about our lives we should check in with those around us and remind those in this place that what we say here matters.
We've been having some conversations here this week about drug testing of people on Newstart, about expanding the cashless debit card and about robo-debt. We need to remind ourselves that some people who are in the cycle of looking for work may be going in a cycle of hope, in terms of applying for jobs, to the inevitable rejections that many face every week and that this can trigger anxiety and trigger depression. We need to remind ourselves that the things we do in this place impact on very real people's lives.
I want to finish by saying to the people in my electorate: if you are interacting with our bureaucracies, with Centrelink, the NDIS, jobactive or Immigration, and you're finding it stressful, please contact my office. My staff will open with: 'Are you okay? How can I help?'
I'd like to acknowledge the hard work and bravery of our local RFS and emergency services, who have been battling devastating bushfires across the community and the wider region. People have literally put their lives at risk to defend other people's lives, homes, farms and businesses. They have literally kept our community safe. After five days, major fires burnt over 10,000 hectares around Angourie and Wooloweyah, south of Yamba, and nearly 50,000 hectares between Drake and Tenterfield. Hundreds of volunteer firefighters from 36 RFS brigades in the Clarence Valley, 38 brigades from the Northern Rivers district and more from across the state have been deployed.
It was a terrifying situation people were confronted with. As containment lines were breached, flames soared just metres away from homes, with fierce winds carrying showers of hot embers onto household roofs. Gulmarrad Public School students and staff were evacuated to Maclean Public School. Incredible stories have been told of the bravery and kindness of people across the community—stories like the 10-year-old girl who donated her birthday cake for the volunteers of the Gulmarrad RFS. Numerous community groups rallied around to make sandwiches and donate food and water. Farmers have offered up their land to save livestock affected by the fires. It was a harrowing week, and, again, in times of adversity I thank and am so proud of the so many who did so much to help others in our community.
On 3 August I had the pleasure of attending the Eurobodalla Business Awards at the Tomakin Sports & Social Club. The event recognised the great success of the amazing local businesses across the Eurobodalla region. Local businesses were celebrated for their entrepreneurship as well as their contribution to the local community, and I had the pleasure of presenting the Excellence in Sustainability award to Southlands Fruit & Vegetables in Moruya. The team won for their many strategies to improve sustainability in their work. Southlands Fruit & Vegetables stock local, farm-direct and organic fruit and vegetables, and they have worked hard to reduce their packaging, introduce solar power and minimise food waste.
I would like to make a special mention of Yumaro, a local NDIS and disability employment provider in Moruya that's doing great work and making a real difference in people's lives. Yumaro took out the 'business of the year' award. I congratulate them and all of the businesses who were nominated and won awards on the night.
Eurobodalla businesses provide a vital contribution to the local community, and I was proud to show my appreciation for their work. Thank you to Eurobodalla Shire Council for inviting me to enjoy the evening, and thank you to all the local business chambers for your continued support of our local businesses.
There have been many words this week about the government's plan to trial random drug testing for jobseekers receiving Newstart or youth allowance. Today I rise to speak for my home of Mandurah, which is one of the three sites across Australia where the trial will be conducted. This bill was first introduced in the previous parliament, and so this plan is not new to my community.
I can report to the House with confidence that Mandurah is in favour of the trial. Even an online poll conducted in 2017 by our local newspaper, the Mandurah Mail, reported that 70 per cent of people were in favour of the trial. Many of my constituents are employed in mining, construction and other industries where drug testing on the job is normal. Our local police are regularly drug tested. Even employees of the City of Mandurah are drug tested. Indeed, in my former career with the Australian Defence Force, I and other servicepeople underwent random drug tests, even while on operations overseas. So my community wants to know: if it's good enough for workers, why isn't it good enough for jobseekers? If someone can't pass a drug test as a jobseeker, how can they be expected to pass a drug test on the job?
I know Senator Lambie has argued that members of parliament should be drug tested. I understand her sentiment. In fact, last year my whole office in Mandurah, in an effort to lead by example, underwent a drug test. I'll have more to say in my speech in the second reading debate, but for now I urge the crossbench in both Houses to listen to the people of Mandurah and vote for this bill.
I rise to acknowledge the contributions of our veterans to Australia's security, national interest and what we proudly call our good international citizenship. I wish all veterans well this International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers on Saturday, including those in my electorate who will be meeting at the Palmerston cenotaph at 10 am and then afterwards at the Palmerston RSL.
One of these important contributions of our peacekeeping heritage was the deployment of Australian service contingents to Rwanda in 1994 as part of Operation Tamar. They were Australia's contribution to the United Nations response to the Rwandan genocide. In the 100 days preceding the arrival of those peacekeeping troops, almost one million Rwandans had been killed. The Australian servicepeople saw great atrocities. Australian service contingents 1 and 2 would stay in Rwanda until March 1996 providing medical support to civilians and security for the medics on the ground.
All up, 700 Australians served in Rwanda as part of Operation Tamar and, in July this year, 25 years after their deployment, the contingents were awarded a Meritorious Unit Citation. Veterans who believe that they are eligible are encouraged to apply directly to the Department of Defence.
Deputy Speaker Hogan, I'd like to concur with your remarks regarding the bushfires and the wonderful efforts the RFS are currently making in the northern part of our state. We've seen horrific fires in both the seat of Page and the seat of New England. My thoughts go out to Neville Smith, who is a firefighter who's currently in hospital after receiving severe burns to his body. I heard horrific stories about the afflictions those burns have caused.
Might I say that in a time of severe drought, it absolutely amazed me to see where the fires burned. The fires raced across parched ground where you thought a fire wouldn't have had a chance.
At times like this we have to look after the people who are most afflicted. We have not only to rally to their support but also to learn from the experience and prepare ourselves for the next bushfires. I concur with the remarks of Mayor Peter Petty of Tenterfield Shire, who said we need more watering points. In the state forests and the national parks and on farm land, we need watering points and we need support for their construction. During these bushfires water was taken from farm dams to fight fires. In those farm dams is very little water; it's needed for stock. In the national parks, in some instances, they've decommissioned the dams by filling them in. Therefore, you have to go somewhere else to find the water, at times from town storages.
I speak on behalf of the Holt Norman Ashman Baker Action Group, which is an action group run voluntarily by and for victims of the so-called accountant and financial planner Peter Holt and his partners who have been financially devastated. I met with constituents in my electorate of Wills who were victims of Peter Holt. They informed me that they lost around $1.5 million and that Peter Holt was their accountant. They told me that they thought he was doing their tax, but he was actually taking out massive loans without their knowledge. My constituents discovered monthly statements for bank accounts that they didn't know they had, with deductions for tens of thousands of dollars each month. When they started to investigate, they found hundreds of other people had been victims as well. A 2018 Senate inquiry into consumer protection found that around 500 people were victims of Peter Holt. Many victims said they didn't know they had loans and that they had been taken out fraudulently.
Peter Holt was banned by ASIC for just three years. The ban expired in 2015. His victims made submission to the banking royal commission, yet they weren't selected to testify. The stories they were told did not fit in with what the commission was trying to do. I want to ask the government how that is possible. The victims have written to both former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the current Prime Minister. They did not qualify for this government's compensation packages because, among other reasons, Peter Holt had entered into insolvency. I call on the government and the Treasurer to start listening to the victims and to offer proper compensation and restitution.
On behalf of my constituents in the electorate of Hughes, I wish to offer a special congratulations to Steve Smith, whom we proudly claim as a local, given he attended Menai High School and was a local junior cricketer in the Menai district. Steve Smith's scores in the current Ashes series are: 144 and 142 in the first test; 92 in the second; and in the fourth test an incredible double century of 111, followed by 82, for a series average so far of 137.2. Not only has this helped Australia retain cricket's most famous urn but it is unsurpassed, except for Sir Donald Bradman. And it was achieved in the most difficult of batting conditions.
Steve Smith's success also goes beyond cricket, for it teaches us important lessons about innovation and experimentation. After over a century of cricket, one would think that batting techniques would be well settled by now. But Steve Smith's unorthodox batting style is one the textbooks say is wrong, and fortunately he wasn't coached out of it. As Adam Gilchrist has noted about Smith's unorthodox yet highly successful batting technique:
Now everyone is watching him bat in amazement, and trying to learn from him. The textbooks on batting technique may need to be rewritten.
Shortly after the overthrow of dictator Omar al-Bashir in April this year, Sudan's military assumed power and began ruthlessly killing peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators. The violence began on 3 June, when the army launched a dawn massacre across the country targeting the protesters, leading to months of bloodshed. Last month a transitional agreement was signed between the military and the protesters, which was a significant step forward. But some protesters have been concerned and sceptical that under the agreement military that was killing people in cold blood won't suddenly stop overnight. I am concerned that the military still retains a great deal of power and I understand also maintains a veto power and the ability to operate without oversight.
According to pro-democracy protester Sara Abdelgalil:
We still have not achieved what we are fighting for … Omar al-Bashir is not there, but the regime itself is still there.
I was heartened to read that the protests have been led by young people and women, fighting for their democratic rights. I was inspired by an image of Kandaka standing on a car, and, although my heart is broken by the mass violence, I want the pro-democracy protesters to know that I stand here today, in the parliament of Australia, in support and in solidarity with them.
I urge the new Prime Minister, Abdalla Hamdok, who was appointed by the forces of freedom and change, to uphold the slogan of the democracy protesters: 'freedom, peace and justice'. I urge the military to refrain from further violence and for a peaceful transition of power to the people of Sudan, who have been oppressed for so long and have lost so much in their struggle for democracy.
In the building today is the Australian Workplace Drug Test Association, representing 85 per cent of manufacturers and providers. They're proving one thing—that no-one should be above illicit drug testing. And we know just how important that is. Three point five million Australians have been tested already. Thank you to Kristy McMahon, Mal Beacham and John De Mellow, who are conducting those tests today for those that are interested.
But, of course, we have one group that, as a whole, are simply not interested. They stand against drug testing of illicit substances in welfare populations for no other reason than they're handcuffed to the corpse of the union movement. So worried they are with their union mates that one of their members might enjoy a toke on a Sunday and get caught on a Monday, they are opposed to what makes our society safer and fairer. You can't call it Newstart and not offer those looking for a work a new start. You can't be receiving a payment and hand it to a drug dealer every 14 days and think that is sustainable. In a great nation where we give opportunity, those seeking work, receiving payment in lieu of work, must be ready for work. And you can't be addicted, handing over your payment to drug dealers, and be ready to work.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The member for Lalor is warned!
It's common sense. If you're not on drugs, you've got nothing to fear. Three point five million Australians know that the road to recovery and a better culture in our workplace and among those looking for work is random drug testing. Support it!
Next week, students from across the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains are set to call out to all of us here from the hub in Springwood. It will be the third time that the Macquarie electorate students for climate action have organised a strike. They are desperately urging this parliament to take the actions needed to effectively tackle climate change. It's about time we listened. We should be listening to the issues that have made them feel they have no choice but to miss school. We should be listening to the evidence, like other governments around the world have. We should be listening to what these students expect of us, their leaders, in the face of this climate emergency, an emergency that is playing out around us every single day in our own backyards. This is about the planet they will inherit, and our failure to act now means disaster for them later.
These same Macquarie students are doing their bit to educate their parents' and grandparents' generations. They recently organised an evening forum, jointly with Hawkesbury City Council. There was the deputy mayor, there was a former deputy commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW, there were experts in environmental education and there was a Western Sydney University economist. Despite all their different backgrounds, every single speaker said we are running out of time. For goodness sake, Bob Hawke was trying to raise awareness about this 30 years ago! It's about time this parliament took serious action. We have a role to play.
I recently visited the Mahamevnawa Buddhist Meditation Centre and Monastery to lay the foundation stone of their new dining hall. The centre plays an important role in the Theravada Buddhist community. The monastery is situated on a beautiful 20-acre property in Cattai in my electorate, a setting well suited to its monastic purposes, and is led by a dedicated team. The chief abbot of the monastic order is the Reverend Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero. The chief bhante is Bhante Reverend Katugasthota Soma Thero. The other bhantes are Reverend Polgahawela Anandamaithri Thero, Reverend Peradeniye Mudithabodhi Thero and Reverend Weweldeniye Dhamma Rathana Thero. On the board of directors are Rasika De Silva, Nandika Kodituwakku, Teshan Karannagoda, Kithsiri Jayasinghe, Sunil Dissanayake, Kumari Willarachchi, Sanjeewani Ambagahawatte, Sujeeva Wilegoda, Kokum Senaratna, Suchiththa Liyanage, Dishni Beneragama, Anoma Bandara and Sanjeewa Kariyawasm.
The monastery encourages and guides its devotees in the practice of patience, compassion, generosity, gratitude and respect towards parents, teachers and elders. Along with spiritual support and teaching on the principles of Buddhism, they provide programs for children and youth, relationship support and care for older people. I congratulate the centre on this latest phase of their development.
Breast Cancer Network Australia has spent 20 years listening to and supporting women diagnosed with breast cancer. I was fortunate to have the opportunity last week to meet the amazing women on the board and the CEO—and not the least of the amazing women was national living treasure Raelene Boyle—and speak with them about their experiences and the work of the BCNA. For those who have had a diagnosis of cancer and for their family and friends there are myriad challenges to be faced. For too many Australians, this includes financial hardship.
Research commissioned by the BCNA showed that in the first five years after their breast cancer diagnosis only 12 per cent of the almost 2,000 women surveyed reported no out-of-pocket costs. One quarter reported costs of more than $17,000. One quarter of privately insured women recorded out-of-pocket costs greater than $21,000. If I could have your indulgence in referring to my personal experience, those figures come as no surprise to me.
In addition to these costs, cancer patients often experience loss of income and costs that are non-medical—counselling, travel, accommodation, higher energy bills for heating and cooling to make them comfortable, and new clothes to adapt to changes to their body shape and weight. And it's not just breast cancer patients who struggle with the financial impact of cancer and cancer treatment. In the last two months I've been contacted by so many people who have told me their stories. I've promised to be their voice and I will. Cancer makes you sick; it shouldn't make you broke.
It's been almost 10 years that the Toy Boys have been operating out of a workshop at Palm Lake at Waterford in my electorate of Forde. They are a group of retired men who keep busy and active by making great-quality toys and educational items to donate to children less fortunate than themselves. Over the years, they have received requests to make educational items for Beenleigh Special School, and at every occasion they have risen to the challenge and created various items to suit the needs of the students. They are rewarded for their efforts when the school hosts them during the Christmas morning tea, where they get to see the children using the items they have made.
They do all of these things for free and out of the kindness of their own hearts. While they do receive some small donations of materials—the odd pack of nails, screws and paints from local residents and old wooden crates and pallets from small business—there is still a substantial outlay of costs for the group. One of their members, Allan Rider, came to my office recently to ask for support, and we were able to get in contact with a number of hardware and building supply businesses to see if they were in a position to support the Toy Boys. I'm pleased to say that the fantastic team at Mitre 10 Mega in Beenleigh generously donated over $500 worth of store credit to the group, and I want to thank them and David Woodman especially for their support of these great local champions in my electorate.
Today is R U OK? Day. It's a day of national awareness based on a simple premise: that asking this vital question—are you okay?—of someone we know could prove the difference between life and death. The focus is not only on encouraging more discussions of mental health to help stop the scourge of suicide but it's also about engaging more Australians in vital discussions around depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress. In Kingsford Smith, our community has come together at public forums in Maroubra to discuss what can be done together to support people who are struggling and to save more lives. It's been inspiring to see community groups, businesses, and sporting and welfare associations come together at these forums to help out.
And we have so much more work to do at a local level and beyond. Research shows that suicide rates across the nation will grow at alarming rates over the next 10 years without better prevention and early intervention. Governments at state and national levels are now making suicide prevention a priority, but we as individuals can also be lifesavers. You don't need to be a doctor, a nurse or an expert to check in with someone that you are worried about. It's about it being better to reach out than to avoid that person for fear of getting the conversation wrong. Not just today but every day simply ask, 'Are you okay?'
Reid is home to a very proud and strong Italian community. On 18 August I attended the annual Ferragosto Italian street festival on Great North Road in Five Dock. It is a wonderful celebration for the community. Each year around 110,000 people attend the festival to enjoy great Italian cuisine, stalls and performances honouring the Italian culture in Reid. This year, 2019, marked the 22nd year of the Ferragosto Five Dock festival. Ferragosto celebrations coincide with the feast of the Assumption of Mary, and it was wonderful to mark this with the first-ever Italian feast day procession, led by all Hallows Catholic Church. Thank you to Canada Bay Council, which did a great job, this year most exceptionally, to organise such a large event on Great North Road in Five Dock. I'm very much looking forward to attending next year.
As you well know, Speaker, September is footy finals time—unless, of course, like me, you support the Fremantle Football Club and will have to wait for next year! But I know our time will come. But, lucky for me, I do have a footy team in finals, and that's the Rockingham Rams—the years 11 and 12 girls team. They're going to be taking on the Baldivis Brumbies in the grand final down at Warnbro oval at the Warnbro Community Recreation Centre in my electorate. Kick-off tomorrow night is at 6.30 pm. It might be Friday the 13th tomorrow, but I'm feeling lucky, and I'm looking forward to returning to the House next week to deliver to all members news that the Rockingham Rams young women's team has brought home victory against the Baldivis Brumbies. It's been great watching this team go from strength to strength over the years under the leadership of Allan Godfrey and others at the club. It's so great to have so many young women participating in a sport that I wish I'd been able to play as a young girl. That sport wasn't available to us then, but it's so good that it is available to young women in my electorate and around the country now.
The girls have done well, and the boys have also kept up their end of the bargain. The Rockingham Rams will be playing in the year 8 boys' grand final down at Rushton Park in Mandurah, and the men's Colts, Reserves and League teams will all play in grand finals on 21 September. So it's going to be a big weekend for the Rockingham Rams, and I urge all Rockingham residents, if you're into the footy, get down and watch a good game. You won't be able to go for freeo, but go Rocko!
I recently visited the Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club to thank the president, Dr Glenn Patton OAM, the immediate past president, Andrew Chandler, and all of the club's wonderful volunteers for their efforts to improve access to our beaches for people living with a disability. The club pioneered a beach-for-all program. Their beach access mat enables wheelchairs to get onto the beach and right down to the water's edge, and a submersible wheelchair and disability-friendly surfboard help get people into the water. Now, thanks the generosity of students at OneSchool Global in Adelaide, Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club can purchase another submersible wheelchair and surfboard.
On behalf of our local community, I'd like to thank Principal Brock Traeger and the students of OneSchool Global, Adelaide, for their fundraising efforts, which involved riding their bikes up some very steep hills in Belair National Park. I personally thanked the students during my visit to the club last week, when they presented a cheque for over $2,300 to club volunteers. The impact this additional equipment will have is truly life-changing. Surf club president, Glenn Patten, has shared many incredible stories with me of the club's work with children with disabilities who have never been in the water before because it was physically impossible for their families to take them in or their families were too nervous to do so and how much enjoyment these young people get from being in the sea.
My sincere thanks to Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club and to OneSchool Global, Adelaide, for ensuring more young—and not so young—people can enjoy the beach as we all do.
I'd just like to tell the House about some of the events I've been up to in my electorate of Moreton over the weekend and last week. I had the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, in for a community meeting with my community leaders—a wonderful event with over 40 community leaders turning up. I won't go through the entire list, but I particularly wanted to mention Ali Kadri from the Holland Park mosque, who's had difficulties with graffiti, and also Daxian Xie, from ACETP; and Dr Alan Chen and Lewis Lee, both from the Chinese Heritage War Memorial group, a group that I was instrumental in starting. It acknowledges the service of Australian-Chinese service personnel, who were often not Australian citizens but who went off to fight, and often die, for their country. We've got a memorial set up for that. Alan Chen has also been involved with the St George Chinese Community Memorial in the electorate of Minister Littleproud. Minister Littleproud is closely associated with that memorial. In fact, Minister Littleproud met Alan Chen in his home. It's such a wonderful project.
Also on the weekend there was a citizenship ceremony hosted by World Arts & Multi-Culture Inc. Thanks go to Melody Chen and Edward Lin and all their team. The MC was Lewis Lee, and it was his 40th citizenship ceremony and the 23rd hosted by World Arts & Multi-Culture Inc. The great thing about Lewis Lee is that even though he's heard me make the same joke 40 times, he still laughs.
Last Sunday, 8 September, saw the momentous opening of the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, now known as the Toowoomba bypass. It was a $1.6 billion project, one of the largest inland road projects in Australia. It was a great pleasure and a great honour to be joined by the Deputy Prime Minister; my neighbour, the member for Wright—this bypass joins the Darling Downs with the Lockyer Valley; the state minister; our state colleagues; and, of course, councillors and mayors from Toowoomba and the Lockyer region.
This project is all about increased transport efficiency that has impacts right across the eastern seaboard of Australia, and, of course, it's about safety. It happened because we had a coalition government here in Canberra that agreed with a former LNP government in Queensland to get on with the job. We spoke about it for 50 years and took the best part of five years to build it. That's what happens, particularly, when three levels of government can work together. I congratulate the Toowoomba Regional Council, in my case, on joining in with the task. The council has plans for James Street, that major avenue through our city from east to west: to return that to our families; to return it to a beautiful avenue through our city. Already, there are reports of over 2,000 fewer trucks per day, bringing safety to our residents.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I rise to acknowledge that today marks R U OK? Day, a national day of action on suicide prevention. R U OK? Day was actually started by friend of mine many years ago, Gav Larkin, who I went to school with. We lost him to illness some years ago, but I'm sure he'd be incredibly pleased with the way that this has taken off over all of these years. It's built around a simple expression of empathy and support for our fellow Australians, which comes naturally to us all. It's all about extending a hand. You never know the difference it could make to somebody in their hour of need.
Most weeks I, like many in this place, receive letters from Australians who all too often recount the tragedy of losing a family member or a friend to suicide. You hear stories from parents who talk about how their young kids in their teens and their early 20s are attending the funerals of their friends. It breaks your heart and you wish you could go back in time—something you might have said; someone you might have reached out to; something you might have noticed. More than half of all Australian adults have had a direct experience of this; that's how many people personally know someone who has died by suicide.
R U OK? Day is a time to restate a commitment which I know is shared across this chamber. It's a clear statement of the government to all Australians everywhere that we are progressing a towards-zero goal, with our commitment to mental health and our suicide prevention plan, which we are pleased to have the support of the entire House for. As important as these services are, it's actually the human connection that in so many instances will make that difference. A conversation can make a difference. It can save a life. The four steps of R U OK? Day, I'm sure Gav would have me say, are: ask, 'Are you okay?'—don't be afraid to ever ask that question—listen to the answer carefully; encourage action; and check in afterwards. Friends and family can make all the difference, but you have to be willing to ask, 'Are you okay?'
I join with the Prime Minister in celebrating R U OK? Day, started by his friend Gavin Larkin. Gavin was apparently a very successful advertising executive and described himself as a bit of an alpha male. But behind that success he had unhappiness. As he put it:
… I should have been feeling on top of the world and you know I felt empty, I felt black and it really scared me and I started to worry that I might do what my father did, which was take his own life.
Gavin's father died by suicide. He explained in an interview that one thing that his father would never do was discuss with anybody his mental illness and the unhappiness that he was feeling prior to that tragedy.
It's extraordinary. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have a long-term interest in reducing the road toll. The suicide toll is double the road toll, a quite extraordinary figure that I think most people around Australia, if you asked them cold, would not be conscious of.
Gavin did something pretty remarkable to help himself and to help others long after he was gone. He died just a few years after he initiated R U OK? Day, but his creation has lasted. His declaration of 'a conversation can change a life' is indeed a very positive one. This is one of Australia's most embraced days of action. It's embraced by young people, old people, people in pubs, people in organisations, and particularly, I think, by men—because we're pretty hopeless with a range of health issues and with talking about our feelings from time to time. Indeed, I'm always reminded at this time of Greg Wilton, a former member for Isaacs, who took his own life, tragically, whilst he was one of our colleagues. His portrait hangs outside the parliamentary gym, a place where he was healthy and where he did enjoy spending time. As much as some of us saw that he was unhappy, I think no-one saw that coming. We were quite shocked by that. It's a reminder that this can impact everyone, no matter how successful, their walk of life or what job they have.
In a high-pressure job like this, which is pretty tough and takes a personal toll on people from time to time, we shouldn't be frightened of saying, 'Are you okay?' and joining those tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who today will say that to their family members, to their friends and to people they don't know all that well in the community. It doesn't cost much to ask. I encourage people to do it today, and I congratulate all those, largely volunteers, who are associated with promoting what is indeed a great national day.
I inform the House that the Minister for Home Affairs will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. The Attorney-General will answer questions on his behalf and on behalf of the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Industry.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Reserve Bank governor that the economy is being 'weighed down by a protracted period of low income growth'?
The challenge of getting incomes to rise in this country is not a new one. It's been one the government has been working with the Reserve Bank on for many years. As Treasurer, I had numerous engagements with the Reserve Bank governor about this very issue, and I can tell you that's why our government initiated the tax relief that we took through this parliament, not just in the most recent budget but in the budgets before that—because we want to ensure that Australians keep more of what they earn.
In the most recent quarterly figures, 0.7 per cent was the real wage growth through the year. That is higher than what we inherited from the Labor Party in the last year they were in government. Ensuring that we continue to grow wages is a function of implementing our economic plan, and that economic plan is to get people off welfare and into work. It's a plan to get people's taxes down, so they can keep more of what they earn and invest it and spend it on the things that are most important to them.
But they're not spending it!
I take the interjection from those opposite: 'But they're not spending it.' I simply remind the member opposite: it's their money; they can do whatever they want with it. If they want to spend it, they can spend it. If they want to save it, they can save it. But I'll tell you one thing they won't have to do under this government, and that is: give it to the government.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Cowan is warned. The member for Griffith is warned.
If it had been the Labor Party who were elected, they'd be keeping more of the money that Australians earn. They'd be keeping more of the money that businesses earn. But, under our government—
Opposition members interjecting—
Could the Prime Minister just pause for a second. The level of interjections is already too high. I'm not going to raise my voice at the moment, because I can't. I have already just warned the members for Cowan and Griffith. I'll have no hesitation in lowering the volume by ejecting members. I'm giving everyone fair warning.
Reducing taxes, ensuring Australians can keep more of what they earn—that is what the last election was about. And at the last election Australians chose to keep more of what they earn and reject the $387 billion in higher taxes, which still remains on the policy books of the Labor Party to this day—it still remains their commitment. If they want to change that policy then by all means they should. We think they should. But they want to keep it a mystery, for goodness knows how long, because they don't know which way they want to go on that side of the House.
We're not only keeping taxes down; we're investing $100 billion in infrastructure. We're investing in proper changes to our skills arrangements in this country, which will mean that people will be trained for the jobs that will be there for them in the future and today. To ensure we're expanding our trade all around the country, we have lifted our trade agreements from less than 30 per cent, around 27 per cent, to 70 per cent of our trade over the last six years, expanding the borders of our trade to ensure Australians can earn more—and Australians, at the end of the day, because of our tax policies, can keep more of what they earn.
The plan that we have, that we took to the Australian people, that was endorsed by the Australian people—we will continue to implement it day after day after day. That is the path to higher wages. Higher taxes are not the path to higher wages. High taxes are the path of the Labor Party. Lower taxes are the path of the Liberal and National parties.
My question is to the Treasurer. When the Reserve Bank of Australia is calling for improved wages growth, why has this government presided over the worst wages growth on record?
The honourable member might like to know that when Labor were last in office, in three out of six years minimum wages fell. The real minimum wage fell. Under us, under the coalition, every year real minimum wages have gone up. I'll repeat that for the honourable member: under Labor, in three out of the six years that they were in office, real minimum wages fell; under us, every year, real minimum wages have gone up.
To educate the honourable member from the other side of the House, inflation today is 1.6 per cent, but the wages price index, which is a euphemism for wages growth, is 2.3 per cent. The reality is that real wages have been going up. The reality is that under our government lower taxes are creating more jobs and higher wages. If Labor ever get their time in government, $387 billion of higher taxes would reduce wages and cost jobs. It doesn't matter what the question is; for Labor, the answer is always higher taxes.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House about how the Morrison government is working to keep Australians together, including backing migrant communities like mine in the electorate of Reid, who are a source of enduring strength, prosperity and vibrancy for our nation?
I thank the member for Reid for her question. Australia is the most successful multicultural and immigrant nation on earth. Our side of politics, the Liberal and National parties, have been pleased to provide leadership on this issue, which has ensured that that has become a fact in this country. Indeed, they have been policies that have been supported by both sides of this House in the postwar period.
I wish to speak to one of the policies that has been put in place by our government. The government recently invested $30,000 in the member's electorate, under the Fostering Integration Grants program, in Strathfield council's Shaping My Career program. This program introduces non-working migrant women to the labour market. It provides an insight into Australian values and links participants to other council run activities, including language and conversation classes. The Fostering Integration Grants program supports more than 220 community organisations, who receive a combined $9.3 million in funding to help migrants fully participate in the Australian community. The grants are part of the government's commitment to working closely with local organisations to provide valuable services and activities that foster social cohesion and create a stronger Australia.
Mr Speaker, 45.5 per cent of Australians have either one or two parents who were born overseas. Some 7.5 million have come to this country since the Second World War from over 200 countries; 270 ethnicities, some 260 languages. One in three owner-managers of small businesses are from a migrant background. Migrant businesses employ 1.4 million Australians. These are Australians who have come to Australia to make a contribution, not take one. They are Australians who have come to create jobs, not take them. They are Australians who have come to have a go and they've been getting a go under the policies of our government. We acknowledge their contribution, we celebrate their contribution, we celebrate their culture, and we celebrate and are prepared to protect their faith and religion and their freedom of religion. And we respect the loyalty to Australia of migrants who have come from all around the world to call Australia home. Whether it was with the programs under the Menzies government that followed on from the policies of the previous government that built the post-war migration period, whether it was under the Holt government that abolished the White Australia policy, whether it was under the Fraser government that implemented the Galbally report, whether it was under the Howard government that took us from less than 30 per cent of our migration program being for skills to 70 per cent, or under this government to ensure the integrity of our immigration program by ensuring our borders are secure, we will always stands up for the contribution of migrants to this country.
Ms Rowland interjecting—
Just before I call the member for Rankin, the member for Greenway is warned! The member for Solomon was warned at 9.50 this morning. Keep your mouth shut and I think you'll be fine. The member for Rankin has the call.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Reserve Bank governor that 'the challenge we face is monetary policy is carrying too much of a burden'. When economic growth is the slowest it's been since the global financial crisis, why has the government left all of the heavy lifting to the Reserve Bank?
I'm happy to respond to the member's question and simply quote the Reserve Bank governor again, from his testimony before the House Economics Committee on 9 August this year. Sorry, this is at a press conference with the Treasurer on 11 July:
I agree 100 per cent with you—
speaking of the Treasurer—
that the Australian economy is growing and the fundamentals are strong. The outlook is being supported by our lower interest rates, by your tax cuts, by higher levels of investment in infrastructure, by a pickup in the resources sector and the stabilisation of the housing market in Sydney and Melbourne. But I don't think we should forget that more Australians have jobs today than ever before in Australian history. That's a remarkable achievement. And I also agree with you that a priority is to make sure that Australia remains a great place for businesses to expand, innovate, invest and employ people and I'm sure we can do that.
The Prime Minister—
Honourable members interjecting—
I was asked about the Reserve Bank governor's comments.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Yes. It's on direct relevance. If we are in a situation where the Prime Minister is asked to respond to a quotation from someone and the answer is allowed by simply reading out alternative quotations from the same person, then the relevance rule has become absurd.
I think what the Manager of Opposition Business needs to do—I don't want to say his point of order is absurd; that'd be rude of me—is look to all the other parts of the preamble that were in the question that mentioned the GFC and a whole lot of other things as well. The Prime Minister has the call.
I also refer to the governor's comments when he was before the House Economics Committee and said:
Can I just clarify something: I have not called on the government to do fiscal expansion.
That is what the Reserve Bank governor said in testimony before the House of Representatives committee. Now, I notice that the shadow Treasurer is running around dragging his coat again, saying that he would increase Newstart. At the last election, Labor put forward $387 billion of higher taxes, but guess what? Even with all those extra taxes, did they have an increase in Newstart when they went to the election? No, they didn't. They could take $387 billion out of the pockets of Australians and Australian businesses and they still couldn't increase Newstart. That's why this shadow Treasurer should never be trusted with an abacus, let alone a budget. As a result, that's why the Australian people chose the plan and the budget in particular, which the Treasurer handed down in April this year, which put in place the tax relief that the Labor Party opposed. That tax relief is saying to Australians: 'If you have a go, you'll get a go from this government.'
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on the Morrison McCormack government's stable and certain approach to helping our communities in regional Australia? Is the minister aware of any alternative proposals, including the impact of a carbon tax on these communities?
I thank the member for his question. His constituents understand the impact that introducing a carbon tax would have on the communities, the businesses and the farming families in regional Australia, particularly in his electorate of Dawson, and more generally North Queensland. Most people in this place clearly understand that any introduction of a carbon tax is really code for making things more expensive. A carbon tax makes things dearer for business, for industry, for farmers and, indeed, for households.
Those opposite had a plan for $387 billion of additional taxes going into the 18 May election. Most opposite have not yet walked away from those policies, and shame on them for that. Australians know. Australians voted for our plan, our 2 April budget, which was to drive down costs. Would you believe that just yesterday someone somewhere from Labor said, 'Do we have to talk about carbon price again? Of course we do. It has to be part of the mix if we're to meet our Paris targets.' Who could it be? Will he out himself? Was it the member for Hindmarsh? The member for Holt? Perhaps it was the member for Hotham. Those opposite have learned nothing from the last election.
The people of Queensland know very well what a carbon tax would do, and they voted very clearly against a potential carbon tax. Just ask the members for Dawson, for Herbert, for Flynn and for Capricornia: how good is Queensland? Because they know the big impost that a carbon tax would have on their communities, and we, across this side of the House, stick up for our local communities. On this side of the House, we'll continue to stick up for jobs, to stick up for families and to stick up for farmers. Electricity would become more expensive under a carbon tax. Transport, food, building materials and clothing—it'll all go up. It would have gone up under the $387 billion tax slug those opposite would have inflicted on Australians.
When it comes to infrastructure, as the member for Grayndler would well know, steel would go up, concrete would go up and the cost of bitumen would go up. For the inland rail, the thousands of tonnes of Liberty steel and South Australian steel would all go up under the Labor policies espoused by one of those opposite. We know who he is. The member for Paterson knows that Tomago smelter would collapse under his carbon tax. Thank you, member for Hunter! We don't need it.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, . Last week the Prime Minister said:
we are really starting to hit our head on the ceiling in terms of how much infrastructure work you can get underway at any one time—
But the Reserve Bank governor says, 'We can do more.' Deputy Prime Minister, who is right?
The Reserve Bank governor is a good fella. I went to school with him. He was the dux of the school—something I never achieved—but he's a good man. He was a good St Michael's Regional High School in Wagga Wagga boy. And of course the Prime Minister is a good man too. They're both very, very good. They both want the best for our country.
The Reserve Bank governor, Dr Philip Lowe, called for continued spending on infrastructure projects, including on rail, on bridges and on roads. He understands that, yes, building infrastructure is helping the economy. That's why under the Morrison government we've got a $100 billion plan. Those opposite could only have hoped, when it was the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, they could have had anywhere near $100 billion to spend on infrastructure that's getting Australians home sooner and safer. We are working with the states and with the territories. Indeed, I don't really care what their political persuasion is. If it helps to build infrastructure, to save people's lives, to make sure we get the roads, the bridges and the rail we need, then we're happy to do it and we are doing it. Indeed, the Prime Minister was in Melbourne just last week talking with Premier Andrews, a Labor Premier, no doubt—
The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Ballarat on a point of order?
On relevance: I asked a question about which is right, the Prime Minister or the Reserve Bank governor—
The member for Ballarat will resume her seat. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
Pardon me for correcting your grammar, but it wouldn't be 'which', it would be 'who'. People are actually 'who'. Ms Lyn Kensey taught me a lot in English at St Michael's Regional High School. I'm sure she taught Philip Lowe as well.
Both the Reserve Bank governor and indeed the Prime Minister are right for putting forward our infrastructure plan for this nation. The member for Ballarat should get on board with it. Instead of getting out of bed every morning and putting down negative tweets, she should be working with the government. Daniel Andrews gets it. The Victorian Premier gets it. He had a great joint press conference—a little bit better than the joint press conference I had with the member for Hunter this morning—talking about the Monash Freeway. Just last week, with the member for Groom and the member for Wright, I had a great Toowoomba range crossing opening for the bypass, with the Labor Queensland roads minister, Mark Bailey. We're getting on board with building more infrastructure. We're getting on board with building better infrastructure for Queensland. I'm happy to do it with any premier of any political persuasion in any state or territory. When it comes to getting Australians home sooner and safer, that's what we want to do because we're Liberals and Nationals. We're getting on board with building our future. We're getting on board with building the infrastructure that Australians want, expect, need and, most of all, deserve.
My question is to the Treasurer. The 10 per cent cap legislation for defined benefit pensions introduced in 2015 reduced the tax-free component excluded from the Centrelink income test. This often led to an increase in assessed income and a loss or reduction in the aged pension for people on very modest incomes. The problem is the policy was intended for schemes with an employer contribution but was incorrectly applied to Tasmania's Retirement Benefits Fund, which does not have an employer component in the tax free part of the pensions. This has been confirmed by RBF and the Tasmanian Association of State Superannuants. Treasurer, when will the government right this wrong and stop incorrectly applying the 10 per cent cap legislation to RBF?
I thank the honourable member for his question. As I understand it, the Department of Social Services has previously written to the Tasmanian Association of State Superannuants, making clear that the Tasmanian Retirement Benefits Fund contributing scheme is a type of defined benefit scheme that is intended to be covered by this measure. This is confirmed by the fund's product disclosure statement.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to implementing lower taxes and removing red tape is helping families and small businesses across Australia, including in my electorate of Bennelong? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies, including the impact of a carbon tax?
I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. He is a former Australian No. 1 tennis player and now a champion on behalf of the Australian-Chinese community in Bennelong and a champion on behalf of his entire community, with around 80,000 taxpayers in Bennelong getting the benefit of the tax cuts that recently passed this parliament.
Cutting taxes and cutting red tape is core business for the coalition. That is why we have reduced tax rates for small and medium-sized businesses to 25 per cent. That is why we have passed the most significant income tax cuts in more than two decades, which will see 94 per cent of taxpayers pay a marginal rate of no more than 30c in the dollar. That is why we have cut more than $5 billion worth of red tape. It is simply not on that back in the 1960s Sir Arvi Parbo could take a nickel mine from discovery to operation in just 18 months but today an iron ore mine in Western Australia could take 10 years to get the 4,000 approvals that are necessary. That is why our deregulation task force is focusing on major infrastructure projects and getting them approved more quickly; on food manufacturers, particularly those with a focus on export, and getting their red tape cut; as well as on sole traders who are running microbusinesses, and ensuring that their regulation burden is reduced.
I'm asked whether there are any alternative approaches. We know that on the other side of the House they have $387 billion of higher taxes, which Chairman Swan thinks are good and should be kept and will make you want to work a bit harder. That's pretty funny: higher taxes will make you want to work a bit harder! Those retiree, housing, family business, superannuation and income tax hikes that the Labor Party was promising are not enough. Now we know that the member for Hunter wants a carbon tax. No doubt he will be supported by the member for Rankin, because the member for Rankin wrote a book called Glory Daze, where he said that the carbon tax that Labor introduced was easily as significant as any of the Hawke and Keating economic reforms. That's right, the member for Rankin thinks that a carbon tax is more important than floating the dollar, reducing tariffs or privatising industry.
The reality is that the Labor Party, as Paul Keating has said, has lost the ability to speak to the aspirations of Australians and to fashion policies to meet those aspirations. Only the coalition can be trusted to reduce taxes and create more jobs. (Time expired)
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer him to the answer he gave yesterday with respect to the terrible drought impacting upon our farmers and rural communities. In six years, the government has appointed a drought coordinator, a drought task force and the member for New England as the drought envoy. Deputy Prime Minister, why hasn't the government ever made any of these reports available to the parliament?
Reports are one thing. Actually getting on the ground and doing the real work that regional Australia wants, expects and deserves is another thing. We have been very responsible as a government to help our regional communities through this drought. It has been a terrible drought.
Yesterday, I spoke at the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal. It is doing a fabulous job with $15 million of Commonwealth money. It was established in 2000 in a bipartisan way with Bill Kelty, the former ACTU leader, and Ian Sinclair, making sure there was bipartisanship. Now a former Labor leader, Simon Crean, has come on board with John Sharp. They are both good men. I have had very strong associations with both. After Simon Crean's departure from this place he has continued his interest in regional Australia. We are making sure that drought affected communities know that we have their back. Certainly, we have provided the sort of assistance that they need. We need to do more, of course. We must and we will do more. The Prime Minister has already flagged that. We will certainly do more. What we have done as well is put a dedicated minister at the cabinet table specifically to ensure that drought is front and centre in all of our policies and in all our discussions at the highest level, and I commend the member for Maranoa for his work.
The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
On relevance, the question went to the reports from the drought task force, the drought coordinator and the drought envoy. It's not unreasonable to expect the parliament to have received them, given there was public expenditure on their creation.
Just before I call the Deputy Prime Minister, I take the point of order from the Leader of the Opposition. He mightn't have heard it at the start but there was a brief—albeit very brief—reference to reports in the first sentence of the Deputy Prime Minister's answer. Moreover, whilst the question did canvas all those things, it did refer to his answer yesterday. That's why I've been giving him a little bit more latitude. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
They have reported to government, and government has acted according to their advice, and that has been important. I also commend the member for New England for his role as the drought envoy. We cannot make it rain. If we could, we would have. These are desperate times for farmers throughout Queensland and New South Wales. Indeed, in the member for Parkes's electorate, they have destocked. There are farming communities on their knees. He is working hard, as we all are, and I appreciate—
An opposition member interjecting—
There you go, yelling out again! I appreciate that parts of your electorate are not affected by this drought as much as ours are, but we are working very, very hard, whether it's in Victoria or South Australia. That's why we've provided $1 million to 110 councils throughout the drought affected community to keep generating employment in their towns and to keep money in their towns. As I said, we can, we must and we will do more to help those drought affected communities. I know that the farm household assistance that the member for Maranoa has tweaked in his role as the minister has provided valuable assistance for farming families. Getting rural financial counsellors around the table to talk farming families through this will make sure that they know they are supported. (Time expired)
The member for Hunter is seeking to table a document?
Mr Speaker, I ask that the Deputy Prime Minister table the reports he referred to.
No, the member for Hunter can't do that. He can only ask him to table any notes he was using.
My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney update the House on how the Morrison government is providing stability and certainty to members of registered organisations, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for his question. The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019, presently before the parliament, simply establishes that there need to be reasonable standards for people to hold public office in employer and employee organisations and that there must be reasonable standards to maintain registration. Why is that necessary? As I noted yesterday, it's not just about the actions of John Setka. Sure, he has broken a host of industrial laws: coercion, contempt, threatening officials, not to mention his well-publicised criminal convictions. But, as noted yesterday, John Setka is only responsible for 22 of the 2,160 separate incidents and $16.4 million in fines. The rest of it—99 per cent—is the responsibility of other members of the CFMMEU. Right now there are 68 representatives of that union before the courts facing 650 charges of breaking the law. But that figure doesn't go to the individual toll that that offending takes. This affects real working Australians.
I want to share one example with the House today. It is just one of the 2,000-plus examples. This occurred at the Grand Central shopping centre in Toowoomba. There was a $55,000 fine—very close to the maximum levied by the court. It was with respect to Mr Peter D'Arcy, a member of the CFMMEU. The court described him as engaging in coercion and dishonesty. He falsely told workers at that site that they had to join the union before they could work at the Grand Central shopping centre site.
The court documents record the actual conversation that occurred on 27 March on the site of the Grand Central shopping centre. D'Arcy lied to the workers and told them that they must join the union to work there. One of the workers spoke up and said, 'What if I don't join the union?' D'Arcy then said: 'You can't work here. You'll have to go and work somewhere else.' Another worker spoke up and said, 'Isn't that illegal?' D'Arcy said, 'If you want to work here then you have to be a part of the union.' Another worker, a landscaper, who was there for a couple of days to do a small part of the job—this landscaper was just trying to do his job—said, 'I'm only here for a couple of days, so I'm basically coming here to work for nothing.' And D'Arcy said, 'That's just the way it is.' That is the response of the union official to the landscaper working there.
The court said that the CFMMEU showed indifference to the plight of the workers and said:
… the worker would effectively be working to pay the union its dues rather than working for his own monetary gain. After paying the union fee, the worker would have had nothing to show for his having provided his labour.
He would have worked there for a couple of days and, based on a lie, paid all his money to the union. Why would you support that sort of behaviour? Because the money ends up in the coffers of the Labor Party. (Time expired)
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management. On Tuesday the minister was asked by David Speers, 'Just to be clear on this: you're not sure whether man-made climate change is real?' The minister responded, 'No, I'm not.' The Washington Post now leads with the headline 'Australia's natural disaster minister doubts man-made climate change is real'. Does the minister still doubt the science?
Let me make this clear: I accept the science—
Honourable members interjecting—
Minister, just pause for a second. Can people just stop interjecting. Thanks.
I thank the member for her question. Let me make it clear: I accept the science on the man-made impact on climate change—always have. The interview that was taking place was interrupted by a division and I wasn't able to finish my response. Let me make it clear: I have a track record with respect to climate change. There is the $5 billion Future Drought Fund with a $100 million dividend that will be paid. Part of that $100 million dividend is a response around climate adaptation for our farmers, equipping our farmers with the tools to adapt to a changing climate. That is my record. My record in the budget last year was to get a stewardship fund—a $34 million project that will see our farmers rewarded for the stewardship of their land, protecting their environment. This is a debate about protecting our environment and having cleaner air. I'm proud to say that I've led it and I believe in it.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister please inform the House why the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to ensuring lower energy prices is critical for Australian industry, particularly our manufacturing industry? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches, including a carbon tax?
I thank the member for his question. I congratulate him on the great work that he's doing in his electorate to engage with his community, especially with small and medium enterprises. We know that they are the backbone of the Australian economy. When I meet with Australian businesses the single biggest issue that they raise with me is their input costs, and energy costs are a significant part of the input costs for our businesses. Yesterday I held a manufacturing forum where there were a number of representatives of industry and a number of leaders of industry. This morning I met with CEOs who are members of the Australian Industry Group. When I speak with leaders many talk about the most significant issue for Australian businesses and Australian industry, Australian manufacturing in particular, being their input costs, and energy is a significant cost for them. This is particularly important for our small and medium enterprises, because many of those operate on very thin margins. So the cost of energy is a significant issue for them.
On this side of the House we are very focused on making sure that we keep energy costs as low as we possibly can. That is in direct contrast to those opposite, who took a range of very high-taxing policies to the election. I should point out that the election policies of those opposite were rejected by the Australian people. The Australian people were acutely aware that the policies of the coalition government were the policies that were going to keep their costs down, particularly their energy costs. We are working hard to make sure that they stay down. That's entirely different to what is happening on the other side of the House. They clearly have no energy policies. They are in disarray. They have not yet come to terms with the fact that they did not win the election.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Mr Keogh interjecting—
The member for Shortland will leave under standing order 94(a). If the member for Burt wants to keep interjecting, he may as well just go now too. I will give him the choice.
The member for Shortland then left the chamber.
I can tell the members opposite that Australian industry is very relieved that it is not currently faced with Labor's 2030 climate target to cut emissions by 45 per cent, which would have sent its energy prices through the roof. But they are clearly in disarray at the moment, because they can't work out whether they are going to cling to the policies that have already been rejected by the Australian people or whether in fact they are going to escalate the damage that they were planning to inflict on Australian industry with another electricity tax. The Australian people are so pleased— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for . I refer to the minister's earlier answer and also to an article in The Guardian on how the minister responded to written questions about whether or not there was a link between human activity and climate change. He responded that he was 'not convinced about that'. Does he still hold that view?
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left! I will call the minister when people stop interjecting and the member for McMahon stops entertaining himself. He just seemed to be talking to himself, that's all! I see a lot of interjections, but normally they are directed at someone.
I thank the honourable member for his question. My response was that I'm not a scientist but I accept the science. I accept that the scientists know more than me. I am just a poor humble bloke with a year 12 education. I'm prepared to accept what our scientists are telling us. It's as simple as that.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to reducing carbon emissions whilst also protecting jobs? Is it necessary to introduce a carbon tax to achieve our 2030 emissions reduction target? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for his question. As he knows, when we came to office we inherited a budget deficit. We also inherited an emissions deficit against our obligations of over 700 million tonnes. Because of the work of this government, we are now on track to reach our 2020 Kyoto obligations and overachieve those obligations by 367 million tonnes. That is a 1.1 billion tonne turnaround. So not only have we turned around the budget deficit; we have also turned around the emissions reduction deficit. We are looking forward to reaching our 2030 target with the Climate Solutions Package—$3½ billion worth—which lays out to the last tonne how we are going to reach our 2030 obligations, and we are able to do that whilst supporting a strong economy and growing jobs.
We have delivered clear policy with clear results—indeed, a policy that's backed by the WA Labor government, the state that the member for Moore is from. And I quote from the state Labor Minister, who said, 'We respect the fact that the current government won the election and has a mandate to follow its policies through.' But the honourable member, the member for Moore, asked about alternative approaches, and I'm aware of a few. We have the member for Hindmarsh, who says that Labor needs a deeply uncomfortable review of its policy platform, including energy and climate. He says, 'This must be ruthless and unsparing.' He's also said that nothing should be excluded or treated as sacrosanct. That shouldn't be surprising to any of us, because 50 times during the election campaign they were not able to answer questions about the details or the impacts of their carbon policies. We know that independent modelling tells us that those policies would have slashed wages and slashed jobs.
We then have the member for Hunter, who came into this place yesterday and said, 'Do we have to talk about the carbon price again?' 'Of course we do', he says. Of course we do. The member for Hunter says we should talk about the elephant in the room. Well, let's talk about it. This is the carbon tax that Julia Gillard told us we couldn't have—we wouldn't have. This is the carbon tax that cost jobs and investment and that raised the cost of living, and we know that when it was removed it reduced the cost of electricity. This is the carbon tax that the Australian people turfed out in 2013. They've thrown their entire policy platform up in the air for review, but one classic is back! (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister specifically referred to the media statement released by the member for Chisholm. Is the report by journalist Sam Maiden correct that the Prime Minister's office prepared that statement? What steps did the Prime Minister or his office take to verify the information contained in the statement?
I have the statement. I'm happy to table the statement for the benefit of the House, as I indicated I would do earlier today when I addressed the press. This is a statement made by the member for Chisholm.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's stable and certain domestic measures and global leadership are helping to preserve and protect our oceans?
Can I thank the member for Wentworth for his question. We in rural Australia know that 85 per cent of Australians live 50 kilometres or closer to the coast. We all love our coasts, and the member for Wentworth represents some iconic parts of Australia's waterways and oceans. The government can be proud—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
I want to reflect on—
The minister will pause for a second.
Opposition members interjecting—
The minister has the call.
I'd like to reflect on the deep connection Australians have with beaches and waterways. They care about their protection and their preservation, and they can be proud of the action our government is taking, both locally and globally.
If we start on marine parks, marine parks cover 3.3 million square kilometres of our Commonwealth waters. That's 36 per cent, in which we have fishing, both recreational and commercial; tourism; and conservation operating together—mapped, managed and working for the benefit of all Australians and, indeed, internationally. Australians can be confident in the stability and certainty of our management of the oceans. If we look at the Environment Restoration Fund, there are projects that engage our volunteers, such as those in the member for Wentworth's electorate, and there were a couple of projects in Corangamite, the old electorate of the new senator Sarah Henderson—and we look forward to Senator Henderson taking her place in the other place and representing not just the Victorian coast but indeed all Victorians. Oceans cover 72 per cent of the surface of the world, and that's why our international leadership is absolutely vital.
Last night in the Federation Chamber the member for Griffith had the opportunity to ask of me some genuine questions about the environment portfolio. We heard no questions. We just heard one long whinge that gave us the sense that it was all too hard, that the national and international challenges are all too overwhelming. I want to say that we are not sitting on our hands saying, 'It's all too hard.' We know there are national challenges. We know that they exist, and we're stepping up to meet them. We're not overwhelmed by them, as was suggested by the member for Griffith. I point to the foreign minister's scientific hub in Perth, bringing experts from across the Indian Ocean rim to deal with the health of our ocean carbon ecosystems, including mangroves and seagrasses, and the work we're doing with our Pacific island neighbours to help clean up Pacific Ocean litter. Australians can indeed be confident in our strong, stable international leadership on the oceans, which protect and preserve 80 per cent of life on earth.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the story 'Intel figures' Liu warning' on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph. Did the Prime Minister receive any advice about the current member for Chisholm from government agencies before or since the 18 May election?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: with respect to standing orders 98 and 100 and page 555 of the Practice
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Spence won't interject. I'm just trying to listen to the point of order. The Leader of the House could just start again.
At page 555 of Practice, it notes, with respect to those standing orders, that 'the purpose of questions is to enable members to obtain factual information'. The shadow Attorney-General knows all too well—few would know better than the shadow Attorney-General—that asking any minister or the Prime Minister to confirm or deny or go into any detail whatsoever with respect to any briefing or operation of ASIO is simply something that cannot be done. I know that he knows this because in 2013, when he was Attorney-General and was asked to give an answer about ASIO, he said:
I'm not going to comment on operational matters involving the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or any security matters.
He also refused to confirm or deny a report, citing a longstanding government policy of declining to comment on security matters. Five times yesterday the shadow Attorney-General asked a question that was ruled out of order—in fact, I would argue, knowing that it would be ruled out of order. He's doing that again, because this is not a genuine question asking for factual information. He knows that no answer can be given to that. He is out of order. He is getting very close—I would put to you, Mr Speaker—
I'm just going to caution the Leader of the House. I will make the rulings on the questions. It might be better if you stopped there. The Manager of Opposition Business?
To the point of order, two things: first of all, while I obviously don't have the Hansard from 2013 in front of me, my understanding of what the Leader of the House just advised was that it was the way that the then Attorney-General responded to a question that was ruled in order. That was simply his response. The second thing is that this question refers simply to 'government agencies', of which there are many.
Having listened to both of you, I'm going to make two points. Certainly the Leader of the House was correct that there were a number of questions ruled out of order yesterday. I don't mind making the point again—I think I made it not so subtly—that that was either a case of, I'll put it bluntly, consistent failure to understand the standing orders or the Practice or a deliberate act, and I felt it was the latter. I have listened to the Attorney-General. I understand the concern he has, but he won't find in Practice or the standing orders that difficult questions like this can't be asked. He quoted the page of Practice that talked about the purpose of question time is to receive factual information, and that question is in order. How it is answered, of course, is a matter for the Prime Minister. And I'm going to rule the question in order.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for your ruling on the matter, because your ruling on the matter makes clear—just as the member did yesterday in coming to this dispatch box—that, on this occasion, that member has come to the dispatch box again, particularly given what the Attorney-General has set out, with the very clear knowledge that he would know—as I would know, having sat around the National Security Committee of Cabinet table for five of the last six years—that on no occasion would any responsible minister and in particular a prime minister go into any operational matters regarding ASIO or any of these intelligence agencies. So what is the intent of the question?
Opposition members interjecting—
The Prime Minister can pause. I've made myself clear when there are these questions that are the subject of rulings. I'm not going to deal with interjections. The member for Eden-Monaro will leave immediately under 94(a).
The member for Eden-Monaro then left the chamber.
Mr Speaker, what is the intent of this question? The intent is to infer against a member of this House a disloyalty to this country and that that member has, in some way, been the subject of some investigation. And the member who raised this question knows that by simply coming up here and seeking to smear a member, knowing that the Prime Minister is not in a position to make comment on these matters, that he hopes the mud sticks. What this member is doing here is seeking to smear a member, and I refer to the member for Chisholm. The member for Chisholm, has probably done more than anyone else in this place—like many I would say—to overcome barriers in her life, to overcome discrimination, to overcome domestic violence, to overcome disability, and there are members on the other side of the House who I applaud for doing exactly the same thing.
The member for Isaacs should take a good, hard look at himself and he should have a good, hard look at the 1.2 million Australians who will see exactly what he is doing to Australians of Chinese descent. Just because someone was born in China doesn't make them disloyal. What the member for Isaacs is doing is casting a smear on Chinese-Australians. But this is not unknown in the Labor Party, because we remember Michael Daley, the former Labor leader before the last state election, on whom most of those opposite remained silent. He said, 'Asian migrants taking our jobs.' That is what the Labor Party reeks of. I applaud the member for Chisholm. She's a great Australian, who deserves to be in this House. I can't say the same for the member for Isaacs.
My question is to the Minister for Health: Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's stable and certain investment in cancer treatment and research is helping improve cancer survival rates?
I want to thank the member for Ryan for his work and his passion in this area. I recently had the privilege of releasing with him in his electorate the latest round of the National Health and Medical Research Council grants, in which cancer featured as a major recipient. Every person in this chamber, whether as a member or as an individual, has been touched by cancer. We know that it's something which will affect in the order of 145,000 Australians with a diagnosis this year. Indeed, only during question time, I received a text from somebody very close to me about their diagnosis just today. We know that 50,000 people will lose that journey this year.
One of the things, though, that is of most importance in Australia is that we have one of the finest systems in the world for helping to treat, care for and manage cancer.
Two recent analyses in particular have identified this. The Economist Intelligence Unit recently, in their Index of Cancer Preparedness, ranked Australia No. 1 in the world across all of the 28 countries they analyse—those countries with advanced systems of treatment. Perhaps much more importantly than that, though, overnight we have seen in the journal The Lancet Oncology a new study from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership analysing the survival rates of seven different types of cancer: oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, pancreatic, lung and ovarian. In terms of one-year survival rates, I am pleased to inform the House that Australia was ranked No. 1 in the world for all seven of those cancers. For five-year survival rates we were ranked No. 1 for five of those cancers and No. 2 for lung and ovarian cancer.
That is a tribute to the work of our clinicians, our researchers, our hospital systems and people across different sides of this chamber over many years. In particular, it is the combination of a world-leading screening program; research, which includes $100 million for cancer that was announced in the recent NHMRC grants; and then, of course, our treatment under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. To give just one example: we recently listed Avastin for glioblastoma. Avastin is a medicine which will make a dramatic difference for many patients. It would otherwise have cost $31,000, and it will help about 890 patients. I met one of those patients, Hugh, at Cabrini hospital when this medicine was being listed. His life has been transformed by access to this medicine. So the system we have in Australia is, we believe, the best in the world. It's now backed up by the numbers, which show that we are saving lives and protecting lives.
My question is to the Prime Minister: When will the Prime Minister introduce legislation into the parliament to establish the biosecurity import levy that he promised in the 2018-19 budget? Why has he already banked the $300 million in revenue to prop up his budget bottom line?
I thank the member for his question. The matter that the member is referring to is still a matter that the government is consulting on and preparing for legislation, and that's a matter that's under consideration right now. I'm asked, though, about banking revenue by a member of the Labor Party. I remember that the member for Hunter was a member of the government that introduced the mining tax—the mining tax that didn't raise any revenue at all. But guess what they did with all the revenue that never came in the door? They spent it all.
Even when they tax a lot and spend a lot, they can never get it right. And that is why the Labor Party when they were in government sent our budget into fiscal ruin. But this year—2019-20—the Treasurer brought down a budget in April which puts our budget in surplus for the first time in 12 years. And I'll tell you why: it is because we know how to manage money. We know how to manage our spending and we know how to manage our revenue. And we know how to ensure that Australians keep more of what they earn while we can keep a budget strong that can invest in the essential services Australians can rely on. So we can invest in record levels of hospital funding. We can invest in record levels of education and schools funding. We can invest in important mental health programs. We can fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme and we can ensure that all the PBS medicines recommended can be listed. We know what happened under Labor: when they ran out of money, they couldn't list those medicines.
I'm honestly not going to take seriously a question from a Labor Party member who used to be a member of a government that came to this despatch box and announced the four surpluses that never happened. That's why the Australian people will never trust the Labor Party with money. You can't trust Labor with money, because, when they run out of their own, they always come after yours.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to the economy enables making life-changing medicines available on the PBS that, without subsidy, would be unaffordable?
I want to thank the member for Robertson. I recently had the privilege of visiting Gosford Hospital with her. One of the things that we did was to meet with Alan. I mentioned the medicine Avastin just before. Alan is a patient with a glioblastoma who's been benefiting from Avastin. The latest advice I have is that he has transitioned to being on the PBS for that medicine. As he said to us at the time, it has changed his life and extended his life. He's still on a difficult journey, and we know that.
There are many medicines that we've been able to list recently. We will continue to list all of the medicines that the PBAC recommends. In particular, just a few days ago we listed botox, but we listed it for a particular condition: spasticity—so, for adults with lower-limb and facial spasticity who have suffered from a stroke. This is a medicine that is giving them the use of their limbs, which is giving them real hope. It's for over 2,800 patients, who will save over $5,400 a year. It's an immensely important thing that we're able to list botox.
It's also important, because you asked about the importance of being able to do this with certainty, to note that there was a time when botox, for another condition, was not listed. That botox, in 2011, was one of seven medicines that had been recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, and for which agreement had been reached with the sponsors on a price, and which was then deferred. It was deferred in the 2011 budget due to fiscal circumstances. If I recall the words of the budget papers at the time: 'Due to fiscal circumstances, the government will defer the listing of some new medicines until fiscal circumstances permit.' That included medicines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, medicines for asthma, medicines for endometriosis, medicines for IVF and medicines for schizophrenia. These were medicines that the government of the day deferred, because they ran out of money.
We will continue to list those things that the PBAC recommends, as we have already done with 2,100 medicines. To give you another example, on 1 September we also listed Buvidal. Why is Buvidal important? It is because it is a medicine for helping people with opioid addiction. We know that in the last full year for which we have figures over 1,100 people lost their lives to some form of opioid addiction. This medicine will be made available for free, under a special provision. Up to 110,000 people will benefit. (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. And on Saturday night, go Sharks!
Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. It refers to pages 754 and 755 of Practice, which is the section about deliberately misleading the House. What I wanted to clarify with you is that if a member makes a statement that is a deliberate mislead, then there would potentially be an action before the Privileges Committee. If a member tables their own statement, and it was a deliberate mislead, it could potentially create an action before the Privileges Committee. But if their statement is tabled by someone else, then there would be no forms of the House available?
Certainly in the case of the latter, that's right. But even in the case of the former, if a member is tabling a statement that's made outside the House, that really is just a record of a statement. If they sought to have it incorporated in Hansard, that might be a different matter, but things are tabled all the time. So, I wouldn't see how it would apply in either case—I really wouldn't.
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 Maribyrnong proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's proposal to expand its Online Compliance Intervention (Robodebt) scheme to target vulnerable Australians.
I call upon all 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—
There's a young man sitting in the Speaker's gallery who's attended question time for the last few days. I see him sitting up there right now. He's in the second row, in the blue jacket. His name's Tim Cahalan. He's from Adelaide. He's a Crows supporter. He's interested in politics. Tim was born with Crouzon syndrome. At the age of three, Tim was diagnosed with hydrocephalus. At 22, he developed epilepsy. He lives at home with his fantastic parents. He went to primary school and secondary school despite the impairment. He was unemployed for a little bit after that, and then he worked for seven years at Bedford, a great disability enterprise in Adelaide. He then did something that doesn't often happen for people in supported employment—he managed to break through into open employment. He took up a traineeship with the South Australian state government. He's worked in the offices of the department for corrections and now the department of community services and social inclusion. He's 31.
Tim also receives disability payments. But in August last year he was hit with a Centrelink claim—just a letter—saying that he owed the government of Australia $3,000. There was no explanation about how this number was arrived at, just that he owed it. His mum, Penny, helped him. Tim got his paperwork together, went to the bank and looked at the work payments and the government payments. He went down to Centrelink at Marion, and the good staff there told him he actually owed nothing. It was a stressful time for Tim but the comments from the people at Centrelink reassured him, and he had gone through great personal effort to prove that the government's allegation that he had to pay them money was wrong. In fact, his mother rang Centrelink and they said 'no debt'. So that was a bit of a burden off him, even though it was an unfair process to have to go through.
But in June 2019, Tim, who's sitting up there—interested in the nature of government and politics—got a new letter saying, 'You still owe us $3,000.' Tim has made it clear that he would have just paid the amount of money that the government asserted he owed if his parents hadn't helped him. He's a young man for whom the dice of life haven't always landed the right way up, but he's made every post a winner. He's made the best of his situation. This is how the Morrison government thanks him.
Tim's debt is not an isolated instance. He is a victim, along with hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens, of what the government, in its Orwellian language, calls the online compliance intervention and what Australians call robo-debt. The robo-debt scheme shows that the government is using crude digital accounting techniques to match annual ATO data against Human Services data of fortnightly payments. It's a system that regularly generates inaccurate comments. Labor has no objection to claiming back money incorrectly paid to people—like Clive Palmer—but what we see here is that this isn't what's happening. You get a letter from the government, and it has an amount of money that it says you owe. That's it. There's no explanation. Labor moved this matter of public importance because we think that this government is engaging in an abuse of executive power to single out citizens—to assert a debt with no evidence and then reverse the onus of proof. Today we say not only should this program not be extended to new cohorts of Australian citizens; it should go back to the drawing board.
We've heard the horror stories. MPs' offices right across the spectrum hear it from the hounded grandparents, the stressed-out students and the grieving parents chased for the alleged debts of their deceased children. We've heard from mourning parents—bereaved parents who say that their children took their own life after receiving these debts. We know the scheme is unreliable. No less a figure than the artful member for Fadden confirmed in a question, 'Yes, 20 per cent of the claims were totally wrong.' One hundred and sixty thousand people. But that answer didn't even include the people who might have had their amounts revised down. Indeed, what this government says is that a good scheme is one where a person just pays up even if they shouldn't have paid up. This is a malfunctioning robo-debt scheme. We all know people can make mistakes—what do you use $40,000 on the internet for? It's a mistake! I get that mistakes happen, but what you do is go back and don't assume that this is the natural order of things.
We say today that robo-debt is both unlawful and unethical in the way that it seeks to recover debts from people, by requiring supposed debtors to disprove a data-matched debt. It should be Centrelink who makes the case. Leaving aside all the humour of having the member for Fadden as the minister, there's a serious issue here. How is it the case that in 2019 individual Australians can receive a letter of demand from the government and, immediately upon receipt of the letter of demand, it is the recipient of the letter, the Australian citizen, who then has to argue with the might of the Australian government to say the debt is not correct?
We put very clearly here today that the onus of proof for these debts lies with the government, that the sheer process of an algorithm data-matching annual ATO data with fortnightly payments paid by the Department of Human Services does not discharge the obligation of the government to a satisfactory level. It is not enough to rely on a robotic letter of demand, with no proof and no supporting material, and simply reverse the onus of proof on Australian citizens. It is not the job of the government of Australia to oppress individual citizens. That is not the role of the state. The onus rests with the government.
When there is a serious allegation saying that you owe the government money, I would put that the burden is even greater than just the data-matching process, because consequences flow from saying to a citizen that they owe the government money. You get the private debt collectors onto you. If you have a finding of debt, you can't get finance. If you're a law student with a debt finding, you can't be admitted as a lawyer. There are consequences from the government's assertion that the individual owes a debt with no supporting evidence. There are consequences of that which make it more grave and more severe. And because of the severity of the consequences of a finding of debt it increases the obligation upon the government to prove the system. There is no lawful basis for the government to just assert debt on the part of citizens with a cursory algorithm and data matching and then say it's up to the citizen. But this is not just a question of whether or not it is lawful; it is also immoral. Robo-debt causes hardship. It causes stress. This flawed, inaccurate data, where people are required to pay a debt when it is not clear how the debt is constituted, leaves individuals stranded. The process for appealing these debts is inadequate.
In closing, not only is the system unlawful, not only is it immoral, along with the consequences and the stresses it has, but we are seeing a calculated strategy of cover-up by the government. Two hundred cases have gone to the first tier of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and when the government knows it has a problem, rather than argue the lawful nature of what it's done, it just settles. What it means is that, if you fight the government, you will get a non-transparent settlement which no-one else gets to hear about, and the law is never tested.
This government cooked up robo-debt before a budget to pump up flagging budget numbers and then it has tried to retrofit the design of the system, exceeding its powers as a government of Australia, oppressing hundreds of thousands of its citizens unfairly and, whenever there is a test of the legality of the system, it folds and runs.
The member will resume his seat. I call the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services.
I firstly say that this government will not be lectured by the Labor Party on collecting debts owed to the Commonwealth—not today and not any day. So let's go through the history of debt collection for the Commonwealth, starting in 2007. Back then, of course, it wasn't called 'income compliance' or 'earned income compliance'. That was the name that changed in 2015-16. Back then it was called 'pay-as-you-go debts'. In 2007-08, when Labor came in, there were 9,000 reviews. Labor quickly took it to 31,600 reviews, raising debts that exceeded, in total debt payments, over a billion dollars, and so they continued.
On 13 July 2010, the member for McMahon put out a media release to say the following: 'In the 2008-09 financial year, Centrelink conducted 3.8 million payment reviews, resulting in the reduction of 641,000 payments and the cancellation of 110,000 payments.' It states that payments reviewed during that year—2010—by the Labor Party minister, the member for McMahon, were: age pension, 898,000 reviews. Do those opposite want to know how many reviews of the disability support pension were done in one year by the member for McMahon and the government that they belonged to? It was 500,089. There were 500,000 reviews in one year of disability support pensioners when those opposite were in government in 2008-09. But those opposite have the temerity, the hide, the audacity to walk in and lecture this government on a process they were intimately involved in.
Let's move forward to how data-matching began. When did the Commonwealth start to move from a manual process—that manual process being pay-as-you-go—to a data-matched process? I can tell you the exact date: 29 June 2011. Let's go to the media release where the nation was told of this. It reads:
A new data matching initiative between Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office is expected to claw back millions of dollars from welfare recipients who have debts with the Australian Government.
Minister for Human Services Tanya Plibersek and Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten today said the new initiative will enhance Centrelink’s debt recovery ability and is expected to recover more than $71 million …
Beginning on July 1 this year, Centrelink and the ATO will automatically match data on a daily basis as a way of cross-checking former welfare recipients who have a debt with the Commonwealth.
And on and on and on it goes. I table that for the benefit of the House. The godparents of earned income compliance—what pejoratively those opposite called robo-debt—were the member for Sydney and the member for Maribyrnong. They began it, they started it, they put out the press release on it and they continued to collect on it. The member for Sydney, who had replaced the member for McMahon as the human services minister, continued the same spate of welfare reviews.
If that isn't enough, we can move forward to the sheer change of positions that happens time and time again. On 9 May 2019 at Redcliffe Hospital the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, did a wonderful doorstop. A journalist asked him:
On Robodebt, social advocates have talked about the legalities of this program and groups like ACOSS have asked Labor to more solidly outline what you would do on that. What's your view on the legality of Robodebt?
That was on 9 May. There was an election a little while afterwards, so you'd expect the Leader of the Opposition to be truthful. I'll quote:
We want to make sure that people aren't receiving welfare to which they're not entitled to. And no one gets a leave pass on that.
There it is. That was the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong. They then produced Labor's fair go budget plan. Let's have a look at it. Let's see where it says that Labor is not doing income compliance. No, I can't see it anywhere. It's not in there.
Let's move on. It is 4 August. The election has finished. There's a new Leader of the Opposition, the member for Grayndler. He is asked by Annabel Crabb:
This week, Bill Shorten called to abolish Robodebt. Was that … Labor Party policy …
Why did Annabel Crabb ask that? She asked that because on 28 July the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, who had said everyone needs to pay their debt, said, 'This is why we in Labor say, "Scrap robo-debt."' On 29 July the member for Maribyrnong said, 'The government's robo-debt scheme must be scrapped.' My goodness! But he'd said two months earlier: 'We want to make sure people aren't receiving welfare to which they're not entitled. And no-one gets a leave pass.' So Annabel Crabb asked the Leader of the Opposition on 4 August on Insiders:
This week, Bill Shorten called to abolish Robodebt. Was that a Labor Party policy passed through Shadow Cabinet?
The Leader of the Opposition said:
We've expressed concern about the Robodebt issue over a long period of time.
Yap, yap, yap. The bottom line is that the member for Maribyrnong is making up Labor Party policy and announcing it on Twitter. It's almost as if the opposition shadow cabinet is run through Twitter. On 2 September the member for Maribyrnong said, 'Robo-debt torment might be state-sanctioned extortion,' and then, of course, today he said, 'Robo-debt is unlawful'. How many positions can one person possibly have? When the member for Maribyrnong is running for election, no, he's all tough and hard, isn't he? Everyone needs to pay what they need to pay and no-one gets a leave pass. He loses the election and suddenly, straightaway, it's: 'Oh, no, we can't possibly have that.' The Ombudsman reviewed the government's automated debt-raising recovery system. I'll table it for the benefit of members. It shows that what the government is doing is appropriate, is well targeted and is achieving the results that it is supposed to achieve.
Let's be clear. The Australian culture is built on a shared commitment to help those who need a hand. Whether someone has been knocked down by drought, flooding rain or just bad luck, we have long understood, and we accept this, that we have a moral obligation to support the most vulnerable. All of us accept that. That's why successive governments have developed a welfare scheme that gives a helping hand to the right people at the right time with the right amount of money. The federal government, endorsed by this parliament, spends $184 billion in welfare related payments each year. That is about a third of total government outlays. We are also able to support this expenditure because of one thing and one thing only, and that's strong economic management. A strong welfare system is underpinned by a strong economy.
We recognise that the welfare budget is not a magic pudding, and our capability to help people who need it the most relies on a prudent and responsible system featuring checks and balances. Australians expect the government to maintain the integrity of a highly targeted welfare system. In 2018-19 the average Australian earned $83,454 and paid $19,259 in tax. That means the average Australian makes a contribution of $7,610, or about nine per cent of their earnings, to our welfare scheme.
This government will not lose sight of the fact that Australians contribute more than a month of their working year to support the welfare system. We know right now 900,000 Australians have social welfare debts totalling almost $5 billion. Labor went to the last election with no word about ceasing any of that. All of those opposite went to the last election promising to recover $5 billion from 900,000 Australians. Those opposite can kid themselves that they didn't, but that is what your documents quite clearly show.
The bottom line is: we need to ensure the right people get the right amount of money at the right time, and the only way to ensure that that occurs is to make sure that people are not getting money they are not entitled to, that they have not earnt, following on from what Labor did in 2011 with the data matching. This government will not apologise for it. We will not apologise for ensuring that the right people get the right amount of money at the right time. We have a lawful obligation to do that, and we will continue to do that sensitively, compassionately and appropriately.
Well, how about we think about being sensible, being compassionate and actually treating people like people? Earlier this week on World Suicide Prevention Day research highlighted the underlying influences or triggers for suicide. Suicide Prevention Australia, the national peak body, released its Turning Points report, and that report reinforces that people don't need to have a chronic mental illness to be suicidal. They specifically state:
… we know that long periods of increased financial pressure such as unemployment can result in decreased self-esteem and anxiety about the future, and have severe consequences for suicidal behaviour.
They go on to say:
This is reflected by the finding that unemployed males are 4.6 times more likely to suicide than employed males.
Why would I speak of this today? Only a few weeks ago a constituent was in touch with my office, letting us know of the near suicide of a person to whom the idea of a Centrelink debt was simply an overwhelming trigger. When you subsist on Centrelink payments, especially when it's unemployment benefits, your economic situation is bleak and unrelenting.
Now, that person, thank goodness, received support, but we can't be blind to the real human effects of the brutality of the government's approach to real or fake Centrelink debts. I cannot fathom that this minister and those opposite are blind to it, but they clearly are. My office receives calls and emails—in some weeks we get one or two a day—about robo-debt. I can't imagine that those opposite are not receiving the same phone calls, or perhaps their constituents know there's no point in even going to their offices for help.
One of the really common themes is that we get told the original debt was reduced either through our efforts or the efforts of a constituent. One gentleman from Springwood advised me that he'd had notification of an alleged debt which was slashed following a few pertinent questions by him during a 20-minute phone call. You have to ask why when some people find they have to produce documents that might be five or seven years old and that others have an almost immediate alleviation of the debt. Of course the people who don't ask, who don't challenge, the quiet Australians, are the ones who are not going to get their debt wiped or reduced. This is a government that's put the onus on individuals to fight for their rights.
The reasonable expectation that government will empower its departments to protect the rights of individuals has been thrown out the window. This government's approach breaks down trust between individuals and government and it leaves only the noisy people, the people who still have fight left in them, to be treated fairly. The reality is that the department knows, and the government knows, that the robo-debt matching is crude. The approach that they use of smashing together tax office data and human services data appears to have absolutely no human oversight until after letters alleging the debt are received.
The minister's refused to reveal how many of the 640,000 debts collected were reduced from the original amount demanded. We just don't know that number. We do know that, on top of the reductions, 160,000 debts since July 2016 were simply found to be in error. That is the stated 20 per cent error rate plus the errors the minister won't reveal to us.
There are many cases in my electorate. One woman received a Centrelink debt. Her earnings had been incorrectly calculated, but this was only after someone looked at it. It took hours and hours of her time to have it rectified. There was no debt liable, but she lost days off work. Another woman was transitioning from Newstart to a disability pension. She was told as she went through that process that she had an $8,000 debt. That debt has also been cleared. So here are people who should not have gone through the stress that they did.
We also had a gentleman who provided proof of income to Centrelink. It was reviewed and in the end there was found to be nothing wrong, but he says to me: 'I worked for two different employers. I kept my receipts, but even then this was a stressful process.' He said: 'I'm not so worried for myself, but I didn't want a debt collector at my door. I really worry about what this will do to other people who don't have the wherewithal to fight.' Your constituents, the Australians who have these alleged debts, should not have—
The member will resume her seat. I call the Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services.
I rise today to speak on this matter with pleasure. Of course the former Leader of the Opposition would oppose this, wouldn't he? I mean, he has put forward failed attempts at good policies. They were most recently clearly rejected at the last election. There was some $387 billion in new taxes. I'm sure he didn't tell Tim and the rest of the gallery about all the new taxes that he was looking to impose on young working people and on other Australians. The taxes were clearly rejected. They included higher taxes on their housing and higher taxes on their superannuation. Tim and other people that are looking to buy their first home at the moment can put their money into the First home super saver scheme, saving $2,000 a year in tax. Of course, the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, wanted to take that away.
One thing that is clear is that the former Leader of the Opposition has not learned anything. We know that he used to go down to Victoria and say, 'We're against coal,' and then he'd go up into Queensland and say, 'I'm for coal.' In my own electorate on 9 May, with the candidate who ran against me, at Redcliffe Hospital the former opposition leader clearly spelt out:
… we want to make sure that people aren't receiving welfare to which they're not entitled to. And no one gets a leave pass on that.
But now, four months later, after losing the election, he comes in and here and raises this as though the government is treating people unfairly. It's hypocrisy. That's what it is.
Let me clarify this. The online compliance intervention scheme doesn't target vulnerable Australians. It seeks to ensure that people are doing the right thing and not taking more taxpayer funds than they are entitled to. The government is not considering any proposal to commence online compliance for sensitive and vulnerable Australians. There are no plans to pilot compliance reviews for sensitive and vulnerable Australians at all. Any customer experiencing hardship or distress or who is vulnerable can seek assistance from the department either online or by calling the dedicated compliance phone number. And you know what else? They can come and see the Department of Human Services. They can come and see their member of parliament as 15 people in my own electorate have done. They've come to my office. They've come to see me, and I've strived to work through that with them. There are 12 senators in each state; people can also see them as well. They can also appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if they're not happy with the decision. As we know, it is an independent government agency.
Now, there are many payments that this could take into account, whether it's Newstart, Austudy or youth allowance. Government payments are there for people in times of need and are there to offer a helping hand but they're not there for people who want to do the wrong thing, and some people fall into that category. I know that in my own electorate there are some cases where people have been fraudulent. That's a fact. That is an absolute fact, for those opposite, and that's what your former leader said at the press conference in my own electorate.
… no-one gets a leave pass on that.
But obviously there are some cases where people make an honest mistake. One gentleman in my own electorate forgot to put down his wife's earnings superannuation withdrawal on his form in relation to her own super, and we endeavoured to help him out.
The average Australian contributes more than a month of their working wage to support the welfare system. The Australian welfare system is one of the most generous in the world, with pensions for people who need it; the NDIS—a great system—helping people with a disability, including many people in my own electorate; Newstart for people who are looking to get back into the workforce; and disability payments for people. But Australians want to make sure that the taxes that they pay are well spent and that they're not being taken advantage of. If someone is caught out doing the wrong thing and they owe money, it needs to be repaid. It's that simple: it needs to be repaid. Taxpayer funds need to be accounted for and used properly. I know that people in my own electorate certainly support that.
I say to the Department of Human Services and the Department of Social Services, particularly to the people in the Centrelink offices in my electorate, at Deception Bay and Margate: thank you for the work that you do. You've got a tough job dealing with people every day. I ask that, if people are caught up in this and they get a letter, be patient and treat the people at Centrelink with respect. You can come to my office and talk to me. But, for those opposite, once again it's all about politics.
This government has created a truly evil machine in robo-debt. Robo-debt breaches, amongst many things, ethical requirements. As we said, it is unlawful and it is unethical, but it also breaches one of the three laws of robotics. One of Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics states: a robot must not injure a human being. This robo-debt is doing real damage to real humans. It's spitting out notices that, on average, demand debts of $2,184. Mathematicians, when they look at the number 2,184, would define it as an excessive number, where the sum of its divisors is greater than itself. It sums up the government's approach very well: this is an excessive regime. Coincidentally, that $2,184 is about the same as the cost of a certain minister's internet usage. I at least acknowledge that he did pay his 'Robert-debts'.
It is a heartless decision. It comes on top of so many other—
The assistant minister on a point of order?
The member opposite needs to refer to the minister by his correct title. There's nothing funny about it. I'd ask him to—
The member for Perth will address the chair and refer to people by their correct titles.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, this government has a bad history when it comes to vulnerable Australians: refusal to raise Newstart; refusal to fund the CapTel handset service that people who are hard of hearing in Australia rely on to communicate with their friends and family and to participate in the workforce; cuts of $700,000 for Vision Australia Radio; penalty rate cuts; and the list goes on.
We talk about the letters that are being spat out by the Department of Human Services. They are some of the most impolite letters I have ever seen. Mark Latham is more polite than these letters! They simply say, and I'll redact the name: 'Customer has a Centrelink debt. The amount outstanding is X.' It is incredibly rude. Imagine someone vulnerable, struggling to get by, receiving one of those letters just saying, 'You have a debt. You must repay it.' There's no explanation and no data to show how those calculations have been done by the department. I think we know why there's none of that data. It's because it's a bodgie system. The system is not working. By the minister's own admission, it spits out some 20 per cent of notices that are inaccurate and have to be withdrawn.
If we look at the explanation, all we hear from the government is: it's Labor's fault. That is the only explanation they can come up with. You've been in government for more than six years. I should say that technology has also advanced a little bit. You could actually look at this system and see if there is a smarter way of running your own department. When it comes to this government, it's 'no care, no responsibility' if you look at the cases that have happened, again, on this government's watch this year—not when Labor was in office.
I raise the case of Shirley from my electorate, who lives in Bayswater. Shirley received a debt notice from the Department of Human Services in August 2019. The Department of Human Services claimed that she was overpaid for the Newstart allowance. However, during the period that they claimed that she'd been overpaid she wasn't even receiving Newstart. Worse than that, for the period for which they said that she had a debt she was working for the federal government—a federal department.
But do you know what's worse? She then goes to the department that she was working for, saying, 'I need to prove to Centrelink that I was working during this time.' She has had no help from the department in providing her payslips. She can't prove that she was working for the government because they won't give her the payslips. She's submitted her tax return, but now the ATO, another government department, are refusing to give her her tax refund because they're saying she has this debt. It is a ridiculous system. It is not working. It is punishing some of the most vulnerable in our society, and it is this government's fault.
I'm very pleased that this matter of public importance has been raised by those opposite, principally because I think it marks the end of the mourning period for the member for Maribyrnong. He's now come out of that mourning period. To those opposite, can I tell you that he's going to run you off the cliff again? He did it twice with two Mediscares. Now he's got to try roboscare. You know why he's trying this on? Because your current leader, the Leader of the Opposition, is travelling so badly the member for Maribyrnong is starting to look good again. He's up. He is auditioning. But I've got some bad news for him, because I've seen the performance of the member for Corio this week. He has been on audition every day, coming to the dispatch box and speaking eruditely. He is ready. The knives have been sharpened, albeit a butter knife in his case, of course.
Let's talk about the welfare system in this country, which is the gold standard in terms of social safety nets around the globe, with $184 billion in welfare for those who need the support it provides. Did you know that the average working Australian works a full month and contributes their tax income to the social safety net in this country? It's something for which we should all be incredibly proud. But coming with that is a need for integrity. It's about making sure the right payments are made at the right time to the right people. Today it's estimated that there are 900,000 Australians who have social welfare debts totalling $5 billion. Indeed, $2 billion has been recovered appropriately since 1 July 2015. Is it that those opposite think we should walk away from those overpayments? Is that what you're suggesting? Is that the alternative government's proposal for fiscal management?—'Sorry, we made an error. It's measured in the billions. Let's not worry about it. Let's treat it as a rounding error.' That's not what you do. What you do is work through these things, and, to be honest—
It will be difficult for you, but go on!
the member for Sydney knew this. She knew this when she said:
if people fail to come to an arrangement to settle their debts, the Government has a responsibility to taxpayers—
For those opposite, I'll repeat it:
a responsibility to taxpayers to recover that money.
… … …
The automation of this process will free up resources and result in more people being referred to the tax garnishee process, retrieving more outstanding debt on behalf of taxpayers.
Wrong again, Tony!
Under section 94, the member for Macarthur will excuse himself from the House.
The member for Macarthur then left the chamber.
The member for Sydney, who sits opposite, thought this was a very good idea. For those opposite to get up and say that this government was rotten, mean and nasty to come up with this horrible system: trollop. You know it's trollop. That's why I say this is a roboscare.
This is the kind of behaviour that the people of Australia have seen through. That's why those opposite are sitting over there. Newsflash: they're sitting over there because the people of Australia don't trust them. They don't trust them because they come in here and act in a way that seeks to mislead. It's duplicitous. The Australian people get it; they see through all this. They want people on welfare to receive the right payment at the right time. That's why they go to work and pay their taxes. But they want people who have overpaid to repay it. Those opposite, like the member for Maribyrnong, say, 'Oh, debt notices!' They say, 'It's a debt notice; it's immoral, it's horrible!' Well, no, it's not. It's a request for information. It has identified a discrepancy and it says: 'Heads up! We see there is some inconsistent information here. Will you contact us and work with us?'
That's exactly what the Ombudsman has found, on not one occasion but two. The reviews into this by the Ombudsman have identified that it's entirely reasonable and appropriate. But those opposite don't want to talk about reasonableness and appropriateness. They sent out a call via their social media: 'Have you received one of these nasty notices? If so, we're going to flash you across the front pages of all the media outlets, because we're not interested in helping you; we're interested in taking political advantage of you. We're interested in taking advantage of your circumstances.' What a disgrace! You should be ashamed of yourselves! That's why you're on the other side, because the people of Australia have worked you out! (Time expired)
Six years into this Morrison government, and we know they have no economic plan—no cunning plan—to turn this economy around, and no plan to improve growth across the economy.
In the third term of this Liberal-National government it is clear—as clear as a Canberra winter's day—that when it comes to the economy this government has only got slogans. Six years in they don't have a plan to raise the living standards of those in my electorate. But do you know what? This government does have a cunning and devious plan—a devastating plan—to bring stress and anxiety to many of the quiet Australians in the electorate of Bean through their online compliance scheme, otherwise known as the robo-debt letters. They have a plan to harass many vulnerable Australians in the electorate of Bean and other electorates right across Australia.
Here is one of many examples for the minister and this heartless government to consider. This example only came in this week; it's the summary of a case from a constituent in Tuggeranong. They emailed to say: 'Dear David, our intellectually disabled daughter is undergoing a review of past income by Centrelink through the robo-debt catastrophe. She is 28 years old and resides with us, her parents. She may owe money to Centrelink, but a letter came out of the blue to her, chasing debt back to 2015, without any prior notice or review of her earnings by Centrelink.'
Centrelink have shown a complete lack of communication with this vulnerable constituent about any issues associated with her earnings and overpayments. Her parents aren't only concerned about this correspondence that they've received from Centrelink; they're worried that perhaps there's another piece of correspondence that's coming for another tax year full of debt that is yet to be chased and may also possibly have to be repaid. It is lucky that this constituent has such caring parents, who are prepared to raise her issues with her local member and who are prepared to fight this robo-debt harassment for her. But what about others?
This is just one example of how the government is using rudimentary accounting techniques that match ATO and human services data, with no human oversight to check if an error has been made, and forcing people to retrieve ancient or non-existent income records with a reverse onus of proof. Imagine the pressure on this family in Bean and imagine the pressure on families right across the country who are getting this correspondence—correspondence which, I have to say, doesn't have any of the friendliness that was suggested in the previous speaker's speech.
One has to ask: why? It's difficult to get beyond slogans and going after vulnerable people if you're not prepared to invest in the capability and capacity of your own workforce. I'm sure one of the driving factors is this government's treatment of the Public Service and the Department of Human Services. It's a result of the efficiency dividend, staffing cuts, outsourcing and a deterioration of the culture of service. It's the result of an absence of consideration of the cost and consequences whilst spending billions of dollars on consultants, contractors and labour hire to provide Public Service policy and, in this case, delivery. It's the old conservative model of putting the interests of multinationals and the quick dollar before the people of Bean.
However, there's another reason why this might be the case. It was highlighted in last month's leaked cabinet documents that revealed a sick plan by this government to harvest $600 million by applying the harsh and inaccurate robo-debt scheme to sensitive customers, including older Australians, people living in remote areas and those considered vulnerable. These sensitive customers have a face and a family, like the one in Tuggeranong in my electorate.
As others have noted, Labor recognises the right of government to recoup legitimate debts that are owed, but only with proper human-to-human oversight. Human-to-human oversight means that the family I mentioned before don't have to suffer the anxiety that they have today. This terrible scheme, which has already caused a trail of heartache through this nation, doesn't need to be extended. It needs to be scrapped, not unleashed 350,000 more times on some of the most vulnerable and struggling Australians. This government must listen to Australians calling for it to scrap the robo-debt scheme.
As both sides have articulated their respective views on this matter I think most of the key points have been made. If you want to attenuate this whole debate, you could read what the Commonwealth Ombudsman decided when he looked into this matter. The Ombudsman quite simply said, 'It's entirely reasonable and appropriate for the department to ask customers to explain discrepancies.' The Ombudsman has said, 'The system of calculation comprehensively and accurately captures the legislative and policy requirements.' We can all go home because that's the verdict.
You can talk about whether this process is something out of Dante's Inferno or just an attempt to make sure that, if you're honest about your earnings, then your payments will be accurate. Somewhere in the middle there has to be some truth. The reality is that there are 900,000 Australians who have discrepancies. This is not about debt; it's about discrepancies. It's utterly right for the payer, who trusts that the data upon which the amounts are calculated is correct, to ask if there is a discrepancy. I think everyone in the gallery would agree with that. Just because one asks about a discrepancy doesn't immediately make it the cruel and horrific process that's being painted by the other side.
I have found today this new category of Australians. They're called, as the member for Bean said, sensitive Australians. Let's explore who the sensitive Australians are. These are people who are old, people who live in remote areas or people who have unusual or unique needs. This is a new category now of individuals for whom we can do payments by robo but we can't do discrepancy checks in an automated way.
What is this?
Well, try to think a little more broadly and listen. The reality is that we robo pay these amounts but we can't robo check for discrepancies. It's fabulous that you can keep paying to your new sensitive Australians—whoever these people are—
Who are you talking to?
I'm talking to Australians, and you should listen. We are able to pay but we can't check the amount. You can have seven years of data that has been collected. If there's a discrepancy, one side of politics says, 'No, you can't check a discrepancy.'
Honourable members interjecting—
Correction. You're happy to do it, but you want it done manually, right? You're not prepared to use the very automated systems that have made the Public Service work effectively. You can't possibly check by hand 900,000 Australians. I challenge you to fund a department, and how many floors in high-rise buildings you would need to do this process, if there were not some form of basic automation. This is a Luddite opposition that is happy to pay by robo but not check for discrepancies by robo.
This is not saying any Australian individual owes a debt. It's asking about discrepancies. It's basic matching that has been done for three decades. It's ATO data that we've been matching since 2011. For the first time we're having correspondence that's automated in the search for truth. Just for a moment think about if we were to decide to forgive all these debts, because we can't use a robo system and it's impossible to employ enough public servants to do it manually, and how fair that would be for people who don't benefit from overpayment. Ultimately, doesn't the valuable welfare dollar in the welfare system that's the most targeted in the world because of its needs based approach deserve to be paid to the person who needs it most? If you have two identical people otherwise living in equivalent circumstances and one is the beneficiary of an overpayment then how is it fair on the neighbour to say: 'Sorry, it was all too hard; there were not enough bureaucrats to check everyone, and we couldn't do 'robo' because the Labor Party didn't like it'?
Let's cut back to the truth. I've got a minute left and I might as well use it. This is an opposition that could never brook Work for the Dole. Twenty years ago, this mob couldn't countenance the idea that a jobseeker might do mutual activity, might go out and pick up a shovel, in the search for work and in the maintenance of skills. This is a party that, five years ago, wouldn't countenance that we would put money for those needing income management onto a welfare card to make sure those addicted couldn't make wholesale payments with their welfare money to drug dealers. Australians expect better. What we have is a Labor Party perennially resisting improvements to the welfare system. They're stuck in '75 with Medicare and stuck in 1985 with unconditional welfare payments. We need a modern-day, cutting-edge welfare system. Automated correspondence asking recipients to check the veracity of an identified discrepancy with the ATO is utterly legitimate and supported absolutely by mainstream Australia.
The government's robo-debt scheme is harsh, inaccurate and so dysfunctional that it must be scrapped. It is part of the cruel and punitive approach to social welfare by this government. Next week, in this place, there will be five bills, including the cashless debit card and drug testing bill, designed to isolate and stigmatise welfare recipients. These are not measures designed to build capacity or confidence to give a helping hand. They are measures, as is robo-debt, designed to harass and discourage. Of course, Labor recognises the right of government to recoup legitimate debts that are owed but only with proper human oversight and only with appropriate warning and proper consultation. Labor is not convinced that the tactics used by this government have a solid legal foundation. The Liberals must act urgently to address the problems at the heart of this scheme, but, unfortunately, this issue has been around for many months and no action has been taken.
The government is using crude accounting techniques that match ATO and Human Services data with no human oversight to check if an error has been made. Even cruder assumptions are made about income and the timing of that income, which force vulnerable people to retrieve ancient or non-existing income records with a reverse onus of proof. And it isn't just a couple of errors or even a couple of hundred errors; the accounting comparison using ATO data is alleging false debt that, when challenged, has led to more than 100,000 allegations of debt being changed. I note that, when Stuart Robert was asked about how many robo-debt notices had turned out to be wrong, he responded by saying:
Of the 800,000 income compliance reviews since 1 July 2016 that have been finalised, 80 per cent have resulted in a debt being collected.
Of Stuart Robert, Mr Shorten said:
He would not say how many of that 80 per cent had erroneous debt claims reduced. But that still leaves … 160,000 debts … that the Minister has confirmed the Government got wrong.
Recently, I was contacted by Dave, now 65 years old, from Grovedale in my electorate. Dave is still working. He says:
During 2011-12 I received a "New Start" allowance as a result of being out of work.
At the time I decided to develop my own business as the best way of keeping employed, long term.
During this period I reported to Centrelink with income and profit and loss statements.
My allowance was reduced as I obtained more work…on a periodic basis. This meant that there was never a constant income but one that was acquired over time.
My allowance was reduced to about $50 a period, and then, when I finally was deemed to be earning enough, the allowance stopped.
A while back I received a notice from Centrelink claiming that I had been overpaid.
More notices came and I asked for a review and finally I received demand notices via text from a debt collection service. I again disputed the claim and asked for a review. The demands stopped but I received no outcome. This was done around Christmas 2018.
Last week, 3rd of September, I received another letter from Centrelink, again claiming I owed them $3019, including a quite substantial amount of interest.
I have complied with all reporting procedures asked of me by Centrelink. During the time, I used an Accountant to make sure all was done correctly.
I feel Centrelink has treated my case without reference to the specifics, basically casting me into a broad net without thought.
Dave has tried to do everything correctly. Dave is just one of the thousands of Australian who are puzzled and stressed by the nature of the process and what they see as the errors of calculation. Worse than that, thousands of these quiet Australians would have been so scared that they would have unknowingly paid false debts.
Minister Robert keeps misleading Australians. We've been told many furphies, including that the hounding of historical debts before the 2013-14 financial year would not occur. Well, Dave's debt is from 2011-12, minister. We now understand from leaked cabinet documents prepared for Mr Robert that cases like Dave's will only be the beginning if he decides to go ahead with this sick plan.
The minister, on a point of order?
I just want to offer assistance to the new member: when referring to a minister, if you can remember to allude to their seat, rather than their title.
Thank you. (Time expired)
It appears that we agree on one point, and that is that the money should be retrieved. I don't think anybody's saying that it shouldn't be retrieved. So it's really now a question about how you retrieve it. It should be retrieved because governments don't actually have money; taxpayers have money, and taxpayers' generosity is the reason we have a social welfare system. For it to be sustainable, there has to be prudence in how it operates.
The issue, of course, now is that we've got 900,000 Australians who have social welfare debts of around about $5 billion. Now, there's always an opportunity cost in that—$5 billion is $5 billion that could go to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or that could go towards the construction of essential infrastructure that we need, such as dams, which I talk about incessantly because I think this nation needs them. Five billion dollars can go towards the construction of roads—making our roads safer—but $5 billion is going to go nowhere unless you collect it.
I heard the issue that people believe there's an automated algorithm. There's not. What is used in this compliance process is also human checks and balances throughout its entire process. Services Australia has received data that indicates someone may not have received the correct payment in the past, and then the person is sent a letter asking them to check and update their information. The program does not target specific people. It looks at income discrepancies based on what a customer has declared to Services Australia and income data received from the ATO.
As a former accountant, I know that it is always part and parcel of what you do, and I've been there right at the coalface. I remember at one stage with a client having to basically go through the reality check of saying to them, 'You owe a substantial amount of money.' Unfortunately, this lady thought that it was just a rudimentary process, and I had to say, 'No, this is super serious. This is basically seen as you're stealing the money, and you're going to have to answer for it as such. It's really important that you get a solicitor and have this properly dealt with, because it comes with a criminal conviction.'
With this issue, there have been claims that the onus is on Centrelink to establish that a debt exists. As always has been the case, people have the obligation to let Services Australia know a change in their personal circumstances whilst they're receiving income payments so they can assure that they're being paid the right amount. It's incumbent upon you and it's explained to you that whilst you're receiving a payment from the taxpayer, via the government, you have a duty, an obligation, out of respect to the people who go to work to deliver that money to tell if your circumstances change.
The best way to think of tax is this: the vast majority of Australians work all of Monday and Tuesday to around 11 o'clock just to pay their taxes. They're not working for themselves. And, when we think of it like that, it shows that you've got to be absolutely respectful of the fact someone is going to work all of Monday and Tuesday to about 11 o'clock for no other purpose than to pay taxes. So they're working for you or they're working for someone else. If they go back to work on Saturday to try and make it up, they'll work till around 11 o'clock before they start working for themselves.
In dealing with 900,000 cases, of course you're going to require a form of automation to try to get across that dataset. What we have here is a process where the Labor Party are putting forward the idea that if we ditch that we're going to have a better prospect of trying to get back the $5 billion which the taxpayers paid. And we agree—the Labor Party side, that side of the House, and this side of the House—that this debt exists and agree that it's got to be repaid. You've stated that in the speeches, okay? That being the case, we're talking about the efficiency and efficacy of getting this money back.
You've agreed that this money—you have agreed in these speeches; read the Hansardisowed and it's got to be repaid. That is your position, unless you now disagree with one of your colleagues. In doing so, we have to go forward with this process. We're always open, if there are issues that need to be remedied, but this is how we must deal with it.
The time for the discussion has concluded.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Can I just confirm and perhaps ask the minister for assistance to outline what the amendments are and the effect of the amendments, given that this has moved very, very quickly, and why it is they ought to be agreed to.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to. It's not question time; I'm just going to put the question. If no one rises, I'm not going to call them. The member for Melbourne?
Perhaps the minister can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware that a copy of the amendments has been circulated. Perhaps copies of those amendments can be made available? My understanding is that we're asked to consider amendments that have not yet been circulated and have not been made available, and I'm not sure that's an appropriate way for the House to proceed. I'm seeking clarification that these in fact are the amendments to the laws that have passed this place and have been debated previously, which impose new penalties for people who engage in some form of protest. They have been previously called the ag-gag laws. If I've misunderstood the nature of the message from the Senate then perhaps that can be explained to me. But at the moment the amendments have not been, as far as I'm aware, made available at the table or available to anyone else. That's not the way in which the House should proceed. I'm happy to be told, having come down here quickly and not having seen any amendments—and the minister not having given us the courtesy of even explaining anything about them or why we should agree to them—why we should be supporting them.
I've just been handed a copy of them. These amendments should not be agreed to. These amendments, as I understand it, are a last-minute addition to a bad piece of legislation. They are about ensuring that some basic rights to protest in this society are further infringed. When the bill came through this House, we were told that it was all about farmers and that it was all about people who were protesting. Can I say that I was absolutely gutted to hear the member for Grayndler use the term 'vegan terrorists', during the course of the subsequent debate about this bill. Vegans are not terrorists, and that should not be used as a justification for trying to pass these amendments or this bill. That is an insult to people who are taking steps in their own lives to reduce the suffering imposed on animals. If people want to choose to become vegan or vegetarian then they are entitled to do that. They are not entitled to be called terrorists. That is something that the member for Grayndler should come back in here and apologise for, for using that term. I expect it from the government but I didn't expect it from the opposition. It's an insult—an absolute insult and a disgrace.
But now we have these amendments that we have not debated or discussed here in this House at all—not once. These amendments suggest that it is going to go far beyond that, that this bill, which we were told was about protecting farmers, is now going to be extended to the business of operating a wood-processing facility or a wood-fibre-processing facility. This is no longer anything to do with protecting farmers; it is absolutely clear as day now that this bill is about restricting the right to protest and to shine a light on practices if you do something that the government disagrees with. Nothing that was said by the minister in the speech when this was first here related to wood-processing facilities or wood-fibre-processing facilities.
The minister at the table had the opportunity to get up and say, 'Oh well, here are the reasons that we should vote for it,' and he chose not to. So I invited him to stand up and give us an explanation as to why we should support these amendments, and he didn't. Instead, it appears that we're just being asked now to accept, 'Let's expand the whole bill,' and it was a bad bill in the first place, 'to include a new set of areas that have nothing to do, apparently, with what the original bill was about at all'—wood-processing facilities or wood-fibre-processing facilities. What this is about, it seems, is targeting people who might be engaged in forest protests and who are saying, 'We don't accept the way in which trees are being cut down and logging is taking place, so we want to engage in some form of protest about it or advertise some form of protest about it.' (Time expired)
On the question of the amendments, I want to speak about one of the two amendments which have now returned to the House—amendments that have been made in the Senate. The amendment I wish to speak to is that which increases the protection of journalists and media in this country. This is an important amendment. It's one that's been made at the urging of Labor. It's one that was identified by Labor senators in their additional comments made in the Senate committee report on this bill, and it is important. It marks, I hope, a beginning of a greater awareness by the government that it is important to protect press freedom in this country. It marks, I hope, an awareness that when new laws are passed that have the potential to impact on the media and on journalists going about their work that they should not be exposed to criminal offences and, if they are, there needs to be consideration given and legislative reference made to the fact of their work being in the public interest and the fact that they may be working in a professional capacity.
The change that has been made is one which will ensure that it won't fall to journalists or their employers to prove that they were working in the public interest or that they were working in a professional capacity. Rather, if there is a potential for investigation, or a suggestion that some offence might have been committed arising from these laws because of something published by the media, the onus is going to fall completely on the prosecution to show—by contrast to the original form of the bill—that the journalist was not acting in the public interest and that the journalist was not a person working in a professional capacity as a journalist. It's an appropriate reversal of the position that had been put in the bill as first produced to this House. It's an appropriate amendment that's been made by the Senate. It will improve protection for journalists and media reporting on matters such as the subject matter of this bill.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be put.
Members would be aware that if there's a division in progress that cuts across the beginning of the adjournment debate we need to complete that. We now need to complete another one, because the standing orders provide that, if there's a consequential division required, we must do that. Because the motion 'that the motion be put' has been carried, I now need to immediately put the question that the amendments be agreed to. The question is that the amendments 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 noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative, in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I want to speak in this adjournment speech on a recent experience I had in the ADF Parliamentary Program. I was very honoured and privileged to attend RAAF Base Pearce, along with my parliamentary colleague the member for Moreton, Graham Perrett. It's my third time on the Australian Defence Force parliamentary exchange program but my first time attending it with the great women and men of the Royal Australian Air Force.
As many people would know, the RAAF Base Pearce is based in Bullsbrook in Western Australia, my home state. It is the headquarters of the 25th Squadron, and I was very pleased to be hosted there by Wing Commander Andrew Braddon, the senior Australian Defence Force officer. I want to thank Warrant Officer Sheila Kennedy for escorting me around the base over a number of days. We had the opportunity to visit No. 3 Security Forces Squadron detachment, where they train and work with security trained dogs. Their handlers have obviously great relationships with the animals that serve to protect RAAF Base Pearce as well as doing other operations throughout the state. At the squadron headquarters at the base they had a quite poignant memorial to all the dogs lost in service. It's in Latin. I'll translate for those who don't know Latin: 'Rest in peace, faithful dogs.' I think that is a great tribute to the canines that serve all our armed services across the country.
We were also able to visit the No. 2 Expeditionary Health Squadron Detachment, the medical unit, and see their new facilities at RAAF Base Pearce which are being updated gradually as the base is showing its age. It's good that we're investing adequate funds for great new facilities for our Defence Force. We also saw the No. 453 Squadron. They do the air traffic control at Pearce, which is a significant job, given there's a flight training school in No. 79 Squadron that operates out of that base. We also visited Air Base Command Post. I thank Flight Lieutenant Dylan Kinny for his briefing.
The member for Moreton and I had the opportunity to go to RAAF Base Learmonth in Exmouth. We toured a Resolute P-8 aircraft. One of the aircraft and one of their crew are soon to be deployed to the Strait of Hormuz to monitor freedom of navigation activities. I thank the crew that showed us around that day. I have a great respect for the extraordinary work that they do and all of their monitoring activities. We also had the chance, while we were there, to speak with the women and men of No. 79 Squadron. They are the women and men who train to fly fast jets in our Air Force. At the moment they are flying our Hawk jets. We didn't get a flight in one, which I'm glad about because I'm a bit frightened of such fast jets, but, nonetheless, we did enjoy being toured around the base and the places they work. I must thank them for their wonderful hospitality. The women and men of No. 79 Squadron hosted the member for Moreton and me in their mess. They were very happy to play pool with the pool shark, which is the member for Moreton, and me, whereas I am entirely incompetent at pool. But I did have a go and I thank those members for their kindness and their welcome.
We also had a great opportunity to visit one of the most remarkable facilities, I think, in this country: the Harold E Holt communications facility, which is a very low frequency transmitter that's on the coast at Exmouth. It's been there for many, many years. It has post-World War II technology that is still operating very effectively to this day as a very low frequency transmitter, which is very important to the work that submarine forces do across the world. Also, back at Pearce, we visited the Republic of Singapore Air Force's No. 130 Squadron. The Singaporeans have been there for 25 years and learn to fly PC-21s. It's a great service that Western Australia provides for the people of Singapore and their air force in having that facility that seeks to train the men of the Singaporean air force. It says a lot about our great relationship with the nation of Singapore. We also visited the second flight training school. I had a go on their simulator. The member for Moreton and I were very lucky to have a flight in a PC-9. I thank Kevin O'Keefe for his patience with me on that flight. We weren't as brave as we might have been, but we are very grateful for the opportunity to meet the RAAF. I encourage all members to take part in this program.
This job can be challenging. I have been in a position where I have been opposed to my own party at different times. These issues are normally resolved in our party room; at other times they become more public. What are our responsibilities? I know I've got a responsibility to the people who put me in the place—the electors of Monash and my party; those who work hard in the Liberal Party right across the electorate of Monash and decide to support me into this place at each election campaign. And I have a responsibility also to the party room, which is quite separate from that again, which may have a different view to what my party members might decide is the right thing to do. And, over and above that, I have a responsibility to this parliament and the people of Australia.
Can I act every time on my conscience, my compassion and my heart over what my head wants to do? No, I can't. There are issues deserving consideration where the head must rule over the heart, because that's what the nation deserves, what the people of Australia deserve. More importantly, and over and above all those things, I offer my electorate, my party, my party room and the people of Australia my judgement on an issue. My judgement may not be in accordance with how people perceive this parliament and how it should work—how I should just obey the command of the Prime Minister of the day or my party or the whip of the day. It's actually about the challenges we face, which I mentioned earlier. It's very, very important to me and to this nation that the right decision is made, and that right decision—in my view, in my judgement—at times may not be that of my party, the people of Australia or those in my electorate broadly, as a whole. That doesn't mean I step back from what I view as being right at any given time. In essence, in the end, when it comes down to it, I always offer the people that I represent, this parliament and this nation my judgement as an individual on any given issue.
Having said that, it doesn't mean I'm about to move in any particular direction. But for those who have deigned to offer their advice to me in very strong terms, I need to explain that this is the position I take. Many members on different issues will take that position on behalf of their community when they need to represent their community in a fulsome way because their constituents are directly affected by an individual matter. These issues are important.
When it comes to matters of principle where you have taken a stand for a long time, I don't believe the nation wants members of parliament who say one thing on Monday and then, under pressure, say another thing on Friday. It doesn't mean a member of parliament can't be advised, for instance, over embryonic stem cell research. I had a conservative position until my genuine staff at the time said, 'Before you take that decision, let's go talk to the experts.' After I did I changed my position and supported the legislation in this House on embryonic stem cell research. It gained me a lot of criticism from other areas at the time, but it was the right decision. In the long run, it proved to be that the first position I took was wrong and the position I took after further information was right. It's not that we do not have a position to change our mind on a particular principle; we have. But it is important. In this parliament, in this place, principles are important. The practices of the parliament are important and the rule of law is important—and what surrounds that rule of law.
Twelve-year-old Indigenous boy Dujuan Hoosan has just appealed to members of the United Nations Human Rights Council to reduce Australian incarceration, pointing out that Indigenous-led education and an emphasis on languages are key to keeping Indigenous young people out of jail.
Australia is entering a second convict age, with the highest share of the population incarcerated than at any time since 1899. Since 1985, the incarceration rate has gone up 130 per cent. Now 0.22 per cent of Australian adults are behind bars. Among Indigenous Australians, the incarceration rate is 2.5 per cent, meaning almost one in four Indigenous men born in the 1970s will go to jail during their lifetime. A higher share of Indigenous Australians are now incarcerated than African Americans.
But it doesn't have to be that way. In the United States, the Pew Public Safety Performance Project has been one of the key factors behind the decline in that country's incarceration rate over the course of the last decade. Pew's project works with states to assess their correctional population and costs, identifying what the numbers will be in five to 10 years without policy reform, and then bringing together the key stakeholders—prosecutors, crime victim advocates, police, sheriffs and other county officials—to participate in open working group meetings and round tables to make sure they vet policy options on an evidence basis. In Arkansas, that has saved the state $875 million in prison construction. In Texas, it has reduced the predicted $2 billion additional prison expansion the state would otherwise have had to undergo. The crime rate in Texas has fallen to its lowest level since the early 1970s. I commend Pew's Public Safety Performance Project director, Jake Horowitz; and the team: Stephen Saloom, Dana Shoenberg, Michael Williams, Ruth Rosenthal, Terry Schuster, Connie Utada and former director Adam Gell.
In the United States, what has been critical is that it has been Democrats and Republicans who've worked together. The organisation Right on Crime points out:
Conservatives are known for being tough on crime, but we must also be tough on criminal justice spending. That means demanding more cost-effective approaches that enhance public safety. A clear example is our reliance on prisons, which serve a critical role by incapacitating dangerous offenders and career criminals but are not the solution for every type of offender.
Jerry Madden, the former chair of the Texas House of Representatives Corrections Committee; Jeb Bush; Newt Gingrich; and Ed Meese are among the signatories to Right on Crime. Prison Fellowship is also a conservative organisation in the United States that has campaigned for criminal justice reform. In Australia, there are important organisations working at the progressive end of the spectrum to point out that incarceration is not the way of tackling all crime problems. I acknowledge Change the Record—particularly Cheryl Axleby and Damien Griffis, who will be in the parliament next week—and David Robertson, a former board member of Amnesty International Australia. I recognise that there are some on the conservative side of politics in Australia who have pointed to the challenges of rising incarceration. At the Institute of Public Affairs, Andrew Bushnell says:
The dramatic increase in incarceration across Australia over the past decade has taken money away from policing and other government services that are vital for community safety.
Over the past decade, the Institute of Public Affairs points out, incarceration in Australia has grown at an unsustainable rate.
The crime rate in Australia for most categories of crime has been falling since the mid-1980s. You're half as likely to be a victim of a murder. Car theft rates are down. Robbery rates are down. But those crime rates have not fallen, in large part, as a result of the increase in incarceration. We can ensure that Australia is safer and that we have less crime but also less punishment. For every prisoner behind bars today, there are an average of 1.8 children with an incarcerated parent. Those children will suffer mental anguish. They'll do worse at school. They'll be more likely to end up on welfare and in crime themselves. For the 43,000 Australian prisoners, there are 77,000 children with a parent behind bars. We know that half of all released prisoners will become homeless on their release and that eight per cent of prisoners will share needles while in jail. Only 17 per cent of prisoners complete a formal educational qualification, but more than half go on to reoffend, suggesting that our prisons are far more universities of crime than they are universities. With a bipartisan push we can do better.
The Gold Coast is no longer just a place to go to surf and soak up the sunshine; there's so much more. Our gorgeous coastline is certainly a drawcard for residents and tourists alike, but in recent times Australia's sixth-largest city continues to mature as our local arts, culture and events scene starts to explode.
Since the Commonwealth Games, our city has moved into a position as one of the events capitals of Australia. Lovers of the circus, cabaret and visual arts can look forward to soaking up the scenes of the Bleach* Festival. Music lovers have the choice of dancing the night away at Blues on Broadbeach, the VIVA Surfers Paradise festival or the Groundwater Country Music Festival, which I had the pleasure of attending recently.
I'm hopeful that we're successful with the Olympics 2032 bid for South-East Queensland and we'll be able to introduce our city's culture to visitors from around the globe. I'm thrilled to be a part of the Morrison government, which is capitalising on this unique opportunity by contributing $10 million to secure the deal. It's great to see the member for Fairfax in Switzerland advocating to the International Olympic Committee to bring this event to South-East Queensland and the Gold Coast, where our world-class facilities will be used by more world-class athletes. It's essential to see all three tiers of government come together as a united 'Team Australia' to secure this deal. To win the Games will put a deadline on much-needed transport infrastructure for the Gold Coast and the region.
The coast's cultural heart beats at the Home of the Arts, or HOTA, in my electorate of Moncrieff, where the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts, Paul Fletcher, recently visited. It was a great opportunity to meet with the CEO, Criena Gehrke, and board member Tracey Woodbry to discuss all of the exciting projects happening in this precinct, which is bringing the best live theatre, art exhibitions, indie films and dance to the stage. We currently have a new art gallery under construction that will complement the open-air stage area.
The Gold Coast also has a strong record of attracting international blockbuster films. In the past few years, we have seen many A-listers flock to the city for roles in films such as Thor, Pirates of the Caribbean and Aquaman. It was a bit of fun to have lunch in a local restaurant and see, in person, the giant stature of Aquaman himself! The coalition recognises the huge growth potential in our local screen industry, which is why it has delivered a $140 million location incentive to ensure a pipeline of films will be made on the Gold Coast and in Australia. This funding supports local jobs, ensures our film industry remains vibrant and competitive, and gives us the opportunity to showcase our great city to the world.
I had the pleasure of attending the Gold Coast Jazz and Blues Club performance at HOTA. As a former professional saxophone player, it was great to see 300 Gold Coasters jam-packed into the Paradise Room at the Blues Brothers tribute night. John Purnell, the jazz club president, kindly asked me to be patron of this club, which I accepted with much pride. The Spotlight Theatrical Company in Benowa, also in my electorate, showcased the Higher and Higher musical, a tribute to soul music and a terrific showcase of local talent. I also enjoyed the Gold Coast Little Theatre production of The Addams Family in Southport last weekend. It was a fabulous production—great for the whole family and very, very entertaining. Both of these theatres are doing a fantastic job of showcasing the many talents of the Gold Coast, providing quality entertainment and enriching our local community and our tremendous arts culture.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to mention the Vocalescence Obsession Quartet, who held a fantastic event at the Nerang Bicentennial Community Centre. This was a terrific opportunity to see this local community group in action. They will be representing Australia—and the Gold Coast—in the upcoming Sweet Adelines International competition in New Orleans this September—the first quartet from Queensland to achieve this level. I was deeply moved by the high standard of singing prowess at this performance.
While we in Moncrieff are best known as the spiritual home to Australia's beach lifestyle and surfing culture, we also have a growing movie industry and many young, local artists who are bursting with creative talent. I'm excited about what the future holds for the Gold Coast and proud to be part of a government which is supporting our city to grow in the arts space.
Finally, I'm also really excited about the Green Bridge project, which will be a walking bridge that connects the Home of the Arts precinct in Bundall through to our well-known tourist hub in Surfers Paradise, via Chevron Island.
A city is defined in many respects, but one of its most prominent features is its skyline. Geelong has embraced high-rise buildings—that's good as an indicator of a strong economy—punctuated by cranes in the sky. But we need to ensure that with this growth there is the construction of quality buildings which complement the existing structures in our city and do not come at any cost. Right now, we are seeing a scourge of large concrete walls starting to diminish our city. This is often a result of a cost cutting. While a high-rise may be cheaper to build with cement walls adorning the sides, they are ugly and a blight on the character of our beautiful city.
Planning authorities simply have to stop allowing buildings with large concrete walls with no discernible features to keep going up in a way which is so detrimental to the beautiful character of Geelong. I think of the Geelong Telegraph Station and the time ball at the top that used to provide a daily time stamp for the people of Geelong. Looking west along Ryrie Street, this beautiful building is now swamped by a large, black, concrete wall. For me, a site which always evoked a curious wonder about times past and the reliance on this time ball is now a painful eyesore. To be honest, it makes me sad.
While we do not want more of these concrete walls in the future, there is an option to deal with those which have now infected our city. In Little Malop Street at Dennys Place, a mural of King Billy stands two storeys high in tribute to the well-respected spokesperson of the Wadawurrung People. This art is embraced by Geelong. I call upon planning authorities to stop approving big buildings with concrete walls. I also call upon the Geelong council to embrace public art. The way Geelong looks matters; those responsible for rewriting its skyline need to be invested in making this new story beautiful.
House adjourned at 17:00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou) took the chair at 10:09.
Over the break I have been travelling through my beautiful electorate of Corangamite. I met with over 100 organisations: local community, environmental and sporting groups, as well as aged care, health facilities and local businesses. I visited 29 schools and held 16 coffee shop meetings, where I spoke with hundreds of local residents and listened to their concerns and ideas. Everywhere I travelled in the electorate, people raised similar issues. In our rapidly growing electorate, young families are feeling the effects of the increasing cost of living and the pressure of stagnant wages. They are concerned about their future. They understand that the economy is slowing under this government and they worry about the future of their children. They want to know that we are doing everything we can to give them access to secure work and economic stability.
They're finding it hard to gain secure employment and they feel that this government needs to do more to reverse the casualisation of the workforce. Over 40 per cent of the workforce is now in casual, part-time or contract jobs. Sham contracting is rife. Young families who have to travel to work and school and access services are in need of better infrastructure and roads. They rightly want to see more federal funding for important services, including education, aged care and the NDIS. The people of Corangamite can see that Newstart is grossly inadequate on $40 a day for a single person. It hasn't been increased in real terms for 25 years. Many people I talked to called for more support for local residents who are going through difficult times. They support an increase in Newstart.
In Corangamite, we are blessed with a stunning environment. Across the electorate, residents are telling me they're witnessing the impact of climate change. They're concerned about the lack of national action on this vital issue, action to make a positive shift towards renewable energy and a low-emissions economy. This is action that will stimulate and grow our economy. I met with the Great Ocean Road Authority, Southern Otways Sustainable, Bellarine Catchment Network and other environment groups who are trying to make a real difference. People in Corangamite also want action to protect our precious environment and infrastructure from the impacts of climate change. They're already seeing coastal erosion, damage to vital infrastructure and the loss of natural habitats, flora and fauna. At Apollo Bay, the sea has washed away 30 metres of dunes and the high tide is within a few metres of the Great Ocean Road. At Anglesea the hooded plover beach habitat has nearly been wiped out as the high tides cut into the dunes. We need a national coastal strategy, and this government must do more with the states on this issue. I'll continue to listen to people across my electorate so that I can speak out on the issues that are important to them and help them to achieve a fair future.
Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, as the member for Calwell, it wouldn't be on the tips and the lips of your constituents that they'd be talking about the drought that's affecting massive parts of Australia, nor in my electorate of Monash—although they would identify them—nor Corangamite, nor in the southern parts of Wannon. Minister Coleman told me a few minutes ago about when he travelled through there and he said, 'It's so green, it's so green, it's so green.' Yes, we have been blessed in parts of our great nation with rains that make a difference to our farmers, and there's always money in mud! When I addressed the parliament yesterday I spoke of the people of the coastal lands. When I talk about the people of the coastal lands, I'm talking about Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and to the north of Brisbane. We who live on the coastal lands actually care about what's happening to people in drought-affected areas.
When we have a bushfire, we thump in with the resources to protect people and look after them and give them the resources they need. When we have a flood, we go in there and support the flood victims. But, with a drought, it's every day of living the life of a flood or a bushfire, but a creeping flame that destroys everything in front of it. In my own household during the 13-year drought that affected the whole nation, and particularly Victoria, I remember driving up the drive and the cattle moaning at me all the way up the drive, knowing that when I arrived I was going to feed them. A lot of the people in these areas now haven't got the money or the resources, or even the facilities to wash their own clothes on a daily basis, nor shower. As one woman said, 'I wash our clothes once a week. We hop into stinking clothes every day. How do I explain this to my 13-year-old daughter? How do I explain to her we haven't got the money for her to do the things she needs to do? Yes, we've always gained funds off-farm, and we do have the horse.' But, she said, 'Even the horse was tired.' I know that the people of the coast lands, the men and women of the coast lands, do care about what's happening in drought-ravaged Australia today.
I've said to Michael McCormack, the leader of the National Party, and all the members in drought-affected areas, 'If you need to spend more money the people of the coast lands are going to support you. Whether you live in Dandenong, whether you live in the Latrobe Valley—anywhere in the coast lands—we will support you through government activity. We've done a lot. If we can do more, you have our 100 per cent support for people drought affected in this Great South Land, Australia.
I'd like to draw the parliament's attention to the plight of people of Stockton, a very discrete, close-knit coastal community in Newcastle. For years the people of Stockton have been facing the diabolical impacts of coastal erosion. As much as a metre of beach is being lost each year, even more in large weather events.
Last week, tens of families with young children in Stockton got the terrible news that, thanks to erosion, the building that houses the Stockton Early Learning Centre is no longer safe and the centre will be forced to close, effective immediately.
In the past two months alone 9,000 cubic metres of sand has been lost in the front of Barrie Crescent Reserve, which Stockton Early Learning Centre sits on. This has been devastating news, of course, for all of the affected families and, indeed, the entire community.
While some temporary care solutions have been put in place the long-term outlook looks bleak for families wanting to have their children cared for where they live. I hold grave fears that this is just the beginning. Residents are justifiably anxious that their homes, indeed public lands, will be inundated and that more community assets might be lost. This should be a wake-up call for all levels of government. We just can't stand by and let communities like Stockton slip away into the sea. The time for prevarication has passed. The time for excuses is over. Stockton needs action now. The community has been fighting for decades trying to get their existential fears and threats recognised.
I'd like to recognise the incredible hard work of members of the Stockton Community Action Group—and a number of liaison groups that have formed now working across with council and state governments—headed by Barbara Whitcher, and Callan Nickerson contributing. Many other members of the community are making a huge effort, including the northern Stockton board riders association.
While the primary responsibility for coastal erosion lies with the state government, the federal government should also be doing its share. The federal Liberal government has not only failed to develop a plan for coastal erosion, they actually defunded all the climate adaptation action that had been put in place by Labor—not to mention their wilful refusal to act on climate change which is driving this terrible destruction.
Labor went into the 2019 election with a comprehensive plan to address climate change and a coastal rehabilitation fund that would help communities like Stockton address this crippling erosion. Today, I call on the Morrison government to stop shirking its responsibilities to coastal communities like Stockton and to act urgently on coastal erosion. It's time. We are a massive island nation. We need a national plan.
Last month I had the pleasure of hosting Senator the Hon. Johnathan Duniam, Assistant Minister for Forestry, Fisheries and Regional Tourism, in my electorate of Dawson. He was able to enjoy the great many things that our region has to offer—the superb weather, the green countryside, the hospitable locals and, on top of the list, the fresh seafood. Senator Duniam was also confronted with the bomb that's been dropped on the local seafood industry in the shape of the Queensland state Labor government's new fishing quotas. The senator was kind enough to meet face to face with local fishers and listen to their concerns about these new quotas. He listened to the story of a fishing family who has been shut down after 42 prosperous years in the industry. He spoke with a gentleman who was forced to close his mud-crabbing business, which had employed two families from a remote Indigenous community, because his quota had been reduced so significantly that continuing that business was simply not viable.
One fisherman, aged 69, had borrowed $150,000 to buy a boat and fishing licence specifically to catch black jewfish. Only a month later, the Queensland government reduced the annual quota for black jewfish to 20 tonnes for the entire Queensland coast. That quota was filled in just 38 days—38 days for a quota that was supposed to last a year! That fisherman is now facing mounting debts, with no way to pay them. He can't do what he's been doing for the last 50 years to pay them.
Senator Duniam couldn't understand the lack of consultation, and neither can I. The lack of respect that was shown to these people, who have put locally wild-caught seafood on our tables for decades, baffled him. It baffles me and it baffles everyone. But it's not just the lack of respect for and lack of consultation with the fishing communities; it's the complete lack of sense behind these regulations. Whilst hiding behind the shroud of sustainability, the Queensland state government has failed to acknowledge that stocks like black jewfish will be inadvertently caught in commercial fishing nets.
Unfortunately black jewfish are unable to deal with the pressure change of being pulled to the surface from beyond seven metres and in most cases will die after release. So it's a choice between fresh fish on the plate and dead fish on the surface of the ocean. The Queensland state Labor minister for fisheries, Mark Furner, and his Labor government have chosen the latter: the dead fish. They're also choosing to kill off the industry. They've put honest, hardworking Australians out of business, they're taking money out of the economy and they're taking fresh local seafood off our tables—and most disastrously they're killing off local jobs.
The Morrison Liberal-National government has a target to grow fisheries and the whole ag sector to $100 billion per annum by 2030, but the kind of legislation and approach by the Queensland Labor government is the antithesis to that target. I call on them to reverse their sustainability laws, because they are simply not sustainable for local jobs.
It was with great sadness that I learned of the passing of John Eastwood this week after a long battle with illness. He was a remarkable man, who gave so much of his time to support people in need in my community. It was this very characteristic that earned John the title of Liverpool Citizen of the Year in 2008, in recognition of his hard work and dedication in volunteering for the Young Adults Disabled Association.
John Eastwood was the co-founder of YADA, an organisation in my community that does a tremendous job in providing social support for people with disabilities in the Liverpool and Fairfield areas. YADA runs programs twice a week to support young adults with disabilities to learn new skills, reduce their isolation, enhance their quality of life and to provide them with career opportunities with some support. YADA was started 20 years ago by a couple of members of the community: John Eastwood and Jennifer McAlees, a young disabled woman. As a matter of fact, John was driving the community bus when he first met Jennifer. They started talking about doing something for people with disabilities. Since that very day, John made it his mission to help Jennifer, and they worked together to formally establish YADA as a charity. A lot of hard work went into setting up YADA and making it a reality, completing all the necessary paperwork, doing the fundraising, and ensuring its financial viability through raffles, stalls and support from various government agencies.
The organisation, which started off with two members and 60 volunteers, now caters for the needs of some 40 disabled people in our local community. Organisations such as YADA are so vital to our community and the people they serve. My community is forever in the debt of John Eastwood for his tireless efforts in establishing YADA and volunteering his time for such a great cause, and for serving our community.
I wish to talk about a fantastic new pilot program being rolled out in my hometown of Kempsey. The township of Kempsey on the mid-north coast has a significantly higher than average population of Indigenous people. Sadly, the Kempsey LGA is socioeconomically disadvantaged and has a significantly higher percentage of drug and crime issues.
The project will build on the existing youth Stock Camp model that is currently being delivered by Macleay Options, which provides youth with life skills and qualifications to work in the agricultural area. The project is to create a new farming enterprise using unused but suitable farmland operated by Macleay Options Incorporated. The youth Stock Camp program will operate a number of flexible learning centres that undertake to work together with the justice reinvestment program, local schools, police and the local community. The community will assist in identifying and responding to the needs of young people disenfranchised and disengaged from education to provide a place and an opportunity to re-engage in a suitable, flexible learning environment.
The idea of a youth stock camp is not new. There have been several such programs operating in Australia over the last few years. The youth Stock Camp to be created in Kempsey will utilise and incorporate various elements of these programs. Similar programs include BackTrack, which operates in Armidale. Over the years these similar programs have won many awards—rural youth education awards and rural health and innovation awards to name just a few. The BackTrack program highlights the following tangible outcomes. Since 2006 the program has helped more than 1,000 teenagers see a different future. Eighty-seven per cent of those kids now either have full-time jobs or are back in full-time education. The founder says it cost approximately $260,000 to house a kid in juvenile detention but it only cost the BackTrack program $25,000 a year to clothe and feed these children.
The principles for the BackTrack program and the Stock Camp program are the same. To develop this program Macleay Options have strong mentoring and experienced staff, and are ready to expand and grow the Stock Camp principle for Kempsey and help their youth. Today I am meeting with the Minister for Indigenous affairs and I am hopeful that this government can provide the assistance needed to support this vital program for the community of Kempsey and its youth.
The government has got it so wrong when it comes to Newstart. Rather than supporting people into work, last week and the week before—in fact, in their entire term in office—they chose to demonise, victimise and bully Newstart recipients. That is completely at odds with the people who are on Newstart and seeking support. One in four people on Newstart are over 65, yet this government says they are all drug takers and its okay for all of them to be subjected to random drug testing. What an insult to people who have worked hard and contributed and find themselves unemployed! And that could be for any number of reasons. It could be a shutdown in their workplace—the manufacturer has gone out of business and they've been made redundant. It could be because they are no longer able or capable to do the job that they were trained to do—like a former nurse I met in my electorate. She was 61 and had worked a career in nursing. She realised she wasn't physically capable of doing the job anymore. She retired from nursing and retrained. She was then able to get work as a security officer at Melbourne Park—she had to travel from Woodend to Melbourne Park. Working in security and as a first aider is not full-time work. She averages 12 hours a week and takes every shift they offer. But that's not good enough for this government. They still require her to look for work. And now the government is saying this person could be subjected to a drug test. It's outrageous.
Almost one in five people on Newstart are working. They just can't get enough hours. Yet the government is not doing anything to lift the economy and support people who are unemployed. Instead, they are not going to lift the rate of Newstart, and they are going to subject people to random drug tests. They continue the campaign to demonise, bully and disrespectfully treat people on Newstart.
The rate of Newstart has to rise. It does not keep up with the cost of the basics. I have met far too many people in my electorate who are living with friends or family because Newstart doesn't go anywhere near covering their rent. Real estate agents in my electorate have confirmed that they are reluctant to lease to people on Newstart because it takes at least 60 per cent of their income to cover the cost of rent. We are going to create an underclass of homelessness—people who are on Newstart—because the rate of Newstart is too low. I urge the government to raise the rate. I urge the government to meet with people, like the people in my electorate, and get behind and support them. You cannot look for work if you don't have decent accommodation. You cannot look for work if you can't put food on the table. It's time to raise the rate.
I draw the attention of the Chamber of the innovative work of the Type 1 Diabetes Family Centre in my electorate of Stirling. I used to know very little about type 1 diabetes. I had, however, through my son's primary school buddy Scott, seen the massive investment of his parents in his daily and nightly health care. What I've learnt during my visits to the centre and in discussions with CEO, Bec Johnson, and her staff has been eye-opening.
Onset of type 1 diabetes generally occurs in childhood, which places significant pressures on families, parents and teachers. That's where the Type 1 Diabetes Family Centre comes in. The centre has been designed by type 1 diabetics for type 1 diabetics. This hub offers a unique model of care that includes a clinic, nutrition programs and psychology, as well as wraparound services like babysitting and family camps. They even host 'gathos' for teenagers where they can come and play table tennis, pinball and hang out onsite. The centre conducts cooking classes which help kids to learn to manage their own diets. They also get out to schools to demystify the illness and educate teachers and staff on the types of support that kids with type 1 may require.
In 2018, the centre expanded its services to also cater for adults. This responds to the need for lifelong care for a lifelong condition. This incredible work has led to national and international recognition of the centre, including winning the Outstanding Achievement Award in 2018, Amy Rush winning the 2018 Diabetes Educator of the Year award, and being a finalist in the 2019 Telstra Business Awards.
The Morrison government is supporting the Type 1 Diabetes Family Centre in two ways. First, we provided $20,000 to enable the purchase of an uninterrupted power supply for its medical fridge and equipment for the youngsters to hold their 'gathos'. Second, we expanded our commitment to the Continuous Glucose Monitoring initiative—technology that was initially available to only type 1 diabetics under 21 but has now been expanded to other groups, including expecting and post-pregnant women. I look forward to continuing to work closely with the Type 1 Diabetes Family Centre in Stirling, supporting those living with type 1 diabetes.
It was 10 years ago last Wednesday that cancer took my mum's life. It was a sad and difficult time for my family. You never stop missing your mum. But I was one of the very few lucky people who was able to spend time with mum, caring for her at home with family and friends in the last year, and was there when she died. Nursing someone you love in those last months, weeks and days is the most incredible privilege. We medicalise death so much in our society—pop it over there in hospitals—but it is something that I think, for anyone who has the opportunity and is personally able to do it, emotionally and everything, is an incredible privilege. It's not easy, but it's a precious time.
I'll be forever grateful for the wonderful palliative care nurses who were there and enabled us to stay at home, and for the aged-care specialists who helped us through at times in those final few months, providing the kind of care for people who need a little or a lot of extra help some days. Aged-care workers do a phenomenal job in our community on the whole and in so many ways, often in very difficult circumstances and with very little pay. This week marks the second annual Working in Aged Care Day, which we marked a couple of days ago. I want to give my personal thanks, and on behalf of my electorate, to all the people who work in aged care for their hard work, dedication and compassion in caring for people in their later stages of life.
I call on the government to stop sitting on its hands and actually address the crisis in aged care that we continue to see. It breaks your heart when you've been through this and then you have people in your electorate office talking about their family circumstances, and you see them at near breaking point because they cannot get the home care that they need.
Over the last two years we have seen an increase under this government from 88,000 senior Australians waiting for home care to 129,000—apparently that's success according to the government. Indeed, in that period of time in just two years, 16,000 senior Australians have died without ever getting the level of home care package to which they've been assessed as being entitled and needing.
I call on the government to take the politics out of this. Whoever the aged-care minister is—it's hard to tell—they should go into cabinet and say: 'Please, give us the money. We actually have to fix this problem. It is getting worse not better, and things are heading in the wrong direction.'
In the final moment I'll just put on the record my request to the government to provide some funding to Endeavour Ministries. It's a wonderful local charity in Endeavour Hills. My electorate is one of the most disadvantaged in the country and has the second most disadvantaged council in Victoria. This election not one dollar, not one election commitment, was made to my community. Across the road in La Trobe there was $100 million spent. Not one dollar was spent in my electorate, so I call on the social services minister to help this wonderful charity in their time of need. They've been around for 20 years. They're self-sufficient and have never asked for a thing. For circumstances, as set out in the letter, they now need just a little help from government. Please.
I want to acknowledge the member for Bruce's contribution and his call, and I respect in full what he said about his mother. It's a pleasure to rise and speak about my community of Mitchell and some of the voluntary efforts and outcomes that we've had. I want to draw attention, in particular, to some remarkable people who received the Order of Australia medals in the recent Queen's Birthday Honours List, including Roger Donsworth, for his service to the community through a range of organisations; Sally Hetherington, for service to the international community through charitable initiatives; and Peter Duncan, who received an AM for his service to the community through volunteer roles with a number of organisations.
Our community in Mitchell has a wonderful volunteer workforce as well. Volunteers are the stalwarts of our local community and permeate every aspect of Australian society. The Morrison government has been investing $20 million in volunteer grants. These have been well received. They're in recognition of the valuable role volunteers play in building resilient, cohesive communities, supporting individual participation in community life. In fact, it is not a lie to say the voluntary society has been the basis of success of Australia.
Eighteen organisations in Mitchell have been successful and are receiving the funding out of the voluntary grants, with $72,564 total funding allocated to Mitchell. I want to highlight a number of the recipients as a testament to the growth of volunteers in the Hills District. The 1st Rouse Hill Scout Group, a newly established group in a growing area, received $4,600 to establish and run the scout group efficiently. This includes leadership training, first aid certification and office equipment. Rouse Hill is one of the fastest-growing areas in my electorate and also the Sydney Basin. The Hills adult division of St John Ambulance Australia received $4,810 to provide equipment and enhance the quality of first aid training for their volunteers. The Castle Hill United Football Club received $5,000 for first aid training for their volunteer coaches and managers—approximately 80 people.
The Hills Shire Council's 2019 Locals for Locals Awards were also recently announced. In particular, I would like to commend Julie Warner from the Independent Business Network, who received the Business Award for Community Contribution; Miki Beer from Learning in the Hills, who received the Community Contribution Award for Education; Kirsten Groll, the Baulkham Hills Hawks AFL Club co-president, who received the Community Contribution Award for Sports and Recreation; and Kelly Doyle, the founder and managing director of Foster Care Angels, who received the Community Contribution Award for Community Service.
Jersey Day 2019 was held on Friday, 30 August, encouraging schools and workplaces across Australia to wear their favourite sporting jersey. I'm proud to say Jersey Day was founded by the Gremmo family from my electorate. They are a well-respected and much-loved family of volunteers and community people, following the tragic passing of 13-year-old Nathan Gremmo, who I have spoken about before in this place. Nathan's family chose to give the gift of life to others and donated his organs, saving the lives of six people, including a young baby. The service that the Gremmo family have provided by establishing Jersey Day around Australia, as it catches on, as it grows legs, as it grows strength in funding and opening conversations about organ donation has changed the face of our society and continues to impact greatly. I commend the Gremmo family for their great service to Australia.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.
I want to talk to the Minister representing Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians in this place about home care packages. The minister would be aware that the home care package waitlist has grown substantially from 88,000 to now more than 129,000 people who are waiting for care. That's the data as at the end of March of this year. We are still waiting for the June data about how many people are waiting.
As we heard from my colleague, the tragedy of this is that 16,000 older Australians died while waiting for their packages. Another 14,000 went into residential care or into hospital whilst waiting for their packages. So over 30,000 people on that waitlist didn't get their package before they exited the system. It is terrible. My office is getting calls every day from around the country from older Australians, often their carer, who is also an elderly person, or their children. Sometimes their children are quitting work to go and care for their elderly parents, because they can't get access to these home care packages.
The government knows that this is an issue. Over six years, we have had four ministers for aged care, but the last one, Minister Wyatt, did say that more interventions by government would be needed. I note this budget does provide some money for home care packages, but it actually just brings forward some packages that were in the out years. So my question to the minister, and what I'd like him to tell older Australians, their families and their loved ones today, is: exactly how many home care packages are in the system today? We estimate it's about 100,000, but we don't actually know. Also, how many people are waiting today? How many are waiting for level 1, 2, 3 and 4 packages? We know that so many people who are waiting for level 3 and 4 package end up in a hospital or residential care. We know the Aged Care Assessment Teams that are going around assessing people are assessing people for level 4 packages and residential care at the same time, because they understand that most people are not going to get the level 4 package when they need it. The average wait time, we're being told by the department, by My Aged Care, is 24 months for a level 4 package. You've got older Australians, some in their 90s, who are desperate for care and who need this care to stay at home being told, 'You have to wait two years.' What sort of a country are we when we're telling people in their 90s, 'There is no care available for you for at least two years'? What sort of country are we living in? We're one of the wealthiest nations on this planet and we cannot afford to actually give people the care that they need when they need it.
The government has known about this problem for over two years. It has chosen to do very little about it. We heard the Prime Minister on 7.30 two or three nights ago saying that the priority of the current budget is to deal with the home care package waitlist. I'm yet to see it. Where is the government's prioritisation of fixing the home care crisis in Australia today? What are they going to do about it? How many packages are available today? How many packages will be available at the end of the forward estimates? What are the government doing? They announced there have been 40,000 extra packages. Have they already been put into the system?
It's almost cruel to announce there are going to be 40,000 extra packages and then for them to have already been used up or disappear and the waitlist to grow. It's giving people false hope. People are desperate. They are organising their lives around providing this care and trying to get this care, and the government is not being up-front and honest about exactly how long people are waiting. It is not being up-front and honest about exactly how many people today are on that waitlist and it's not being honest about exactly how many packages are out there and how many of the 40,000 it's actually put into the system. Older Australians, their loved ones and their families have a right to know this information. I'd ask that the minister provide it today so that we can tell older Australians exactly what's going on and so that we can stop this cruel hoax that somehow miraculously 40,000 packages are going to arrive tomorrow and it will be okay and people are going to get their care. That's what the government tried to tell them in the last budget, and it's not true. It is cruel to pretend that the government has fixed the problem and it's cruel to pretend that older Australians are going to be able to get the care. It's still a 24-month wait for a level 3 or 4 package and it's not good enough, Minister.
I rise to take the opportunity to ask Minister Hunt about what the Morrison government is doing to help Australian families when one or more members are suffering from perinatal depression and anxiety. Perinatal depression isn't just the baby blues. It won't just pass. Women and men experiencing perinatal depression often feel they are not bonding with their baby. They experience a loss of appetite or have trouble sleeping. As a paediatrician, I've had many families in my rooms talking about the difficulties they have had in that first critical year of a baby's life. They may feel tired or lethargic beyond the normal exhaustion that comes from having a wonderful newborn baby. In some cases, unfortunately, they may chose to end their lives. That's how bad it can get.
I will acknowledge that today is R U OK? Day. I think it's so important that people make note of and check in with their friends, but, in particular, pay attention to young mums and dads who are out there with their wonderful new bundle of joy. Sometimes it can be so hard to know what is going on inside. To ask, 'Are you okay?' is a wonderful way to highlight that you're there for them with a loving and open heart.
Perinatal depression was once shameful and embarrassing and was actually dealt with by a stiff upper lip. Now perinatal depression and anxiety have been brought out of the dark and the stigma has been reduced. But we as a society do have a long way to go in understanding the roller-coaster of emotion that women and men go through during pregnancy and after delivery—not that the men are pregnant, but they're going through it with their wives or partners. We know that about 100,000 Australians suffer from perinatal depression and anxiety every year. That's up to one in 10 women experiencing depression while they're pregnant and one in seven women experiencing depression in the first year after birth. We will all know someone who is struggling, often privately on their own. But men also experience perinatal mental illness and perinatal anxiety, and the anxiety is thought to be equally as common, but often the men won't admit to it.
As part of our training experience when I was a young paediatric trainee I watched a video of a woman who was severely depressed. Her young toddler was pulling at her skirt, trying to get her attention. It was unbelievably devastating to see the lack of attention that that mother was able to provide for her toddler and how urgently the toddler was trying to get the attention of this mother who was struggling with deep and severe depression. As I was a young paediatric trainee, this was before I'd had children, so I saw it through the eyes of the child. But as I became a mother myself I understood more the difficulties being faced by women.
Now, I'm someone who has a lot of support and I have been lucky to have four wonderful children. But with my third child I had a very difficult and painful delivery and in those first critical 12 hours I was really, really struggling, dealing with severe pain and with postnatal complications. I remember that at the time I had no time in my head for my newborn bundle of joy; I was trying to concentrate just on surviving myself. That was a very short-term exposure to a critical incident, but it gave me a tiny, tiny fragment of insight into how difficult it must be to bond with your newborn baby when you're struggling with your own mental health difficulties. In particular, so many people are sleep deprived with their newborn baby and struggle with a lot of other things in their lives, so it was very helpful for me as a paediatrician to understand a little about how difficult perinatal depression must be when it goes on and on, not just for weeks but for months, and the impact that can have on those first critical days, weeks and months of the baby's life.
As a paediatrician, I know that those first 1,000 days are so incredibly important for the bonding of the mother and the baby and also the bonding between the baby and the father and the family and the extended family. Those critical bonding moments, weeks and months, are also important for the development of the brain of the baby, so it's an incredibly important time for baby's life. My question to the minister is: could you please outline what funding the government has provided in the 2019-20 budget and what election commitments the government has made for perinatal mental illness? (Time expired)
I welcome the opportunity to question the government on their health budget, particularly with regard to aged care because this budget highlights that the government has no plan to tackle the reforms that the aged-care sector so desperately needs.
The 2019-20 budget is exactly what we've come to expect from Liberal budgets: never enough money to actually drive reform; a bit of money moving here and a bit there; let's take away a whole pile of money and then drop a tiny bit back into the budget, making it look like we're doing something. The fact is they don't care enough to tackle issues Australians so deeply care about.
I want to raise three points today in relation to aged care: workforce, funding that is fit for purpose and the need for accountability and transparency in the sector. Workforce is one of the most crucial parts to fixing our broken aged-care system. I note that this budget contains $2.6 million to implement an aged-care workforce strategy, so I want to know, with this money, what has the government actually done to fix the workforce issues in aged care? How do they know the money has been spent on workforce, nurses, carers and skills? We've heard time and time again that staff want more time to care. It has emerged as a key issue of the aged-care royal commission and is something which the wonderful aged-care unions, United Voice, AMNF and HACSU, have been raising for years. Staffing numbers, skill mix, staff training, qualifications and experience are key concerns which negatively impact on the ability of staff to provide safe quality care for all residents. The impetus to get this right is huge.
In order to meet ever-increasing demand for aged-care services and support, the workforce will need to more than triple by 2050. By 2050 we will need to have more than one million Australians working in aged care. This represents a workforce growth rate of about two per cent annually in order to meet future demand at a time when the overall employment-to-population ratio will be declining. We must have a quality workforce which sees aged-care workers getting the respect and dignity they deserve. Aged care is not babysitting. It requires a skilled well-taught, well-paid, decent workforce.
Of course, pay and conditions for workers are crucial to this issue, so again I return to my question. What has the government done to address this? I'd hazard a guess—very little, because it has form in requesting reports, writing a strategy and then doing absolutely nothing of substance. Secondly, the government must ensure that funding is adequate to meet the needs of our ageing population and that that is linked to care. That means proper residential care, home care packages and adequate funding for rural and residential aged-care facilities who are struggling to stay afloat and struggling to cope with the growing demand for complex-care patients.
This morning ABC reported that more than half of the nursing homes run by Australia's largest provider, Bupa, are failing basic standards of care and 30 per cent are putting the health and safety of the elderly under their care at risk. I'm sorry, but how does a provider which receives nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer subsidies get away with this? Funding should be tied to care. It is a simple premise. If a for-profit provider is making millions out of publicly funded beds yet is not providing enough staff nor delivering quality care and is risking the lives of those residents, that must be addressed.
Thirdly, the government must drive greater accountability for the delivery and use of aged-care funding by providers. I welcome the Palaszczuk government's plan to publish staff numbers at all public and private homes on a new health comparison website from next year. Your government's response? Well, it savaged the plan in a six-page submission, arguing:
It appears to create a reporting burden on providers, with no clear benefits to consumers.
How on earth does one get to that conclusion? Is anyone in the government actually sitting down and listening to the evidence being given in the aged-care royal commission?
I have met with so many distressed families who've put a loved one into residential aged care and have been horrified with the care that was provided. Publishing staff numbers is actually a simple reform that will drive better care. And, for those who do provide better care and for those who have nothing to worry about, this would not be a problem.
I'm not going to stand here and tell you that the solution is simple; it isn't. The solution requires thought and genuine reform that overhauls the sector and ensures the care and dignity of all our elderly. My question is: what is the government doing to fix the workforce issues, to link funding to care and drive accountability and transparency in the aged-care system?
I thank the member for Franklin, the member for Higgins and the member for Cooper for their questions and contributions this morning. Let me begin with the questions in relation to aged care. Of course, the government has called a royal commission off the back of the completely and utterly shocking and unacceptable tragedy that occurred at Oakden. Oakden was a South Australian government-run facility. It has been a shock to all Australians. We called the royal commission because we wanted the commissioners to be able to go without fear or favour and to identify any breaches in practices, on either an individual or systemic basis, and to provide systemic reform options that could potentially bring the parliament together.
We will wait for the commission to do their work, but in the meantime we have got on with the job. Aged-care funding when we came to office was $13.3 billion. In this budget—this being the consideration in detail—those figures are going to grow to approximately approaching $22 billion, $23 billion, $24 billion and $25 billion over the forward estimates. We will see a near doubling of funding, over the forward estimates, compared to when we came to office.
One area of extreme importance is home care, which was raised by the member for Franklin. The advice that I have from the department is that, when we came to government, the number of home care packages available was 60,308, in 2012-13. The most recent precise figures I have are that there were 124,000 packages in 2018-19. That will grow to 157,000 by 2022-23. Just to repeat: on the advice that I have before me, there were 60,308 in 2012-13, there were 124,000 in 2018-19 and there will be 157,000 packages in 2022-23. I advise the Chamber that that represents an increase of approximately 61 per cent. I note that, on the advice that I have, the Labor opposition provided no additional funding for residential or in-home aged-care places in their election costings and that there is no funding in Labor's costings for the aged-care workforce.
I was also asked by the member for Cooper about workforce. We're providing a further $2.6 million in targeted funding for that as part of the 2019-20 budget. There was a question in relation to a series of specifics: (1) logistical and specialist advisory support for the new Aged Care Workforce Industry Council, (2) development and delivery of tailored online training models for aged-care managers, (3) options to better integrate the health and aged-care workforce to support the transition of older people's care between acute-care settings and community or residential care services. Much of this comes from the work that John Pollaers put forward, which was cited as the source of the figures. So there have been very significant efforts, as well as the appointment not just of a royal commission but the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, Janet Anderson, who has fearlessly highlighted any deficiencies, and I commend her and her team on their work.
I now want to address the issues raised by the member for Higgins, who very courageously talked about her own experience but recognised that there are many others who have suffered far more greatly and extensively with perinatal depression. As a government we recognise this is a deep and profoundly important issue. For too long—and particularly on R U OK? Day we acknowledge this—women suffered in silence because there was a great sense of shame and guilt. Perhaps my biggest learning this year in the mental health space has been that, whilst as a country and a community we have largely conquered the externalising of stigma, there is still an enormous internal stigma on so many different fronts, which is why R U OK? Day is so important. That is about crossing the line so that we can seek help. PANDA were explaining to me that that remains exactly the case in postnatal depression and perinatal depression. That's why we're providing a package of $80 million, through two steps, to help with mums-and-bubs checks and other activities that will support our beautiful mothers—and the dads, who can also be affected.
I have worked in the public hospital system for over 40 years. With the advent of Medicare we had an accessible, affordable and equitable health system, the envy of the developed world. I believe this is no longer the case. I'm very concerned that the coalition government under this minister is allowing a two-tier medical system to develop in which those who can afford it are able to access the very best 21st-century care and those who can't have worse health outcomes and lower life expectancies.
I now see it being much more difficult for my patients and families to access health care than ever before. Take one example: child development problems. Children in my electorate for whom concerns are raised by parents, preschools, paediatricians, speech services et cetera now have to wait for over 14 months for a child development assessment that can lead to funding for speech therapy and management of autism or intellectual handicap. This is far too long. Those who can afford it can pay $1,200 for a private assessment, which can lead to earlier NDIS funding, earlier intervention and better outcomes. Unfortunately, waiting times for allergy and anaphylaxis food challenges are now over one year. Access to adult outpatient services has collapsed around Sydney and is even worse in rural and regional areas. Waiting times in my electorate for neurology and endocrinology outpatients are over six months. For cardiology, I rang around yesterday and couldn't get an appointment. I couldn't even get the phone to answer in our local hospital outpatient clinics. It's a tragedy.
There's new MRI technology for people who have implantable devices, such as pacemakers, who ordinarily can't use a standard MRI, but these are not Medicare licensed. I had a pensioner ring me the other day saying he couldn't afford the $500 MRI cost at the public hospital for his MRI for possible liver cancer, and could I help him raise the $500 to pay for that. It's a tragedy.
There are deep structural problems in our health system. It's not just me saying this. I have here the AMA's 2019 Public hospital report card. They state that it's worse than it has ever been since they've kept collective figures in the last 20 years; and not only is it worse now than 20 years ago, but elective surgery waiting lists went backwards by 1.5 per cent nationally. So things are worse and getting worse. Emergency departments are under considerable stress. Performance is in decline. More than one million Australians who presented to our public hospital emergency departments with severe illness waited much longer than they should have for assessment.
So our hospitals are under stress. Our public waiting times for outpatients are collapsing, yet if people want to see a specialist privately the gap costs are increasing enormously. I rang around yesterday in our local cardiology clinic. A consultation with a cardiologist and a cardiac ultrasound, which is a routine procedure, now costs $594, which people have to pay up-front. They can then get a Medicare rebate of $269.60, so that is a gap cost of over $300. It is unaffordable for many of the families that I see. This is a tragedy and a collapse in our healthcare system. For things like developmental assessments, the waiting lists have blown out. For ENT surgery waiting lists are now over 12 months. The cost even to see an ENT surgeon is $250, for which the rebate is $60. That is a gap cost of $200, which many of my patients can't afford. People who have had bowel cancer and who have been recommended to have regular six-monthly colonoscopies post surgery now have to wait 12 months to get a colonoscopy. This is unacceptable.
I want to know from the minister, what is he doing to address the deep structural problems in our medical system, leading to increased out-of-pocket costs, huge discrepancies in the availability of health care in metropolitan, outer metropolitan, rural and regional areas, and worse health outcomes except for people who live in the closest proximity to our teaching hospitals? What are we doing about addressing the collapse in the public hospital outpatient system and what are we doing to address these deep structural problems?
We have an important opportunity today to look more closely at the rural generalist program. I have a number of questions for the minister on this. As a former GP myself, sent out in my first year after medicine to work in Goondiwindi, Mungindi, St George and Dirranbandi, I absolutely understand the importance of getting capacity, quality and an adequate distribution of health care for the needs of Australians. One in three lives on the other side of the range. It's important in this Chamber to make sure that on both sides of politics we have people who know exactly how this great nation of ours operates over the range, to speak bluntly. It's fine to have people who wake up every day looking at high-rise buildings in the CBD, but we also need an absolute laser-like focus on the needs of Australians who don't. Those people are Indigenous Australians, rural Australians, as well as Australians working in agriculture, major projects and mining. All of them deserve world-class health care, and Australia has the unique challenge of delivering that health system to some of the most remote places in the world, which are, in many cases, parts of Central Australia.
I've been impressed by the courage of the National Party, impressed by this minister, in embarking on this pathway of a rural generalist program with the really solid investment of over $30 million to make sure we can say at the end of this term that we are well on the way to delivering not only GPs out of cities, who may work their way out into regional areas, but we are intentionally taking country kids from country schools to train in the country to serve country Australia as rural generalists.
Let me go back only two decades ago to when I had to change cities just to get some training in one area and then had to go to the UK to get a diploma in another area, all in the hope that one day I might get back to a country town. The telehealth and tele-education options make so much of this possible locally. We don't need to drag young Australians into the cities to get this training as much as we used to, and the rural generalist pathway is an acknowledgement of that. To the stakeholders who have put this together: it's a mighty effort to have this second pathway guaranteeing higher levels of training and contributing to what is a transition over time in the coalition's strategy to see 3,000 more doctors and 3,000 more nurses serving regional Australia. It's a thriving part of the world. We're constantly reminding those on the other side—enjoying their diet of goats' cheese and pate, I'm sure—that ultimately they have to get out into the rest of Australia to realise that those people deserve a GP like everyone else.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Order! The member for McMahon.
We don't just have to rely on sending a horse and cart out to serve rural Australia; we can have the highest quality rural universities serving with allied health professionals, nurses and doctors in those areas of Australia.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Order! The member for McMahon will cease interjecting.
Rural people can have the world's finest healthcare system, just as is enjoyed by those on the other side, by funding it and by trusting providers to provide it. Because once you go over the range, it's not just a road to nowhere. There are people living out there expecting fine health care, and they shouldn't be told to go and look it up on the computer or to take a drive down to the city just to see a specialist. We can do better by having both sides unified in focusing on a strategy to provide extra doctors, extra nurses, extra allied health professionals. With respect, it's easy to arc up those on the other side but a lot harder to get them to travel there and see it for themselves. Go out to an Indigenous community. Spend a few days there. Ask yourself deep in your heart: when was the last time you spent a week on an Indigenous community, didn't fly in and fly out like a seagull? My question is quite simple.
The member for Bowman will resume his seat. The member for McMahon on a point of order.
Member for Bowman, I would point out that we have present in the chamber Dr Freelander, who has given a life of service to disadvantaged people. The member for Bowman should reflect on his remarks.
He should apologise.
The member will resume his seat. Before I call the member for Bowman, I will not have the interjections that are taking place in this chamber. I'm having difficulty hearing. There are ample opportunities to have your say when this side of the chamber has its call. The member for Bowman.
Getting back to the matter at hand, the National Rural Generalist Pathway is a really important addition. We have talked about it for a long time, but it took this minister and his colleagues to make it happen and get it moving. It's a very important addition. I want to know about the progress in that respect. Sure, it's wonderful to have the Heart of Australia—mobile cardiology, mobile eye vans—but ultimately it's about having domesticated providers, allied health nurses and doctors. So, I want to know about the numbers. I want to know exactly how many extra doctors, nurses and allied health practitioners we're getting in regional Australia, many of them training in the same places where they went to school. It is important that local families are providing the health workforce for the next generation.
Today is R U OK? Day and on Tuesday we marked World Suicide Prevention Day. I first worked in mental health almost 20 years ago. While progress has been made in raising awareness and reducing stigma, in the last decade the suicide rate in Australia has increased to 12.5 per 100,000, the same rate as 50 years ago. In 2017, 3,128 people died by suicide in Australia, making suicide the 13th leading cause of death in Australia. Suicide Prevention Australia reported this week that over 10 million Australian adults are estimated to know someone who has died by suicide, and one-in-two young people are impacted by suicide by the time they turn 25. As the health minister has acknowledged, this is a genuine national tragedy. Suicide prevention is complex, and Labor welcomes the government's elevation of suicide prevention to a national whole-of-government priority. Labor also welcomes the government's Towards Zero target and the appointment of Christine Morgan, the CEO of the National Mental Health Commission, as Australia's first National Suicide Prevention Advisor.
However, it is recognised that a significant barrier to effective suicide prevention is a lack of data. The minister announced at a National Press Club address in August that the government will hold its intergenerational health and mental health survey. The survey will be conducted by the ABS. It will involve 60,000 Australians and will last over a three-year period. My question to the minister on data is: could you please provide an update to the Chamber on the progress of the survey.
It is estimated that around one-in-seven children and adolescents between four and 17 years of age experience a mental illness each year. Of the 13.9 per cent of children and adolescents with a mental illness, almost one-third had two or more disorders at some time in the previous 12 months. In October last year, the minister announced $51.8 million in funding for the health care of young Australians through the national network of headspace centres and the digital portal eheadspace. In December last year, the minister announced that four new headspace services would be established in areas of high need: two in South Australia, at Mount Barker and Victor Harbor, one at Margaret River in Western Australia and one in Wangaratta, Victoria. These services are to be established from existing headspace services. In January this year, the minister announced a new headspace youth mental health ambassadors project and funding for its head office. The government has since committed to deliver 30 new headspaces and to continue the Early Psychosis Youth Services program, at selected headspace centres, to provide specialist clinical services for young people at the early stages of severe mental illness. My question to the minister around youth mental health is: could you please provide an update on the progress of the four headspaces announced in December, on each of the 30 new headspaces, the early psychosis services at the selected headspaces, the digital portal eheadspace and the youth mental health ambassadors project.
Minister, Labor also welcomed your announcement in August that the government would develop a national children's mental health strategy. Could the minister please provide any further details of the time frame for progression of this strategy.
It is estimated that over half of the Australian population between 16 and 85 years of age will experience, at some stage in their lifetime, a common mental illness, such as anxiety or affective or substance use disorder. It's also estimated that 20 per cent of the population experience a common mental illness each year. Of these, anxiety disorders are the most prevalent, affecting one-in-seven people. The government committed to trial eight new adult mental health centres to provide walk-in treatment and advice as an alternative to hospital emergency departments. As someone who has worked for almost 10 years in adult inpatient mental health units at my local hospital, I welcome this announcement. In May this year, the government announced that Townsville will be the location for one of these adult walk-in community health centres. My question to the minister is: could the minister please provide an update on each of the eight new adult mental health centres—their locations and time frames for operation?
Minister, Labor has always taken a bipartisan approach to mental health. We look forward to continuing to work with the government on these and other mental health initiatives. We welcome the Treasurer, in the budget this year, making mental health, particularly for young people, the No.1 priority on social policy for this government. We look forward to working with you on these announced initiatives and making sure that communities, especially in regional and remote Australia, have the services that they need for particularly vulnerable young people and for all those experiencing mental health problems in our community.
I acknowledge the contributions from those on the other side. If it's okay with the member for Macarthur, I will leave answers to his questions to the health minister. To both the member for Dobell and the member for Macarthur: I acknowledge your expertise and experience in this space.
While the Minister for Health may answer the member for Dobell in more detail, I would like to touch on the issue around headspace centres in regional Australia. At the moment there are 54 headspace centres around regional Australia, with four more to come. I can speak from personal experience about the impact that they are having on young people in regional communities. There are also the satellite headspace services, which I think have been a big innovation, which provide headspace services for smaller communities. Traditionally, headspace centres have been in communities of 20,000 and above. We now have three headspace centres in my electorate servicing smaller towns and that's working quite well.
Also touching on mental health and telehealth, the Royal Flying Doctor Service are now doing psychology consults via videoconferencing—not completely, but following up, and keeping that continuation of service going to a client that may be in a remote area and a long, long way away from services. But telehealth—not on its own, but in combination with face-to-face services—is starting to really help in those areas. I will acknowledge that the shadow minister was in my electorate a couple of weeks ago and would have seen some of these things that I'm speaking about.
As the minister responsible for rural health and as someone who represents a large regional electorate, I want to ensure that the seven million rural and regional Australians have equitable health services. The government recognises that, obviously, there are challenges facing the health system in regional Australia, and is focused on having the capacity, quality and distribution of services to meet the demands of families and communities. We also know we are graduating enough Australian doctors; however, there is an inequitable distribution of the wider health workforce in rural areas. That's why we're focused on creating a sustainable and quality health workforce. I can assure the chamber that that's the priority for me at the moment—that is, making sure that those workforce shortcomings are rectified.
One of the ways that we're doing this is through the national rural generalist pathway. In our last budget, we committed $62.2 million over four years to commence the delivery of the first aspects of the national rural generalist pathway. This will ensure that rural generalists, the doctors that have the skills that we need to service rural communities, have a broad range of skills and are trained, recognised and resourced to meet the diverse health needs in rural and regional Australia. Our investment will help deliver a dedicated medical training pathway to attract, retain and support—that's really important, support—doctors who provide primary health care and other specialist services in country areas. This funding will support: a coordination unit to improve training coordination for aspiring rural generalists; the expansion of primary healthcare training placements for junior doctors, which will increase early exposure to rural practice, which is also important; and an application by the two major GP training colleges—that's ACRRM and the RACGP—to the Medical Board of Australia seeking national recognition for rural generalist medicine as a specialised field within general practice. This builds on the $550 million Stronger Rural Health Strategy, a comprehensive package of reforms delivered in last year's budget to address workforce shortages and improve access to doctors. In the few seconds remaining, I might bring the Chamber up to speed on this.
Since the strategy commenced only last year, rural GP numbers have increased by 300 and rural nurse numbers by 400. They're the Department of Health's numbers. I recognise we have a long way to go in that space, but I assure the Chamber that it's a priority for this government. It's certainly a priority for me, as someone who's been dealing with these issues for a long, long time. We will continue to make sure that we implement the projects and proposals that we need to.
I want to ask the minister a few questions. I won't be making a substantive contribution; I just want to ask him some questions. I'd like to ask the minister: how many drugs have been recommended by the PBAC to the minister that are not currently listed? In other words, how many have been recommended by the PBAC that you have not listed? My second question is: six months ago PBAC recommended the minister list Symdeko, a drug for cystic fibrosis. It hasn't been listed. When will the minister be listing this drug?
It's a pleasure to speak today in support of the budget and to have the opportunity to ask the minister a question. We—the Morrison government and the minister in particular—are doing tremendous work in the Health portfolio, providing stability and certainty when it comes to delivering essential healthcare services. We know that a strong economy is needed to afford and improve our healthcare system, and that's what the Morrison government is delivering
There's so much to like about the Morrison government's efforts in this particular area, particularly the PBS, which I spoke a little bit about yesterday, where we reversed Labor's freeze on listing brand new drugs to the extent that 2,100 new medicines have been listed on the PBS—an average of one per day. That's changing the lives of people in Australia—the mums, the dads, the sons and the daughters—giving them a better quality of life and enabling them to enjoy more time with their family.
I also had the opportunity to be with the minister in my electorate of Ryan to announce $440 million in medical research grants. I'm pleased to say that in Ryan we have some of the best medical research facilities in Australia. They are doing groundbreaking research to push the boundaries of medicine, to look at some fantastic and exciting new fields like genomics, which are going to revolutionise medicine and allow us to target medicines and treatments to patients in a way that has never been achieved before.
I look very much forward to what the University of Queensland and those researchers deliver. We have had some previous and very notable success stories. Ian Frazer, who was previously the Australian of the Year, is a tremendous example of somebody who, having migrated to Australia and become an Australian citizen, has contributed immensely to his adopted nation in the form of the Gardasil vaccine, which has saved countless lives from the scourge of cervical cancer.
In particular today, which we know is R U OK? Day, I want to talk about saving some other lives—that is, the area of suicide prevention. We know the aim of this day is to encourage people to talk to each other, to ask, 'Are you are okay?' and to take some action if they're not, and to reduce the stigma that comes when addressing and talking about mental health issues. It's a simple question: are you okay? It can save lives.
In my electorate of Ryan, for the five years to 2017, over 600 lives were lost to suicide, and thousands of friends and family were impacted by those losses. We have to remember that there is a ripple effect from these things. When somebody takes their life, because they feel things are hopeless, they not only take their own life; they irrevocably change the lives of the people who love them and those who are around them. So suicide prevention is, and will always remain, a key priority for me and my community of Ryan and for all Australians I know.
As a member of the Morrison government, I'm very proud that we are working to deliver the world's best mental health system, a system that works to be stigma free and focused on prevention. We know that one suicide—and, remember, I said that 600 lives were lost over a five-year period in my electorate alone—is one too many. A big part of the Morrison government's plan focuses on youth mental health, with $503 million for the Youth Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan, which is the largest suicide prevention plan in this nation's history.
Headspace is a well-recognised and respected support network within that plan, and I am fortunate to have a headspace in my electorate of Ryan in the wonderful suburb of Taringa, where I live. The Taringa headspace's vision is:
To improve young people's mental, social and emotional wellbeing through the provision of high quality, integrated service when and where they are needed.
It's a vision that the headspace team work tirelessly every day to achieve. I'd like to pay tribute to those people in headspace Taringa who are working their guts out to achieve better outcomes for my local area.
Given this support service is so effective and in such high demand, unfortunately this can lead to some wait times for young people, which we need to address. Given the effectiveness of headspace in providing mental health resources for young people, it draws on the need to provide similar support services for adults as well. Therefore, my question to the minister is: what initiatives in the 2019-20 budget are directly aimed at reducing waiting times at headspace centres around the country, including in Taringa, in my electorate of Ryan? What funding is available to provide much-needed assistance to adults as well?
I have a question for the minister. The minister may recall last year promising to list the flash glucose monitor on the National Diabetes Services Scheme on 1 March this year. It's now 12 September. The product has not been listed on the scheme. When will the minister list it on the scheme? The minister might have noticed that I tabled a petition with 214,000 signatures on it in the Chamber earlier in the week, and the minister might want to provide an answer to those 214,000 people.
I'm delighted to respond and to answer questions. Let me begin, firstly, by noting the member for Macarthur's question. I acknowledge both his and the member for Bowman's distinguished careers as medical practitioners, as well as the member for Dobell's work both in pharmacy and in mental health. I was not previously aware of the mental health work, so I appreciate that.
In response to the member for Macarthur, I'm delighted to inform the Chamber that the bulk-billing rate, which represents the rate of people who are able to visit the doctor for free for GP services, has just been announced for the 2018-19 year. It has increased from 82.2 per cent in the year prior to us coming to government to 86.2 per cent, which means that over 86 out of every 100 visits to the GP are now free. That is, I'm informed by my department, an all-time high. That's, I think, a very important part of it. We have over a three per cent increase in the total Medicare bulk-billing rate, which includes the specialists, compared with when we came to government, and that is, again I am informed, at an all-time high. Both of those things are, I think, extremely important.
I would like to take a moment to address the questions raised by both the member for Dobell and the member for Ryan. They were in common areas. There were many elements to it. I won't be able to answer all of them in detail, but I'd be happy to provide some assistance elsewhere.
Firstly, the member for Dobell raised the Intergenerational Health and Mental Health Survey. The department has already begun planning and design of that survey with the ABS. It's expected that the first test surveys will be conducted within the coming six months, and they'll be used to refine the final study. One thing I'd like to do—and I apologise for not having contemplated this previously—is, off the back of your question, we will invite the opposition to meet with the ABS and to contribute ideas in relation to the design. That's one of the values of consideration in detail. It's a suggestion which comes from today's discussion.
In relation to the Children's Mental Health Strategy, that is being jointly led by Professor Frank Oberklaid and Professor Christel Middeldorp. They're currently consulting, and we are currently consulting with them. A panel will be announced shortly. Again, off the back of today's consideration in detail, I'd like to invite the opposition to meet with Professor Frank Oberklaid, Professor Christel Middeldorp and the National Suicide Prevention Adviser, Christine Morgan. I think that would be appropriate.
I particularly want to acknowledge the member for Ryan's points, which are shared, in relation to headspace and adult mental health hubs. The eight adult mental health hubs are currently being developed in conjunction with the states. I've had discussions with South Australia, as well as with the NT minister, Natasha Fyles, who's looking for a particular model in her territory, and the headspaces are on track to be rolled out as set out in the budget and during the course of the election campaign. It is the same with the adult hubs. On R U OK? Day I think it's very important that we acknowledge all of those things.
The member for McMahon asked two questions in particular—one in relation to Symdeko. I am actually very interested and delighted to be able to answer him in terms of this. I received a letter from the first assistant secretary in the Department of Health on Monday of this week, stating that by law the Australian government cannot list a medicine on the PBS unless the PBAC has made a recommendation in favour, which has happened. The PBAC further advised that the financial arrangements and other terms of the existing managed access program for Orkambi would be required to apply equally to Symdeko. Then, interestingly, the first assistant secretary goes on to say that despite numerous requests from the department, to date, no pricing proposal compliant with the PBAC's recommendations had been received from Vertex. I have written to the company myself. We have made numerous approaches to the company seeking a response to that recommendation that is compliant with legal requirements. I am delighted to be able to inform the Chamber that, as of this morning, we have now received for the first time what could potentially be a compliant recommendation. That will now be assessed, but until this moment the company had not provided the detail required by law.
Firstly, I thank the minister for his response to the member for Macarthur and the member for Dobell, particularly the minister's offer to consult with the opposition on the intergenerational mental health survey, which is one we will take up with the minister, and we will do so in good faith, and his offer of a briefing with Professors Oberklaid and Middeldorp, which we will also take up. I thank the minister for his answer to my question. It's amazing what a Channel 9 story can arrange, with the government's response on Symdeko. But the important thing is that patients and sufferers of cystic fibrosis will get this drug as soon as possible, which has been the opposition's hope and intention in drawing attention to this matter. The minister didn't answer a couple of other questions, so I might take the opportunity to put them again. How many drugs which have been recommended by the PBAC have not been listed by the minister? Secondly, when will the minister list the flash glucose monitor on the National Diabetes Services Scheme?
Earlier this year I was proud to stand by the Prime Minister as he announced record-breaking investment in mental health at headspace Ashfield. This government is making mental health a priority. As I said in my maiden speech, this is an issue that is incredibly important to me. Prior to entering politics, I practised as a psychologist, working mostly with young people and families, as well as contributing to a number of research projects. One of these projects was in conjunction with Camp Quality, a children's cancer charity that looks to provide in-hospital support for children affected by cancer and their families. With a mantra that laughter is the best medicine, we developed a resilience program to help children who have been affected by cancer. I'd like to congratulate Camp Quality on 35 years of incredible work so that kids facing cancer have the chance to be kids again wherever they are in their journey with cancer.
In my clinical work as a psychologist, I came into contact with many children and families who were affected by various physical illnesses, including cancer, which in some shape or form impacted on their mental health. Cancer is the leading cause of death from disease in Australian children. In the 10 years from 2005 to 2014, nearly a thousand Australian children under the age of 15 died from cancer. A childhood diagnosis of cancer brings every affected family's life to a complete halt. What is vital for parents and carers in this circumstance is access to services and facilities which provide specialist treatment for their child and emotional support for the entire family as they go through the stages from diagnosis through to treatment and, hopefully, recovery. It is important that the treatment undertaken is driven by up-to-date evidence based research and it is imperative that Australian researchers take a leading role in this process. This contributes to better outcomes for Australian children and their families by providing more effective treatment.
The Morrison government has already invested significantly in groundbreaking medical research through the Medical Research Future Fund. This fund reached $17.5 billion in investment as of July this year, across a range of projects, from genetic research to medical technology. Many families in Reid and in the wider Sydney region are referred to the children's hospital at Randwick for high-level specialist care for childhood diseases, including cancer. As a mother of four, I have accessed treatment from the children's hospital in Randwick and I know firsthand how dedicated the specialists are at the hospital. As a parent, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to cope with the news that your child has cancer, let alone to go on and seek treatment.
Every person and family is directly or indirectly impacted by cancer. Facing cancer at any age is traumatic, but to witness children confronting the fight of their life is absolutely devastating. Minister, the people of my electorate and the state of New South Wales were thrilled to learn of the plan to establish a specialised cancer centre for children at the Sydney Children's Hospital in Randwick. I know that the people of Reid are very pleased to see their hard-earned taxes are being used to provide world-leading care to our children.
Minister, following your announcement in March this year, can you please confirm that funds have been allocated in the 2019-20 budget to establish a comprehensive children's cancer centre in Sydney. Further, what other funding is the government providing to support those Australians faced with cancer?
In addition to the questions I asked the minister and reminded the minister of last time, perhaps I could add one more. The minister asked the TGA to review the ban on flu home testing. Has the minister ever asked the TGA to review any other products at any point?
I'm delighted to take the questions. Let me begin with the member for Reid. Firstly, I acknowledge her work, in particular as a child psychologist but right across the field of psychology. It does seem as if the Chamber is blessed with a range of health and medical professionals. I don't know if there's a comparative figure over history, but I will say that we have a range of extraordinary people now on both sides of the chamber.
In relation to childhood cancer, I was with the member for McMahon this morning at the Camp Quality launch of their New Normal Navigator app, which is essentially a support for families who are returning home after treatment, and that's something which the government has supported with a fund of $350,000. In addition, we have provided $25 million all up—an initial $20 million grant and an additional $5 million grant—for the Zero Childhood Cancer program, as well as over $60 million through the National Health and Medical Research Council. Also, importantly, we have recently made available, on the advice of the Medical Services Advisory Committee, new medicines in relation to CAR T therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in beautiful young children. I met a young girl, Violet Uhi, who is now eight years old. She was supported by the Medical Treatment Overseas Program to receive treatment in the US for her acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. At this point, because of the CAR T therapy she is now cancer free. Of course, we never know for certain but we hope that this is a permanent situation. That service is now being made available on a permanent basis by the government through the listing of CAR T therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and is going to be supported by an $80 million investment in cellular immunotherapy at the Peter MacCallum clinic.
In addition to the $80 million and the MSAC support for what will be the first of many historic breakthroughs in this space, we will be establishing, as the member suggested, a compressive children's cancer centre at the Sydney Children's Hospital. The idea was first brought to me by Professor Tracey O'Brien, as well as Professor Michelle Haber. It's something we worked on in conjunction with the New South Wales government. It had the strong support of both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. I thank them for their assistance through the budget. As a consequence of that, the budget does confirm a $100 million allocation, which the Commonwealth will make, to this most worthy of projects. My hope is that, over the coming decades, this will help save countless lives. I think it is an immensely important project.
Dealing with the member for McMahon's question, in particular I note that, with regard to FreeStyle Libre, we did absolutely commit to list it once the company had met the requirements.
An honourable member interjecting—
No, that is not a correct statement. What we committed to was continuous glucose monitoring on 1 March and to list FreeStyle Libre once the company met the requirements. The company to this point has not met those requirements. After much pushing of them we have now received—again only in recent days—a proposal where they are beginning to indicate a willingness to accept the independent medical experts' recommendations. But at this stage—and I have written to them noting that we will do that—they have not fully accepted the recommendations in the terms put forward by the independent medical experts.
I note that the shadow minister has misrepresented the government's position on this. I say that because our commitment was to list it once they met the requirements. There is one very interesting thing here. I have done a little bit of comparative work. That comparative work shows that the listing of new medicines in 2012-13 under the then government took approximately 321 days between recommendation and arrival and that the listing of new medicines, on a like-for-like basis, for the last full year, 2017-18, was approximately 189 days. (Time expired)
I remind the Minister for Health that in his press release he promised—with no caveats—to list the flash monitor on 1 March. There was not one condition. He said in his press release, 'I will list the flash monitor on 1 March.' I remind the minister of that. The minister did not answer my question: how many drugs have been recommended by the PBAC that he has not currently listed?
I'm very happy to address this. Every medicine that the PBAC recommends will be listed once it achieves all of the requirements that by law must be achieved. We are now working to ensure that every one of those recommendations is delivered.
I compare and contrast this because this is probably the one place that the opposition may not want to go. In the 2011 budget the then government refused to list medicines after the PBAC had recommended them and after agreement had been reached with the company. Those medicines were for things like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, endometriosis and IVF. Not only were all of these medicines agreed by the PBAC but the companies had reached the requirements. The government of the day refused to list them, due to fiscal circumstances. One of the fiscal circumstances which blew out the budget was the arrival under the shadow minister's watch of 400 boats with almost 24,000 people. That cost blowout was a significant component of the $11 billion overrun. The budget of the day referred to fiscal circumstances. Due to fiscal circumstances, the government will defer the listing of some new medicines until fiscal circumstances permit. The fiscal circumstances which established those conditions included the loss of control of the border under this shadow minister's watch, when he was the minister. Let me say this: he couldn't stop the boats, but he did stop the medicines.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! I would point out that the time for this session is due to conclude now. You are eating into the time that will be available to other members, like the member for Greenway, to pursue their portfolio interests.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
And you're giving the minister five minutes after your 10 seconds.
No, he didn't answer the question. The minister would not answer.
Proposed expenditure—$7,355,343,000—agreed to.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to address the Chamber in relation to our very substantial program of expenditure and activity when it comes to the Communications and the Arts portfolio. Our 2019-20 budget contains significant outcomes for the Communications and the Arts portfolio—outcomes which are about delivering for all Australians and helping all Australians to access and benefit from world-class communication services, creative experience and culture. Our initiatives are designed to help Australians across our vast continent be better connected than ever.
In that regard I want to inform the Chamber of a visit I was privileged to be able to make to the APY Lands in the remote north of South Australia on Friday, principally for the purpose of visiting Indigenous art centres and seeing some absolutely remarkable art and of meeting some extraordinary world-class artists and not only hearing about their strategies to get their art to market, so that their art can be seen and understood by as many people as possible, but also helping to generate income for a range of purposes. I was delighted to visit a kidney dialysis centre that's just opened in the community of Ernabella that's been jointly funded by the Commonwealth and South Australian governments. A contribution towards the cost has come from the proceeds of artworks produced by the very talented residents of the APY Lands, Indigenous Australians, and it's just one small way in which the very exciting activities going on in the APY Lands—as indeed in many other parts of Australia in the field of Indigenous arts—are producing a social and economic benefit as well as helping to inform and give access to a culture that draws on 60,000 years.
I can also inform the Chamber that each of those four remote communities, each with roughly 200 to 300 residents, has a 4G mobile base station providing high-quality telecommunication services in some of the most remote communities in our entire nation. Why is that? It's because of the Mobile Black Spot Program, which the Liberal-National government committed to when it came to government in 2013. That program has now reached the point where we've had four very successful rounds. Over a thousand base stations have been funded under the program and over 700 of them have already been delivered. We're now well into round 5. Now you can visit four extremely remote Indigenous communities and see that each one of them is now provided with 4G mobile coverage, thanks to our Liberal-National government working cooperatively with the mobile operators. In this case, they're Telstra base stations, but all three of the major mobile operators—Telstra, Optus and Vodafone—have rolled out significant numbers of base stations in regional and remote Australia, partly funded under the Mobile Black Spot Program, working cooperatively with state governments, with local councils and in some cases even with private sector parties that have co-contributed. It would be hard, in my view, to find a more powerful example of good public policy delivering important benefits to Australians—in this case, to the residents of four remote Indigenous communities in the APY lands. These four mobile phone base stations have all been installed in the last year or two and are making a very significant difference to the lives of the residents of those four remote communities.
As I've indicated, the design of the Mobile Black Spot Program has attracted significant funding from sources other than the Commonwealth government. In fact, the total funding secured so far from all sources—Commonwealth, state and local government, mobile network operators, businesses and local communities—is more than $760 million, and more than 1,000 new base stations have been funded. I make the point: how much public money did the previous Labor government commit, in six years, to improve mobile coverage in regional and remote Australia? Not one dollar.
My question is for the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts. I refer to the longstanding concerns expressed by the residents of Samford in Queensland about the distribution of NBN technologies in their community. Earlier this year I met with some residents of the Samford community who have formed an advocacy group to petition for a more appropriate deployment of NBN technology in their area. The discussion was invaluable. It illuminated a number of local issues that interacted with broader incentives, sometimes contradictory, which face the NBN rollout. As the minister may be aware, the Samford NBN Advocacy Group have been constantly reviewing proposed NBN technologies since 2013 and did so as recently as August this year. Their petition attracted 1,600 signatures and was tabled in parliament by the now former senator for Queensland Chris Ketter.
The group resides in the 4520 postcode, over which we find three different technologies exist. Some residents are receiving fibre to the curb, some are receiving fixed wireless and some are receiving Sky Muster satellite. I note the lack of ADSL availability in some parts of Samford may result in a fixed-wireless take-up rate that exceeds the national average. This raises further questions about peak-hour congestion. I'm also advised that there are empty fibre-ready conduits in new development areas which are being served by fixed wireless. Whilst it is broadly accepted that the fixed-line footprint does have economic boundaries, the concern is that the decisions made in Samford do not actually serve the long-term interests of the community or taxpayers.
I therefore want to put the following questions to the minister. Why have households previously determined as economical for the Samford fixed-line footprint been shifted to fixed wireless? Given the escalating trend of capacity and cost challenges in the fixed-wireless footprint, why are households on the edge of the fixed-line and fixed-wireless footprint being advised their only option is to connect to the Sky Muster satellite? Finally, is there a risk that these decisions are being made to satisfy short-run objectives but will deliver inferior service quality and end up costing taxpayers more in the long run?
When I was first elected into this House, representing the good people of the Lyne electorate, there were huge black spot communications problems. Whether you were driving up the Hastings Valley to the Comboyne Plateau or down below Taree in the Manning Valley or in other valleys in the coastal areas, there were many areas that were black holes. You couldn't run a business from some of these areas because mobile phone technology is involved in so much of industry and commerce—apart from personal convenience. It meant that many businesses were considering moving. When the Lyne electorate was redistributed further south, I inherited right down to the Hunter river at Maitland. Just north of that, in the beautiful Gresford-Paterson district, at the Torryburn Stud, a multimillion-dollar business with 28 employees, you couldn't use a mobile phone. Can you imagine the safety repercussions there would have been in relation to any accidents of staff dealing with the horses, which are many and very valuable?
It is a classic example of an ultimate beneficiary of the Mobile Black Spot Program in our electorate.
Paterson and Gresford, Tocal—all these areas in the Hunter region are now well serviced with 4G technology. It's one of the areas where base stations have been created and upgraded. In fact, in the Lyne electorate, $2.7 million of federal funding was contributed towards this program, which triggered $8.2 million of total investment, delivering 12 base stations. That's just in my electorate alone, but there are many other areas. Mount Seaview is due to get an upgrade as well. People travelling up and down the Oxley Highway, where there are many accidents, will now be able to use a mobile phone in an emergency, so they will get the benefit of that as well.
It's quite an amazing program. I was so pleased to see in this budget that there's been another allocation for another two rounds—$160 million, with $80 million in the current round. I might ask the minister later on to outline what we can expect in the next two rounds.
There are other things that we've also improved in the communications space in the Lyne electorate. Since 2013 everyone has been asking: when is the NBN coming to the Lyne electorate? Some work had been started around Manning and the lower reaches of the current Lyne electorate, down towards the Hunter, but we were told the NBN wouldn't get to the city of Port Macquarie until 2025. I can tell you that 96 per cent of the rollout in the Lyne electorate is now complete, with 56 per cent take-up. That's 90,224 premises that have the internet up and running courtesy of the NBN rollout. Can you imagine spending $6 billion over six years and being told that a city of over 50,000 people wasn't going to get the NBN until 2025? So communications are really improving. The Mobile Black Spot Program is filling a void—again, six years and not a dollar invested by the federal Labor government into mobile phone black spots.
We also have technology for multi-user mobile towers. That's an area I'd like to promote, and the minister might make some comments on that as well. If you're in an area and you can't get mobile phone reception—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:57 to 12:04
I mentioned the rollout of the NBN. As you know, 16,000 square kilometres means there are lots of constituents that don't live in clustered residential developments, and we've had to rely on fixed-wireless towers. Can you imagine? They were just starting after six years in desktop planning but, in the space of this coalition government's control of the communications portfolio, we now have 57 towers across the Lyne electorate—two in construction and planning around Clarence Town and Glen Oak, and Seaham and Bulahdelah East will get their NBN towers by 2020. The rollout will then be complete. We've got thousands of people hooked up to Sky Muster 1 and 2— (Time expired)
In the summary report on the development of the Universal Service Guarantee released by the Department of Communications and Arts in November 2018, the department provided a background on the Statutory Infrastructure Provider, or SIP, obligations. These SIP obligations will require NBN Co, along with other carriers, to provide the necessary infrastructure for wholesale megabit-per-second download speeds of 25 up and five down, or better, for all Australian premises.
The Regional Broadband Scheme—that is, RBS—legislation, which is yet to be introduced into the parliament, is expected to provide funding support for NBN Co's SIP obligations. The department has explained that the RBS will provide funding support which will contribute to the cost of providing high-speed broadband access to regional Australia. Minister, has the government done the costings of the new SIP obligations? If so, what is it going to cost, and when will the costings be done? What proportion of the SIP costs is going to be met from the income from the RBS; and how will the government meet the shortfall? If the RBS legislation fails to pass, how will the government fund the SIP obligations? What is the time frame for this government's development of the legislative framework to transition from the Universal Service Obligation to the Universal Service Guarantee?
Three per cent of Australians are expected to be allocated satellite under the NBN. What alternative infrastructure options are being considered to deliver voice services under the USG, given the technical limitations of satellite in delivering adequate voice services? Some 21 premises in Crafers and Upper Sturt have now been assigned satellite, rather than fibre to the node as promised on the NBN website, because the infrastructure was considered too expensive to install. What avenue do these residents have to challenge this decision?
If Australians find that satellite or wireless is not suitable for their needs, I'm led to understand that they can continue to use ADSL. For a number of these technology footprints in my electorate, retail service providers are disconnecting this product. Is Telstra obliged to make ADSL infrastructure available to retail service providers? And does the minister have any insight and any technical or financial reasons why retail service providers are refusing to offer this product?
With respect to the Communications and the Arts portfolio, Regional Arts Australia works to raise the profile of regional artists and advocates for the development of cultural infrastructure that helps strengthen regional communities through the management of the Regional Arts Fund. In 2008, the Regional Arts Fund was valued at $22 million across four years. In 2012, the fund was halved, being valued at $12.54 million over four years. The fund is currently valued at $13.85 million over four years, taking us to 2022. Regional Arts Australia is calling for the fund to be increased to $22 million across four years from July 2020, arguing that the demand for regional arts funding is increasing, with 70 per cent of applicants unable to find funding support. Will the government consider increasing the fund by at least $2 million a year to restore the fund to its pre-2010 equivalent value to support creative endeavours in regional, rural and remote Australia. If not, what is the rationale for not providing that support to regional Australia?
It's a pleasure to rise in this chamber to talk about the NBN and to support our minister who's doing a fantastic job in that space. The coalition's approach to the National Broadband Network is putting the consumer first by providing fast affordable broadband to all Australians sooner and at less cost to taxpayers. There are currently over 10 million premises ready to connect. NBN has exceeded its rollout and activation targets for 2018-19 by 200,000 premises. More than 86 per cent of Australian premises can order NBN services. More than 5.7 million premises have already connected to the NBN, including my own residence. NBN Co is now a year away from completing its build phase. All Australians will be able to connect by 2020—a great result. Every week, 68,000 premises are declared ready to connect and 36,000 premises are taking up NBN services.
Under Labor, the NBN was a complete mess. Under Labor, the NBN missed every rollout target it set for itself. Under the coalition, the NBN rollout is on schedule and on budget. After six years of Labor, just 51,000 users were connected to the NBN—that is, one in 50 premises. Under the coalition, we're connecting more premises to the NBN every two weeks than Labor managed in six years. Labor's fibre-to-the-premises NBN policy would have cost $30 billion more and taken six to eight years longer to complete. This would have increased broadband bills by up to $43 a month—that is, $500 a year—hurting households and small businesses.
The coalition's approach has allowed NBN to offer a better wholesale pricing strategy to reduce congestion and increase uptake of 50-megabits-per-second, or higher, plans, tripling from 16 per cent in December 2016 to over 64 per cent today. While Labor promised a significantly more expensive NBN, with 1,000-megabits-per-second speeds, only nine per cent of users buy 100-megabits-per-second plans and less than 0.01 per cent buy the top 1,000-megabits-per-second speed.
Research by AlphaBeta confirms that Australia now has one of the most affordable markets for broadband. It ranks seventh for affordability among 22 countries analysed. The coalition government, I'm pleased to say, is rolling out better broadband across Australia in the fastest and most affordable way so Australians can get access to fast broadband sooner at a price they can afford.
In my electorate, 89 per cent of all premises are ready for service. The Gold Coast is known as the start-up business capital of Australia. My electorate of Moncrieff alone has just under 32,000 businesses who are the backbone of our local economy. This is why it's essential for businesses to have reliable and affordable access to the NBN.
Paige Harkness is a young mum who lives in Highland Park in my electorate. Instead of commuting on the highway from the Gold Coast to Brisbane to perform her job as a business development manager, working in partnerships and integration for the company Alkira Software, Paige now uses the digital highway and works from home, allowing her to spend more time with her 12-month-old son. Alkira Software is a local start-up business that has developed software, giving people voice-controlled access to the internet. This company understands the value of connectivity. With 16 staff and three offices around Australia, they say many of their team work remotely and from home and couldn't do it effectively without the NBN.
Another business that's making a real difference on the Gold Coast is Visual Marketing Australia. This digital marketing business bundle, a local business hub, is servicing clients across the country and overseas. The managing director, John Bond, says most of their business is done online and that they are far more efficient now that his terrible ADSL2+ service has been replaced by hybrid fibre coaxial, HFC. Now with speeds of 100 megabits per second down and 40 up, John says his team are no longer waiting around for daily files to be sent. Instead, they get on and do what they do best. This in turn helps our local economy to grow and prosper. These are just a few examples of how the NBN has improved not only the lives of individuals in my electorate of Moncrieff but also business productivity, business growth and, of course, a future for their families. So I ask the minister to further outline how the NBN is benefiting businesses in my electorate of Moncrieff.
My question to the minister is about the budget's impact on the arts in Australia. Let's face it, Minister, it's been a six-year-long winter of discontent for the arts community in Australia. As the coalition enters its seventh year in government, its legacy sounds like a film director on speed—cut, cut, cut and cut again, when it comes to the arts. Let's look at some of this shameful legacy. It ended Creative Australia as a cultural policy and replaced it with nothing—zip, nada, nothing at all. That was certainly creative. It has delivered cuts to the Australia Council, cuts to training institutions, cuts to the ABC and to the SBS, despite promises to the contrary at Panthers Leagues Club. And, not content with cutting, this Big Brother coalition government even tried to tell artists what they should produce and how they should perform. That alone shows a total lack of understanding of the arts and artists in a country that values freedom.
Creative arts in Australia have a very proud and long history. Indeed, it is almost as old as the continent itself. First Nations artists tell their stories through their art, songlines, dances and battles. Their hopes and dreams have lived on in this land through their artistry, in the world's oldest continuing culture.
We have many great Australian artists whose work is renowned throughout the world through their acting, words or music. But since the 2014-15 budget, Australia Council funding has been a significant issue for the arts sector. In that budget, arts programs generally were cut by $87.1 million over four years, including a cut of $28.2 million to the Australia Council. In the 2015-16 budget there was a further cut of $13.2 million under Treasurer Morrison to the arts sector, including a cut of $7.2 million to the Australia Council. There was a further announcement in that budget that greater emphasis would be placed on funding existing major performing arts companies, leaving many emerging artists unfunded, particularly in regional Australia. The Australia Council has opened multiyear grants for funding. The four-year funding rounds will lock out unsuccessful organisations from applying for funding again for another four years.
In Queensland, some organisations that are currently funded by the Australia Council have applied under the multiyear funding and been rejected before progressing through to the full application stage. I'll mention some of these great Australian art institutions. The Brisbane Writers Festival, which was on last weekend, champions curiosity and creativity in Queensland, connects Queensland's reading and writing communities through transformative cultural experiences that elevate the vitality of literacy, arts and contribute to the dynamic public conversation. It's a Brisbane institution that attracts thousands of creative and literary Queenslanders to showcase literature and celebrate stories. It's been knocked back at the first hurdle for future funding from the Australia Council—disgraceful. Eyeline Publishing, which publishes an Australian contemporary art magazine and brings together exhibition and book reviews, artist interviews and monograph specialist columns and research articles on people and issues that are shaping the arts today, also stumbled at the first hurdle. The Queensland Art Gallery & Gallery of Modern Art hold a collection of over 17,000 works of historical, modern and contemporary art. It is a great place to visit as an adult or to take your kids. I can testify to that. It was also refused at the first post for future Australia Council funding.
Minister, this government seems to completely misunderstand how important the creative arts are to Australia and the trading opportunities that come by having that soft projection through our arts into the rest of the world. The arts make sure that Australians understand ourselves and how the rest of the world sees us, how we are understood as a country, how we understand each other better, and how the world comes to understand us. We can work alongside trade opportunities. When there is tension around things, we can use the arts as a great way to make connections. My question to the minister is: how will these very important arts institutions, particularly the ones mentioned in Queensland that are open to all of Australia but particularly service the Brisbane and Queensland communities, continue to operate without the certainty of funding?
Let me seek to address a number of issues which have been raised in the contributions by members in this debate. Perhaps if I can take them in reverse order and start with the question of arts funding. I do acknowledge that the member who asked the question is himself a published writer, although I presume the fact that he continues to serve in the parliament is an indication that he finds it impossible to survive on the income from his writing. Of course one of the realities is that many artists are committed and passionate about what they do and are working very hard for modest incomes. We need to acknowledge the contribution of artists across many different art forms. We are certainly very strongly committed to the arts sector. Indeed, this year, in this budget, total funding going to the arts and creative sector through the arts portfolio is at a record $749 million. That includes $272 million for the eight flagship national collecting institutions, such as the National Gallery; $212 million to the Australia Council; $109 million for the screen industry; $44 million for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts and languages activities; and a range of other elements as well, including the Regional Arts Fund, which the member for Mayo asked about.
Can I make the point that the member who spoke most recently, who was critical of funding decisions made by the Australia Council, showed a remarkable subtleness in his approach. He had earlier criticised this government for seeking to direct where arts funding should go. You can have it one way or the other. The way it works is that the Australia Council is provided with very substantial funding, and then, through the peer review process, the Australia Council, not politicians, makes the decision about where the money goes. There are many wonderful and worthwhile artistic organisations and creators around Australia. Sadly, not everybody can be funded. These are always difficult decisions, but it's important that they're made by peer review by practising artists through the Australia Council process.
Can I turn to a couple of the questions raised by the member for Mayo, who asked about the legislation in relation to the SIP obligations and the universal service guarantee. She rightly goes to the point that our legislative framework for many years has involved essentially a cross-subsidy from profitable telecommunications services in metropolitan areas to unprofitable services in regional and remote areas to ensure that we have a funding stream of support. That's traditionally taken the form of the universal service obligation. Now, of course, with the National Broadband Network, it's important that we are able to fund those broadband services going into regional and remote Australia. It's important to make the point that what this legislation seeks to do is essentially put the existing internal cross-subsidy arrangements within the NBN on a neutral framework. In a way it's quite analogous to what happened when Telstra was privatised and when deregulation occurred in the early 1990s. The original universal service obligation framework was introduced in the 1990s so that it made explicit the cross-subsidy which had previously been done as an internal matter within the then Telecom Australia. Similarly, we're taking the internal cross-subsidy which presently is built into the arrangements for the NBN which we inherited from the previous government, and as a matter of public policy we're making that cross-subsidy explicit through the levy process. But I make the point that the funding is there and by far the largest payer will be the NBN itself.
What's also important from a competitive neutrality point of view is that operators of high-speed broadband networks in the cities that are competing with NBN should bear the same contribution on a per-customer basis to the cost of serving regional and remote Australia as NBN itself does, and that's an element of this.
The shadow minister, the member for Greenway, asked a number of questions about the dividing line between the different technologies, fixed wireless and satellite, inherent in the NBN. Of course the design we inherited from the previous Labor government, using three different approaches for three different population density areas, meant there would inherently and always be dividing lines. (Time expired)
In response to the terrorist atrocity committed by an Australian citizen in Christchurch, the government has, with Labor's support, taken a number of steps to prevent the dissemination of terrorist and extreme violent content online.
An article in The Australian yesterday, entitled 'Breaking the vicious cycle of right-wing extremism', states as follows:
Today's extremists do not have to join an organisation, meet each other or sit at the feet of a leader. Like Tarrant, they trawl the internet, and mix and match their beliefs. “They were a cut-and-paste job of right-wing memes, Old World bigotry and recycled hate speech” …
On the topic of online hate speech, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Technology Sydney Andrew Jakubowicz has stated that addressing online racism is a vital part of the goal of making the internet a safer place for Australians. In an article published by The Conversation on 13 June he states that addressing online racism is important:
… not just because racism online is hurtful and damaging—which it is. This is also important because sometimes online racism spills into the real world with deadly consequences.
An Australian man brought up in the Australian cyber environment is the alleged murderer of 50 Muslims at prayer in Christchurch …
We must critically assess how this happened, and be clearheaded and non-ideological about actions to reduce the likelihood of such an event happening again.
The professor outlines a number of steps the government could take to address online racism, including amending the Enhancing Online Safety Act to extend the options for those harassed and intimidated, to include provisions similar to those found in New Zealand legislation.
In supporting the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill 201, the shadow Attorney-General observed:
… there is scope to adopt the approach taken by the European Union in response to the 2016 Brussels terrorist attack. In response to that atrocity, in May 2016, the EU agreed with Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube a code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online. This code facilitates users' notification of illegal hate speech on social platforms, provides support to civil society in combating online hate speech and strengthens coordination with national authorities. Reviews of the code have indicated its success in helping to counter online hate speech …
The Christchurch terrorist atrocity was clearly driven by an ideology of hatred founded in racial and religious bigotry. The sharing of footage such as that recorded by the gunman must be prevented but we must also recognise that the seeds of this violence lie in racist ideology, in racist hate speech and in the hate and fear that bigots, left unchecked, will spread, including online.
What steps has the minister taken, including in consultation with the Attorney-General and other relevant ministers, to address this important issue of online racism in Australia? Does the minister consider that addressing online racism would complement the work of the Australian task force to combat terrorist and extreme violent material online? Will the government be taking steps to ensure all Australians are kept safe online, by measures such as driving the adoption of an EU style code of conduct for countering illegal hate speech, such as has been done in Europe, or amending the Enhancing Online Safety Act to extend the options for those harassed and intimidated to include provisions similar to those found currently in New Zealand legislation?
I thank the member for her contribution, which I'll address briefly in the remaining time. I want to acknowledge the bipartisan support that the opposition has provided for the successive reforms that our Liberal-National government has introduced in the area of online safety. These reforms include establishing the eSafety Commissioner in 2015; establishing a legislative regime for the take down of cyberbullying material directed at Australian children; the subsequent introduction of the regime giving the eSafety Commissioner powers in relation to the unauthorised sharing images; and most recently the legislation in relation to abhorrent violent material, where our government acted very quickly in response to the atrocious Christchurch attack and the fact that the perpetrator livestreamed images of him murdering innocent people and that video produced from that livestreaming has then been widely available on the internet on a number of sites.
I want to acknowledge that there has been good cooperation with the eSafety Commissioner from the major platforms in having that material removed. I want to acknowledge the work of the major Australian internet service providers which have acted to block access to those sites. And, of course, just in the last few days, the eSafety Commissioner has made a formal direction, under the Telecommunications Act, to the internet service providers.
In relation to the matter that the member raises, I make the point that we are committed to introducing a new online safety act, which will take the existing legislation, make necessary changes, update some provisions that are outdated and seek to further underpin the work and the powers of the eSafety Commissioner. So I certainly look forward to any input that the shadow minister may have in relation to matters to be addressed through that process.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
It being approximately 12.30 the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Prime Minister Morrison met NDIS participants in Boothby, South Australia, last week. The Prime Minister said:
The thing I love about the NDIS is it's not about compensation, it's not about welfare. It's about enablement, it's about enabling Australians to live the lives they want to live regardless of what challenges they have.
The Prime Minister was half right. The NDIS is supposed to be about choice and control for those living with disability in Australia. The problem is the Morrison government's second-rate version of the NDIS is not working for those it was intended to enable.
On Thursday 27 August I invited NDIS participants, carers, advocates and service providers on the New South Wales Central Coast to meet with shadow minister for the NDIS, Bill Shorten, to share their experiences. They expressed their despair about the Liberal government's failure to fix the NDIS. It's clear this government's $1.6 billion underspend on the NDIS is causing heartache for the very people it was intended to help.
I have spoken before about Deidre Ellem and her daughter LeeAnne of Woongarrah. Deidre has finally secured a plan that meets the needs of her 46-year-old daughter LeeAnne after at least four attempts and over three years. But Deidre's afraid about what will happen to LeeAnne if she can't be around. Deidre has been through cancer treatment. She fears her next health crisis, as she can't rely on the NDIS to fill the gap in her daughter's care in an emergency. Deidre said:
An emergency plan review or change of circumstance review can take three to six months.
Three to six months!
Joanne McCallum from Jilliby has negotiated four NDIS plans for her sister Lexanne, who had a stroke three years ago at age 48. But Joanne is worried about people with disability who don't have someone on their side. Joanne spoke of Lexanne's struggles coping with the NDIS:
If not for me Lexanne would probably be in a nursing home. I don't know how people living on their own can negotiate their NDIS plans.
She said:
Lexanne has me but what about people who don't have someone like me?
In Joanne's view, participants, people with disability, are paying to fix the NDIA's mistakes. She said:
I feel participants are paying to fix the NDIA's mistakes.
Katherine contacted me last week. Her son Corbin is 19 and his new NDIS plan took effect on 2 August. She's been unable to reconcile invoices for services in the NDIS portal. Odd amounts have been debited from his account, but the regular services that he relies on have not been paid out of the portal. Corbin, like many, is struggling with transport in the NDIS. He's waiting on a nominated transport payment without which his mobility is severely restricted and his family is under enormous strain. As his mum Katherine told me:
We've had to cut back on Corbin's services and my husband, the only wage earner, has needed take time off work to provide transport.
I'll finish by telling you a little about Matthew. Matthew is 38. He's highly intelligent and highly educated and he lives independently. But Matthew wakes up every morning scared that he will have to go into an aged-care facility because of the lack of proper support through the NDIS. This is what Matthew said to me: 'I shouldn't have to feel like this, but I'm really scared.' He was tearful when he said this. No young person, no person of 38, living independently should be fearful of waking up because the next day they might have to go into a residential aged-care facility.
Matthew shouldn't wake up scared. Deidre shouldn't be afraid of what will happen if she can't be around. And Joanne should know with confidence that Lexanne will be okay. It's time for this government to properly acknowledge the widespread problems of the NDIA. It's time for the government to lift the staffing cap and to work to clear the backlogs. It's time for this government to appoint to the NDIA people with lived experience and fill the vacant CEO position. It's time for this government to fund the NDIS properly so that it can do the job it was intended to do—to give choice and control to people living with disability. We've already had 20 reports and reviews into the NDIA. People with disability don't have time for more of the same. Where is the leadership and the funding to deliver an NDIS that will enable the people who need it the most? When will this government step up?
I'm really pleased to be able to speak in the adjournment debate today. In my campaign for Mallee one of the highlights and the priorities for me was the issue of health services and health delivery across Mallee. For those who are unaware, Mallee consists of around 120,000 people over 82,000 square kilometres—a small population and large distances, reflective of Australia itself. However the healthcare services that Mallee receives are nowhere near what urban centres receive. The disparity is quite clear. The GP to population ratio in Mallee is one to 7,500 people. In Melbourne it's closer to one to 900. It is a huge disparity. Medicare is legislated to provide equitable access to health care. This is not happening in Mallee. Sixteen per cent of GP vacancies in Victoria are in Mallee. Early intervention by primary health care in Mallee could have prevented over 25,000 hospital bed days in 2016-17. This early intervention would have saved an estimated $34 million from having to be spent on hospital care.
Last week I invited hospital providers of health care across Mallee to come to a forum where we could sit around and discuss the gaps, barriers and needs of health care, as they saw it as service providers, in their smaller communities. The forum informed what I am about to talk about right now. Unsurprisingly, it was immediately evident that the greatest barrier to healthcare delivery is a lack of workforce and the market failure of the current system as it pertains to general practice—the traditional cornerstone of health care in regional settings. There were examples provided about the renowned difficulties attracting doctors, with great expense being incurred in advertising campaigns with little or no interest. Concern was raised about heavy reliance on locums, which are expensive. The cost of doing so and the increasing difficulty experienced in trying to recruit locums were widespread. It was unanimously agreed that greater emphasis should be placed on upskilling the current workforce as a way to overcome the difficulties being experienced in Mallee.
I was encouraged to see examples of these regional providers trying to find creative solutions to this issue. By way of example, Robinvale District Health Service has recently supported, financially and otherwise, a nurse to undergo an intermediate level certification in radiography to ensure the hospital has access to thoracic X-ray. The attendees were willing to invest in alternative avenues to better equip their health services and ultimate improve patient care. But this investment detracts from their ability to service other areas. Our federal government is funding further interest and support of these services.
With respect to nurses, there was unanimous support for the enhanced role that nurse practitioners could play in regional settings. However, concern was raised regarding their current ability to garner Medicare funding and the viability of their utilisation in private practice under the current model of economic viability. We eagerly await the outcome of the Medicare Benefits Schedule review and trust that billing items will be expanded to enable greater emphasis on the valuable role of nurse practitioners in regional settings.
There was strong support amongst those who attended for telehealth initiatives, with a number of those present utilising My Emergency Dr, made possible through the support of the Murray PHN. Given the isolation, many providers felt that benefit could stem from the utilisation of this initiative as a training and supervision tool to better connect their healthcare teams to both isolated patients and colleagues in larger towns, who could offer guidance in clinical care. It was noted that there were few other circumstances as lonely and frightening as the isolated sole practitioner, regardless of their experience, feeling unsupported in their efforts to treat a patient.
We have noted over a period of time now a shift from the sole practitioner in a rural setting, as my husband became 42 years ago, to general practice, and graduates from general practice who desire to work in a team in a primary healthcare setting and in regional areas. This model, I believe, needs to be supported. I am greatly encouraged that—
I thank the member, and I call the member for Lyons.
I have spent a good part of the last week or so on the east coast of Tasmania. This is a part of my electorate that, last weekend notwithstanding, has not had any substantial rain for 2½ years and has, in fact, been in drought or partial drought for more than five years. Primary producers are facing a very tough situation as we head into another hot, dry summer. At the same time as bushfires are burning across Queensland and New South Wales, Tasmania Fire Service chief Chris Arnold is warning farmers on Tasmania's east coast that, without significant rain, an early onset to the bushfire season is inevitable.
A group of farmers from the north-west have organised a hay drive to send much needed supplies to the drought-affected region in the south-east. This generous group of farmers is the same one that organised a donation of around 22 truckloads of hay to their mainland counterparts last year, who are also facing very difficult conditions. At a drought awareness meeting of farmers in Cranbrook last Tuesday, I heard firsthand the devastating stories from farmers about how tough they are doing it. Dams are dry, and some farmers are already carting water for stock. And we're coming out of winter! We're coming out of winter, and we're heading into summer. This is when the rains should be plentiful. It's a dire situation.
Local farmer Tracey Johnson told me that farmers have developed a roster to take water from the nearby Swan River, one megalitre per farm every 14 days. Currently Tasmanian Irrigation is only supplying 75 per cent of its licenced water supplies on its irrigation system. For those who are using irrigation, the cost is becoming increasingly expensive, and Tasmanian Irrigation has now found itself in the position of having to buy drinking water from TasWater, a collective of council owned companies, to then resell for irrigation. But I've got to say that the towns in the area don't seem to get it. Just last week I saw a football oval being irrigated in the middle of the day. Certainly residents have not been alerted to the need to conserve water in any great way. Farmers around them are parched, but the towns and the gardens are green. So there's a lot of work that needs to be done.
There's no doubt that Tasmanian farmers are running out of options. At the same meeting we were given an update on projects being funded by the Drought Communities Program. Now, let me be clear: there absolutely is a need to fund local community infrastructure. I welcome every dollar, especially in our regional and rural towns. But, to be frank, I have reservations about a government program that purports to fund drought relief projects for communities impacted by drought with guidelines so broad that the money ends up funding cricket nets, dog parks, tennis courts and the like. Not one dollar from the million dollars that went to the east coast council in my electorate was spent on drought mitigation strategies, water conservation, water storage or water anything. It all went on these local initiatives. As I say, I welcome every dollar that's spent in my electorate, but it's a drought communities fund to help a community affected by drought. For God's sake, put the money into drought!
Tasmanian farmers need strong leadership from this government and real action that helps them in the short term. In his first public statement as Prime Minister, Scott Morrison said that drought is our most urgent and pressing need right now. Yet a year later in Tasmania nothing's happened. That's because, as we know, a lot of the focus has been on the terrible situation in northern New South Wales and Queensland, in particular. I think Tasmania has fallen off the map, as it often does. The east coast of Tasmania is in drought. The farmers there are in as much need of assistance and care as anybody in New South Wales or Queensland. The farmers of my electorate need to know that I recognise their plight. The feedback to me during that meeting was that people just don't seem to get it. They don't seem to get how parlous the situation is. I can tell them I understand and I'm in their corner every step of the way trying to do what I can to ensure that they're looked after. They need help. We need to recognise that drought is real. Don't be put off. Don't be fooled by the pretty pictures of Tasmania—the lush green north-west where there's plenty of feed and plenty of green. Don't be fooled by the rain falling on the west coast. We are a state of many microclimates, and the east coast, the south-east and the north-east in particular are dry and prone to bushfires. It's going to be a terrible summer ahead. God help Tasmania this summer.
I'd like to take this opportunity to share with the chamber some of the great events that I have attended in my electorate of Bonner recently. Last Thursday I attended a morning tea hosted by Lung Foundation Australia to help build awareness and reduce the stigma of lung cancer. Sadly, lung cancer claims the life of one Australian every hour. As part of the morning we heard from patient Alison Bolton about her lung cancer journey and the impact it had on her life. It is estimated that in 2019, 12,800 Australians will be diagnosed with lung cancer. It is the leading cause of cancer death in Australian men and women. The morning tea, hosted by the Moreton Bay Trailer Boat Club, was a good opportunity to discuss a number of issues for cancer sufferers, including the need to improve access to early diagnosis, reduce the stigma for people with lung cancer and improve psychosocial support. Lung cancer not only affects the patient but has a big impact on the lives of family, friends and colleagues. I'd like to thank Alison for her bravery in sharing her lung cancer story with us. Her journey hasn't been easy, and I would like to wish her all the very best.
On another note: it might not be the race that stops the nation, but it was the race that stops Bonner. Brisbane City Council's Green Heart Fair and the Brisbane Billycart Championships were held on Sunday. Every year the billycart battle at Carindale Recreation Reserve between me and state MP Steve Minnikin heats up, and this year was no exception. We were neck and neck racing down the hill and I thought I might have had a slight lead, by a nose. However, with a photo finish, the race was declared a tie.
Along with the billycart championships, the Green Heart Fair is the region's biggest free community and sustainability festival promoting innovative green living in a fun, friendly environment. The fair welcomed over a hundred of Brisbane's leading sustainability organisations, and my stall was set up to greet residents and hand out seedlings to encourage some young green thumbs to grow their own produce. The festival also featured some interesting eco products and services, the latest electric vehicles, free nature play activities for kids and some of Brisbane's best food trucks. Well done Brisbane City Council on the fun-filled and informative Green Heart Fair and to everyone who attended to learn about living more sustainably.
Finally, I would like to congratulate all the recipients of the Local Sporting Champions grants in Bonner. Last Wednesday I had the opportunity to personally congratulate many of the recipients and their families, who sacrifice a lot to support their children's love of competitive sports. From table tennis through to horse riding, the diversity of activities these grants support is just outstanding. We have some really big sporting stars in the Bonner community, and it was my pleasure to help them achieve their goals with the Local Sporting Champions grants. If you're aged between 12 and 18 and participate at a state, national or international level, keep an eye out for the next round of grants. You could apply and receive $600 to put towards the cost of attending your championship event.
I want to see those tapes, Ross. I reckon there's something a bit suss there! Like all members and the previous speaker, I value the privilege of representing my community in this place, but the amount of time we spend here needs to be balanced against the time that we spend in our communities. The time at home in our communities is important, whether that is listening to people about their concerns for our nation, talking to businesses and community groups or just spending time out and about. During the recent recess, I was pleased get to a number of schools and kindergartens across the electorate of McEwen, presenting them with Australian national flags. This gives us an important opportunity to engage in fantastic discussions about the importance of citizenship and community mindedness with our youngest residents. It's refreshing, I think, after any parliamentary sitting, to be reminded of the unadulterated care, compassion and kindness of kids who believe in supporting each other, supporting community and honouring and celebrating all parts of our community.
I was reminded on National Flag Day last week that the different flags of Australia represent our unique melting pot of cultural and ancestral diversity. Also, they can be used to remind us to keep striving for equity and equality of outcomes and to bridge the gap for our First Australians. After six years of this government's systematic disadvantage to our Indigenous Australians, it has become more pronounced, especially in terms of housing and equality. Housing security and addressing homelessness are critical issues facing communities, particularly those in the seat of McEwen. Mortgage stress, financial insecurity and, sadly, the family violence that often follows are of great concern. Caring for those who find themselves without shelter was top of my agenda when I recently invited the shadow minister for housing and homelessness, Jason Clare, to visit McEwen. During his visit, we met with members of the Cobaw Community Health Service in Romsey to hear about their crucial work across the peri-urban fringes of Melbourne and discuss ideas to tackle one of the greatest scourges on our status as a developed nation: our rising homelessness rate. On any given night, approximately 116,000 Australians are without shelter—a statistic which only accounts for seven per cent of Australians who are without a stable home. Without shelter or a stable home, it's nearly impossible to have a foundation upon which a person can build a stable life. Employment suffers, relationships suffer and physical and mental health take a massive hit. Being homeless carries with it a stigma which often cuts people off from their families and local support networks, which can lead to a spiral of complex mental health issues. This plays a significant role in the higher rates of self-harm and suicide amongst segments of our population.
A caring and compassionate government would take active steps to combat the rise of homelessness. They might heed the advice of the Australian Council of Social Service, which says that an investment in social housing is critical to stop Australia's rising homelessness rate. However, the Australian people have come to expect none of that compassion from a government which is utterly devoid of it. It's clearer each and every day that this government's approach is that these issues will just take care of themselves. Hotter weather—'The farmers will adapt.' Stagnant wages—'The Reserve Bank will sort it out.' Rising homelessness—'Well, they probably didn't vote for us anyway.' This is not a road that this nation should take.
The rate of homelessness in Australia increased by 13.7 per cent between the 2011 census and the 2016 census, while population growth only saw an 8.8 per cent increase in that period. More investment is what's needed to help people escape this loop of housing instability. If we could just look at the dollars and cents of it, public investment in homelessness is the way to go. ACOSS estimates that, for every dollar invested, there is a boost to the GDP of $1.30. That's because people who have stable shelter are able to contribute to the economy in ways they presently can't. The other benefit is that housing construction can be undertaken more quickly than other major infrastructure, whether it be rail or road projects. We've got a situation with the Reserve Bank calling out for infrastructure investment from this rudderless Morrison government. The government might consider prioritising the needs of Australian citizens over wedge politics and personal gains. It's time we looked much closer at homelessness and started working to actually end this scourge as soon as possible.
One of the privileges we have in this place is to rise and speak about great people who have contributed enormously to our community. It's my joyful duty today to speak about the incredible life of Des Schodel, but it's also my sad duty in the context that he recently passed away.
Born in Kingaroy, Des was the kind of bloke who always stepped forward whenever there was a need, not for personal gratification but out of the kindness of his heart. He had vision, passion and determination to succeed, but also had the ability to relate to people from different backgrounds and countries. He achieved many firsts and achievements through his life, which made possible his final and most far-reaching success story: the establishment of the Twin Rivers Community Mallet Sports Club Inc.
In the 1950s, Des started a neighbourhood tennis club, was a foundation member of the Brisbane Tape Recording Clubs, which was about reel-to-reel technology—some of us here might well remember those times—and a member of Rostrum. In the seventies he was a scout leader, the manager of a junior netball team, an elder at St Laurence Holland Park Uniting Church and a member of the National Party. In 1982 Des registered as a justice of the peace, which he remained for the rest of his life. His early life was characterised by many adventures. In the 1990s he billeted Papua New Guinea church missionaries and was an active member of the Koala Action Group. Incredibly, he was able to radio track koalas which were released into the wild.
In the 2000s he became an active member of the then Liberal Party, now the LNP, and served as chairman of the corporate body where he lived for over five years. It was in his time moving to Beenleigh, or more specifically to Eagleby, in early 2010 that he started to contribute to our local community. He was named the Logan Senior Ambassador of the Year and awarded a Logan Sports Award for administration. But, as I said earlier, perhaps his most enduring legacy will be his involvement in croquet.
In May 2010 Des was invited by his neighbours at Ruby and Sapphire Gardens to play croquet at the Noyer Park over-50s resort at nearby Mount Warren Park. Everybody had a great day and on 22nd July 2010 the group of friends first played on the cricket oval at the Olivers Sports Complex in Eagleby. Nine days later 14 players resolved to establish and incorporate a local club. The name Twin Rivers Community Mallet Sports Club was soon chosen to reflect Eagleby's location in between the Logan and Albert rivers and to encompass the different types of croquet now played at other clubs.
On 27th August 2010 the certificate of incorporation was received and Des was elected president. He held that position until stepping down in September 2014. On 9th April 2011 the club hosted its first open day, which was well attended by 27 members and 27 visitors from various clubs. It's over those many years since then that they've brought enormous enjoyment to a wide range of local people and to many visitors from various clubs around the south-east. On 6th August 2011 they celebrated their first birthday, which was attended by over 90 people. I had the pleasure of starting to develop my skills in croquet. It was always an honour and pleasure to play my local state colleagues and beat them resoundingly.
The club was honoured and encouraged by the interest shown, and over that time it continued to grow. More recently we developed and celebrated their eighth birthday at Beenleigh Soccer Club, where they are now hosted. Des had been intimately involved in many community activities, whether it was the Logan Seniors Expo, Forde Seniors Expo, Eagleby Festival Senior Citizens Centre or others.
My condolences to his family. Earlier this year he celebrated 58 years of marriage to his loved wife, Beryl. My condolences to Beryl and to their wonderful children. I thank them for allowing Des to be such a great servant to our community. May he rest in peace.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:00