On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, I present the third report of the Petitions Committee for the 46th Parliament.
I present the following 41 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented:
The committee is heartened by the large volume of responses to petitions it has received. Many of these respond to petitions presented in the 45th Parliament. The committee will monitor the rate of responses received as the parliament progresses. The committee thanks the ministers concerned for their cooperation. Historically, responses to petitions to the House were rare. Now the Petitions Committee refers the majority of petitions to a relevant minister, and most are responded to. Once presented, a response is forwarded to the person who created the petition, and a copy is made available on the House petitions website.
The response process is a feature of petitioning the House that sets it apart from other petitioning platforms. The process offers a public conversation between the petitioner and the government, facilitated by the House. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I commend the petitioning process to other members and encourage all Australians to get involved in petitioning the parliament. I look forward to further updating the House on the work of the Petitions Committee.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2019 would enshrine the fundamental rights of all Australians in Australian law. It's modelled closely on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2001, introduced by the then member for Calwell, and is very similar to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2017, which I introduced.
In essence, the bill would render invalid any Commonwealth, state or territory law that's inconsistent with the Bill of Rights to the extent of that inconsistency. It would also specify that Commonwealth, state and territory laws should be interpreted so as to be consistent with the bill of rights.
The bill allows for the Australian Human Rights Commission to inquire into any act or practice done by the Commonwealth or a state or territory government that may infringe on a right or freedom in the bill of rights. It also allows for people to make complaints to the commission if they believe that an act or practice infringes a right or freedom outlined in this bill.
The bill would also give effect to a number of international agreements to which Australia is a signatory, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The importance of this bill is self-evident. We are the only democratic nation without any sort of bill or charter of rights. What domestic legislation we do have is scarce and far too narrow. Indeed, there are only five relevant acts in this country that attempt to protect human rights—the Human Rights Commission Act, which is really just about regulating the commission, the Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Age Discrimination act and the Disability Discrimination Act.
Yes, the government is intending to add to this flimsy framework by introducing a religious discrimination bill. But, perversely, such legislation would in fact further restrict human rights in this country, which begs the question: why introduce a piece of legislation that promotes special rights for particular groups of people rather than supporting a piece of legislation that will promote the rights of all Australians?
Moreover—and regrettably—the parliamentary processes with regard to human rights are also flimsy and weak. For instance, the committees of the House of Representatives are invariably beholden to the government because of the numbers, and Senate committees are generally ignored by the government because they are, more often than not, controlled by the opposition or by the crossbench. As a result, the international agreements and obligations Australia has committed to, which one would think would provide protection to Australians, are in fact routinely ignored.
In other words, the only effective way to protect the rights of all Australians is to establish a single, strong and reliable framework as described in my bill today.
This isn't a new concept in Australia, as evidenced by the ACT, Victoria and Queensland who have all taken positive steps by introducing human rights legislation. But, understandably, these state based frameworks simply aren't good enough on their own and we still need a consistent national approach that will enshrine the rights and freedoms of all Australians regardless of where they live. The bottom line is that we still need a national bill of rights that protects and promotes unalienable human rights such as the right to health care, the right to housing, the right to education and the right to equal treatment within society.
To those who ask 'Where's the proof that we are in need of a bill of rights in the first place?' I say you only need to look at what is happening in our country in recent times—in particular, the blatant disregard for an ignorance of international agreements to which Australia is a party. And nowhere is this clearer than when we look at the government's response to asylum seekers and refugees, the attacks on press freedom and the unprecedented difficulties in accessing fundamental services such as housing and health care. None of this should be happening in Australia, and it only does so because we don't have an overarching framework to protect our rights.
The appalling raids by the Australian Federal Police on the ABC and on journalists are a perfect example. Surely it is unthinkable that in a supposedly free and democratic country like Australia the government's police force is raiding media organisations and trying to suppress freedom of the press. That demonstrates why article 4 of this Bill of Rights is important to enshrine a right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
We also need a bill of rights because of the appalling way Indigenous people are treated in this country. I don't need to list all of the statistics about things like incarceration rates—we've heard them all before—but it is patently obvious that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aren't being afforded their basic human rights. Article 10 of this bill, though, would specifically enshrine the rights of Indigenous peoples—as well as many other sections of the bill that would help improve the lives of Indigenous Australians.
And what about the atrociously high rates of homelessness in this country? Nowhere is this more apparent than in my home state of Tasmania, where the housing waiting lists have soared and the state government seems to think doing nothing is the best policy. Article 23 of this bill would enshrine a right to an adequate standard of living, including clothing and housing.
In closing I would just like to say that when I first tabled this bill, in 2017, the response from the community was overwhelmingly positive. Some people couldn't believe we didn't already have a bill of rights. Others knew that it was about time to introduce one. But, despite all of that, neither the government nor the opposition supported the bill, in what was another striking example of their failure to represent the community. So today I urge both the Liberal and Labor parties to reconsider their stubborn opposition, and to wake up and to realise that we need to stop lagging behind the rest of the world and to stop allowing our rights and freedoms to be eroded.
In my remaining time, I invite the member for Mayo to add a few comments.
Is the motion seconded?
I'm delighted to second this motion.
The member for Mayo may proceed.
Australia is the only Western democracy that does not have a bill of human rights. Instead, we have a patchwork of state and federal legislation from which we construct and construe a series of implied and express freedoms. Our Constitution provides for only five express rights: the right to vote, the right to a trial by jury, freedom of religion, protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms and a prohibition on the basis of state of residency.
There is an implied freedom of speech, but last month the High Court confirmed unanimously that Australians do not have a personal right to freedom of speech. In its ruling, the court upheld the government's right to sack Michaela Banerji, a public servant, for her anonymous critical tweets about the government's immigration policy. But we already knew our freedom of speech was on shaky ground, following the raids on Annika Smethurst, Ben Fordham and the ABC studio's journalists. Journalists must now be reticent in talking with whistleblowers. We cannot let that become Australia. That must not be. We must have journalists who have the courage to be able to talk to whistleblowers for the benefit of all of us, for the rights and freedoms of all of us. As Bernard Collaery and Witness K will attest to, we can forgo any rights in the face of national security concerns. Richard Boyle, an ATO officer, questioned the behaviour of the ATO, and is currently facing trial.
A bill of rights would remind the government of the day that any intrusion into our civil liberties must be reasonable and proportionate to achieve a legitimate end, and it would equip the courts with the laws they need to ensure that a just outcome is reached. Again, we are the only Western democracy that does not have a bill or charter of rights, and we need to fix this.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time. The time allotted for this debate has expired and the debate is adjourned. The resumption the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Any boss who sacks anyone for not turning up to work on Friday is a bum. This Friday millions of people across the world will walk out of their classrooms, workplaces and homes in a global climate strike. People are striking because, after 30 years of failure by governments around the world, pollution is continuing to rise and the extreme impacts of the climate crisis are becoming worse. People are striking because we're in a climate emergency, and if governments continue in their failure to act then there will be disruption of business as usual. Students have led the way, and this time they're asking workers to join them. We hope that they will.
The Arctic is on fire. The Greenland ice sheet is melting at a record rate. The Amazon is burning. Heatwaves are sweeping the planet. The monster storm of Hurricane Dorian, fuelled by the heat of the ocean, wiped out much of the Bahamas. Here in Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology says we're seeing the most severe drought on record in the Murray-Darling Basin, our country's food bowl. We're just out of winter, and hundreds of fires have already ravaged the east of Australia, including wet Queensland rainforest that does not usually burn, repeating the experience of fires in Tasmania that burnt forests that haven't seen these kinds of extreme fires before. Now we're told that our towns may well be running out of water in the very near future.
Beyond these immediate impacts is the frightening reality that, as the permafrost in the Arctic thaws and the world's forests burn, the carbon released will create further global warming. This is just the beginning of cascading extreme impacts and dangerous feedback that threaten millions of species with extinction and threaten human civilisation. Eminent scientists have warned us that the carrying capacity of our planet is less than a billion people if global warming is allowed to reach four degrees. We're at 7½ at the moment. That's 7½ down to one billion people. This means that billions of lives will be lost to mass starvation, disease, dislocation and conflict. I repeat: billions of lives will be lost. Yet, despite this looming catastrophe, we also know that the current pollution reduction commitments made by governments of the world, including Australia, under the Paris agreement have us on track for 3½ to four degrees of global warming. Again, that is worth repeating. We've signed up to keeping global warming to below two degrees, and ideally 1½, but the current climate rescue plan has us on track for 3½ to four degrees of global warming, which will lead to global warming that is a death sentence for billions of people on the planet.
This is why people around the world are rebelling. It's why we're seeing the rise of mass non-violent civil disobedience led by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, who blockaded Melbourne's Princes Bridge on the weekend. It's why, since a year ago, many millions of school students around the world have joined school strikes each Friday, inspired by Swedish student Greta Thunberg, and it's why millions of people will join the students by striking this Friday. I want to read an excerpt from the call to action for this Friday's global strike, signed by Greta Thunberg, among many others:
Starting on Friday 20 September we will kickstart a week of climate action with a worldwide strike for the climate. We're asking adults to step up alongside us. There are many different plans under way in different parts of the world for adults to join together and step up and out of your comfort zone for our climate. Let's all join together, with your neighbours, co-workers, friends, family and go out on to the streets to make your voices heard and make this a turning point in our history.
This is about crossing lines—it's about rebelling wherever one can rebel. It's not about saying "Yeah, what the kids do is great, if I was young I would have totally joined in." It doesn’t help, but everyone can and must help.
During the French revolution mothers flooded the streets for their children. Today we children are fighting for ourselves, but so many of our parents are busy discussing whether our grades are good, or a new diet or what happened in the Game of Thrones finale—while the planet burns.
This moment has to happen. Last year's UN intergovernmental panel on climate change's special report on global warming was clear about the unprecedented dangers of going beyond 1.5C of global heating. Emissions must drop rapidly—so that by the time we are in our mid- and late-20s we are living in a completely transformed world.
But to change everything, we need everyone. It is time for all of us to unleash mass resistance—we have shown that collective action does work. We need to escalate the pressure to make sure that change happens, and we must escalate together.
So this is our chance—join us on climate strike this September. People have risen up before to demand action and make change; if we do so in numbers we have a chance. If we care, we must do more than say we do. We must act. This won't be the last day we need to take to the streets, but it will be a new beginning. We're counting on you.
That's the end of the statement from the student strikers.
This is the beginning of an uprising that will alone grow if governments fail to tell the truth about the climate crisis and fail to take emergency action. Students have asked workers to join them this Friday. Workers in Australia currently enjoy constitutionally protected rights to engage in political speech, including political protest, and I would argue strongly that that includes protest about global warming and government policies needed to tackle it. In other words, people have a constitutional right to take Friday off work to protest, and I hope that many do. There are also many workers who've been encouraged by their employers to attend and, if you're lucky enough to work in one of the many businesses supporting the strike action, such as Michael Cannon-Brookes's Atlassian software company, then you know there's absolutely no problem in turning up to the strike.
However, the need to tackle global warming is only going to get more pressing and there will be more and more actions and demonstrations. The Greens think the time has come to make the law crystal clear so that people know where they stand. After all, the Fair Work Act has many provisions that restrict industrial action, in breach of international law, and it would be disappointing if some employers used these provisions to try to take away peoples' rights to take part in climate change action. Global warming is a threat to the interests and wellbeing of the entire Australian population, including workers, so workers who engage in industrial action to push for a response to the climate emergency should be explicitly protected under the Fair Work Act. Workers and employers should also have the right to bargain about climate change related matters, given how important and pervasive this issue is.
That's why today I'm introducing the Fair Work Amendment (Stop Work to Stop Warming) Bill 2019. This bill puts beyond doubt that employees covered by the Fair Work Act 2009 have a right to take industrial action for the purpose of demanding that action be taken to address climate change. It also clarifies that employees and employers may bargain and agree about climate change matters. The bill does this through two primary means. Firstly, the bill introduces a new category of protected climate change industrial action. In lay terms, this means that taking time off work for the purpose of demanding that action be taken to address climate change is protected. Employees taking such action would be immune from having any action taken against them under any Australian law, provided that their action remains within certain limits, such as not being a threat to anyone else's life or safety. Secondly, the bill permits employees and employers to include in their enterprise agreements matters pertaining to climate change. This will also permit employees to take protected industrial action within the existing meaning of the act—action taken in support of securing the enterprise agreement—about such matters. Even the government, composed of the free-marketeers, should support that, because it allows employees and employers to bargain about these matters. The bill thus adds at the end of section 172(1) words that provide that an enterprise agreement is permitted to contain ' matters pertaining to climate change'. This is a broad definition which encompasses not only climate change related matters directly related to a particular enterprise, such as the use of renewable energy or the financial investments of the employer, but also matters relating to the effects of climate change, such as extreme heat or drought, as well as policy and government action of climate change, such as support for a particular emissions reduction target.
This Friday's global climate strike is just the beginning. We already know that our Prime Minister will boycott next week's UN Climate Action Summit, despite being in the United States, and that his government and many other governments around the world will fail to act with the urgency that is needed unless we force them to act. That is why strike action will continue to grow. It's very likely that many, many millions of Australians will join the actions over the next few years. I want those workers to know that, when they join such strikes or when they take industrial action to get their employer to implement changes to reduce global warming, this parliament has their back. I want them to know that the Fair Work Act provides them with the protection they need to push for strong action from governments and big business to solve the climate crisis. That's why I've moved this bill and why I commend this bill to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion moved by the member for Melbourne and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Time is of the essence. During a debate in the Federation Chamber last week on the member for Oxley's motion on small amount credit contracts, the member for Higgins made a number of comments in defence of the government's failure to introduce legislation to combat predatory payday lending. The member for Higgins said the coalition government is:
… committed to restoring trust in our financial industry and to supporting low-income Australians … what this government is not is one that rushes in legislation without diligence, without consideration and without patience.
There is a difference between due diligence and delay. There is a difference between patience and pandering. The government are on the wrong side of the divide, and they know it. The member for Higgins went on to state:
Unintended consequences from poorly considered legislation can have profound implications on the most vulnerable members of our community.
How much time do we need? Do you know what else can have profound implications on the most vulnerable members of our community? Interest rates at 407 per cent! It has been over a thousand days since the government accepted the recommendations of the independent small-amount credit contract review,and it has been nearly two years since the government circulated its own exposure draft legislation based on recommendations it had already accepted. But the years have passed and the coalition government is yet to introduce the bill into parliament. There are enough other bills that have come in here, multiple times. This one sits on a shelf gathering dust.
My bill today, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 [No. 2], replicates the government's own exposure draft legislation released in October 2017. As the government would be aware, the bill will improve consumer protections for those who use payday loans and consumer leases. Consistent with the government's exposure draft legislation, this bill will introduce a cap on the total payments that can be made under a consumer lease and requires small amount credit contracts to have equal repayments and equal payment intervals.
The bill will also remove the ability for SACC providers to charge monthly fees in respect of the residual term of a loan, where a consumer fully repays the loan early, and would prevent lessors and credit assistance providers from undertaking door-to-door selling of consumer leases at residential homes, which is predatory behaviour. Importantly, the bill would also introduce broad anti-avoidance protections to prevent SACC loan and consumer lease providers from circumventing the rules and protections contained in the credit act and the code, and strengthen penalties to increase incentives for SACC providers and lessors to comply with the law.
I note that, in the last parliament, the opposition signalled their intention to support the government's proposed legislation to reform both payday lending and the consumer lease framework. There has now been a clear signal from the opposition and some members of the crossbench that the government has the support it needs to achieve meaningful financial reforms. If only the government would act with the urgency that this issue clearly requires.
Just last month at the meeting of state and Commonwealth ministers for consumer affairs it was again agreed that urgent action is needed to address the harm caused by payday lending. But what do we have? We have nothing. There was no mention of the draft legislation or when, if ever, the government might decide to take it off the shelf, dust it off and finally introduce it into this place.
In question time last week I asked the Treasurer when the government planned to introduce legislation to protect vulnerable Australians from the harm caused by these financial products. The response? 'The Assistant Treasurer is working on this issue.' Unlike the Assistant Treasurer, however, the payday lending industry has been very busy. According to research carried out by Digital Finance Analytics, in the year since the release of the review in April 2016, three million new payday loans have been taken out. That's $1.85 billion in payday loans.
Stop the Debt Trap! is a coalition of over 20 consumer advocacy groups, including CHOICE, the Consumer Action Law Centre and the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army, in particular, sees people who are in an incredibly vulnerable situation and have multiple payday loans. They go to the Salvation Army for urgent assistance. These organisations have spent years at the coalface and they know that these harmful products can trap individuals in a crippling cycle of debt—a debt that can have far-reaching consequences for the individual and their family.
Earlier this year, the Senate inquiry into credit and financial services heard evidence that payday lenders were concentrating in areas of high unemployment, with large proportions of single-parent families and low gross income. These companies are targeting areas of social and economic disadvantage, and the current regulatory framework enables the exploitation of vulnerable Australians—and it must stop.
It is also important to clarify that these loans do not arise out of a fleeting desire for a flat screen TV or a quick trip to Bali but out of sheer desperation. They are low-income individuals. Many are facing a time of crisis such as family violence or unexpected illness. It may be that the car has broken down and they just need some money to replace tyres that have been defected or the engine to be fixed—things that are needed—particularly in regional areas where there is no alternative. There's no bus they can get on. They can't just park the car in the carport and say, 'That's okay; I'll save up and get that fixed.' They really have no alternative. It may be that the fridge breaks down or the hot water service goes. What do they do? They look for a short-term financial support. These are the low-income Australians that the member for Higgins referred to in her speech, and these are the consumers that the Treasurer says he wants to protect.
Nobody is seeking to eliminate small amount credit contracts. All that I and many members in this place want—and, importantly, what the public wants—and argue what the government has already accepted, is improved protections for people who use payday loans and consumer leases. I urge the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer to ignore the friends of payday lending, ignore the lobbyists who walk up and down these corridors saying, 'Leave it alone; everything is fine,' and finally introduce the bill into this place. Let's do some good work for vulnerable Australians. Let's learn from the royal commission, let's listen to the remarks of Commissioner Hayne and let's put people before profits. This would have a profound impact on the most vulnerable Australians. We need to act now.
I thank the member for Mayo. Is the motion seconded?
I second the bill moved by the member for Mayo and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the member for Clark. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In December 2018, the Museum of Australian Democracy launched their Democracy 2025 initiative with a report entitled Trust and democracy in Australia: democratic decline andrenewal. The report found that if nothing is done to address the erosion of trust in key institutions fewer than 10 per cent of Australians—one in 10—will trust their politicians and political institutions by 2025. Trust is essential to effective government, as without trust we do not have the ability to address complex, long-term challenges, such as climate change, such as an aging population.
With fewer than 41 per cent of Australians—just two in five—currently satisfied with the way democracy works in Australia, we need to consider how to address the suspicion and dissatisfaction of the Australian public, politicians and political institutions. And there are steps that we as legislators can take now to arrest that decline—very simple steps, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Democracy 2025 report highlights an issue that was common to every demographic, namely the influence of big business on politicians. Irrespective of age, gender or political persuasion there was very strong support for reforms that would insure greater integrity and transparency in political donations.
The Commonwealth framework for political donations is in need of reform. There are measures that can be made today that would significantly improve the disclose regime, such as implementing expenditure caps, significantly lowering the disclosure threshold below the current level of $13,800, aggregating donations and providing for real-time disclosure of donations.
But when presented with an opportunity to make any one of these meaningful reforms, as part of the debate around foreign donation laws last year, both the government and the opposition turned a blind eye. So, once again, it's up to the crossbench to shine a light on the activities of the major parties.
The bill I am introducing today focuses on just one area of electoral reform, namely real-time disclosure of donations. Currently, the Commonwealth government donations disclosure scheme provides for annual returns. This means the parliament, press and public can wait over a year before finding out about a donation, as was the case with former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's $1.75 million gift to the Liberal Party in the lead-up to the 2016 election—$1.75 million in the lead-up to the election and it was only publicly disclosed in February 2018. How does that inspire trust and confidence in our political institutions? Goodness, I'm sure we'll all wait to see in February 2020 who made donations for the election that we just had in May this year. The public doesn't know who is donating.
The need for a more responsive disclosure scheme becomes all the more apparent when comparing Commonwealth requirements with that of the states and territories. In South Australia parties are required to disclose donations every seven days during an election period and then every six months otherwise.
A similar regime exists in New South Wales where donations over the $1,000 threshold received during the election must be disclosed within 21 days or every six months outside of that time.
In Victoria all donations over $1,000 must be disclosed to the electoral commission within 21 days, irrespective of whether an election has been called.
Meanwhile, in Queensland donations over $1,000 must be lodged through an online portal and made public within seven working days. I encourage members to visit the Queensland electoral commission website and explore the electronic disclosure system. It showed last week that KPMG provided $33,000 to the Queensland Labor Party, while the Queensland Liberal National Party received two separate payments of $10,000 from a private individual in Yeronga.
I make no comment on the merits of those donations but merely draw attention to the fact that donations—and any influence, real or perceived—are a factor in our political institutions. In this financial year alone, almost $1 million has been donated to Queensland state political parties. As I said, imagine what will be disclosed as they approach their state election, like our federal election. At a Commonwealth level, we have to use our imaginations because we do not have the benefit of real-time disclosures—monthly disclosures or even six-monthly disclosures. Instead we must wait for at least a year before finding out who thought to influence policy.
The bill I am introducing today provides for political parties to disclose any donation they receive that meets the $13,800 disclosure threshold as soon as reasonably practicable and by no later than five working days after receipt of that donation. As always, I'm willing to work with both sides of the chamber to improve the bill to create a legislative framework that meets community expectations. My bill is not a panacea for undue influence; I've been in this place long enough to know that. However, it will make it easier for all Australians to see who is donating and who they are donating to. In this matter, it is up to parliamentarians, members of the public and the press gallery to decide for themselves whether it is the public interest or the parties' bottom line that sets the policy agenda in Australia. It is time to let the sunshine in.
Is the motion seconded?
I second this very important motion moved by the member for Mayo and I would like to add a few comments. The effect of a $100,000 donation being handed over in a brown paper bag in a tin-pot country is no different than the effect of $100,000 in a plastic shopping bag being handed over in Australia. It is no different than a $100,000 donation apparently made legally in Australia but declared 18 months later. They are all the same. Some may be criminal, and some may not be criminal, but the effect is the same. And the effect is that a donor has made a hefty gift to a candidate or a political party and expects a return on that investment.
My friend Nick Xenophon once famously said: 'If you donate $1,000 you've supported someone; if you donate or gift $100,000, you've bought someone.' And that's the bottom line. That's why we need effective reform of the donation laws in this country. When someone hands over tens of thousands of dollars, or hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars in donations, it comes with an expectation of a return on that investment. Voters have a right to know—and they should know by the time they cast their vote—exactly who has handed over how much money and the identity of those people. It is no good revealing the source of donations 18 months later; people have cast their vote and moved on. They need to know when they cast their vote.
The member for Mayo's bill is very worthwhile. It says that every recipient of a donation at the federal level should be required to declare that donation in real time or at least within five days, which would allow even the most clunky processes in the most clunky political offices to catch up. That needs to be the start of reform, and a building block for deeper and more substantial reform. That's what this country needs. Frankly, if it was up to me I'd click my fingers and we would have a lower threshold for donations. It is ludicrous that the threshold at the moment is almost $14,000. Surely a threshold of more like $1,000 would be reasonable. Let's face it, someone giving up to about $1,000 is not trying to buy someone. It might just be someone who wants to engage in the political process and support a candidate but doesn't want to get themselves into strife—say a public servant. But, when you're handing over $13,000 or $13,799 or whatever it is come the next election, you're wanting a return on that. So we need a lower threshold for donations. We need caps on donations. We need bans on donations from certain sources. It is appalling in this country that some candidates and political parties are still accepting donations from the liquor industry and the gambling industry, which hand over millions of dollars a year in donations in all their forms.
So good on the member for Mayo for moving this bill. I stand shoulder to shoulder with her, and I look forward to working with the member for Mayo throughout the term of this parliament to continue pushing for effective and deep reform of what at the moment in this country is nothing better than legalised corruption.
I thank the member for Clark. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
I'm very pleased to rise today to move this motion. A little while ago, I sat in a rail yard with about 30 maintenance workers in a regional town. I asked them about what concerned them the most. They told me it was privatisation and the lack of apprenticeships. The serious issue of privatisation aside for the purposes of today, they told me that once they would have had 10 apprentices working with them in that rail yard, and today they have none—not one. Yet I also heard from a peak industry body last week that one manufacturer could employ a thousand diesel mechanics tomorrow if they were available.
More than six years of a Liberal government has left Australia facing a crisis in skills and vocational training. I know the Morrison government will say, 'Oh, it's all the states' fault,' but let's start with the fact that they have cut $3.6 billion from the vocational education sector, and we'll see where the fault lies. Despite being a party who love to say, 'If you have a go, you'll get a go,' they're failing to provide for the VET training sector an investment that would actually mean people have the wherewithal to have a go. The number of Australians doing an apprenticeship or traineeship is lower today than it was a decade ago. Funding cuts are resulting in reduced services, worsening student outcomes and reduction in staffing levels, and it's leaving industry high and dry. The number of people completing their apprenticeships or traineeships is the lowest it's been since 2001, under John Howard. More people are withdrawing from apprenticeships and traineeships than actually completing their training. The Liberals' answer to the crisis is a $525 million skills package of which only $54.5 million is actually new money. The government are so arrogant and so out of touch with Australia that they believe a $54 million increase in funding to the VET sector will fix the deep-lying systemic issues it is suffering from.
The reality is that TAFE and vocational education in Australia are at breaking point. This is no fault, of course, of the wonderful and passionate VET educators I have the pleasure of meeting and working with on a regular basis. Our public provider, TAFE, is suffering terribly. Successive Liberal governments have shown clearly that they have no commitment to our public provider, which plays a vital role in our communities. TAFEs are struggling to keep their doors open. Teachers have been laid off. Capital upgrades are nearly impossible. They shouldn't have to fear the next wave of federal funding cuts. A system that is screaming out for reform will not be fixed by policy funding tweaks around the edges.
The effects of the government's cuts don't stop at the individual level; they are having a wide-ranging effect on our economy. While the Liberals merrily decimate the VET system, we are seeing high youth unemployment and massive skills shortages. These things should never exist at all, even separately, but the fact that they exist at the same time in the same economy in the same society is an indictment. Youth unemployment currently sits at about 12 per cent, more than double the national average. In some areas of the country it sits above 25 per cent. This government talks about jobs, growth and innovation, and I meet people every day who are struggling to find work and would love a chance to get ahead, to get some experience and to get into a course that will lead them into decent, meaningful work. What does this government give those young people? Funding cuts and a $4-an-hour internship at a car wash. Youth Jobs PaTH is a shocking program with dismal results. Just imagine if the money invested in that were invested in real skills and qualifications.
This government simply doesn't get it. All you need to do is talk to the sector, talk to the educators on the ground, talk to the students, talk to young people who can't get work and to older people who find themselves out of work and who need to skill up. The business community, unions and the not-for-profit sector are demanding reform and proper funding. They know that a strong and growing economy depends on a skilled Australian workforce. I'm not going to stand here and tell you that the solution is simple; it isn't. The solution requires thought. It requires genuine reform, a package that overhauls the sector and that properly funds the vocational education and training providers to deliver the services their students need. It needs a strategy—something this government is incapable of delivering. This is a solution that Australia needs right now. Our economy needs it, young people who require decent jobs need it and those working in industries that are going through transition need it. We need a TAFE and vocational education sector that delivers for all Australians, and this government is failing to deliver it.
I move the motion relating to skills and vocational training in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) more than 6 years of Liberal government has left Australia facing a crisis in skills and vocational training; and
(b) under this Government:
(i) more than 150,000 traineeships and apprenticeships have been lost;
(ii) $3 billion has been slashed from TAFE and training; and
(iii) 75 per cent of businesses are struggling to find qualified Australians to fill jobs; and
(2) further notes that:
(a) the Coalition’s answer to the ongoing demise of the VET sector is a $525 million skills package, yet Senate estimates confirmed that only $54.5 million of this is new funding for the sector;
(b) the business community, unions and the not-for-profit sector are demanding reform and real funding—they know that a strong and growing economy depends on a skilled Australian workforce; and
(c) with youth unemployment stuck at more than double the national average, young people need a decent skills sector that leads to good, secure and well paid jobs.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
As much as it pains me and as much as I like the member for Cooper, I will say that once again it's fascinating to reflect in this House historically on what's happened in this sector. And I'd be interested—because I didn't hear them—to hear the comments the member for Cooper raised in relation to the VET sector when it was decimated by a previous Labor government in her time as leader of the ACTU.
I'm delighted in this opportunity to speak on the skills sector on which this motion has been brought forward. But much of the crisis in this sector has its genesis in Labor's making, and I will not take lectures from Labor on spending over the past six years, on the mess of our vocational education sector that they left behind. In fact, the decline in apprenticeship commencements began under the former Rudd-Gillard government. The largest fall in apprenticeship numbers on record occurred in 2012-13, and the number of apprenticeships and trainee commencements fell by 85,000 in a single year.
Those opposite—Senator Wong as well as the member for Sydney, the member for McMahon and the member for Grayndler—were all sitting around the cabinet table at that time, and what did they do? Absolutely nothing. And while I'm at it, the member for Rankin, who was then chief of staff to the Treasurer, also did nothing. Over just two years, from those opposite we saw over $1.2 billion gutted from employer incentives to take on apprentices. Nine times in two years those opposite wielded the knife against apprenticeship incentives. Every time they needed a cut because they couldn't manage their budget finances they came straight for apprentices. This is a consequence of the failure of budget management by those opposite when they were last in government. When the Leader of the Opposition was the Deputy Prime Minister he, along with Senator Wong as finance minister and the member for McMahon as Treasurer, cut over $240 million out of apprenticeship incentives in a single year. This is just the beginning of the mess Labor left behind and the work we've been doing over the past six years trying to fix it.
It is this government that has sought to rectify the damage done by those opposite. The latest national apprenticeship data shows the number of apprenticeship opportunities actually increasing. In the March 2019 quarter the number of commencements for Australian apprentices increased by some 2.2 per cent compared with the same quarter in 2018, and the commencements have increased across both trade and non-trade occupations. It is this government that is focused on getting young Australians into jobs.
Is there more work to be done? Absolutely. But that doesn't take away from the achievements we've already seen occur. VET and vocational education training and apprenticeships are critically important. As I mentioned last week in consideration in detail on another matter, it's critical that we help young Australians to receive this experience in the workplace and give them the training opportunities, because, as I talk to the small business owners around my electorate of Forde, frequently the discussion is about how we get new employees in at the bottom and start to train them up to be long-term employees for the business.
There are many good businesses that are already doing this. It shows that our programs and our focus on getting young people into work, particularly young Australians, is working. We've introduced the Youth Jobs PaTH to incentivise employers to give young Australians experience in the workplace, and then to hire them. But I note that those opposite want to abandon this program and stop young Australians from receiving this valuable workplace experience. The previous Labor government did not have any commitment for funding the ongoing national partnership for skills and training. It is this government that is committed to a quality apprenticeship system that allows Australian apprentices to be trained for the jobs of today and tomorrow— (Time expired)
We are currently being hit with the biggest skills shortage in a decade and this government is cutting training for workers. Those opposite, as we've just heard, have a little bit of a memory problem. They remember everything that happened six years ago and nothing that has happened since. Let's have a look at the six years of this government—a government going into its seventh year. There are cuts of over $3 billion to skills, apprentices and vocational education and training; a loss of 150,000 apprentices across the country; plummeting TAFE enrolments; TAFE courses cut; TAFE fees skyrocketing; teachers sacked; and campuses closed. We only have to go back as far as 2014, when this Liberal government, in its first budget, slashed a billion dollars and demolished the Tools for Your Trade program. They slashed a further billion from investment in skills by cutting funding and axing other programs, including the National Workforce Development Fund, the Workplace English Language and Literacy program, the Australian Apprenticeships Access Program, the Accelerated Australian Apprenticeships program, the Australian apprenticeships Mentoring Program, the Apprentice to Business Owner program—all slashed.
The government announced a much smaller program, the Industry Skills Fund, in the 2014 budget, which was $27 million in the first year and $49 million in the second year, before dwindling down to a paltry $1.9 million in the 2018-19 budget. This is not a government with a commitment to skills and training. In November 2014 they took the axe to the $12.5 million Joint Group Training Program, by 20 per cent, and axed the program completely in 2015-16. Remember, we're just in 2014 here. In December they cut $66 million from the direct adult apprenticeship assistance payment under the Adult Australian Apprentices program. Now we're faced with a skills shortage.
Before their second budget, in anticipation of the Abbott government's contempt for skills and training, the peak bodies made a lot of statements. They raised concerns before the 2015 budget but the axe came out again, including a $1.6 million cut and abolishing the Industries Skills Councils. Now, we have a skills shortage. The Industries Skills Councils might have given us some forewarning of what was coming, if they had still existed. Later that year, in December's MYEFO, they cut $273 million over four years from the Industry Skills Fund and $122 million from the Skills for Education and Employment program.
It goes on and on—six years of cuts, and now we find ourselves in this position. And what is this government offering? What is their answer to a skills shortage that we haven't seen the likes of for a decade, to the loss of 150,000 apprentices? They want to have a cultural debate. They want us to focus on the fact that TAFE might be seen as the poor cousin to universities. Six years under this government—and now they want to have a cultural debate instead of putting money into the public TAFE sector and building back our capacity to train, to meet the skills shortage. It's a really simple proposal.
What we need here from this government is a commitment to public TAFE. That is where the answer lies. We on this side and those on that side know this. We all know this. There's a fascinating article today in The Canberra Times written by Joanne McCarthy. The headline is 'My family are all tradies—I know TAFE isn't what it used to be and I know why'. I'm not going to shy away from the fact that the registered training organisations in the private sector did the wrong thing, in this country, but to quote Joanne:
The "cultural bias" towards university, or against TAFE, didn't exist in my neck of the woods before vocational training was disrespected and plundered, internally and externally, over a long period. The TAFE college in Gosford, where I grew up, was on the hill as a prominent and respected local institution.
This government needs to get back to basics and realise that it's a public TAFE sector that has the answers they're seeking. All they need to do is make decisions about funding that sector and allow this country to rebuild that sector.
I'm grateful to the member for Cooper for giving me another opportunity to talk about an issue that is critical to businesses and young people in Fisher. But I must say to her that in proposing this motion she might have benefited from a little research into what happened before she was elected to this place. It's unfortunate she hasn't hung around to listen to this debate. In finding the causes of the crisis that the member for Cooper describes, she would do well to look around her at her colleagues on the Labor benches. Can I suggest that she have a chat with her friends the Leader of the Opposition, the member for McMahon and the member for Sydney? It was, after all, under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government that the decline in apprentice numbers began.
It was on her colleagues' watch that Labor tore $1.2 billion of incentives from apprenticeships. It was while her colleagues did nothing that the single largest fall in apprenticeships on record happened. I know the member for McMahon had quite a few jobs in 2012-13, but among them were the minister for tertiary education and skills and Treasurer. The member for Cooper might like to ask him—while he did nothing in those critical two roles, we lost 85,000 apprenticeships in one single year. In contrast, this government has fixed Labor's mess, reformed their disastrous VET FEE-HELP system and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in supporting vocational education.
We have made $1.5 billion available in the Skilling Australians Fund to help create thousands more apprenticeships. We have expanded the Australian apprentice wage subsidy trial to help create another 80,000 places, invested $156.3 million for a new additional identified skills shortage payment and, in the most recent budget, committed another $525 million in a new skills package. However, what we really need, to turn around the decline in vocational education and training, in this country is not another government initiative but a genuine change in culture among parents and young Australians.
I recently met with a constituent in Fisher: Dean Goode. Dean is the CEO of Kilcoy Global Foods, a $1.3 billion meat-processing business based in my electorate. In total, Kilcoy Global Foods have more than 1,300 employees, bringing in hundreds of millions in export dollars to Australia from Japan, South Korea, China, the US, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Middle East and South America. Kilcoy Global Foods wants to employ Australians and give them the skills they need in the business.
This year alone, Dean tells me, they have spent millions of dollars in training. Kilcoy Global Foods offered their employees courses in certs II, III and IV. They are more than willing to invest the three years it takes to condition and train a young Australian to be a skilled meat-processing employee. To support this process, they've added extra people to their recruitment team, trying to source the employees they need and begin them on this vocational training journey. Yet, despite all of this, Kilcoy Global Foods constantly has dozens, even hundreds, of jobs unfilled in their business. We need a culture shift in this country to help fill them. When I speak to my electorate's fishing businesses, fruit producers and many others, the story is the same.
Ultimately, we must change the belief that a university education is the only or the best way to get ahead. The QILT Graduate Outcomes Survey and the National Centre for Vocational Education Research VET student outcome study dispel the myth that university graduates have an immediate advantage in the workplace. In their first year after graduating, the rates of full-time employment for VET and university graduates are almost identical. Their median salaries are, likewise, very similar. Most university students have to balance their education with a part-time job and finish with considerable debts. So I say to the member for Cooper and all members of the House: the government's support for vocational education is out there. What we need to do is get out and speak to young people and the mums and dads and make sure they know— (Time expired)
I thank the member for Fisher. The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the member for Gilmore.
I rise today to speak about something very dear to my heart, and I thank the member for Cooper for bringing this motion on skills and vocational training before the House. As a former TAFE teacher and work placement coordinator, I understand how vitally important a quality TAFE and vocational education and training sector is to developing a skilled workforce, re-engaging an unemployed and underemployed workforce and providing essential upskilling to mature-aged workers. I have said this many times in this place now, but this is a key fact I think those opposite don't seem to understand.
In my electorate of Gilmore, under this government we have seen the lowest workforce participation rate in Australia. More than half of my electorate are not active participants in the workforce. Under this government, my electorate has the highest youth unemployment rate in New South Wales at 18.7 per cent. These might sound like just numbers to some people, but I know what the reality of these numbers means. I have spent many years in education, skills and training on the South Coast of New South Wales. At the Shoalhaven schools Workplace Learning program, I worked with young people training for work. I worked as a TAFE teacher at the TAFE Nowra campus. I taught in outreach, where I went out into communities, such as Sanctuary Point and East Nowra, to help students on the path to training and work. I taught young people for whom school was perhaps not the best fit for them—young mums, young dads and mature-aged people who may have faced a change in life circumstances and were there to help make their families' lives just a bit better—to gain the skills for training and work. Indeed, that is one of the main reasons why I'm standing here as a member of parliament in this chamber today. I remember vividly when a group of my mature-aged students turned to me with a genuine plea for help and said, 'We are just not getting the help we need from employment providers,' and they turned to TAFE. It is difficult for me to turn away from that.
There are many success stories of TAFE, like our terrific local organisation, the Cullunghutti Aboriginal Child and Family Centre. Cullunghutti participated in a TAFE outreach program and that resulted in Cullunghutti starting up Cullunghutti Catering, which provides the most amazing Indigenous food whilst also boosting local jobs and helping to provide essential services for Aboriginal children and their families in our community. But, ironically, the TAFE outreach program that was providing substantial benefits in Gilmore, in terms of training and helping create business and jobs, was axed along with the axing of all pre-apprenticeship programs under the coalition government. That's what $3 billion in cuts from TAFE looks like. It impacts real people, families, businesses, opportunities and our communities.
A better TAFE system is an essential investment in training for our local community. We need to be investing in TAFE to make sure we give students, young and mature age, the equipment, resources and facilities they need to succeed. There are local solutions that could easily be implemented across TAFE campuses on the New South Wales South Coast to help reduce the unemployment rate and to lift the workforce participation rate. But this requires the government to stop and to actively listen. I hear regularly about the impact minimum class numbers for TAFE courses has on students. This is simply disadvantaging regional and rural students. Our regional area is not like the city. We may not have the same student numbers as in the city, but our students, young and mature age, are just as deserving and they are calling out for help.
Under the coalition government, the VET system has been damaged by funding cuts, privatisation, excessive competition policy and poor regulation. Just yesterday, I was talking with a mature age constituent who had been really struggling to find work. He wanted to go back to TAFE but at a cost of $7,000 it was just not possible. He was lucky; he found work. He wasn't just talking about himself; he wanted to make sure that people got the help that they need.
This government has cut $3 billion from TAFE and training. My community is facing an unemployment crisis, but this government just wants to rip funding away. How can this government expect young people to find a job when they haven't been properly invested in to gain the skills they need? How can this government expect mature age Australians who want to retrain and reskill to get a job? They want to re-enter the workforce but they need the skills to do it. They need this government to invest in them and not just continue to cut funding. I call on the government to reverse these cuts, to guarantee the public TAFE and to invest in the workforce of the future.
Those opposite are making out that we on this side of the House don't care about vocational education and training and that we don't care about apprentices and traineeships. I can tell you that there is nothing further from the truth, as far as I'm concerned. In recent decades, we've been brought up to think that the only way to make a name for yourself in life, the only way to get a good job and to earn a decent living, is to go to university and get a degree. That certainly wasn't the case for me, and now I have the privilege of standing as the member for Herbert in this House. I am a strong supporter of the VET sector and everything you can learn in the sector. Plumbers, tradies, chippies and people from all sorts of trades are the people who go on to create small businesses, which, as we know, are so important to our economy. Small and medium businesses are the engine room of our economy. But I'll tell you who doesn't support the VET sector, apart from those opposite: the Queensland state Labor government, who are responsible for TAFEs in my electorate of Herbert—which won't help us, will it?
Whenever Queensland state Labor is in control, everything is out of control. Let me tell you about some findings from the Queensland Audit Office back in May. That revealed that TAFE Queensland's financial performance is at risk because of declining student numbers. Why would that be? It is because of mismanagement of Queensland TAFE under state Labor. Let me give you a few examples from the report. TAFE spent $390,000 on a golden handshake for the ex-CEO, who was reported to have resigned. TAFE spent more than $100,000 on brand research. TAFE spent $230,000 on undisclosed Commonwealth Games tickets. TAFE's hospitality expenses have doubled in the last three years. In the last three years, TAFE has spent over $2 million on international travel. As the LNP's shadow minister for training and skills development, Fiona Simpson, said at the time:
Under Annastacia Palaszczuk, TAFE Queensland has spent millions on international travel, Commonwealth Games tickets and hospitality expenses. Instead of training our next generation of Queenslanders, Labor are using TAFE funds to splurge on focus groups and golden handshakes for ex-CEOs.
Apprenticeship and training completion rates have dropped by nearly 40 per cent across four years under the Palaszczuk Labor government.
Desperate intervention is needed to get TAFE Queensland back to basics and end this training crisis.
Annastacia Palaszczuk also recently refused $245 million in desperately-needed vocational training funding from the Federal Government under a new national partnership.
That $245 million of vocational training funds could have been used to help young Queenslanders make a start in their careers.
So if those opposite think there's a crisis in the skills and vocational sector, they need only look at themselves. It was the Labor Party that left the country in the thralls of debt. The government has spent six years fixing the mess Labor left behind. Let's not forget that the crisis began in the midst of the turbulent time that was the Rudd-Gillard government. It was then, in 2012-13, that we saw the number of apprentices and trainees starting courses drop by 85,000 in a single year. More than $1.2 billion was chopped from the sector and the employer incentives to take on apprentices. Nine times in two years, the Labor Party wielded the knife against apprenticeship incentives. Every time they needed a cut they went straight for the apprentices. This was the consequence of a Labor government that could not control a budget.
Because we know how to control a budget, we know there are some situations in which spending needs to be reined in. Don't let Labor's deception get in the way of the truth here. Where we have taken money out of the vocational system, it has been to rein in programs that have been exploited or poorly targeted. The greatest example of this is Labor's VET FEE-HELP policy. Under this scheme, dodgy providers flourished and student exploitation was high. Students were systematically exploited, signed up to accumulate huge debts for training packages that were never delivered. (Time expired)
Education is the foundation of opportunity for people and for communities and the basis of national progress. People in my community want to be active citizens and confident, capable, creative learners who can shape their personal future, our community's future and our country's future. Education is more than schools and universities, as fundamentally important as they are. It's also skills and vocational training. It's about degrees and it's about apprenticeships, diplomas and certificate qualifications.
Recently I attended a joyous—it's the only word to describe it—Chisholm TAFE graduation in Frankston. What I saw was pride, ambition and hope for the future. In my community Chisholm TAFE holds a very special place, and so too do the Trade Training Centres, established with funding from the Gillard Labor government. We're also benefitting from the massive investment of the Andrews state Labor government in the game-changing Chisholm TAFE redevelopment—with not a single cent of federal funding—and funding for free TAFE places. This investment is happening without any support from the Liberal federal government. Our community remembers well the impact of previous cuts to TAFE by Liberal governments at both the state and the federal level.
Across Australia, our VET system is not working. It's not working for students, for communities, for business or for the nation. In particular, it's not working for the people who are at most risk of being left behind, and there are too many of those in Dunkley. A civilised, wealthy country should leave no-one behind. It's not just the failure of the Morrison government to invest in TAFE and the vocational educational training sector that is short-changing my community; it's a failure of policy imagination, which our country will rue for generations. It's this government's failure—for six years now, and with no sign of change—to plan for and address the changing nature of work and working life.
We know that technology and new business models are changing what is done at work, and the way it's done. And we know that our society has also been changing. Women's participation has been increasing continuously since the seventies. Many older workers are now choosing to work for longer—or, sadly, being forced to in order to survive financially. Young people are finding themselves with fewer employment options because of the loss of manufacturing industries, automation replacing entry-level jobs, and the crisis in our skills and vocational training system. Funding cuts and flawed ideology have had deep ramifications, and this is compounded by the total refusal of this Liberal government to recognise that we have a problem, let alone to develop a plan for the future of work.
Across the world governments have concentrated their focus on setting up future-of-work commissions and on implementing industry, workplace-relations and social-security policies designed to deliver a future of inclusive economic growth—a future which is less unequal, not more. In Australia, a wide range of groups, including the ACTU, Monash University, the CSIRO and even the Business Council of Australia, have contributed to the debate about the future of work. Last parliamentary term, Labor set up the Senate inquiry into the future of work and workers, but what is this Liberal government doing about this fundamental policy challenge? Nothing.
My community is made up of people who want to have a go, but they're being let down by this government's failure to support a decent skills sector and a policy—any policy—that would lead to good, secure and well-paid jobs. It's felt deeply by young people trying to enter the workforce, and it also negatively impacts on older workers. Our skills policies in Australia are not set up for a world in which people will have to retrain multiple times over their lifetime and where they will have to become continuous learners. The BCA has been a constructive contributor to this debate, which is a pleasant change, developing good ideas such as lifelong learning entitlements. But, if the BCA want to participate in this debate, they themselves also need to talk about business investment in training for workers. This Liberal government has to stand up and invest in skills and training and so does our business community.
Investing in skills generates shared benefits. A skilled workforce benefits people and families, businesses are more productive, innovative and profitable, and it makes our economy and society stronger. As it generates shared benefits, it's a shared responsibility. It needs shared contributions from business and from government. The failure to prepare for the future of work is a failure of national policy imagination. We are a great country. We have capable, confident and creative people driving economic and social transformation. We need a government that will back them in. We don't need free market ideology, cuts to TAFE and a void where skills and future work policy is supposed to be. The time for rhetoric is over. The time to invest in our future is now.
It's a pleasure to rise and talk to this motion on skills and vocational training. I come from the electorate of Ryan, where we're very proud of our university. It is the best university in Queensland and, I think, Australia—the University of Queensland, which is ranked in the top 50 globally. What I don't get the chance to talk about as often is just how proud we are of our apprentices in Ryan as well—young apprentices and older, mature-aged apprentices who are having a go and getting a go under this government.
I'm pleased that we are starting to see the national debate swing back from this idea that everybody must go to university to get ahead. I spoke to so many parents throughout the election campaign who have seen their son or daughter get an apprenticeship and who have really gotten ahead. That's what I want to encourage in my electorate of Ryan. Isn't it ironic then that Labor would bring forward this motion so that we can all discuss a mess which is very much of their own making—but we're pretty used to cleaning up Labor's messes on this side of the chamber.
Let's take a little bit of a step back in time to the decline of apprenticeships in Australia. It was the time of the Kevin Rudd-Julia Gillard-Kevin Rudd government. In 2012-13, Australia experienced the greatest fall in apprenticeship numbers on record—the greatest fall on record—a staggering decrease of 85,000 apprenticeships. In Queensland alone apprenticeship numbers fell by almost 17,000 in that year. What an appalling record for Labor to stand up and try to defend here in this place.
My colleague the member for Forde quite rightly pointed out that it's not just about who was Prime Minister at the time, being a Labor Prime Minister; it is about who was sitting around the cabinet table. Who helped preside over this staggering decrease in apprenticeships? Who was there at the briefings and who signed off on some of the worse cabinet decisions in history when it came to apprentices and young Australians? Well, of course, it was the now Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese. Tanya Plibersek was there as well and Senator Wong.
The member for Ryan will refer to members by their correct titles.
Quite right you are, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was the member for Cooper herself, who was leader of the ACTU at the time. Where were her campaigns?
Where were the ACTU with the placards and the now member for Cooper standing out the front protesting the Rudd-Gillard government policies that had led to the largest decline in apprenticeships in this nation's history? Not to be seen. There was silence from the ACTU at the time. So to come into this place now with this motion and try to lecture the government on apprenticeships is galling indeed. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Deputy Prime Minister, helped cut over $240 million out of apprenticeships in a single year. Over two years, these same architects in the then Labor government, now sitting on the Labor opposition benches, cut $1.2 billion from employer incentives. They cut incentives for employers to take on apprenticeships. They cut incentives for Australians to take on these young people to give them a skill.
We wish we were surprised by this hypocrisy, but we are not. When you can't manage money and an economy, as Labor can't, things have to go. Under the previous Labor government, what went was funding for apprenticeships, just as they couldn't fund the PBS at the time due to fiscal circumstances. On this side of the chamber, we can manage an economy. We can manage money, and that is why you are seeing us invest heavily to turn around those numbers and clean up Labor's mess. We're working to deliver quality apprenticeships that help to train apprentices on the skills they need today and the skills they need in the future. We've made available up to $1.5 billion in the Skilling Australians Fund over five years to help create thousands of extra apprenticeships. In the April budget, we announced we are investing $525 million in restoring incentives and promoting vocational learning. We've introduced the Youth Jobs PaTH program to incentivise employers to give young Australians experience in the workplace. Unfortunately, Labor want to abandon that very program. We can manage money, we can manage an economy and because of that we'll invest more in apprenticeships.
The time for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) considers the Baha'i community a valued part of Australian society;
(2) commends the contribution that Australian Baha'is make to social cohesion, unity and community building in Australia;
(3) provides assurance that it holds the Baha'i Faith, its leadership and its practicing members in the highest regard, in light of their focus on serving others with excellence;
(4) congratulates the Australian Baha'i community on the celebration of the bicentenary of the birth of their founder, the Bab, in October 2019;
(5) condemns the ongoing persecution of Baha'is across the world, which includes arbitrary arrests and imprisonments, economic isolation and denial of access to higher education;
(6) acknowledges that 2019 is the bicentenary of the Baha'i Faith;
(7) notes that the Baha'i Faith teaches core principles of inclusivity, public service and peacefulness;
(8) recognises that in spite of the openness and peacefulness inherent to their beliefs, members of the Baha'i Faith have suffered significant persecution;
(9) understands that most, if not all, of the world's major religions have, at various times including the present, suffered persecution in some form; and
(10) holds that the importance of freedom of religion is both an individual and a collective right, protected under international and domestic law, whereby all people are free to adopt and hold a belief, as well as manifest that belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching.
I have spoken in this place about the ethnic diversity of my electorate of Stirling several times during my first few months as an MP. Stirling is the most ethnically diverse electorate in the nation, after all, and I am immensely proud to say that the evidence shows it's working well. It's cohesive, and it is proof of the benefits of Australia's measured and pragmatic approach to migration. One of the reasons our community is so cohesive is the large numbers of volunteers, members of the community dedicating thousands of hours a week to the social fabric of the local sporting clubs, religious groups, schools and other organisations. Community service is the glue that holds us all together, and this is the central teaching of the Baha'i faith.
Thanks to a briefing by local Baha'i leaders in Stirling a few weeks ago, I've now become aware of a new, vibrant and crucial part of our local community. The Baha'i teach that the wellbeing of humankind and its peace and security are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. It's a religion whose pivotal teaching is the oneness of humanity—that we are all equal members of a single human race who share a common home on this planet. Baha'i teachings provide high standards for personal conduct which, taken collectively, would contribute to a more united, peaceful and prosperous world.
I have discovered, as I've researched the religion further, that the Baha'i believe serving the community with excellence in pursuit of this common good is their definition of worship. It's hard for me to imagine a religious belief more compatible with supporting the fabric of a multicultural, democratic and free society. Despite this, the Baha'i have faced decades of persecution. I take comfort in the long history of bipartisan support and solidarity shown by Australians and our parliament in decades gone by for the plight of the Baha'i, and I echo our nation's longstanding support for the Baha'i.
In 1983, the Australian government instituted a special humanitarian assistance program for members of the Baha'i faith fleeing religious persecution. In an article dated 9 May 2013, Nina Markovic of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security Section wrote a background note for the Parliamentary Library, and this stated:
The government discussed the issue of the treatment of the Baha'is … and supported resolutions on behalf of the Baha'is in the UN General Assembly and the International Commission of Human Rights in Geneva.
Former Australian Ambassador to the United Nations Gary Quinlan spoke out on their behalf during his tenure, referring to discrimination against minorities such as the Baha'i.
At the end of our meeting in my electorate of Stirling, I asked the local representatives of the Baha'i faith—who had taken the time to give me such a clear briefing on who they were and why I should be learning more—what I could do for them. In true peaceful and diplomatic fashion, they clearly articulated that they do not demand anything but that, in the year of the bicentenary of the birth of their Herald, the Bab, it would be a welcome gesture for Australia's parliament to reaffirm our knowledge of their plight and move a motion in solidarity with them.
These views are important ingredients in a free, just and noble society. And I express my personal solidarity—that the struggles of the Baha'i soon come to an end, that they are acknowledged for the gift of service they provide to the community and that the Baha'is may long be a part of our prosperous and harmonious community.
I thank the member for Stirling. Is there a seconder for the member for Stirling's motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the member for Mackellar. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I'm delighted and honoured to rise today to acknowledge the Australian Baha'i community, and in particular I extend the appreciation and support of this House to these people of peace, harmony and generosity. I wish to acknowledge the representatives who are tuning in and also those who are here today, including Dr Natalie Mobini, who I understand is in the gallery.
Australia is a successful model of diversity, and those of us here who are lucky to represent diverse electorates have the privilege of experiencing the success of our plurality every day. My electorate of Greenway in north-west Sydney is home to many different cultures and religions, and in communities such as mine, where cultural practices and theological views may differ, one thing is constant: respect is afforded to all. I say with very deep sincerity: the Baha'i community personify respect in their every action, with their enduring values of inclusivity and acceptance as core tenets of their belief system. It is accurate to say that the teachings of the Baha'i in this regard are intrinsically Australian values. In the promulgation of universal peace, 'Abdu'l-Baha's beautiful description of the oneness of humanity as being 'like that of a tree—the nations or peoples are the different limbs and the individual human creatures are the fruits and blossoms,' should serve as a reminder of our common ground. For parliamentarians in this place, often considering very contentious issues and in sometimes a most adversarial environment, I can think of no more important lesson than finding common ground—a lesson we should learn from our Baha'i constituents.
The Baha'i are also called to public service—a call that everyone in this place is familiar with. The pursuit of a world without prejudice, where women are afforded the same opportunities as men and all people live in the peace graced to them by their innate human dignity, are values that we Australians hold dear. All people, irrespective of their ethnic or cultural backgrounds or religious beliefs, should be afforded the right to live and worship peacefully. The persecution of the Baha'i community is a travesty. It is an affront to their human rights. As Australians we should stand with those who seek to manifest their beliefs peacefully and, as I said, respectfully. To that end, I extend my prayers and support to all people of the Baha'i faith who have experienced, or are or know those who are experiencing, religious persecution. I call on those in position of power to take action to stamp out this discrimination in all its manifestations. This motion is a good start.
On behalf of my community, I would like to extend my best wishes to the Australian Baha'is on the upcoming bicentenary of the Baha'i faith and the birth of its founder, the Bab, in October this year. From my own experience, having attended the birthday celebrations in Silverwater in previous years, I know that this will be an opportunity for spiritual enlightenment and a refocusing on the Baha'i mission. I have always felt the warm welcome of the community at every Baha'i event that I have attended. It is a testament to your openness, your generosity and your hospitality. I hope that you enjoy this momentous occasion and take stock of your contribution to the diverse fabric of our Australian society.
In conclusion, I would like to personally thank Behzad Mirzaei, Vincent Takizad and Matt Shahidi, whom I have met with on several occasions and only recently, and the entire Blacktown Baha'i community. Over the years I have had the privilege of working closely with the Blacktown Baha'is, particularly at my annual Harmony Day morning teas. Again, I say most sincerely, now and again as a member of parliament you meet people who have an immediate impact for no other reason than simply wanting to share with you their beliefs and their faiths—no particular ask, but, as the previous speaker said, just the desire to explain, to be open and to extend hospitality. Thank you for doing that. It is something special. At every meeting I am left spiritually enriched.
Your devotion to community, your acceptance of others and your positive spirit help make Greenway one of the best places to live. It is only fitting that this place should extend the same warmth and appreciation to you. Congratulations and may you be blessed on the glorious occasion of your bicentenary.
I rise today to second this motion moved by the member for Stirling that recognises the Baha'i community as a valued part of the Australian society and commends their contribution to social cohesion, unity and community. Baha'i is a religious community that is spread throughout the world. The Baha'i community come from all different backgrounds, with shared commitments to the teachings of their prophet and founder of the Baha'i faith, Baha'u'llah—which I notice none of the previous speakers have tried to pronounce. The Baha'i have fought for over a century to contribute to social cohesion and harmony in Australian society. They endeavour to nurture the spiritual life of children, youth and adults, and like to offer service to the community.
I'm fortunate to say that my own electorate of Mackellar is home to the Baha'i House of Worship. Opening in Ingleside in 1961, it is one of only eight in the world and it embodies the union of worship and service. The house of worship represents the spiritual centre for the continent as well as the Sydney community, standing as a beacon where, inspired by worship, individuals rise to serve their community. It's a place where anyone is welcome and where anyone can pray, reflect and meditate, while hopefully being inspired to selflessly serve humanity, such as in the Baha'i way.
I have visited the house of worship a number of times and can attest to not only its physical beauty, nestled away in the beautiful natural environment of Ingleside high enough that it looks out over the Pacific Ocean, but also the powerful sense of divinity when inside and around the temple. When building the house of worship the founder of the Baha'i faith, Baha'u'llah, asked that all Baha'i temples be as perfect as possible in the world of being. The physical appearance of the house of worship is a potent symbol—the outer dome reflecting the inner meaning.
The first Baha'i to arrive in Australia were John and Clara Dunn, who arrived in Sydney in 1920. From such humble beginnings the Baha'i community will next year celebrate it's centenary of being in Australia. But this year we are celebrating the bicentenary of the birth of the Bab, the herald of the Baha'i faith. The Bab was born in October 1819 in Persia. He was a young merchant when in 1884 he declared he was a messenger or manifestation of god. The Bab's writing championed spiritual and moral renewal as well as calling for the improvement of the status of women and the situation of the poor, inspiring thousands of followers to transform their lives and undertake acts of great heroism and sacrifice. The Bab and the Baha'i faith is one of peace, love and respect. Sadly, with his influence growing the authorities had him executed by firing squad at the age of 31.
It is with great regret that I have to raise the ongoing persecution that the Baha'i community have received in some parts of the world. In Iran the Baha'is can be subjected to raids on their homes and workplaces, confiscation of property, arrests and long periods of solitary confinement and interrogation. Baha'is have also been persecuted in Yemen, including imprisonment, raids and arrests. They have also been victims of economic persecution and the denial of basic education. I would encourage all people across the world to learn from the teachings of the Baha'i, respect each other and, in their own words, 'concentrate all the thoughts of your heart on love and unity'.
As I conclude in support of this motion, let me share with you the immortal words of the Baha'u'llah:
… let your heart burn with loving kindness for all who may cross your path.
As we in this place act in service of our communities, let us burn with loving kindness as we try to contribute to a better society, like the Baha'i community. Thank you.
I too rise to support the motion by the member for Stirling and thank him for bringing this motion to the House. I would like to start with a quote from Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i faith:
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.
That's one of my favourite quotes, because it speaks to the universality of the human race unfettered by the imagined borders of nationhood and the constructed boundaries of race. Indeed, this quote, to my mind, embodies the Baha'i faith's core principles of inclusivity, of public service and of peacefulness, as noted in the motion of the member for Stirling.
My first interaction with the Baha'i faith came when I was just a young university student and one of my classmates of Persian origin was a Baha'i. It was through him that I first learned about the persecution and the suffering of the Baha'i people in what is now known as Iran. A few years ago, my family were invited to attend the wedding of one of my son's best friends. At Natasha's wedding to Crawford, we witnessed firsthand and were overwhelmed by the beauty of the ceremony for its spirituality and for its community focus. I'm privileged to have an active Baha'i community in Cowan and have attended several of their functions.
In October this year, the Baha'i community will be celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Bab. It's an opportunity to learn more about this beautiful faith and of its teachings. It's also an opportunity to raise awareness of the continued suffering and persecution of Baha'is across the world. Baha'u'llah, meaning the glory of god, endured 40 years of imprisonment and exile for bringing a new revelation to humanity. And even today, the Baha'is are among the most persecuted religious minorities in the world. In Iran the universities refuse to admit Baha'i students, Baha'i cemeteries have been destroyed and the country's Supreme Leader has confiscated properties from Baha'i families. Baha'is have also been discriminated against and persecuted in Yemen and elsewhere.
But despite this, and perhaps as a testimony to the resilience and beauty of the Baha'i faith, the faith has spread across the globe. Indeed, at a function I attended in Cowan last year, I observed people from all walks of life and all backgrounds coming together in spiritual and communal harmony. There are more than 100,000 local Baha'i communities around the world, and we are all richer for them. Their commitment to peace and harmony stems from the words of Baha'u'llah. He wrote many passages and books about the spiritual and social principles needed to construct a peaceful and just global civilisation, and these writings form the scriptures of the Baha'i faith.
On 20 October, the Baha'i community of Swan will be celebrating the anniversary of their founder at the Vines Resort. I wish them all the best for their function and would like to make special mention of Rashel from the Swan Baha'i community and Margaret and Hoda of the Wanneroo Baha'i community. I would also like to acknowledge Dr Natalie Mobina and Shephali of the Australian Baha'i community, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting on several occasions and who are present in the gallery here this morning.
For those of us who are searching for guidance in this place, there are many words of Baha'u'llah that I think would serve us well. In searching for guidance in the words of Baha'u'llah, I found these wonderful words of wisdom which I'd like to share in closing:
Be generous in prosperity, and thankful in adversity. Be worthy of the trust of thy neighbor, and look upon him with a bright and friendly face. Be a treasure to the poor, an admonisher to the rich, an answerer of the cry of the needy, a preserver of the sanctity of thy pledge. Be fair in thy judgment, and guarded in thy speech. Be unjust to no man, and show all meekness to all men. Be as a lamp unto them that walk in darkness, a joy to the sorrowful, a sea for the thirsty, a haven for the distressed, an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression.
I would like to thank the member for Stirling for this motion to celebrate the bicentenary of the birth of the Baha'i faith and to welcome wonderful members of the Baha'i community here to the House of Representatives today. There are more than five million Baha'i worldwide, found in almost every country. The bicentenary we are celebrating today marks 200 years since the Bab was born. The Bab was the prophet who came before Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i faith. When I last visited Israel, I had the privilege of having a tour, led by Australia Baha'i, of the beautiful Baha'i gardens in Haifa, where the Bab is buried. The first Baha'i came to Australia in 1920, which means that next year we'll be celebrating the centenary of the Baha'i in Australia. I have two Baha'i spiritual assemblies in my own electorate—one in Castle Hill and one at Hornsby.
The Baha'i faith uses the texts and traditions of other religions, forming a tradition which combines in many respects the best elements of all and emphasising the unity and equality of all people. Through their acts of community service, the Baha'i community make an important contribution to Australian society, with a focus on building a cohesive community that ensures all belong. Baha'i seek to serve their community through cooperation and support to achieve good social outcomes. Baha'i have a particular focus on young people, teaching the virtues of love, truthfulness and justice and seeking to guide young people on how to live a fruitful and productive life.
Despite being people of faith who celebrate, promote and preserve peace, community service and inclusion, sadly the Baha'i community are a highly persecuted people, especially in Yemen and Iran. The Baha'i community form the largest non-Muslim faith group in Iran, yet over the last 40 years they have been subjected to systematic state-sponsored persecution. Government-led attacks have been particularly severe since 2005. Raids are carried out on the workplaces and homes of the Baha'i. Their property is confiscated. They're arrested and subjected to long periods of solitary confinement and interrogation. Since 2005, more than 1,234 Baha'i have been arrested in different parts of Iran, with at least 95 arrested just last year.
Beyond facing the constant threat of arrest, Baha'i people face financial persecution, impingement on their right to an education, attacks on their burial grounds and constant persecution provoked by anti-Baha'i material disseminated by the Iranian regime. Baha'i are not allowed to hold government jobs, and private sector employers are often pressured to fire their Baha'i employees. Their business licences are often refused and their businesses are shut down. This has been the fate of more than 490 Baha'i owned shops since 2016. Baha'i students are constantly prevented from undertaking a university education, despite the fact that many of them pass the national university entrance exams. Even if they get into university the government requires expulsion as soon as they are identified as Baha'i. Attacks have prevailed on Baha'i cemeteries in various parts of Iran, and in some cities Baha'i people are not allowed to perform burials or are ordered to bury their loved ones in cities far from their homes.
Some in the West regard President Rouhani as a reformer, but nothing could be further from the truth. Under Rouhani the persecution of the Baha'i has ramped up a notch. Since President Rouhani was elected in 2013 more than 36,000 anti-Baha'i articles, videos, television programs and webpages have appeared in government controlled or sponsored media. The propaganda often scapegoats Baha'i as the reason for Iran's economic and political problems or suggests that the Baha'i community stands in opposition to the government or to Islam. This ongoing persecution, unfortunately, has spread to Yemen. One Baha'i man, Hamed Kamal bin Haydara, was recently sentenced to death by public execution after facing severe mistreatment since his arrest in 2013. In 2016, 60 men, women and children were arrested while participating in an educational conference. Their homes were raided to seize phones, passports and other documents. In 2017 the authorities called for the arrest of 25 Baha'i. Six are still imprisoned, and many others have been forced to go into hiding. The Houthi insurgency also incites hatred against the Baha'i by labelling them as satanic and calling for their followers to wage war against them.
Much of this persecution is being directed by the authorities in Iran. This is an appalling assault on the Baha'i community and their humanity. Today in the House of Representatives, in the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, in the strongest possible terms I condemn the Iranian and Yemeni government treatment of the Baha'i community and their complete disregard for their basic human rights, I call for an end to the systemic persecution of the Baha'i in Iran and Yemen and I call for the immediate release of Baha'i prisoners imprisoned for their religious beliefs. At a time which should be a cause for celebrating a peace-loving community it is so sad that we have to reflect on the persecution of Baha'i around the world.
I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to this motion recognising the people of the Baha'i faith and acknowledging their contributions to our society. Thank you to all the members who have spoken on this motion. I would also like to recognise the people of Baha'i faith present in the gallery today. I also congratulate the Baha'i followers on the upcoming historic bicentenary of the birth of the founder, the Bab, next month. The Baha'i faith is one of peace and inclusion. It recognises the value and worth of all religions, it sees the inherent unity of all people and it actively rejects the damaging scourge of racism, prejudice and discrimination. At a time when we are seeing communities and countries across the globe splinter and fragment through hatred and division it is clear that there is much to take from this belief system.
The people of the Baha'i faith come from all walks of life and represent many sectors in our community. In my electorate of Newcastle I am fortunate to have a deeply committed local Baha'i community. It is a vibrant and welcoming group of wonderful people. I particularly acknowledge Tom Jones, the volunteer Baha'i chaplain at the University of Newcastle, who has long led the spiritual assembly of the Baha'is in Newcastle. Tom has been an incredible advocate for his local community but also for the plight of Baha'i followers facing prejudice and persecution overseas. I am glad that Australia is a place where all people can practice their faith freely.
Regretfully, this isn't the case everywhere. While Australia is currently focused on ensuring that people of all faiths are able to practice their beliefs in Australia without discrimination it is timely for this House to recall that there are still many places in the world where people are imprisoned for their beliefs. Indeed the Baha'i people are subjected to appalling persecution in a number of countries. Last time I rose in this place to speak about the Baha'i I reflected on the appalling treatment of Iran's 300,000 Baha'i followers. I spoke about the fact that the Iranian Baha'is are being restricted and oppressed in all areas of their lives. Hundreds have been detained or even arrested for their faith. These include every single one of the seven leaders of the national Baha'i leadership group, who have been imprisoned on bogus, vague and confected charges like disturbing national security or spreading propaganda against the regime. Many ordinary citizens have found themselves excluded from education and business, have been denied government support that should be their right as citizens or have had their property seized. Others have found themselves subjected to brutal beatings or torture. Virtually all have experienced some form of denial of their basic civil liberties just because of the faith they follow.
Since I last spoke there have been some more concerning developments but also some glimmers of hope. According to reports, in 2018 alone, authorities arbitrarily detained almost 100 members of the Baha'i faith. In November last year, the United Nations General Assembly called on Iran to put an end to these ongoing human rights violations. However, in January this year, a provincial court of appeal acquitted a Baha'i citizen who had been sentenced to seven months in prison for propaganda against the state, finding that proselytising for a faith can't be seen as propaganda against the state. Since then there have been a few reports of courts acquitting Baha'i people who had been sentenced to prison on similar charges. Some have said that these might be the first cases of Iranian courts finding that proselytising the Baha'i faith is not a crime.
This is a move in the right direction, which will hopefully set a positive precedent for the future. But we mustn't become complacent. Australia must continue to robustly defend the rights of the Baha'i, who face diabolical persecution across the world. We, as part of an international community, can't sit back and let this happen unchallenged. We cannot be silent. It is important that Australia keeps raising this issue through international forums and uses whatever influence we have to end this terrible inhumanity and uphold well-established human rights protections.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill and to speak in support of the amendments foreshadowed by the member for Whitlam. The bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to prevent trustees from providing insurance on an opt-out basis to members who are under 25 years old and begin to hold a new product on or after 1 October this year or members who hold products with balances below $6,000. These changes would impact insurance arrangements that are in place before 1 October 2019. These changes would remove default, TPD and income protection insurance, which could lead to higher insurance premiums for remaining members, including those in high-risk industries.
This bill seeks to balance the benefits of providing affordable, effective life insurance cover to employees, many of whom might be otherwise uninsurable, against the objective of ensuring that members' accounts are not eroded by insurance premiums. Labor support these objectives. Labor always want to make sure that workers get a fair deal from their superannuation, but we have some concerns that this bill will have undesirable consequences in relation to members in high-risk occupations, the implementation time frame of the bill, insurance premium increases and long-term impacts. To address the problems, we are proposing amendments to the legislation to protect the interests of workers in high-risk industries and to delay the commencement date of these changes to 1 July 2020.
Group insurance provided by superannuation funds, as a standard benefit, can provide affordable life, income-protection and total-and-permanent-disability insurance to their members. The bulk purchase of cover means that workers who would otherwise be unable to buy insurance, because of cost or because of their high-risk occupation, gain the benefit of that insurance. In its 2018 inquiry into superannuation, the Productivity Commission found that default insurance premiums significantly eroded the superannuation balance of low-income fund members. In extreme cases, this could amount to up to a quarter of the retirement balance. The Productivity Commission's findings indicated that the default insurance offerings offered low value to some workers, particularly younger workers. It also acknowledged that some workers would miss out on a benefit if that was not provided through their superannuation fund. So it is very much a question of getting the balance right, which is what the proposed amendments are aimed at.
Tragically, between 2003 and 2016, 335 workers under 25 died at work. In its submission to the Senate inquiry on this bill, Industry Super Australia advised that nearly 30 per cent of workers under 25 years, or approximately 340,000 employees, are employed in occupations and industries that are inherently hazardous. Some industries are extraordinarily hazardous. In 2016 half of worker fatalities occurred within the transport, postal and warehousing and the agricultural, forestry and fishing industries. While we are keen to see younger workers protected from the erosion of their superannuation balance, it is important, at the same time, that younger workers in these industries have affordable cover. These workers and their families may be faced with devastating hardship if they don't have any life or disability insurance in the event of a workplace or other accident.
Industry Super Australia provided evidence on the impact of the proposed time line for implementation of this measure on behalf of the industry super funds:
If the Government proceeds with the proposed changes, the implementation date is unimplementable and will result in member confusion … It is proposed that the commencement date of 1 July 2020 would allow funds to renegotiate insurance contracts on reasonable terms, make relevant system changes and properly inform members, but under no circumstances should it be sooner than 6 months after royal assent.
The time proposed—less than two months from passage to implementation—will leave thousands of Australians stuck on a phone, waiting for their super fund to respond. The government has rushed through this bill without adequate time to consider these questions. Not a single public hearing has been held on this bill. But there is a reasonable balance to be struck here. We want to support the objectives of the bill. We will propose amendments to protect workers in high-risk industries and we will propose amendments to allow a reasonable but not excessive amount of time for superannuation funds to implement these changes. These are sensible amendments that we urge the government to support.
It seems like a new coalition MP comes out every day with a way to trash superannuation. There have been a number of coalition MPs and senators calling for a—
Mr Falinski interjecting—
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
Here's the chorus—calling for a cut to the superannuation guarantee, including Craig Kelly, Andrew Hastie, Barnaby Joyce and Jason Falinski.
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
Order! The member for Goldstein is not in his seat and is wishing to do what exactly?
Rushing to move back to his own seat.
The member for Goldstein can take his seat. The member for Dobell in continuation.
For the benefit of those members of the coalition who have short memories, let's look back at the history of superannuation. In 1985 only 39 per cent of the workforce had superannuation. Only 24 per cent of women and 50 per cent of men had access to super. At that stage superannuation coverage was concentrated in higher paid, white-collar positions in large corporations and in the public sector. This situation is one of the reasons why one-third of single women aged over 60 are currently living in poverty in retirement. Many of these women were in the paid workforce for decades but did not have access to superannuation before the introduction of the superannuation guarantee in 1992.
The superannuation guarantee, Australia's universal compulsory superannuation system, is a legacy of the Keating Labor government. Like other Labor legacies, legacies which have transformed the lives of everyday Australians, the superannuation guarantee is under continual attack from those opposite. This third-term government continually tries to undermine the retirement aspirations of the workforce. They just don't seem to like ordinary Australians accumulating a decent nest egg for a dignified retirement. They have opposed increases in the superannuation guarantee rate, frozen the rate multiple times and tried to weaken penalties for employers who fail to pay their workers' entitlements. The Productivity Commission has suggested that superannuation guarantee noncompliance by employers—that is, to put it plainly, super theft—may be costing $2.8 billion per annum, and the government's response is to weaken penalties for the employers engaging in this theft.
We are now seeing members of the coalition, including the Prime Minister and Treasurer, prevaricating on whether the scheduled increase in the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent will go ahead. They suggest that workers should be able to choose between higher wages and superannuation. When you hear this government using the word 'choice' in any context, you need to be very careful. It may not be you who gets the benefit of this so-called choice. The simple fact is that, under this third-term government, wages are flatlining and, in the absence of an increase in the superannuation guarantee rate, so are workers' superannuation entitlements—not much of a choice, really. Company profits are presently increasing at six times the rates that wages are growing. Does the government really think that, in the absence of a legislated superannuation increase, the savings to employers would magically turn up in increased wages where there is no legislated requirement? The reality is that Australian workers would never see this money. It would simply show up as an even greater increase in company profits. The net result of not increasing the superannuation guarantee by 2.5 per cent would be a substantial loss of retirement savings. On one estimate, a 30-year-old currently earning $80,000 a year would be $90,000 worse off when they retire.
We've also heard Senator Bragg saying he'd scrap the system for workers earning under $50,000 per year. Who are these lower-wage people who would lose their superannuation under the proposals made by the senator? Once again, women and those in casual and part-time employment, the very people at greatest risk of having insufficient retirement savings. Tellingly, Senator Bragg states that this would save the government some $1.8 billion in the first year alone. I'll give you another tip about choices: if the government offers you a choice that will save the government that kind of money, it's probably not going to be in your best interests. Ticking a box on your tax return to cash out your superannuation might look like a good idea at first glance but might not be so attractive if you have a close look at your effective marginal tax rate, particularly if you are one of those affected by the lower HECS payment thresholds of $45,881 introduced by this government.
Another thing those opposite apparently don't like to see is Australian workers getting good rates of return on their super and paying low fees. This government has an irrational dislike of industry super funds. This government isn't happy when Australian workers are accumulating their super in industry funds when they could be paying higher fees and charges to retail superannuation funds operated by the big banks and other for-profit financial institutions. The Productivity Commission found:
While fees have fallen in recent years in some parts of the system, there remains significant variation between fund types. Fee revenues among not-for-profit funds—industry, corporate and public sector funds—have historically been (and remain) well below that of the retail funds
Over a working lifetime, this difference has a significant impact on retirement balances. The Productivity Commission found:
For example, an increase of just 0.5 per cent a year in fees would reduce the retirement balance of a typical worker (starting work today) by a projected 12 per cent (or $100 000).
If that's not a retiree tax, I don't know what is.
I too rise to talk about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019. I support the statements that the member for Dobell has made in her speech. Firstly, I'd just like to put on the record that I think many of us in this place don't want to see the chipping away of superannuation by governments and, at the moment, by this particular government. We know that they have a dislike, as we heard, of industry supers. They want to change the boards on industry supers, even though industry supers have outperformed all the other superannuation funds. If you have a look at the record and history of industry super, which was set up by unions and the Hawke-Keating government, you will see its track record speaks for itself. It looks after workers' interests far better than any private fund around the country.
Our superannuation system is one of Australia's most significant financial and social institutions. It includes over 15 million Australians. As I said when I made those comments about industry super and the current government, I don't think they believe in a fair and just superannuation system. If they did, they'd be supporting industry super. They don't rely on superannuation and nor do their mates. Compulsory superannuation is essential for the everyday Australian worker. Time and time again, we see that the Australian worker is just not who this government is interested in representing.
The intention of this bill was to balance the interest in providing affordable, effective life insurance cover to employees—many of whom would be uninsurable—against the public interest in ensuring that members' accounts are not eroded by insurance premiums. Labor supports these intentions but we've had some concerns about the unintended consequences regarding members in high-risk occupations. These are people who perhaps would not be able to get insurance elsewhere—people who work in mining, construction, seafaring, fishing et cetera. Many of the private funds would not even look at these occupations in terms of insuring them. Also, there is the implementation time frame of this bill. We need more time for super funds to make changes and make sure they can iron out any unforeseen consequences. Of course, one thing we do not want to see is insurance premium increases and long-term impacts.
The Senate committee received 44 submissions. It received submissions from funds, insurers, industry funds, APRA and unions. It's unfortunate that public hearings weren't scheduled to hear directly from a wider net of people. As the member for Dobell said earlier, we are proposing amendments to remedy the defects in this bill, including an amendment to extend the operative date of 1 July 2020 and protect the benefits of workers in high-risk industries.
Labor will always look to ensure that workers get a fair deal from their superannuation. Time and time again, where there were proposals to increase the superannuation guarantee, those opposite reneged on promises that were made at the 2013 election, at other elections and in other statements that they have made. We know that we have to increase the superannuation guarantee so people can retire with dignity and enough money to look after themselves in their final years.
Let's speak for a moment about which typical Australian this bill will hurt most if it doesn't go to plan. It's not rocket science to understand which age bracket of people work in high-risk jobs that have a higher than average rate of workplace accidents. It is young people. Nearly 30 per cent of workers under 25, or approximately 340,000 employees, are employed in occupations and industries that are hazardous. Currently they are protected under this system. Some industries are extraordinarily hazardous. In 2016, 50 per cent of worker fatalities occurred within the transport, postal, warehousing, agriculture, forestry and fishing industries.
Young people are also earning the least in our economy and are more likely to not opt in for insurance premiums that would protect them and provide a safety net of income should they need the cover they are covered for before workplace injury. This bill seeks to remove that safety net. Young workers should be protected from the erosion of their superannuation; I think everyone agrees that. But we also have to ensure that there are no unforeseen consequences and that safety net for protection is not removed—as I said, especially for those in high-risk industries who may not have an option of getting cover anywhere else. So it has to be affordable cover that doesn't become a barrier to workers having that cover.
We also have some grave concerns over the time line proposed by the government. Why rush it? Why is this government always in such a rush to chip away at workplace rights and entitlements? They said they want this implemented by 1 July 2020. Industry Super Australia said this date would be disastrous. They said it:
… will result in member confusion and detriment. It is proposed that the commencement date of 1 July 2020 would allow funds to renegotiate insurance contracts on reasonable terms, make relevant system changes and properly inform members, but under no circumstances should it be sooner than 6 months after royal assent.
That was Industry Super Australia. So once again we have industry experts providing advice to the government but they think they know better.
If this government were serious about fixing up the superannuation system, the legislation we would be debating about today would be about unpaid super. We know there are thousands of people who are owed money through their super—employers that aren't putting it into their accounts. An analysis of the ATO data shows that collectively workers around Australia are missing out on about $6 billion in superannuation each and every year, yet we don't hear boo about that from the government. Nothing is being done to fix that problem at the source, absolutely nothing.
In South Australia, in my home state, for example, a staggering 173,224 workers are missing out on their superannuation guarantee—that's nearly 30 per cent of all workers—to a tune of $283.5 million. The average underpayment is $1,632 per worker. We've done the analysis through the ATO. In the federal seat of Adelaide, that I represent, there are 17,205 workers who are owed superannuation by their employer. That's more than 14 per cent of my electorate alone that are owed money for superannuation by the employer. This is not just a problem in South Australia and Adelaide; it's the same pattern all around the country. It's workplace theft; that's what's occurring when that money does not go into the worker's account.
The majority of employers are doing the right thing. They pay the super contributions into their worker's account each and every payday. But, unfortunately, there's a minority taking advantage of some petty, outdated laws, which allows them to hold back super for up to three months and then pay them into workers' accounts four times a year. Now, what happens in that quarterly period? Workers sometimes move or don't keep track of contributions because they just assume that what appears on their payslip is fair dinkum. Sadly, there is virtually no deterrent. You have to remember, the money that a worker receives for his superannuation guarantee is not a gift, it's not a present by the employer, it is in lieu for the work that they've done. It is no different than not paying the correct wages.
The ATO also admitted it is nowhere close to effectively tracking down or penalising those who are doing the wrong thing. Apart from the damage they do to their workers, these employers are also undermining their competitors. You've got good employers that are doing the right thing, paying the correct amount of super guarantee. It's creating an unfair playing field and making it even harder for good businesses that are doing the right thing by their workers.
The Senate economics committee looked into the problem and had the common sense to make a couple of recommendations that employers pay the super guarantee contribution on payday, just as they pay the wages on payday. As I said, the superannuation guarantee is no different to receiving your salary. It's part of that package for the work that you have done for that employer. It is no different to wage theft. Yet this government doesn't want to look at that. The only sensible solution is to pay it on payday. Where are they on unpaid superannuation? We don't hear boo from them.
Recent changes to increased penalties and surveillance are welcome, and we all think it's a good thing. But with their track record on compliance, I think this government needs to act on this as well, instead of tinkering around the edges with other things on superannuation.
We need to have a government that stops attacking superannuation and industry funds. As I said, industry funds are outperforming. They're covering people who would not get insurance cover in any other form of private super or life insurance company. So we need the government to try and do something on those unpaid super guarantees that's owed to millions of workers around the country.
I've got to say, this system doesn't only affect those workers; it affects all of us because in the long-term if they're not receiving the correct amount of superannuation they will have less to retire on, so the government will have to fork out on government pensions, social security et cetera and a whole range of things. This will affect every single Australian. It's the biggest oxymoron to have coalition MPs constantly winging about the cost of our social security but not wanting to get a solution for superannuation that will assist this.
I support the amendments put forward. I'm just hoping that this doesn't have any unforeseen consequences for many of those young workers who are in high-risk jobs and will not be able to get cover elsewhere. They need all the information. We need more time to implement it so that they can be properly informed of what this will mean if they opt out.
As the member for Goldstein, I'm proud to be able to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019, which is urgent, necessary and important for the country. We have to make sure that the cosy relationship that sits at the heart of many financial institutions in this country, including those superannuation funds that have a very clubby relationship with insurance, is broken apart. The focus of this legislation is not the best interests of the shadowy forces that sit at the heart of the modern Labor Party; it's actually standing up for Australian consumers, for young Australians in particular who work hard and want to get ahead. At the early stage of their career—they might have just gone through school or university—they have a low superannuation balance. At the moment they are having it eaten away for the self-interests of the people who run the funds that they're members of. Often it is without their formal approval, as it's the default option attached to their employment conditions. They are denied choice.
We know full well why those sitting on the other side of this chamber are hell-bent on opposing this simple reform. We also know why they're so hell-bent on stopping any other type of reform in this space. At the moment we see the superannuation balances of young Australians eaten away by fees. You only need look at the nefarious agenda of those who are enjoying making a meal of it—the people sitting on the other side of this chamber and their allies and friends. They're out there defending them at every single opportunity, against the interests of Australians. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
This legislation is about standing up for young Australians and their interests against the institutional interests. What's the response of the opposition and their mates to anybody who stands up and questions or challenges this system? We only need look at the behaviour of a former member of this place who now sits atop the patronage network of Industry Super Australia and IFM Investors, Greg Combet. When members of this chamber and the Senate dared question whether the current policy settings are right—and that's all they did—the response was that they were going to run an aggressive and unrelenting campaign to remove them. That is what a former member of this place and head of Industry Super talked about. That organisation, by law, has money taken from the wages of Australians. It is then given to them to control. Its response is to use the money that is by law forced to be given to it to campaign against anybody who questions that cosy relationship.
That's not the way you have public policy debate. To me it looks much more like an extortion racket and a bullying campaign of anybody who dares question their blood flow in their bloodstream for survival—simply because they want to remain in control of people's superannuation funds for their own benefit. That's what this bill brings so nakedly and clearly out, and that's why those in the opposition are hell-bent on stopping it. They would rather enjoy the benefits of what they can compel to take from people's wages for themselves than allow young Australians to be in the best position they can be in to save for their retirement. It is absolutely despicable.
The Productivity Commission estimates that more than $3 billion would be invested, rather than eaten away by insurance premiums, if insurance on superannuation was opt-in rather than opt-out for people with low balances, under 25s and on inactive accounts, according to the minister responsible. To think that those opposite would oppose this simply because it messes up their club and their cosy arrangements—where they sit in this chamber and vote for themselves and their mates—is despicable. It's the height of vested interests that they're seeking to prosecute and pursue. That's why their squeals are so loud on these and other issues and why those squeals won't stop.
This bill will stop millions of Australians falling prey to powerful sectional interests in the superannuation and insurance industry. Currently, $300 million is being siphoned away from workers' retirement savings in the form of absurd income, life and various premiums, simply for the benefit of the funds and against the consumers. These are premiums for insurance that the overwhelming majority of recipients neither need nor in many cases want or even knew they had.
The cosy relationship between super funds and life insurers comes at the detriment of workers, particularly those who are young and those who have re-entered the workforce, who may not have significant balances. We know full well that many of the people who have the lowest superannuation balances because of absences from the workplace are women who have gone off to raise children. To think that they would be targeted and disadvantaged by the Labor Party, by the opposition, so that they can help themselves against the interests of Australian women is despicable.
The nonsensical opposition by the ACTU and their affiliate union shows just how much this bill attacks Labor's self-interest and the ACTU's self-interest. In their submission, the ACTU makes the distinction that these changes will disproportionately have an impact on those who are returning to the workforce and, of course, on young Australians. I would have thought that strengthening the case for stopping young Australians and women returning to the workplace having their retirement savings swept away and into the line of rent seekers would have been a good thing. In fact, ordinarily, if those opposite weren't enjoying the fruits and benefits of it, they would be arguing in favour of reform—but not when they seek to enjoy the benefits themselves. They have tied themselves in a knot trying to come up—
The member for Goldstein will take his seat for a moment. The member for Whitlam, on a point of order?
I have been patient with the member for Goldstein, but time and time again—
And the point of order is?
Clause 90 of the standing orders. He's reflecting upon the motives of members on this side of the chamber. It's highly disorderly. I've been very, very patient with him, but he persists in doing it, and I'd ask that you call him to order.
Can the member for Goldstein, in continuation, please observe the standing orders.
Deputy Speaker, I respect the point you've made but I also believe that, at every point, I have only highlighted the facts and the fundamental problem with the opposition's opposition to this legislation. And, by the way, those opposite have been quite comfortable in impugning the motives of the people on this side of the chamber—and there's been nobody more egregious than the member who just stood up to try and call me to order, who has used nicknames and slurs and thrown people's motivations around. For him to now get up in this chamber and attack somebody else for pointing out some obvious truths is the most hypocritical action that one could possibly take.
The idea that opt-out insurance is necessary to provide workers affordable and comprehensive insurance packages that they may not otherwise afford is absurd. Whether it is forced upon you or not, the affordability of a superannuation derived insurance premium doesn't change. Opt-in means that there is more transparency, and it means that people have a choice. It also means that the rivers of gold that go out the door of people's superannuation policies to buy insurance policies they never wanted, never sought and never asked for will end. The people who will lose will be the institutional interests and the people who will win will be Australians.
Union industry lobbyists pull out all stops when they rent-seek, but there is one special interest group in this parliament that the opposition should actually be listening to. They don't have a mass organisation, money or a megaphone; they have only representatives, who sit on this side of this chamber. When we fail them, they have no voice. They are those who get up every day, who work hard, who sacrifice, who save to put themselves in the best position to be independent and of course to make sure they have a secure retirement. The Liberal Party was founded explicitly to give these Australians political representation and a voice. That is why we will not be silent on this issue and the many other issues that come up. We know that, in a choice between the rights of the individual and the freedom to choose against the established entrenched interests of the union movement and their acolytes and mates, we are always on the right side of history in standing up for people and their freedom.
I would like to thank the members for Dobell and Adelaide, as well the member for Whitlam—and, I'm sure, in due course, the members for Mayo and Fowler—for their contributions to this debate. I would also like to thank the member for Goldstein for his contribution, once again demonstrating—as you have often said, Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou—his superior knowledge of economics and finance. I didn't always agree with you, but you have managed to talk me around.
The fact of the matter is that this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019, is a pretty simple one. At its heart it is about preserving the retirement benefits of ordinary Australians and hardworking Australian families. The current system requires the provision of default insurance for MySuper members. Default insurance can result in members paying for cover that they are not aware of, that goes beyond their needs or that they cannot claim on. In other words it is not of any value to them. They don't know that they have it. Insurance premiums can reduce the retirement balances of low-income earners—who, I might add, to the member for Dobell, are disproportionately women, and her argument that this bill is about somehow ending compulsory superannuation I found, to say the least, amusing but also highly offensive; here is a bill about helping ordinary Australians, and somehow the member for Dobell wants to turn it into some sort of culture war issue—by 10 per cent or more compared to having no insurance, increasing with every additional policy held by an individual.
The bill prohibits trustees from providing insurance on an opt-out basis to new members aged under 25 and to members with account balances below $6,000 unless the member has directed otherwise. The changes in this package aim to better target default insurance and minimise balance erosion due to insurance premiums, particularly to individuals who have duplicate insurance cover through multiple accounts. Importantly, these changes will not prevent anyone who wants insurance within superannuation from being able to obtain it. Young members and those with low balances will still be able to opt into insurance through superannuation. Based on 2015-16 data this bill, as well as the changes implemented through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Act 2019, will mean that around five million individuals will have the opportunity to save an estimated $3 billion in insurance premiums in the first 12 months of the changes by allowing them to choose to opt into this cover rather than paying for it by default. They didn't even know they were paying for it. Funds will be required to notify individuals who will be affected by the changes.
I just cannot understand why Labor would be opposed to something that benefits low-income workers and women, but they are. Indeed, Super Consumers Australia, in a submission to the government, said:
Super Consumers Australia supports the PMIF bill in its current form.
You've got to ask yourself: who exactly are the Labor Party trying to protect? Who exactly are they standing up for? We know it's not for low-income workers—we know it's not for workers, full stop. We know it's not for women.
The member for Whitlam, the shadow minister for finance and very large donations, has pointed out on several occasions that the member for Goldstein and the member for Mackellar are somehow part of a group called 'the dirty dozen'. Well, let me tell you this: it's much bigger than a dozen people, Member for Whitlam. And if I were to be a member of this group, I would want to be the Telly Savalas of the group! By the way, this is a group that, in the movie The Dirty Dozen, was given the mission to secure a French chateau and to release the prisoners within, and it was called Project Amnesty. I am proud to be part of any project so named, any group so named. Any group that would include Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson and Telly Savalas can't be that bad. But I tell you this: the member for Whitlam is starting to look like the Lone Ranger—without a horse and without a sidekick. It's very, very sad.
In any case, what Labor's amendments to this bill are seeking to do—No. 1, the timing of this bill is not a surprise to the industry. I was part of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry that looked into group insurance in superannuation fees in the last parliament. There were a number of conclusions from the inquiry. The first was that group insurance, for the vast majority of people, has been a good thing. The second was that it has not been a good thing for a whole bunch of people, particularly low-income earners and people who have lost their jobs, and that it has not been particularly responsive. For example, one person went and saw their financial adviser. The financial adviser presented evidence to the effect that he realised that when he tried to get him life insurance he already had life insurance through his superannuation fund. When he went to the superannuation fund to find out what was going on with the life insurance coverage that he had, he found out that there was no product disclosure statement and that there was no-one to talk to; they'd just been collecting fees without necessarily being able to respond to the person they were covering in their fees.
The sector has known for quite some time that (a) these reforms were necessary and (b) they were coming. So, this idea that it's un-implementable, as the member for Dobell claims—I just wonder where she's getting her information from. The measures were announced on budget night 2018. The measures were originally included in the Protecting Your Super package, introduced into the parliament in June 2018, and were due to come into effect on 1 July 2019. So, funds have known that they would, in the normal course of events, have to be implementing this four months ago. But, according to the member for Dobell, they still can't implement it; it's still beyond them to do it. So we delayed it again, and now they want another delay. It's absurd.
The industry has known about the current bill for more than seven months and about these measures for 16 months. Industry managed to implement opt-in insurance in seven months when MySuper was introduced in 2012. The longer these measures are delayed, the longer members' balances will continue to be eroded by insurance that members do not need and in many cases do not want; they don't even know that they have it and probably don't understand what they have. This is truly a mission for the Lone Ranger.
Labor's amendments lack any objective rigour. They enable trustees to opt out of the legislation on the flimsiest of grounds. It simply asks for evidence of risk, which is an absurdly weak standard. What about low risks? Is that grounds for opting out? All activities carry some risks, but are they high-risk? No objective standard is imposed and it's not subject to third-party vetting. Labor's amendment is simply too broad. Conflating occupations and industries is not the right approach, so they want to take out the building industry. Does that mean that someone at a building company who answers the phone won't be able to opt out and will still be forced to pay insurance that they don't need, don't have and don't want? Under Labor's amendment, absolutely that's what they'll get. For example, consider two 20-year-old employees who both obtain part-time positions as accounts receivable clerks, one in a construction firm and the other in a finance firm. Under an industry-level exemption proposed by those opposite, the employee in the construction firm may be defaulted into insurance, whereas the accounts receivable clerk in the finance firm would not. I mean, paper cuts of the world, look out—there will be all these clerks uninsured, according to Labor! Despite the fact that both employees work in an office and have comparable levels of occupational risk, the construction accounts receivable clerk could have their balances eroded by insurance that is beyond their needs and that they may not be aware of.
The exceptionally good-value exemption is my favourite one of all. 'Exceptionally good-value exemption' is simply too subjective and too broad. Labor's proposal is dressed up as an attempt to protect high-risk occupations like truck drivers. But trustees could drive a truck through Labor's amendment and keep all the current cosy deals in place, eroding young and low-balance members' super. Is that what they want? Is that really what the modern Labor party wants: to erode the balances of women and low-income earners? That's what they're asking this parliament to do. The point is not whether insurance is good value; it's whether it's needed. Ninety-six per cent of workers under 25 do not have dependants. Why would they need automatic insurance? The Productivity Commission report on superannuation stated that 'for some members, default insurance cover is undeniably good value'; however, for other members, the one-size-fits-all approach of group cover means that insurance is poor value and doesn't meet members' needs and preferences, particularly young members and members with low incomes. The Productivity Commission found that insurance in super can be poor value, meaning that premiums can result in undue erosion of retirement savings.
Labor's proposal risks many trustees maintaining the poor-outcome status quo and they substantially undermine the protections this bill gives to young people and low-balance-account holders. That's simply the rub of it. On one side of the House you have a party that wishes to assist those on low incomes—women and people who have lost their jobs. On the other side of the House, you have a party whose actions would only assist the multimillionaire fund managers who run these superannuation funds.
Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to the debate. Through the bill the government is ensuring that people's hard-earned savings are not unnecessarily eroded by inappropriate insurance arrangements. The bill requires that insurance be provided on an opt-in basis only for members with balances below $6,000, and for any new members from 1 October 2019 who are under the of 25. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (13) on sheet 1, as circulated in my name, together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 15), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020".
(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (lines 5 and 6), omit "1 October 2019", substitute "1 July 2020".
(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 7), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020".
(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 11), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020".
(5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 14), omit "1 August 2019", substitute "1 May 2020".
(6) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 18), omit "1 October 2019", substitute "1 July 2020".
(7) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 23), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020".
(8) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 9), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020".
(9) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 20), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020".
(10) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 24), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020".
(11) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 27), omit "1 October 2019", substitute "1 July 2020".
(12) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 30), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020".
(13) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 13), omit "1 October 2019", substitute "1 July 2020".
The amendments seek to address a shortcoming within the bill. But before I go to them in some short detail I want to clarify something. Members of the government who are contributing in the debate seem to be suffering under some illusion that Labor doesn't support the substance of the bill—we do. But there are some defects, and they're not defects that have been identified solely by Labor. Indeed the amendments that I am moving now are amendments that were recommended by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, which said:
APRA considers an appropriate implementation timeframe would be, at a minimum, 6 months but preferably 12 months …
That was in the submission from the deputy chairman of APRA to the Senate inquiry into this bill.
Why do we need to extend the time lines? It is because under the bill, as currently drafted, all of the funds are required to notify their members who fall within the class to be affected and then give those members enough time to advise them in writing if they wish to have their superannuation cover continued. The number of members who are under the age of 25 is about 15 per cent of the workforce, so it's a significant number of fund members indeed, and, if you're a fund in the hospitality industry or the retail industry, it could be as many as 50 per cent of the policyholders or the members within that fund. It is a significant burden of work indeed. Industry Super Australia provided evidence to the Senate inquiry on this particular matter. They have advised that it would be an enormous administrative burden that would very, very likely lead to mistakes and to members who wish to have cover falling out of cover because of that very short time frame.
The superannuation fund that covers workers within the mining industry gave some interesting evidence as well. They pointed out that a lot of their workers were engaged in fly-in fly-out or drive-in drive-out work, and they pointed out that it is very, very difficult for a fund to make contact with and receive responses from workers engaged in these industries. It is not an unusual observation. However it is unusual to be able to find a matter on which the Financial Services Council and the industry super lobby are on one page, and on this matter they are. The Financial Services Council also provided evidence where they said:
… the compressed timeframe for implementing the PYS changes caused confusion among consumers. Following soon after with similar changes may further undermine trust and confidence in the system, particularly given call centres are still receiving enquiries about PYS.
For the benefit of members in this place, the PYS changes are the changes that took place prior to the last election. Super funds are still receiving inquiries about them. The administrative benefit has not entirely flown through. It's for these reasons that the regulator has said that it would be prudent that we extend the time frame by a minimum of six months and preferably by 12 months, and Labor's amendment to this bill goes directly to that. We've taken a moderate proposition and are moving that the amendments be accepted by all sensible members of this House to ensure that the bill, which is 95 per cent right, can move through as the government intends it. It will have the support of the opposition, but it will be improved by this amendment.
The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Whitlam be agreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2 as circulated in my name together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 13), at the end of subsection 68AAB(4), add:
; or (e) a member to whom the occupation or industry exception applies (see section 68AAF).
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 29), at the end of subsection 68AAC(4), add:
; or (e) a member to whom the occupation or industry exception applies (see section 68AAF).
(3) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 35), after item 3, insert:
3A After section 68AAE
Insert:
68AAF Occupation or industry exception
(1) The occupation or industry exception applies to a member of a regulated superannuation fund who holds a choice product or MySuper product in the fund if, at the time the member first holds the product, the member is working in an occupation or industry covered by an election referred to in subsection (2).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the trustees of a regulated superannuation fund may elect an occupation or industry if the trustees are satisfied that the election of the occupation or industry is appropriate having regard to either or both of the following:
(a) evidence of risk and insurance claims in the industry or occupation;
(b) the availability of insurance for people working in that industry or occupation that, if taken out on behalf of members of the fund working in that industry or occupation, would represent exceptionally good value for those members.
(3) However, the trustees of a regulated superannuation fund must not elect an industry or occupation unless the trustees are satisfied that applying the occupation or industry exception to members of the fund working in that industry or occupation would not inappropriately erode those members' superannuation interests in the fund.
(4) The election must be made by giving APRA a written notice that:
(a) is in the approved form; and
(b) is signed by each trustee of the fund; and
(c) includes the outcomes of an actuarial investigation of the matters mentioned in subsections (2) and (3); and
(d) includes data about risks in that occupation or industry and past insurance claims for that occupation or industry.
(5) An election under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.
While most young workers and workers with low-balance accounts would be able to access life insurance or income protection insurance other than through group insurance through superannuation, this is not the case for many workers in high-risk industries. Concerns about this group of workers were, indeed, raised by the Productivity Commission in the report which led to this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019, coming before the House. Importantly, the Productivity Commission contemplated an exemption for these workers, recommending that exemptions to the under-25 opt-in restriction should only be granted if the trustee can demonstrate to APRA that opt-out disability or income protection insurance would be in the best interests of that specific cohort of young members. It's exactly that proposition that Labor's second group of amendments go to.
Evidence provided to the Senate inquiry into this bill by the ACTU pointed out that more than one-quarter of all workers aged under 25 are in high-risk jobs with a real risk of fatality. Between 2003 and 2016, more than 3,400 workers lost their lives on the job. Of those, 335 were aged under 25. More than 20 per cent of workers under the age of 25 worked in a high-risk job. It's for this reason that Labor moves these amendments to the bill. We ask the government members to support them. With that, we can have a clean, improved bill sent to the other house. As we say, these are some sensible amendments to a bill which we think is 95 per cent right but has some unintended consequences that require remedy.
The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Whitlam be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I 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 the confirmation from the Speaker that only in respect to statements made in the House can Members be fully held to account for their words; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Member for Chisholm to make a statement in the House at any time before 5pm, for a time not exceeding 20 minutes, which responds to:
(a) allegations sourced from within the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party about the Member's past and present associations and fundraising activities;
(b) discrepancies between the media statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office on Wednesday, 11 September 2019, in the Member's name, and both her statement of registrable interests and statements the Member made to the media just hours before the media statement was issued;
(c) questions about the Prime Minister's knowledge of the Member's past and present associations and fundraising activities; and
(d) questions which have been raised concerning her fitness to be a Member of the Australian Parliament.
The Prime Minister and the member for Chisholm have serious questions to answer, and, no matter how desperate the Prime Minister gets with his smear campaigns, those questions will not go away. This Prime Minister has shown himself to be very skilled at dodging questions he is frightened of: 'It's an on-water matter, so I won't answer; it's a bubble question, so I won't answer; it's a question I answered yesterday, so I won't answer'—even when it turns out he never did answer that question the day before. And now he's at it again. He says he can't answer these important questions.
This time, it's because he is claiming—in a display as cynically self-serving as it is dishonest—that anyone asking those questions about safeguarding our national security must be a racist. I want to be very clear: the only person linking these questions to the issue of race—and, in the process, smearing the entire Chinese-Australian community and also smearing people on his own side who are concerned about issues of national security—is this Prime Minister, the same Prime Minister who, in 2017, and on no fewer than 17 occasions, used the offensive slogan 'Shanghai Sam'; the same Prime Minister who denied ever using the phrase, despite posting video of himself saying it, to his own Twitter and Facebook accounts, with the caption 'Shanghai Sam'. If harm is being done here, it's being done by this desperate and wounded Prime Minister, as slippery as he's ever been, trying to blame everyone but himself.
Let's remind everyone here that it was not Labor that began this pursuit. Labor did not make the member for Chisholm go on Sky on Tuesday night and give a disastrous interview where she contradicted longstanding bipartisan policy on China and then repeatedly gave misleading answers about her knowledge of and association with a number of organisations. It has been journalists and commentators, not Labor, who have been raising, day after day, serious questions about the member for Chisholm.
So is the Prime Minister saying that Andrew Bolt was being racist when he asked the member for Chisholm whether she agreed with Australia's longstanding bipartisan national policy on the South China Sea? Is the Prime Minister saying that it is racist to ask why the member for Chisholm falsely claimed to have nothing to do with a number of organisations that she never declared to her party or this parliament and which she now admits she was a senior member of? Is the Prime Minister saying that journalists are racist for asking whether he and other ministers were told by security agencies not to attend fundraising activities organised by the member for Chisholm? Is the Prime Minister saying that Andrew Bolt is racist for posing a series of perfectly reasonable questions in the Herald Sun newspaper just today, such as: 'Why did the member for Chisholm first say she couldn't remember being a member of the Guangdong chapter of the China Overseas Exchange Association, then deny it, and the next day, when she was caught out, finally admit it? Why did the member for Chisholm, in her application to be a Liberal candidate, list her membership of 17 community groups, from the Box Hill Chess Club to Rotary, but not her links to at least four organisations tied to China's United Front Work Department? How did the member for Chisholm, when not yet even a candidate, manage to raise more than $1 million for the Liberals? And why did ASIO's boss reportedly warn then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull against going to a meeting the member for Chisholm arranged with her donors?' Those are Andrew Bolt's questions in the Herald Sun today.
If, as has been reported, our agencies did issue warnings about the member for Chisholm, would that have been racist? And now we find that even members of his own party are seriously questioning this Prime Minister's judgement on this important matter—members of this Liberal Party who, unlike the Prime Minister, put our nation's interests first. In Thursday's West Australian, we read this:
A handful of Liberal MPs last night told The West Australian they wanted a full probe into their colleague to ensure her loyalties were not divided between China and Australia.
… … …
"My sense here is that there should have been concerns when she was being chosen to stand as a candidate and I believe those concerns were ignored," one MP said of the member for the Melbourne electorate of Chisholm. "Her situation raises yet again the fault lines in the vetting processes and I think there should be a full investigation.
"Sooner or later we have to take off the rose-coloured glasses about what is happening." Another MP said some within the party wanted a proper investigation for comfort, while one revealed it was "safe to say there are concerns about her sitting in the party room".
Are those members of the Prime Minister's own party, quoted by The West Australian, racist? As Peter Hartcher wrote in Saturday's The Sydney Morning Herald:
To claim that any scrutiny of an ethnically Chinese person is racist is exactly the tactic of the Global Times and the other mouthpieces of the Chinese Communist Party.
And, further:
Morrison ... has done Beijing's work for it.
… … …
It was a "profound error", in the words of a senior Liberal, "that makes it much harder to scrutinise potential agents of influence in future".
As these stories in the media make clear, there are now very serious questions in the Liberal Party about the member for Chisholm and about the Prime Minister's extremely poor judgement in the way he has sought to dismiss these allegations by insisting that there's nothing to see and then resorting to the race card when even his own party room abandoned him. It shows yet again that, when asked to choose between the national interest and his political self-interest, this Prime Minister will put self-interest ahead of the national interest every time.
Every day this scandal deepens. Every day there are more revelations. Prime Minister, this is not going away and no amount of desperate smear will make it go away. Let's be clear: it has not been the Australian Labor Party, it has not been the members of the crossbench in the House of Representatives or the members of the crossbench in the Senate who have been raising these matters day after day; it has been various parts of the Australian media, such as television journalists, radio journalists and print journalists, all raising questions which this member for Chisholm and this Prime Minister are declining to answer.
The only way that the Prime Minister can stop this is by making the member for Chisholm come into this parliament and make a full and frank explanation about which organisations she was a member of, when she was a member of these organisations, what her role was as a member of these organisations, why she denied being a member of these organisations and why she refused to back longstanding bipartisan policy on China. While she's about it, the member for Chisholm should make a statement as to whom she raised money from, when she gave that money to the Liberal Party and how she gave that money to the Liberal Party, because all of these questions are being raised by the Australian media and none of these questions have yet been answered—not by the statement drafted for the member for Chisholm by the Prime Minister, nor by anything that the Prime Minister or the member for Chisholm have said in this place.
The Prime Minister also needs to stand up in this place and explain precisely what he knows about the member for Chisholm's fundraising activities, precisely what he knows about the associations and organisations that the member for Chisholm was a member of and what he and his cabinet have been told about associating with the member for Chisholm or associating with those that the member for Chisholm has raised money from.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The question is that the motion moved by the member for Isaacs be agreed to.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.
Last week, I had the great honour of being part of a very important celebration and I may say, an even more important declaration of intent for Nepali Australians but also for all of us in this proudly multicultural society. I inform the House that on 10 September the Federation of Nepalese Community Associations of Australia was inaugurated. I was very pleased to be there representing the Australian Labor Party, together with the member for La Trobe, the assistant minister. I was very pleased also to be there with my great friends the member for Calwell and the member for Wills, both of whom are very proud to represent large and growing Nepali communities. It was a wonderful occasion which involved a sharing of experience, ideas, culture and aspiration. In this place, it is important that we recognise the Nepali story in Australia—a community which has grown from only a few hundred 25 years ago to nearly 100,000 now and which is making a great contribution which goes beyond those raw numbers. So I congratulate everyone involved in bringing together the federation and look forward to the critical dialogue it will have on behalf of the community when it comes to national affairs. I congratulate, in particular, Dr Raju Adhikari, the president, who made a wonderful speech on the occasion; and Krishna Hamal, the general secretary. Again, I look forward to the dialogue and I congratulate all involved in bringing together this critical peak organisation.
I welcome the students from my former Adopt-a-Cop school, Kilkivan State School, who are here in the gallery today. It's a great school in a great community, and the students have asked me to raise their issues so their voice can be heard in our parliament. Grant wants ag colleges to stay open to bring people to rural towns. Tobi wants to improve intergenerational mental health. Melissa and Barney want greater water security to droughtproof farming. Bianca wants housing costs lowered. Graham wants to improve wellbeing in rural towns. Jakob and Kate want more dams. Ella wants support for the dairy farmers. Jesse and Justin are concerned about the Murray-Darling Basin. Beau wants to stop vegan activists from invading farmers' properties. Good on you, Beau! Carlie wanted to know what my dream job was when I was young. I'll speak to you when Hansard's not listening, Carlie. Regan wants more power stations and is worried about blackouts in rural areas. Molli is concerned about wasting water. Lucas wants people to take a greater interest in agriculture so they know where their food has come from. Jake wants iconic sporting facilities, to encourage people to play more sport, and Sofia and Isaac want to help farmers in drought. Well, we've got our work cut out. Thank you, Kilkivan school, for all of your suggestions.
Last week, I was pleased to attend the Asian-Australian Leadership Summit in Melbourne, organised by Asialink, PwC and the ANU. The summit brought together hundreds of Asian Australians to tackle the important question of why, despite making up around 12 per cent of the Australian population, Asian Australians make up only one to three per cent of senior leadership positions in Australia's parliaments, Public Service, businesses and universities. Putting it another way, it asked why there are only four or five Asian Australians in this parliament, rather than the more than 30 that we would expect if they were represented proportionately. The success of Australia's multiculturalism shouldn't stop at the doors of power in our nation. So I say to all Australians: don't overlook the leadership potential of Asian Australians in your organisations or industries. And I say to all Asian Australians: we need you here and in the other institutions of power in our country.
The summit also highlighted the dangerous and irresponsible misjudgement of the Prime Minister in the parliament last week in conflating legitimate and specific concerns about the personal conduct of a member of his government with the equally legitimate but completely separate issue of racial prejudice and the structural racism faced by Asian Australians. Australia has got to get better at responding to these issues; they're not going away. This foolish intervention was harmful both for the Asian Australian community and for Australia's national security interests. Perhaps if there was someone of Asian Australian ancestry in the Morrison cabinet they might have warned the Prime Minister of how destructive this course would be. The Prime Minister must stop this line of argument immediately. (Time expired)
Father Ned Ryan, an Irish oblate priest who had an enormous impact on me as a child, once said to me, 'You should thank God not just for the things that have happened but also for the things that have not happened.' I stand in this chamber today to thank God and to thank the Queensland Police Service, the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services, the Rural Fire Service and the countless volunteers and organisations across the Sunshine Coast for everything they did to combat a wall of fire that blazed across the northern end of the Sunshine Coast—the northern end of my electorate and the southern end of my colleague Llew O'Brien's electorate, Wide Bay. Not one life was lost. Only one home was fully destroyed. Sadly, Pamela Murphy, 89 years of age, lost that home. Yet life was spared, and that was because of our volunteers, our emergency service workers and our police force. Thank you, and God bless them all.
Yesterday was the grand final of the Suncorp Super Netball season of 2019. It was an absolutely fantastic game yesterday. The New South Wales Swifts won their inaugural Suncorp Super Netball flag, and Sunshine Coast Lightning were denied a 'three-peat', having won the last two back to back. I want to congratulate all the players that were on court yesterday for an absolutely fabulous demonstration of our amazing sport. But I'll go further and congratulate every club involved in Suncorp Super Netball. It has been a fabulous year. The skills are getting higher and higher. This is the best competition in the world. It attracts international players from around the world onto our courts in Australia. Across that, and using that, we are raising the bar every week in terms of such talented athletes' performances.
I want to say one really important thing. There's been a bit of debate around international players, caps and all those things. We really saw some talented Australian young guns take it to their international counterparts in the final series in the last few weeks and across the entire year. I want to congratulate Marina Go, Super Netball Commission Chair, and everyone involved in putting on a great day yesterday.
With the drought still upon us, water is the lifeblood of our regional areas. We owe it to our primary producers and our rural communities to deliver long-term sustainable water infrastructure. The Queensland government always seems to find an excuse for not building in Central Queensland, whether it is the black-throated finch, cost blowouts or the cost of concrete. Somehow the cost of concrete is cheaper in Brisbane, even though it's manufactured in Gladstone, which is closer to Rookwood than it is to Brisbane. How can this be? They want to scale back the Rookwood Weir from 76,000 megalitres to a lesser amount. There always is an excuse not to spend in Central Queensland. When it comes to South-East Queensland, however, all these issues seem to melt away.
Anthony Lynham said that the Queensland government would meet the deadline to build Rookwood Weir. We've heard this before. Towns in my electorate, like Miriam Vale, are running out of water. Come on, Annastacia. Get your boots on, get the shovels out and let's get started on Rookwood.
Our veterans sacrificed so much to serve our country. Recently I had the honour of presenting a parliamentary certificate of recognition and an Australian flag to 95-year-old Mr Walter Williams, alongside his beautiful family, for his service during World War II. Like all veterans, Mr Williams is an extraordinary man who fought for our country. Our community expresses our deep thanks for his service.
Earlier this month our community held two welcoming the babies ceremonies: one in Inala, hosted by Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, now in its 12th year, and one in Greater Springfield, hosted by Charis Mullen, the state member for Jordan, for the second year. Over the past few years both of these events have grown into major annual events where the community has a chance to welcome our newest and youngest members and to provide local parents with essentials for their growing families. Besides providing a great day out for parents and kids, with all number of free gifts, rides and attractions, these events provide local small businesses and community groups opportunities to engage with families who otherwise may not know of these services. This year we were proud to partner with Kidsafe Queensland, Milestones Early Learning, Peter McMahon's Swim Factory, Brisbane and Ipswich city council libraries, and the Australian Breastfeeding Association.
I'd like to extend my thanks to the South West Progress Association for all their hard work in organising and delivering this event, as they do year after year. We welcome hundreds and hundreds of babies to our local community. It's a privilege to represent an area with a strong community spirit and diversity. I thank all the volunteers involved.
Over the weekend I was in Devonport in my electorate of Braddon to watch the town's new MRI machine being offloaded from a truck and carefully manoeuvred into its new home at the I-MED Radiology clinic in Oldaker Street. Let me tell you, it was an incredibly exciting time. I'm proud to be the local federal member who delivered on the Morrison government's commitment to provide $4.7 million for the Medicare supported MRI licence. But, far more than that, what was most exciting was how the MRI machine will improve the quality of life for thousands of people in my electorate. For the first time local Medicare subsidised lifesaving scans for cancer, strokes and a whole range of other medical conditions will be available in Devonport. No longer will Devonport patients be forced to travel to Burnie or Launceston. They can have the MRI conducted in their local town.
The Devonport MRI will see a reduction in MRI waiting lists of approximately 80 per cent on the north-west coast, with waiting times reduced from four weeks to just one week. A cutting-edge machine like this attracts health specialists to our region to live, work and be part of our community. I congratulate I-MED Radiology Northern Tasmanian Manager Krishna Saward and her entire leadership team for partnering with the federal government. (Time expired)
Continuous glucose monitors are an incredibly important technology for the 1.2 million people living with diabetes in Australia, but the government still hasn't made the technology available to everyone who needs it. Continuous monitors have the potential to change people's lives. They can continuously measure a patient's sugar levels throughout the day without the need for a pinprick, which relieves a major source of anxiety for diabetes sufferers and helps them control the development of any further complications. Take the case of one constituent who contacted me recently. She's lived with diabetes since she was a child and was able to trial a flash glucose monitor for a month. This helped her control her glucose levels and was a much better alternative to having an uncomfortable pinprick twice a day.
The government has, to its credit, announced that it will provide subsidised access to continuous glucose monitoring through the National Diabetes Services Scheme, but, regrettably, this is only for specific groups of people with type 1 diabetes or similar conditions, such as women who are pregnant or planning pregnancy. This very narrow eligibility will mean that many people, such as my constituent, who would benefit from having access to continuous glucose monitoring will simply have to go without. In other words, the government has made some progress but it still needs to do much better.
There was some great news for Australians this morning, and that is that an update from the ACCC has found that access to affordable, reliable and sustainable energy is improving on the back of the strong action taken by the Morrison government to deliver a fairer deal on energy. But, while all this is good news for those people who can shop around to get a better deal, unfortunately it's not so great for the people of Herbert, and that is because of the Queensland state Labor government. Because of state Labor's policies, there is only one retailer for those in North Queensland, and that is a government-owned energy provider which has the monopoly on the market. There is no shopping around in North Queensland and no competition, which means astronomically high prices.
A few months ago, I wrote to the Labor Premier and asked her to give consideration to introducing competition into the market. What did she respond with? 'No.' I also asked the state LNP opposition leader, Deb Frecklington, what an LNP government would do. Straightaway, she said she'd move to introduce competition. The Morrison government is doing all we can to make electricity prices more affordable for the people of Herbert. It's time for state Labor to get out of the way. I call on the member for Oxley to pick up the phone, call his brother and let him know there are places outside the south-east corner, like Herbert. (Time expired)
I'm a big fan of mobile offices and doing mobile offices in my area because I get to meet the people I love representing. One of the things I love about the people of our area is that, if they think that you need to get cracking on an issue that they believe not enough work's being done on, they'll tell you, and they'll tell you straight. I had one bloke, Ken, at Lethbridge Park, who attended my mobile office and said that he wanted me to speak up more on an issue that means a great deal to him, and that is the issue of liver cancer.
Ken's a carer now, looking after someone diagnosed with terminal liver cancer. It's a big deal to him and, obviously, to his family and friends. He said that, when the cancer was diagnosed, he had to actively go searching for information on the disease and what to expect from treatment and for information on support groups, and this was very hard to find. I said to him I'd raise this in parliament, write to the health minister and also raise it with the local health network to pass on these concerns, because he's right: it's essential that there are support mechanisms in place for all people diagnosed with this form of cancer, from the initial diagnosis through to treatment. It's one of the many stories nationwide of the challenges faced by people with liver cancer. When you consider how much the incidence of cancer has increased despite all the terrific work that's being done, it is something that we need to focus on, particularly for liver cancer, where there's a survival rate of just 18 per cent. Ken, I hear you, and we're going to make sure we address your concerns.
I rise today to speak about the Riverland Field Days held this past weekend. I do so—and I'm so pleased to be doing so—in the presence of some eminent members of the Riverland community who have come here to see democracy in action. The Riverland Field Days, formerly known as the Riverland Implement and Gadget Field Day, are now a two-day event which attracts over 20,000 people. Country field days, of course, promote the best of what local communities have to offer and provide an invaluable chance for those operating regional agribusinesses to exchange ideas and socialise. There was a wonderful sense of community at this year's event, and I was pleased to see the Riverland Exhibition Centre at the field day site being put to good use. Of course, our government contributed over $400,000 to help build that facility.
The field days event also provides an opportunity for me to relocate my electorate office for a day or days and to speak directly to Riverlanders about the matters that matter to them. This year, water was never far from the conversation. Access to affordable water from the Murray-Darling Basin is paramount for the survival of river communities. There is widespread concern amongst Riverland residents about the operation of the Murray-Darling Basin water market. The planning and execution of the Riverland Field Days is a huge undertaking. It involves many pairs of hands undertaking many tasks. A massive congratulations must go to the organising committee for another successful event, headed up by Chairman, Ian Webber, and Executive Manager, Tim Grieger.
This morning I had the great pleasure to meet with the group called Farmers for Climate Action, where they were releasing their latest research report by the Australian Farm Institute, Change in the air, defining the need for an Australian agricultural climate change strategy. This is a very important report, and I would certainly suggest that anybody in this place who suggests that they have an interest in, or understanding of, climate change and farming in this country read this report. It's got some very salient recommendations.
We need a systemic review of climate impacts across society. Critically, what Australia needs most urgently is a national strategy on climate change and Australian agriculture. They are intertwined. Climate change is killing Australian agriculture. We need to address climate change. Farmers for Climate Change know this. They've been coming to this place for the last few years, talking to members on both sides about the need to understand that climate change is affecting agriculture. There seems to be a view on the other side, 'Don't mention climate change. There are fires and floods throughout the entire country but don't mention climate change.' Climate change is real. It's having a devastating impact on our farmers and our regional communities, and you can do worse than read this report and learn something.
Recently, I visited Beechwood Public School to present a number of awards and national flags ahead of the school's sesquicentennial, or 150 year, celebrations. I'd like to congratulate the staff, students and parents of Beechwood Public School, and the broader local community, on the 150th anniversary. It's a big, big milestone for an important local institution.
This Friday a time capsule that was buried at Beechwood Public School in 1994 will be retrieved and replaced with a new time capsule. The new capsule will contain items like those created 25 years ago. Students and staff from 25 years ago will be there for the opening.
On this Saturday, the parents and citizens association will host the heritage funfair. At 10 am it will all begin with live music, rides and jumping castles, market stalls, historic cars and the Hastings colonial cafe with good old-fashioned Devonshire teas. The Wauchope Historical Society will also be there dressed in period costume. And it won't just be them who are dressing up, each class will be dressed for a particular decade through the 150 years. There will, of course, be an amazing 150-year sesquicentenary cake. So I'd encourage anyone who's available on Saturday to turn up at the Beechwood Public School celebrations.
Under the Marshall Liberal government, the South Australian public hospital system is in crisis, with waiting queues at Adelaide's major metropolitan hospitals going from bad to worse. Not only is it elective surgery waiting queues that are growing, but also it is that people who are attending the emergency departments of the South Australian public hospitals are sometimes waiting hours and hours before they are seen. If a person goes to the emergency department of a hospital it means that they need emergency treatment. And if they get to the hospital in an ambulance it highlights that they are in a serious situation and, therefore, they shouldn't be waiting hours and hours before they are seen. Yet we've got ambulances at each of those hospitals now queuing, sometimes for hours, and in some cases being shunted from one hospital to another before they ultimately end up somewhere where someone will look after them.
I've heard firsthand accounts from patients who have attended these hospitals in an emergency situation and what they had to endure before they were seen. It is simply not sustainable. I know that the ambulance workers and the medical staff at those hospitals are also being put under extreme pressure and stress. I call on the Marshall government to stop putting budget cuts ahead of people's urgent medical needs and to properly fund South Australia's public hospitals.
Last 7 September was Threatened Species Day, and I'd like to give a shout out for some practical environmentalism. There is no doubt that one of the greatest threats to our native species in Australia are introduced weeds and pests, particularly animals. There is an ecologist and environmental scientist by the name of Dr John Read who lives in, or at least in the environs of, my home town of Kimba. He has established his own sanctuary zone, along with his partner, Dr Katherine Moseby. They helped establish the Arid Recovery zone for BHP up at Roxby Downs. One of the first things they found out was that you need to get rid of feral animals. So John has developed a cat remover. It's called the Felixer. In fact, he has used a combination of science and common sense and has developed a unit that can actually recognise a feral cat in the wild in the night-time and spray a toxin onto its fur as it goes past. Then, when it cleans up after breakfast, that's the end of that particular cat. Feral cats hunt and kill bilbies, numbats, quokkas, quolls, bandicoots, parrots, lizards, frogs and many other endangered species. The endangered black-footed wallaby has even been found inside the stomach of a 6½ kilogram feral cat. Well done, John Read! Keep up the good work!
On Monday of last week the Senate put forward a motion calling on this Morrison government to respond to an inquiry that was conducted by the Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances, or PFAS, Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on PFAS contamination in Williamtown, Oakey and Katherine. It demanded that the government respond to the recommendations in the inquiry by midday of the following day. Well, the NewcastleHerald summed it up beautifully in its article of the following day; Donna Page said: 'toxic snub'.
Indeed it was a toxic snub from this toxic government. Why do they continue to turn their backs on the people of Williamtown? We talk about natural disasters. We talk about the fire and floods that are happening in this country. The Prime Minister has made much of it in the last few days. Well, I say to you that the PFAS contamination at Williamtown in my electorate, which has now been going on for four years, is a disaster. And this government's handling of it is even more disastrous—with the possible exception of the chair of the committee, Mr Andrew Laming, who stood up and was brave and said that my people should be compensated. Well, he's been dealt with; he's been shuffled off; so, sadly, he's not there to advocate. But I still am, and I will continue to fight the fight for the people of Williamtown. Get to mediation and get this resolved.
I wish to acknowledge Will Durkin of Bondi Beach, an 18-year-old high-school student at Waverley College, who recently received the Archbishop's award for excellence. The award serves to acknowledge qualities of leadership, strength and service, embodying the generous nature of the Australian people. This young man, Will, has served food to the homeless, assisted those with disabilities, tutored children and supported teachers, and last year he received the Duke of Edinburgh award for his community service. What is remarkable about Will is not just his generosity towards the community but his attitude towards others. When asked why he volunteers, Will simply replies, 'Because I am lucky.' He recognises that volunteering is a privilege that, in his own words, enables an individual to 'learn about other ways of life' and 'give back to those less fortunate'.
Our community is lucky to have a generation of young Australians who go above and beyond, and it is with their humble attitude and open mind that we should all seek to navigate our diverse and multicultural society. I look forward to seeing how Will and those like him continue to contribute to their community in the years ahead.
We all learnt on the weekend that the Nationals held their national conference in Canberra. Parking for one moment that they held it in a capital city, let's look at what they talked about. Towns in New South Wales and in Queensland, like the rest of us, feel they are running out of water. It is quite dire to learn of their stories. By November they'll be out of water. It's just hard to believe and fathom that people are being asked to shower only every other day. I couldn't imagine confronting my own community and saying to the football team, 'You can't shower after your game on Saturday; the netball team is showering.'
But that's not what they discussed at the National Party conference; instead, The Nationals are going to push to ban plant based alternative products being called milk. Seriously, what a game of distraction they are engaging in! Let's park for the moment that, under existing rules, milk already refers to cow's milk; that, if you want to use an alternative species, you have to call it goat's milk, sheep's milk or almond milk. Now they're saying they want to ban the word 'milk' altogether. So what do you call it? Milk-like substance? No, you can't use the word 'milk' at all; it's 'almond white liquid for your tea'. Is this really the focus of the National Party when towns are running out of water on this government's watch? They have to get their priorities in order and stand up for the regions in a real way. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I inform the House that the Minister for Indigenous Australians will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week, as he is overseas attending a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. The Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure will answer questions on his behalf.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery members of a parliamentary delegation from Samoa, led by Samoan Deputy Speaker Keti. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to you all.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Until this year the Prime Minister repeatedly promised better wages under this government. The Prime Minister has gone silent on that repeated promise. Is that because his government has presided over the worst wages growth on record?
I am happy to respond to the Leader of the Opposition and I am happy to invite the Treasurer to add further comment. I simply remind the Leader of the Opposition that, in the most recent national accounts, real wage growth was up 0.7 per cent through the year. If they are saying that is the worst on record then why wasn't 0.5 per cent through the year when we came to government? Real wages growth in the most recent quarter is higher than it was in the quarter we inherited from the Labor government. I will ask the Treasurer to add a further response. But we have a plan to increase wages, as we have seen in the overall compensation of employees, which grew by five per cent. How is that happening? We are investing in infrastructure. We are expanding our trade barriers. We are investing in skills. We are ensuring that we are giving Australians back the money that they earned so they can keep more of what they earn. We are deregulating key sectors, whether they be water infrastructure, agribusiness or other areas essential to the future of the economy. The digital economy is becoming a reality under the policies of this government, which increases cash flow, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. We are taking the regulation monkey off their back. That is how you grow an economy. You don't grow an economy by putting $387 billion worth of higher taxes on the hard work of Australians and the small business community of Australia.
When it comes to the Labor Party on the economy you always have to look at what they do, not what they say. When the Labor Party was last in office, real minimum wages fell in three out of six years.
The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.
It obviously goes to relevance.
The Leader of the Opposition might reflect on the preamble.
Inconvenient truths are very difficult for the Leader of the Opposition. When Labor was last in office, real minimum wages fell in three out of six years. Since we have come to government they have gone up each and every year. The wages bill across the economy is otherwise known as the compensation of employees. Under us it has grown five per cent through the year; under Labor it was 3.2 per cent through the year. As the Prime Minister referred to real wages, which the Wage Price Index is a euphemism for, the wages growth above inflation is at 0.7 per cent. This is above the long-run average. When it comes to wages, when it comes to money in the pockets of hardworking Australians, there's no better illustration of what we are doing for Australian workers than the tax cuts that passed this parliament against the wishes of those opposite.
We voted for them.
I'll take that interjection. 'We voted for them,' he says. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how a strong budget guarantees the essential services Australians rely on, especially in times of need, including residents of my electorate who have been affected by bushfires?
I thank the member for his question and I thank him for the strong leadership he's shown in his community, as so many members have done as their communities have been confronted by terrible fires in recent weeks. I was with the member for Wright in his electorate on Friday, with Jenny, and had the opportunity to thank the volunteers for the tremendous work they're doing. Whether they're working in the canteen or they're working on the front line of the fire, they are doing an extraordinary job. I know the anxiety that they're going through at this point and that's why it's incredibly important the government moves swiftly, acting with the state governments in both New South Wales and Queensland—in particular, from the member's home state—to ensure that the disaster relief funding is put in place and those payments are available through the state government. But we also, as of today, have activated the Disaster Recovery Allowance, and that's offering assistance for those whose income has been affected by fires, for 13 weeks, and that's available in Armidale, Bellingen, Clarence Valley, Glen Innes, Inverell, Tenterfield, Yooralla and Walcha in New South Wales, and in Noosa, Scenic Rim, Southern Downs and the Sunshine Coast in Queensland.
There's been much talk about the government's budget coming back into surplus this year. The final budget outcome will come out soon, in terms of the finish of the most recent financial year. It's important to rebuild the nation's finances and bring the budget back into surplus to ensure that we can pay down debt. Indeed, in the most recent budget figures, the debt will fall by some $50 billion over the forward estimates and interest payments will fall from $14.1 billion down to $8.7 billion over the forward estimates. It's important you do that, because I remember when the floods hit Brisbane and what the Labor Party had to do, because they were at that time facing a more than $40 billion deficit. They had to tax the Australian people with a flood levy because they weren't able to manage the finances of the Australian government. So it's very important.
Opposition members interjecting—
Those opposite mount interjections and they have been the ones who have been saying that the budget surplus should be eroded. We don't believe so, because we believe we need to stay in a strong financial position to achieve a budget surplus, which those opposite do not believe we should do, so we can respond to natural disasters and so we can respond to the needs of farmers and rural communities who are facing drought.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
My point of order is on decency, Mr Speaker. We should not politicise natural disasters—
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr Speaker, I take the member's interjection. That is not what the government is doing.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
I am pointing out very clearly that, in order to be able to respond, you must be able to ensure the government maintains a strong financial position. That's what we must do. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on both sides! The member for Griffith. The member for Petrie is not seeking a question, I hope.
The shadow Treasurer just reflected on the Prime Minister and he should withdraw. It's that simple.
As is often the case when members are interjecting wildly, I find it bizarre that I'm expected to hear everything that's going on, but if the shadow Treasurer did make an unparliamentary comment, he needs to withdraw it. I'll leave it up to him.
Thanks, Mr Speaker. I withdraw.
I thank the member for Rankin.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why in this House does the Prime Minister ignore the seven public statements by the Reserve Bank governor since the election about the need for economic stimulus and pretend that they were never made?
I thank the member for the question. I was going to that exact point about the government's fiscal policy, in my response to the previous member's question. We believe it is important to maintain and achieve a surplus. We know that because this side of the House delivers surpluses. That side of the House haven't seen a surplus since 1989.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
But I'm asked specifically about the comments of the Reserve Bank governor. I have to once again remind the House of the testimony given by the Governor of the Reserve Bank in evidence to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, where he said, and I quote:
…if the economy is not doing well and the global economy is not doing well, we need all arms of public policy to support the Australian economy. But that's not a call for the government to do more now.
… … …
I just want to be clear about that.
That is the statement by the Governor of the Reserve Bank to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics on 9 August. If the Labor Party can't understand the plain English that is put towards a committee of this House, where the Reserve Bank governor has been crystal clear about what his view is and they want to use and verbal the Reserve Bank governor to try and encourage the government to abandon fiscal discipline, to abandon surpluses, as they did when they were last in government—
Opposition members interjecting—
This is the difference: our government understands the need to continue to show measure, discipline, certainty and stability when it comes to the managing of the government's finances; those opposite were unable to do that.
You doubled the debt.
They saddled this country up for a debt that we'll be paying back for the next decade. That is what they saddled us up to.
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
When we come to this dispatch box and we say, 'When you can't manage money, you can't run the country', that's what happened when they couldn't pay for pharmaceuticals and they had to tax the Australian people to respond to disasters.
Just before I call the member for Nicholls: the member for Griffith is now warned, as is the member for Lyons. The member for Nicholls has the call.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is providing stability and certainty to regional Australia, which is suffering through the drought, including through the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund?
I thank the member for Nicholls for his very timely question. As we know, much of Australia is experiencing a terrible drought. As the government, we've already committed more than $7 billion to helping our farmers and our regional communities through this prolonged dry spell. But we can, we must and we will do more. Many of us in this place actually live in these drought-stricken areas and we see firsthand how these communities are suffering. It is heartbreaking, and we will continue to provide the necessary support to them.
To help build up resilience in our drought-affected communities, this government has committed $1.3 billion to our National Water Infrastructure Development Fund. It is an important investment. The member for Nicholls and his community know just how important it is. They know just how important water infrastructure—indeed, water security—is.
The Mitiamo pipeline project runs though the electorates of the member for Nicholls and the member for Mallee. It is $14.5 million commitment to water security in the Mitiamo region. It is going to provide a reliable water source for agricultural industries. I remember being with the members on that windswept day at that football oval and the locals were so impressed, so happy and so relieved that we were getting on and doing it. Years of talk have turned into action, and I commend the member for Nicholls and the member for Mallee for their hard work in this regard. The project will cover up to 75,000 hectares and 180 farms. It will be supported through 375 kilometres of pressurised pipeline, providing 85 megalitres of future-proofing storage. Previously, these farms were reliant on farm dams, which we know are drying up. But don't take my word for it; the project committee chairman, Neil Allen, had this to say:
It means we will have clean, fresh water, 24 hours a day; we'll no longer have to rely on channel filled dams.
Water will be cleaner for stock, cleaner for the boom sprays and, as it's a sparsely populated area, it's an ideal spot for pigs and poultry.
There is also an opportunity for feedlots to finish lambs off, and they won't have to worry about water.
That's significant. The Mitiamo pipeline is one of 21 projects being delivered, so far, through the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund, and we're working with state and territory governments to do even more. It's plain and simple: we need to build dams. We're doing that. We've already ticked off on many water storage infrastructure projects that will be finished this year. The National Water Grid Authority is going to take the petty politics out of it. We're going to get on and build more water storage infrastructure, because if there is one thing that our farmers and our rural communities know it's that water security is vital for their future and their prosperity.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the government adopt a key recommendation released today by the ACCC that the National Energy Guarantee be implemented to achieve—and I quote from them—'the objective of reducing carbon emissions at low cost while promoting investment in a manner that ensures demand for energy is met'?
I thank the member for his question. Of course, he will recall that the NEG had two parts. The first part was a retailer reliability obligation. The ACCC tells us today, on page 114, that the Australian government have implemented the reliability component of the National Energy Guarantee. We've implemented it. The second part of the National Energy Guarantee was a 26 per cent emissions reduction target. We will reach that in the National Electricity Market, which is what it was focused on, eight to nine years ahead of schedule—by 2021 or 2022. The reason for that is very simple: we are seeing record levels of investment in solar and wind in our National Electricity Market right now, three times the level, per capita, of the average across the UK, France and Germany. These are record levels of investment, and the result is we will reach our emissions target years ahead of time. More broadly across the economy we are also on target to reach our Kyoto 2020 emissions obligations.
The minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
Yes, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question. It was about the National Energy Guarantee. It's not about Kyoto. It's not about anything else. It's about the ACCC recommendation on what was their policy.
Government members interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Whoever on the government's side is trying to give me instructions or bark orders at me, can I tell you: that's counterproductive. You're trying to blame 'Fletcher'? Seriously. Well, Fletcher's not going red—and you should refer to members by their correct titles!
Let me come to the point of order. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: I am listening very closely. Certainly the question was specific, but the minister did address upfront part of the recommendations and part of the release that was done today. As I listened to him, he's outlining the government's approach to reducing emissions. That's what he's outlining, which is still on the policy topic of the question. The minister has the call.
As I said, we have laid out to the last tonne how we will reach our 2030 obligations. Those opposite gave us a 700 million tonne deficit in emissions reduction when we came into government. We've turned that around—a 1.1 billion tonne turnaround. What we are not going to do is trash the economy like the policies those opposite took to the last election would have.
Minister for Energy—
Just before the member for Kennedy goes on—the member for Mackellar looks confused.
Opposition members: He always does.
I don't need any interjections. If he jumps after the member for Kennedy's question has concluded he'll find he'll get the call. The member for Kennedy has the call.
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, are you aware of the crisis in North Queensland, with untenable electricity charges jeopardising $4,000 million a year of national income? Further, would you, as grandson of Sir William Hudson, the builder of the Snowy, help us by accepting an invitation to visit our triangle of power, as has the Deputy Prime Minister, and as have Barnaby Joyce and Anthony Albanese? Hells Gate Dam, Townville, Hughenden's wind-hydro and the Tully hydro realignment, a triangle that will generate five per cent of Australia's electricity—clean, cheap and renewable forever—are all dependent upon the construction of the CopperString transmission line.
I would be delighted to come along at a time that suits. I appreciate your acknowledgement of my grandfather in your question. The Australian government is committed to improving energy security, reliability and affordability, including in North Queensland, the region that includes your electorate. I announced earlier this year a $4.7 million grant to assist with the cost of feasibility work for the CopperString Project, which you talked about: a proposed transmission line between Mount Isa and Hughenden. It aims to allow major users of electricity in Mount Isa and along the corridor to access electricity from the national electricity market. That in turn should encourage investment in processing, mines and other projects across the corridor and into Mount Isa, as well. The grant covers the cost of preparatory work, EISs and native title agreements, amongst other things. I understand that CopperString is also talking to the CEFC about future financing. This is part of our broader commitment to Central and North Queensland, a commitment many on our side of the House share. I know that the member for Leichhardt is passionate about the Daintree microgrid project, another energy project in North Queensland that is important for affordability and reliability in that region, along with the Kidston Pumped Storage Hydro Project, a $610 million project up in the north.
Our heavy lifting in Queensland will work only if the Palaszczuk government wants to put downward pressure on prices. Giving access to the national electricity market helps, if those prices are affordable to the businesses in Mount Isa and along the corridor. We know that just last year they ripped $1.65 billion out of their electricity network to try to make ends meet in their budget. We are absolutely committed to a fair deal on energy for Central and North Queensland.
My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer update the House on how the Morrison government's certain and stable fiscal management will keep our economy resilient in the face of future challenges? Is the Treasurer aware of any threats to our economy?
I thank the member for Mackellar for his question. He has a small-business background, he chairs the House Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue and he's absolutely committed to strong fiscal management. When we came to government, business investment was in freefall, debt was rising and unemployment was at 5.7 per cent, and rising. Since we have come to government we have turned that around. Unemployment has fallen to 5.2 per cent and we've helped to create more than 1.4 million new jobs. The proportion of working-age Australians who are on welfare is now the lowest in 30 years, the rate of real growth in government spending is now the lowest of any government in 50 years, and the budget is coming back to surplus for the first time in more than a decade. The reason fiscal management and bringing the budget back to surplus are important is that future generations should not have to pick up the tab for the last. We need to live within our means.
Responsible fiscal management helps to build resilience in the economy to deal with future shocks. Also, responsible fiscal management ensures that we can provide the services that Australians need and deserve. I'm asked: are there any alternative approaches? We know that those opposite are continually talking down the Australian economy. Could you imagine, now, with the challenges we face with flood, drought and fire and the global trade tensions, what the economy would look like with Labor whacking it with $387 billion of higher taxes? They're happy to talk down the economy, but they took to the Australian people $387 billion of higher taxes. Now the member for Rankin gets up and says he's committed to a surplus, but he's also talking about bringing forward tax cuts that he opposed.
We voted for them!
I'll take that interjection. He called the tax cuts offensive. The member for McMahon said they were reckless. The Labor Party are happy to talk down the Australian economy and tell us our tax cuts were offensive. But then, when they pass the parliament, they want the credit. Get real, Member for Rankin. We know you want to tax a lot, but I'm thinking of taking back that knighthood that I gave you earlier. The reality is: the Labor Party can't manage money, and the Australian people know that when the Labor Party can't manage money they come after theirs.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's tabling of a written statement by the member for Chisholm during question time last week. During that answer, was he aware that, by tabling the statement instead of having the member for Chisholm speak directly to the House, the House would be prevented from holding the member for Chisholm to account for any inaccuracies in the statement? Why did he take that action rather than let the member for Chisholm stand in parliament and make a statement in her own words?
The Leader of the House on a point of order?
For a start, it contains imputations about inaccuracies without identifying any. Secondly, the standing orders are not inside the ministerial responsibilities of the Prime Minister.
I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Both in the preamble and, quite specifically, in the question at the end, I have asked about an answer that the Prime Minister gave in the House and why he gave it in a particular way.
The point that the Manager of Opposition Business makes, I think, is right. The question is about an action the Prime Minister took during question time in answer to a question last week. I don't think it would be right for me to prevent questioning of something the Prime Minister has said in an answer, so I'm going to call the Prime Minister.
I tabled the document because I undertook to do so outside of this place at a press conference and I always follow through on my word.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is delivering lower electricity prices by holding energy companies to account to their customers? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Like the rest of us on this side of the House, he is focused on driving down power prices, because he knows that a dollar off an Australian's power bill is a dollar in their back pocket—a dollar in the back pocket of hardworking Australians. That's why we've taken strong action to lower power prices. From 1 July, we've seen the default market offer come into place—a price cap on standing offers. We were delighted to see that the ACCC today welcomed the implementation of that all-important reform. The report from the ACCC shows that, since 1 July and the introduction of the price cap, almost 800,000 Australian households and businesses have benefited from that reduction in standing offers across New South Wales, South Australia and South-East Queensland. Their savings have been significant—typically $190 and as much as $500 or $600 from the highest standing offers that existed before the reforms, and much more for small businesses. We know that the people who were on the worst deals are saving the most.
The report also tells us that we've seen a significant reduction in the sneaky late payment fees that were in place, sadly, from many of the energy companies in the past. It tells us the competition is alive and well. So it still pays to shop around, and some of the best market offers come from the second-tier retailers. There is still more to do, and we are committed to doing it, to make sure that positive things are happening, that the reductions in energy prices that we have seen tabled in this report continue on.
By contrast, those opposite took to the election a plan to drive up power prices, a plan that independent modelling told us would double wholesale power prices. Right now, though, they don't know what they're for and against. Are they for John Setka or are they against John Setka?
The minister needs to remain directly relevant to the question he was asked. He can compare and contrast on the policy topic he was asked, but he can't free range into other policy areas—unless he can convince me the person he mentioned is somehow related to energy policy.
I'll stick with energy and emissions reduction, Mr Speaker.
That's a good idea.
Are they for a 45 per cent emissions reduction target or are they against it? The member for Maribyrnong tells us he is proud of it. Are they for coal or are they against it? What's the member for Hunter's view on coal? Are they for the energy big stick or are they against it? Only the Liberal-National government can be trusted to bring down power prices.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister deny using the phrase 'Shanghai Sam'—something he did at least 17 times, including in this House?
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is a busy member of parliament and he may not have had the opportunity to hear the interview I did later that afternoon when I returned from visiting the bushfires with the member for Wright. There was a question that was put at the end of a press conference where I was standing next to the recovery centre. I heard the word 'racism' used twice in that question, and that's what I was referring to. If the best that the Leader of the Opposition can drum up is that withering attack, then I'm sure there are a lot of optimistic people sitting on the back bench of the Labor Party who can see a big opportunity for themselves.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of greater competition to bring down energy prices, particularly for Australian industry and manufacturing? Minister, are you aware of any threats to energy security in Australia?
I thank the member for his question. I share his concerns about energy prices and energy reliability, and their impact on businesses not just in Queensland but right across Australia. Let me start with an important stat that starts to put this into a little bit of perspective for manufacturing industries, and that is that manufacturing represents close to 20 per cent of total final energy consumption in Australia. So any increases in energy prices and changes in energy reliability have an enormous impact on Australian businesses, especially manufacturing businesses. When you put this into perspective—there are about 900,000 jobs in manufacturing in Australia—you can see that changes to energy supply and reliability have a huge impact.
On this side of the House, we are absolutely committed to doing everything that we can to make sure energy is reliable and the prices are as low as they possibly can be. That's what we are committed to on this side of the House. We want Australians to keep their jobs in manufacturing, and we want Australian manufacturing to be strong so that we are creating the jobs of the future for our young people.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Shortland.
I was asked whether there were any threats to energy security, and clearly there are some threats to energy security. There are those opposite and their allegiance with the Greens and, importantly, with GetUp! That alliance combines to promote and present something that is ideologically opposed—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Shortland is warned.
to lower energy prices. We've seen the impact of ideologically driven policy on energy prices and security of supply, particularly in South Australia. And when there's a supply issue, it's the manufacturing businesses that are impacted, often first, and their operations are shut down, often for a shift at a time. I'm going to finish today by noting that the former leader—
Opposition members interjecting—
They are so smug over there, and they forget that on their watch one in eight manufacturing jobs were lost. Shame on you—and what a good thing you didn't win the last election, because the light would have gone out on Australian manufacturing, and we can't afford a Labor government in this country.
My question is, again, to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answer. In his statement to the media the Prime Minister said that he hadn't used 'either of those phrases'. If one of the phrases he thought he'd been asked about was an accusation that something was racist, what was the other phrase, if it wasn't 'Shanghai Sam'?
I refer the member to my earlier answer. The phrase 'racist' was used twice in the question. That's what I heard. That's what I was referring to when I said I had used neither of those phrases. If the Leader of the Opposition honestly thinks that this is the best he can do—last week the Leader of the Opposition lamely came up here—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Member for Sydney.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney's warned.
and did something that leaders of the opposition rarely do, unless they really think they've locked it up, when they called on me to have one of my members resign. Now, you don't do that lightly, and he did that in this place on one day and on the next day he didn't even mention it. That is the weakness and lameness of this Leader of the Opposition. What is he doing all day? Poring over transcripts, worrying about this word and that word? This country is in drought. This country is facing natural disasters. This country is facing severe economic challenges. And the Leader of the Opposition is running around like a researcher looking up grabs. Grow up!
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on the Morrison government's approach to setting and meeting our consistent and responsible emissions reduction targets? And will the minister advise on how imposing reckless emission targets could impact households and small businesses, including in my election of Robertson?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She is in favour of strong policies on this side of the House that will reduce emissions and at the same time keep a strong economy. Just as when we came into office in 2013 we were faced with a severe fiscal deficit, we were faced with a severe emissions reduction deficit, of over 700 million tonnes. And today—as of December last year—we've turned that around to a surplus of 367 million tonnes. That means that we have improved our emissions reduction position by 1.1 billion tonnes in our time in government.
We've outlined, down to the last tonne, how we are going to achieve our 2030 obligations. The centrepiece of that is the $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package. Indeed, it's a policy that is backed by the WA state Labor government. The state Labor energy minister said:
… we respect the fact that the current government has won an election and has a mandate to follow its policies through.
But there is a risk—and I'm looking at it. Those opposite have no idea what they're for or against. We've got the Leader of the Opposition crab walking away from the member for Maribyrnong's targets—targets which he is still proud of—and he and the member for Sydney are not letting go easily. We have the member for Hindmarsh saying that every Labor policy should be on the table, including climate policy, and saying their policy review should be ruthless and unsparing. Well, I agree with that. And we have the member for Griffith talking about a CPRS in glowing terms in the Federation Chamber. Then we have the member for Hunter saying, 'We have to speak about the carbon tax again,' and they have brought in the architect of the carbon tax—that luminary Greg Combet—to review their climate policies. Labor have thrown their whole platform up in the air for review, but one old classic is back with a vengeance—the carbon tax.
My question is again to the Prime Minister and I again refer to his previous answers. Is the reason the Prime Minister used the phrase 'Shanghai Sam' at least 17 times the same reason he supported weakened protections against racist hate speech and university-level English tests for new citizens?
The Leader of the Opposition once said at the National Press Club—
Opposition members interjecting—
I'm reminded of it, Mr Speaker.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
Talking about 'serious people for serious times'—
Table it.
Mr Speaker, I'm not going to table it, because he gets enough publicity carrying on with this nonsense every single day. But I'm asked about this government's views on the integrity of our immigration system and the rules we impose to ensure the surety of that system to ensure cohesion in Australian society. Our government makes no apologies for our policies when it comes to the integrity of our immigration system. We make no apologies for the work that we've done on border protection, which has kept our borders secure and ensures that all Australians can have confidence in an immigration system that has made this country the most effective and successful immigration nation on earth. Multicultural Australia—
The Manager of Australian Business, on a point of order?
Yes. The three issues that the question refers to, Mr Speaker, go to the phrase 'Shanghai Sam', go to the laws against racist hate speech and go to citizenship tests, and the Prime Minister is speaking about none of the three.
The Prime Minister was just mentioning multiculturalism, so I thought after his preamble he was coming to some of the points that are in the question. I'll listen to the Prime Minister.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was about to speak about the importance of multiculturalism in Australia. Australia has the most successful multicultural record of any nation in the world today, and the policies that we have pursued as a government have only made that stronger.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon is warned.
We've made that stronger and we will continue to make it stronger.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The Prime Minister will pause. The member for McMahon will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for McMahon then left the chamber.
On the first matter which the member raised: the reason we have foreign interference laws in Australia is because of former Senator Dastyari, and the Labor Party should well know that. Their record on this issue is an absolute shambles. They can try to distract attention from their own rows—whether it is the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party and their plastic bags of cash or the disastrous role of former Senator Dastyari and the fact that he had to resign because of his own actions. They can run from these issues but they can never hide. Nor can they hide from what the Labor leader in New South Wales said before the last state election—Asians will take Australians jobs. That's the truth of the Labor Party. That's in fact why they were started.
My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is taking action to deliver certainty and stability for small businesses, workers and subcontractors by ensuring that registered organisations and their officials obey the law? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for his question. As the member is aware, the ensuring integrity bill before this place simply sets out appropriate standards for someone to hold the important position as an official of a registered organisation. The bill would allow a court to determine, at its discretion, whether it's appropriate for someone to maintain office as a public official in, for instance, a union when they had committed an offence against the law of the Commonwealth or a state that carries a term of imprisonment of two years or more.
Why is that necessary? There are multiple examples of individuals holding these important public offices who have offended against that rule. There was one reported, which will be of great interest to all members assembled, in The Australian Financial Review today of two CFMMEU organisers: Mr Nicholas Rekes and Mr Simon Gutierrez. Mr Rekes pleaded guilty to supplying an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug, an offence that carries a penalty of more than two years imprisonment. Mr Gutierrez pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited drug. The supply charge for these offences related to an earlier conviction of Mr Michael Greenfield, another CFMMEU official, for possessing a prohibited drug. All three are still employed at the CFMMEU. Interestingly, it's reported that Mr Gutierrez was previously convicted to 18 months, serving a non-parole period of seven months in prison, for supplying a prohibited drug in a commercial quantity on an ongoing basis. I have managed to get the transcript.
Opposition members interjecting—
I think that members opposite will be very interested in it. This is the application of Mr Gutierrez for an entry permit to building sites. This is after the first conviction but before the second conviction. There was a submission brought as to why this person should have an entry permit as a union official. I've heard a lot in the years in the courts but I've never heard this before. The submission after the first conviction and before the second conviction as to why he should have a public official entry permit was: working for the CFMMEU had given him the opportunity to change his life for the better. It would seem that the only problem with the CFMMEU's drug rehabilitation program is the spate of later drug convictions after someone has been in the CFMMEU's drug rehabilitation program.
Just the other day—and now the silence is deafening—we had John Setka, who is obviously in charge of their anger management programs, say about crossbenchers who might vote in favour of a bill that says you shouldn't have a drug conviction and be a public official: 'We're going to make it so that in 20 years time when they're walking down the street someone is going to point the finger. They're aware of the damage that we can do.' (Time expired)
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Grayndler from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Prime Minister has refused to sack the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction despite the Minister admitting on radio he was acting for private interests instead of the public interest and despite the Minister's clear and repeated breaches of the Prime Minister's Ministerial Standards;
(b) the Prime Minister has prevented the Member for Chisholm from providing a full statement in her own words to this House where words carry consequences and instead relied on a statement prepared by the Prime Minister's office issued outside the House;
(c) on Friday, the Prime Minister denied using the phrase "Shanghai Sam" despite using it at least 17 times, including twice in the House; and
(d) the Prime Minister's attempt to cover up his untruth on Friday with another untruth is just the latest in a long line of misdirection ad obfuscation from this Prime Minister; and
(2) therefore, condemns this Prime Minister for repeatedly abandoning any sense of integrity whenever it is politically expedient for him to do so.
The Prime Minister has been exposed for his hubris, he has been exposed for his opportunism and he has been exposed for his hypocrisy. Legitimate questions have been raised about the member for Chisholm, who boasts—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no further heard.
Is the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition seconded? The Manager of Opposition Business?
Seconded! When he opens his mouth, it's opposite day—opposite, every single time!
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard. Members must remain in their seats unless they are changing their votes or did not vote in the previous division, in which case they must report to the tellers.
The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
Does the member for Hunter claim to have been misrepresented?
I do.
The member for Hunter may proceed.
During question time today, the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction purported to quote directly from me. Sadly, his research into the transcripts has failed him and his quote was incorrect.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report No. 3 of 2019, Referral made July 2019, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Report No. 3 considers one proposal re-referred to the committee in July that lapsed in the 45th Parliament. The proposal is for the National Museum of Australia gallery development stage 1, Life in Australia environmental history gallery. The National Museum sought approval from the committee to proceed with the project in order to redevelop old and outdated exhibitions and to create a new permanent exhibition of environmental history. Gallery renewal programs are part of the lifecycle for museums in ensuring effective visitor engagement. The estimated cost of this project is $20.5 million, excluding GST, and is to be fully funded from the museum's existing capital reserves. The committee recommended that the House find it expedient that the National Museum of Australia gallery redevelopment stage 1 project proceed.
Report 3 reflects work largely completed by the committee in the 45th Parliament. Accordingly, I thank members of the PWC of the 45th Parliament for their expertise in conducting the inquiry, as well as members of the PWC in the current parliament for concluding this process. I commend the report to the House.
I'm pleased to say that Labor will support the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Single Treatment Pathway) Bill 2019.
I note that the bill amends the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004—commonly known as MRCA—to simplify and streamline treatment pathways when it comes to medical treatment for veterans and ex-service personnel covered by the act. Currently, under the MRCA, there are two pathways under which the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission can pay for clients' medical treatment for service-related injuries or illnesses. Under pathway one, MRCA clients can pay up-front and then be reimbursed for reasonable medical treatment, or, alternatively, under pathway two, they can use their Department of Veterans' Affairs health card to pay for the treatment.
The amendments will replace these two existing pathways with one so-called 'single treatment pathway' that enables medical treatment to be accessed and provided through the DVA health card only. The amendments will mean that all DVA clients will have easier access to health care without the cost and rigmarole of having to pay up-front and be out of pocket and then having to submit claim forms for reimbursement later. Veterans will simply need to present their DVA health card when they receive medical treatment, and payments will be made directly to health providers through Medicare in a more timely and seamless manner. About 4,000 veterans across the country will benefit through access to a DVA health card as a result of the changes. Veterans will have easier and more convenient access to treatment when they need it, which should lead to an increased uptake and ultimately better health outcomes for veterans. I note that this has been the experience since the introduction of DVA health cards. That's why Labor supports it.
The proposed changes are consistent with Labor's policy and indeed have their genesis in the former Labor government's 2011 review of military compensation, which considered moving to a single treatment pathway through the DVA health card. It's disappointing that it's taken a third-term coalition government to finally get around to doing this. But, desperately searching for an agenda, they finally did this, and we welcome the changes today. I suppose it's better late than never. These changes will align MRCA treatment pathways with that of other veterans' legislation—namely, the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-Related Claims) Act 1988, both of which have moved to a single treatment pathway.
This is ongoing work to harmonise veterans' legislation. It's important because a common complaint in the ex-service community is the complexity of the current veterans' legislative framework, with differing eligibility requirements depending on when and how the individual served. Labor is supportive of efforts such as this to streamline the legislation and make the legislative scheme easy to understand and navigate for veterans and the ex-service community, provided they are not left worse off. Importantly, this bill retains discretionary power for the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to reimburse a person for the cost of treatment or in special circumstances to pay a healthcare provider directly. We welcome that.
The amendments will ensure there is sufficient flexibility so that this can be done on a case-by-case basis with reference to clinical advice where necessary. This addresses the concerns of ex-service organisations like the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Federation of Australia, who raised concerns that the single treatment pathway could impact a small number of about 200 veterans who might need high-end treatment and are not provided for under the DVA health card model. I have met with representatives of the TPI Federation on a number of occasions in the past, so I know that they welcome the changes that have been made.
Labor has sought and received assurances from the government that the department will make every effort to ensure this remains a cohort of clients who receive special consideration and will be exempted from the changes wherever possible. Otherwise, Labor notes, the bill has roughly broad support across the ex-service organisations and their communities, and these changes are welcomed generally by ex-service personnel. These amendments will lead to improvements in efficiency for the commission in processing treatment requests and make it easier for the DVA to administer the system.
The bill also makes a number of consequential amendments to the legislation to replicate provisions which will be repealed through this legislation. It also formalises and regularises transitions which have occurred between the treatment pathways. As I say, it represents a sensible, positive policy change which Labor supports. But I can't say that for all the other recent changes that the government has made in terms of health care for our veterans. For some time, we have raised concerns in relation to these issues—in particular, the treatment cycle of allied health referrals for veterans. Under the new veterans' treatment cycle initiative, instead of a blanket referral for up to one year, from now on GPs will have to refer clients to an allied health professional for a treatment cycle of up to 12 sessions or one year—whichever comes sooner. At the end of each cycle, the provider must report back to the GP, who will decide if the treatment is required, and veterans will need to go back to the GP for a new referral. This could mean extra visits. We have raised a number of concerns in relation to this, as have some of the people in the veterans' community whom this legislation currently before the chamber will benefit. We are seeking that the government have a look at that.
When you are studying or working it can be hard to get a GP referral. The reality is that this means veterans could be out of pocket. And this legislation before the chamber is about making sure they are not out of pocket. So we are concerned that the government has done this initiative, and it is quite inconsistent with the whole structure of what this legislation before the chamber is about. We welcome, however, the 11th-hour backflip in June this year by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel to push back from 1 July to 1 October the starting date for the changes I have referred to. What this shows is that there are still serious problems in the whole Veterans' Affairs space, particularly with the transition to a new system. DVA has failed to consult properly with veterans and health professionals as they have done in relation to the legislation before the House. We are pleased that, it would appear, the department is finally listening, in some respects, to the veterans' community. We hope that the delay that the government announced in June will allow for proper communication process to be put in place to support changes.
I've also heard from a variety of allied health professionals who deal with this space and will deal with the legislation that is currently before the chamber. They are concerned in relation to not being adequately consulted and not having adequate communication with them. We have serious concerns about the intent and rollout of the inflexible one-size-fits-all model that the government is looking to undertake and the impact it might have on veterans. We believe what the government has done in this area is nothing more than a cost-cutting exercise at the expense of some of our most vulnerable veterans. That's why the legislation before the chamber is welcome, but there are other aspects in this portfolio area where the government has failed. We welcome that the government has not only taken the TPI community into consideration in this legislation; it's also exempted the TPI community from the changes I referred to before—but only for physiotherapy and exercise physiology treatment where these services are clinically necessary. At a minimum, the system should be flexible. Labor believes that, and we've called on the government to exempt all veterans with complex cases from these harsh changes.
But that's not all. As I said before, this comes on top of the $40 million in cuts to allied health care for veterans in the last budget, which DVA has admitted will result in veterans having less access to services or indeed access to fewer services. What's more, this follows a freeze in the repatriation medical fee schedule, which has already seen a reduction in access to critical medical services for our veterans. Let's be clear: our veterans, our ex-service personnel and our war widows rely on access to clinically necessary treatment, so while the bill before the House today should boost access to medical treatment for veterans, at a cost of just $69,000, it's really low-hanging fruit. If the government was serious about health care for veterans, it should at least be consistent. I've pointed out in my speech the inconsistencies of the government in this area. It needs to back up its rhetoric with proper funding and access to services.
Moving forward we'd like the government to respond to the Productivity Commission's final report on its inquiry into compensation and rehabilitation for veterans, released in July, which found that the current system is complicated, hard to navigate and poorly administered. It recommended that the system be simplified—as I referred to today—and streamlined to make it easier for clients to access. The report found that there needs to be a greater focus on the prevention of illness and injuries as well as rehabilitation and transition, and we believe this bill broadly accords with that. But that's not everything the government should do. They need to do better. We hope the government will respond to the PC review as soon as possible and we look forward to their response.
I can assure the House that Labor will work in a constructive way with the government to improve the system for veterans and their families. We need a system that's fit for purpose and that works for the interests of Australia's veterans, their families and the broader Australian community. The health and wellbeing of our veterans should be a very, very high priority for this government. They deserve the best possible care and support. To that end, we're supportive of the changes in the bill that make it easier for veterans to access medical treatment when they need it. This will reduce financial pressure and red tape and encourage veterans and their families to seek earlier treatment for their conditions, resulting in better health outcomes. That's why we support the bill. But the government can do and should do much better across the whole veterans' affairs space.
In August last year I organised a veterans forum at the Caloundra RSL with retired ADF major general and regrettably former senator for New South Wales Jim Molan. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Caloundra RSL sub-branch committee, and in particular Cathy Stamp, for helping to put together not only that forum but our recent Pollie Pedal reception. Retired major general Jim Molan and I spent two hours gathering feedback and listening to what Sunshine Coast veterans need.
There are a range of issues that our local veterans care about, but the overarching theme was very clear. Sunshine Coast veterans, like their fellow service men and women all over the country, more than anything want their interactions with the government to be as smooth and as straightforward as possible. Many of their concerns came down to this: the Department of Veterans' Affairs should be easy to deal with, and it should not provide any impediment to them getting the services that they need.
That has been one of the critical guiding principles of the coalition government's approach to the Veterans' Affairs portfolio since our election. Successive coalition ministers in this portfolio, none more so than the current Minister for Veterans' Affairs, have seen it as their mission to streamline the DVA and to make veterans' interactions with the government seamless. I want to pay tribute to the current minister's pragmatic and practical approach to making this a reality. He's already done a great deal to cut through unnecessary bureaucracy with his no-nonsense attitude, and I'm sure that he'll do even more in this new parliamentary term. I should also acknowledge the ministers who previously held the portfolio, most notably the now education minister.
This coalition government has invested very substantially in the effectiveness of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We have provided an unprecedented additional $166.6 million towards modernising the DVA. This will improve computer systems and cut transition processing times dramatically. We've made further targeted investments, including, for example, $9.1 million in the 2017 budget for accelerated access to rehabilitation services, streamlined access to incapacity payments, and improved access to the totally and permanently incapacitated disability pension for veterans working past the age of 65 years.
The government's investment in online claims platform MyService is already making a significant difference in ensuring that veterans and their families have faster and easier access to the services they need at the times when they need them. More than 75,000 veterans are now accessing assistance through MyService, and, at last count, they had submitted more than 50,000 claims online. The system allows veterans to submit claims by answering as few as three questions, compared to the 40 questions on some of the existing paper forms. In some cases, claims for common conditions are being approved almost instantly. However, the government has also invested in significant improvements to DVA's telephone system and face-to-face services, to ensure that help is delivered to veterans and their families in the form that they want.
As part of the last budget, earlier this year the minister announced that, alongside investing more in MyService to make the claims process faster and more user-friendly, the government would be simplifying the DVA telephone system, bringing everything under the single 1800VETERAN number. The minister also announced that the DVA would be partnering with the Department of Human Services to permit them use of DHS's extensive network of face-to-face centres and agents all over the country. This will greatly increase the ease of access for veterans who prefer face-to-face delivery of services.
Across all of these investments, the coalition understands that additional funding is only truly effective when partnered with meaningful reform. That's why this government has ensured that every service man and woman is guaranteed access to the personal documentation they need to claim support from government agencies in civilian life before they are discharged. This includes an individual transition plan; a record of professional and military education and training, unit posting and employment history; final entitlement summaries; and copies of medical and dental records. We've also implemented an alternative dispute resolution process, for veterans who choose to appeal a decision of the Veterans' Review Board, which has been resolving cases that used to take a year in as little as three months.
We've also looked beyond existing structures to form new partnerships and new ways of delivering more convenient services. The coalition government is investing $30 million in a network of six new veterans' wellbeing centres that will bring together different services from public, private and third-party providers. These will provide former service men and women with a one-stop-shop for local health services, community organisations, advocacy and wellbeing support.
Finally, the government has acted to make key programs—in particular, in veterans' mental health—far more straightforward to access. The 2016 budget made treatment for depression, post traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and drug and alcohol misuse free for anyone who has served just one day full time in the ADF. The 2017 budget went further for veterans, including an extra $33.5 million to extend that coverage to all mental health conditions—importantly, without a need to prove that the condition was related to their service and without a cap on funding.
All veterans with a mental health condition have access to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service, which has recently changed its name to Open Arms. Open Arms can be contacted free of charge on 1800011046. In 2017, once again the minister and this government secured $8.5 million to extend the service to all current partners and children of veterans as partners, as well as some former partners. These actions make access to mental health services considerably simpler for veterans and their families all over Australia.
Alongside these administrative and budgetary measures to streamline the department and its operations, the government has also made a number of changes to legislation to support better working practices. The coalition's Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Act 2017, for example, helped government departments to speak to each other, to ensure that veterans' superannuation benefits assessments can be processed more quickly. It also improved the work of the Specialist Medical Review Council, allowed for greater delegation and ensured that the department can respond flexibly to changing circumstances. Our veteran-centric reforms acts, Nos 1 and 2, both from 2018, made amendments to nearly 20 different acts to improve the support that veterans receive and to streamline Veterans' Affairs processes. In just one example, these acts allow the Department of Defence to provide information on qualifying service to the DVA in an automated qualifying service determination. This is already removing an administrative step for veterans to speed up their access to entitlements and reduce unnecessary transition stress.
The bill before the House today is the latest in this government's series of legislative reforms to achieve a simpler and more straightforward experience with the DVA for veterans. As it stands, around 4,000 veterans who receive support under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 have to seek reimbursement for their medical costs from the DVA after their treatment instead of getting that treatment paid for directly at the time of receiving it. They are on what is called the 'reimbursement pathway'. The case of an expensive scan or a complex treatment can be a genuine barrier to these veterans accessing services to which they are entitled. Many veterans, unfortunately, especially those who require frequent medical treatment, are under a range of financial pressures and cannot easily afford expensive medical interventions. This can cause delays in necessary treatment as the individual concerned saves to pay for it. Members will appreciate the harm that can be done through delays of this kind. Even when a veteran can afford a treatment upfront, the necessity to claim back the costs afterwards is another example of the kinds of unnecessary delays and inconvenience that veterans in my community want to see gone.
Any of us who have, in the past, experienced the difference between accessing a Medicare rebate on the spot and having to attend a Medicare office at a later date, to secure their entitlement, will be well aware of the inconvenience and the extra work involved. This simple bill will mean that all eligible veterans who receive support under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Single Treatment Pathway) Act—when it is an act—will have access to a white card and will be able to present it to medical practitioners at the time of treatment for upfront payment of their costs from the DVA through the normal Medicare system. This means that 4,000 men and women who have served this country will no longer have to seek reimbursement of their medical costs for accepted conditions. It will ease the financial pressure on thousands of veterans' families and ensure that they don't have to compromise the quality or consistency of their treatment because of concerns over money. It will encourage more veterans to seek early treatment and improve health outcomes as well as convenience.
The execution of this change will be as straightforward for veterans as possible. The next time an eligible veteran sends in a completed reimbursement form, DVA will pay for the past treatment and then issue a white card allowing them to claim future treatments upfront. White cards will also be provided to any eligible veterans who apply for one.
This bill is relatively simple, it is necessary and it is another example of the government listening to the feedback of veterans like those in my electorate of Fisher—former service men and women, like the members here present and other members of this House and the other place—and we thank them for their service. They want to put their needs above a bureaucratic convenience and they want their services delivered in a timely and straightforward fashion. This government is committed to doing what it can to help and to show our veterans at every stage that their service is appreciated by our community. This bill is a modest contribution to that mission, but for those 4,000 veterans affected it will be a very important one. I thank the minister for his tireless engagement with this issue and for his commitment to fixing the snags, both large and small, in the system. I commend the bill to the House.
It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on a bill that commands bipartisan support and deals with issues that have had longstanding acknowledgement as significant problems for our veteran community. This process has straddled two governments. The process of determining and investigating how these systems could be streamlined began under the Labor government, and it was wonderful that that torch was picked up and carried on. I commend the current Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel, who I know has very good intentions and is someone who really takes these issues to heart. Similarly I'm very proud to stand alongside the shadow minister for veterans' affairs and defence personnel, who is also very deeply engaged in these issues, and I have full confidence that he will work effectively together with the minister to achieve as much bipartisanship in this space as is humanly possible. I also for the first time welcome the member for Herbert to the chamber and acknowledge his service. No doubt he will have many fine contributions to make in reflecting on the issues affecting veterans.
This bill, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Single Treatment Pathway) Bill 2019, cleans up a lot of issues in what was a very complicated process. I myself have been going through this process over many years of service, now all coming home to roost—the body wracked with chronic early onset osteoarthritis. That process of getting the white card also brought home all the elements of treatment that veterans often require—allied support and the rest of it. In my case you need particular specialised footwear, orthotics, specialised medication, types of painkillers—compound chemists are providing this new PEA stuff, which DVA has found has been quite useful—and physiotherapy and other aspects, but in other cases you may need psychiatric support, dietitians and people who can provide advice and support on how to reduce stress in a veteran's life and to get them on a clear track for mental stability.
One good result of this legislation, hopefully, will be encouraging veterans to seek early help so that they get treatment, which will probably save costs downstream where problems become greater later on if they're not dealt with effectively early in their development. It's great to see that we've had pretty much universal support from all of the relevant service organisations. There is a long list of them. I think only one of them, the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans' Association, had a major concern that the treatment cards might not allow extra treatment for some veterans who require high-end treatment, but under this bill the provisions within the MRCA that allow flexibility of treatment options for veterans have been retained. That was good news, and I think we have universal support from the veterans community. We still have a long way to go. This process is not easy. There are often hopes and reflections that we're all the way there now, with MyService and the rest of it, but, gee, it's not quite that straightforward. I have to say, going through the process myself, that you need to be retired, frankly. It's a full-time job to get started and get this stuff worked out.
I'm really grateful, and I'd like to take the opportunity today to highlight the service of Richard Stone, an Air Force veteran who joined the Air Force at the age of 15. He was in Thailand in '66 during the Vietnam War supporting No. 79 Squadron, a fighter squadron. Richard had an amazing life, and it's the subject of a great book that he wrote called A Boy's Journey. He has dedicated his life to facilitating the journey of veterans through these processes and looking after them, together with his good friend John Wright and the pro bono support provided by Allan Anforth, doing wonderful work for the veterans in my community. He was justly rewarded with the Medal of the Order of Australia in the last Queen's Birthday honours list. But he is still quite critical of the way things work. He spends all of his life basically assisting people to get through the initial portal, and he organises doctor and psychiatrist appointments and supports veterans who have to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He's still quite scathing of the hoops that veterans have to jump through, particularly those who are too damaged physically or mentally to take up the fight and engage in the process.
It can be incredibly complicated. One example is my case. It took me months just to get to first base, because it seemed the system was rejecting that I'd even ever served, notwithstanding 20 years of full-time service and 10 years of reserve service. I thought: did I really exist? After months of going around and around in circles, someone within Defence—this wasn't within DVA; the two things are linked, because of the archival records and having to stitch things together—finally said to me on the phone: 'Hang on a minute. How do you spell your first name?' I said, 'M-I-C-H-A-E-L.' They said: 'Oh, it's down here as "M-I-C-H-E-A-L". There's a bloke here who matches your record.' So, with the transfer of the old handraulic paper records into the later systems through the process of digitising military records, there were a lot of mistakes made in that process. Another former high-ranking serving officer of the ADF told me the other day that the same thing happened to him. He'd begun life in the Navy and transferred to the Air Force, and all of his naval service didn't exist in the records. So there's still a long way to go in getting things like that resolved.
On top of that, of course, we have issues to do with the way veterans are treated through various departments' activities. One of those recently was the subject of a 7.30 report on a very good, faithful servant of this nation and a close, close friend of mine who I served with in Somalia, Wayne Douglas, a courageous, reliable, loyal, excellent, high-quality soldier who—from that time in Somalia particularly—suffered from PTSD. He was given a medical discharge settlement, a lump sum, but then the goalposts were moved on him so that the ATO was treating this as an income stream, and he lost two-thirds of that lump sum to this changed tax treatment. While they were pursuing the case in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, there was an amendment to the tax regulations to ensure that this would be retrospective and cut these veterans out from that treatment of a single discharge medical benefit. So I really urge the government to go back and have a look at what was done there, because it just doesn't seem right. I'd like to hear an explanation of it. Wayne certainly didn't deserve to be treated like that, but there are a number of others in his situation. What's happened there really is unconscionable, and I thank 7.30 for highlighting that situation.
There is another issue that I think still deserves attention. I'm making these comments completely in my own personal capacity; they don't reflect Labor policy at this stage or any of my colleagues within the Defence portfolio. Earlier on I raised concerns that have been surfacing recently about malarial drugs and their use in the ADF. A lot of people are concerned about what may have been the mental effects of those drugs. Of course, I understand this is a challenging area. I'm not a doctor or a chemical expert myself. But, on this issue of disentangling what may be a previous PTSD condition associated with the service but also what effect these drugs may have had on people's mental health, there seems to be a lot of evidence building up internationally to give some foundation to the concern in this respect. It is hard to disentangle them, but it's important because, as I understand it from my conversations with veterans affected in this way, the treatment for PTSD is quite different from the treatment that you would afford the effects of these drugs—and we're talking about mefloquine and tafenoquine here.
We had a Senate inquiry into this issue, but I feel that we didn't get where we needed to be on the issue. My personal feeling now is that a royal commission should explore this issue. We need to look at how the drug companies have dealt with this. There are some serious concerns about their bona fides in what went on with this. In my own career I consumed copious amounts of doxycycline. That had some side effects for some people, but, generally speaking, nothing in the order of the complaints that we've had with these malarial drugs. I'm concerned that tafenoquine, for example, is still cleared for use in the ADF. I'm not sure that we should have the confidence to continue using that drug. We should look at alternatives.
I recently lost my brother-in-law, who was a Vietnam hero Navy veteran and suffered from the same conditions and problems as our venerated former colleague Tim Fischer. I take this opportunity to salute Tim Fischer's service. He was a wonderful man in many ways. I had a lot to do with him over many years. We fought the same battle in relation to Sir John Monash. I'd still like to see that happen. Also he supported me in agriculture and, while he was in Rome, while I was working on issues with the FAO et cetera. I would regularly see him in the dining room here and have good chats. He was one of nature's gentlemen. He rendered sterling service to this country in Vietnam.
The price that those Vietnam veterans have paid in relation to Agent Orange has been terrible. The struggles that they've had to get conditions recognised as being associated with that have massively added stress to their whole existence and their families' struggles through this whole time. I know Tim felt that his situations were related to Agent Orange. My brother-in-law knew that the drinking water was contaminated with Agent Orange. I know it is deeply disturbing for families to watch their loved ones go through that physical disintegration that has been consequent on exposure to that. I just don't want to see us in the same situation years from now. Something may be revealed by proper, deep, effective studies into these malarial drugs. I urge the government to have another look at the possibility of setting up a royal commission to fully tease out and deeply examine all of the issues around these drugs. I think we owe it to those veterans.
If all of this can be established as having some other cause then that would at least provide closure and put people's minds at rest. All the material that has been provided to me, the meetings and the phone conversations that I've had certainly raise concerns in my mind. I would like to see this issue dealt with in greater detail and greater depth.
I'm also concerned about some other aspects of our veterans support. I don't think we're there yet on a whole range of fronts. There have been issues associated with the treatment cycle initiative. That still seems to have a lot of hair on it. There is a three-month delay in commencing. That needs to be given some greater emphasis. I know that has caused a lot of concern amongst veterans and allied health professionals.
We've also had a lot of concern raised with us about the freeze in the Repatriation Medical Fee Schedule. That has seen a reduction in access to critical medical services. That's really got to be addressed. I urge the government to get to grips with this. We are seeing long wait times for veterans wanting to see mental health professionals. Psychologists and psychiatrists have simply stopped treating veterans. Veterans are not able to afford the gap payments. The time has come to end the freeze in the Repatriation Medical Fee Schedule. It's just not right that we're allowing this issue to cause doctors to not provide the services that our veterans so desperately need.
I'm particularly concerned about veterans in rural and regional areas also. I know there has been this great push to automate lots of government services, but that's really hurting in rural and regional areas. It is causing so much extra stress to people, and nowhere more so than in relation to veterans. The Veterans Area Network system used to have a human involved in the loop, but they are now trying to get everyone to do everything online. These people need that human contact, particularly in rural and regional areas. There are veterans in my area who are living relatively isolated existences. They don't look to the RSL as something that is there for them. They feel alienated. They don't feel there is someone they can reach out to, to help them through these veterans' issues, and they don't have access to an advocate. So I would urge the government to have a look at how they deal with this VAN issue and get humans back into the system in that respect; it really is important. I am grateful for the veterans' wellbeing and recovery centres program. It will be great to see that rolled out in the future. Let's join together and get the rest of these jobs done.
I'd like to start by acknowledging all the veterans in this place: the , Stuart Robert; the member for Canning, Andrew Hastie; the member for Stirling, Vince Connolly; the member for Braddon, Gavin Pearce; the member for Leichardt, Warren Entsch; the member for Solomon, Luke Gosling; and the member for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly, from whom we have just heard. I agree with the member for Eden-Monaro's statements. This is bipartisan, as it should be. Veterans and their needs should not be used as a political football. We should unite and do the right thing by the men and women who have put their lives on the line and, in some cases, lost their lives.
This is extraordinarily important to me because we are talking about MRCA and we are talking about me and my era of veterans. We are talking about my friends, my mates—people who are sometimes forgotten about. I want to start saying why this is important to me with a bit of a story. There is a fantastic guy in Townsville. His name is Justin Huggett MG. He has a Medal for Gallantry. He called me three weeks ago with an issue. He had a friend—not in Queensland but in another state—who was suicidal. He was in a rural area and he was finding it difficult to get treatment. He didn't really comprehend what was around him—like Open Arms, which is available for all veterans. He wasn't in the space to do anything. He was at the point where, today, I could have been talking about the positive side of the story or raising his name because there was a good chance that he would have died of suicide. Justin called me. I spoke to the member for Braddon, Gavin Pearce, and we came together to help this veteran. Through good work by Gav, the member for Braddon, another veteran, who is a GP, was able to travel to this veteran's location, free of charge, just to help him and make sure he is doing all right. We put supports around this veteran, and it turned out to be a positive outcome.
But not everyone knows a member of parliament, not everyone has the old-boys network, not everyone can just pick up the phone and call their MP or call a GP to travel an hour and a half in the other direction. So it is the responsibility of all of us in this place to raise awareness and knowledge of what is in place—like this. This is something he was not aware of. And that is why when we have bipartisan support—with people from the other side of the chamber standing up in support—it doesn't need to be just said, it needs to be echoed. We need to be standing together so that my friends, your friends and people around Australia aren't going to another veteran's funeral. We bury too many of our mates, so I think this is something we all need to band together on.
The Minister for Veterans' Affairs knows me very well, apart from this issue, which is veterans no longer paying up-front costs for medical treatment. On any issue in the veteran space—because I'm from Townsville in the electorate of Herbert, the heartland of veterans and the largest garrison city in the nation—we have a lot of concerns and issues that we want raised and listened to, and none more so than this. The Department of Veterans' Affairs changing the way it operates to make the process faster and easier for veterans and their families to gain access to support they need is critical. In some cases, this requires changes to the legislation administered by the department. The changes to the legislation administered by DVA are designed not to remove any entitlements or lower the benefits for clients but to simplify treatment arrangements.
From my service and my deployment to Afghanistan in 2009, there's a friend of mine, Paul Warren. He's missing his leg due to an improvised explosive device. He falls among the 4,000 veterans under this who've had to seek reimbursement. This is something that will make his life easier. I'll tell you what he does every morning: he gets up and goes to work. This will streamline his appointments and then cut down the reimbursement and the red tape that we saw previous to this, and it's by the swift action of members on both sides and people in the Senate, as well as the minister, to rectify, amend and make these positive changes.
The government has listened and continues to listen to the concerns of veterans, their families and the ex-service community to ensure their needs are put first. Currently, about 4,000 veterans under MRCA have to seek reimbursements from DVA for the costs associated with their treatment. Once the legislation has passed—and I'm sure it will—these veterans can use their DVA health card to gain access to treatment for accepted conditions. This will help ease the financial pressure on veterans and their families. Importantly, it provides veterans with an easier way to gain access to treatment which is not compromised by their ability to afford treatment. This is putting veterans first.
There are some questions that have been raised with me and other members in this place. What changes have been made in this measure? The new arrangements will mean all eligible MRCA veterans, like other DVA clients, will have access to the DVA health card, the white card. These veterans can then present their card to their healthcare provider for payment by DVA through the Medicare system. This is the white card for one day's service.
What will be the impact of this change? Veterans will be better off, gaining access to treatment through a health card. These veterans will not have to pay for treatment and then seek reimbursement. This is taking the financial burden and the financial stress off veterans, which in some cases will help them put food on the table to help them live a better life and look after their families—their children and their spouse. This will reduce financial pressure and red tape for veterans and their families.
This change will also encourage veterans and their families to seek early treatment for their conditions. For example, a 45-year-old former member of the Royal Australian Navy requires an X-ray to investigate the cause of back pain. The veteran is on the reimbursement pathway. Due to other financial pressures, the veteran cannot afford to pay for the X-ray now and would need to delay the X-ray until he or she could save enough money. A delay in getting the X-ray could lead to his or her back condition becoming worse and needing more extensive treatment. Access to a health card would mean the veteran could present it at the surgery rooms, gain access to the X-ray immediately and not face out-of-pocket expenses or worsening or increasing injuries.
How will veterans with special circumstances and complex healthcare needs be assisted? Where veterans' needs are complex, DVA will consider the veterans' needs and work directly with the healthcare provider to pay for their services. This is extremely important in my electorate of Herbert, where we have complex-needs veterans. We have a large number of veterans who need access to these services, without putting any financial burden on them.
This is being circulated and spoken about through the ex-service organisations. For the people that I've been speaking to, this has come across very positively. Some have had questions, as the member for Eden-Monaro said, but it's about how we work better for our veterans. I think that for far too long we've kind of looked at all our veterans as being broken and this is not the case. I want to make note that it's okay to be injured, wounded or ill. It's okay if you're not tracking the best, because there are helps and supports out there to make it easier for you, and this is one of those supports.
In the seat of Herbert and around the country we have Open Arms. Open Arms provide counselling to veterans and veterans' families. I'd encourage veterans who need that extra support, or need that hand, to call Open Arms, and for their families as well because it's about that wraparound service—how we're all supporting each other. There are many other ex-service organisations out there that help people with putting claims through to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, through the different legislation that we have. I'd encourage members who are transitioning out of defence—our veteran community—if they have injuries or illnesses, to go through their advocates because it's important that people get the treatment done right the first time, and that their claims get put in right the first time so you're not going back through the process.
As the member for Eden-Monaro said, it was quite difficult. And if it was quite difficult for a senior officer like he was, it would be quite difficult for everyone. As a private soldier, I can vouch for the difficulty and the red tape at the time of going through the Department of Veterans' Affairs without having an advocate, and having the financial burden or stresses that can be associated with it. That's why advocates through the department are doing different training to have everyone more accountable and to have people qualified to be able to help veterans in the best way they can.
I think that the department's moved very positively and the ship has turned, and is turning, in the right direction, because I can tell you now that veterans need to be put at the forefront and first. It's not a paper base, or claims first, it's the veteran and the veterans' family first and how we best support our men and women who have served our nation. This also leads into all these positives. It will lead into positive mindsets and, hopefully, meaningful engagement, followed by meaningful employment. I commend this bill to the House.
I'd first like to acknowledge the speech of the member for Herbert. It was a privilege to sit in this chamber and listen to him speak about his experiences as a veteran, and I thank the member. I learn so much from other members in this place. I'd also like to acknowledge the veterans in my community of Mayo and thank them for their service to our nation.
In July this year the Productivity Commission handed down its final report into the Department of Veterans' Affairs. While the report noted that the department's veteran-centric reform program has some good objectives, and is showing some signs of success, the commission found that the system failed to focus on the lifetime wellbeing of veterans. It is overly complex, difficult to navigate, inequitable and poorly administered, which places unwarranted stress on claimants. Some supports are not wellness focused, some are not well targeted and others are archaic—dating back to the 1920s. The DVA system is complex and comprises overlapping schemes, offering different veterans different benefits and entitlements.
In part, this bill seeks to address and unravel some of the administrative complexities insofar as it relates to treatment arrangements for veterans. Currently, veterans under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, known as the MRCA, are required to seek reimbursement for the costs associated with their treatment. Of the 4,000 MRCA DVA clients, 200 active clients have sought reimbursement in the last 12 months. This bill will ensure that those veterans no longer need to seek reimbursement. Instead, they will use their DVA card to access services without needing to pay up-front. Finances should never present a barrier to treatment.
I also note that this bill does not remove any entitlements or lower the benefits for veterans but, rather, seeks to streamline medical treatment for veterans without the need for claim forms, up-front costs or financial disadvantage caused by long waiting times for reimbursement. But Centre Alliance believes there is more that the government can do to improve the care we provide to our veterans, and that is why my Senate colleagues intend to move an amendment to the bill in the Senate. The amendment will increase the prescribed benefits schedule fee for the provision of psychological and psychiatric services provided to DVA white and gold card holders. The proposed increase would match the average market rate charged by the profession or the recommended rate specified by the relevant registration authority or board, whichever is higher. The amendment is designed to address the significant wait times for veterans caused by the lack of psychologists and psychiatrists willing to work with patients under the Department of Veterans' Affairs schemes.
While the DVA currently pays approximately 135 per cent of the Medicare scheduled fee, this still falls well short of the current market rate for services. This has resulted in many mental healthcare professionals choosing not to provide services to veterans as they may not be able to contribute via a gap payment. The amendment seeks to entice psychologists and psychiatrists back to treating veterans, with an increase in the number of treating professionals. We hope there will be a decrease in wait times. The amendment will not solve the challenges faced by veterans but it will go some way to improving access to veterans' services.
But every veteran's journey is unique and some seek a different path to rehabilitation. Trojan's Trek provides that alternative. Participants undertake a trek or journey which facilitates new ways of viewing themselves, their colleagues and their family while investigating ways to facilitate change. The trek is provided free of charge by veterans for veterans. Anecdotally, the impact of the trek on participants has been highly successful based on their own assessments and those of their partners and family, but each trek is also independently evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods. The program was independently evaluated by UniSA in 2012 and 2013 and the results were presented to the Australasian Military Medicine Association Conference in Adelaide in November 2014, with the outcomes establishing new benchmarks for peer support. Similarly, a longitudinal study supervised by the psychology department of UniSA established that the positive impact of the experience was still present nine months after the veterans came back from their trek.
As we speak today in this chamber, another group of younger veterans from South Australia are currently hiking through the northern Flinders Ranges on the latest Trojan's trek. While those participants will no doubt benefit greatly from their experiences, it is sad to note that there will be no treks offered in South Australia for female veterans. Trojan's Trek receives only minimal funding and relies heavily on donations to provide their services to veterans. Unfortunately, in 2019 there simply were not enough funds to stretch for a female-only trek in South Australia. Instead, female veterans wishing to participate in the program must travel to Queensland. There is significant unmet demand for this program.
I am grateful to be meeting with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs later this week, and I look forward to advocating and talking with the minister about veterans' rehabilitation and the advocacy groups that will help them and support them, including those that are based in my electorate of Mayo. I would like to give a shout-out to the operations director and founder of Trojan's Trek, Mr Moose Dunlop. I'd also like to thank members and their families at the Nairne RSL. I recently attended the Nairne RSL and heard a number of members and some of their family members share their experiences of being on the trek and how it has changed their lives. It has been life-changing and, I think, life-saving. I'm very grateful to those members, as well as to Moose Dunlop, for sharing the experience of Trojan's Trek. Our nation is indebted to our veterans, both young and old—veterans who have fought for our country for many, many generations. I commend this bill to the House.
As a defence veteran myself, I am extremely pleased to speak today in favour of this bill, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Single Treatment Pathway) Bill 2019, which will simplify the medical treatment for veterans. In fact, my wife is also a former Australian Army officer, and we've both previously been through laborious, time-consuming and costly processes of seeking medical treatment and then subsequently applying for reimbursement, which can take quite a lengthy period of time. However, this is a government which strives for continuous improvement, whether those improvements involve lowering taxes, helping more Australians into jobs, stopping abuse of workers' entitlements by unions or, in this case, helping veterans to access medical treatment more simply.
A week ago I was personally briefed by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Liz Cosson, as were some of my colleagues, on the important improvements being made by the department. I've also been witness to the passion and the tireless efforts being applied by both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel in achieving better outcomes in support of our veterans. The Department of Veterans' Affairs, or DVA, is changing the way that it operates to make processes faster and easier for veterans and their families to gain access to the support that they need. In some cases this requires changes to legislation which is administered by the department. The changes to legislation administered by DVA are not designed to remove any entitlements or lower the benefits for clients, just to simplify treatment arrangements.
This government has listened and is continuing to listen to the concerns of veterans, their families and the ex-serving community to ensure that their needs are put first. For example, early in this term of government, along with other veterans who are now serving as members of parliament, I was invited by the Prime Minister to a workshop. The Prime Minister also invited the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel, the Minister for Defence, the head of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Chief of Defence Force and other heads of agencies to that workshop, which went for four hours. Because it was here in Canberra on a standard working day, there were times when we got interrupted. There were divisions called. We needed to move in here, into the House of Representatives, and then we went and resumed our work. The Prime Minister was very keen on asking all of us a very simple and very important question. The Prime Minister posed the question: what more can we do to better support our veterans?
There were a lot of fantastic ideas. First and foremost were a lot of the reforms on which the Department of Veterans' Affairs is already well underway. This is called the veteran-centric reform. It's taking a lot of the learnings from some of the inquiries, in this place and the other place, into the operations of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and it has identified some really important areas for improvement. That's where, as I mentioned earlier, the secretary briefed us on the improvements already underway. But this bill here is one important and very tangible part of the answer to that question that the PM posed to us—how can we better support our veterans?
Currently about 4,000 veterans, under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, have to seek reimbursement from DVA for the costs associated with their treatment. Once this legislation has passed, these veterans can use a DVA healthcare card to gain access to treatment for accepted conditions.
The new arrangements will mean that all eligible MRCA veterans, like other DVA clients, will have access to a DVA health card, or white card. These veterans can then present their card to the healthcare provider for payment by DVA through the Medicare system. Under these new arrangements about 4,000 veterans will no longer have to pay upfront and then seek reimbursement from DVA. This will help ease financial pressure on veterans and their families.
We heard recently that the partners, the spouses, of veterans whilst they're serving members often struggle with employment arrangements. There's a lot of movement between different geographies whilst a member is serving, and if their family is travelling with them that often makes it very hard for them to bed down a new job. Even if you have a professional line of work that is easily transferrable, you can't be guaranteed that in the new posting location there is work immediately available for you. So, it has to be acknowledged that often there are financial pressures on defence families over and above those on the rest of the Australian workforce. But this provides veterans with an easier way to gain access to treatment that is not compromised by their ability to afford treatment.
Veterans will be better off gaining access to treatment through a healthcare card. These veterans will not have to pay for treatment and then seek reimbursement. This reduces financial pressure and red tape for veterans and their families. The change will also encourage veterans and their families to seek early treatment for their condition. We absolutely need to avoid the situation whereby a veteran delays medical treatment because they do not have sufficient personal funds to cover the initial costs before being eligible to claim reimbursement from DVA. That's a process that can take quite some time, and it adds to the pressure on families when they have to dip into their own pockets in seeking medical treatment for a condition that related to their Defence service and then wait for that reimbursement to occur.
Defence salaries are fairly modest, especially if there is only one income provider for a family unit, and this is the case in many circumstances. After transition, the veteran may or may not be re-employed. There is certainly no guarantee that the veteran will have disposable funds to cover medical expenses. Often X-rays, ultrasounds or MRIs may even be required, as well as specialist appointments, and these can be very expensive.
I note that in the couple of years following initial separation from Defence there is an evidence based situation in which people who have separated from Defence often take some time to find stable employment. Those circumstances really highlight even further that this is a period when members have transitioned out of Defence and, as veterans, need to not experience delays in paying for medical treatment. And when delay occurs, we know from our own experience that if we ignore an injury—it may be just a niggling industry at the start—it often gets progressively worse. If a veteran is in a circumstance where they don't have sufficient funds immediately to seek that initial support, that initial medical treatment, then that niggling injury could well turn into a chronic injury that could have been avoided. Let's consider also the financial implications, whereby initial treatment for that niggling injury might have been quite inexpensive. If we leave it longer and longer, the medical treatment may well cost more.
This bill will provide veterans with a more timely and a more efficient method of accessing medical treatment. I commend this bill to the House.
In summing up I thank all members who have contributed to the debate on this bill and acknowledge the continued tradition of bipartisan support for the veterans community demonstrated by both the opposition and the crossbench. I note that several speakers were veterans themselves. We just heard from the member for Stirling, but we also heard from the member for Eden-Monaro and the member for Herbert. I thank them for their service to our nation. The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Single Treatment Pathway) Bill 2019 is designed to provide veterans with a more timely, convenient and user-friendly method of accessing their medical treatment. As the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel I recognise that the Australian community has a clear expectation that our veterans will be well looked after. As a government we are absolutely committed to putting veterans and their families first. This bill will simplify access to medical treatment for veterans without the need for claim forms or for reimbursing upfront costs via a Department of Veterans' Affairs health card.
Since the introduction of DVA health cards, uptake in treatment amongst veterans has improved, indicating that, where they do not face upfront costs, veterans are much more likely to access treatment for service related injury or disease. Once this bill is passed, veterans will need only present their DVA health card at the time of receiving medical treatment and payments will be made directly to health providers via the Medicare system. Around 4,000 clients will no longer have to pay upfront and then seek that reimbursement from DVA. Importantly, this bill retains the discretionary power for the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to reimburse a person the cost of treatment or to pay a health provider directly in special circumstances. These amendments will mean better outcomes for veterans, as they will have easier access to treatment as and when they need it. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2019, which is actually the third incarnation of a bill that has been gathering dust in one form or another since 2015. This bill is basically a carbon copy of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2017, which the government introduced on 18 October 2017, almost two years ago, pursuant to a deal with One Nation to repeal the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule. In turn, the 2017 bill was a cut-down version of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Advocacy) Bill 2015, a private senator's bill introduced by Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie way back on 1 December 2015 right after the Liberal-National government slashed ABC funding in breach of an explicit election promise not to do so. So bereft of an agenda and so utterly lacking ideas of substance in the opening months of this 46th Parliament, this government reintroduces these pointless measures which have sat on the books undebated since 2015 and will achieve nothing for rural and regional Australia. Lest there be any doubt: if the measures in this bill had any merit then the government should have brought the earlier versions of this bill on for debate long ago, but they never did.
I note the Prime Minister has boasted that he likes to set little tests for Labor, as if the time and resources of the Australian parliament should be expended on his juvenile games. It may well be that this bill falls into that category—another of this government's little tests or another attempt at a divisive 'Whose side are you on?' wedge—because this bill is without merit. This bill will achieve nothing for rural and regional areas, because all it does is meddle with the ABC Act and ABC charter and impose financial and administrative burdens on the ABC. Meanwhile, this government continues to cut ABC funding. As natural disasters beset our country, including bushfires in New South Wales and Queensland, the ABC continues its emergency coverage, which, as we discovered, it receives no discrete funding to deliver. Cutting ABC funding and meddling with the ABC charter does nothing to help Australians living in rural and regional areas. It does nothing to address the decline in local reporting across Australia. It doesn't help the ABC. It's nothing but short-term political tactics, and it's about time this government started governing for all Australians.
This bill is all talk and no action. Even worse, it is a flimsy attempt to pay lip-service to the news and media needs of regional Australians. With this bill, the government shamelessly pretends it is doing something to help rural and regional Australia when it comes to the ABC, when in fact the opposite is true. The fact is that this Liberal-National government is hurting rural and regional Australians when it comes to the ABC. As I mentioned, this government has cut and is continuing to cut the ABC's funding, after promising no cuts to the ABC. We had the then Leader of the Opposition staring down a camera and saying, 'There will be no cuts to the ABC.' They've cut hundreds of millions of dollars from our great public broadcaster. The Liberal-National government's latest round of ABC funding cuts, totalling $83.7 million over three years, kicked in on 1 July this year. That same month, on 31 July, the government reintroduced this bill to carry on crying its crocodile tears that the ABC isn't doing enough for rural and regional Australia.
By cutting ABC funding, this Liberal-National government is taking from all Australians, including rural and regional Australians. All Australians miss out. Australians in rural and regional areas miss out. The ABC is our national broadcaster, with a wide transmission footprint and broad charter responsibilities. It hurts rural and regional Australians when the ABC is forced to produce less programming across factual, documentary and drama, which has been one of the impacts of this Liberal-National government's budget cuts since 2014. According to regional TAM audience ratings from Nielsen Television Audience Management, some of the most popular ABC programs in regional Australia are Shaun Micallef's Mad as Hell and Australian Story. In Tasmania, Utopiais also very popular. In Western Australia, it's Les Norton and Hard Quiz.
It hurts rural and regional Australians when the ABC is forced to shut down short-wave radio because the government has slashed its funding so deeply. The government's own efficiency review, commissioned to assist the ABC in identifying budget cuts, listed ABC short-wave radio as something that could go. Well, mission accomplished. ABC short-wave radio is gone. And how does this Liberal-National government respond to the concerns out of the Northern Territory about the loss of short wave? It turns around and cuts more money from the ABC. It hurts rural and regional Australians when they miss out on local news gathering because the ABC doesn't have adequate funding to cover the decline in local reporting that has occurred over the last decade. If this government were serious about wanting to help rural and regional Australia with enhanced service provision by the ABC in rural and regional areas, it would ensure the ABC had stable and adequate funding to do so.
Nothing encapsulates the moribund nature of this government, now in its third term, better than this weasel-word bill that attempts to fool regional Australians into thinking that the government is actually doing something positive for them. Every time this bill has been introduced, there have been claims that it will improve things for rural and regional Australians, yet each time there have been cuts. The cut-o-meter is now at $366 million and 800 job losses, and that's without counting the axing of the Australia Network.
Who knows if this bill is going to make it through both chambers? But I know this: those rural and regional Australians who love the ABC—and we know they are many—can ring and email and approach their local member and ask them: 'Specifically what would this bill achieve? What actual, practical impact will result for my community from this bill becoming law?' Perhaps they can ask: 'Precisely how many jobs will be created in rural and regional Australia as a result of this bill becoming law?' Perhaps they could ask: 'Exactly how many more hours of local news will be produced as a result of this bill becoming law? What new content will be created as a result of this bill becoming law? What quality of service improvements will there be for my local area?' I believe that it's the job of this parliament to be transparent in these things.
If this government is so confident in this bill and so confident in all the spin that has been put out each time—not once, not twice but three times—this bill has been introduced, they will be able to actually answer those questions. Rural and regional Australians who love their ABC should find out exactly what real, practical, specific benefits they will get, as constituents, if and when this bill passes. They should also, I would suggest, ask another thing. They should ask their local member exactly how funding cuts to the ABC hurt their local community. As I said, this bill is nothing but window-dressing to make the government look like it is doing something for rural and regional Australians, but I can tell you this: if those questions are asked they will not fool people living outside of our metropolitan areas; they won't fool any Australians, for that matter.
Labor opposes this bill for four key reasons. Firstly, it is unwarranted, it's duplication and it's burdensome; the bill will achieve nothing for rural and regional Australians. Secondly, it does nothing to address—and here is the key point: we have heard a lot about the ACCC digital platforms inquiry's report lately, but it does nothing to address the findings and recommendations of the ACCC digital platforms inquiry when it comes to supporting the ABC and its particular role in the current news environment in rural and regional areas. Thirdly, this bill is a cynical attempt by this government to deflect blame for the ABC budget cuts and their policy failures in regional media and communications. Fourthly, this bill furthers the agenda of the Liberal and National parties to privatise the ABC by stealth.
I will take each of these issues in turn. Firstly, the bill is unwarranted, it's duplicative and it's burdensome. It's unwarranted because, under the current act, the ABC has maintained a strong commitment to rural and regional Australia—even in the face of harsh budget cuts. Moreover, this bill has duplication and is burdensome because a number of its key measures actually duplicate existing powers or functions and waste limited ABC funding on that duplication of administration. It's notable that the ABC already apportions around one-third of its budget for the one-third of Australians who live in rural and regional areas. It's also notable that, since 2015, the ABC has created a regional division, and, in 2017, despite the budget cuts, the ABC increased its regional investment by $15 million per year, creating 80 new content jobs across the country with its Connecting Communities initiative. Even today, I note that the Nine papers are reporting that the ABC is planning an overhaul of its news coverage to attract outer suburban and regional audiences. There is clearly a self-awareness within the ABC that has been there for some time and is being articulated yet again by the ABC News head, Gaven Morris. I would note this—and I quote him, from an article published today:
Our budgets have been going down year-on-year, so we can't invest our way into more audiences. Instead we have to transform the fundamental offerings we've got to appeal to a broader cross-section of Australia …
That self-awareness demonstrates that our public broadcaster understands its obligations under the charter and is putting the limited amount of funds it has where its mouth is—unlike this government, which is not putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to supporting the ABC. This is a public broadcaster constantly seeking to improve itself, to understand its audiences and to deliver on its charter.
I also note that the bill amends the ABC charter to include words 'regional' identity and 'geographic' diversity, when the ABC already interprets the charter broadly to include such programs and produces, broadcasts and convenes a range of regional programs and initiatives. Labor opposes measures in the bill that amend the ABC charter to insert words around contributing to regional identity and reflecting geographic diversity. As I said, the current charter already creates obligations for the ABC to serve rural and regional Australians, which the ABC delivers effectively—serving all Australians. Australians living in rural and regional areas enjoy the wide range of programming the ABC provides, and so they should. The current phrases 'national identity' and 'cultural diversity' must be and are interpreted broadly, and the addition of the words 'regional' and 'geographic' are unnecessary and may even serve to narrow the existing interpretation of the ABC charter.
I note the ABC has a strong commitment and record of achievement with respect to rural and regional programming and initiatives, including the Country Hour, Landline, Back Roads and Heywire. I'll expand on just one of those innovative programs. The ABC has run the Heywire annual regional youth project in partnership with the Australian government since 1998. The annual Heywire cycle begins with a storytelling competition, encouraging young people living in regional or rural Australia to tell stories about their life outside of the major cities, in text, photo, video or audio format. Every ABC regional station selects a winning entry to represent their part of Australia. The young winners feature their work on ABC radio and online, and receive an all-expenses-paid trip to the Heywire summit in Canberra.
I have been to some of those events, and I can say that they are truly inspiring. In Canberra, these young rural and regional Australians undertake leadership workshops, meet with members of parliament, government departments and community leaders and work together to develop ideas aimed at improving the lives of young people in regional Australia. The ideas are presented at Parliament House in front of an esteemed panel, and one of them is adopted and then put into action, with grant support from the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal. This is an incredible example of the power of the ABC as a national platform and how it can be used to build capacity, which is then leveraged in a multitude of ways.
The creation of the ABC's regional division in 2015, as well as the ABC's March 2017 announcement of a content fund, which included a $15 million a year investment in regional jobs, was realised without the inclusion of the words 'regional' or 'geographic' in the charter, for the reasons I noted above. To the extent that there could be improvements in the coverage, amount or frequency of local news in rural and regional Australia, neither the problem nor the solution is related to the ABC Act or the charter. It is related to this government's funding cuts and to broader trends at play in the media sector at large.
I want to turn to the establishment of an ABC regional advisory council, which, according to the bill, would come at a cost of $0.1 million per annum. The ABC Act already establishes an advisory council, which already has a number of regional members on it. The bill would establish the regional advisory council to, apparently, ensure that the ABC board takes into account the unique views and needs of regional areas in making any significant changes to its broadcasting services that impact regional audiences. Why? The ABC board, as I said, already has an advisory council that provides advice to the board on all matters, including rural and regional matters. The current advisory council includes a number of members residing outside of capital cities. I note too that the ABC conducts an annual Newspoll of ABC audiences. So the duplication to establish a regional advisory council, particularly as the ABC's resources are already stretched in service provision, is not warranted. As I noted, the establishment and ongoing cost for the regional advisory council would result in an outlay for the ABC of $0.1 million per annum, ongoing, to be absorbed by the ABC at a time when the ABC is searching for ways to meet the government's latest cut of $83.7 million.
I turn to the requirement for the board to consult with the regional advisory council. As I said, the ABC board is already required to consult with the existing advisory council, so, frankly, it begs the question: what does this say to the members of the current advisory council that a second regional advisory council has been proposed? Is this government so lacking in confidence in the way this is currently running? If so, why haven't they done something about it in the past? Why haven't they pursued this bill and its three incarnations in the past? I note too that this bill provides for at least two ABC board members to have a substantial connection to or experience in a regional area through business, industry or community involvement. Labor opposes this measure because section 24X of the ABC Act already provides for the minister to establish additional selection criteria for board appointments. The current ABC board already has a number of non-executive directors with regional connections and experience to do precisely that: ensure the perspectives, views and needs of regional areas are appropriately considered by the ABC board.
The ABC is a corporation operating in a complex and rapidly changing media environment, and stewardship of that business requires board members with business and media skills, to name a few. It would be concerning if a substantial regional connection quota were to hinder the government in selecting people best qualified to steer the corporation through this challenging media landscape, and, whilst regional connections are a desirable attribute, that alone does not qualify a person to provide advice to the national broadcaster, nor do they guarantee the appointment of a person who will actually advocate for regional Australia.
Finally, the bill amends the ABC Act to increase annual reporting requirements when the ABC already includes regional staff profiles and extensive lists of service transmissions and frequencies by location. The bill will require the board to report annually on a range of additional matters, including the total number of individuals employed by the ABC in regional and metro areas, the ratio of individuals employed as journalists to those employed as support staff, and the total number of hours of local news or regional news bulletins broadcast during the reporting period. As I said, Labor notes that the ABC annual report already includes a staff profile detailing regional corporate management, finance and operations, employee figures, extensive lists of service transmissions and the frequencies by location. We note that the ABC's efforts in increasing the ratio of content roles over operational roles and otherwise encourage the ABC to provide greater transparency where feasible through its existing processes and reporting requirements.
The other reason Labor opposes the bill is that it will achieve nothing for rural and regional Australians and nothing to address the findings and recommendations of the ACCC digital platforms inquiry. The bill will achieve nothing in this respect because what the ABC needs is ongoing funding and support, not legislative change that introduces more bureaucracy. Coalition budget cuts are putting pressure on the ABC to find efficiencies in ways that undermine important service provision. The ABC's decision to see shortwave radio transmission in the Northern Territory is instructive in this regard. The ABC is one of Australia's most important and trusted institutions. It plays a vital role in the diversity of news in our media landscape. It provides an opportunity for Australian content to be shown and heard in local news, public announcements and emergency messages to regional and remote communities. If the government really cared about the ABC and its regional and remote viewers, listeners and other consumers, it wouldn't just point the finger; it would fund it properly.
I detailed the government's record of cuts and the impact of these cuts in rural and regional Australia in my remarks, and this bill, as I said, does nothing to address the final report of the ACCC's digital platform inquiry. The ACCC has just completed its 18-month study on the impact of these platforms on the production of public interest journalism in Australia. It recommends 'that stable and adequate funding be provided to the ABC'. Furthermore, the report says:
... the public broadcasters are not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by traditional commercial publishers.
I note that, amongst other things, the ACCC report observes that, in order for the public broadcasters to continue to provide public interest journalism, they must maintain both independence from the government and adequate access to government resources. The government had the benefit of the ACCC digital platforms inquiry for some time before it decided to re-introduce this bill. Now, with the benefit of this work and despite this recommendation, the government is proceeding with its cuts to the ABC and is going ahead with the window-dressing contained in this bill.
Another of the key reasons Labor opposes this bill is that it is an attempt to deflect blame for this government's failures, its cuts to regional Australia and, in particular, regional media failures. These include, as I said, the ABC cuts, the cessation of ABC short-wave radio, a regional media fund that is undersubscribed and the closure and consolidation of media newsrooms. This government is crying crocodile tears over the delivery of services to rural and regional Australia and it beggars belief that this government slashes ABC funding only to turn around and complain that the national broadcaster isn't doing enough for regional Australia. If this isn't blame deflection of the highest order I don't know what is.
Just as staggering is how they ride in and say the ABC Act needs to be changed, as if the ABC Charter, the ABC board or the ABC management are somehow to blame for the general decline in rural and regional media coverage in Australia. Meddling with the ABC Act will not achieve anything worthwhile in this respect. It serves only to distract from the real communications problems facing rural and regional Australia in terms of our public broadcaster.
Data collected by the ACCC shows that between 2008 and 2018 a total of 106 local and regional newspaper titles closed across Australia. That represents a net 15 per cent decrease in the number of these publications. The closures have left 21 local government areas previously covered by these titles without coverage from a single local newspaper, including 16 local government areas in regional Australia. We've had the trend of closure and consolidation of regional newsrooms by commercial broadcasters. Since the election there have been further closures of commercial broadcast regional newsrooms in Orange, Dubbo, Albury, Wagga Wagga and Wide Bay. Of course, on the media diversity side this government's media policy has been failing regional Australia for years.
The final reason Labor opposes this bill is that it furthers the agenda of the Liberal Party to privatise the ABC by stealth, and the good people of rural and regional Australia will not fall for this. Australians have every reason to regard this bill with great suspicion. The Liberals have proven they can't be trusted with the ABC. In 2018 the Liberal Federal Council voted to privatise the ABC. Any move by the Liberal government to alter the ABC Charter must be treated with extreme caution.
It is time for this government, into their third term now, to get real in rural and regional media and get a plan that addresses the underprovision of public interest journalism and underserved areas in rural and regional Australia. There needs to be a plan for regional media in the digital future. This bill is not a plan. It is a pathetic attempt to hide and deflect responsibility for this third-term government's failures when it comes to media and our public broadcaster.
In conclusion, this government should put its money where its mouth is. Stop cutting the ABC, listen to the ACCC and provide stable and adequate funding to the ABC for local news in rural and regional Australia.
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:
(1)notes that:
(a)in the final report of its digital platforms inquiry, in recognition of the ABC's role in addressing the risk of the under-provision of public interest journalism, the ACCC recommends that stable and adequate funding be provided to the ABC; and
(b)in addition to $254 million of efficiency cuts to the ABC over the past five years, the 2019–20 Budget locks in a further $83.7 million funding reduction through a pause in indexation over the next three years; and
(2)calls on the Government to put its money where its mouth is for rural and regional Australia by ensuring stable and adequate funding for the ABC, to enable the ABC to enhance service provision, including local newsgathering and emergency broadcasting, in rural and regional areas".
In closing, I would like to pay tribute to Mick Millett, who was the ABC's director of communications over this past decade until his untimely death recently from cancer. On behalf of Labor, I extend our heartfelt condolences to Mick's family and friends; his wife, Debra; his children, Dylan and Shayne; as well as his colleagues at the ABC and in the broader media sector, where he was respected by all players in the sector. He was a man who commanded great respect. Mick had a distinguished career in journalism, including as a foreign correspondent, a member of the press gallery and a senior editor for Fairfax.
Over the last decade at the ABC, he was a tireless advocate for the public broadcaster during some of its most challenging times. He was someone who was across the breadth of the ABC. He loved the public broadcaster and what it stood for. He understood that our democracy is made stronger not by a state broadcaster but by a public broadcaster. He was often on the receiving end of much criticism but he took that because he understood that it was the role of an independent public broadcaster to perform its function without fear or favour. Ever the journalist, in his final few months he took up the fight for media freedom in Australia with vigour. He was a true gentleman, a straight talker, ever incisive and insightful. He will be sorely missed and, indeed, with debate on this bill today he is already missed. Vale, Mick Millett.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I haven't seen the opposition amendment yet, but I support the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2019 as it is put forward. I was just listening to the member for Greenway. She would seem to blame all the shortcomings of the ABC on a lack of finance. The ABC receives over a billion dollars a year from the Australian taxpayer. That's not an insubstantial amount. I'm sure the member for Greenway, as the shadow minister for communications, is in touch with commercial media outlets. There wouldn't be one in the country that wouldn't like to swap budgets; I can guarantee you that.
The ABC is extremely well funded, and it has used those funds in recent years to expand its platforms—to amplify its reach, if you like. I even remember when it took a whole program, Q&A, to India. I wonder what that cost? That's the issue with the ABC. It's a little hard to find out a lot of these things. With most organisations, if you do a bit of a hunt around you can get a reasonable amount of information on them. The ABC is a fairly opaque organisation. There was some publicity about two years ago—maybe 18 months ago—where, through some really heavy work, the salaries of a number of the top earners in the ABC were exposed. Of course, your salary and my salary, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, are easy to identify. We are in the payment of the Australian taxpayer, and it's not very hard for them to find out what you or I earn. It would be very difficult if you or I worked for the ABC, I can guarantee you.
That is one of the concerns that we have in rural and regional Australia. The member for Greenway comes from within the Sydney metropolitan area. I represent 92.4 per cent of South Australia, and it's all rural and regional. We rely on the ABC service. In many cases it's the only service. There are a number of other commercial services. But I can tell you—and this is not just in rural and regional South Australia but in South Australia generally—on the weekends there is no South Australian news service. There are sports updates within the national bulletin, but the national bulletin itself, both on radio and on television, is basically a Sydney or Melbourne based news service. So when really important things happen unintentionally—emergency situations—the news is fairly scant. It is those concerns that people like me, who live in rural and regional Australia, bring to this parliament, to our ministers. We want to see some recognition of our place in Australia.
This legislation has been brought forward before, in the previous parliament, and it is unfinished business. This time around, as I did back then, I've had a good read of the ABC Charter. It's a very non-specific piece of advice, the ABC Charter. It's probably more notable for what is not in it than for what is in it. I'm not a lawyer and I can't always read incredibly well between the lines as to what might be inferred and what might not be inferred, but it is silent—and I think the Australian population would be quite surprised about this—on balance, on presenting unbiased views within the community. The ABC Charter doesn't say anything about that at all. I reckon most Australians probably think it does. But, of course, that's not the point of our legislation today.
What it is also silent on is regional Australia. That doesn't get a beep out of the charter. I can understand why that is. The ABC was formed in 1929. It's 90 years old. When the charter was first drawn up, the idea that regional Australia might not get as fair a deal as perhaps metropolitan Australia gets would have been preposterous. The population at that stage—I don't have the figures from that period, but I would suggest there were more people living in rural and regional Australia than there were in metropolitan Australia.
The reverse of that is well and truly the case today. So, while the charter was decided on that, in 1929, it is probably time that it reflected the fact that rural and regional Australians have become a minority in this nation. In that case, as many other minorities are recognised in many places within legislation I think it only fair that my minority, the minority that I represent, being rural and regional Australia, should have recognition as well. We want to make sure that the people who run the ABC actually understand that we are out there and that there are a whole host of things that affect our lives that are different to those that affect the city.
The ABC employs somewhere around 5,000 people. We were talking about population and about where their people are employed. The figures I'm pretty sure I saw about 18 months ago would suggest that well over 50 per cent of those are employed in Sydney. I think the figure is quite a bit higher than that but I can't lay my hands on it as it is not one of those things that are easily available on the internet—the ABC seems to hold this stuff pretty close to its chest. In the interests of transparency, I think it would be a good idea if we knew where their employees were. It would also be a fairly good idea if we knew what some of them were being paid. So, as part of the legislation we are asking the ABC board make available each year the figures on where those employees are, and as a result of that I think perhaps we can make a value judgement on how well we're being serviced.
It's not just about the stories that are mentioned on radio or television or in the ABC remit; it is about the lived experience. Unless you have people who actually live in the communities, live in the surrounds—if you are just talking about reporters racing out from the city for the latest disaster and then going back to the city again you're unlikely to get the real story. We need people who live in and amongst us to report on us so that we get a fair kind of representation.
It is quite a concern to us, in South Australia at least, that the ABC used to have a regional current affairs program: 7.30. I go back a bit, but I think the first incarnation of that program, in the 1960s, was as This Day Tonight. That name seems to have moved somewhere else in more recent years. That became the 7.30 Report and the 7.30 Reportprogramswere, of course, state based programs. In the last 15 years of its existence—maybe it's longer—it turned into a Sydney based program or eastern states based program with a one-day feature on the state, on Friday, and that pretty much has gone as well now. So, we don't really get an opportunity to get our stories front and centre in front of the nation or even in front of the state. That's a great concern to us, and country areas feel like they are further removed from that again.
The legislation we are putting forward addresses these issues—the first one being the establishment of a regional advisory council, which the board will, of course, consult with. That is a good thing. Firstly, it says that there is a job to be done here, that there is information to be had here, and that there are reports to be put together here. We want to know what kinds of services regional Australia is getting, whether they are adequate and whether they are providing the kind of information that regional people need. We want the ABC board to have that direct connection with rural and regional Australia. That is in the legislation as well. It also requires the ABC to have at least two appointed non-executive directors who have a substantial connection to or substantial experience in a regional area, through business, industry or community involvement. I think that's only fair and balanced. It's a good thing. Why on earth would it not happen?
As I said, I'm quite disappointed that those on the other side of this chamber can't see any merit in this legislation. It seems to me to be pretty well put together and with a good reason. I grew up on my farm, where the ABC was pretty much the only radio we received. When we got television it was one of only two television services. I guess in those days it was 50 per cent of the content or more. A number of commercial stations feed in now, certainly in radio, but their resources are pretty skinny on the ground. Rural Australians reach out to their local ABC. They like their local ABC. They certainly like them to be at events and around the place.
I make the point—as I have done every year since I got to this place, when the ABC representatives come around to see me and ask, 'What is our service like?'—that the biggest city within my electorate is Whyalla. Around 23,000 people are there at the moment. There is no ABC representative in Whyalla. That would seem to be a fair hole to me. That's getting towards 15 per cent of the population in my electorate. Whyalla is very idiosyncratic. It's an industrial city that sits in a semi-arid zone—almost a desert, some people would say. Because of those lengths it has little in common with those communities that surround it. Where the ABC is located there's quite a focus, as you would imagine, on farming. There is no great interest in farming in Whyalla. This is a very dynamic place. It is home to 40 per cent of the Australian steel industry, yet there is very little focus on that, because we don't have a local ABC office situated in that town. On all those things I hope that the advisory council will feed good information to the board, which will have at least two representatives from rural Australia on it, and we see a better performance in the future. I commend the legislation.
Western Australians don't seem able to catch a break some days, and this fig-leaf legislation is just another example. Whether it's the NBN, grocery prices or staying on top of the news we're constantly left underdone. WA has a proud history of being different. We love quokkas, we're obsessed with shark attacks and, although it's not taught in schools, we all understand that Bali is essentially a northern suburb of Perth. But we're still part of our nation. Just because we're on the opposite side of the country doesn't mean that what happens locally doesn't matter at home or even here in the eastern states.
Since 2013 the Liberals have cut $366 million from the ABC, in direct breach of their election promise, forcing the ABC to cut 800 jobs around the country. Since 2014 hundreds of staff have lost their jobs, the Australia Network has been axed, shortwave radio has been shut down, the number of hours of ABC factual programming has dropped by 60 per cent, drama has dropped by 20 per cent and documentaries have dropped by 13.5 per cent. Journalists, sound engineers, techies, editors and other staff have lost jobs around the country, and the west is the hardest hit. The impacts of this have been dire in Perth and across the state of Western Australia.
'How does this relate to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2019?' you may ask. The simple truth is that Perth has been treated like a regional town for years, yet this legislation will do nothing to fix it. Perth is so far from any other capital city that it might as well be in another country. Our issues, our time zones and our climate are so vastly different from the rest of the country. The eastern states have proven time and again that they don't care what happens in Perth, and they dictate to us what they think we want to know.
The ABC, alas, is no different. The ABC has three main divisions. In the past, ABC Perth had production from their site for all three. News production has been heavily cut over the years, with employees now copping a totally unsustainable workload. I've heard that staff are feeling heavily the loss of locally produced current affairs over the years. This capital city newsroom is more news bureau than news production site. ABC Perth has one reporter for 7.30, who I'm told is lucky to get a story up once every three months and even then it must have a national angle, not be a statewide issue—a rule that seems to keep WA stories out but New South Wales-specific stories in. It means issues like hydraulic fracturing regulation don't get the airtime that they need and that the only accessible information to people in WA and across the country is commonly misinformation. WA stories, politics, sport and arts events do not get the time and resources they are allocated in other states.
Due to the media in WA lacking diversity and the consolidation of newsrooms between paper and radio as well as the state's main masthead with its main free-to-air channel, not only are job opportunities for graduates and those in the arts exceptionally limited but also people in Perth and across the WA regions are crying out for content that the ABC should be providing. Traditionally, the ABC offered vital job opportunities for young graduates trained in broadcasting, journalism and editing, for camera operators and for technicians to gain training and essential experience. Unfortunately, in Perth young people in media acknowledge that, in order to get anywhere in the industry now, you must travel east, whether to another capital city or to regional towns, just to get into the industry. Perth simply no longer has the capacity to support the breadth of trainees.
Skilled staff who are lucky to catch a break at ABC Perth are left under extreme pressure and have little opportunity to specialise and build up deep expertise, having to simultaneously be a TV reporter, online content provider, radio journalist and photographer. Then they almost always need to leave the state in order to progress their careers at all. You only have to look at the Parliament House press gallery to see the amazing talent that is leaving ABC Perth: Stephanie Dalzell, Eliza Laschon, Jade Macmillan, Jane Norman and Eliza Borrello, who only recently returned to Perth and is currently in Hong Kong—all fantastic journalists who knew that, in order to succeed in their industry, even in their own organisation, the ABC, they would have to make huge personal sacrifice to move interstate to work in order to succeed in the craft that they love.
It cannot be forgotten that ABC Perth is no orphan in this regard. The media landscape in Perth is so limited yet the talent pool so excellent. You only have to walk the halls of the press gallery to find that west Aussies greatly outnumber journalists from other states. After all, they certainly do have some of the finest voices and sharpest minds.
Amazingly, while WA is the vastest state in both mass and regional audience, there is no Landline reporter based in WA. This is despite every other state or territory having a dedicated Landline reporter. So, while last year WA produced 58 per cent of all agricultural crops nationwide, it is every other state that has a dedicated Landline reporter, leaving WA with none. Granted, WA regional reporters can pitch for or work on a story for Landline, but this is on top of their already ridiculous schedule of work covering our enormous state. They are one-man bands, which means they don't have access to a cameraperson or any other resources that a regular Landline reporter would have access to.
In fact, regional reporters in WA, as much as they are responsible for covering an inconceivable amount of territory, are subject to ridiculous expectations, with the likes of the Esperance newsroom expected to single-handedly cover matters up to 390 kilometres away in Kalgoorlie. How on earth are they expected to be in attendance at each and every local event and issue? Budgets have been cut so fine that these individuals are often forced to drive hundreds of kilometres in a day because the ABC can no longer afford travel allowance to allow them to stay overnight. By way of comparison, Victoria has nine newsrooms covering that 237,629 square kilometre state; WA also has nine newsrooms covering WA's 2.6 million square kilometres. It makes you wonder, doesn't it?
On top of having to cover stories on all platforms—radio, TV, photographic and online—the squeeze in additional Landline and 7.30 stories, ABC journos are required to make sure they meet their mandated clickbait KPI for online content that they produce, meaning that important local public interest stories are going by the wayside in favour of tacky clickbait stories. Unlike the government, Labor actually understands that regional newsrooms are vital to bring local communities together and to tell them the news that they need to know. That is why Labor went to the last election with a $10 million commitment to regional broadcasting.
But it's not just the ABC's regional newsrooms that need help; it is capital city newsrooms like Perth that operate more like a satellite bureau than as the pulsing hub of statewide news. ABC Perth has no state director; the person doing that work is straddling two roles. It has no HR manager; instead, staff have access to an HR manager working out of South Australia who comes to town on occasion. The property manager is based in Adelaide, too. There is also—wait for it—no resources reporter. Western Australia produces half of the nation's resources exports—that is a 10 per cent contribution to national GDP right there—and it is a sector quite different to that in the east, being focused on iron ore and natural gas as well as new critical minerals. That's why Labor created a separate WA resources portfolio. Yet the ABC has not seen fit to allocate someone to that beat. One has to wonder whether anyone at Ultimo has any clue what happens west of Glebe Point Road. And did I mention that there is no arts reporter either?
To rub salt into the wounds of ABC Perth from these cuts, there is now no OB van in Perth. When it comes to an outside broadcast, a van is either hired from a production company or driven across to Western Australia from interstate. Yes, that's right. Driving a van from interstate, and putting staff up in hotels to resource it, is a fine use of an already skint budget! And this isn't a one-off. The ABC Perth van operators were told that they were being made redundant due to budget cuts in 2015. Then, when management recognised the historical significance of Anzac Day in Albany that year, they told the operators they had to stay on just for that—and then they would be unemployed! There is no doubt that quite a toxic environment was created. Need I even mention the fact that live broadcasts of WAFL games by the ABC are now a thing of the past as well.
WA people are missing out on WA events and important issues due to this federal government's refusal to properly fund newsrooms—capital and regional. There seems to be a view from ABC management that the east coast is able to reflect the view of capital cities throughout the nation. This, frankly, isn't true. Sydney is not Perth, even if there are a number of Western Australian ABC alumni working there. This approach by the ABC is the 'Brisbane line' of the Australian media. What's important in Perth is different than in other cities. Our make-up of business individuals in our environment means our priorities are significantly different than those on the east coast. In WA, we don't care about traffic congestion on the M4; almost no-one cares about rugby league—or anything to do with Alan Jones! Also—news alert—despite the name, the National Energy Market is not in fact national at all. WA isn't even in it. Neither is the NT. The role of local promotion and publicity has been reduced to two staff in Western Australia, while across the country there are approximately 170 individuals. So much for a balanced ratio across the nation!
Television production in WA is completely gone. Even though there is a custom-built studio to produce shows, the ABC simply hires out the space to entities like Screenwest, hoping to glean a profit and some reflected glory from their shows. The ABC headquarters in Perth consists of a modern three-storey building. Yet, with its current staffing capacity, they are lucky to fill one floor.
In a classic attempt to wedge Labor and distract from the coalition's own failures with the ABC from its cuts and lack of focus on the regions and WA altogether, this bill will 'amend the ABC's charter to ensure that ABC programs contribute to a sense of regional and national identity and inform and entertain and reflect the cultural and geographical diversity of the Australian community with the intention of promoting regional Australia'. Firstly, the ABC should be doing this under its charter already, and we know it tries its best. Tinkering with the ABC charter while cutting their funding certainly doesn't help Australians living in rural and regional Australia, let alone Perth and the entire state of Western Australia. And it certainly doesn't constitute a plan to address the decline in local reporting.
The ACCC digital platforms inquiry in July this year examined ABC funding and found that the public broadcasters are not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by traditional commercial publishers. Its major recommendation was that stable and adequate funding be provided to the ABC and SBS. Yet the last federal budget locks in $83.7 million in ABC cuts over three years from this year.
This bill is nothing more than an attempt to deflect blame for Liberal-National ABC cuts in regional media and communication policy failures. Let's reflect on those: cuts to funding the ABC, cessation of ABC short-wave radio, broadband that costs more and does less, media ownership reforms that totally disincentivise regional media acquisition, and the closure and consolidation of regional newsrooms. The people of Australia have a democratic right to know what is going on in our community. The government needs to take our national broadcaster seriously and restore the funding to newsrooms across the country—and yes, that includes Perth and across Western Australia; we do exist, and we have some wonderful stories to tell if you would just let us tell them. We just need the funding to support the great ABC WA staff to make that happen. After all, it's our ABC.
I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2019. As always, it's most informative to listen to the contributions of colleagues right across the chamber on any bill that's under consideration, and I think this bill is one that's particularly important to those of us who come from regional and rural Australia and who recognise the significance of ensuring that our ABC reflects just that. I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Grey, referring in particular to how well-funded the ABC is as a media organisation supported by the Australia taxpayers, and I reflect as well on the contribution just now from the member for Burt, when he—understandably—talked about the unique circumstance of the state that he's from, it being unique, just as any other regional part of Australia is. It has its own culture, if you like, as reflected in this bill, and it has its own geographic circumstances. And that is exactly what this bill is all about.
In that way, this bill contains a range of measures to support and cement that role, that focus on rural and regional Australia, to ensure that the ABC continues to focus on just that and to meet our diverse needs—whether we're in Queensland; South Australia, in relation to the comments of the member for Grey; Western Australia, in relation to the comments of the member for Burt; and right across the board, recognising our unique and regional needs. I'm pleased, therefore, to see that this bill will broaden that mandate that is referred to in the current charter but goes a lot further in broadening that mandate by making specific reference to the function of the ABC's broadcasting programs to contribute to a sense of regional and national identity. We are a significant nation, but we're made up of various regions, and we also need to recognise those individual identities and at the same time to reflect the geographic as well as the cultural diversity of our Australian community.
I'm pleased to be able to look in some detail at the amendments contained within this bill. No. 1 is the inclusion of regional and geographic diversity, as I referred to in my introductory comments. Let's face it: when we look at what goes on around the country, across the regions, at any one point in time—whether it's the current drought circumstance, for example, across most of the eastern seaboard, although not experienced in all parts of Australia at present, thankfully, or the bushfires that are affecting some parts of our country, or the sporting activities in one part of the country, such as football, just to name one of many sporting pursuits, such as the Rugby League and Rugby Union on the eastern seaboard, and that other strange game that they focus on further south and to the west, but I can't quite get my head around it, to tell you the truth—our community's pursuits and challenges are reflected differently across the nation, and so they should be reflected differently and considered differently by our broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The amendment that ensures that they are reflecting on that regional and geographic diversity is so vital for Australians now and into the future, so I'm pleased that this bill seeks to cement that focus in.
The establishment of a regional advisory council will certainly support that very significantly. It is proposed that it will be made up of members who have substantial connection to or substantial experience in regional areas through their business, their industry or even their community involvement. This is our national broadcaster, funded by Australian taxpayers, and it should be meeting that need in regional Australia as well as metropolitan Australia, as some of the other speakers have already referred to, including, I note, the member for Burt just prior to me. That regional advisory council goes beyond just a mere reflection in the charter to focus on regional issues; it goes to bringing regional Australian voices to the governance of the ABC. The fact that the ABC board will be required to consult with that regional advisory council again locks in these measures to the benefit of Australians right across the country—obviously, in particular, those of us in regional Australia.
On ensuring that the ABC board has a connection to regional Australia, I would argue that the government has pursued that objective already, given the current make-up of the board. I take this opportunity to refer to one current ABC board member whom I know reasonably well. I refer to Georgie Somerset. Georgie has a significant family and business background in regional Australia, to the north of my region of the Darling Downs—up in the Burnett and Kingaroy broader region, if you like. Georgie brings to the board a focus on regional Australia, quite obviously, particularly with her experience in the beef industry, but she's also the chair of AgForce, our rural advocacy body in Queensland, or one of them at least. So she has significant experience, not only from her own family farming operations and her own life but from the work that she does on behalf of agriculture right across our great state. Having that voice there already is something that our government secured under the leadership of a previous minister, but we want to lock the requirement in to have regional Australian representation on the board. I'm pleased to see that this bill promises to do just that.
Thinking about the fact that, when we look at the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars—in this case, on the ABC—I guess it's very difficult to measure something if you're not expected to report on it. At the same time, it's very difficult to report on something if you can't measure it. Therefore, there's the requirement for annual reporting obligations in relation to the focus on regional Australia—in terms of statistics, for example, the number of individuals employed in regional Australia versus those employed in metropolitan Australia. It's not a competition but simply a measure about the appropriate balance needed to address the needs of all Australians. That is, I think, a very responsible and solid obligation.
When we think about the key amendments and how they reflect on not only the need to but the plan to, under this bill, ensure appropriate representation of the needs of regional Australians going forward in our ABC, I note that there has been some commentary that that's already referred to in the ABC charter. Well, we need to go further and that's what this bill is about: ensuring that there is physical representation, as our government has already secured on the ABC board, of regional Australians and the establishment of a regional advisory council. The amendments, as I've said, will lock in those objectives in the interests of Australians now and, of course, into the future. We are one nation. We come from unique regions and, hence, there is the need for the objectives under this bill to be realised by this parliament.
Coming, as I do, from regional Queensland and having been involved my whole life—personally, professionally, academically and politically—in agriculture in rural Australia, I am very proud to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. I reflect on my own experience back in my home town of Toowoomba, and the regional area of the Darling Downs that I represent in this House. I reflect in particular on the service that my region gets from ABC Southern Queensland radio and, of course, the regional consideration and representation through ABC television and the various online media as well.
I want to use a couple of examples of people in our community, employed by the ABC in some of these roles, who I think do a tremendous job in representing the interests of our region. Before I mention some names I want to stress that I'm certainly not suggesting that I'm aware of or can speak about their views on this bill, this parliament, our government, the opposition or the crossbenchers. These people are truly independent professionals. But, as is the case with others in regional Australia, particularly in media and communications roles and in the industries that make up our regions, these people are, I'm proud to say, friends of mine. I refer, for example, to Belinda Sanders, David Iliffe and so many of their colleagues at ABC Southern Queensland, which is based in Toowoomba.
Whether it's the challenges facing our community—I mentioned drought earlier—the floods in Toowoomba back in 2011, which caused devastation that none of us could ever have imagined, and bushfires, whether it's the Carnival of Flowers celebration, one of the leading regional tourism events that will start, for its 70th year, this coming weekend, whether it's graduations from our University of Southern Queensland—we've just seen another round of those in recent weeks—whether it's any celebration or any challenge facing our community, ABC Southern Queensland is up there with the best of our local media in reporting and reflecting on the information wants and needs of our community.
Whether its industry development, best practice in our industries—most of those being regional industries, as I've said—whether it's the good times or the bad times, whether it's the challenging questions to me, as a federal representative, or to my state and local government colleagues—ABC Southern Queensland, amongst other local media outlets, go to the very heart of ensuring that topics of interest to our locals are top of the agenda—whether I or other community representatives from various walks of life or political parties find questions difficult to answer at any point in time, that is an important role. They hold us to account. That's important in regional Queensland. It's as important in regional Queensland as it is in metropolitan Queensland and metropolitan Australia.
I have provided just a couple of examples of the challenges, the celebrations and the issues in our community. They're only experienced on the Darling Downs. They are different issues, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, to the issues in your region in New South Wales or any other region in any other state or territory of Australia. That's why it is so important that this House supports this bill.
As a whole, this bill, as I've tried to explain, contains a range of measures to strengthen the focus of the ABC on rural and regional communities—mine and others—right across the nation. They represent very important safeguards for those Australians who live outside the capital cities and metropolitan areas of our great nation. In doing so, they will ensure that our taxpayer-supported primary national broadcaster retains and deepens that connection with communities across regional Australia. It is for that reason that I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, and I certainly commend it to the chamber.
I am proud to stand here today as a friend of the ABC to show my support for everything the ABC does for our community today and every day. On the New South Wales South Coast and Far South Coast, we love our ABC. Many of us grew up watching the ABC—those iconic programs like Play School and Bananas in Pyjamas, quality TV time that many, parents and children alike, have been grateful for. The first radio and TV services heard in the bush were courtesy of the ABC, and regional towns around the country still depend on the ABC for their local news today. In regional and rural areas like that of my electorate, the availability of local news is of vital importance, and not just for sharing local stories, hearing local voices and knowing local issues; it can also help save lives in critical situations such as bushfires or accidents on the notorious Princes Highway. The ABC becomes a kind of community noticeboard, with stories shared on air and via ABC Illawarra and ABC South East New South Wales social media pages. Regional communities trust the ABC, and we rely on it as our independent public broadcaster. We turn to it in times of need and trust it to always be there.
That is why I am disappointed in the coalition government's cynical attempts in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2019 to hide the fact they are doing nothing to help improve broadcasting in regional and rural areas. This bill is simply unnecessary. I struggle to understand why this government is wasting time with legislative amendments that will increase red tape when we already know what the cause of the problem facing the ABC is and we know the answer too.
People of my electorate have been feeling the effects of this government's contempt for the ABC for years. When the Abbott government first cut ABC funding in November 2014 after promising at the election that there would be no cuts to the ABC, it was regional Australia and the New South Wales South Coast that felt the brunt first. Despite Mr Abbott's election eve promise of no cuts to the ABC, the Nowra office of the ABC was forced to close when the Abbott government cut $254 million from the ABC. 'No cuts to the ABC' was all too soon proven to be a falsehood, and my community's disappointment at the treatment of the ABC has only increased from there. In my electorate, we are proudly represented by ABC Illawarra, based in Wollongong, and ABC South East New South Wales, based in Bega. However, the closure of the Nowra office in 2014 left the South Coast of New South Wales with no ABC office between these two regional hubs. Areas like Kiama, Nowra, Ulladulla and Batemans Bay were caught between the two, which is over a two-hour stretch for a local reporter at either end of the electorate. But this was only the beginning. In 2016, the coalition government cut another $28 million from the ABC, and this year we saw even more, with a further $83.7 million slashed over three years. This means fewer jobs, fewer local stories and declining investment in Australian content and regional communities.
In total since 2013, this government has cut $366 million from the ABC. The impact of these cuts has been real for regional and rural Australia, including the communities in my electorate. In a declining economy, when even the Reserve Bank has been calling for the government to increase jobs growth, these cuts have seen 800 jobs lost. We have seen the loss of the Australia Network, short-wave radio is gone, and the hours of factual ABC programming have dropped by 60 per cent. The ABC warned that this latest cut threatens delivery of the requirements of the ABC charter, the same charter the government are now seeking to amend in order to mask the impacts of their own cuts. This bill will cost the ABC hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in bureaucracy and red tape when what we need is funding for local voices and local stories. This government will use every lever it can to undermine the ABC.
In June 2019, the ACCC released its report from the digital platforms inquiry. The report recommended that stable and adequate funding be provided to the ABC and found that the public broadcasters 'are not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by traditional commercial publishers'. This bill does nothing to address these recommendations or the real issues facing our ABC.
The people in my electorate want to see genuine efforts by this government to protect and properly fund the ABC for regional and rural areas. Unnecessary, duplicative and burdensome changes to the ABC Act and Charter that will only increase red tape are not what the people of the New South Wales South Coast need. We need funding and real policies to ensure we can support local news gathering. That is what the people of the south coast need from this government.
This bill proposes to:
… amend the ABC's Charter in relation to the delivery of services to ensure that the ABC's programs contribute to a sense of "regional and" national identity, and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural "and geographic" diversity of, the Australian community.
I oppose this bill because we know that, when rural and regional communities are struggling under the weight of budget cuts, job cuts and the silencing of local stories, this government wants to waste time amending the ABC's charter to achieve something it already does. The ABC's charter already has obligations for rural and regional communities to be served. Those in rural and regional communities know that the ABC is already delivering on this commitment. We know that the ABC is doing what it can for rural and regional Australia with the resources this government has given it. The ABC's charter uses the phrases 'national identity' and 'cultural diversity'. These terms are already interpreted broadly, and the addition of the words 'regional' and 'geographic' are plainly just semantics and simply unnecessary.
People in communities like mine know how hard the ABC works to serve all Australians. We know that the ABC is inclusive and diverse and full of local voices. We know the ABC has a long history of focusing on programming and initiatives for rural and regional communities. The problem is not the charter. The problem is not the act. Ask anyone on the New South Wales South Coast and I'm sure they will tell you the problem. The problem is the funding. The problem is that this government continues to take the axe to the ABC's budget. It continues to stop the ABC from being able to do what it does best—represent regional and rural Australia—by pulling away the resources, jobs, programs and dollars it needs to effectively represent our community.
I wish to raise another aspect of this bill that is simply unnecessary and does nothing to address the problems facing the ABC: the provision to establish a regional advisory council. This seems a strange provision, because the ABC already has an advisory council. This advisory council provides advice to the board on all matters, including rural and regional matters, and includes a number of members from outside capital cities. This is simply more waste from a government that has shown it doesn't really care about rural and regional Australia. The government isn't genuinely trying to find ways to fix the ABC. This government is simply undertaking a wasteful and duplicative exercise to establish an unnecessary regional advisory council that will stretch the ABC's resources even further, pushing it towards breaking point.
This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to push the public broadcaster to a market failure broadcaster. The establishment and costs of this unnecessary council will see the ABC lose another $100,000 a year. At a time when the government has just cut $83.7 million, I ask the government: how is this sustainable? The impact of these cuts will be felt in my community. They will be felt along the south coast and far south coast. The people of Gilmore have had enough of these cuts.
I can tell the minister what the perspectives, views and needs of regional areas are. The people of the south coast and far south coast want to see a properly funded ABC. They want to make sure that board members are appointed because they are the best person for the job. They want to make sure that in the rapidly changing media landscape that Australia is now facing that the ABC's board members have the business and media skills to effectively navigate this landscape. I want to make sure that those who are representing regional areas are the best people for the job. I want to make sure that the ABC board has the ability to do its job effectively. That job is to represent the voices of all Australians, including rural and regional Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh, I can tell you that the best way for us to make sure the ABC board has the ability to do its job is to make sure that the ABC is properly funded.
Finally, I wish to address one more aspect of this bill. This bill requires the ABC board to report annually on a range of additional matters. These matters include the total number of individuals employed by the ABC in regional and metropolitan areas, the ratio of individuals employed as journalists compared to support staff and the total number of hours of local or regional news bulletins broadcast during the reporting period. We oppose this measure because we know that the ABC's annual report already includes figures such as these. The annual report already includes a staff profile detailing regional and corporate management, finance and operations, employee figures and extensive lists of service transmissions and frequencies by location. More red tape, more bureaucracy and no benefit; that is not what the ABC needs. This is not what the people of the South Coast expect.
Again, I reiterate what the ABC needs is not what is contained in this bill. What the ABC needs is more funding. What the ABC needs is for this government to reverse its $366 million worth of cuts. What we need is more local voices in our regions. What we need is more local jobs. What we need is more local reporting, not more red tape, not more dishonesty and trickery from the same government that promised no cuts to the ABC on the eve on an election only to break that promise as soon as they were elected.
During the recent election campaign, Labor promised to reverse the cruel and unnecessary cuts. Labor promised never to privatise the ABC. Labor committed more money for regional broadcasting and local content. I stand with the ABC and the people of rural and regional Australia. We love our ABC and we want to see it protected.
To finish, I want to share some human stories that the ABC Illawarra and the ABC South Coast put up on their social media page. I think they really typify the important role that the ABC plays in my rural and regional area. Yesterday, ABC Illawarra posted:
DO THE UPPER RIVER BOOGIE
John Kane and Andy Gordon take us on a musical journey through Kangaroo Valley.
They've both played music for years, John in Flying Emus and Andy on his own projects as well as at 301 Studios and Chevalier College, but decided to make music together from the comfort of their homes—
On 14 September:
AUSTRALIA'S SWIMMING POOLS, NOW AND THEN
Do you remember the Shoalhaven's first swimming pool on the south-western side of the bridge?
On 12 September:
MAN INJURED IN NORTH NOWRA HOUSE FIRE
A man has received burns to his legs following a fire at a house in North Nowra.
On 11 September:
DISTURBING PICTURES OF DELIBERATELY LIT FIRE IN THE SHOALHAVEN
Police are calling for witnesses to a fire that was lit in the Worrigee Nature Reserve yesterday afternoon.
On 11 September:
WANT SOMETHING THAT WILL MELT YOUR HEART?
This week's Illawarra Weekly newsletter features the heartwarming story of young Levi, who went into his local chicken and chip store for a snack, AS YOU DO, and had his bike stolen.
Spoiler alert: There was a happy ending—
On 11 September:
HAVE YOU ASKED SOMEONE IF THEY'RE OKAY TODAY?
The Illawarra Shoalhaven Suicide Prevention Collaborative held a community breakfast in Kiama this morning for National Suicide Prevention Day.
The collaborative is encouraging people to equip themselves with the knowledge to ask friends and family if they are okay and take action if they say no—
The stories keep going. The ABC pulls communities together. Probably one of my favourite ones is, 'What's an issue that's not getting enough coverage?' Because that's what the ABC does; it gets the story out there.
We love our ABC and want to see it protected. This bill does not achieve this goal. This bill does nothing to fix the problems facing our beloved broadcaster. It does nothing to improve rural and regional service provisions. I call on this government to stop deflecting blame for their cuts and to stand with our communities.
For those who might be listening to the broadcast, you just heard from the newly elected member for Gilmore. The member opines, effectively, that changing the ABC charter to specifically refer to regional and geographical diversity, establishing a regional advisory council and having a minimal level of representation on the ABC board—and by 'minimal' I mean at least two appointed non-executive directors—and annual reporting obligations for the board are, to quote her, 'unnecessary', 'duplicative' and—probably the most offensive thing I heard, as a member who lives in rural and regional Australia—'wasteful'. Well, the member for Gilmore might want to avail herself of the views of those who work for the rural division, effectively, of the ABC, because I can assure her that, from my discussions—albeit confidential discussions, the confidence of which I won't breach in this place—with them, they themselves are incredibly concerned about the power base that is building itself up at ABC Ultimo. She seems to suggest that what we need to do is to allocate additional funding—and that is always the Labor Party response: 'More money; more money.' It doesn't always beget better outcomes.
So, for those of you who are listening to the broadcast, can I tell you that I have directly the opposite view. I think these amendments—and I will run through them individually, shortly—are eminently sensible amendments which will assist those working in rural and regional Australia for the ABC to be empowered to ensure that they continue to tell the stories of regional and rural Australia.
I think the best way I can explain this is: I recently had occasion to speak to an executive from ABC Ultimo, and in a quiet moment we were joking about the Back Roads program, and this executive—who, presumably, should know more about the media landscape than I'll ever know—said to me: 'Tony, who knew? Who knew how popular the Back Roads program would be? Ultimately, it's just stories about people in the bush.' I said, 'I'll tell you what, mate: I knew. I knew how important it would be—and indeed how much people who live in metropolitan communities take from stories about what occurs in the bush.' And it was at that time that I thought to myself: 'There is a massive disconnect, there is a herculean chasm, between those who work for the ABC in stations like Mount Gambier in the south-east and Renmark in the Riverland and those who work for the ABC out of Ultimo.' It was after that conversation that I spoke privately and confidentially with many senior people in the ABC who I have access to, working in regional Australia, and they themselves expressed concern that, increasingly, they're seeing policies being pushed out of Sydney and not, if you like, pushed up from regional Australia.
So how are we going to deal with this disadvantage? Bear in mind that those of us who live in rural, regional and remote Australia deal with this disadvantage every day. Well, the way we do it is: we express it. We don't proceed on the basis that it's implied when you talk about the national identity. That's not enough. What you need to do is expressly provide within the charter—stipulate it, if you will—that, as well as reference to our national identity, there needs to be specific reference to regional and geographical diversity.
I come from the state in the world that has the greatest disparity between the number of people living in its capital, which is Adelaide, at 1.4 million, and its next largest city, Mt Gambier, my home town, at 25,000. Think about that in terms of the power imbalance: 1.4 million people in the media market in Adelaide; the next largest city, the great city of Mt Gambier—and I'll say it as many times as I like in this place—having 25,000 people. That's why this disadvantage needs to be addressed specifically in terms of the ABC charter. I go further and suggest to you that many of the more remote communities rely deeply on the ABC because it is often not only their only source of news but, when it comes to emergencies and natural disaster, a genuine life saver. So, enshrined in the charter, there is the need for regional and geographic diversity.
Turning to the regional advisory council, who would suggest that establishing a regional advisory council to provide advice to the board of the ABC about the operations of the ABC in rural and regional Australia is a bad idea? Who would say that? Well, it seems, much to my surprise as I entered the chamber, it's those opposite. Those opposite think that it is a bad thing that we establish an advisory council made up of rural, regional and remote Australians to provide advice to the ABC board. How dare those who live in rural and regional Australia expect their voice might be heard through that formal mechanism! I, for one, think this is an important step forward. But, again, for those listening to the broadcast, those opposite think it's a bad idea. They think it's a bad idea that regional Australians speak with one voice via the regional advisory council to the board of the ABC.
As we're talking about those opposite, let me say that they also think that a minimum level of representation on the ABC board of those of us living in rural, regional and remote Australia is also a bad idea. I don't. I think it's a great idea. In a perfect world, I'd love there to be nonexecutive directors with a substantial connection to an experience in regional communities. Indeed, I'd love every member of the board to have a close connection, but I want to be satisfied—and this bill does that—that there won't be less than two appointed nonexecutive directors with that substantial connection. I think that's necessary. It's necessary because, as I said, we're talking about significant entrenched disadvantage, because the nature of service provision is that you will always go to the low-hanging fruit. In the media markets, that's the low-hanging fruit in large population centres. I'm not suggesting that because we don't have this legislative requirement, as it's currently not operating, but our role in this place is to look for unintended consequences, and without this being expressed there is a risk. There is a risk that the relatively few Australians who live remotely won't be represented in the way that they should be. Of course, annual reporting requirements, as they relate to this bill, are important if we're going to ensure that these changes are given expression.
I agree with the member for Gilmore in relation to one thing: those of us who live in rural and regional Australia genuinely love our ABC. I love it because, when I was a former criminal barrister, on the only day I had free to myself—and in hindsight I now realise it was a mental health day once a week—I would turn on the local ABC, get into the ute, grab something to eat for lunch and go to the farm. As a criminal barrister who grew up on the land but lost the connection for a long time, I would from time to time get myself bogged or make other silly decisions on the farm, but I would always have the ABC with me. It was my relief. On a Saturday, it would broadcast a football game I would have loved to be at or a test match or another cricket game. Those are both things I'm passionate about. It operated for me as a connection when I was working very remotely.
But what troubles me is that, in the time I've been in this place, the number of complaints that have come to my office regarding the standard and quality of reporting out of ABC platforms has increased measurably. People who were, a decade ago, staunch defenders of the ABC—great fans like me—increasingly are taking the opportunity to talk to me and make complaints. Those complaints are almost always grounded in relevance: 'Tony, the ABC is losing relevance. It's losing connection to me.' I hear this all the time. I don't go fishing for it. I'll be honest. Where I come across it, I defend the ABC, particularly as it relates to editorial independence. I, like others who live in my electorate, don't particularly want to be receiving the complaints. I would much prefer to receive commentary indicating that constituents are very happy with the ABC, but the truth is that they're not, and that's because those of us who live remotely or in rural and regional Australia are increasingly taking the view that the ABC has lost relevance to them.
How do we deal with that? With respect, I suggest to you that this is a step absolutely in the right direction. We need to amend the charter to include specific reference to regional and geographic diversity; we need a regional advisory council to provide the kind of feedback that I have provided to the House; and there need to be, at the most senior decision-making level within the ABC—namely the board—individuals who have direct and, if you like, significant skin in the regional game. That's how we seek to deal with this issue, because if we don't I tell you what will happen: you will see in this increasingly digitised world more and more programming and broadcasting drawn back to central hubs. In the short term, that'll be Adelaide, Perth and other places, but in the superlong term that'll be Ultimo. What we will see is effectively our ABC effort concentrated into a Sydney suburb. We don't want that. Constituents in my electorate certainly don't want that.
Those opposite suggest—and I repeat that these are the words of the member for Gilmore, and I hope there are constituents in her electorate right now listening to this—that these amendments are unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful. So her constituents who might be listening need to understand that she thinks that regional and geographic diversity is wasteful and unnecessary, that these decisions should be made in Ultimo and that the establishment of a regional advisory council is wasteful, unnecessary and duplicative. Presumably there should continue to be a situation where this advice is provided principally by those living in metropolitan communities! Finally, perhaps the most galling suggestion is that it is unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful for our parliament, on behalf of all South Australians, to require legislatively that two of the appointed non-executive directors on the board of the ABC be from rural, regional or remote Australia. I for one think that it is not wasteful, duplicative or unnecessary.
I dearly hope that there were no constituents of the member for Gilmore listening to that effort from the member for Barker. But if there were I offer them all my genuine commiserations for having to sit through that. I am delighted to rise tonight to speak against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill. This bill represents nothing but more political games from a group opposite who haven't realised that they're the government, that they could govern, that they could actually do something that would have an impact on rural and regional Australia, because the bill before the House today will do nothing for rural and regional Australians. It will do nothing for the quality of media coverage in rural and regional Australia. It won't create a single new job for a journalist in rural and regional Australia. It won't create a single new news story in rural and regional Australia. It won't create a single new minute of coverage of issues in rural and regional Australia on radio or on television. It will do nothing. It's just another part of the government's political strategy against the ABC, a political strategy to delegitimise the ABC, a political strategy designed to tear down one of Australia's great institutions.
The ABC is Australia's most trusted media outlet, but you wouldn't know it from listening to those opposite, because at every opportunity they get they are in this chamber and on Sky News and in their conservative media political bubble telling each other how terrible the ABC is and how biased it is. They do this with a deliberate objective: they want to privatise the ABC. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is not something I've made up. I know it sounds insane, but those opposite want to privatise the ABC. We know this because every time they have a state conference meeting, every time you get more than half a dozen Liberals in a room, they're having a conversation about how they want to privatise the ABC, a proposition that would send the vast majority of Australians screaming in horror is a platform position from those opposite in states around the country.
I ask those opposite: how much media coverage do you think rural and regional Australia will get after you privatise the ABC? Do you think you'll see ABC journos kicking around rural and regional Australia when they're trying to earn a quid, like the rest of the private sector? This fixation with the ABC from those opposite is the paradigm example of the Capital Hill bubble that encloses those opposite.
I grew up in rural and regional Australia. I grew up driving around western Queensland on interminably long road trips with my father. I grew up on the ABC in rural and regional Australia. I grew up on Macca and Australia All Over. I grew up on the ABC's coverage of test cricket. I grew up on local ABC radio. I know how much Australians in rural and regional Australia love the ABC. The nonsense that those opposite put forward in this chamber is completely unrepresentative of the attitudes of Australians in rural and regional areas. Australians know that it's the ABC that's in their corner when they need it. In instances of emergency, bushfires, drought and floods, it's the ABC that's there for rural and regional Australians. But instead of supporting this effort, instead of consistently and adequately funding the ABC, we get efforts like the bill before the House today.
This bill aims to 'facilitate the provision of broadcasting services by the ABC that meet and reflect the needs of rural regional Australia'. That's what those opposite claim. But the Morrison government does not care about regional media. The Morrison government has implemented policy after policy that has decimated regional media. If the Morrison government cared about regional media, they would not have cut $366 million from the ABC since 2013. If the Morrison government cared about regional media, they would not have implemented cuts that forced the ABC to cut 800 jobs. If the Morrison government cared about regional media, they would not have repealed the two-out-of-three cross-media rule in 2017. How's that one going? That was a change that enabled the Nine-Fairfax merger and gutted regional broadcasting. If the Morrison government cared about regional media, we would not be seeing regional WIN newsrooms close in Orange, Dubbo, Albury, Wagga Wagga and Wide Bay.
If the Morrison government cared about regional media, they would listen to the ACCC, who recommended that the best thing they could do is introduce 'stable and adequate funding for the ABC and SBS'. In the final report of the digital platforms inquiry, the ACCC found that 'public broadcasters are not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by commercial publishers'. That's the ACCC telling the government that the ABC needs more funding to fill the void in rural and regional Australia—more funding that will not be delivered by political stunts like the bill before the House today. If the Morrison government cared about regional media, they would properly fund the ABC in rural and regional areas.
Properly funding the ABC, I should point out, is not just important for rural and regional Australia; it's also critical for the health of our democracy for all Australians. Experts at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute tell us that a healthy and robust media environment is key to Australia's democratic resilience. The reality is that today there are foreign operatives that seek to undermine our democracy through information operations. Many countries have confronted this in recent times. These influence operations work by finding cracks in the fabric of open, liberal societies and exploiting them to weaken trust in government institutions. One of the most important things we can do to protect Australia, to immunise Australia from these attacks on our democracy, is to ensure that our media environment is free, independent and economically viable.
This government's disregard for an independent press is making this more difficult. We saw it earlier this year when the Australian Federal Police raided Annika Smethurst of News Corp and the ABC's offices. These raids further eroded the Australian public's trust in our media institutions, a trust that's so key to a resilient democracy. The ABC is Australia's most trusted news source, according to the latest research from The Australia Institute. This longstanding status was reconfirmed in this research. The deputy director of the Australia Institute recently highlighted:
Our research consistently and clearly shows that Australians support their ABC and want to see that reflected in its funding, as it continues to be the country's most trusted broadcaster.
The Australian people deserve a government that knows it's important to invest in the country's most trusted broadcaster, not only because the Australian people want it and not only because it's crucial to supporting regional media ecosystems, but because it is imperative to our democracy.
Instead we have this window-dressing bill that will achieve nothing—as I said before—to improve rural and regional service provision. It will do nothing to contribute to the economic health of our independent public broadcaster. In fact, the bill will cost the ABC hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers' money, used for little more than more bureaucracy and red tape. It is just another stunt from a government that's more interested in political games than in actually governing. Labor opposes this bill because we believe that it will do nothing for rural and regional Australians. We believe that the government ought to focus on doing things that will make a difference.
This bill amends the ABC Act in several ways. It inserts the words 'regional' and 'geographic' to the ABC Charter so that the charter ensures—supposedly—that the ABC is broadcasting programs that 'contribute to a sense of regional and national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural and geographic diversity of, the Australian community'. The intention of adding these words is to ensure that the ABC contributes to and promotes regional Australia and provides services and information that cater to the needs of those areas. Labor opposes this measure because there's no evidence that the ABC Charter, as currently written, does not support rural and regional Australia. The current charter already creates obligations for the ABC to serve rural and regional Australians.
The ABC has a long and strong record of rural and regional programming, including Country Hour, Landline, Back Roads and Heywire. The ABC's track record is fully endorsed by former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, who we mourned in this chamber last week, who famously said that 'regional Australia would be Siberia without the ABC'. In 2015 the ABC created a regional division, and in 2017 the ABC created a content fund that included a $15 million per year investment in regional jobs. All of this was achieved without changing the charter. It relies on government funding. Inserting the words 'regional' and 'geographic' seeks to divide Australians when the ABC serves all of us. The current phrases 'national identity' and 'cultural diversity' in the charter must be interpreted broadly. The edition of the words 'regional' and 'geographic' may indeed, in this context, serve to narrow the existing interpretation of the ABC's charter.
This bill will also establish a regional advisory committee to ensure—supposedly—that the ABC board takes into account the unique views and needs of regional areas in making significant changes to broadcasting services that impact regional audiences. We oppose this measure on this side of the House because it duplicates the function of the ABC's current advisory council. This council, consisting of members who reside outside of capital cities, already advises the board on matters, including rural and regional issues. The regional advisory council will cost the ABC $0.1 million per annum, which the government expect the ABC to absorb in addition to their current cuts, putting additional budget pressure on an institution that is looking for ways to meet the government's latest $83.7 million cut to the ABC over the next three years.
The bill also stipulates that the ABC board should have two non-executive directors with a substantial connection to or substantial experience in a regional area through business, industry or community involvement. Those of us on this side of the chamber oppose this amendment because section 24X of the ABC Act already provides the minister for communications with the power to establish additional selection criteria for board appointments. Instead of putting in place mandatory criteria for board appointments, we believe that it is most crucial that the act empowers the government to appoint the most qualified people to steer them through complex and challenging times. While regional connections may be a desirable attribute, they do not by themselves qualify a person to provide advice to the national broadcaster, nor do they guarantee the appointment of a person who will be an advocate for regional Australia.
Finally, the bill will require the ABC board to report annually on a range of additional matters, including the total number of employees in regional and metro areas, the ratio of journalists compared to support staff and the total number of hours of local or regional news bulletins broadcast in Australia. Again, the ABC already reports on many of these metrics, including the staffing profile and what is broadcast by location. Labor fully supports increasing ABC transparency, but, to ease the bureaucratic burden, it should be done through existing processes and reporting requirements.
The bill before the House today is unnecessary. It's unwarranted. The ABC is one of Australia's most important public institutions and one of our most trusted public institutions. Experts tell us that the ABC is key to ensuring that this country is resilient to those that seek to interfere in our democracy—a need that has never been more important in the history of our nation. But this government ignores the advice of experts that emphasises the importance of an independent and well-funded ABC. Instead of providing stable and adequate funding for the ABC, the government introduces make-work bills, like the one before the House today, duplicating existing ABC structures and processes. It makes superficial changes that unnecessarily burden an already decimated ABC. It's just another cynical attempt by the Morrison government to deflect blame for their ABC cuts and their policy failures in regional media and communications. It's just another attempt to pass the buck.
When are those opposite going to realise that they are the government? They can do things that will make a substantive difference in rural and regional areas. They don't have to introduce make-work bills. They can adequately fund the ACCC. This bill is just the latest in a series of pups sold to the National Party and increasingly to Liberal Party members representing regional areas. It won't make a difference. It will achieve nothing.
In the last minute available to me today, I want to echo the comments of the shadow minister for communications in the chamber earlier today and give my personal condolences to the family of Mick Millett. Mick Millett was someone that I had the privilege of interacting with on many occasions, both in my position in this parliament today and in a number of previous lives working in the Australian communications sector. Mick was a lion for public broadcasting in Australia and for a free press more broadly. He was a man of integrity—his word you could take to the bank. Over the course of many years I raised many issues with Mick. I didn't always get what I was looking for, but I always knew that he dealt with the issues before him with integrity, with professionalism and with the seriousness that justified our public broadcaster. Public broadcasting in Australia has recently lost a great man in Mick Millett. I offer my condolences to his family, his friends and everyone who knew him.
I hope I'm not disappointing the member for Gellibrand, the previous speaker, by not conforming to his conspiracy theory. I love the ABC. Although I'm now an elected member of this place, I am foremost, like all those I represent in my electorate of Bass, a community member in a regional area. I understand the crucial role that the ABC plays in informing and entertaining regional and rural communities.
Tasmania is a unique and diverse landscape, and even more so is the northern region of the state. What may be popular opinion or viewed as important in our larger cities, including in our own capital of Hobart, may not necessarily represent the views or the state of current affairs for those in rural and regional areas. It is for this reason that local media outlets, particularly the ABC, have a critical function in connecting communities and building social cohesion through telling the stories that matter to these quieter parts of Australia. The ABC most certainly fulfils a need that metropolitan media cannot.
In the electorate of Bass, the journalists and producers at radio ABC Northern Tasmania cover areas from Bridport to Cape Grim and from Launceston to George Town, Scottsdale, Beaconsfield and beyond. They have an incredibly talented and dedicated team that are trusted community members, including Belinda King, on the breakfast show. Belinda has been at the helm for a number of years now, covering the issues that matter most to Northern Tasmania. More than a voice that so many of us wake up to or listen to in the mornings as we make our coffee, start up the tractor or commute to work, Belinda is a well-known and much-loved figure in the community and is deeply involved in our fantastic theatre scene, as a co-founder and board member of Encore Theatre Company, which I'll hopefully have the chance to talk about later this evening. She not only produces a range of incredible musical theatre productions but directs as well. She is embedded in and connected to the community.
Needless to say, in a rural and regional area like Northern Tasmania the regular ABC Country Hour radio program also does a wonderful job in representing the issues that matter to so many on the land, covering rural news and events across Tasmania and the nation. Over the last few weeks the program has covered livestock sales in Tasmania, farmers looking to diversify their businesses, educating farmers on how to look after their soil, and the ups and downs of the wool market. As part of a farming family, growing beef and sheep in Northern Tasmania, I can attest to just how vital this program is both as an information resource and, critically, as a way of feeling connected in what can be a lonely and isolated profession.
ABC breakfast and the Country Hour not only give their listeners informative and entertaining content but are also building a regional identity, which is part of what the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2019 is all about. Although the program is statewide, it would be remiss of me not to mention the renowned mornings program with Leon Compton. You haven't quite earned your stripes as a politician, either federally or in state or local government, if you haven't had a chat to Leon.
The ABC plays an integral role in the community beyond being a news source and has long been a strong component of the multilayered fabric that is the Northern Tasmanian community. The ABC Giving Tree Appeal is another such example. The appeal is Tasmania's biggest Christmas charity, raising money and gifts to donate to disadvantaged and vulnerable people around the state throughout the holiday season. Since its establishment in 1988, the giving tree appeal has become a tradition amongst families and communities alike. With up to $100,000 raised each year, the appeal plays an important role in assisting the most disadvantaged in the community during the Christmas season.
For rural and regional communities the role of the ABC extends far beyond light entertainment. The ABC fulfils an incredibly important job in representing regional and rural Australia. It may be surprising to many Australians that the ABC does not already have a rural and regional charter obligation. This amendment to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 will ensure that regional Australia is represented not only in the ABC charter but through representation on the ABC board and through the establishment of a regional advisory council. I am pleased that these amendments will also ensure that the ABC has an even greater focus on and regard for the needs of rural and regional communities, which can only have a positive effect on so many communities, including the northern Tasmanian community which I so proudly represent.
I'd just like to mention the speech by the member for Bass. Everything she said there is proof positive of why the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2019 is not required. She's effusive in her praise—and rightly so—of the wonderful ABC staff and presenters in Tasmania. As she said, the ABC is most certainly fulfilling the need that the metro media does not. It has incredibly talented and trusted people providing a regional service. She mentioned the great contribution Belinda King makes, how Country Hour does a wonderful job and that the ABC in Tasmania builds a regional identity. Everything the member for Bass said proves why this bill is absolutely redundant. We don't need this bill.
This bill is political cover for the cuts that this government has made to the ABC. If members opposite were serious about providing a better regional service from the ABC, they would not have supported five years of dreadful budget cuts. You can't provide a better service when you cut money from the ABC. Here we go again. The ABC is under attack from those opposite, with the notable exception of the member for Bass. She did not attack the ABC in her speech, but for those opposite this is an attack on the ABC. It's an absolute slap in the face to the thousands of Australian Broadcasting Corporation staff—the journalists, producers, sound recorders, presenters and many more—who work every day to bring the stories of regional and rural Australia to our screens and our radios. No agency in Australia does more to ensure that rural and regional Australians, their triumphs, their crises, their faces and their stories are kept front and centre of the Australian psyche than the ABC. But the heart of this bill is a claim that somehow the ABC is not quite doing enough and that it needs the cold dead hand of those opposite to tell it to do more for regional and rural Australia, even though all the evidence shows that the ABC is doing exactly what it needs to do in representing regional and rural Australia.
This bill represents an attack on the independence of the ABC. Those opposite really do not like having an independent national broadcaster. They're much more comfortable when news is delivered by companies owned by their rich friends and when commentary is delivered by cranky, rich old men who don't like living in 21st century Australia. Anything other than fawning adulation is treated with suspicion by those opposite. Journalists simply doing their job, many of them at the ABC, are treated as enemies of the state. Attacking the ABC is a favourite pastime for those opposite. When they're not vilifying refugees, attacking unions, patronising women, paying lip-service to reconciliation with First Nations peoples or trying to wind back the clock for LGBTIQ Australians, you know that those opposite can be found kicking the ABC.
This bill is the latest in a long line of attempts by those opposite to diminish the independence of our national broadcaster. Labor has opposed two previous incarnations of this bill, once in 2015 and again in 2017, and we are opposing it a third time because it's bad law, because politicians have no business telling the ABC what to do. Telling national broadcasters what to do is what happened in the countries that used to sit behind the Berlin Wall. In this country, we have a national broadcaster, not a state broadcaster. We have a broadcaster that reports on issues facing the nation, without fear or favour, not a broadcaster that simply parrots the government position in glowing terms. Those opposite simply do not seem to understand the difference.
As well as being bad law, this bill is yet another distraction from this lazy and tired government. If this government wants to improve the ABC, and particularly regional coverage, then it should restore the quarter of a billion in funding that it has cut from the ABC over the past six years—cuts that have had a direct impact on the level of resourcing the ABC has been able to devote to regional broadcasting. It's almost laughable. They cut the funding—then they whinge that less funding results in cuts to services! It's like they're surprised there's a link.
The bill we have before us today amends the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 to (1) require the ABC to broadcast programs that contribute to a sense of regional identity and reflect geographical diversity; (2) require the ABC Board to have at least two members with substantial regional experience; (3) establish a regional advisory council to advise the ABC Board; and (4) require in the ABC annual report ABC regional employment figures and data on hours of local news bulletins. This bill purports to facilitate the provision of broadcasting services by the ABC that meet and reflect the needs of rural and regional Australia and 'ensure rural and regional communities are provided for in the functions of the corporation and through representation on the ABC Board'. In reality, the bill does nothing to improve rural and regional service provision on the ABC, and it certainly restores none of the funding taken from the ABC that would provide it with the ability to improve its service provision. Those opposite have not been able to articulate how in one way the ABC's regional and rural services will improve under this bill. They've not articulated in one way what the ABC is currently doing wrong in its coverage of rural and regional Australia that will be enhanced by this bill. This bill is one of those feel-good bills, where they put a few nice words in the title—'"Rural and regional"; that'll get the regions on side'—and they think that's enough. What will support rural and regional ABC coverage is more funding to the ABC, which has been cut.
The inclusion in this bill of the phrases 'regional identity' and 'geographic diversity' for the charter only serves to narrow the interpretation of the charter, which, by virtue of its requirement to serve all Australians, already carries obligations to serve rural and regional Australians. As we've heard already, the advisory body is already there—there's already an advisory body to the ABC for rural and regional Australia. This bill is utterly redundant. Even a cursory glance at the ABC on TV or online, or a cursory listen to its radio broadcasts, will show that, when it comes to media coverage of regional Australia, the ABC is unparalleled. No commercial broadcaster comes close. The most consistent regional coverage you'll get on the commercials is perhaps weekend fishing shows. As good as they are, that's what you get for regional coverage on the commercial shows—weekend fishing. But, whether it's Landline, now in its 24th year on ABC TV—a longevity and commitment to rural Australia that has been unwavering—or Country Hour, the daily one hour of regional issues on my local ABC radio station, the ABC is so far ahead of other media players it's embarrassing. And yet that's who this government has in their sights—the ABC!
This bill seeks to establish a regional advisory council to ensure that the board takes into account unique views and needs. It's already there. Why on earth would we need another advisory body, the establishment and ongoing costs for which needs an outlay of $100,000 per year, at a time when the ABC is searching for ways to staunch the wound from the government's $254 million in cuts to date, with another $84 million in cuts slated over the next three years? That's their answer—a new bit of red tape.
Labor opposes this measure. Labor opposes this bill, because it's utterly redundant.
The ABC is a corporation operating in a complex and rapidly changing media environment, and stewardship of that business requires board members with business and media skills. That's why we oppose the move to bring in specialist rural and regional people. I mean, where would that end, if you started insisting that people had certain backgrounds, certain identities, before they could go on the board?
It's a very slippery slope.
Labor notes that the ABC annual report already includes a staff profile detailing regional corporate management, and finance and operation employee figures, and an extensive list of service transmissions and frequencies by location. All the way through, it's just more unnecessary red tape for the ABC. Let the ABC get on with doing what it does best: providing fantastic service to rural and regional Australians. Restore the funding cuts. If those opposite really want to help rural and regional Australia, restore the funding cuts so the ABC can restore some of the services and the programs that it's had to let go because of the funding cuts. That's the core of the issue, members opposite: restore the ABC's funding cuts. That will go a long way to restoring the integrity of the ABC.
I welcome the opportunity to speak this evening on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2019—a bill that means a fair go. It means a fair go for those who have a go, and you've heard that from our side many times. It's about a fair go for those in regional areas throughout my electorate of Braddon in north-west Tasmania, which takes in our rugged West Coast and also King Island. Often, the only means of communication by radio is the ABC. That's what I want to talk about today: a fair go for those who deserve it.
One of the big differences between living in the city and living in the bush is access to information. Our counterparts from the towns and the cities often speak as though they are authoritarian in their view of the amount of news and newsworthy stories that go out to our regions. However, it's far from the case. Whereas many of our city cousins have continual and maybe even an overwhelming flow of vital information and a multitude of media platforms, they probably take that for granted. For those of us living in isolated communities, it's something we never do.
In my electorate of Braddon, there are several hundred small communities, often without a corner shop. They're simply a group of farms clustered together. They're characterised by small communities that bond strongly together. I've always said that the further you move away from the big capital cities the stronger the sense of community. This is augmented, strengthened and reinforced by good newsworthy coverage from our regional providers at the ABC. Our folk are hardworking. They work in the agricultural sector, on farms, in the mining sector, in forestry and in fishing—often where the only means of radio, as I said, is AM radio with the ABC on board. Many people in Braddon don't even work in an office. They don't own one. They work on tractors, on excavators, on logging trucks, in cow sheds, in workshops and in paddocks. I know that because I'm a farmer. I know what it's like to work on a tractor for two or three days in a row without getting out of the thing—when, again, the only thing to listen to is the ABC. It's often the only media option available to us. We trust it, we respect it and it adds value to our daily lives. At a time when there are fewer and fewer local media providers, the ABC keeps us connected to our local communities. This bill cements a range of measures to ensure that now and in the future the ABC continues to give that fair go to our regional communities and reflects the diversity of all Australians living in the bush.
The other day, I went to visit one of my constituents. Following the phone call that we first had, he said, 'I'll meet you down at the end of the road.' It was about a kilometre from where he lives. I met him, we shook hands and we talked for some minutes, and then we talked about cattle and how well they looked and how great the season had been in Tasmania. Then he looked up at me and said, 'The grass needs cutting out here.' When I worked it out, he hadn't been to the front gate for over 10 months. For 10 months that bloke had been on the farm without leaving. That's isolation for you, and that opens a whole new box when it comes to the importance of our regional providers of media.
Working on the land is one of the best jobs you could ever have, but it's also a lonely one, and I think this story highlights how isolating our regional farming communities can be. Often it's just you, the dog, the motorbike and the ABC—and that's it. For those living in rural communities the ABC is sometimes the only option. For many people who are isolated it's like a best friend who visits them every single day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. They're the ones who need the special assistance of the bill to ensure they get a fair go. For many people who are isolated, the threat of that isolation ends up developing into suicidal tendencies. Sadly, people in our rural communities are twice as likely to die by suicide than people in other parts of the country. There's no doubt that the reasons for this are complex, but we must ensure that the ABC continues to be the best friend of those people who are in isolation in our regions and who really need it, when they need it the most.
We expect more from our national broadcaster, when it comes to delivering social benefits where it's not commercially viable for other broadcasters to do, and that is why the bill is so important. It ensures that the ABC as our national broadcaster reflects the needs and the perspectives of all those living in regional communities in regional corners all over Australia, including my electorate of Braddon. In particular it ensures that we fulfil the needs of those living in those rural and regional communities and that they're always considered. The establishment of the regional advisory council, ensuring that the ABC board has a minimum level of representation by people from regional Australia, is an important one. It's important because that representation needs to be indicative of those that you represent, similar to those in this place. I've often said that there's a pretty good mix of those from the country representing those from their electorates and those from the city doing the same. That accurate representation is important, and it's important in the ABC too. Only those who have a strong connection with regional communities understand the needs of regional communities, and the needs of those communities need to be articulated into strong programs when it comes to media broadcasts.
This bill will ensure that the programming and content don't become skewed by the needs of those living in our larger cities, which is often the case—people in the towns telling us in the country how we should run our farms and businesses. Those living in rural and regional communities have the right to receive regular news that is relevant to them—news that matters. We need local content, and the value of that is evident in programs like the Rural Reports, the Country Hour et cetera. I always like to check what the cattle price is doing at the saleyards.
It is also a time where we can connect with other farmers who might doing it tough. It's important to know that we're not in this alone; it provides a network. When things happen in your community you have a right to be informed in a timely way. When local emergencies occur you have the right to be informed in a timely manner. As the national broadcaster that's the ABC's responsibility, and we need to ensure this remains the case for all Australians regardless of where you live. As a whole this bill contains a range of measures to strengthen the focus of the ABC on rural and regional communities. It represents an important safeguard for those Australians living outside our capital cities and larger metropolitan areas. They will ensure our primary nation broadcaster retains and deepens its connection to our communities in the bush, and, for that reason, I commend this bill.
It doesn't take much imagination to recognise how vital ABC services have been in the last few weeks as bushfires have raged through our northern rainforests and rural and regional communities from Humpty Doo and Dundee, on the outskirts of Darwin, through to Queensland and northern New South Wales. For the community that I represent, and the many volunteers who have travelled north to assist, it is really easy to imagine how reliant people are on their local ABC news service at this time.
I know only too well, because, while the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury are not often considered regional, we have all the characteristics of regional areas. ABC 702 was our local natural disaster station during the October 2013 bushfires six years ago. It was Richard Glover who told me that my suburb was under attack. We monitored 702 constantly during the drive back to the Blue Mountains, in between texting our son and neighbours and following Facebook and Twitter, to piece together the enormity of what was happening. It wasn't just on the day when mine and so many other homes were lost but it was the days that followed. Keep in mind that had the power and mobile phone systems not been working, as was the case recently for Bilpin and many other areas, 702 on a battery operated radio would have been our only source of information. So I get that it's important. That's why I don't think it was going too far when I saw the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance media release last year warning that cuts to the ABC were 'dangerous and irresponsible' in the wake of the 2018 budget announcements by this government. Of all the issues around a strong and independent public broadcaster that this government, with its supposed representation of regional and rural Australia, should be thinking about, it's an absolute joke that this is the bill we're seeing.
I don't think that those opposite, who have been speaking about the importance of the ABC to their regional communities—and I absolutely agree with them about that, how important it is—have read this bill, because this bill is not going to improve the service that their regional communities receive one bit. We have many reasons to oppose this bill and move an amendment. For a start, it is completely unwarranted and it duplicates things that are already in place, and basically provides more work for already stretched ABC people and no more resources. Importantly, it will do nothing extra for rural and regional Australia. Like much of this government's legislation, the words of the media release are never quite achieved by the actual piece of legislation that we see in this parliament. This also fails to act on the recommendations of the ACCC Digital Platforms Inquiry on the ABC. For all its claims of supporting rural and regional Australia, this government has absolutely failed to put any money where its mouth is for the ABC and rural and regional Australia.
Let's talk about these issues in a little bit more detail—first, the duplication. There are proposed charter amendments. This is supposedly going to make things better somehow for rural and regional Australians as they turn on their ABC service. But there is actually no evidence provided by this government of any shortcomings in the charter for the ABC with respect to rural and regional Australia. The current charter already creates obligations for the ABC to serve rural and regional Australians, and most people will tell you, and those opposite have told us, how effectively the ABC is delivering on that charter. So you've got to question why we need something extra when the charter is there.
To the extent that there could be improvements in the coverage amounts or frequency of local news in rural and regional Australia, neither of those problems are going to be solved with a change to the ABC Act. Funding is much more in play there. Let's look at the establishment of a regional advisory council. This council is supposedly going to ensure that the board will take into account the unique views and needs of regional areas in making any significant changes to its broadcasting services and the way that they impact regional audiences. Again, this is total duplication, particularly as the ABC's resources are already stretched in service provision. We're spending more money on advice. I think that, if you ask anyone at the ABC, they know exactly how to improve services, and that is by providing more funding. We don't need more advice.
The third bit is around the ABC board's connection to regional Australia—again, completely unnecessary. The bill is all about ensuring there are two non-executive directors with a substantial connection to or substantial experience in a regional area through business, industry or community involvement. The minister already has the discretion to appoint people to the board if he or she feels there is a gap, so again it is completely unnecessary. As for the additional reporting obligations, yes, that's what everybody needs—more red tape! So that's the duplication issue. On that basis alone, there is really no necessity for this bill, and I cannot see what it adds.
Let's get clear about the funding cuts that have occurred to the ABC. Since 2013, the Liberals have cut $360 million from the ABC's budget. Those are not my figures; those are their figures. That was after the then prime ministerial candidate Tony Abbott said 'no cuts to the ABC', which we all remember, on the eve of the 2013 election. As a consequence, 800 jobs have gone from the ABC to free up funds for Australian content, educational resources and regional communities.
In spite of those cuts, the words I've heard from just about every speaker in this debate are that the ABC still demonstrates a strong commitment to rural and regional Australia. The ABC already allocates around a third of its budget for the one-third of Australians who live in rural and regional areas and, since 2017, has increased regional investment by $15 million a year, creating 80 new content jobs across the country. The ABC also works really hard to bring rural and regional issues to the city. Country Hour, Landline, Back Roads and initiatives like Heywire are all happening already, without the need for this piece of legislation.
The thing that is really stopping greater commitment to rural and regional Australia isn't the lack of new rules and extra reporting; it's funding. As the MEAA told the Senate inquiry into a previous version of this bill—and this was highlighted by Labor senators in their dissenting report:
Traditional regional and rural media voices—across print, broadcast television and radio have been in decline for some time and this trend shows no sign of abating.
I have been one of those regional and rural voices as a rural reporter in commercial radio for the 2UE network in the 1980s, broadcasting the news from parliament to farmers and producers around the country. That was a position funded by the 2UE network, and it meant that issues that might relate to just one small part of Australia were given a run. Those types of journalist positions have drastically declined in the commercial world. As the MEAA says, the issue:
… is far greater than the ABC's role and contribution. Diversity and local content are rapidly diminishing … as funds dry up in both commercial and public media organisations.
Trying to address this broad issue solely through the ABC is ridiculous, especially without additional funding. To quote the MEAA:
The reorganisation of regional services has occurred on several occasions in the last decade or so. These reorganisations are always attended … by supportive words and some new deeds; they cannot, however, mask the slow deterioration in the ABC's actual presence in regional communities.
In spite of that, we still all feel they're doing a pretty good job.
That takes me to the recommendations of the ACCC's digital platforms inquiry. Not a skerrick of the recommendations is reflected in this legislation—what a missed opportunity there! One of the issues that the review looked at is the disruption of Australian media and the risk of underinvestment in journalism—and journalism is what rural and regional communities want. All of us want to hear local stories about our own local communities. Between 2008 and 2019, the ACCC found that 106 local and regional newspaper titles closed across Australia. That represents a 15 per cent decrease. These closures have left 21 local government areas without coverage from a single local newspaper—not just a print newspaper but a print or online publication—and 16 of those areas are in regional Australia. That's a big reduction in the reporting of local and regional affairs that the ACCC says likely reflects the consequences of the fragmentation of advertising across multiple platforms—even when you take into account the emergence of new digital production.
So, there are fewer journalists on fewer publications and, as the ACCC says, there may not be a large audience for some of the reporting, although I would beg to differ. In my community the local newspapers are very well read, but local government and regional reporting perform a really important role in exposing corruption, holding governments, corporations and individuals to account. The ACCC's recommendation is that there be stable and adequate funding to the ABC and SBS, and their conclusion about the current situation is that our public broadcasters are not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by traditional commercial publishers. The ACCC is clear. Along with better funding for the ABC and SBS, it recommends a new program of direct grants targeted at local reporting and tax settings to encourage philanthropic support for journalism.
But that's not what this Liberal government is doing. Instead, we get this bill, which basically says how terrible it is that there aren't more services in regional and rural Australia. But can we just follow the logic here? The Liberals cut the funding. The ABC tightens its belt, and then the Liberals and Nationals complain that the ABC isn't spending enough on them. There's really got to be a better way. This bill won't mean more funds for emergency broadcasting. It won't mean more journalists. It won't mean more local Australian content. It won't mean that regional and rural listeners will get their Radio National music programs back. It won't bring back short wave. It won't mean any improvements in services. It makes no difference to the things that actually matter to viewers and listeners. And if that's the best this government can come up with, then they'd be better off just taking their bat and ball and going home.
I have noted that a few of my colleagues this evening have also taken the opportunity, on speaking of the ABC, to speak about Mick Millett, who has been such a fighter for the ABC in the past decade and whom we recently lost. I first worked with Mick about 30 years ago, when we were both young journalists in the press gallery. He was a few years ahead of me in seniority and, unlike some of my professional colleagues, he was very willing to fill in details and talk through the history of an issue—and all this in the age before Google. I remember him as someone who didn't push his way forward into the discussions and conversations, but when he did share a view it was absolutely worth listening to. It has been a delight in these past few years to engage with Mick again in his ABC role, with his quiet thoughtfulness and his determination to really protect the things that matter for the ABC—its independence, its ability to work within its charter. I'm very grateful to have been able to reconnect with him. He will be missed, in this place and outside this place.
The ABC has never been under greater attack in its formidable history than it is now. Almost $340 million has been cut from its base funding since 2014. Programs have been axed, locally produced drama is way down, foreign bureaus have been closed and hundreds of years of journalistic experience has been lost. ABC journalists who are simply doing their jobs are attacked on an almost daily basis by coalition politicians through a steady stream of complaints and inquiries.
The Liberal Party federal council voted 4-1 in favour of selling off the ABC altogether. But the ABC—in Bluey and Utopia and Rosehaven, in You Can't Ask That and Costa's Gardening Australiaisn't theirs to sell. It belongs to us, the Australian public. That is why we are standing up to say, 'Hands off our ABC.' Today we are calling on the government to put its money where its mouth is for rural and regional Australians by addressing the final report of the ACCC digital platforms inquiry, which finds that public broadcasters are not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by the traditional commercial publishers. It also recommends that stable and adequate funding be provided to the ABC.
We all remember that on the eve of the 2013 election Tony Abbott promised that there would be no cuts to the ABC, yet the past six budgets have included measures to reduce, remove or freeze ABC funding, without adding any new funding initiatives. This has resulted in an accumulated reduction in available funding of $393 million over a five-year period, starting from May 2014. According to current budget forecasts this also means the ABC stands to lose $783 million in funding by 2022 unless steps are taken to remedy the situation.
I will anticipate any government rebuttal by noting that the coalition government, and others, would argue that the ABC actually received a reprieve in this year's budget, with committed funding for enhanced news gathering, because it treats as new the renewal of tied fixed-term funding as it expires. The enhanced news gathering and digital delivery funding was first enacted by the former Labor government in 2013 and although it has been renewed twice by the coalition government since then, including in this year's budget, the amount allocated for the program was slashed in 2016. So, while it might be spun that the current budget announcement is good news for the ABC, the reality is that it is simply a continuation of what should be seen as core business, for which those opposite are wheeling out the tea trolley and cutting themselves a congratulatory serving of hubris tart. The reality is that just as they are cutting $83.7 million from the ABC they are introducing a bill that will cost the ABC hundreds of thousands in taxpayer dollars on more bureaucracy and red tape.
The ACCC has just completed a major inquiry which found that public broadcasters are not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by traditional commercial publishers. This bill does nothing to address that finding, nor the ACCC's recommendation that stable and adequate funding be provided to the ABC.
The government needs a real plan to address the decline in local news in rural and regional Australia. Cutting the ABC and meddling with the ABC Act and Charter aren't going to improve service provision in rural and regional Australia, but funding the ABC properly will. Labor took a policy to the federal election to reverse the government's ABC budget cuts of $83.7 million and commit $10 million over three years for ABC local and regional media and emergency broadcasting. This government needs to put its money where its mouth is. If passed, this bill will amend the ABC's charter to ensure that the ABC's programs contribute to a sense of regional and national identity, that they inform and entertain and that they reflect the cultural and geographic diversity of the Australian community. The intention of this amendment is to ensure that the ABC contributes to and promotes regional Australia and provides services and information that cater to the needs of those areas.
We oppose this measure, because there is no evidence of shortcomings with the ABC charter with respect to rural and regional Australia. The current charter already creates obligations for the ABC to serve rural and regional Australians, which the ABC effectively delivers on. The insertion of the words 'regional' and 'geographic' seeks to divide Australians when the ABC already serves all Australians. It's legislating what the government focus groups have told them to say for best partisan effect: whose side are you on?
The ABC has a strong commitment and record of achievement with respect to rural and regional programming and initiatives. The creation of the ABC's regional division in 2015, as well as the March 2017 announcement of a content fund, were realised without the inclusion of the words 'regional' or 'geographic' in the charter. To the extent that there could be improvements in the coverage, amount or frequency of local news in rural and regional Australia, neither the problem nor the solution is related to the ABC Act. Other factors, including ABC funding and trends in the media sector at large, are at play. The government should acknowledge that, instead of waging this war on our beloved national broadcaster.
I would like to address the issue of quotas in this legislation. The bill amends the ABC Act to ensure that the board has two non-executive directors with:
… a substantial connection to, or substantial experience in, a regional area through business, industry or community involvement.
This amendment is meant to provide that the perspectives, views and needs of regional areas are appropriately considered by the ABC board. I oppose this measure on the grounds of the rampant hypocrisy of those opposite when it comes to the matter of quotas. They are quite happy with the quotas that underpin Federation, which see New South Wales, with a population of 7.9 million, and Tasmania, with a population of 524,000, each send six senators to the other place every election. They seek quotas when it comes to their own representation in the coalition government and ensuring enough of their own party secure plum spots, positions and delegations. They seek quotas when it comes to their own representation in the cabinet and the ability to make snow angels on the blue carpet of the Deputy Prime Minister's office. They seek quotas when it comes to providing:
… that the perspectives, views and needs of regional areas are appropriately considered by the ABC Board.
But, when it comes to quotas suggested by progressives, which are just the same, aimed at providing the perspectives, views and needs of particular groups—like, for example, half the population; like women—they are dead set against them. They are hypocrites for their stance, and they should be called out for it as they seek to legislate quotas that suit their own purposes whilst arguing outside this chamber that quotas which reflect poorly upon their own representation are some sort of miscarriage of democracy.
In this debate about representation from our national broadcaster I will speak about a great love of my people north of the Tweed: our reverence for the Heeler family of Brisbane. Bluey is a groundbreaking Australian children's television series. It has been played on iView over 100 million times, only 96 per cent of which have occurred in our household after bath time. One of my favourite moments during the three weeks of pre-poll was at Chermside when I met the mother of the Bluey creator. It was one of those moments where, despite the very tight nature of the poll in Lilley, I wanted to fling away my how-to-vote cards, kneel at the lap of this woman and hear every little skerrick about how this wonderful Brisbane icon came to be. At the time, back in May, Disney was still pursuing a deal to broadcast Bluey across the globe, but the Brisbane team were holding out because they refused to yield to demands that the Australian accents be cut and the local references be muted. They won, and now Bluey streams worldwide on Bluey's own terms. Good on you, Bandit, and good on you, Chilli, for holding strong; you did Australian parents proud. It is, as one of my daughter's educators would call it, an absolute gem of Australian art, carefully distilling the essence of family life and capturing the wonder of parenting whilst delivering precious and digestible nuggets along the way. It is everything that the ABC seeks to nurture, to foster and to support. If only our federal government would give it the support and resourcing it deserves.
One of my fondest childhood memories is the day that my drawing made it onto Mr. Squiggle. I was five years old, and Mum had to rush the boys and me home to make the 3.20 pm screening. Mr Squiggle decided to turn my scrappy artistry into a picture of a whale holding some sunscreen, because I was from Queensland. I still remember how proud I was that Mr Squiggle, an iconic part of Australian childhood, chose to highlight my home and celebrate what makes it special, even just for a couple of minutes, as I sat cross-legged on the cool tiles in my school uniform that hot afternoon. That is the power of the ABC, an iconic institution of our country that already does celebrated work in representing all of us from wherever we've grown up across this land. We love our ABC and we should fund its celebrated work properly.
In conclusion, cutting ABC funding and tinkering with the ABC Act and ABC Charter doesn't help Australians living in rural and regional Australia and doesn't constitute a plan to address the decline in local reporting. Today we on this side of the House and many millions of Australians who love their ABC are calling upon the government to put its money where its mouth is for rural and regional Australians by addressing the final report of the ACCC digital platforms inquiry, which finds:
… the public broadcasters are not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by traditional commercial publishers.
And:
… recommends that stable and adequate funding be provided to the ABC …
Labor will oppose this bill for a number of reasons, but the three key ones are that the bill is unwarranted, duplicative and burdensome; that the bill will achieve nothing for rural and regional Australians; and that the bill does nothing to address the findings and recommendations of the ACCC digital platforms inquiry with regard to the ABC. As currently drafted this bill is nothing but window-dressing and will achieve nothing to improve rural and regional services for Australians who love their ABC.
I started today at 5 am and, like many people in this place, I don't wake up with Today andI'm no longer a member of the Sunrise family; I wake up with ABC Kids. So I am here for our friends Jemima, Big Ted, B1 and B2 and, of course, the Heeler family: Chilli, Bandit, Bingo and Bluey. This national institution has been one of the key parts of the education of the Australian people and, most importantly, the next generation—so many generations of Australians.
The ABC has given us a common Australian identity. It's given us a language. It's given us the stories of our country. It has educated children. It has educated people in this place—and, as the member for Lilley was just saying, it's given many of us that one moment, that 15 minutes of fame, that opportunity to be on Mr Squiggle! Probably, unknowingly, as I sat and watched Mr Squiggle, I saw the member for Lilley's fabulous whale, but I didn't recognise the supreme political talent behind that whale. Indeed I was very excited when my Mr Squiggle was declared to be upside down and an emu with yo-yos appeared. It was one of the highlights of my childhood.
The ABC gives highlights to so many children from all over Australia, including regional cities, and even Australians abroad. It was a piece of bipartisan commitment to create ABC Kids, or ABC3 as it was then known. It was an idea that had bounced around the Howard government for many years. It was ultimately grabbed as an election commitment by the Rudd opposition, and then, with great joy, it was a bipartisan initiative in that government. It is a truly special thing that we should treasure a lot more than we do at times in this place.
When we talk about the ABC and its commitment to regions, I note that there are eight regional hubs of the ABC in Western Australia alone—Albany, Broome, Bunbury, Esperance, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie, Karratha and Kununurra—and each of those ABC hubs does a fabulous job, not just for those communities but for communities hundreds and hundreds of kilometres around them. I also acknowledge that in my seat of Perth stands a great example of the bipartisan support the ABC has received over the years. I pay absolute tribute to the Howard government for building the new ABC studio that sits in East Perth. It is a fabulous studio. I know many of the people who worked at the old ABC studios, which had gone well and truly beyond their prime, and it is something that I give due respect to Prime Minister Howard and his government for.
In looking at this legislation, you might be mistaken for thinking that there is no ABC presence in the regions or in rural Australia. There are 46 ABC offices in non-capital city locations across this country. That is more than the federal National Party has across this country. I notice that the National Party had their conference here in Canberra on the weekend. In Western Australia, they recently moved their headquarters from my electorate of Perth—I'd be surprised if the National Party were to say that that was in rural or regional Australia!—to the regional town of Claremont in the electorate of Curtin, so I'll give the National Party credit for that. Clearly there are some National Party members who are confused about how active the ABC is in the country, but I assure you that there is no confusion on this side of the House about just how committed the ABC is to our regions.
I spoke about one of the most viewed, most loved, most popular six-year-olds in the country. Bluey, the blue heeler, is on our screens of all shapes and sizes more often than most parents would care to admit. Bluey has taken this country—and soon the world—by storm because of our national broadcaster. Bluey will be one of our biggest cultural exports, and it is because of the ABC's focus on children's entertainment. I would argue that, over time, Bluey will be more culturally meaningful than Crocodile Dundee and will be a more popular export to the United Kingdom than Kylie Minogue.
The ABC is also consistently one of the most trusted institutions in this country. Most surveys show that the ABC is the most trusted Australian news source—and in many ways the ABC is more trusted than many of us in this place. The reason is that the ABC is one of the only places you can see so many pieces of this great country. For years, it was only the ABC that would broadcast the WAFL into Perth homes. That was so important. It was not just about sharing the stories; it was also about sharing the aspirations and excitement of young sports players. The ABC does such an important job in that.
The ABC is one of the biggest promoters of the arts in Australia. I have spoken a lot about the ABC's amazing work in children's television. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is one of the loudest and most diverse voices when it comes to Indigenous affairs. While this is not the most important piece of legislation we will deal with in this term, the ABC is going to play an incredibly important role as this country marches slowly towards constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. And, as I mentioned earlier, the ABC is a strong voice for regional and rural Australia.
We shouldn't discuss this legislation without context: the cumulative effect, over the course of the last decade, of almost $800 million in cuts to the ABC's budget. These cuts are real. These cuts have affected the ability of the ABC to do its work. But I would also note that it was not one person who made these cuts. There's not much that would unite former prime ministers Abbott and Turnbull and the current Prime Minister, but when it comes to $800 million of cuts to the ABC, we have absolute unity among the three of them. In July the ABC started to feel the full impact of the $83.6 million indexation freeze over three years. Indexation freezing is one of the most gutless ways to cut the budget of an organisation. We saw it with the indexation freeze on Medicare. We now see it with the indexation freeze on the ABC.
When you interfere with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation year in, year out, it does affect its ability to invest in long-term programming. It affects the ABC's ability to plan how to expand the regional network—because you don't know whether those dollars are going to be there next year. Unfortunately interference in the ABC is becoming one of the highest priorities of the government. Over time the government has started to follow what was initially One Nation policy: expose the pay packets of ABC broadcasters. All of a sudden that went from being One Nation policy to being government policy. Former communications minister Mitch Fifield followed step-by-step the policy path set out for him by One Nation. It was very disappointing to see this attack from the government on our ABC.
I feel for the ABC. They can't hold $700,000 fundraisers for the Liberal Party, as Channel 9 can. That is no attack on Channel 9, but it is weird to be just two weeks on from that fundraiser and discussing this legislation which is an attack on the ABC. Of course, this isn't the biggest attack we've seen on the ABC. The Liberal Party's federal council voted overwhelmingly in favour of a Young Liberal bid calling for the full privatisation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Full privatisation? What a terrible idea! That would not wash with any clear-thinking Australian, but, of course, there was always the regional cut-out so as not to upset the National Party. The motion was:
That federal council calls for the full privatisation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, except for services into regional areas …
What a terrible admission from the Liberal Party that their privatisation agenda actually is about reducing services for regional communities! I worry that, as we start to tweak and change the ABC's charter to talk more about regional obligations, this may in fact be the first step in privatising the ABC, which we now know is the Liberal Party of Australia's stated policy preference.
I would give some credit to the Friends of the ABC. I know that our ABC today is stronger because of the work of the Friends of the ABC. I've campaigned alongside them year in, year out. They do fabulous work protecting and advocating for our national broadcaster. It's also important that we preserve the role of the ABC internationally. Our international correspondents, often working in war zones or in postconflict environments, are providing some of the most useful reporting that's relied on in this place on some of the largest national security and foreign policy discussions that we have.
When we get to press freedom, the challenge of making sure that we protect the ABC's independence is also upon us when we talk about press freedom. A free press is a basic human right. It's been defended consistently since the creation of UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, in 1945. Indeed, we know that a free press was essential in the conflicts that Australia has participated in, including in Afghanistan, activities in East Timor and, of course, Iraq. In this place, it's important that we continue to defend the value of a free press and also recognise that the challenge of a free press is not something that just happens in war zones; the challenge of a free press is something that we face and debate in this place on a daily basis. I'd back in what ABC chair Ita Buttrose said in saying that bipartisan support for press freedom is critical after police raids at the public broadcaster. When the police raid a public broadcaster, you do have to ask the tough questions. You have to make sure that you are defending a free press, particularly for the public broadcaster.
When we look at the detail of this legislation, we should ask: is it necessary? That should always be the first question. Why is this one of the first bills brought into this parliament? The quote that sticks out for me from the Parliamentary Library's analysis is:
Neither the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill nor the Minister's second reading speech identify a specific policy problem or issue (for example, service gap) that the Bill is seeking to address.
The minister's second reading speech didn't identify a specific policy problem that this bill is trying to address. Of course, the ABC charter already very clearly states:
(1) The functions of the Corporation are:
(a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services … consisting of national, commercial and community sectors …
This isn't media reform. It has no purpose other than to attack and undermine the ABC. Indeed, I note that some of my colleagues in the Senate inquiry in 2017 said that a previous version of this bill was unwarranted, misguided, duplicative and costly. There are so many things that we could be investing in for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and so many things we could be doing to enhance it for the possibilities of new technologies. Instead we have this. This is essentially red tape. I don't think it will be repealed in any of the government's red tape repeal days in the near future, but this is just red tape on the ABC, who in fact don't need red tape; they just need more funding. That's the fact of it. If you want to look after the regions, spend more money on the ABC. This bill would be completely unnecessary if the government did fund the ABC properly.
I'll just finish by agreeing with what the member for Lilley said: this is legislation for quotas. Quotas are apparently good enough for the ABC but not good enough for the Liberal Party. Quotas are good enough for the Prime Minister's department but not good enough for the Prime Minister's candidates. This legislation is unnecessary and doesn't address any specific problem.
I rise to speak in opposition to this bill, which is nothing but a distraction from the coalition's ABC cuts and failures on regional media. Ostensibly, this bill is to facilitate the provision of broadcasting services by the ABC that meet and reflect the needs of rural and regional Australia and ensure that rural and regional communities are provided for in the functions of the corporation and through representation on the ABC board. In reality, this bill is nothing but window-dressing and will achieve nothing to improve rural and regional service provision. In fact, this bill is quite insulting to the rural and regional communities who've already lost so much through funding cuts by this government to their much loved and much needed ABC.
This bill will achieve nothing, because what the ABC needs is funding—not legislative change that introduces more bureaucracy, but funding. The ABC needs funding not just to meet the needs of growing populations in regional and rural areas but because these areas have been targeted by funding cuts. Those on the other side don't like to be reminded of the fact that since 2013 the Liberals have cut a staggering $366 million from the ABC, completely in breach of an election promise. Who can forget Tony Abbott's promise, on the eve of the 2013 election that, 'there will be no cuts to the ABC'? Maybe those on the other side have forgotten but Labor has not, the Australian people have not and the rural and regional communities who are struggling to have their voices heard, and their stories told, have definitely not forgotten that.
In 2014 the Liberals cut $254 million from the ABC. In 2016 the Liberals cut a further $28 million. In 2018 they announced a further $83.7 million in ABC cuts with a freeze on indexation. And they're still at it. The Prime Minister's latest budget locks in these $83.7 million of cuts over three years. Where will it end, I ask. Privatisation, for example? We know that the Liberals are thinking about it. In June 2018, the Liberal Federal Council voted to privatise the ABC. The motion said that the 'federal council calls for the full privatisation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation'. Again, where will it end?
These cuts come with a cost. That cost is to jobs and to communities. The ABC has been forced to cut 800 jobs since the slashing began to free up funds to continue investing in the Australian content, educational resources and regional communities, as it is required to do under its charter. Simply injecting words such as 'regional and rural Australia' into legislation does not ensure that our ABC's adequately resourced to deliver. The final report of the ACCC digital platforms inquiry, in June this year, examined ABC funding and found that 'the public broadcasters are not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by traditional commercial publishers', and recommended that 'stable and adequate funding' be provided to the ABC and SBS. Is it any wonder that, since 2014, a total of 800 ABC staff have lost their jobs? The Australia Network has been axed. Short-wave radio has been shut down. The number of hours of ABC factual programming has dropped by 60 per cent. The number of hours of programming of drama has dropped by 20 per cent. The number of hours of documentaries has dropped by 13.5 per cent.
I want to talk specifically now about the cuts to the ABC that have had a direct impact on my electorate of Shortland. I must say, Shortland is still serviced by ABC television and radio. The sad thing is that it is not as well serviced as it used to be. This is not a reflection on the hardworking staff there or the equally committed management. It is just a result of having to do more with less—more because audiences demand it. The major impact of those horror 2014 cuts was on ABC 1233 Newcastle, which covers the entire Hunter region, which was downgraded from a metropolitan station to a regional one. What did that mean? Overnight one-quarter of the staff at ABC Newcastle lost their jobs—one in four! This has, obviously, had a major impact on the employees who are left, who are expected to do the same, if not more, work with less resources. The staff left are doing their best to deliver news across all platforms that today's audiences demand, but they're making do with much less. I raised this issue in the House in 2014:
Because of their budget cuts, we will lose Helen Clare, Carol Duncan and their teams who produce quality radio shows that speak to and about our community. Most importantly, our community will suffer because this will have an impact on the station's ability to provide emergency coverage.
Nobody from Newcastle, Lake Macquarie or the Central Coast will forget the devastating bushfires that ravaged our region in October 2013. In my electorate, families were evacuated and traffic diversions were put in place. It was the local ABC radio that kept us informed of where evacuation centres were, when it was safe to return home and what the impact was on our environment and on our towns. It was the local ABC radio that provided a space for the outpouring of community spirit. They harnessed the generosity of the people that live in the Hunter and the Central Coast and helped coordinate donations for those who'd been forced to flee their homes and who had lost so much.
It is in times of disaster that we see the best of our communities, and 1233 ABC Newcastle is a vital part of ours. To see it gutted was devastating. This government hurt the people of the Hunter region and it should be ashamed. Those opposite made a solemn election-eve promise of no cuts to the ABC, but it's the people of the Hunter and the Central Coast and the great services of 1233 ABC that suffer because of this lie. We know how bitterly disappointed the staff were at the time and how bitterly disappointed our community was. The loss of our two local programs was devastating for our community. Regional and rural communities struggle to have their stories heard. With fewer local programs focused on regional and rural areas, fewer local stories are told. It was a sad day for our community. It was a dark day for our community.
The ABC is not just a broadcasting service. It is an institution. The ABC can always be relied on to promote and defend the Hunter's and Central Coast's interests in times of crisis, including natural disaster. It plays the role of emergency broadcaster, and that is so vital, as we have seen with the current bushfires. Due to climate change, we have seen the bushfire season starting earlier, lasting longer and being more severe. We need more funding for the ABC in that context, not less.
The ABC matters to Australians. Before the last election, more than 107,000 Australians signed up to Labor's petition to protect public broadcasting, making it our third-highest-ranking petition. Since that election, we've seen further closures of commercial radio newsrooms—WIN in Orange, Dubbo, Albury, Wagga Wagga and Wide Bay. Regional media is struggling. The ABC must be there for those communities. Sadly, many Australians have felt the loss of local reporting in their communities. It manifests in many ways. For example, the decision by ABC Grandstand to axe Craig Hamilton from the Rugby League broadcast is a disgrace. It means that Newcastle has lost its local voice of Rugby League. A sportscaster that has served our community for over 20 years has been lost, no doubt due to the funding pressures and the pressure on the ABC to streamline services. In fact, they said the reason for making the decision was that they needed a uniform approach across Rugby League broadcasting. I would submit that budget pressures have clearly played a role in that.
As I said, the ACCC completed a major inquiry, which found that the public broadcasters are not properly resourced. The government needs a real plan to address the decline in local news in rural and regional Australia. The government should put its money where its mouth is, stop cutting the ABC and start providing stable and adequate funding to the ABC for local news in rural and regional Australia. Cutting the ABC and meddling with the ABC Act and Charter isn't going to improve service provision in rural and regional Australia, but funding the ABC properly will.
The Liberals and Nationals are crying crocodile tears just as, at the same time, they're cutting $83.7 million from the ABC. They've introduced a bill that will cost the ABC hundreds of thousands in taxpayer dollars on more bureaucracy and red tape. Labor took a policy to the last federal election to reverse the government's ABC budget cuts and commit an additional $10 million over three years for ABC local and regional media and emergency broadcasting. The government needs to put its money where its mouth is. In 2018 the Liberal Federal Council voted to privatise the ABC. Without additional ABC funding, it's obvious this bill forms part of a plan to privatise the ABC by stealth and by a thousand cuts. Labor will not stand for it. The Australian people will not stand for it. The government needs to stop its window-dressing with bills such as this, stop the cuts to the ABC and start properly resourcing the ABC to support our rural and regional communities.
It's become clear to me that the North Queensland insurance market has reached a crisis point. The canary in the coalmine is strata title and commercial hotel insurance, but the lack of competition in the market is already having a flow-on effect to home insurance. At present, we have strata titled apartments, commercial properties like hotels and tourism resorts and also community clubs not being able to obtain adequate insurance. It's not that it's just unaffordable; it's quite literally unobtainable. We are hearing that, in some cases, no Australian insurer is currently willing to offer new insurance policies to strata title apartments or commercial hotels in North Queensland. In fact, in many cases, the only insurer willing to offer any coverage is Lloyd's of London, and usually at unaffordable premiums. In some cases, there is no insurer willing to offer a policy at any price! This is where decline begins, because having no competition means that the insurance company can set the prices as high as they want, and the choice is to either pay up or shut down.
Airlie Apartments, located in the tourism hotspot of Airlie Beach, were paying a $38,000 premium per annum. They have since gone on to renew their policy, and the only quote they could find was with Lloyd's of London, as I talked about. Their annual premium is about $250,000—a 557 per cent increase on the last policy.
Gail Absolon, a body corporate administrator on Hamilton Island, is being quoted $200,000 for a 15-apartment complex with named cyclone excess of $100,000. And these aren't the summer holiday homes of the wealthy; this is a unit complex with 15 permanently-let, one-bedroom apartments that have a value of $275,000 to $300,000.
Hotel Metropole in Proserpine have seen their annual premiums skyrocket from $64,000 to $165,000 in one year, a 157 per cent increase. This is a hotel with 35 employees. It's facing an uphill struggle to keep the doors open, due not to poor business but to disproportionately high insurance costs.
The Whitsunday Sailing Club at Airlie Beach were refused a renewal of their policy by a previous insurer and were given a quote from Lloyd's of $120,000, a 242 per cent increase on last year. As a community club, they simply can't afford this sort of premium.
It doesn't stop at hotels and strata titles either. Ordinary households are also being severely affected by increasing premiums in the north. Petra and Bradley Mould, a young couple from Mackay, just last month rang to inform me of their struggle to find an insurer for their run-of-the-mill, average Queensland home. The cheapest policy they could find had a premium increase of 22½ per cent on last year's price. Mackay is a city that has not experienced any severe weather events in the last 12 months, and premiums have increased by 22½ per cent on last year. In fact, Petra and Bradley have had no claims, no flood damage and no cyclone damage for the last five years, and yet their premiums continue to go up by that enormous percentage.
The ACCC is currently assessing the matter of insurance prices in North Queensland. And it's definitely a matter that needs to be assessed.
The Minister for Finance, Senator Mathias Cormann, was visiting Townsville recently, a city that's still reeling in the wake of severe flooding earlier this year, and he suggested that the government would work with insurance companies, consult with relevant stakeholders, act on the ACCC's recommendations and 'do what we sensibly can'. So the government is committed to action.
I'd like to note, however, that we are at crisis point right now. We cannot allow premiums to increase exponentially and watch small businesses go broke or opt not to ensure. I fear that, with recent reports talking about places like Townsville being 'unprofitable', we will see a growing number of insurance companies exit the market.
The Greater Whitsunday Alliance has proposed to the ACCC a way forward by legislating for fair and equitable insurance coverage for all Australians. Their proposal is this:
Consider linking the provision of insurance licences with insurance companies having a mandated percentage of premiums and policy's in Northern Australia to ensure all Australians have access to affordable insurance.
This would push insurers back into the market and provide competition, which would then lead to affordability.
We need to set a minimum percentage of clientele in disaster-prone areas like North Queensland so that insurance companies must have those people and those businesses on their books. We can work with insurers to set the targets and ensure that they bring competitive insurance policy pricing back into these areas. These communities have already fallen victim to natural disasters. We now need to stop them being kicked while they're down. I would urge the insurance companies to do something before the government does. (Time expired)
I rise tonight to speak on the exciting opportunity for economic transformation in my electorate of Fraser offered by the Sunshine transport superhub. This is a once-in-a-century opportunity to revitalise an area at the heart of my electorate. The Sunshine superhub is an exciting transport development that is built around the Melbourne Airport Rail Link—a $10 billion plus project that is the much-overdue connection between the CBD of Melbourne and one of Australia's largest and fastest-growing airports, an airport that is growing by millions of visitors every year. This is a landmark project with an opportunity to reinvent the southern part of Fraser.
Importantly, this superhub will be not just the fulcrum of the Melbourne Airport Rail Link but also a critical part of the western rail plan, a combination of projects designed to improve transport connections in the west of Melbourne. It is also going to be the key connection point between regional centres, such as Geelong, Ballarat and the Melbourne CBD. It is going to become a transport hub that will connect people throughout the state and across the suburbs with jobs and other important services.
The design of the superhub must be sympathetic to local needs and priorities. In particular, if we look at recent developments in the Sunshine area, we see that, while many of these developments have had positive impacts, there have been some deleterious impacts, such as the separation of Sunshine into halves. Local residents are crying out for a Sunshine transport superhub that reconnects the two halves of Sunshine.
In addition, those locals who commented on the exciting opportunity of the Melbourne Airport Rail Link and related projects are very keen that the economic and social benefits that arise from it do not result in unintended transport congestion problems around the transport superhub and the Sunshine precinct as a whole. To avoid this situation a broader strategic vision is needed for the superhub, founded upon new job creation and consisting of investment attraction, urban design and rejuvenation, community infrastructure and improved public services.
Importantly, I'd like to put on the record that I believe that the development of the transport superhub in Sunshine needs to put great emphasis on bus transport. Too often in our capital cities we focus almost exclusively on heavy rail and light rail to the exclusion of bus transport. What we can be left with in our big cities is very effective transport spines that can sometimes exclude people living in suburbs not far away from those spines. When we think about the Sunshine precinct, for example, we know that there is an amazing new health facility—the Joan Kirner Women's and Children's Hospital—approximately 1½ to two kilometres away from the Sunshine train station, a small distance but a very large distance if there aren't effective bus options to get from the hospital to the train station. To make the Sunshine area an effective precinct, in my opinion, there will need to be much greater emphasis on buses.
The superhub must also have employment at its core. It shouldn't just be a transport hub. It needs to also be developed with a view to local employment opportunities. The best way to do this is to have a holistic view of the strategic opportunities that the transport superhub provides. In the west the jobs-to-population ratio within a number of the local government areas is the lowest in the metropolitan Melbourne area, so we need to make sure that the transport superhub is designed in such a way that it provides employment opportunities and doesn't become just a car park for Melbourne Airport.
Finally, we need to ensure that the billions that are spent on this project are spent in such a way as to provide the best outcome possible for the local community. Social procurement should be front and centre. That can involve apprenticeships for local young people and also engagement with social enterprises who can provide employment opportunities for people from a disadvantaged background. This is an exciting opportunity, and we must ensure that investment into this project is with a strategic view.
The electorate of Bass has long had a strong culture scene backed by a passionate community who consistently throw their support behind our many festivals, art shows and theatre performances. In fact, 'Is Launceston the new Berlin?' was the headline from Katherine Gillespie of Vice magazine, who was lucky enough to enjoy the MONA FOMA festival in Launceston last year.
I'd like to begin today by giving a shout-out to an amazing theatre company which has truly embedded itself in the hearts and minds of the Bass community. The Encore Theatre Company was created a little over a decade ago with a goal of creating local community shows built with creativity, innovation and excellence. In their own words:
Family, friendship, love, laughter, curiosity, risk … hope and possibility. The theatre is a place for experiencing all of these values that hold us together as a community.
After debuting with The Sound of Music, they have created critically acclaimed and sold-out productions of Les Mis, Fawlty Towers, Mary Poppins, Wicked and The Phantom Of the Opera and a recent phenomenal and widely lauded production of Strictly Ballroom, just to name a few. Most recently, they just pulled off an incredible production of We Will Rock You. Over 130,000 people from across Australia have attended over 30 productions since Encore's inception. I'm one of the lucky people who have been fortunate enough to view some of their incredible shows.
More than just theatre, Encore are about community. As a not-for-profit community theatre company, they're run entirely by an incredible crew of hundreds of volunteers, from the director to the dresser to the actors, program sellers, wigmakers and choreographers. Additionally, they have a firm focus on mentoring up-and-coming performers, partnering them with more experienced people and developing real opportunities for the next generation of performers, directors and stage managers to find their feet in a nurturing and supportive environment.
Encore's incredible productions were recognised at the Tasmanian Theatre Awards earlier this year. Nominated for a great 16 awards, Encore won five awards for Les Mis, including Best Production and Best Direction, and two awards for The Sound of Music. I have no doubt that Strictly Ballroom and We Will Rock You will dominate next year's awards and that, led by an incredible team of committed and talented theatre lovers—Belinda King, Ross Marsden, Jamie Hillard, Paul Mannion, Ricky Chamberlain, Leroy Enniss, Wendy Flaherty, Rohan Foon, Danny Gibson, Troy Ridgway, Annie Scott and Di Summers—the company will continue to thrive in years to come.
A special mention must also be given to Launceston College for their great production of Matilda. I was, sadly, unable to make it to this year's production, but the college's reputation for first-class productions continues to hold. I have heard from so many people in my community that the Launceston College version of Matilda was on par with professional theatre productions held in Melbourne and Sydney. So well done to the incredibly talented and dedicated performers, crew and staff who were part of Matilda. These are just a small number of the array of community theatre groups in my electorate.
I would also like to acknowledge David Walsh, Brian Ritchie and the MONA team for bringing the incredible MONA FOMA summer festival to the north. The music and art festival has been an incredible addition to Launceston's summer festival line-up. Many of us have a personal favourite from the 2019 event. I, along with many others, particularly love the 12-metre-tall inflatable sculptural work by Launceston-born artist Amanda Parer, which took centre stage on the water in the middle of Cataract Gorge this year. Unsurprisingly, the festival has just won a third consecutive Helpmann Award.
Finally, big congratulations to the team behind the brilliant Junction Arts Festival. An eclectic program of art, music and performance has seen the festival become a firm favourite in the community and for many who travel from elsewhere in Tasmania and the mainland to attend. Kudos to its creative director, Greg Clarke, for another fantastic festival. I was pleased that the Morrison government were able to contribute almost $80,000 to this year's program under the community development grants. I look forward to seeing what the 10th anniversary celebrations in 2020 will bring. I'm incredibly proud to be part of a community of passionate creatives dedicated to providing a quality and diverse array of artistic performances in theatre, art and music for those of all ages in my electorate.
I'm lucky that my electorate is home to one of Odyssey House's residential rehabilitation programs. In Lower Plenty, Odyssey House provides a place where people with drug and alcohol addictions and problems come to change their lives. I visited on Friday, and I want to say thank you to the residents and staff who spoke with me. It was really helpful for me in understanding some of the big issues that are before this House.
One of the residents who spoke with me had been there for nearly a year dealing with his drug and alcohol problems and turning his life around. He explained to me where he had come from. He told me he had had two jobs: his second job was as a jockey; his first job was to make sure he had enough alcohol and opium to get through the day. He told me that, when he first arrived at Odyssey House, he was confronted. What he was confronted by surprised me. He told me he was confronted by being shown love and empathy; he'd never seen those before in his life. Imagine that—never having seen love and empathy. What he had to learn to do at Odyssey House was form relationships—to build the sorts of relationships that those of us who are lucky enough to have a stable upbringing learn to form when we are very small. He had been working hard on that. He had been working through his problems—to the point where he is turning his life around and becoming a leader in the community there.
I spoke to the staff at Odyssey House. They said the people who came to the program there were often dealing with intergenerational trauma—an ongoing legacy of distrust, broken relationships and a view of authority that sees only harm. These are people who will shut down on you if you begin with an approach of distrust and suspicion. They explained to me that it is not easy to turn your life around; you have to want it and you have to be shown that it is possible.
Odyssey's track record shows that it is possible and that we need more of the approach they are taking. Yet this government is proposing precisely the opposite. Instead of an approach that invites people to turn their lives around and do the work they need to do to get back on track, an approach that invites them in for help, they are looking for a punitive approach. So these people, who for all their life have been suspicious of authority and have been knocked down, will get knocked down again by the system that is meant to help them. It is a proposal that is indiscriminate, ineffective and demeaning: drug testing for all people on welfare. We have heard from medical experts that this simply won't work, that we should expect more crime, more family violence and more desperation. And what about the poor staff at Centrelink who are expected to enforce this? They are already overstretched. What's it going to be like when they are dealing with desperate people and forcing them into tests when they come into the office?
Of course, the government would like us to think that this is just about a certain group of people in our community. But that's not the case. This type of program will affect single mums who looking after their kids. It could affect people who have been retrenched and are looking for a job, and those who are trying to return to the workforce. One in four people on Newstart is over 55. There could be grandparents who are forced to take part in this policy—to urinate into a cup, to have their hair plucked or to spit into a jar—just so they can continue to help their families to put food on the table. We have seen this approach tried overseas in countries like New Zealand and the US, and it has been proven a failure.
But let's get real about this. We know that the main reason for governments proposing this approach is to distract. It's all too easy to make vulnerable people the target when you don't have a plan—when you're in here dealing with political strategy and not the reality of people's lives; when you're in here thinking about how to make up for the fact that Australia is struggling and our economic growth is at its lowest since the global financial crisis; when we're seeing wages stagnate and living standards and productivity going backwards; and when we're seeing workers underemployed and new apprenticeships at their lowest level for two decades.
There are people out there who genuinely need help—and they need help from this government. What I saw at Odyssey House was that the approach being proposed by this government will not be effective in supporting these people. It's time that this government decided that it is no longer focused on distracting from its lack of agenda and that it genuinely wants to support people in need. It's time that the government moved away from thinking about new ways to humiliate and harass people who do want help and want to get their lives on track. It's time the government put in a real plan to support people with drug and alcohol addiction.
Tonight I was reminded that one of the most significant speeches made last century—indeed, one of the most significant political speeches made last century—was the inaugural address of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, delivered on the steps of Congress on 20 January 1961. Kennedy delivered an amazing address. There are a few lines of that address which I always remember. Two of them are: civility is not a sign of weakness; and sincerity is always subject to proof. He was talking in a different context and in a different world about the global situation—the then Cold War which was facing the United States—but there was that sentiment, that understanding: being civil with each other in debate doesn't mean that we are weak about our positions, and being sincere or appearing to be sincere or seemingly being sincere doesn't necessarily mean that we are.
I was reminded of that tonight at a very memorable occasion in this place—a conversation which occurred between Heather Henderson, the daughter of Sir Robert Menzies, and Mary Elizabeth Calwell, the daughter of the Rt Hon. Arthur Calwell. Menzies was the one-time Prime Minister of Australia, and Calwell was equally a long-term leader of the Labor Party and the opposition in this place. This conversation, moderated by Michelle Grattan, was about the relationship between two not only very significant leaders of their own political parties, their own partisan sides—not in this place but the old place down the hill, the equivalent—but also very significant leaders of this country.
The premise of the conversation tonight was that, outside of the chamber, Menzies and Calwell were friends. Menzies and Calwell could sit down and have a cup of tea together and could have a discussion, whether it was at the Kurrajong Hotel, where most Labor members of that era stayed, or what was then the Canberra Hotel, now the Hyatt, where many members of the Liberal Party and the then Country Party stayed. They could sit down and talk to each other over a cup of tea—and, I suspect, late at night in the Old Parliament House, something stronger than that, like a brandy or a whiskey or whatever it was. They could have a conversation about the future of this country and where they should go, without rancorous party and partisan politics, and could talk to each other as ordinary Australians—as fathers, as family members, as people who lived in suburbs in different parts of Australia. As I listened to that conversation tonight, I thought: there's something we're missing in this place. I suppose I've been as guilty as anybody of the rancorous discussion that occurs in this place, but, perhaps because I've been here for a bit longer and am now the father of not only this chamber but the parliament generally, I was reminded tonight that there is something beyond the partisan politics that we engage in.
I believe that we all come here with the most noble of intentions. We all come here because, from our own perspective, we want to make Australia the best place that it can be. We have an aspiration to hand on to the next generation of Australians, to our children and their children, an even better country than we inherited, and I came from a fairly humble background. But I think we can do better if we have those conversations with each other. I committed myself tonight to try and do that with all in this chamber, and I hope we can all do that in the future.
I want to pay tribute tonight to Hugh Devlin O'Doherty, also known as Hughie O'Doherty. Hughie passed away in July 2019, and I was pleased to be at his funeral to pay tribute to him at St Mary's Catholic Church, Ipswich, on 6 August 2019. He was, in the words of respected sports journalist and entertainer Steve Haddan, who made a beautiful eulogy for Hughie, 'a beautiful man, the pride of Ipswich'. I'm pleased to say that over the last 12 years as the federal member for Blair I got to know Hughie and was happy to help him with some Centrelink issues on the sad passing of his wife, Dianne. I remember the day I told him at Brothers Leagues Club that as a child I supported his beloved Valleys Diehards football club because of him and that he was my rugby league hero even then. He was so modest, genuine and decent, and I hope to do him justice tonight.
Hughie was born and bred in Ipswich and lived there all his life. He came from a big Catholic family and attended the local Catholic schools. He was a bald bloke in a number 12—in those days hookers played 12. In Steve Haddan's wonderful book, Our game: the celebration of Brisbane Rugby League 1909-1987, Wally Lewis is proudly on the front, but a bloke called Hughie O'Doherty, with a bald head and a Valleys Diehards jersey—the boys in royal blue, as they call themselves—is on the back. He would dump big blokes in the dust. In the scrums, when scrums actually mattered, Hughie would take everyone on. He could steal the ball like no-one else. He was a superstar in a team of megastars who dominated the Brisbane Rugby League. Hughie would be a cult hero in the NRL if he played today.
In the early 1970s he went and joined Valleys Diehards. He made them even more famous—they were the great rugby league team, a bit like Manchester United or Liverpool, or St George or South Sydney in the NRL—and he played game after game for Valleys. In that era, Valleys dominated in a way that you couldn't believe. In those days we had Valleys, Brothers, Redcliffe, Wynnum-Manly, Norths, Souths, Easts and Wests, and the number of people who would follow the Brisbane Rugby League was simply astonishing. If you look at the YouTube of Valleys Diehards playing Easts Tigers in that memorable game when Jeff Fyfe kicked the field goal, they were on the football field, the spectators at Lang Park, and here was Hughie, tackling his heart out, playing in one of the most famous games.
The week after he won his first grand final he married his sweetheart, Dianne, in his Catholic Church. He was the son of a veteran. He himself was in the CMF. He was too small for Brothers in Ipswich, but he went and played for Railways and then Norths Tigers. Johnny Lang said that he was the best hooker he had ever played against, apart from Australian Captain Max Krilich. Hughie O'Doherty was beloved also by Wally Lewis, who said: 'He was a little bloke, but tough in defence. Those scrums he was in were a battle royale.' His Valleys Diehards teammates were there giving a guard of honour, as was the local RSL, on the day.
After hanging up his boots at the age of 31 he continued a lifetime of service to Ipswich sport. He coached softball, hockey, first grade at Ipswich Brothers and local Ipswich rep teams, and gave decades of service to the Brothers board and the Christian Brothers confraternity of sport. He sold raffle tickets for the club and raised close to a million dollars over the years. Fans would flock to Brothers on Friday nights and Saturday nights just to buy a raffle ticket and talk to Hughie—that's what Steve Haddan says, and he's absolutely right. It was Hughie O'Doherty and Jeff Gill at the 2010 Queensland Cup Final that inspired Steve to write this book.
Ipswich is known for Alfie Langer and the Walters brothers, but Ipswich should also be known for Hughie O'Doherty, who played for Queensland. He would walk into the Brisbane Broncos team now. He would play State of Origin for sure, and he would play for Australia. He was a fantastic player in his era. It goes to show what Ipswich can do. I urge the NRL to support the Western Corridor Pride for an NRL team based in Ipswich, Logan and Toowoomba. That's the heartland of rugby league in Queensland, and the days when Ipswich, Toowoomba and Brisbane played in the Bulimba Cup should never be forgotten, but neither should the contribution of Hughie O'Doherty. We need another Hughie O'Doherty. Just imagine if he played for the Jets in the NRL. Vale, Hughie O'Doherty.
House adjourned at 20 : 00
I rise to speak about Margaret Fulton, a great Australian icon who lived for very many years in the suburb of Balmain. For most of my time in parliament, Balmain has been part of my electorate. Margaret taught our nation to cook. She wanted to end the drudgery that women associated with cooking and home-making and acknowledge and celebrate the daily effort women at the time went to to produce nutritious and interesting food. She introduced Australians to the world through her work. She wrote more than 20 books, selling 4½ million copies. They included, in 1968, her first work, The Margaret Fulton Cookbook, which has sold more than 1½ million copies.
Margaret Fulton introduced Australians to recipes like caesar salad, lobster thermidor and chicken marengo. The last chapter of The Margaret Fulton Cookbook had an international section, which included recipes for gazpacho, ceviche, risotto, pesto and satay. In fact, Margaret Fulton was the first Australian food writer to publish a recipe for satay in Australia. As well as this incredible work teaching Australians about the world of cuisine, in 1983 she won the Medal of the Order of Australia, in 1998 she was named a national living treasure by the National Trust and in 2006 she was in The Bulletin magazine's list of the 100 most influential Australians of all time. She also had a musical written about her, called Margaret Fulton: Queen of the Dessert.
One of the things that is most interesting about Margaret Fulton is the way that she broke rules and broke barriers at a time when women really didn't. She left home very young, a country girl who moved to the city by herself. After a short-lived marriage, she raised her daughter as a single mother and continued to work all that while. She lived with her left-leaning sister Jean and communist-sympathising brother-in-law Bill at Mooney Mooney. Food was scarce. They used to grow their own vegetables, and some very unusual ones for the day: asparagus, globe artichoke, eggplant. They kept ducks. They caught their own prawns and oysters. She used to hitchhike to work at David Jones, carrying her shoes with her so they wouldn't be ruined. She worked in advertising as well and of course worked for a variety of women's magazines.
Her granddaughters Louise Keats and Kate Gibbs shared some of Margaret's life secrets at her memorial: 'Fend for yourself,' 'Be your own hero,' 'Be a black sheep,' 'Don't give a damn what people think,' 'Set the table properly,' and 'Always have a twinkle in your eye.' Margaret Fulton made a huge contribution to the way we live in Australia and lived her life in a way that was an example to others.
Rest in peace, Margaret.
Thank you for making us so hungry!
I rise today to pay tribute to a much-loved and extremely well-respected person in my community who recently passed. Romina Fujii was born on Badu Island in the Torres Strait on 12 December 1943 and was the third child of Talipasa and Dulcie Nona. From a very young age Romina learnt about the value of respect, something she carried with her until the day she passed. Growing up, Romina always dreamt of being a nurse. When she turned 17, that dream became a reality. Gaining her qualifications was a huge learning curve for Romina, one she excelled at and enjoyed immensely. In the early part of her nursing career, she lived in the nurses' quarters on Thursday Island, and that is where she met her future husband and love of her life, Russell, who was a maintenance worker at the hospital. Romina and Russell courted before they married on 8 February 1964 in the Catholic Church on Thursday Island. Romina and Russell went on to have five children: Kevin, Geraldine, Lara, Yasmine and Shoji.
When Romina's children went to school she followed suit and obtained a job in education as a liaison officer at the local high school. In fact, Romina became the first female to be elected president of the P&F of our Lady of the Sacred Heart School. It was during this time that her interest in politics was piqued. Romina knew the islanders didn't have a voice in the national arena when it came to education and she set about changing that. She worked alongside the late Ted Loban, and together they lobbied the federal government to secure education and Abstudy for year 11 and 12 students on Thursday Island. Romina is widely credited for being the driving force behind the establishment of Kaziw Meta—a student accommodation facility for outer-island kids—along with the establishment of the Port Kennedy Association community hall and markets and securing the location for the Badu Island state primary school.
The Star of the Sea aged-care facility was another project close to her heart, and she successfully advocated to ensure health professionals and nurses were trained in aged care as she knew it was not the same as ordinary nursing. Over her lifetime, Romina held many senior positions with organisations such as the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, Rotary, Lena Passi Women's Shelter and the Torres Strait Aged Care Association, just to name a few. Romina has also represented the Torres Strait in numerous international conferences in Canada, France, New Zealand and Switzerland and was invited to speak at the United Nations.
I could talk a lot about Romina, her achievements and her contribution to her community for another hour but unfortunately we're very confined by time. Romina was a caring, loving, soft-spoken, open-minded and humble person who was always willing to help others. In her own words: 'We all have different things to give to society if we work as one and put others first and yourself last.' Romina's passing is an enormous loss to her family, her friends and her community. Romina will be survived by her husband, Russell, five children, 17 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. May she rest in peace, a beautiful woman.
I rise today to acknowledge the passing of Hampton Park legend Ken Reedy, a giant of a man figuratively and literally. Ken was known as one of the finest gentleman of his generation—a man who literally shaped Hampton Park with his giant hands in his 90-year life. On 30 August this year, the Hampton Park community came together at the Arthur Wren Hall to celebrate the life of Ken Reedy, and what an incredible life it was. Ken grew up in Hampton Park—not the Hampton Park of today but the Hampton Park of farms. In fact, he was a dairy farmer on a soldier settlement farm, a homestead which is now called Peppercorn Park. Ken was a farmer, but with whatever spare time he had he literally built the community around him. He became an inaugural member of the Hampton Park CFA and played a vital role over 50 years, serving as president. For his services, Ken was awarded a life membership. In 1974, he was awarded the Queen's medal.
Ken also played a key role in the establishment of the Hampton Park football club. Known affectionately as 'Dirty No. 8', Ken became a life member of the Hampton Park football club. The KM Reedy Reserve in Hampton Park is named in his honour. He was also involved in the development of the 1st Hampton Park Scouts and the building of their hall. He was also a member of the committees for Hampton Park Primary School and Doveton North Technical School. He was also involved in the establishment of the Uniting Church in Hampton Park. He kept that involvement until his passing.
Any story of Ken can't be told without mentioning his wife of 67 years, Joy Reedy. Their story is a great Australian love story. In those 67+ years, they were a formidable partnership who together made Hampton Park. To me, Joy was Ken's life anchor. She helped him serve and develop the community in any way they could. One of their key roles was part of the Hampton Park Progress Association. They were involved in the management and ownership of Robert Booth Reserve in Hampton Park, which now houses the Hampton Park Football and Netball Club as well as the tennis courts. They were also involved in the establishment of the Arthur Wren Hall, an iconic community facility. It is constantly used by people throughout the year, particularly for major events like the Australia Day celebrations.
In his later years, Ken played an integral role in campaigning for the establishment of the Anzac garden memorial, which has been established. It was great to see him this year at the Anzac Day service, even though he was suffering from illness. He became a life member of the Hampton Park Progress Association. He was awarded Cranbourne Citizen of the Year in 1983. To his wife, Joy, his children, Greg, Malcolm, Pam and Dee, and his wider family, I wish to convey my condolences and the condolences of this place. Ken was a giant of a man. He was a guy that you would see in the movies. He was a guy, as I said, who literally through strength of will and character built Hampton Park. He leaves a tremendous legacy, a lasting legacy. May he rest in peace.
Colin Wood was a wonderful man and a Liberal Party branch and conference president in my electorate. Just after I lost my first preselection, he called me and offered me words of encouragement. That was the sort of person Colin was. Colin was a Yorkshireman who came to Australia for better weather and a better life. He ran an engineering business that enabled him to pursue his passions for cruising and cricket. Every year, he volunteered to be an attendant at cricket grounds in England, so he could watch the game that he loved. Colin had a wonderful sense of humour and a sense of justice, and he was always up to date with the latest technology. No election campaign was complete without Colin and his wife, Mary, organising the booth kits. When I decided to run for Berowra, Colin Wood was the first person I told. Their support and enthusiasm were hugely valuable, and Colin and Mary became great friends.
Sadly, over the last five years and eight months of his life, Colin was battling pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer normally takes people in a matter of weeks. The fact that Colin had survived so long is a testament to his spirit and the care that Mary and his doctors gave him. I had the honour of visiting Colin in his home in the weeks before he died. Colin and Mary told me about the incredible palliative care service at the Sydney Adventist Hospital. The San's community palliative care service enabled Colin to spend the majority of his last months being cared for by Mary in the comfort of his own home. The Sans is at the forefront of palliative care. They've recognised that while around 70 per cent of Australians would prefer to die in the comfort of their own home only about 10 per cent do so. The Sans has developed a community palliative care program that enables patients to receive specialist palliative care services in their home. The program comprises two elements. First, there are nurse practitioners who can prescribe medicines, diagnose illness and offer referrals. The extended clinical role of the nurse practitioner improves access people have to specialist care. Second, there is a telephone service which ensures carers have access to 24-hour support if needed. The San's community palliative care service provides continuity of care between hospital and home and better-quality end of life for patients and their families. None of this would have been possible without an anonymous philanthropic gift the hospital received in 2011.
Colin received exceptional support from his wife, Mary, supported by staff at the San. Mary spoke extremely highly of the staff who provided them comfort, safety and pain relieve. I want to acknowledge the incredible work of Dr Gillian Rothwell, Professor Gavin Marx, Kerrie Kneen and the team at the San, who are doing wonderful work in palliative care. Their work improves the wellbeing of individuals and alleviates pressure on the health system. My hope is that the palliative care work at the San can continue and be rolled out across the country, so that more people can benefit from the highest quality palliative care at the end of their lives. That would be a fitting tribute to the life of Colin Wood, a man who gave so much and asked so little, but wanted to see that other Australians didn't suffer pain and could spend their final moments in the comfort of their home.
I'm afraid to say, Mr Deputy Speaker Zimmerman, that the Liberal Morrison government has abandoned the community of Stones Corner. Our local post office is closing and, instead of making sure that there is continuity of service for all of the people who have PO boxes at the post office, and for all the people who use the post office at Stones Corner, all we're going to get is an agency. I think my community is rightly up in arms about the fact that we are losing this really important service from Stones Corner.
We had the local Liberal councillor and Senator Stoker in the area crying crocodile tears. Senator Stoker actually brought into the community a petition to the government to maintain a postal service in Stones Corner. Well, here's a tip: if you're a government backbench Senator, don't petition your own government. Just pick up the phone, call the minister and ask for this important service to be continued. It's crocodile tears, and people really see through it, because the fact is the communications minister has the power to make sure, right now, that we get to continue having a post office in Stones Corner. Instead, that doesn't seem to be happening at all. That's a real shame. There are hundreds of PO boxes at the Stones Corner post office. It just seems like the Liberals have never met a local service that they didn't want to cut.
The Liberals don't care about Brisbane's Southside. They've shown it on traffic congestion, with time in the car skyrocketing for Southside families. They've shown it with cuts to local schools and cuts to local health-service funding and now, of course, the party that claims to be the party for small business is removing local services and reducing foot traffic to local small businesses. Stones Corner, it's not a secret, has been struggling for a long time. The loss of the post office will detrimentally affect the retailers and other small businesses who have their premises at Stones Corner. It will further weaken our local economy, which is already struggling under the weight of inaction by this Liberal Morrison government.
Deputy Speaker, as you know, wages are stagnant in Australia. Right now, Australia has the lowest rate of economic growth since the global financial crisis. Our small businesses are crying out for action to support the economy, but instead we see more cuts from the Morrison government. It turns out that under this government, if you have a go, you just get a no. You don't get a go at all. It's not, 'If you have a go, you get a go.' It's: 'If you have a go, you get a no' from this Morrison government. It's really disappointing for the small businesses and local residents who rely on this important service.
I also wanted to mention that NBN scams are rife on the southside at the moment. Is it any wonder the government has totally botched the rollout on one of Australia's most important nation-building projects, creating a climate of fear, confusion and uncertainty that is ripe for scammers? My office has recently received numerous complaints from residents calling about scammers, and my staff have received calls—
Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I call the member for Petrie.
Medicine has come a long way in Australia, and that means Australians are now living longer than ever before. It's great to know that my sons—God willing—are most likely to have the pleasure of being able to grow up and have their grandparents in their lives for far longer than we all did and even longer than our parents did. Older Australians are the brains trusts of our nation, but there's a silent killer on the rise that's attacking the older generations and seriously impacting families. Today marks the beginning of Dementia Action Week. It'd be great if we all spoke about dementia and the impact that it has on our families or friends this week.
Dementia is the No. 2 cause of death in our country, and the federal coalition government has acted to combat this rising killer. As a government, we're investing more than $1.3 billion into better life outcomes for dementia and Alzheimer's patients and home support over the next few years. Results will mean establishing specialist dementia care units in each Primary Health Network by 2023. This will give local people access to specialised care closer to home for their loved ones, carers and their families. We're rolling out new technologies to improve care for people living with dementia, to help keep people at home in their familiar surroundings longer and to provide additional supports to families who are doing the majority of the heavy lifting. We've provided unprecedented levels of support for research, including funding for the Queensland Brain Institute at the University of Queensland in Brisbane. This research is aimed at reducing the severity of dementia and preventing the diagnosis of more than one million Aussies by 2056.
Many communities continue to suffer from the impacts of dementia, and many are forced to suffer in silence. I was incredibly proud to join my community yesterday for the inaugural Walk with Me event at Woody Point. The three kilometre walk began at Crockatt Park in Woody Point, and it was the culmination of three years worth of hard work for organiser Kerri-Anne Dooley and her team from the Moreton Bay Dementia Alliance. As the chair of Moreton Bay Dementia Alliance and a trusted health professional, Kerri-Anne and her team have dedicated their work to looking after local dementia-affected patients and their families. The turnout yesterday was proof that our community is committed to destigmatising dementia and creating a dementia-friendly community. More than 400 people turned up. It was just so great to see so many people supporting those families. I want to thank the sponsors: Home Instead, The Belvedere, Encircle Redcliffe and Brisbane North PHN. I also want to thank Tribe Social Belonging and the DBCYP for supporting the event. Let's show dementia patients and their families and carers that we are with them.
Five years ago this week, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced that he would be boycotting a leaders' summit that had called by the UN Secretary-General, in an attempt to build momentum towards the climate summit scheduled in Paris the following year. That was in spite of the fact that Tony Abbott, the then member for Warringah and Prime Minister, was going to be in the United States—indeed, even in New York that very same week. Last week, we heard exactly the same announcement from the new Prime Minister, the member for Cook, who, in spite of being in the United States and even in New York the same week that the current UN Secretary-General is holding a climate leaders' summit to build momentum towards the very important conference of the parties in 2019 and 2020, announced that he too would be boycotting that meeting.
It reminds us that, although there's a new face at the head of the government, we have the same old Tony Abbott approach to climate change in place. We have a completely inadequate target for emissions reduction in 2030, which is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of the Paris Agreement to keep global warming way below two degrees and to pursue efforts of around 1.5 degrees as a threshold. We have no policy other than a rebadging of Tony Abbott's Emissions Reduction Fund, with far less money attached to it, and we have this continual rejection of regional and international efforts to combat what is such an important international emergency.
Unsurprisingly, in the face of all that, emissions are going up. After coming down by more than 10 per cent under the last Labor government of six years, they've risen every year since 2014 and will keep rising, according to the government's own projections, all the way to 2030. They've risen in the last 12 months, as we found out only in the last couple of weeks. This government continues to discredit the unanimous position of scientists. It's an overwhelming position. Last week, we had the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, of all people, making worldwide news by saying he wasn't sure if there was a link between human activity and climate change. And the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction—because the government can't utter the words 'climate change'—gave a 10-minute speech in a climate change debate without mentioning the term 'climate change' once.
The Labor Party remain deeply committed to taking climate action to make sure that we comply with the commitments to future generations in the Paris agreement to keep global warming way below two degrees and to pursue efforts around 1.5 degrees and to make sure that we are at net-zero emissions by the middle of the century, as committed to by Gladys Berejiklian in the Liberal state government of New South Wales but rejected by this Prime Minister. We're committed to making sure there are medium-term targets consistent with those principles and guided by the best possible scientific and economic advice. Such is our responsibility—the gravity of our responsibility—to future generations of Australians.
Since well before my election as the member for Boothby, I have been working to see heavy vehicles diverted from the South Eastern Freeway, freight trains diverted from the Adelaide Hills and both heavy vehicles and freight trains removed from Adelaide suburbs. Getting heavy vehicles and freight trains out of our hills and suburbs is vital for economic, environmental and social reasons. The compelling case for change has been summarised in the South Australian Liberal government's GlobeLink plan, and I wish to recognise Premier Steven Marshall and the member for Waite, Sam Duluk for their support and work towards the policy and also the now member for Sturt for his work on an advocacy policy project before he was elected to parliament. The very serious reason for my devotion to this project was once again highlighted last week following another near-disaster truck crash at the bottom of the South Eastern Freeway. It was an absolute miracle nobody was hurt or killed, as they tragically have been in the past.
With the South Australian Liberal government's business case for GlobeLink close to being finalised, I want to again reiterate the reasons why this plan is so important for South Australia. Removing road and rail freight from the Adelaide Hills and suburban areas would have significant economic, environmental and social benefits. Most importantly, GlobeLink will vastly improve public safety. Removing heavy vehicles off the South Eastern Freeway and Portrush Road and preventing them from being sent down crossroads will vastly reduce the risk of crashes at the bottom of the freeway along our suburban roads that are lined with schools and people getting to and from work or to the shops. This will also ease congestion and reduce travel times for commuters, which means an increase in productivity.
Getting the freight trains out of the Adelaide Hills will reduce the risk of bushfires, derailments and level-crossing accidents. It will also ease congestion, reduce travel times for commuters and eliminate the terrible noise that comes from long and heavy freight trains winding their way along steep declines and around curves. GlobeLink will also have significant economic benefits. It will greatly increase the amount of freight that can be transported by rail and reduce heavy-vehicle travel times, which will increase productivity. The creation of a new 24/7 air freight hub would enable our exporters, like our fishermen, citrus producers and horticulturalists, to get their produce—especially fresh produce—straight to market at far more competitive rates than they currently can given they're bound by restrictive curfews or because of the fact they have to send their produce interstate to get it overseas for export. Combined, these social, environmental and economic factors make a compelling case for government support for the GlobeLink plan, which will have significant economic benefits for the national economy. I will not stop fighting for this project for my local community and for South Australia.
There are many things that local people like to do on a Saturday morning, but coming to a community meeting is probably not one of them. And yet, on Saturday, before I came up for this sitting week, we had a number of concerned parents and community members turn up for a community meeting in response to the City of Port Phillip's shameful attempts to cut services to their early education and childcare services.
Let's go back a step. We have some of the best early education and childcare services in the country in Macnamara. I was only at one of them a few weeks ago with the member for Corio, where we went and checked out Albert Park Kinder, a place I've spoken about in the other place. It has received an excellent rating by ACECQA. It is an outstanding place, where my good friend Jenny and her team do a marvellous job of providing quality education for our young students.
A week ago, I was very pleased to be there to announce that Albert Park Pre-School Centre is also the first carbon-neutral early-education centre in the entire country. It's one of the community-run services that are supported by the City of Port Phillip. There are also a number of council-supported services by the City of Port Phillip, all of whom are under threat by the really poor decision made by the mayor and some of the councillors in the City of Port Phillip. I actually went to the City of Port Phillip council meeting. It's not something I'm planning on making a habit out of. They passed a resolution that looked at providing a business case for the council to get out of council-run services—that is, looking for a way to cut services, to increase fees and to provide uncertainty to parents also for the community-run services.
The election loss was devastating. We didn't win, and we can't implement some of our policies, but I think that our three-year-old universal education policy was a really good one. It was a really good one for families, for the development of our young Australians and for our early educators through the pay increase. Now, I don't believe that we lost the election because of those policies. In fact, it was one of the great things that I was so proud to campaign on, which makes it even more of a reason to say that now is not the time for the City of Port Phillip to be looking at ways to cut services to provide uncertainty to families, to provide uncertainty to their workforce and to provide uncertainty to the future of these quality education services in Macnamara. These are services that we are proud of. Our educators do a marvellous job. In fact, they're some of the best in the country, and our National Quality Framework recognises that, which is why my message today, to the mayor and councillors who voted against this, is to stop it and reverse their decision to cut services.
Last week, people across Australia participated in Suicide Prevention Day and R U OK? Day. I rise today to draw your attention to the Young Lives Matter Foundation, an initiative in my electorate of Curtin which is tackling the devastating problem of youth suicide. Suicide is a tragic loss of human potential. It is a loss felt by our entire community, and it is accompanied by unspeakable grief for the friends and loved ones left behind.
Despite significant investment in mental health and suicide prevention research, suicide continues to be the leading cause of death for 15- to 24-year-olds in Western Australia. Recently, I met with the chairman of Young Lives Matter Foundation, Mr Ronald Woss AM; researchers from the University of Western Australia; and Nick and Angela Farr-Jones from Stand Tall to discuss their shared concerns about the prevalence of youth suicide. In association with UWA, the Young Lives Matter Foundation has been established to take a different approach to the problem of suicide. It is developing a clinical tool which will accurately determine when young people who are suicidal are at the highest risk. This tool is called the developmental vulnerability index, DVI. This risk tool will help focus preventative efforts on those most at risk of suicide through assessing, predicting and communicating the risk of suicidal behaviour.
Uniquely, the Young Lives Matter Foundation has drawn on the expertise of researchers across many fields, including mathematics, education, health science, psychiatry and psychology to create a predictive model of suicide in young people. We are fortunate that the UWA has backed this groundbreaking research and thrown its academic expertise at the problem. And the research being undertaken is promising. A successful pilot program has enabled the research team to move from developing the DVI to translating its use to at-risk patients. Perth Clinic—a long-term collaborator on the project—currently utilises the tool to accurately predict short-term risk of self-harm for in-patients.
I would like to particularly acknowledge Mr Woss, the founder and chairman of Young Lives Matter, who for decades has worked to prevent youth suicide in our community. Mr Woss lost his daughter to suicide in 1989. This tragedy spurred him on to save the lives of others. Twenty-five years ago he founded Youth Focus, which has helped countless young people through counselling and education services. I thank Mr Woss, UWA management, the numerous academics and everyone involved who is supporting the important work of Young Lives Matter. This is an initiative which deserves the full support of this government and our country more broadly.
In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes a national health campaign, No Time for Games, comprising the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Royal Australian College of Physicians, the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine, the Australian College of Sport and Exercise Physicians, the Australian College of Emergency Medicine, the Australian Medical Students Association and other organisations representing over 10,000 doctors and medical students nationwide, is calling for the Parliament to officially recognise that climate change represents one of the biggest and most urgent health threats to our children, requiring immediate and effective action;
(2) recognises that human health is adversely affected by human induced climate change, and that many in the Australian community, including our children, will be more susceptible to:
(a) heat related illness and death due to increased temperatures;
(b) respiratory disease and death caused by burning fossil fuels; and
(c) deadly hypoallergenic conditions like thunderstorm asthma which is exacerbated by longer allergy seasons and more severe weather events; and
(3) calls on the Government to reduce the incidence of these health effects by acting to develop and implement a plan to de-carbonise every polluting sector by 2050, which will reduce the incidence of extreme temperatures and more severe weather events.
The health of the people has to be at the core of the government's responsibility to the nation. The government has a duty to prevent significant health threats. The fire chiefs have warned of the threat to our homes and safety due to climate-exacerbated bushfires, the Reserve Bank of Australia has warned of the threat to the economy and the defence chiefs have warned of the threat to our national security. The medical community, through the No Time for Games campaign, is now united in declaring that climate change represents one of the biggest and most urgent health threats to our children, and requires immediate and effective action.
The Australian Medical Association has formally declared climate change as a health emergency, with clear scientific evidence indicating severe impacts for our patients and communities now and into the future. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners now recognises climate change as a key public health issue, and considers it important for GPs to understand and communicate the causes, health risks and consequences of climate change as well as the mitigating actions and adaptation to climate change at individual and population levels. The world's pre-eminent medical journal, The Lancet, found last year that Australia is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change on health and that policy inaction in this regard threatens Australian lives. There are many—no doubt some speaking after me—who will tell you to the ignore the science on real health threats. These same people will listen to their doctors on their health. We need to listen to our peak medical bodies.
As a nation it seems that we talk a lot about the cost of action. But what we don't talk about is the unacceptable cost to the vulnerable, especially children, who are bearing and will increasingly bear the consequences of a warming environment. The health impacts on children, as pointed out by our doctors, include but are not limited to: health-related illness, even death, due to increased temperatures; respiratory illnesses caused by burning fossil fuels—in Warringah modelling estimates that at least 1,200 children have asthma, and that may be attributable to burning fossil fuels; and hypoallergenic conditions like thunderstorm asthma, which is exacerbated by longer allergy seasons and more severe weather events. Look no further than the horrific results of the world's largest epidemic thunderstorm asthma event, in 2016 in Melbourne, which caused 10 deaths.
There are 28,000 children in my electorate of Warringah and 2.4 million children nationally. This is a huge segment of the population exposed to these effects. The children themselves are concerned that their health will be impacted. Last week we had R U OK? Day, which prompts us to ask our friends and colleagues if they are okay. As I visit many of the schoolkids around Warringah, they all ask me to speak and take action on climate change. They are worried. They are not okay with the government's inaction.
Australia's medical bodies are urging the government to prevent the crisis unfolding. The government heeds the warnings from doctors on a number of health issues—tobacco, melanoma, breast and bowel cancer, and mental health—so it needs to take similar action on the climate health emergency. We have passed several pieces of legislation to deal with worsening drought, and we have an emergency fund bill for catastrophic natural disasters on the agenda this week. But we've passed zero legislation to prevent the major contributing factor—a warming climate due to our rising emissions.
No matter how much spin this government puts on its policy, our domestic emissions are rising, and everyone but the government acknowledges that. According to the peak medical bodies, this is unacceptable and I, like them, will not let the government off the hook. I stand with our doctors and parents, all sensible Australians, who want to protect our kids and generations to come. Professor Kingsley Faulkner, co-chair of Doctors for the Environment stated, 'Doctors have a duty of care to their patients'. This parliament has a duty of care to the country, and particularly to its children and future generations. We want this government to implement a serious and credible plan to decarbonise every polluting sector and to protect our children's health and wellbeing.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I call the member for Hughes.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The member for Warringah says you should not ignore the science. So I will only talk about the science. Firstly, the member for Warringah in point 3 of her motion says that a plan to decarbonise every polluting sector by 2050 will reduce the incidence of extreme temperatures and more extreme weather. The science tells us that Australia's emissions are 1.3 per cent of the global total. Let's just say we so-called 'decarbonise'—which in itself is a misleading word because we're talking about carbon dioxide and methane—if we reduce all our carbon dioxide emissions from our transport sector and electricity sector, if we reduce all our methane emissions from our farting cattle, which makes up about 15 per cent of our total greenhouse gas emissions—and also from our gas extraction—if we reduce that down to zero, what would be the effect of the temperature? What would be the effect? You know the answer. It's zero. So point 3 here is simply snake-oil salesmen. To say that we can reduce somehow the incidence of extreme temperature in this country by doing something in this country, when China is building 100 new coal-fired power stations, is simply selling snake oil.
Yes, it's interesting to look at what will happen if we have more hot weather in the future. But what about the warmer winters? The IPCC actually comments on this: 'Warmer winters and fewer cold spells because of climate change will decrease'—that means 'lower'—'cold weather related mortality in many countries'. So we'll get lower deaths from less cold weather. So what will the balance be? Is cold weather a bigger killer or is heat a bigger killer? Let's again go to what the science says, because the science is very clear on this. In fact, a paper published in The Lancet in 2015 says that cold weather kills 20 times more people than hot weather. It is cold weather that we should be fearful about. Does that apply in Australia? Well, again, let's go and see what the science says. A paper published by ScienceDirect in February this year by Cheng et al, found:
Heat, cold and temperature variability together resulted in 42,414 deaths during the study period, accounting for about 6.0% of all deaths. Most of attributable deaths were due to cold (61.4%)
compared to that from heat—10 per cent.
So, here in Australia, the peer reviewed science says we get six times more death from cold weather. And what is the policy response? To have policies that increase the price of electricity, that make it harder for Australians to heat their homes in winters and that makes it harder for them to air-condition their homes in summers. The policy response that they come up with here will actually cause more deaths. It will cause more harm and will do nothing to change the climate.
One of the great principles of medicine is 'Do no harm.' That is part of the Hippocratic oath. The doctors who have signed this paper are in violation of the Hippocratic oath because they are pushing policies that will do harm to Australians, to Australian children, because, if people can't afford their air conditioning in winter—which is exactly what will happen with these policies that you propose—it will cause more deaths. That's what it will cause. This is a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath.
Opposition members interjecting—
I hear laughing from the other side over there. You do not know the damage that you cause. Already we have record numbers of Australians in this country who cannot afford to heat their homes in winter and have had their electricity disconnected because of the policies your side of politics have pushed. That's the mess that you've got in. I will keep going and, when nonsense motions like this come up, I will rebut them and I will stand here and I will quote the science, day after day after day, because the policy responses that you're pushing forward are actually going to cause a lot of harm to many, many Australians, especially low-income earners.
I'm glad to follow the government's climate policy adviser, the member for Hughes, a man whose fingerprints are all over the government's abject failure on climate policy for the last six years. It's actually a national embarrassment that will go down in history that the member for Hughes and other tinfoil-hat-wearing members of the government such as the member for New England and Senator Canavan have driven the entire climate policy disaster in this country.
Let's inject some facts into this debate. The world is warming. We are seeing earlier starts to bushfire seasons. We're seeing longer bushfire seasons and more significant bushfire seasons. We are seeing cyclones and hurricanes hitting places that never saw storms before. We are seeing significant flooding events happening in areas that have never seen them before and we are seeing more severe flooding events. In my portfolio responsibility of the Pacific, we have an entire region that is suffering an existential crisis, and those on the other side laugh about it and make jokes, as the member for Dickson did.
The truth is: the government's 2020 and 2030 targets are inadequate. The 2030 target is woefully inconsistent with the Paris treaty goal of keeping global warming well below two degrees. What makes it even more farcical is that the government won't even meet their inadequate targets. Emissions are rising every year under the government. In contrast, under Labor emissions fell by 10 per cent. They will miss the Kyoto 2020 commitment and they will miss the Paris 2030 commitment.
Australia's total emissions in the last year rose by 0.6 per cent. In fact, since the emissions trading scheme was abolished, emissions in this country have risen by 1.4 per cent. The truth is, according to the government's own figures, in 2020 carbon pollution will be 1.3 per cent above 2000 levels, not the five per cent below 2000 levels which is their own target. And they'll only hit the cumulative abatement task by using cheap accounting tricks such as the Kyoto carryover units; by Labor's Renewable Energy Target driving down electricity emissions; by the deindustrialisation of Australia, by driving off the Australian auto-manufacturing sector, leading to reduced emissions; and by the drought. That is the only way the government can claim to meet the cumulative abatement task to 2020. The truth is that end points matter as much is the cumulative abatement task, and Australia's emissions in 2020 under this government, this hopeless government, will be higher than in 2000. That is a national shame.
What's happening in 2030? The government's own figures, again, show that emissions in 2030, at best, will only be seven per cent below 2005 levels, not the 26 per cent below that they've committed to. They will miss their own woefully inadequate target by 19 percentage points. Again, they will only achieve the cumulative abatement task by electricity emissions falling due to Labor's RET, a decline in manufacturing and the drought. Then they'll make it up with their direct action policy, a policy thoroughly discredited, a policy where 20 per cent of the contracts have already been cancelled and a policy where there is no real additionality for any of the grants given under this program.
They also claim that they will cut carbon pollution through a non-existent electric vehicle strategy. In fact, the EV strategy that they're basing their abatement task on is the one that they attacked Labor for having. Such is the hypocrisy of the government—they attack our EV policy and then they claim the emissions from that EV policy to hit their 2030 target! Finally—and this is my favourite—100 million tonnes of abatement is from non-existent and unspecified technology changes. They have just assumed that they are going to pluck 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the air, even though they've got no basis for it and no policy for it.
I want to finish on this final point. I want to go back to the member for Hughes, the brains trust of the government on climate policy. He said, 'It doesn't matter what Australia does because we're only one per cent of global emissions.' The truth is there are 15 nations whose emissions are between one and two per cent of global emissions. Those 15 nations' emissions combined are 20 per cent. So those 15 nations together are the second highest polluter in the world. What we do matters. I ask the member to reflect on what would have happened if he ran that argument during World War II, where we contributed something like one per cent of total armed combatants. Does that mean that our contribution didn't matter? Of course it mattered, and of course it matters in this climate policy debate on which those opposite will stand condemned by history.
We continue to hear plenty of commentary both in this House and in the community at large about policy in relation to climate, climate change, climate management and climate solutions, of course. We should reflect upon the fact that, not so long ago, we had a federal election, and amongst other things the coalition's climate policy—the unprecedented $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package, in particular—was certainly endorsed by the people of Australia.
Let's just return to the facts yet again. The government are certainly, as we keep saying, committed to reducing emissions to 26 per cent to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. That plan is on the record. That plan is progressing quite well. Let's look at performance. We are on track to overachieve our 2020 target by 367 million tonnes. That is a significant turnaround from the emissions debt that we inherited when we took office. We have a comprehensive set of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to increase energy efficiency and certainly to fast-track the development and uptake of clean energy—and that is exactly what's happening. What are we seeing now? Emissions per person and emissions intensity of the economy are continuing to fall and are currently at their lowest levels in three decades. The commentary is often that nothing has happened. That proves that progress is certainly being made. The performance is there for all to see.
I'm particularly proud that the Climate Solutions Package of the energy minister, the Prime Minister and our cabinet is bringing on new electricity generation projects, such as, obviously, Snowy 2.0, the battery of the nation. In terms of new projects in regional areas that are being considered in my part of the world there is pumped hydro at Cressbrook Dam. I'll talk more about what's happening in the Groom electorate in the significant area of the Darling Downs in regional Queensland. Right across the country we are seeing record levels of renewable investment. Last year alone, there was more than double the per capita investment of comparable countries like the UK, Germany and France. Those opposite suggest that nothing is happening, that we're doing nothing. That is proof that significant progress is being made. I mentioned that pumped hydro project near Toowoomba, my home city. Solar projects are underway at Oakey and Yarranlea on the Darling Downs, there's a biorefinery in Dalby and there's a wind project with AGL under construction at the moment at Coopers Gap, north-west of Toowoomba. In my part of regional Queensland, generation from those renewable projects is already promised to exceed those from the traditional coal and gas sources in our part of the world. I refer to the New Acland coalmine and the intermittent gas power station at Oakey. That is evidence that progress is being made, reducing emissions whilst growing our economy and keeping electricity prices down, as our energy minister is focused on.
The people of Australia made their decision during the election in that regard. The WA state Labor energy minister, Bill Johnston, said he respects that the coalition here in Canberra won the election and that we have a mandate to follow those policies, which are proving quite beneficial to the country. By contrast, the Labor Party here at a federal level talks about reviewing their policy and talks about a policy in the election campaign that would have destroyed jobs and investment in Australia. They couldn't tell us how much it would cost but Wayne Goss, the party president, said they should stick to their guns.
The impact of environmental issues on the health of Australians, of course, is quite significant, and that can at times be the focus of both state and federal governments, as it should be—direct action from a state government perspective under arrangements in our country and indirect support from the federal government. We hear about references to asthma. As an asthmatic I know very well that dust storms, wind storms and simply the change of season can impact on one's health unless it's managed properly. We hear about the risk of health-related illnesses. They have been in regional Australia in my time, in my father's time and in my grandfather's time. They certainly need attention, and that's what we do.
Climate action is human rights, because climate change affects the most vulnerable first and hardest. It already has, with droughts, fires, floods and crop failures. It affects the myriad of species and habitats that make this earth such an intricately beautiful place, from the coral reefs to the camel herds. But the reality today under this third-term government is: if the environment was a bank, it would've been saved already.
We are now facing a global health crisis that, in November, the World Health Organization Director-General warned the world could no longer sleepwalk through this health emergency. Health professionals are dealing more and more with the harmful effects of the climate crisis in our emergency departments, in our GP rooms and in our crisis clinics. The impact is evident. Air pollution across the globe is now more deadly than war, smoking and tuberculosis. Air pollution kills seven million people every year.
Australia's water security has already been significantly influenced by climate change. Rainfall patterns are shifting and the severity of floods and droughts have increased. Severe droughts, heavy rainfall and floods all affect our health in many ways, contaminating water supplies, increasing mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue and Ross River virus, and increasing psychological stress in our rural communities. It is not a radical idea to suggest that clean drinking water and clean air should be the right of all Australians, regardless of their income, of where they grew up or of what era they were born.
Lilley is home to the Kedron Park Emergency Services Complex, where hundreds of Queenslanders man the fort during times of crisis, most recently with the Queensland bushfires which are still an ongoing issue for our emergency service workers. Additionally, in Lilley we have many volunteers and local services that operate out of Brisbane to help address these increasing incidents. I had two mobile offices yesterday in Wavell Heights and I had constituents come to me to tell me specifically that these NGOs are exhausted and are struggling with the increase to their demand. This is now something that they have to deal with on a year-round basis, not just during a particular season. They tell me that they need more funding to account for the fact that these are now year-round occurrences. You can look at the example of the fire at Binna Burra. A building that lasted 90 years surrounded by dense subtropical rainforest, burning down, shows this is not just the usual environmental cycle. Now 70 people have lost their jobs as a result.
Constituents tell me that they are worried for their children. It is something that worries me too. In my first speech to parliament, I spoke about the fact that earlier this year Australia became the first country to lose a mammal to climate change. It has been lost and that loss has changed nothing. It was news until it stopped being news just hours later. Can any of us name it today? I know some of you can. Maybe the Queenslanders who've just departed could. It was the Bramble Cay Melomys, a mammal. It was a very furry, fluffy Melomys, and it's already both gone and forgotten. How many species must we lose before we say 'enough' or before we say, 'We must change, and we will change, and we will stop this.'
Global heating is driving more frequent and extreme weather, such as drought, floods, bushfires, and heatwaves—
An honourable member: No, it's not.
It does. This things harm children disproportionally. Children are at a greater risk of respiratory illness, increases in childhood emergency department visits for asthma, fever, gastroenteritis and heat stroke, as well as the physical and psychological trauma from extreme weather events. What we are deciding now is what life will be like for the kids born this year, who will be 82 in 2100, and their grandchildren and their grandchildren's grandchildren. They will curse the era that devastated the planet. But if we who believe in the climate emergency continue to fight—continue to fight against those opposite—perhaps they'll bless the memory of those who tried to limit this destruction.
I am proud to second the motion from the member for Warringah, because, as a nurse, a midwife and a public health researcher, it has always been my job to protect the health of children. Just minutes ago, on the lawns of parliament, I joined a chorus of doctors and nurses from around Australia calling for action on climate change. In would be negligent not to, and I applaud the member for Hughes for reading The Lancet, and encourage him to read on. In 2018 there's an entire series on climate change and health, with over 125 authors writing those articles.
A hotter world with a more unpredictable climate has dire implications for every aspect of human health, and our children are most at risk. Climate change is pushing diseases further south, where they have never been before—diseases like dengue fever, which is a serious problem for a developing fetus. For pregnant women, dengue can cause increased maternal and infant mortality and morbidity, including miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm delivery, low birthweight, fetal anomalies and neonatal intensive care admissions. Dengue has already increased 13 per cent since 1950 due to higher temperatures.
A hotter world is also bringing new diseases we have not seen in Australia, like the Nipah virus, which is largely unknown here but which climate change is pushing closer. This deadly disease has no vaccine and no cure. The Global Health Alliance's recent report, From Townsville to Tuvalu, reported evidence of little known links between fossil fuel production, childhood obesity, exposure to extreme weather events and fetal cognitive development. We know that bushfires, dust storms and thunderstorms will become more frequent and more intense, making life worse for the one in 10 Australians who already suffer from asthma, especially country kids—kids who are most at risk.
Air pollution contributes to 3,000 deaths in Australia per year. The burning of coal makes this worse by gushing to toxins like mercury and arsenic into our air. The cost of health impacts from air pollution from coal is $2.6 billion a year. Heat related illness costs $8.7 billion a year. In fact, heat waves have caused more deaths in Australia over the past 100 years than any other natural event. In Victoria, especially in the bush, we know this all too well. Our 2009 heatwave not only caused $800 million of damage to the state but, far more importantly, killed 173 people on Black Saturday. On that single day, 16 children were orphaned. On that single day, 35 kids and young people died. And, 10 years on, children in these trauma stricken communities are still suffering higher rates of anxiety and learning problems. The shire of Murrindindi in my electorate is one of these communities.
Yet, we are staring down the barrel of a hotter, more dangerous future. The number of days over 35 degrees is set to increase threefold in Melbourne, fourfold in Sydney and twentyfold in Brisbane. By 2050, a heatwave in an Australian capital could kill more than 1,000 people. Sport, the secular religion of Australia, which is so critical to kids' health, will also have to change fundamentally. The Climate Institute warns that our summer sporting schedule for Boxing Day cricket, the Australian Open and the Tour Down Under will be threatened by inhumane temperatures. We'll see repeats of 2007, when three-quarters of Australia's AFL leagues had to cut their seasons short because their ovals had dried to a crisp. Australian children, who are already spending less time outdoors than any previous generation, risk missing out on the sporting opportunities that my generation enjoyed.
As a health professional, I know that, when you see a threat to health, you determine the cause and you address it. As a rural Australian who's worked in public health for more than three decades, I know that a warming climate will add more strain to our already stretched emergency departments and the hardworking doctors and nurses who staff them. The world is heating up and it's making our kids sick, and so a plan for decarbonisation is a public health imperative. It's time to stop the games and act for our kids. I commend this motion to the House.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
(1) notes that:
(a) 24 March is World Tuberculosis (TB) Day, a day to commemorate the precious lives lost due to TB, a disease that is preventable and curable;
(b) TB is contagious and airborne—it is the world's leading infectious disease killer and kills more people than HIV/AIDS;
(c) in 2017 alone, 1.6 million people died from TB worldwide and 10 million people became sick with the disease; and
(d) there is a funding gap of US$1.3 billion annually in TB research and development and it is critical to develop quicker diagnostic tools, better drugs, and a new TB vaccine in order to end the TB epidemic;
(2) recognises:
(a) that the funding that Australia is providing jointly with the World Bank to support testing and treatment in Papua-New Guinea is already leading to an initiative to achieve universal testing for TB in Daru; and
(b) the provision of $75 million over five years for Product Development Partnerships in the Indo-Pacific Health Security initiative to accelerate access to new therapeutics and diagnostics for drug-resistant TB and malaria, building on the successes of Australia’s previous investments; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) develop an action plan to monitor the progress made towards the targets and commitment made at the UN High-Level Meeting on TB; and
(b )make an increased financial commitment to the Global Fund at its Replenishment Conference in October 2019.
Tuberculosis is a disease that most people thought was a thing of the past or isolated to small pockets in some of our more impoverished countries. I, for one, had assumed the disease was no longer an issue, but nothing could be further from the truth. It's a tragic fact that, although tuberculosis is a preventable and curable disease, 10 million people on this planet develop it over a year, of whom about 1.6 million that we know of actually die.
TB is today's world-leading infectious disease today, having surpassed HIV and taking more lives than HIV, malaria and Ebola combined. The first step in achieving global health security is ending epidemics of infectious diseases like tuberculosis, AIDS and malaria. We need to stop diseases from killing people now. Australia needs to continue to stand up and be counted and lead the charge in the fight against TB.
In 2012, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was established. Since its inception, the global fund has saved an estimated 27 million lives and has been able to cut deaths from HIV, TB and malaria by one-third. In 2017 alone, it treated 3.6 million people for TB, put two million people with HIV on antiretroviral therapy and distributed 46.7 million insecticide-impregnated mosquito nets throughout our region.
Next month, the global fund is convening an international replenishment pledging conference in Lyon in France to raise funds for the next three years so it can continue its critical work. The target is to reach at least US$14 billion. The global fund provides more than 65 per cent of international funding for TB and is responsible for nearly 50 per cent of TB funding in the Asia-Pacific region.
In 2016, Australia pledged $220 million to the global fund for the years 2017 to 2019. This time around, we as a nation are being asked to contribute $300 million to the fund. The UK has already pledged 1.2 billion pounds, which equals about A$12.50 per Briton per year. Canada has pledged Can$390.4 million, or roughly $A9.10 per Canadian per year. The $300 million the Australian government is being asked to contribute represents just $3.85 per Australian per year—roughly the price of a cup of coffee, or less. In fact, for every dollar invested in the global fund, around $22 is spent in the Indo-Pacific region—a pretty good return on investment, if you ask me. Furthermore, it aligns with the Australian government's foreign policy objectives in the Health Security Initiative for the Indo-Pacific. This investment by Australia has the capacity to save 16 million lives. It is our responsibility as good global citizens to do the right thing.
TB has no respect for national borders. The stark reality is that, with modern travel, TB can be transmitted anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours. In our region, the challenges of drug-resistant malaria in the Greater Mekong and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Asia continue to present significant health security risks to Australia and our neighbours. Take Papua New Guinea, for example: the distance between our outer Torres Strait Islands and the coastal villages or Western Province of Papua New Guinea, which is a boundary of the northern part of my electorate, is fewer than four kilometres. Papua New Guinea has the highest number of TB cases in the Pacific region and the 30th highest globally. Unfortunately, the multidrug-resistant tuberculosis burden has remained constant over the past three years. In saying that, the Global Fund supports PNG's entire national response. I shudder to think what the fatalities would be like in PNG and what the impact would be on Australia without the assistance of the Global Fund.
Next month's Global Fund meeting in Lyon in France is critical. I look forward to seeing Australia being represented. Once again, it will provide us with an opportunity to show the world that we are actually leaders in this campaign and not just followers. I'd also like to call out and commend James Cook University for the outstanding work that they are doing in this field, working towards the one thing that will make a difference: a vaccine. There has never been an infectious disease that has ever been cured with a vaccine, so good on JCU for the work that they're doing.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I am delighted to be able to contribute to this motion this morning on the desperate need to address the global menace of tuberculosis. I'd like to thank the member for Leichhardt for this motion and recognise his deep commitment to ending this scourge. As Mr Entsch's co-chair of the Australian TB Caucus, I know he has been a fierce advocate for global action on TB for a very long time now.
The Australian TB Caucus is part of a network of global TB caucuses now comprising of more than 2,300 members of parliament from 150 nations. Together we work to increase parliamentary awareness and lobby for solutions to end this epidemic. I am pleased to say that the support of the caucus' activity within the Australian parliament is extremely strong, with members from all sides of politics understanding what a pressing national and international priority this is.
It's hard to overstate the dire severity of the tuberculosis virus. It's currently the No. 1 killer by infectious disease in the world. As the member for Leichhardt made clear, it's now claiming more lives than HIV, AIDS and Ebola combined. In 2017, 10 million people contracted TB. More than 1.7 million of those people lost their lives. Being an airborne virus, it's very easily spread. Once infected, people experience coughing, fever, sweats and weight loss. If untreated, it can lead to diseases in other parts of the body, like TB meningitis. Of great concern is the increasing number of drug-resistant TB infections, which are more complex and expensive to treat and have a dramatically lower survival rate.
We are incredibly lucky that Australia is considered one of the lowest-risk countries in the world for TB, but that doesn't mean we are immune. Indeed, there are still 1,200 to 1,300 cases of tuberculosis in Australia each year. Some of our closest neighbours are still inundated with this terrible epidemic. What is most frustrating and so desperately sad about the situation is that, with the right resources and treatments, TB is both preventable and curable. But the treatments we have are very onerous. It can take up to two years with 40 pills a day and two injectables to treat drug-resistant TB. This is an enormous burden on both patients and health systems alike. But there are some great advances in the pipeline, and, with proper investment, we can really turn this around.
Almost three-quarters of global funding to fight TB currently comes from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The fund, which is a partnership between governments, civil society and the private sector, invests more than US$4 billion a year to support programs being delivered in more than 100 countries. Currently, it's estimated that the fund has helped save 27 million lives. Around 10 million of those lives have been in our own Indo-Pacific region.
There's no question about the efficacy of this program, but the fund can't do its work without appropriate funding. Currently, Australia is the 10th largest donor. Next month will be the six replenishment. The fund is seeking to raise at least US$14 billion in order to save 16 million lives, treat over 234 million infections and bring us one step closer to ending these diseases for good.
It's time for Australia to dig deep. In the last replenishment Australia put in $220 million, which, amongst other things, supported work to fight drug-resistant malaria in the greater Mekong and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Asia and Papua New Guinea, all of which present very serious health security risks to our region. The strategy to end the global TB epidemic should not be beyond us. It is both achievable and in our national interest to make this happen. This time I think we should do better than last. I would like to see Australia step up our contributions significantly to that $300 million that is being asked of us by the global fund. I know that there are always competing interests seeking access to our shrinking government pie, but this is an important issue. Unlike recent development aid spending that we've seen in recent years, this money should not be pillaged from aid spending elsewhere. This is new money for the global fund contribution.
I rise in to support the member for Leichhardt on his motion to recognise World Tuberculosis Day. Tuberculosis, more commonly known as TB, is preventable and curable. Yet every year, as mentioned before, 1.7 million people die from TB. This is an unacceptable mortality rate. TB is the world's most common cause of death from a single infectious disease, and the 10th most common cause of death worldwide. TB is one of the largest causes of death in many parts of the world, including sub-Saharan Africa, parts of Eastern Europe, South Asia and the Indo-Pacific region. Without an affordable diagnostic test and a reliable vaccine, and with the duration of the treatment becoming longer with the advent of multidrug-resistant strains, worldwide efforts to curb the prevalence of TB, while positive, still battle to succeed.
While Australia has one of the lowest rates of TB in the world, it is extremely common in our Pacific neighbours. Due to the proximity of Papua New Guinea, we know that PNG's health crisis could very easily become Australia's health crisis. This is particularly relevant to Far North Queensland—the member for Leichhardt's area—where we have Indigenous communities more susceptible to TB. Australia's border is only four kilometres from PNG, and there is significant travel between our countries in these remote communities.
But more than the health security risk of our closest neighbours, we have an international obligation to assist our Pacific neighbours in their fight against TB. We are PNG's biggest partner in responding to the rising threat of TB. In 2016 there were 30,000 new cases of TB in PNG alone. According to the WHO, TB kills more people in PNG than any other infectious disease. In 2017 in PNG 5,300 people died from TB. Just last year the government in PNG declared a state of emergency in several provinces, including the National Capital District.
Treatment of the multidrug-resistant strains is costly and prolonged and is the most pressing issue in our attempts to eradicate the disease worldwide. Earlier this year, I was invited to attend a parliamentary learning tour in PNG with Save the Children, funded by the Gates foundation. While there, we visited clinics that are working to combat multidrug-resistant TB and ensure proper screening and early detection. I was able to see, firsthand, the assistance that the Morrison government is providing to Papua New Guinea in giving doctors and nurses the tools they need to reduce the occurrence of TB in their communities.
PNG has a real problem with TB in children in particular. That's because of the high rate of malnutrition in children under the age of five. Over 50 per cent of children in PNG under five are malnourished. It's a shocking statistic. About 7,000 children contract TB each year. In fact, PNG has one of the highest proportions of children affected by TB in the world. Around the world, about 10 per cent of people with TB are children. But in Papua New Guinea, of the TB community, about 25 per cent are children. But all is not bleak. In Port Moresby the first cohort of children are successfully completing treatment for multidrug-resistant TB. There are innovative trials now to improve outcomes, including the direct observational trial. I commend our government on its $13 million assistance package, which will see $5 million dedicated to intensive TB detection and treatment in the Pacific and $8 million for research into multidrug-resistant TB.
A holistic approach towards combating infectious disease is required if we are to eradicate TB in PNG. We need improved levels of sanitation and health literacy as well as a reduction in malnutrition in children, and this is all supported by Australia and not-for-profit agencies like Save the Children. These initiatives will inevitably result in reducing diseases like TB and effectively save lives. I commend the support Australia is providing to its nearest neighbour on World TB Day.
I rise to support this motion and I acknowledge the member for Leichhardt and the member for Newcastle's longstanding advocacy around tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is an infectious disease spread by airborne dissemination of germs that carry the infection. It most commonly affects a person's lungs but it can also affect other parts of the body, causing serious illness and, in some cases, death. This is a disease which causes enormous suffering around the world. It is estimated that TB affected more than 10 million people and killed 1.6 million people in 2017. Experts have advised that 75 million more people could die by 2050 due to the emergence of multidrug-resistant strains of TB. These are strains where the most commonly used antibiotics are less effective, and more intensive and protracted courses of treatment are required.
In Australia around a million people are estimated to have a latent or dormant form of TB. It's particularly concerning that, although the incidence of TB in Australia is relatively low, it is some six times higher amongst Indigenous Australians than amongst non-Indigenous Australians. Yet, because it's a disease which is not as prevalent in our country today as it was in earlier generations, there is a risk that Australians become less aware of the impact of this disease. If we need reminding of those risks, we only need to look at our nearest neighbour, Papua New Guinea.
A tuberculosis epidemic is raging in PNG. The country has the highest incidence of TB in the western Pacific region. It is currently experiencing over 30,000 new cases a year. Multidrug-resistant TB rates are particularly high in recognised hotspot areas such as Western Province, the National Capital District and Gulf Province. Port Moresby General Hospital now has a dedicated ward for TB sufferers. Many of the TB patients in the Port Moresby hospital are young children, with reports that paediatric TB cases make up more than a quarter of all cases in PNG. That is a tragic state of affairs.
In my role as shadow minister for international development and the Pacific, I have met many dedicated Australian aid workers and non-government organisations who work on development challenges around our region—challenges of poverty and economic development; challenges of health care, education and social development; and challenges of protecting vulnerable people in developing countries: women, children, people with disabilities, the elderly and those suffering from illness and disease. Earlier this year I met with a delegation from the advocacy group RESULTS Australia, a group of dedicated people from different walks of life, committed to fighting poverty around the world. One of their key issues is tuberculosis. They noted the particularly high burden of TB in Papua New Guinea and made the point that people suffering from TB in PNG are often also infected by HIV-AIDS. As the RESULTS delegation told me, these diseases are preventable, but what is needed to prevent them is funding.
Australia is providing significant funding for the fight against TB. We are working with the World Bank to support testing, diagnosis and treatment in PNG. We have also provided $75 million over five years for Product Development Partnerships in the Indo-Pacific Health Security Initiative, which is tackling TB and malaria. In the context of funding, I would point to the importance of the forthcoming replenishment of the Global Fund. The Global Fund is an international partnership to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. It mobilises more than $4 billion a year from governments and the private sector to support programs run by local experts in more than 100 countries. The fund's sixth replenishment conference is being held in France in October. Australia has been a longstanding supporter of the Global Fund, contributing more than $700 million to date. I urge the government to renew this commitment for the period from 2020 to 2022 at this year's conference.
The UN Sustainable Development Goals include the target of ending the epidemic of TB by 2030, along with the epidemics of malaria, AIDS and neglected tropical diseases. Achieving that goal is going to require sustained, focused, coordinated and well-resourced action from the countries of the world, and it will be fundamentally important for Australia to play its part in the fight against TB.
It's a great privilege to be able to rise and support the motion put forward by the member for Leichhardt and to support him in his endeavours and longstanding pursuit in the eradication of TB infections and to make sure that we can live in a world free of TB. I say that as a member of the parliamentary friends group for action on HIV. We share similar goals and ambitions about the type of work that we want to do to make sure that we can live in a healthier and more sustainable world.
Of course, TB is not a particularly big challenge in Australia—partly because of the efforts and initiatives that we as a nation have taken in the past. While we do have infections from time to time, we have one of the lowest rates anywhere in the world, with approximately five to six cases per 100,000 people. That's a record that comes as a consequence of diligence and focus. Each year, approximately 1,300 new cases of TB are diagnosed in Australia, and they're diagnosed in people born overseas. Nearly half of these cases were diagnosed within four years of someone's arrival in Australia. So diligence has an effect to make sure that our population is healthy and well and that, where there is a challenge, we can make sure we assist and that people get the remedy that they need.
But of course, globally, that is not so much the case. Tuberculosis is now the world's leading infectious disease killer, killing around 1.6 million people per year. That has a huge detrimental impact on many countries, particularly those of a developing nature that need assistance to support healthy populations so that they as countries can grow and succeed and provide economic opportunities for their populations to get ahead. Our region, just outside of our borders, is one of those most heavily impacted. The WHO estimates that, in 2018, approximately 62 per cent of the world's new cases—six million cases—occurred in the Indo-Pacific region. Twelve countries in the Indo-Pacific region are included in the WHO's top 30 list of high-burdened TB countries. So, while we're very fortunate not to have a big challenge domestically, the challenge we face on our doorstep is incredibly real and undermines the opportunity of those countries to get ahead. That's why it should be core and front of focus as part of our aid and international assistance effort across the region to make sure that we're providing assistance and putting countries in the best position to get ahead.
Those who are most impacted are those who have multidrug-resistant TB. Those rates, sadly, are rising rapidly. That's become a problem not just because of the volume of cases but because of the costs that are incurred and the assistance required, which is often quite difficult to get for people who are living in less-developed countries than ours and who often rely on regional or remote health services to make sure that they're taking the appropriate line of remedies and drugs to make sure they're in the best position to be able to not succumb to the ultimate consequences of TB.
That's why Australia has very much worked with Papua New Guinea, in particular, to address the situation. Since 2012, approximately $60 million has been provided for TB control and assistance in PNG. That's dramatically improved TB treatment outcomes, with 99 per cent of people in the Western Province of PNG now completing their treatment, which is up from 65 per cent in 2014, helping to reduce the infection rate and the emergence of drug-resistant strains.
We don't just take a role in our local region; we also do it internationally. We work multilaterally through, particularly, the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, which has delivered TB treatment to 42,000 people in 14 Pacific Island nations, and that's with a pledge of $220 million to support that important cause. Australia's health security initiative for the Indo-Pacific region, which was launched in October 2017, also provides $300 million in funding over five years for the prevention and containment of infectious diseases in the region and beyond. As part of this commitment, $49.3 million is currently being invested in activities relating to TB research, prevention and treatment.
These are just numbers. Of course, sitting behind each one of those numbers is a human story of somebody who wants to realise their ambition and their dream. The focus we put on honouring World TB Day today is not just to talk about those dollars and cents but to celebrate the realised potential of what we can unleash when we give people the opportunity to live their full lives.
It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak today on the motion moved by the member for Leichhardt. I congratulate him on his continuing and strenuous efforts to reach a stage where TB can be eradicated. I'd also like to congratulate former senator Lisa Singh, who was the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Tuberculosis Group. She was also a tireless worker in this field, and I do miss her. I'd also like to congratulate the member for Newcastle, the new co-chair, who likewise is determined in her efforts to try and improve our funding for the global fund to try and reach the ultimate eradication of tuberculosis.
When I was a medical student we thought that tuberculosis would be a thing of the past, that it would be something we would see in the anatomy museum—a big caseating lung and cheese-like bone lesions that were typical of disseminated tuberculosis, which caused so much death and misery throughout the world prior to the days of antibiotics. But it is still causing so much misery in the developing world today. We thought that it would be a thing of the past. In fact I have a textbook titled The End of Tuberculosis, printed in the 1960s by the team that led the triple therapy for tuberculosis. We thought it would be eradicated. Sadly, that is not the case. We still have tuberculosis in Australia—much of it from people who have recently emigrated to Australia, but there are occasionally new presentations of tuberculosis caught in Australia. Unfortunately we have the rise of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, which can be very difficult to treat and depends on a fairly sophisticated public health policy and public health funding to try and trace carriers and eradicate asymptomatic carriers of tuberculosis.
We know that compliance with drug therapy—particularly in the developing world—is very poor. Treatment can involve three or even four medications for six or 12 months at a time. Particularly in developing countries like Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, et cetera, it's very difficult to maintain treatment for agricultural workers and nomadic workers over those periods of time and to trace carriers. The Holy Grail in tuberculosis treatment will be the development of an immunisation. There is an immunisation at the moment called a BCG immunisation—it's been used for many, many years—but it is not particularly successful. The time really has come when we need a new, comprehensive, very effective vaccine, and a lot of research is going into that. We also need to look at simpler, better drug therapy, where treatment can be for a shorter period of time and involve not so many tablets. Taking 15 or 16 tablets a day for six or 12 months is a big ask for poorly educated people and people who are hard to trace.
Better drug treatments, immunisation and, of course, economic prosperity will improve our tuberculosis management, and I hope to live to see a time where tuberculosis can be eradicated. It's caused a lot of misery in our time. Many famous people have died from tuberculosis. My favourite author, George Orwell, died of complications of tuberculosis. My mother's cousin, Alex Griffiths, who started the Currumbin Bird Sanctuary in the Gold Coast, moved to Queensland because he was diagnosed with tuberculosis during the Second World War. He moved to the warmer climate of Queensland to recover from his tuberculosis. Luckily, around the time that he was diagnosed, triple therapy was being developed and he did recover, although he had severe lung damage from tuberculosis. During his recuperation, he started to feed the birds in the backyard, and that's how the Currumbin Bird Sanctuary started. Many of us remember the trips to Currumbin to visit the bird sanctuary. What we need is sustained funding, and I'd encourage the government to increase its funding to the global fund. I thank the global fund and Results Australia for bringing this to the attention of everyday Australians. I thoroughly commend the bill to the House.
Most Australians believe that tuberculosis has been eradicated, but tuberculosis is a global killer. In just one year, 1.6 million people die from tuberculosis worldwide, and over 60 per cent of the world's TB cases are, unfortunately, in our backyard, in the Asia-Pacific region, where drug-resistant TB is now a public health crisis for our neighbours, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. We don't often see TB in the headlines, but the devastation it causes dwarfs all other forms of infectious disease. Yet almost all cases of TB today are both preventable and treatable.
The scourge of TB is often a close companion of inequality. A lack of nutrition, poor sanitation and unsafe working environments all contribute to the stark reality of tuberculosis in 2019. Across the world, the poorest households and most marginalised individuals bear the biggest burden and are at most risk of contracting tuberculosis. Indigenous people suffer from TB at a rate of up to 270 times that of non-indigenous populations. That's an outrageous statistic; you are 270 times more likely to get tuberculosis if you're a member of an Indigenous population.
Migrants, the homeless, prisoners and people living with HIV are also especially vulnerable to TB. When the poor have vulnerable try to access health care to treat their TB, it's no surprise that they become poorer as a result of the financial strain. That medical poverty trap can be seen across those individuals and groups that are particularly vulnerable to TB. Studies have shown that the increasing financial pressure associated with TB treatment meant that the patient in the household was more likely to abandon treatment or have the treatment fail or to pass away. The pairing of poverty and TB also leads to a lack of access to adequate health services, including fast diagnosis and effective medicines.
TB is a disease that has always suffered from neglect and a lack of urgency. Yet it's the world's longest-running global health emergency, responsible for 50 million deaths since it was declared an emergency in 1993 by the World Health Organization. It's remarkable that there is not a bigger and more concerted effort to try to eradicate tuberculosis and find a vaccine that is workable throughout the world. This is reflected in the chronic underinvestment in TB care and control in most high-burden countries.
There's a funding gap of $1.3 billion annually in TB research and development. We are still a long way off finding a workable vaccine for this insidious disease. Australia is providing funding jointly with the World Bank to support testing and treatment in Papua New Guinea. We are also leading an initiative to achieve universal testing for TB in Daru. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs in the Gillard government, I was fortunate to open the Australian DFAT-funded TB clinic in Daru in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea. It was heartbreaking to see the cases of what is a preventable disease and the enormous impact it had on their families and the communities. Poor people, usually living in communities up the Fly River, in the Western Province, had to come to Daru for treatment. Daru is less than 200 kilometres from Cape York but almost a world away in terms of the impact TB is having on the lives of the communities in that area.
Australia is also providing $75 million over five years for product development partnerships in the Indo-Pacific Health Security Initiative. This is helping to accelerate access to new therapies and diagnostics for drug-resistant TB and malaria.
Medicines are needed, and that's the crucial aspect of this fight against tuberculosis. We're moving to a new era of TB treatment where community based care is playing a more important role and treatments have saved the lives of over 50 million people around the world from 2000 to 2016. The treatment regime is becoming much better in terms of the number of tablets that a person needs to take in a day.
We do need to take additional action to monitor this progress and make sure that the world takes much more appropriate and stronger action to combat TB and hopefully find a cure.
I thank the member. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House notes:
(1) notes that National Police Remembrance Day is observed on 27 September;
(2) acknowledges the crucial role police officers across Australia play in our local communities and the tremendous risk and sacrifice that comes with their duty;
(3) honours the lives and memories of those police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their duty and specifically honours the tragic loss of Constable Timothy Proctor of the New South Wales Police Force, who died from injuries sustained in a multiple vehicle collision in Lucas Heights;
(4) pays tribute to the families and friends of police officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout our nation’s history;
(5) commends the valuable work of Police Legacy, who look after the loved ones of police officers who have fallen; and
(6) reaffirms its support for the nation's police officers and honours their courage, commitment and dedication in ensuring the peace and safety of our communities.
'You can never imagine the sort of devastation that will bring on your life. I'm so blessed to have been his wife. Tim would have made the perfect father. Goodbye, my love. I will see you again.' These are the heartfelt words of Dianne Proctor, wife of Constable Timothy Proctor, of the New South Wales Police Force, who was tragically killed this year in the line of duty. It puts in perspective the inherent dangers of policing and the significant toll it takes on families.
This year National Police Remembrance Day will be observed on 27 September. It's one of the most significant days in the national police calendar. As a nation, we pause on this day to remember police officers who have lost their lives in the execution of their duty and to honour the courage, the commitment and the dedication of all police members who are sworn to protect our communities.
Policing comes with a high degree of risk and many dangers; thankfully, the types of dangers that we won't, as individuals, ever have to face. It truly takes a special type of person with a special type of courage to wear the police uniform. And we are so indebted to those fine men and women who have chosen to do so and we recognise their commitment to ensuring the peace and safety of our communities—a duty, quite frankly, we should never, ever take for granted.
Our safety and that of our families, the security of our homes, our businesses and, indeed, our democracy are all reliant on the enforcement of our laws—a task that falls to our police officers. This year we will see the total number of police officers listed on the National Police Memorial, regrettably, rise. This year we will recognise the tragic loss of Constable Timothy Proctor of the New South Wales Police Force. Constable Proctor was a probationary officer. He'd only been a member of the New South Wales Police Force for nine months when he was killed in a head-on multivehicle collision in Lucas Heights.
Although Constable Proctor's time in the police was short, his influence on colleagues and friends will live on. A former volunteer firefighter, he had a tremendous passion and commitment for all emergency services and, indeed, the community as a whole. The death of Constable Proctor highlights the inherent dangers involved in police work, not knowing what you're likely to face every time you present to go on shift. In recognition of his service in the New South Wales Police Force, Constable Proctor was posthumously awarded the National Police Service Medal as well as New South Wales Police Medal.
Constable Proctor tragically leaves behind his wife Dianne and his son Dexter who, in a very emotional set of circumstances, was actually born following his death. National Police Remembrance Day is therefore a time for us to reflect on loved ones who have been left behind—the families and friends of those whose lives are forever affected. While we mourn with them, we also thank and honour all police families for the unconditional support that allows these fine men and women to go about their job of serving our communities. We owe it to the fallen to look after their families, and that's why the work of NSW Police Legacy is particularly important and deserving of our support.
On this note, I'd like to acknowledge and thank Detective Superintendent Gary Merryweather, Chair of New South Wales Police Legacy, for his tireless efforts in promoting the welfare of police members and their families. I attended the annual Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance with the police this weekend. It's the 10th anniversary of that ride. It's a great initiative and it raises much funds for the great work of Police Legacy. This year we also pay tribute to a veteran police officer, Detective Senior Sergeant Victor Kostiuk, who tragically died during our motorcycle ride last year. Vic was a very distinguished, long-serving member of the Victorian police force. He is certainly very much missed by the police family. To Constable Proctor and all police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and all past and present members of the police force, we honour you and we profoundly thank you for your service. Your service makes a difference for the better in our community.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
It's a great honour to rise and speak on this motion in relation to National Police Remembrance Day. As I do so, I think back to the opening of the Toowoomba Bypass the weekend before last. It's a very significant regional infrastructure project in the Groom electorate; a $1.6 billion project, which I am advised is the largest project of its type in inland Australia at the moment. Certainly that's the case in Queensland. I reflect on that because one of the significant structures in that project includes the twin arch bridges which carry the New England Highway across the bypass just north of Toowoomba. The southbound bridge is named officially in memory of Senior Constable Brett Forte, a hero of the Queensland police force from our region. It was a good opportunity to remember his efforts on behalf of our community.
On the afternoon of Monday 29 May 2017—so just over a couple of years ago—senior constables Brett Forte and Catherine Nielsen of the Darling Downs District Tactical Crime Squad were following a dangerous wanted person driving a utility along the Warrego Highway east of Toowoomba. The vehicle was followed by constables Forte and Nielsen as it travelled off the highway to a junction in the road close to the front gate of a property just over a low rise in the road. The driver stopped suddenly just over that rise. He quickly exited his vehicle and began firing an automatic weapon at the police car following him. Senior Constable Forte immediately began reversing that police vehicle, at speed, while under heavy fire. He was shot twice while attempting to protect Senior Constable Nielsen from that barrage of gunfire. While reversing, the police vehicle rolled. Senior Constable Forte died from his injuries. His quick thinking, his immediate response and his brave actions certainly saved the life of Senior Constable Nielsen. That's the sort of hero that we remember on National Police Remembrance Day. I know that happens right across the country. I'm therefore very pleased to speak in support of this motion, particularly in relation to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in protecting all of us and our communities.
This motion, quite rightly, I believe, pays tribute to the families and friends of police officers who have been killed in the line of duty. In Brett Forte's case, he was married to his wife Susie, also a serving police officer in Queensland. He leaves behind alongside Susie their three children, Emma, Brodie, and Sam. They have been held in the hearts of our community over the last couple of years, and I know the reports of the bridge naming on the bypass a couple of weeks ago were reflective of the solemnity of that occasion and the ongoing grieving process for Brett's family—his wife and children of course and his extended family members.
The observance of National Police Remembrance Day certainly grants police the opportunity for commemoration from all of us for their fallen colleagues. It ensures that their legacies are preserved. It enables, as I said, family members to grieve and honour their lost loved ones. It acts as a reminder, I think, to the public—to the broader community, including all of us—of the ultimate price that police might be called on to pay as they protect and serve the Australian people. They, their family, their loved ones and their friends never quite know what the next day of duty might bring. It's therefore very important for us, as members of this House—and I'm sure this is the case for all members of this House, and it's particularly the case in regional Australia—that our police officers are our mates. For some of us, they're family members, but, for all of us, they are protectors, they are at times confidants, and most particularly, as per the example of Brett Forte, they are our heroes.
I rise in support of the member for Fowler's motion. Police officers are some of the most outstanding members of our community. What makes them outstanding are the activities and duties they do every single day without thinking about it. In my electorate of Werriwa, we have an extremely diverse population. Police officers must be law officials, confidantes, counsellors, supporters and protectors all at the same time. They must be tireless in their duties and, on behalf of the community, I am very glad they are.
I recently had the honour of attending the 2019 Liverpool City Police Area Command police officer of the year awards at the Liverpool Catholic Club. The event was a particularly special celebration, being the 20th anniversary of the awards. I was very pleased to attend with the member for Fowler and meet Chief Inspector Paul Martin and Commander Adam Whyte. Both Chief Inspector Martin and Commander Whyte have been dedicated to our community for some years and the quality of policing is a reflection of their leadership and mentoring of officers in their command.
I would also like to pay special tribute to Ms June Young OAM. Ms Young has been the driving force behind the awards for the last 20 years. June is dedicated to ensuring that our police officers are recognised for their work, and I thank her very much for her continued commitment to our police. Policing is by no means an easy job.
The variability in roles, the responsibility and the trust that a community places in its police force should never be underestimated. One of the inherent risks of their role is the exposure to danger on a daily basis. Sometimes those dangers are unknown and sometimes they are very clear. But police officers are called upon in everyone's most trying times. They are sought upon to provide help in situations a person may not ever have thought they would find themselves in. Yet, for an officer, they have either attended these situations on a number of occasions previously or will attend with the confidence of their training and the commission they have behind them, having never been there before and yet providing leadership and support.
In June this year, an officer with the Liverpool area command, Constable Jacob Vella, went to carry out a routine arrest warrant. It was a regular part of the day to day of policing work. Constable Vella was stabbed whilst serving the warrant and sustained deep wounds to his neck and wrist. He underwent surgery at Liverpool Hospital and has now returned to his duties thankfully. I want to acknowledge Constable Vella not just for his fighting spirit in overcoming his injuries but for his determination to return to the job. I also acknowledge his colleagues who not only rendered assistance and saved his life but also arrested the person in relation to the warrant.
Unfortunately, my area has been subject to more tragic news recently. Constable Timothy Proctor was killed as a result of a horrific car accident earlier this year. Constable Proctor passed away on 3rd February, having only just graduated from the NSW police college nine months before on 27 April 2018. His name was added to the roll of remembrance by his wife, Dianne, yesterday in Sydney at the beginning of the Wall to Wall Ride, which finished in Canberra yesterday, bringing police from all states together to remember their fallen colleagues.
Prior to joining the New South Wales police, Constable Proctor was a volunteer firefighter. I want to pay very special tribute to Constable Proctor, his wife, Dianne, his son, Dexter, his family, his friends and his policing colleagues. I know how much Timothy's loss has affected all officers in the Liverpool area command and the Liverpool community as a whole. His funeral procession brought downtown Liverpool to a standstill, with hundreds lining George Street to pay tribute.
The way in which officers approach their duty day in and day out should be an example to all of us. There is no such thing as a normal day at the office for a police officer, and their role and willingness to take on whatever comes makes them some of the finest members of our community. I'm extremely proud of the police, particularly in my community of Werriwa, and I thank all officers all over Australia for their service to our community.
Woronora cemetery is about 100 yards behind my electoral office in Sutherland. For the last several years, when parliament hasn't been sitting, I've attended a service there which they've had for fallen police officers. They have a special memorial set up at Woronora cemetery which has engraved on it the names of 13 New South Wales police officers who were killed in the line of duty and buried in Woronora, plus 11 St George and Sutherland shire officers. I remember standing at the ceremony and looking at the years when these tragic events happened, and I said a quiet prayer to myself that I hope that we don't add to that list.
Sadly, as other members have spoken during this motion, we lost Constable Timothy Proctor in a tragic accident on Heathcote Road. Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, that's a road you may have travelled regularly. The member for Werriwa, I'm sure, travels it regularly. What made this event so spectacularly horrible was it was recorded on dash cam. There are two lanes travelling east towards Engadine in Menai and one lane travelling west towards Liverpool. One car was on the inside lane travelling east. It all of a sudden swerved and struck Constable Proctor's car. Anyone who saw it understood that the driver of the car, Constable Proctor, had absolutely no chance. I'm sure all of us who drive that road and have family and friends who drive that road realise how easily it could have been us that it happened to.
I called the Prime Minister and my local state members of parliament, and I implored that we must do more work to upgrade Heathcote Road and we must spend as much of our resources as we can on upgrading our roads. When we talk about infrastructure, it's not only about saving 10 or five minutes when going home but also about saving lives. I think that is much more important than saving a few minutes here and there—to make sure that we invest in safety first on our roads. That's why we in this place all work together to try to make a strong economy—so that we can put as many resources as we can into our roads.
This National Police Remembrance Day, we'll especially remember Timothy Proctor and we'll especially commiserate with his family. We pay respect to all police officers who serve and keep our community safe. They certainly have a special job. Many of us who simply work in offices know that we will come to work and go home safely. For a police officer going to work, they don't know what they're going to face that day. When they knock on a door, they don't know what is behind that door. When they go around a corner, they don't know if there'll be some crazed, drug-affected ice addict ready to attack them. They don't know if some villain with a gun will shoot them or if someone will pull a knife, come at them and try and stab them. That is what our police officers face every day when they get up and go to work, and yet they do that knowing that they may have to put their own lives at risk to save others.
One of the great concerns I have of our society is that there seems to be a growing disrespect for our police officers. We should at all times try and stamp that out. We should have the greatest respect for our police officers and for the difficult job that they do. I thank the member for Fowler for bringing this motion to the House, and we all send our deep sympathies to the family of Constable Timothy Proctor.
It's a great honour to rise today to speak in support of the motion by the member for Fowler. I wish to commend the member for his ongoing dedication to this important day of police remembrance and his continued advocacy in all areas of policing. I note that the motion reaffirms our support for the nation's police officers and honours their courage, commitment and dedication in ensuring the peace and safety of our communities.
I was very proud to previously serve as a general duties police officer in the Queensland Police Service, and I'd like to thank all those police right across the nation for the work that they do. Today, I make special mention of those officers back home in my electorate of Richmond who serve and protect our community. I especially thank and acknowledge those officers serving in commands on the New South Wales North Coast. I look forward to joining many of them on Friday 27 September at St Augustine's Church in Coolangatta in which National Police Remembrance Day will be honoured in our region.
I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank my other parliamentary colleagues who share a common purpose in highlighting the essential role of policing across the breadth of our nation. Each police officer plays a vital role towards ensuring that our local communities remain safe, and I acknowledge the great risk and personal sacrifice that comes with such duty.
This year marks the 30th anniversary of Police Remembrance Day, and this year the national day is being observed on 27 September. This is a time when we pause to honour the lives and memory of those police who have had their lives tragically cut short in their work protecting our community. It is a solemn and important day for police officers, their loved ones and the wider police family. It's also an important day for our community to reflect on the role of our police as they serve, protect and uphold the laws that keep the public safe. In particular, we pay tribute to those men and women in the police service who've made the ultimate sacrifice, and together we must ensure that their legacies are preserved.
This year we specifically honour Constable Timothy David Proctor of the New South Wales Police Force. Constable Proctor was working in general duties at Liverpool City Police Area Command. Tragically, Constable Proctor was killed in a motorbike incident on his way to serve his community earlier this year. He was just 29 years old. I wish to extend my deepest sympathies to his wife Dianne and his family, friends and colleagues. It is in these difficult times that wider support is essential, and on that note I wish to pay tribute to the enduring work of Police Legacy.
NSW Police Legacy is a strong and compassionate organisation providing services to police legatees and members of the wider police family across the state. Like the police forces themselves, Police Legacy is separated by state jurisdictions. However, they all perform the same vital function. In New South Wales, Police Legacy provides support, services and advocacy to around 1,000 police legatees and, for more than 30 years, NSW Police Legacy has been providing both financial assistance and compassionate support to our police families. Police Legacy also extends support to police officers and their families experiencing challenging times in their lives.
As a former general duties police officer myself, I've seen firsthand some of the situations and complexities that police officers face day in, day out whilst serving their communities in the execution of their duties. It's important to acknowledge that these individuals are out there working hard to keep our communities safe. They too often have to face very difficult, confronting and sometimes very dangerous situations. It's during these times that police are often faced with terrible tragedies and fatal incidents. It's also very often those same police who then have to deliver such heartbreaking news to families that a loved one has lost their life. I commend police for their empathy, strength and professionalism in performing such work. I also acknowledge the psychological harm and the post-traumatic stress disorder that some officers may carry as a direct result of their police experience in protecting us. Recognising and responding to the issue of pressures and challenges upon our police is essential. We must raise the public's awareness of the realities that police officers face in their duties.
There are particular challenges in regional areas like mine on the New South Wales North Coast, and I've called many times and I continue to call for more staff and associated resources for regional New South Wales communities. I encourage locals in my area and across the country to take a moment on 27 September to think about the role that police officers play within our community. I say to those police in my local area and throughout the nation: thank you for your service. National Police Remembrance Day is a very important occasion for all of us to come together and recognise our police services. I commend the member for Fowler's motion.
It's a great honour to rise to speak on this motion put by the member for Fowler, my co-chair of the friends of police group. I also commend the work that he's done and the ongoing work that he is doing advocating for our nation's police. National Police Remembrance Day, on 27 September, is a day when we recall the names of every police officer who has made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their community.
Every day, police put their lives on the line to protect property, to keep peace and to keep the people safe. A police officer never knows what scenes they'll be confronted with when they start their shift. Wondering what the day will bring is something that goes through the mind of every police officer every time they put on their uniform. Tragically, some don't make it home. As I've said many times, policing's a job where, at the beginning of every shift, an officer has the incredibly weighty task of loading bullets into a weapon that has the power to end life. Then there is the weightier task of going out into the community, not knowing what threats await. All the time your training and your colleagues are your greatest asset. Policing's a job where most people trust you and are happy to see you. Some just want to strike up a conversation for no particular reason other than to say they approve of the job that you're doing: being visible, offering assistance and keeping the peace. It's a job where you need to be aware of your own physical health and mental wellbeing, which is tested often when the highs of achieving a successful outcome are unfortunately matched by the lows of tragedy.
So it's important that we have National Police Remembrance Day, a solemn occasion when we commemorate and pay tribute to those officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty and convey our respects to their families and colleagues. Last Saturday, I met with police from around Australia at the National Police Memorial in Canberra as part of the Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance. The ride brings police, their families and their friends together, embarking on a motorcycle ride from a dedicated place of remembrance from around the country and ending at the National Police Memorial. The memorial is a very moving place, surrounded by touchstones bearing the names of those who have lost their lives. It's a place of deep reflection where we honour their courage and bravery and thank them for their service and sacrifice.
Policing isn't just about law enforcement. It's about building relationships with communities and protecting communities in times of disaster. We saw this only last week with the fires in the Peregian Beach area in Noosa. The police worked with other emergency services, firefighters, volunteers, disaster coordinators, community groups and council to keep Noosa safe from last week's bushfires. And to all I say a very heartfelt thank you. When you consider the extent of the fires and the blaze which went across the district, and the rapid spread of embers, it was remarkable how everyone pulled together so quickly to defend homes and properties. More than 5,000 people were safely evacuated from 2,500 homes. I thank the people who kept the evacuation centres at The J, the Noosa Leisure Centre and the Cooroy Library running smoothly, and I recognise the people who opened their homes and rooms in their hotels and resorts to give shelter to people in need.
Police joined more than 60 firefighting crews on the ground during the day and more than 12 overnight, with many working around the clock. There were multiple air operations with six helicopters and a Boeing 737, which dropped more than 15,000 litres of fire retardant. The clean-up and recovery is underway, and all levels of government are working together to help. Thanks again to everyone who kept Noosa safe.
As we approach National Police Remembrance Day, I convey my respects to all police past and present and commend them for the incredible job they do. I honour those police who have lost their lives in the service of their communities.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
I rise today to acknowledge in this House the victims of the Sterling First New Life scheme and associated companies' collapse. I also rise to condemn the despicable, deceptive and fraudulent behaviour used by the Sterling Group to strip senior, vulnerable and trusting Australians of their life savings, leaving many of them financially wrecked, without a home and with an uncertain future. Also caught up in this con job are young Australians like Joe, a FIFO worker with a young family who has been left carrying the financial burden of the Sterling First collapse, as they are forced to carry the cost of mortgaged homes tenanted out by Sterling Corporate Services to those who handed over their life savings expecting a roof over their heads.
The Sterling First con job was no ordinary fraudulent financial scheme. This wasn't a get-rich-quick offering appealing to human greed, nor was it like the infamous Nigerian prince scam that circulates the internet. Those sorts of scams always appear to be too good to be true, and we offer little sympathy to those who fall for them, as they come with neon flashing warning lights. But the Sterling Group con was different and far more calculated. The Sterling Group con was egregious because they were wolves dressed in sheep's clothing. It targeted senior Australians, people who had saved over a lifetime, who were trusting and who desired financial certainty and stability. The victims of the con aren't wealthy, nor are they people who would willingly gamble their life savings on the promise of a fortune. They are generally diligent, decent, honest people. The scam only worked because of their virtue.
It is heartbreaking to hear the testimony of the men and women defrauded of their life savings by Sterling First. They feel a sense of shame, as if somehow they've let themselves and their families down. I say to them today, you have not let anyone down. I feel your sense of injustice, your anger, your frustration and your disappointment. You and your families are rightly outraged by Sterling Group and their deceitful, fraudulent behaviour.
Who is Sterling Group? It's a very complex business arrangement which is difficult for people to grasp. The group is made up of 12 interwoven companies originally registered in 2012. This opacity and ambiguity was a mask for the unsound schemes and products they sold to vulnerable senior Australians. Perth broadcaster Gareth Parker referred to the arrangements as 'a spaghetti soup of related companies, trusts and entities with related-party transactions, transfers and loans.' In short, retirees were subleased properties for lengthy periods of time—up to 40 years—by Sterling First Limited in exchange for their life savings. Some paid $170,000. Some paid $215,000. Others paid $325,000. With the collapse of Sterling First Limited people have lost their life savings and many are homeless.
This is a human story, and I want to share in this House some examples. I'm quoting The West Australian here, where people have been comfortable going on the record. There are many others like them who have not yet told their story. Margaret Kennedy, from Yanchep in the electorate of Pearce, is 80 years old. She's struggling with stage 4 breast cancer, which has spread to her lung. She says:
I was told I was paying for 40 years rent when I handed over my money and signed the contract … But that money's gone, along with the people I gave it to, and now I have to pay even more rent for the house I thought I had for 40 years.
I think of Graeme and Sheryl Sofield, from Ravenswood. They've lost everything, and they now rely on their children to pay their rent. They saw a newspaper ad and started investigating. They moved into a Sterling property at Ravenswood, in the heart of Canning. They say:
We feel sick and somewhat embarrassed, to be honest—
after losing $135,000—
and we are relying on our kids to pay our rent at a stage of life when we are supposed to be helping them.
Finally, I mention David and Maria, both in their late 70s, living in Mandurah. They moved from a Mandurah retirement village into a Sterling First home in mid-2016. They spent more than $160,000 on a 20-year plus 20-year lease. They say the fact that Sterling First was put into administration a couple of weeks ago 'shocked us'. David said he was now ruined. David has put his entire life savings into the venture, and he doesn't know where to go from here.
In closing, I note on the Notice Paper that the company is in administration and ASIC has commenced an investigation into its activities. We all look forward to the result of this investigation. I also note that, given the complexity of each case, the Department of Social Services has introduced a dedicated officer at Centrelink to help those affected.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I'm really pleased to rise today to speak to the motion, which I have now seconded, put forward by the member for Canning. This is the second time in a couple of sittings that I have risen in this place on behalf of the victims impacted by the scandalous Sterling First episode. This is a scandal that continues to engulf people right across the country, but in particular there are a number of Western Australians from my electorate of Brand and in the neighbouring electorate of Canning caught up in its devastating effects. I've received correspondence from victims telling me their stories and what they've lost—in some cases, over $200,000. That was money that was meant to be used to fund the well-earned retirements of ageing Australians in my electorate and that of the member for Canning. I acknowledge the words and sentiment of the member for Canning in moving this motion, and what he's just said. I fully support his words in that regard. It's an outrageous scandal, a rip-off, that has been put upon vulnerable Western Australians and others.
It's been reported that former administrators, and now the liquidator, KPMG, are attempting to get a return from all those assets that might be sold. But, of course, their first legal responsibility is to the creditors and not to the retirees, who are the most affected. These are the retirees who are least likely to have other options in retirement as they face the prospect of losing their life savings. For some, it's not only the prospect; this has actually now happened. As the member for Canning pointed out, these people are embarrassed and they can hardly believe what has happened to them. Quite frankly, as an outside observer that is now trying to speak on their behalf, I'm amazed at what has happened. It's horrible that we are in this position at all. It's greedy and predatory behaviour by the Sterling First Group that has resulted in mental and financial stress on a scale that we've seldom seen. It's a complicated, complex, long-term rental scheme. As I said earlier, it has preyed upon vulnerable people, ageing Australians, who are thinking that they are investing in something that might give them a better future. In fact, greed and the art of the con artist have come to the fore and ripped these people off.
I join with the member for Canning in condemning the Sterling First Group for the deceptive con man tactics that they've used to prey upon vulnerable seniors. In an attempt to give voice to the victims in my electorate, I addressed a letter to the government earlier this year urging greater recognition, support and action on behalf of these victims. I'm really pleased to see that the Department of Social Services has introduced a dedicated officer to oversee Centrelink clients affected by this awful scam. I urge all individuals in this position to make sure they get an interview with Centrelink staff. They do good things; I know they're under pressure as well in their work. I commend the Centrelink staff who are seeking to help the victims of the Sterling First Group.
I would also encourage all victims to make a submission to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority to investigate the dealings of the group. Make your voices heard. Make sure your case is recorded and investigated properly. Each personal circumstance is different, and each victim should be heard. The company is in administration, as I said earlier, and ASIC has commenced investigations into their activities. Of course, we all look forward to seeing what that finds. Of course, it is too late for many of the victims of the Sterling First scam.
I'm glad the government has strengthened the role of ASIC with a $400 million funding boost that will increase its regulatory powers that will allow it to intervene in the distribution of a product where there is a perceived and significant consumer detriment. It's a positive step forward in the wake of the banking royal commission. I'm sure it does not provide much comfort to the victims of Sterling First and victims of other scams, but, nonetheless, it is an important step in making sure dodgy financial products are stopped at the start and don't go on to the market.
It's unacceptable what we're seeing here today for these people in Australia, but particularly in Canning and in Brand. It's unacceptable that ASIC weren't able to stop this sooner, and it's unacceptable that victims have lost everything. Some have lost their homes. Some are on the brink of losing their homes. As the member for Canning has said, they are relying on the generosity of their families and others and find themselves in a really desperate and unimaginable position.
I know those affected are frustrated at the seeming lack of action or interest in their plight. I acknowledge that it will be difficult to pursue compensation for their losses, and terrible situations like this demonstrate how important it is to have strong laws to prevent rip-off artists foisting dodgy financial products on unsuspecting and vulnerable consumers.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 2019 marks the centenary of Sir Ross Smith and Sir Keith Smith’s epic flight from London to Darwin;
(b) a service was held at St Peter’s Cathedral in Adelaide on 15 June 2019 to commemorate the centenary;
(c) Sir Ross Smith is one of Australia’s most distinguished airmen, having served with distinction during World War I and then winning the 1919 Great Air Race with his brother, piloting the renowned Vickers Vimy aircraft now on display at Adelaide Airport; and
(d) on 15 June 1922 more than 100,000 people lined the streets of Adelaide for the funeral cortege of Sir Ross Smith who was tragically killed in 1922 whilst test flying another Vickers aircraft in preparation for another epic flight; and
(2) acknowledges heroism of the Smith brothers, their contribution to Australian aviation and the pride they brought to the nation.
The significance of the epic 18,500 kilometre flight in 1919 from England to Australia by the Smith brothers, Sir Ross Smith and Sir Keith Smith, with crew members Sergeant Wally Shears and Sergeant Jim Bennett in their Vickers Vimy aircraft has been compared with Christopher Columbus's expedition into the New World and the moon landing as an advancement for mankind. The Smith brothers ventured into the unknown, faced incredible risks and put their lives on the line—as was done by Columbus and with the moon landing.
As a skilled and courageous aviator, and having served with distinction in World War I, Sir Ross Smith responded to Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes's challenge to complete a flight from England to Australia in 30 days. Such a feat had never been performed previously. The Smith brothers, and another five Australian crews, took up the challenge, which included an incentive of 10,000 pounds in prize money. They left Hounslow, England, on 12 November 1919. Twenty-eight days later and 135 hours in the air, which I equate to about 150 kilometres per hour in air travel, and having endured countless difficulties and extreme weather conditions, with two crews crashing and two others perishing, the Smith brothers landed in Darwin at 3 pm on 10 December. The Smith brothers had achieved the impossible and became national and international heroes.
From Darwin, they flew south to Sydney, then to Melbourne, and on to Adelaide, finally landing at fellow aviator Harry Butler's Northfield Aerodrome to the cheer of around 20,000 waiting well-wishers. Tens of thousands of South Australians—including schoolchildren—had taken the day off to watch the Vimy fly over Adelaide. Sadly, Sir Ross Smith and Jim Bennett were tragically killed in England two years later on 14 April 1922 as they prepared for an even longer flight: around-the-world. Ross was just 29 years of age.
The respect and admiration for Sir Ross Smith was on full display on the day he was buried. More than 100 vehicles were in the funeral cortege, and over 100,000 people—one-fifth of the state's population—lined the streets of Adelaide to watch the procession. Sir Keith Smith passed away in 1955, and both brothers are buried at the North Road Cemetery at Nailsworth. Wally Shears died in 1968. The Vickers Vimy airplane they flew is one of only two remaining in the world and is now housed at Adelaide Airport. I understand a $6 million purpose-built display building is being constructed so it can be preserved into the future, and I welcome that.
The 1919 Smith brothers flight was indeed an aviation breakthrough and Australia, a young and emerging nation, led the way. The Smith brothers and their crew brought pride, confidence and inspiration to Australia at a time that it was sorely needed. World War I had just ended. Australian losses in that war were great, and the nation was in mourning, let alone the rebuilding that needed to take place.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
The epic 1919 flight was achieved because of the tenacity, determination, courage and skills of the young Aussie crew. To mark the centenary of the flight, on 15 June this year RAAF Edinburgh, in conjunction with the RAAF Association, held a memorial service at St Peter's Cathedral in Adelaide, which I attended along with hundreds of other people. It was a fitting and respectful service, with the keynote address delivered by senior ADF officer at Edinburgh Air Commodore Phil Gordon. In supporting this motion today, our national parliament is once again, as it did a century ago—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 13:04 to 13:14
In supporting this motion today, our national parliament is once again—as it did a century ago, when parliament was adjourned so that members could attend a luncheon in honour of the Smith brothers—showing its appreciation and gratitude to the Smith brothers and their crew for the immense pride they brought to our nation and all the people who live within it.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I start by acknowledging the member for Makin for moving this very important motion. I congratulate him for it, and it's my pleasure to speak in support of it. I won't go over the specifics of that epic flight, because the member for Makin has done it very eloquently in his remarks. But I would like to make a few points, and they pick up on what the member for Makin said in conclusion. I've always felt that we're not as good as we should be in this country at honouring our heroes. Frankly, if the Smith brothers had been American, there'd be a Hollywood blockbuster made about what they did. They'd be commemorated much more comprehensively than in the way we do. I suppose that's part of our Australian nature and character. We've had some great achievements that we're not so quick to brag or boast about, but this is certainly one that was a phenomenal challenge accepted and something that, as the member for Makin said, was so helpful for the morale of our nation in those months after the end of the First World War.
I would like to commend Lainey Anderson, a very well-known journalist in South Australia, who has made it her mission to write the history of this epic flight like no-one else before her. It was my pleasure to go to the book launch soon after the recent election in the Adelaide Advertiser building, which was the culmination of an enormous amount of hard work that she has put into making sure that we were celebrating and commemorating the centenary of what the Smith brothers did. I will point out that the member for Makin and I have spoken and the member for Grey might be about to speak; of course, we're not just Australians but South Australians, which I will put on the record as well.
The Vickers Vimy aircraft is at the Adelaide Airport. It's been there for quite some time in a state of—without being offensive—not-to-the-full glory that that aircraft should be kept in. I was very pleased to lobby for a Commonwealth commitment of funds of $2 million, which the Liberal government committed to in the election campaign. To be fair, that was matched by the Labor Party in the campaign. With funds from the state government and the Adelaide Airport, there is going to be a $6 million relocation of that aircraft to be pride of place in the Adelaide Airport terminal, as it should be, because it's one of the great artefacts of Australian history and particularly the history of aircraft.
Another interesting connection that I point out is with British Aerospace, soon to be one of the largest employers in my home state of South Australia by virtue of being awarded the naval frigate contract for the Type 26. One of the companies that merged together to form British Aerospace was the Vickers company. That aircraft not only will be about the past but also has an interesting connection to the future economic and industrial capability and capacity that we are bringing online in South Australia.
In late November, the state government are holding a state dinner to commemorate the centenary of that flight. This is something that's been newly instituted—having more regular opportunities for our state to celebrate major milestones. Just recently, there was a state dinner to celebrate the 125th anniversary of women's suffrage in South Australia, the second place in the world to allow women to vote and the first in the world to allow women to stand for elected office. That was celebrated. Quite rightly, we're also celebrating the centenary of what the Smith brothers achieved in that epic flight. I commend the motion to the Chamber, and I hope that we have as practice more opportunities to talk about the great achievements of Australians in our federal parliament.
It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on this motion put forward by a good South Australian member. As was just pointed out by the member for Sturt, the Smith brothers were of course South Australian. We're very proud of our aviation history in South Australia. Like the member for Sturt, I won't run through the list of those achievements—the things they actually accomplished by flying from England to Australia and eventually to Adelaide—but I will reaffirm the fact that they were, like many of our early aviators, the rock stars of their generation.
It needs to be remembered that—certainly in South Australia, but for most Australians—at the end of World War I they'd never seen a plane in flight. The very idea these gentlemen would fly an airplane, which was basically new technology, right across the world and back to Australia was an achievement within itself. The Vickers Vimy has sat in what was, in its day, a good display area at Adelaide airport. Unfortunately for the display area, the airport shifted and it's now marooned out in the visitor car park. It should have been brought into the main terminal at the time it was built, but it was not. It's about to be rectified, and it will hold pride of place there. That's a good thing. We should celebrate that journey that was 100 years ago. It would have meant so much to the Australian nation. It meant a lot to the former Prime Minister, Billy Hughes, who put 10,000 pounds—which was probably worth a little bit more then that it is today—on the table for this flight. That would've funded the Smith brothers' continued aviation pursuits.
It's worth remembering, in that time and space, the Smith brothers met their end in an aviation accident, as did Hinkler, as did Kingsford Smith and as did another South Australian hero—who I want to take a little bit of time to speak about because we've just commemorated 100 years there as well—Harry Butler.
I want to talk about Harry Butler, because it is a great story. He was born in Yorketown on Yorke Peninsula and schooled at Koolywurtie, which isn't very far from Maitland, which is down the backbone of the peninsula. He reputedly studied his mother's chooks to work out the mechanisms of flying. I've always thought the chooks we've had haven't been all that good at flying, but he was really bitten by the bug. He was playing around with inventing aviation machines at the outbreak of the war.
Butler enlisted in the Australian Flying Corps, in 1916. He lasted two weeks, because he could see he was being streamed into the market where he'd be a mechanic rather than a pilot. He scarpered over to England and joined the RAF at that stage. He went on to become an instructor. He instructed 2,700 pilots in World War I. In fact, the attrition rate on trainee pilots was higher than it was in the skies over France. He singled himself out as a man of great skills, because he flew sorties on a regular basis into France to keep his skills up with the modern, evolving moves of new aviation dog fighting. When he came back to Australia he brought a couple of airplanes with him—a four-winged airplane; a biplane; a monoplane—with the biplane he set up a business taking passengers and he became a barnstormer—and the Red Devil, Bristol monoplane.
At one stage, when he was performing over the skies of Adelaide, he took off from Sturt Oval. The member for Sturt would know how big the Sturt oval was. It's not very big, to this day. In the southern goal, he had the chocks in and four men holding the wings. He was under full power when they said, 'Release him,' and away he raced towards the northern goals. He took off just in time. He went up and did his aerobatic displays and had to land somewhere else. He lost his life in an aviation accident, as it turned out, right alongside his home town of Maitland. There are those who believed he was the genesis of the Biggles books because he went to the flying school with W E John. I'll end that there.
There being no further speakers, this debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 13:25 to 16:00
As a skier, I've always had to respect the mountain and its unpredictability. I've had to be aware of how dangerous the slopes can become if I don't read the weather properly or if I stray outside the boundaries of the groomed runs. The same goes for our beautiful beaches and rivers. Despite their beauty, beaches and rivers in our country can be deadly and, like skiing beyond the groomed runs, whenever we swim outside the yellow and red flags we are putting ourselves in danger.
Today Royal Life Saving Australia released its national drowning report, which shows 276 people tragically lost their lives to drowning in the past year. New South Wales has the highest number of drownings, and a high proportion of them are men aged between 25 and 34 and Australians over the age of 65. This year, as we head into the busy summer months, please swim between the red and yellow flags, make sure your children are supervised at all times, avoid alcohol around water and start thinking about learning swimming and life-saving skills.
It was an honour today to meet with Senator Richard Colbeck, the Minister for Youth and Sport and Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians. We shared our passion for our country's beaches and wanting to keep Australians and international visitors safe.
I commend the nearly 6,000 primary school students from across Western Australia who recently participated in the One Big Voice choir at Perth Arena, on Friday 30 August, marking the choir's 20th annual performance. The first performance was in 2000, starting with just six local schools and 450 students. Twenty nineteen marked the 20th annual event. The One Big Voice children's choir continues to evolve each year, and I make the case for federal government funding to support this valuable event.
One Big Voice has become an important part of the school year and is a highlight for both students and teachers. I formally acknowledge in parliament the efforts of Donna Marwick O'Brien and her mother, Bernice Marwick. They have both been very strong advocates of the children's choir. Donna writes, arranges and develops the musical program, providing opportunities for as many students as possible in the role of soloist, in vocal groups and as comperes, dancers and instrumentalists. The repertoire and professional development provided annually assists music and classroom teachers in their school environment. The teachers involved in One Big Voice work as a team. As Plato said, 'Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything.'
I rise to inform the House about the Richmond Community Grants Hub, which has been created in response to the growing demand in my community for funding information and assistance with potential grant opportunities. There's been a massive response locally to the community hub. It's essentially an online tool which provides ongoing information about available grant opportunities from all levels of government, not-for-profit groups and corporate community sponsorship programs. Many of our incredible community groups, organisations, sporting clubs and individuals, from Ballina to Tweed, from Mullumbimby to Uki, have already accessed information via the community grants hub.
The hub was established to champion and support our community and, in particular, to provide capital works and improvements. Funding grants are there to support these groups, and it's incredibly important to secure funding for our community so that it keeps growing, developing and helping those who need assistance. I'm always passionate about working with these groups in our region and committed to keep supporting them and their outstanding work. The work of not-for-profit organisations, social enterprises and other community builders contributes so much to our vibrant and unique community.
I'd like to acknowledge all those remarkable volunteers who give their time, energy and commitment to help others in our region. Volunteers help build strong, healthy and well-connected communities, and we're so fortunate to have such an active, committed and diverse array of community groups on the New South Wales North Coast. I look forward to keeping on working together to make our area an even better place to live, so please get involved with the Richmond Community Grants Hub.
Everyone in this parliament has people in their electorate who are local champions—the kind of people who make a difference to our communities. They are stronger, kinder and more productive. I'd like to talk about one such person in my community, a local legend, Leigh Smart.
Leigh is the proud owner of a local company, Formula Chemicals, a business he's run for decades. He employs many people and supplies chemicals to pools and industry across Bennelong and Sydney. He's also actively involved with the industry and sits on numerous advisory boards on trucking and safety.
His energy is unbounded. Just last week, he arranged a competition for one of the fastest-growing sports in the world: pickleball. In a matter of hours, teams from neighbouring businesses, all in the name of making friends at work, joined.
He is also a charitable man. He set up a charity, WOWS Kids, which gives thousands of dollars in aid to hundreds of kids in Fiji suffering from cancer. They are often children who have to cross between islands to get to treatment, and Leigh's charity ensures that they can do it with their family and the support they need. Leigh—like other great Australians Andrew Forrest and Michael Traill—defined what it is to be successful in business. Yes, it's great to make money, but it's even greater to know how to give it away, to make a difference and to help those most in need.
I rise today to express my dismay at the collapse of outpatient services that are provided at our public hospitals. Through my firsthand experience in working in the public health system and engagement in private practice, I know that matters have only gotten much worse every year since the coalition came to power in terms of people's access to adequate health care.
Our nurses, doctors and support staff are all under-resourced and are expected to work harder than ever to meet a shortfall in support for a government that's failing to provide for our public health system. The government states that the funding is at record levels, but we know that they have cut funding from the health budget. When people are unable to access outpatient clinics at our local hospitals, the system is broken. I can tell the House that even my own paediatric clinic, which I do voluntarily at Campbelltown Hospital, has an extravagant waiting list. People are waiting up to 12 months to see a paediatrician, because they cannot afford to see one privately or cannot find one.
My local hospital is at breaking point. The Macarthur region is experiencing exponential population growth and development, yet our healthcare system is struggling to meet present demand. Just have a look at the AMA's most recent report card on our public hospitals. How is Campbelltown Hospital supposed to be able to service the projected 130 per cent growth in population expected by 2031 in the Camden LGA? How are they going to cope with the demand for health services? The government must address this growing crisis. It's urgent.
The Queen's Birthday Honours List provides us with an opportunity as a nation to honour and acknowledge the leaders in our midst who give of their time so generously towards bettering our community. Today, I would like to, in particular, congratulate the 21 people of Higgins who received some of the nation's highest honours earlier this year. I was particularly pleased to see an incredible number of women in the health and social services sector acknowledged for their commitment and contribution to our community.
Pamela Galli AO was appointed an Officer in the General Division of the Order of Australia for her distinguished service to children with a disability, community health and medical research as a supporter and benefactor. Pamela's appointment recognises her contribution to the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, the Royal Children's Hospital and numerous other health institutions and causes.
Another notable recipient was Carolyn Jane Clarke OAM, who was awarded a medal of the Order of Australia in the general division for her service to women and to the community. Carolyn's recognition follows decades of volunteering—now as a board member, secretary and committee chairperson to the Sacred Heart Mission, and council member of Melbourne Girls Grammar.
I commend the dedication and commitment of these Higgins residents and would like to express my gratitude for their valuable contribution to both our local community and Australia. I seek leave to have the list of recipients incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as followed:
List of recipients:
Pamela Galli AO, Vivien Brass OAM, Carolyn Clark OAM, Joyce Evans OAM, Gwenda Herbert OAM, Patrician Keith OAM, Richard Leder OAM, Joanne Lee Dow OAM, Clement Newton-Brown OAM, Patricia O'Hara OAM, Bill Papastergiadis OAM, Joseph Borensztajn AM, Trevor Cohen AM, David Flegg AM, Gilah Leder AM, David Li AM, Michael Murray AM, Susan Peden AM, Joseph Reich AM, Richard Stark AM and David Thurin AM.
The more than 20 small villages around my home town of Cessnock had their beginnings in coalmining. They have a rich coalmining heritage. First came the mine shaft, then came the houses, the pub, the corner store and, of course, the school.
One of those schools is Kitchener Public School—it's one of many around the City of Cessnock. On Friday Kitchener Public School celebrated its 100th anniversary. I was very pleased to join local Mayor Bob Pynsent and state member Clayton Barr for that celebration.
In their early days, these were struggling communities. Our coalminers worked long, dangerous and dirty hours and were not well-paid. You can imagine that the formation of the public schools was an important part of the development of those townships, and those schools are a result of the work local community, including coalminers, put into their community at the time.
I want to again congratulate Kitchener Public School and all those who in the early days helped to build the school and for 100 years since then have ensured that, like all of our public schools, Kitchener Public School has continued to deliver important and quality education to our local schoolchildren.
With many parts of New South Wales going through one of the worst droughts on record, we send our sympathies and wishes to all those struggling in those farming communities. But we also must look at our policy response by trusting the science, and this is what Professor Andy Pitman AO from the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales and also a lead author on the IPCC Assessment Reports 3 and 4 recently said the science is:
… this may not be what you expect to hear. But as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.
That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented, but there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.
If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last one hundred years there's no trend in data. There is no drying trend.
There's been a trend in the last twenty years, but there's been no trend in the last hundred years, and that's an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is.
That is the science, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon. We must accept that science so we actually have the correct policy response to assist those suffering from drought throughout our nation.
I'm very proud that I get to represent the amazing suburb of Thomastown in this place and have the opportunity on many occasions to talk about the great things that are happening there. In particular I'd like to share with the House the Taste of Thomo Festival which I was very pleased to attend together with my kids on Saturday 10 September.
This festival was organised by the amazing Thomastown Neighbourhood House which is so ably led by Justine Sless and a team of committed volunteers, all of whom have a great passion for the place in which they live and the amazing things that happen in Thomastown—in particular, food manufacture. That's been a big feature of life in Melbourne's northern suburbs and it will continue to be. It was amazing to see over 1,100 people come together to celebrate the wonderful manufactured goods produced in Thomastown—small goods, cheeses—and also to see what's being done with these products, to see community members come together to share recipes and ideas.
What most impressed me about the event was, again, the Neighbourhood House showing pride in place, showing a community coming together to celebrate what's great about it and what can be even better about that community. There was a real sense of community, a sense of excitement about the future and a sense of pride and contribution. I'm so pleased to talk about the Taste of Thomo right here in Australia's parliament.
Local footy clubs are often the glue of many regional and rural communities across Australia. This particularly stands true in my electorate of Bass. On the weekend I was thrilled to attend the NTFA finals held at Windsor Park in Riverside to watch the Bridgenorth Parrots take on the Hillwood Sharks in the seniors' final.
While the Prime Minister may have been the most well-known attendee on the day, I'd like to take the time today give a shout-out to Bridgenorth strapper of 20 years and most ardent supporter Ernie Blackberry. Ernie has spent the last seven weeks in the ICU at the LGH fighting the rare Guillain-Barre syndrome. However, he was not going to miss the chance to see his beloved Parrots in their biggest game of the year. Thanks to a team of dedicated and passionate staff from the Launceston General Hospital ICU, he did attend. With the help of his wonderful medical team—two physios Monique Took and Lucy Dennis, nurse Emily Dunn and Dr Cara Landon—as well as some support from Jane Loxton and Katelyn McNab—Ernie was able to attend the game after 47 days in ICU. Sadly, the Parrots lost to the Sharks by 23 points, but even the loss couldn't wipe the smile from Ernie's face. I know firsthand how dedicated and professional the staff members of the LGH are, and it is acts of kindness like that which they provided to Ernie which often go unrecognised. Thanks to all at the Launceston General Hospital for giving Ernie the incredible gift of attending the grand final. And, Ernie, I hope to see you back there next year.
The future of work is one of the most critical issues facing our country today—just ask the literally millions of Australians who have already seen their work lives disrupted by technology. Jobs are disappearing and being created at a significant rate. The old models of employment are changing before our very eyes. Wage stagnation, casualisation, the gig economy, increased opportunities to work remotely and countless other changes are going to mean that our children and grandchildren face a very different work environment than the one that we face right now. The implications are vast. They affect education, industrial relations, health, technology, infrastructure and, in fact, much of the rest of the work of the federal government.
A good government would be aware of these changes and have a plan to deal with them, but this government's approach seems to be to shut its eyes, put its head in the sand and pretend that nothing's changing. In September last year, 12 months ago, a Senate committee handed down this report. It's called Hope is not a strategy—our shared responsibility for the future of work and workers. The government had an obligation to respond within three months. It hasn't uttered a word. Time is not a luxury on this issue—not for the government and not for the millions of Australians who are already having to grapple with the changes that this issue affects without any assistance or support from their government. It's not a problem which is going to solve itself. It's not an issue we can afford to pretend is not happening. That's certainly not the approach that Labor will be taking this forthcoming— (Time expired)
I rise to speak about a group of people in my community who deserve recognition for the outstanding job they are doing with the elderly. The Gold Coast's idyllic weather and proximity to beaches and amenities make it a prime location to retire in. My electorate has amongst the highest number of senior Australians with the number who call the central Gold Coast home. This fact means that we also have many senior residents in need of care from either their loved ones or aged-care workers. Caring for the elderly can be a very rewarding experience, although at times challenging. I want to pay tribute today to those in my electorate who are assisting our elderly with the utmost care and respect, ensuring that they are living the golden years of their lives with comfort and dignity.
In the last month or so, I have visited nearly half of the retirement homes in my electorate and have been highly impressed with the services provided and the level of care and respect that is extended to our aged population. Just a few examples are: the Clanwilliam Aged Care facility in Nerang, where many residents from Earle Haven have been relocated from Orchid House and Hibiscus House and are being well taken care of; and Opal Leamington in Southport, where resident Clive showcases his magic tricks. Also, I received a beautiful painting done by Vicky Cook—an artwork which now hangs in my office. I was lucky enough to meet the residents of Opal in Ashmore during their happy hour when all the residents were dancing and singing to some 1970s classics. I wish to celebrate and congratulate all the carers on the Gold Coast and especially in my electorate of Moncrieff for the invaluable and important work they do for our community.
Early Learning Matters Week is held between 1 September and 6 September and highlight the benefits of quality early learning and education for our children and their families in our community. Scientific evidence says 90 per cent of a child's brain develops in their first five years, so it is vital they have access to quality early education and early learning services. That is why Labor took a policy of universal kinder for three- to four-year-olds to the last election.
During the week, I had the pleasure of visiting the Coburg Children's Centre in my electorate. It was wonderful to tour the facility and see the great work that happens at the centre. I'd like to thank Marla, who's four, for showing me her puzzle skills, and Max for giving me a tour of the sandpit. The week is important for showcasing and celebrating the work of centres and their staff, who do amazing work in caring for our children and supporting families in our community. That's why we were proud to make a commitment at the last election to give early childhood educators a pay rise. There is a gender pay gap—90 per cent of early educators are women, and yet they get paid around 30 per cent less than workers in other sectors with comparable qualifications.
So I'd like to thank the staff, the parents, the students and all the early education centres across my electorate of Wills for all the wonderful, fantastic work they do to support our children. I look forward to touring more facilities within my electorate. I take the opportunity to say to the government benches: provide greater support services for childcare workers, who desperately deserve a pay rise, and support greater access to kinder and early learning services for families across the country. (Time expired)
Two or three years ago I had a conversation over dinner with Professor Robyn Langham, the head of Monash University's School of Rural Health, about a teaching facility connected to the Gippsland Hospital. This week, we opened that brand new teaching facility. It is a beautiful building. Uncle Lloyd Hood not only gave the Welcome to Country but also gave a great speech about the importance of country and how important it is to all of us. I spoke to two young Gippsland women and said, 'Why are you working back in Gippsland?' They said, 'We just had to come home.' There's something about us all coming home to country.
To Jenny Donnelly, Dr Annette Connolly, Dr Ram Nataraja, Dr Eli Ristevski, Larissa Attard and Dan Weeks, the CEO of the West Gippsland Healthcare Group: only years ago, we dreamed about interacting technology between campuses and there we were in the room with the other campuses in their rooms and they were up on the screens and we were talking directly to them—direct interaction. What a fantastic facility this is! How lucky we are to have this. And how lucky are we to have professionals that put hands like this one of mine back together and sew this one back on, which was part of my address to the people. We have professionals in this country that we should be very, very proud of.
The 30th of August marked the 20th anniversary of the vote for independence by the people of East Timor. A period of shocking violence by the paramilitaries and the Indonesian military followed that vote. Thousands took to the streets of our capitals, demanding Australian military intervention. On this anniversary in Dili, the Australian Council of Trade Unions was rewarded the country's highest honour, the Medal of East Timor, for the solidarity work it did to support the intervention. Congratulations. Next week marks the 20th anniversary of the arrival of the INTERFET force in East Timor. We owe a debt of gratitude to those brave men and women of Australia who answered the call to bring peace to East Timor, and to the Howard government for enabling it to happen. Australia, through our military cooperation program, still has over 40 dedicated personnel in country helping to train and professionalise the East Timor armed forces.
Timor-Leste has survived many challenges in its short life, including civil unrest in 2006 and dubious Australian tactics in the long maritime boundary negotiations. Now, with the agreement of a much fairer maritime boundary and more oil and gas income as a result, Timor-Leste is preparing for the next stage of nation-building. Australian civil society organisations, as well as UNAMET, INTERFET and Federal Police members should look back with great pride on what they have done to help achieve in East Timor.
Recently, I joined the Dungog Shire Mayor Tracy Norman, state member for Upper Hunter, Michael Johnsen, and council staff for the start of work on the amazing upgrade for the Dowling Street beautification and revitalisation project in the beautiful town of Dungog. This project was funded with the support of the federal coalition government to the tune of $1.436 million out of federal financial assistance grants, Roads to Recovery and the Building Better Regions Fund, in addition to $1.26 million from the New South Wales government. Road rehabilitation across three major intersections, including beautification, pedestrian lighting, refuges, bollards, street furniture and so many other things will make the main street a much more pleasant place to be.
The works builds on a range of important local infrastructure investments by the federal coalition government in the Dungog Shire set to get underway over the coming 12 months, including the $20 million Clarence Town Road Upgrade and the $8.8 million in federal funding allocated towards the replacement for Brig O'Johnston Bridge at Clarence Town.
The federal coalition realises that local government has a huge burden of capital works across regional Australia—much more than similar councils have in metropolitan Australia. The numbers are quite different, but these signature National Party developments for regional Australia— (Time expired)
Australia Post has been the sole provider for mail communications for the last 210 years in this nation. Australia Post offers a range of services, including guaranteed next-day delivery for express post. Sadly, for some 50,000 residents in McEwen, this service is not the case. I'm not talking about rural regions here. These are well-established suburbs that have been neglected by Australia Post, failing to meet the needs of our community.
I take the example suburbs of Mernda and Doreen, 27 kilometres from the Melbourne CBD. That's pretty similar to the distance Parramatta is from the Sydney CBD. Mernda and Doreen have been growing rapidly this decade, with almost 50,000 residents in 2018. Wallan and Beverage are growing rapidly as well. Quite frankly, it's ridiculous that suburbs like Mernda, Doreen, Wallan and Beveridge do not receive next-day parcels and our community are waiting approximately four days for parcels that have been posted. This means important documents like passports and birth certificates aren't arriving when my constituents need them, even though they were originally sent by express post next-day delivery as per the Australia Post website. I'm calling on Australia Post to address this immediately and ensure that these suburbs are made part of the next-day delivery network. My constituents should get what is expected in a world-class city using a world-class postal service.
There has been a recent rise in disruptive and dangerous protests by extreme green activists around the country. In Dawson, these extremists have engaged in protests against businesses—blocking and locking themselves onto front gates—just because they tendered for work. We've seen sinister and potentially fatal protests, such as activists illegally trespassing onto hazardous operational areas and locking themselves onto gates, railway lines and large plant machinery, including coal loaders. This follows attempts to delay and upset the progress of the Carmichael coal project through various legal challenges to ministerial decisions over the years.
In order to prevent these absurd protesters from harming Australian industries and endangering workers further, I went to the Nationals Federal Council over the weekend and moved some motions, which are now National Party policy. These motions include removing tax-deductible status of any group that advocates breaking the law or organises activities where the law is broken or engages in political activity—for example, distributing how-to-vote cards. These motions outlaw any action or threat of action intended to advance a political cause by coercing or intimidating government, business or the wider public, including disrupting roadways, railways or port infrastructure. These motions included legislating to ensure that only those people directly affected by development are able to challenge decisions in the courts. I'll be pursuing these National Party policies within the Morrison Liberal-National government to stop these crazed green protesters from harming our industries and hurting workers and local jobs.
I am proud that my electorate of Fraser has one of our country's largest Vietnamese communities, with over 30,000 Vietnamese Australians, or 10 per cent of the national total, calling this wonderful part of Melbourne's west home. Australia's Vietnamese communities have made an extraordinary and enriching contribution to our nation. My electorate is also fortunate to host a number of major festivals and events which celebrate the remarkable impact of the Vietnamese community in Australian and showcase Vietnamese culture.
Yesterday, the 2019 Sunshine Lantern Festival took place in the heart of my electorate. Lantern festivals are popular traditional events celebrated in Vietnam and many other South-East Asian communities. The Sunshine Lantern Festival is a significant and welcoming expression of Vietnamese culture that successfully draws together people from all over Victoria and beyond. From humble beginnings in 2009, it is now one of the biggest one-day community festivals in Melbourne and the largest lantern festival in Victoria, with over 55,000 people coming along to celebrate and have fun.
Each member of Fraser's thriving Vietnamese community has a unique and important story. Collectively, these stories form part of Australia's special multicultural tradition. I commend the Sunshine Business Association and all the volunteers for their hard work in organising the 2019 lantern festival. I thank the performers, the stallholders and the many thousands of visitors to Fraser who made the event so special.
I was honoured to represent the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel last Saturday, 14 September, at the Australian Peacekeeping Memorial for National Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Day. Australia has a very proud tradition of taking part in peacekeeping operations. That's more than 70 years of dedicated service to the international community. An estimated 65,000 Australian men and women have been involved in more than 50 peacekeeping operations worldwide. They have often served in hostile and volatile environments, including operations in Kashmir, Cyprus, the Middle East, East Timor, Cambodia, Rwanda and Bougainville. In fact, last week we marked the 20th anniversary of the INTERFET mission, the peacekeeping task force that came to Timor-Leste to address the humanitarian and security crisis from 1999 to 2000. The international community is thankful for the valuable service of our peacekeepers. I thank all those personnel currently on deployment, all those who've served on peacekeeping operations and the families that support them, including many in the electorate of Cowper. The Peacekeeping Memorial is rightfully placed on Anzac Parade alongside the memorials honouring Australia's contribution in wars and conflicts. It honours Australia's contribution to international peacekeeping missions since the first UN deployment in 1947and in the memory of those Australians who have died in the service of our country. Lest we forget.
The people of my electorate of Dunkley care deeply about sustainable development and the mitigation of climate change. Yesterday, as part of Sustainable House Day, I visited Denny and Bianca Cottle in their Langwarrin ecoprototype home, which has been awarded 10 stars on the Victorian scale and has led to electricity prices of only $15 a month. This is a great investment which these people in my electorate have made. The government should back these sorts of innovations.
This Friday 20 September is the global strike for climate. Young people's voices are important, and they're particularly important when it comes to what many believe is the greatest challenge facing our globe, the fight against climate change. It's your future that those of us who accept the science of climate change and humans' contribution to it are standing up to protect. Friday is three days out from the UN emergency climate summit, and it's a great opportunity for young people to have their voices heard and ensure that the UN knows that young Australians are taking climate change seriously, even if their government isn't. Students from across Dunkley will join the march on Friday in Melbourne. As your federal member, I'm proud of you and I will join you.
There are certain moments in life that are deserving of great ceremony. On 25 August I celebrated one of the special moments with the staff, residents, and families of Jimbelunga Nursing Centre in Eagleby. For over 25 years Jimbelunga has provided culturally appropriate, quality aged care to its residents, many of whom come from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background. Thanks to their partnership with ATSICHS Brisbane, the largest and most comprehensive Aboriginal medical health service in Queensland, and Australia's second oldest centre, the centre can provide a range of culturally appropriate medical health services, including GP visits, dental and oral health services, chronic disease management, optometry and a wide variety of specialist and allied health services.
The connection with ATSICHS and the culturally appropriate model of delivering aged care makes Jimbelunga a unique asset to my community of Forde and the residents who thrive under this model. In the Yugambeh language 'jimbelung' means 'friend', the namesake of the centre, because this is a centre where neighbours become friends. Here the residents, their families and the staff and the many community groups who visit build long-lasting friendships with one another. Through my regular visits to the centre I too have built a longstanding friendship with the residents and staff. Jimbelunga has an enduring legacy within the Eagleby community and I wish the residents and staff and their families a very happy birthday.
After receiving a petition from 250 people from the Linville area, in late July this year I wrote to the communications minister raising their concerns in relation to a lack of mobile phone coverage in the township of Linville and along the Brisbane Valley Rail Trail in the Somerset region. In the letter I highlighted issues surrounding residents not being able to contact the RACQ, their lifeline following accidents and natural disasters such as the floods of 2011 and 2013, as well as the significant impact these mobile black spots have on local business. When I received no reply from the minister, I resent the letter on 8 August this year. The second attempt was met with no formal response from the minister or his office, but apology for the delay and a promise that the matter would be escalated. I received no response until the first week in September, in a letter dated 28 August from the minister's chief of staff, again apologising for the significant delay in responding to my concerns. With no mobile phone coverage for Linville and landlines down in Linville and neighbouring Moore, with the bushfires causing emergency services to recommend that the people of Linville evacuate, in desperation I approached the minister directly after question time asking him to consider this issue and the importance of the matter. He then wrote a letter and caused it to be delivered to my office, having the hide to attack me for not raising the matter with him sooner, despite the repeated attempts to bring the matter to his attention. Minister, stop covering your tracks and help the people of Linville.
I say to the member who just spoke: in the six years that Labor were in government, when they cancelled the Mobile Black Spot Program, it had a really profound impact on my electorate too.
Recently I attended a launch of the world's largest ship hoist, located in my home city of Cairns. To say that a seven-storey piece of machinery is impressive is an absolute understatement. The gala launch event was impressive as well, complete with a spectacular light show and fireworks display choreographed to music of the Aussie rock legends AC/DC. The Italian-built 1,120-tonne hoist is a direct result of the vision and dedication of BSE manager Justin Parer. There's little doubt that Justin is a widely respected leader in his industry, something he should be extremely proud of.
The 23-metre high mobile boat lift has 32 wheels and eight lifting slings for transferring vessels to the hardstand and maintenance sheds. This amazing piece of machinery is quite literally a game changer for our region. The hoist will allow BSE to double its workforce for the next year and has further enhanced Cairns and Far North Queensland's marine and maintenance industry, which will lead to increased economic stimulation and growth.
The federal government played a small but significant role in getting this hoist to Cairns. We invested $8 million, which was matched by BSE, to build the hardstand on which the hoist operates. This is part of a $24 million package that BSE shared.
I rise to mourn the premature passing of trade unionist and barrister Janice Mayes, who passed away recently. She was a friend of mine. We worked together at the Australian Services Union. She was the president of the central and southern Queensland branch, a passionate champion for workers, a great advocate for women's rights and a tireless advocate—strong, passionate and committed to the cause. With any cause she took up, any members' concerns that she felt needed proper defence and proper support, she was always there. We certainly had our moments too. I was a national official, and the national executive meetings often were quite interesting.
An honourable member interjecting—
'Robust' is a very good word. These were really important matters: where do we deploy our resources to look after working people across the nation? You always knew where Janice stood. Once she believed in something, you always knew she would argue it passionately, as I say. She left the ASU and went to the bar, became a barrister. On behalf of federal Labor, I want to extend my condolences to her husband, Mike Reynolds; her sister, Cathy O'Toole the former member for Herbert; her family; and her many friends. She will be very much missed.
Today I rise to acknowledge Mr Gilbert Brogden and the countless hours he has volunteered to aid those in need. The quality of a community can truly be measured by the compassionate actions of its members. It is the unseen selflessness and generosity of individuals like Gilbert that truly allow us to thrive, not just on the northern beaches but in the wider Australian community.
Since his retirement, Gilbert has committed himself to what may be considered a second career. He calls himself a 'professional volunteer'. Gilbert's friends describe him as being 86 years young. For 35 of those years, Gilbert has passionately dedicated his time to helping others. Without a licence, Gilbert springs out of bed as early as 4 am to catch public transport to his day of work. To say he has built up an impressive record would be an understatement. Gilbert has volunteered for more than 55 major events, fundraisers and charities. I make note, in particular, of the Paralympic Games in 2000 and the Special Olympics in 2013.
Moreover, Gilbert has been an indispensable volunteer in fundraising for charities such as Red Nose Day, Pink Ribbon Day and the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, for the latter of which he raised funds to go towards cancer treatment and research. When Gilbert is asked why he volunteers, he says modestly, 'If you're lucky enough to be alive, maybe you can keep someone else alive.' It is no secret that Narrabeen is incredibly lucky to have such an outstanding member of its community.
Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of attending a festival in the Whitlam Centre in Liverpool. Now in its 24th year, the festival celebrates the Hindu god Ganesh with at least 3,000 to 4,000 attendees over the weekend. Saturday sees dances and performances from local youth showcasing the various and diverse cultures and styles of India. This is followed by prayers and religious observances on the Sunday. Congratulations to all the performers, their parents, dance instructors, costume makers and choreographers. Although the performances only last a few minutes, it's obvious from their amazing colour and coordination that many months of hard work go into the preparation.
Last but not least, a very big congratulations to the organisers, the Friends of India organisation, for another successful event. The Friends of India have always been inviting and welcoming to me, both as the member for Werriwa, and whilst I was a Liverpool councillor. Not only do they showcase the best of multicultural Australia, they also provide a means for local Indian-Australian youth to connect to their roots and culture in the subcontinent. They also have fundraising drives, are involved in Clean-Up Australia and organise blood drives during the year. I wish them all the best for next year's event, which will be the 25th, making it a milestone in my area of Western Sydney.
On Friday 13 September, the Blackwood Football Club had the grand opening of their brand new change rooms. I joined my state colleagues, the Minister for Sport, Corey Wingard, and local member for Waite, Sam Duluk, along with City of Mitcham councillors, SANFL representatives, club members and guests, for this very special occasion.
It was less than 12 months ago that I was at Blackwood footy club with the Minister for Sport, Bridget McKenzie, announcing that the Morrison Liberal government would contribute more than $456,000 to deliver these much-needed change rooms through the Community Sport Infrastructure Program. It certainly has been a very exciting time for the club. What is even more exciting is the reason that the Blackwood footy club needed these new facilities. The club currently has 25 sides, including four senior teams, and an impressive eight female teams. I'd like to congratulate the club, in particular the president, Kris Winchester; committee members, Leone Wilmshurst and Mick Wilmshurst, not only for working with me to secure the funding for this project, but for all of their hard work throughout the build, which has happened in record time.
There is always such a strong crowd every time I visit the Blackwood Football Club for games, training and events, which is a great credit to the club and the community of volunteers, players, members and supporters involved. Congratulations to Blackwood Football Club on the opening of your new change rooms, and thank you for everything you do for our local community.
Last month I had the pleasure of attending Bellbird Park State Secondary College cultural day. It was a wonderful acknowledgment of diversity in our community and we celebrated the unity of culture in the school through song, dance and dress. Bellbird Park is one of our newest schools with around 800 students enrolled across years 7, 8 and 9, led by Principal Michael West and his amazing teaching and support team.
I was honoured to present the school with a brand new set of Australian, Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander flags as part of the cultural celebrations. I was really pleased to be joined by Brisbane Broncos player, Sam Tagataese, who was a fantastic role model for the students to hear from, and they learnt about his pathway. Sam has been a leader in our community when it comes to embracing multiculturalism and speaking out against racism.
Special mentions go to Mr and Mrs Apa for all their hard work behind the scenes with the beautiful decorations and music, and to Michelle Maybanks and Flo Vailima and their students from Goodna State Primary School for their contributions to the school assembly. My congratulations again to Bellbird Park State Secondary College, for their 2019 cultural day celebrations, and of course to all of our local schools, who embrace multiculturalism and provide students with fantastic events like this to learn about and celebrate the diversity in our community.
I am constantly inspired by what is happening in schools in my electorate as I see the talents of students encouraged and flourishing. This is particularly so in the development of young artistic talent which I've had the opportunity to see firsthand on various occasions during the parliamentary winter recess. For example, in August I was simply blown away, to use the technical expression, by the quality of performances at the Cammeray Public School's performing arts night at The Concourse at Chatswood.
Cammeray Public School is well known for its music program, and this was on show as the school celebrated its students' talent in dance, singing and music. A full house at The Concourse Concert Hall witnessed outstanding performances from the school's chamber orchestra, its choirs, famous big band and concert band and some incredible dancing from its dance groups. I congratulate all the students and teachers involved in a production which was as enjoyable as you would expect from professional performers appearing at the Sydney Opera House.
I had a similar experience when I attended the joint North Sydney Girls High School and North Sydney Boys High School production of the Broadway musical Hairspray in June. Again, the quality of the singing, acting and accompanying music was just exceptional. It made for a very fun night and it was great to see some of the teachers joining their students on stage.
I left both productions envious of the opportunities students now have. It was certainly a long way from the rather limited repertoire of the Suzuki violin group I was part of in primary school, and I congratulate all the students involved.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
1) notes:
(a)the 74th anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred on 6 and 9 August 2019 respectively, causing suffering which continues to this day;
(b)the ongoing impacts of nuclear weapons on survivors of nuclear testing worldwide, including in Australia;
(c)that successive Coalition and Labor Governments have joined all other treaties prohibiting inhumane and indiscriminate weapons;
(d)that nuclear dangers are increasing worldwide, with no significant progress on nuclear disarmament in sight;
(e)the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons is an urgent humanitarian imperative;
(f)the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) outlaws the world’s worst weapons of mass destruction, strengthening the international legal nuclear disarmament framework; and
(g)the TPNW complements and strengthens Australia's existing commitments under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty; and
(2)urges Australia to work towards signing and ratifying the TPNW.
A few weeks ago, on the 6 and 9 August, it was the 74th anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which killed approximately 230,000 men, women and children by the end of 1945 and caused disease, suffering and illness for generations and which continues still to this day.
By today's standards, those atomic bombs were the equivalent of rather small tactical sized nuclear weapons. They were not targeted directly on people during the war. Nuclear weapons test explosions have caused displacement, ill health and suffering in every region that they have occurred in, including here in our own backyard in Australia. And, more than half a century after British nuclear tests were conducted in Australia, the legacy of suffering continues today and those who were put in harm's way are still suffering those effects.
Radioactive contamination from nuclear testing is inside every one of us, causing cancer and chronic disease worldwide. Substantial progress has been made in the control of and towards the elimination of other major types of indiscriminate and inhumane weapons. This includes biological and chemical warfare weapons, antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions—all of these weapons are now much less often produced, deployed, traded, used and justified as a result of treaties which ban them.
These treaties are based on the compelling evidence that each of these weapons can only be used in ways which will inevitably have indiscriminate and inhumane consequences, especially for civilians. The treaties codify that these are unacceptable weapons which no nation should possess and which should not be used under any circumstances. Even though these treaties have not been joined by all nations, they have been a crucial basis in motivation for the progress made towards the elimination of these respective weapons.
Even nations which oppose and have not joined several of these treaties have been influenced by them as the treaties have become part of and have strengthened international law. The treaties that ban biological chemical weapons, landmines and cluster munitions have been joined by successive coalition governments and Labor governments, and each of those treaties now enjoys bipartisan and very wide community support. Yet until two years ago, there was an obvious legal gap in international law with the world's worst weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons—the only weapons which pose an existential threat to all humanity, being the only weapons of mass destruction not prohibited by international treaty.
This gap has now been filled with the negotiation and adoption by the UN of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 2017. So 20 September, this coming Friday, will be the second anniversary of the opening for signature of this historic treaty. With the recent ratification of Kazakhstan, the treaty has passed the halfway mark with 70 signatures and 26 of the 50 ratifications required for it to enter into force.
Next week, during the opening week of this year's session of the UN General Assembly, on Thursday 26 September, there will be a signing ceremony at which a number of additional nations will sign or deposit their ratification of the treaty with the United Nations. This treaty, which completes the treaties prohibiting weapons of mass destruction, can therefore be expected to enter into force in the next year or two.
For its role in bringing about this treaty, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, the first Nobel Peace Prize born in Australia. This should be a source of pride for all of us. The treaty banning nuclear weapons could not come at a more auspicious time. The good-faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament to which all members of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, including Australia and indeed all states, are legally bound are nowhere in sight. So not only is disarmament failing to progress but hard-won treaties that have constrained nuclear weapons proliferation and development are being progressively torn up, most recently the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty between Russia and the US which ushered in the end of the Cold War.
An opinion poll late last year showed that almost 80 per cent of Australians want us to join the treaty. I am proud that at our national conference in Adelaide in December Labor committed to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in government. So it is past time for Australia to begin the process towards signing and ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and I commend the motion to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
) ( ): We're all aware of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 74 years ago. We know of the immediate devastating effects that caused these cities to be flattened and their inhabitants almost wiped out entirely, such was the force of the atomic bombs. We also know about the long-lasting effects that saw people die weeks, months and years later from radiation poisoning and decades later from consuming irradiated food and water.
I have been to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. It was one of the most profound experiences of my life. I wept as I walked from cabinet to cabinet and story to story, following the harrowing narrative of how the shocking events unfolded. Some cities would respond to such devastation with understandable anger and resentment. Such sentiments could plague a city for generations. Instead, the city of Hiroshima has chosen to be known as a symbol of peace and prosperity, a beacon to all that violence of this dimension should never be repeated. The Hiroshima Peace Memorial is a moving tribute to the victims of the first city to suffer a nuclear attack. The precinct affected by the blast is now an area dedicated to the advocacy of world peace and nuclear nonproliferation.
I commend the Australian government's longstanding commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, which has been consistent, and with bipartisan support, since signing the non-proliferation treaty. I urge the government to work towards signing and ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. By signing this treaty, we will send a strong message to our international counterparts that the use of nuclear weapons has no place on the global stage and that disarmament and elimination of nuclear weapons is the only course of action. I do not subscribe to the view of mutually assured destruction and that there is safety in having a bomb simply because our neighbour does. That is most certainly a very precarious way to maintain world peace. We in this place have an important job to do. We keep the economy strong and we help our citizens to be educated, healthy and free. But surely it is worth nothing if we are not safe? It may sound simple, but that is at the crux of it.
My strong opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, however, does not mean that I believe Australia should shy away from exploring the option of nuclear power when used responsibly as an answer to the growing and pressing need to explore new energy sources in response to climate change. I said it in my first speech and I will say it again: I believe that Australia is ready for a mature conversation on alternative energy sources, such as nuclear, which can only be moved forward with bipartisan support.
Although Australia does not generate electricity from nuclear fuel sources, we're the world's third-largest producer of uranium and have participated in the nuclear fuel cycle for over 70 years. Social good institutions like the Gates Foundation are investing in nuclear technologies, such as fourth-generation technologies, that are smarter, safer and produce significantly less nuclear waste. These new reactors could provide a solid baseload, low-emission energy source and lead to stable, affordable power.
I welcome today's announcement of a parliamentary inquiry into the use of nuclear power in Australia. It will consider the economic, environmental and safety implications of nuclear power, including small modular reactor technologies in Australia. Successive Labor and coalition governments have maintained a bipartisan moratorium on nuclear in Australia. Let's ensure bipartisan support to sensibly discuss how to get to a carbon neutral future. We should not allow the events of the past to hold us back from exploring the possibilities of the future.
I rise to support the motion of the member for Adelaide. We have just passed the anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear blasts. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of those bombs, including Australian prisoners of war and troops sent in immediately after VP Day. Of course, the testing of nuclear weapons, whether in Western Australia, at Woomera or in the Pacific also led to many deaths from radiation induced disease.
Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, and should not be present on the face of the earth. Australia has a proud history of opposing such weapons, especially those which are used on civilians. Out of the ashes of the war, we led the way, through Dr Evatt and the Labor Party in establishing the United Nations in the 1940s. We led the way in negotiating and ratifying conventions against chemical weapons in 1972, and then landmines and cluster munitions in more recent times.
Gough Whitlam ratified the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1973. That treaty is still important in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. However, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty does not say that possessing nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Its sole purpose is that weapons shouldn't spread from those already possessing them, the nuclear hub, to those who seek to acquire them.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was concluded in July 2017, with the support of 122 states. Unfortunately, Australia was one of those few countries that did not vote for that treaty. Worse still, under this government, we didn't even participate in the negotiation of the treaty, and we voted against the 2016 UN General Assembly resolution that established the mandate for the negotiations. Even earlier, our diplomats were instructed to derail a special UN working group on nuclear disarmament in Geneva which recommended that a treaty be negotiated. It isn't a proud record.
Despite that, the treaty now has many signatories and will hopefully reach the 50 ratifications needed to bring it into force in the near future. I for one argue that Australia should work towards signing and ratifying the treaty. It sends a message to the world that possession of nuclear weapons is not acceptable. I congratulate Nobel Peace Prize winners International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons, or ICAN—an Australian-initiated NGO—on the wonderful work they have done in initiating this treaty. The ALP is committed to working towards the ratification of the treaty. The ultimate environmental and human disaster would be a larger scale nuclear war. I'm horrified about the spread of nuclear weapons. I note the ramping up of Cold War rhetoric between the US, Russia, China and other countries—behaviour not seen for several decades. The Morrison government needs to show the leadership that ICAN has shown, and we need to show leadership in a less rational world.
At our national conference last November, Labor committed that Labor in government would sign and ratify the treaty, after taking into account the need to 'ensure an effective verification and enforcement architecture; ensure the interaction of the ban treaty with the longstanding nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and work to achieve universal support for the ban treaty.'
Critics of the treaty say that ratification will affect our strategic alliances, especially our US alliance. This should not be the case, and any issues should be able to be worked through. The US alliance is very important to Australia and to the Australian Labor Party. We should be able to continue with our military alliances and, at the same time, express our opposition to nuclear weapons.
Support for this treaty will not affect our ability to host or participate in exercises. It will not affect our capacity to host bases, whether listening posts or military bases—these are separate questions. What our support will do is indicate that Australia can stand on its own two feet. We can stand on the right side of history with those who don't have nuclear weapons and say that possession of nuclear weapons is no longer acceptable.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the imperative of improving waste management, reducing unnecessary packaging and boosting recycling in Australia;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) Australians generate about 67 million tonnes of waste each year, of which 37 million tonnes is recycled;
(b) only 12 per cent of the 103 kilograms of plastic waste generated per person in Australia each year is recycled, mostly overseas;
(c) for every 10,000 tonnes of waste recycled, more than 9 jobs are created; and
(d) waste related activities add $6.9 billion to the economy annually;
(3) welcomes the government’s recent $20 million commitment for innovative projects under round 8 of the Cooperative Research Centres Projects grants to grow our domestic plastics recycling industry; and
(4) notes that this is part of the government’s Australian Recycling Investment Plan, a package of initiatives totalling $167 million designed to grow and strengthen Australia’s domestic recycling industry, and to support industry and community initiatives to lift recycling rates in Australia.
As a country, we need to recognise the imperative of improving waste management, reducing unnecessary packaging and boosting recycling in Australia. This is essential if we are to continue to treat this country, and this planet, with the respect it deserves and urgently needs.
Australia generates about 67 million tonnes of waste each year and only 37 million tonnes are recycled. Only 12 per cent of the 103 kilograms of plastic waste generated per person in Australia each year is recycled, and this is mostly overseas. A European Union report estimates that the production of virgin plastic will account for 20 per cent of global oil consumption and 15 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
When China stopped taking Australia's recyclable plastics at the beginning of this year, it became apparent just how dependent our industry was on shipping our waste overseas. As a result, local governments are struggling to collect and store kerbside rubbish, with most of the waste from affected councils going to landfill.
Investment in recycling is not just about reducing waste and saving the planet; there are significant economic benefits to recycling. With every 10,000 tonnes of waste recycled, we are creating more than nine jobs. We have to tackle this recycling crisis head-on, and I commend the Morrison government's implementation of the 2018 National Waste Policy that works to encourage a circular economy where we upcycle our waste and put it to good use like using old tyres to seal our roads and highways or making furniture out of recycled plastic.
The new 2018 National Waste Policy will work with Australian environment ministers from all states and territories and with the Australian Local Government Association to set a unified direction for fixing our waste crisis now and into the future. At a federal level we need to invest in science and innovation to support small businesses who are working to develop products and change the conversation to an economic one, not just an environmental one.
In my electorate of Higgins, we are seeing grassroots solutions to helping our waste and recycling crisis. Small- medium- and large-scale projects are all working to combat waste from recycling to reducing food waste and single-use plastics. Solway Primary School, a wonderful school in Ashburton, has received a five-star accreditation through ResourceSmart Schools—and I was just there the other day. ResourceSmart Schools encourage schools to ensure good, sustainable practices are implemented in every aspect of school and daily life.
Solway Primary School encourages its students to bring 'Nude Food', reducing the amount of disposable packaging. They have certain bins for certain materials, reducing the amount of contaminated recycling. By working through sustainability issues together with teachers, parents and students, Solway Primary School has reduced their landfill intake by 50 per cent—that is something to celebrate.
Part of trying to tackle our waste problem is tackling food waste. This is one of my favourite parts of waste policy. Most of the food waste in Australia happens between our fridges and our green recycling bins or compost bins, or with overpurchased foods that have gone off before we can eat them. So there's another huge piece of work to do to recover and repurpose that wasted food. As a government, we want to halve food waste by 2030. That target is in place. It is here that I want to give a special mention to SecondBite, which is based in my electorate, Higgins, and is run by two wonderful constituents, Ian and Simone Carson, who've been recognised for their amazing work by being nominated and made the Melburnians of the Year this year. Ian and Simone Carson founded SecondBite, which rescues surplus food from retailers and distributes it to people in need right across Australia. SecondBite are not only helping people by reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfill; they are also helping to make the environment safer. There are other food waste initiatives, such as Foodbank and OzHarvest. These are all organisations that recover unused and unwanted food, usually from supermarkets but also from fresh food markets like our Prahran Market in Higgins. Obviously we can't go and get it from people's fridges—we have to make sure it's all good quality, and there is a whole process around that. They provide it to charities, who then distribute it to people in need. There's so much we can do, and I want people to think very carefully about how we can support these organisations.
In March this year I attended Clean Up Australia Day at Gardiners Creek, as I have done a number of times over many years. This year only one shopping trolley was pulled out of the creek. Organisers said it could be attributed to the coin deposit system required to use a supermarket trolley in Melbourne. A couple of years ago, when we were in Gardiners Creek, 33 trolleys were pulled out of the creek. This is a simple, cost-effective solution to a problem, which benefits retailers, consumers, and the environment. These are the types of solutions we need to be working on to make a difference. So too is the significant and pleasing drop in plastic bags snarled up in the riverbed of this beautiful tributary of the Yarra River, due to last year's Victorian government introduction of banning single-use plastic bags. We've all had to adjust to remembering to bring our reusable bags shopping, but it's a regular reminder that we can all do our bit for our environment to help to reduce, reuse, and recycle.
I'm proud to be part of a government that is working towards a cleaner, greener economy with practical steps. I welcome our government's recent $20 million commitment for innovative projects under round 8 of the Cooperative Research Centre Projects grants to allow our domestic plastics recycling industry. This is part of the Australian government's recycling investment plan. It is a package of initiatives totalling $167 million designed to grow and strengthen Australia's domestic recycling industry and to support industry and community initiatives to lift recycling rates in Australia. The Prime Minister recently toured innovative recycling facilities in Sydney to see firsthand the sorts of projects that will help meet our commitment to work with the states to establish a timetable to ban the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres. It's our rubbish and it's our responsibility.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, did you know that 70 per cent of the planet is an ocean? Did you also know that 70 per cent of our oxygen comes from the world's oceans? They are the lungs of our planet, providing most of the oxygen we breathe. The coalition government wants to highlight the impact of plastic waste on the health and productivity of the waters surrounding our nation. From everyday household use, as well as industry and fishing, more than 13 million tonnes of plastic is estimated to enter our oceans every year, causing untold damage and killing around 100,000 marine animals annually. The Australian Recycling Investment Plan will also help address this problem. Boosting our onshore plastic recycling industry has the potential to create over three times as many jobs as exporting our plastic waste, ensuring a more sustainable and prosperous future.
If we stimulate the market for recycled materials in Australia, the industry that is already here will invest and expand—ultimately, diverting more of our waste from landfill. We have a chance to build an innovative recycling industry that will help ensure a safe and future environment for future generations in Australia. It will ensure we meet our international obligations. It doesn't sound sexy, but waste matters.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I'm pleased to speak on this motion moved by the member for Higgins, and I appreciate that the member for Higgins is very passionate about this issue. I appreciate the member for Higgins moving this motion, because recycling is not only something we have to do but also an extraordinary opportunity for the growth of business, as cities all around the world that have enormous waste resources in confined areas grapple with how to 'exploit' the opportunity of this input to build new industries.
I would point out, though, the disappointment that I feel when I hear a third-term government say, 'We want to do this' or 'We want to do that.' I suspect, when the member for Higgins has been here a little longer, she might appreciate how long it has been clear that we needed action on this. The government's 2018 national waste policy builds on the 2009 policy. It's been that long. In an area of such rapid growth, such extraordinary seriousness and such extraordinary opportunity, it took them nine years to even write this policy. When you read this policy, there's a page about how important it is, a page about the size of it, a page about why we need it and then there is a page about how we all have a role to play. It then talks about the circular economy, and then eventually you get to the strategies in the last two pages. The strategies are things like: 'All Australian governments should consider environmental issues in their approach to goods and services'—'should', in a third-term government. This is basic.
This place we live in, that we come to every day, doesn't recycle properly. If you go downstairs to the basement, you'll find the restaurants do—but we don't. I actually collect my recycled plastic and stuff. I wash it all out, clean it, stick it in a bag and, on Thursday afternoon, I carry it down and put it in the commercial bins that the commercial sector uses. We don't compost. We don't collect our plastic from our offices. We don't collect our cardboard. We only recycle stuff like a secure document—so we shred it. Other than that, this place doesn't do it.
You cannot stand up here as a member of a government and talk about what the nation should do if we're not doing it. If you want to have a chat, Member for Higgins, I would love to drive proper recycling in this place. We should be insisting. We should be the examples. In fact, with every single government department, it shouldn't be that they 'should' do it; we should insist that they do it. The skills learned in big departments are transferrable and the companies that will grow because they have large contracts will be able to take on small ones. I'll be in touch about this, Member for Higgins.
I want to talk about my community, because my community is way ahead of government. They're ahead of business as well in what they want. If I mention composting, someone says, 'I want to do that'—and we don't. There seem to be barriers that stop people in local communities from doing the things they want to do with their recycled material—for example with their food waste. We are getting better at some of it, and I take the member for Higgins's point on that. There are a number of organisations. There's a buy, swap and sell organisation in Parramatta that has 36,334 people in it that live within a couple of kilometres of Parramatta. There's enormous interest in those kinds of reuse/resell.
I look forward to a time we do things like those in the stories that I hear from elsewhere in the world—for example, companies that sweep up the road dust. There are mineable quantities of palladium, platinum and radium that fall off the catalytic converters. So they sweep it up, mine the minerals and sell the stuff back as road base. I hear of companies that have discovered ways to compost styrofoam with mealworms, and then the mealworms become fish food. So it's a win-win. I see companies that collect coffee grounds because they're one of the best mushroom substrates. So you go through the coffee shops in the local area and you grow mushrooms down the road. There are an incredible number of really great ideas out there waiting to be scaled, sitting in communities run by people who really care about this, and we don't have a national framework to do that.
With all respect to the government and the member for Higgins, and this incredibly important motion, the government is not there yet. The $20 million to a cooperative research centre is really, really important. But the rest of that $167 million that keeps being talked about is, essentially, money that was there already in the loans program. There isn't enough new money. If it was 10 times that much, it still wouldn't be what we need to build an industry that is so varied and has so much possibility. We have decades to catch up on. While I really appreciate the sentiment here and I appreciate your passion for it, it's a third-term government and you've just got to be a wee bit faster.
The Morrison government is strongly committed to reducing waste, increasing recycling rates and building capacity within our domestic recycling industry. I want to particularly commend the member for Higgins on this motion and also the new assistant minister, Trevor Evans, from Brisbane, my neighbour, as our new Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management. The government's environmental and waste management initiatives are in good hands with Assistant Minister Evans. He has campaigned tirelessly, particularly on issues local to Brisbane, such as improving water quality and waste reduction into the Brisbane River. I know he will take that approach nationally now.
We know that Australians currently generate 67 million tonnes of waste per year—2.7 tonnes per person—of which only around 58 per cent is recovered. Locals in my electorate of Ryan care deeply about recycling. They want to be confident that, when they put things in their recycling bin or deliver them to the collection centre, they will be repurposed effectively and not simply dumped in landfill or sent overseas. That's why the Morrison government is taking practical action to ensure this occurs, to better manage our waste here in Australia and ensure that our valuable resources are recycled and reused over and over again. It's our waste, so it's our responsibility, as the member for Higgins so eloquently put it.
We've committed $167 million towards a comprehensive Australian recycling investment plan, including $100 million through the CEFC to support the manufacturing products contained in recycled materials, such as recycled plastics; $20 million to support research into new and innovative solutions to plastic recycling and waste; $20 million for new product stewardship schemes; and nearly $6 million for community campaigns to clean up plastic waste from our beaches and rivers—and I'll come back to that again.
Importantly, the government is supporting industry-led national targets, which include phasing out problematic and unnecessary single-use packaging, and is continuing to phase out products containing harmful microbeads from the market—a vital measure aimed at reducing plastics into our oceans and preserving our pristine marine environments for generations to come. In contrast, unfortunately, Labor have all but turned their backs on these kinds of local community initiatives across the country. They walked away from grassroots and tangible environmental projects because they are still obsessed with their pet project: putting a price on carbon.
The member for Hunter was reviving the cause again, just recently. So devoid are Labor on environmental policy, that they are looking to resurrect this sure-fire way to raise taxes and raise power prices. In contrast, the Morrison government has an unprecedented commitment to restoring and protecting Australian land, water, vegetation and biodiversity. I've seen firsthand myself, over nine years in the Brisbane City Council, just what a difference this local, practical environmental work can make to reduce plastics and improve our local environment. The Brisbane City Council, for example, planted two million trees during the time that I was in council from 2008 to 2012. I was also very pleased to spearhead, in my local electorate of Ryan, Australia's first koala research centre, based at Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary at Fig Tree Pocket. It is to do for Australia's koala population what Chengdu does for pandas at their research centre. It is to help guide research to make sure that our koala population is sustainable and that their food sources are protected from rubbish and deforestation.
Brisbane City Council was also the first green-powered council in Australia while I was there, and is now the first carbon-neutral council. So, in the electorate of Ryan in Brisbane, we lead the way when it comes to these practical environmental initiatives. I know that empowers our local communities to make sure that they continue their own recycling and environmental efforts. In the electorate of Ryan, in Brisbane, we lead the way when it comes to these practical environmental initiatives. I know that empowers our local communities to make sure that they continue their own recycling and environmental efforts. I see it every day and every weekend when I'm out and about in the electorate of Ryan, There are groups like the Taringa Milton Toowong Scouts, who held a recent mulch drive—clean and green fundraising in action. It was sustainable and practical environmental action on a local level to help protect our area and reuse trees fallen from storms and from council reduction efforts. It only takes a bit of mulch in order to protect our local environment. There are other groups, such as the Cubberla Witton Catchments Network, the Save Toowong Creek group and the SOWN in The Gap to name a few. They have outstanding volunteers who are doing their own environmental work. I encourage Ryan residents to get on board with the recycling efforts of the Morrison government to help us reduce waste across Australia.
It is certainly time for the Australian government to get serious about the issue of waste and resource management, because it's a grave matter of environmental degradation and it's a clear market failure. It's also a missed opportunity in terms of innovation and new jobs in manufacturing.
In terms of the current extinction crisis in Australia, the fact is we are, sadly, leading the world when it comes to mammal extinctions. According to the deputy director of the Threatened Species Recovery Hub, a quarter of Australian species are effectively in the waiting room just outside the ICU.
You have to remember that marine species and ecosystems are at risk as a result of plastic waste. Of course it's a good thing that we're talking about it, but we have to do a lot more than just talk about it. I'm glad there's an Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management in the form of the member for Brisbane, and I wish him well, but, as the shadow assistant minister for the environment, I'm concerned that the government's new-found and reactive interest in the issue is not matched by a commitment to take real action. I hope I'm wrong.
We produce a lot of waste in Australia on a per capita basis, and we don't re-use or recycle very much of it. That's especially true when it comes to plastic, which is a particular problem. It might be a wonder material in some respects, but it is without a doubt an environmental nightmare. It would shock many Australians to know that when they sort out the plastic for the recycling bin, hardly any of it is reprocessed or recycled in Australia. More and more plastic is turning up in the gut of fish, turtles and birds. That's awful in itself, but it also has the potential to affect human health.
Globally, 15 million tonnes of plastic waste is getting into the ocean each year through rivers and stormwater systems, through coastal dumping and through poor fishery practices. That is projected to double by the year 2025. It's currently predicted that by 2050 there will be as much plastic in our oceans by weight as fish. Take the next logical step from that shocking statistic. The plastic will be in the fish, then the fire-retardants and colourants from the plastic will be in the fish, and then those chemicals, some of which are carcinogenic, will be in us. And yet it's only really now, when countries are refusing to take our plastic waste, that we are waking up to the problem and that the government is waking up to the problem. If a country like Australia can't do much better, we're hardly going to be in a position to expect less-developed nations in our region to improve their approach, and a lot of their plastic waste is ending up on our shores. There is no doubt that this is a matter crying out for national leadership.
That's why Labor introduced a National Waste Strategy in 2011 with a product stewardship framework to start the process by which companies take responsibility for the waste recovery of certain products. At the recent election we promised to introduce a national waste commissioner, to provide $60 million in direct funding for waste initiatives, to ban single-use plastic bags and microbeads, and to create a national container deposit scheme.
The coalition has not taken up a single one of those initiatives, nor have they taken up some of the key recommendations from the 2018 Senate inquiry on waste, which included: setting procurement targets for the use of recycled material by federal agencies and in projects that receive federal funding; the implementation of all 65 agreed improvements to the National Waste Reporting process; and mandatory product stewardship arrangements for things like tyres and e-waste. The government has made quite a song and dance about its $167 million recycling investment plan, but it's utterly ridiculous for the member for Ryan to describe that as an unprecedented approach to waste management. The $100 million of that program, fully 60 per cent of the program spending as a whole, is not new or additional money. It's just a labelling exercise. It's money that has been in the CEFC. It's been dispersed by the CEFC in previous years. There's not one dollar more of funding. It is not new or additional in any way, shape or form. That kind of costuming exercise doesn't inspire a lot of confidence at a time when we're supposed to be doing more about plastic waste and more about waste and resource management in general.
We desperately need national leadership on waste and resource management. Various state and territory governments are stepping up. Local governments around Australia are pioneering new methods of reuse and recycling. Communities around Australia are keen to do their bit. And it's well past time for the federal government, for our national government, to come to the party. If we get it right, there will be considerable benefits for Australia in new and innovative manufacturing opportunities. But, most importantly of all, our environment absolutely requires it. The community expects us to get on with it, and the test is whether the government will respond to those calls.
I rise to support the motion and comments by the member for Higgins, and I thank her for raising the incredibly important issue of improving waste management, reducing unnecessary packaging and boosting recycling in Australia. We live in an absolutely beautiful country, and my electorate of Curtin in Western Australia is a particularly beautiful part of our particularly beautiful country. Bounded to the west by the Indian Ocean and the best beaches in the world—Cottesloe, North Cottesloe, Swanbourne, City Beach Floreat and Scarborough—and to the south by the magnificent Swan River, Curtin is rightly known for its natural beauty of leafy green suburbs, vast tracks of natural bushland, spectacular lakes and beautiful fauna and flora.
The people of Curtin care passionately for the world in which we live and choose to live, themselves, by the creed 'think global, act local'. There are numerous volunteer organisations working at the grassroots level on initiatives which are focused on ensuring our natural environment is preserved, enhanced and, where necessary, restored for our benefit and for the benefit of future generations. It's not surprising, given our proximity to the river and the ocean and our beautiful open spaces, that the people of Curtin have a particularly deep concern and care about the impact of plastic waste on our local waterways, rivers and open spaces. The people of Curtin have seen the havoc which improperly managed waste wreaks on the environment in which they live, and they are actively taking steps to reduce their own plastic usage and waste. They are very much acting locally.
One initiative in my electorate which commenced life as a local action but which is rapidly having a much greater impact is that of the Greenbatch Foundation. The founder of this innovative social enterprise, local man Darren Lomman, father of a young child at the time and a mechanical engineer by profession, was motivated to act by learning of predictions that, by 2050, there would be more plastic in the ocean than fish if we didn't change our current rate of plastic pollution. His local and very understandable concern for the future world which would be inherited by his young daughter has seen him, through Greenbatch, build WA's first plastic reprocessing plant, located in Curtin. This plant is going to turn the most commonly used plastic bottles and products into 3D-printer filament for schools and the community to then utilise.
Greenbatch is working in a number of different ways to achieve its goals. Firstly, it is partnering with local schools across WA. Starting off with a small number of schools, it now includes 75 schools across WA—but that rises on a weekly level. Secondly, it's offering avenues for local businesses and local organisations to become actively involved through registration for special Greenbatch plastic collection bins. Thirdly, it offers public drop-off days, held at the Mount Claremont facility on the first Saturday of each month, at which any member of the community can bring their plastics, help sort them and learn a bit more about the recycling process it will undergo.
Having attended the last public drop-off day at the Greenbatch facility in Mount Claremont, and having visited schools that are partnering with Greenbatch, I can attest firsthand to the huge success of this program. I commend and applaud Mr Lomman and all at Greenbatch on this initiative, and I look forward to working with them and supporting them in the future, because Greenbatch—like other locally driven initiatives—has huge potential to have a global and long-lasting impact.
This government is committed to reducing waste, increasing recycling rates and building capacity within our domestic recycling industry. We know our waste is our responsibility and we must act responsibly to ensure we're good and proper stewards of the natural environment we live in, so that what we hand on to future generations is as good if not better than now. To this end, I welcome, and I know that all in Curtin welcome, our government's commitment of $167 million to fund an Australian Recycling Investment Plan, which will see an increase in our recycling rates. It will see us tackling plastic waste and litter, accelerating new programs and work on recycling schemes and continuing to implement actions that will halve food waste by 2030. Again, I commend the member for Higgins on this motion and end by saying reduce, reuse, and recycle.
I congratulate the member for Higgins and the federal government for finally doing something on recycling. It's really wonderful. Anything would have done. It's been six long years. In relation to the environment, this is nowhere near good enough. It's short of the mark, it's limited, it's superficial and, as we heard on this side, it's too little too late.
In contrast, look at the plans that Labor took to the last election: a broad range of policies, policies of substance, policies which, if implemented, could have had a real effect on cleaning up our environment. We proposed a national ban on microbeads and single-use plastic bags; the creation of a national container deposit scheme; the appointment of a national waste commissioner to work with state and local governments; $60 million to a national recycling fund—three times the government's commitment—to encourage innovative waste solutions, recycling and processing facilities; and a plan to help our international neighbours tackle marine pollution. In addition, we had an extensive range of progressive climate change policies, which were praised by both policy analysts and scientists. Real action on climate change—not this government's superficial actions that merely touch the periphery of the challenges that we face. On this side, Labor aimed at a Renewable Energy Target of 50 per cent by 2030 and a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. We proposed massive household rebates for solar batteries—a couple of hundred thousand households, in fact—solar panels on every public school roof top, and so much more.
Australians are calling out for action on climate change and the Liberals are literally washing their hands of responsibility to future generations. It simply isn't good enough. This weak announcement by the Morrison government—$20 million, some 30 per cent of the announcement we made during the election campaign—is weak not just because of the money; it's weak for other reasons. It broadly fails to address the needs of the Australian recycling industry. We don't need more research; we need more action on the ground to mainstream recycling. This $20 million investment does not cut it. Pete Shmigel, the CEO of the Australian Council of Recycling, said that in his understanding most of the funding will be used for research and design. We need to create a market for recycling plastics so that Australia can stand on its own feet. Australians want to recycle—that's self-evident. This was a choice made decades ago. I think they are rightly astounded that we recycle so little of our plastic in Australia while there have already been existing recycling facilities in this country.
The Morrison government still haven't caught up with what needs to happen. Last year the peak body for the Australian waste industry called for urgent implementation of a national strategy to deal with the excessive stockpiles of recyclable materials caused by the change of China's import policy. This included a $150 million plan to reboot the recycling industry. The coalition has a long way to go. The government has basically gone backward on climate change. While I congratulate the member for Higgins for this motion, as I said at the start—her heart is in the right place, and I congratulate her for that; at least we're rowing in the same direction—you guys on the government benches need to row a bit harder. Maybe you should to put an engine on the boat. Because right now you're as slow as a little tinny—
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
with the member for Goldstein sitting at the back of it. The member for Goldstein is probably the one weighing it down!
We need real action on climate change, not more superficiality and not little things at the periphery. Let's tackle this crisis for what it is: a global crisis. That's simply not happening under this government's policies. The Morrison government is choosing to ignore the most important issue facing our generation and future generations. If we don't get this right, nothing else really matters. Australians deserve more than window-dressing when it comes to the environment. They deserve a government that will actually take real action on climate change and reduce carbon pollution. We cannot keep wasting time.
I applaud the Morrison government's commitment to improving waste management in Australia. In particular, I commend the $167 million dedicated to fund the Australian recycling investment plan to increase Australia's recycling rates; tackle plastic waste and litter; accelerate work on new recycling schemes; and continue to implement our commitment to halve food waste by 2030.
In my own electorate, I've seen many examples of businesses, organisations, schools and individuals working to reduce unnecessary packaging, boost recycling and reduce the amount of waste in their local communities. One of the best examples of this is Tasmanian company Environex, a Tasmanian owned and operated company. Environex is dedicated to providing innovative and proven polymer product solutions to national and international clients. They are also a significant employer in the north-east of Tasmania and play an integral role in the local economy. The Morrison government recognised the potential for Environex to grow and expand, and funded over $700,000 towards a second factory as part of its regional jobs and investment package.
The second factory officially opened a few months ago and has more than doubled its workforce with nine new permanent jobs created—a significant boost and a big win for skilled jobs in northern Tasmania. The new plant is the first of its kind in the state and can process 500 kilograms of soft plastics in an hour. The company expects to process more than 1500 tonnes in its first year with the plastic to be turned into new products, including fence palings, posts, rails and roadside safety products. Incredibly, the plant also produces very little waste itself. Organic cast-offs from the collected plastics are used by potting mix manufacturers, and the water used by the factory is 100 per cent recycled.
On this theme, I'd like to also pay credit to a small family-run, award-winning business: Flat Out Bottles Tasmania. In a state renowned for our incredible wine, Amelia and Darren Clarke from George Town recognised an opportunity to re-use the countless empty wine bottles and, over the past few years, have used a kiln to transform the bottles into cheese boards and candle holders.
As I previously mentioned, it's not just businesses who are paving the way in recycling and waste management; many schools are becoming increasingly involved in looking at ways that they can reduce waste and educate their students in the process. I know that many schools in Bass are proactively addressing the issue, and I would like to give a special mention today to one particular school in my electorate: Riverside Primary School.
Students in the year 2 class of Ruth Erin and Anna Heath tackled the subject of waste head-on by working with the class to evaluate their own impact on the environment. A few months ago, the class decided to collect their waste for just one day to see how much was used in that classroom. Incredibly, they collected plastic waste measuring 7.5 metres long, and the young students all agreed that they needed to work harder to combat the issue. The students began by writing to their parents asking for help to find a way to reduce the waste. The result, in just one day, was that it went down to 3.8 metres. Students also wrote to Woolworths asking what role the supermarket could play in reducing their waste, which resulted in a visit from some local Woolworths managers to answer their questions. Overall, the amount of plastic waste has continued to fall, with many students completely eliminating plastic wrap from their lunch boxes.
Riverside's commitment to waste management and reduction has filtered through to the upper primary years, where a group of grade 5 pupils have created a group dubbed the 'Waste Warriors'. The group was formed as part of an overall school effort to investigate ways that they could be more environmentally sustainable. Under the guidance of coordinator and teacher Sarah Van Beek, the group meet every Friday to brainstorm new ideas to handle waste in the school and have already implemented some strategies making significant differences, including introducing food organics and garden organics bins together with soft plastic bins. I'd like to congratulate the wonderful staff and students at Riverside primary for all they're doing to address the issue of waste management in their local community.
A special mention goes to the 17 Bass community members who collected a trailer load of rubbish on Saturday morning from the foreshore at George Town. We all have a role to play in reducing waste, from all levels of government to businesses, households, schools and individuals. It's our waste, so it's our responsibility.
I thank the member for Higgins for this resolution. Every chance we get to highlight and discuss the situation of waste and recycling is a good thing. Australia does well on recycling masonry, metals and ash with about 60 per cent recycled. But by far the worst outcome is the recycling of plastics: between 2006 and 2017, we only increased our rate of recycling from 10 to 12 per cent of total plastics. We read about the great Pacific garbage patch with plastic debris older than 50 years. We read that by 2050 the weight of plastic in our oceans will be greater than the weight of fish. Countries like China and Indonesia refuse to take our contaminated waste. We have a crisis and we need to deal with it.
Throughout my electorate of Corangamite, the issue of waste and recycling is the No.1 issue. The amount of anger and frustration that has built around these two issues is amazing. But, worse still, after decades of education and pleading for people to do the right thing, good people are losing faith in the system. So two points of the resolution are without controversy—that is, we must deal with the problem of unnecessary waste and packaging; we must improve recycling, acknowledging that only 12 per cent of the 103 kilograms of plastic per person is recycled, mostly overseas, and that recycling and waste related economies boost our economy—for every 10,000 tonnes of waste recycled, 9.2 jobs are created.
But where I part company is with the self-congratulation in points 3 and 4 of the resolution. Of course, the 2018 National Waste Policy agreed between the Commonwealth and states is a good start with its aim to use and re-use resources in a circular economy. And, yes, the Commonwealth has made a $20 million contribution through the Cooperative Research Centres Projects Grants as part of its $167 million recycling investment plan. But, in reality, this money is a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed to fix the problem. It is too little too late. Each plastics recycling or pellet plant can cost between $50 million and $100 million, so $20 million here and there isn't going to fix our problems in this area. Worse still, when the coalition came into government, they wound back some reforms such as the product stewardship advisory committee which Labor introduced in 2011.
I have to say: on both sides of politics, we do need to do more. There has been market failure with recycling collapsing in the wake of the failure of SKM Recycling in Victoria and other states. Cheapest is not always the best. Now millions of tonnes of waste are going into landfill. Local councils don't have millions to invest in recycling facilities and, for private operators, the margins are just too small. Even state governments are pressed to find additional infrastructure funds as they struggle with growing populations.
I must say, however, that state governments collect 1.5 billion in waste levies but only $200 million is reinvested in the waste and recycling sector each year. We have to ask: why isn't that spent on recycling? All levels of government simply need to make waste and recycling a higher priority. We don't blink at allocating billions into roads, rail and other physical infrastructure. We should be lifting our sights on how much we invest in recycling infrastructure, especially around plastics, and $168 million over the forward estimates for the Commonwealth is simply not enough.
Labor went to the last election with a more ambitious $290 million commitment to support waste reduction and recycling that included a national ban on single-use plastic and microbeads from 2021; $15 million to help our Pacific neighbours deal with waste; targets for governments to purchase recycled products; establishing a national waste commissioner to work with industry on the expansion of stewardship schemes to include e-waste batteries and white goods; and $200 million on cleaning up our urban rivers and corridors and to stop plastic waste entering the ocean. These are vital initiatives that the Commonwealth would do well to adopt.
I thank the honourable member for her contribution. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges:
(a) south-western Sydney as one of the key growth areas of Australia; and
(b) south-western Sydney’s cultural and economic contribution to the country; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) ensure south-western Sydney is adequately resourced in terms of vital infrastructure projects and inter-connectivity of the region;
(b) ensure that major infrastructure projects, such as Western Sydney International Airport, do not isolate business centres such as Campbelltown and Liverpool from the public transport network;
(c) adequately fund public transport links between the Western Sydney Airport, Western Sydney Aerotropolis, and south-western Sydney growth centres to ensure realisation of the economic benefits of the airport for the local community; and
(d) build a:
(i) south-west rail line extension from Leppington through to Western Sydney Airport;
(ii) a north-south rail link from Western Sydney Airport to Macarthur; and
(iii) a rapid transit link along 15th Avenue from the Liverpool CBD to Western Sydney Airport.
It's my pleasure to move this private member's motion and to be able to speak on it today. I also wish to extend my thanks to my friend and colleague the member for Werriwa, Ms Anne Stanley, for seconding this motion and bringing this matter before the House. After all, the member for Werriwa knows all too well the difficulties that we face in south-west Sydney. Many of the issues Macarthur residents face in terms of lack of access to adequate infrastructure are faced by the residents in the member for Werriwa's electorate. Both the member for Werriwa and I have raised these issues concerning a lack of infrastructure being provided for south-west Sydney in this parliament numerous times, and matters are only getting worse.
My electorate of Macarthur is experiencing exponential population growth and development, yet infrastructure is not being provided at a rate commensurate with its growth. In fact, our region is quite simply bursting at the seams. Our roads are overly congested, our hospitals are above capacity and our schools are overcrowded. The new suburbs in my electorate, particularly within the Camden local government area, are virtually inaccessible by public transport, and yet the state and federal Liberal-National governments are content with continually allowing development to occur. Ridiculously, some suburbs in my electorate cannot have garbage collections because their streets are too narrow for the trucks to go down. What a joke! In fact, by 2031, it's projected that the Camden LGA will experience growth of around 130 per cent, with a further 30 per cent of population growth in Campbelltown and 40 per cent in Wollondilly. This growth has been predicted for some time, and yet those opposite are content with ignoring the present and future needs in infrastructure of the south-west and its residents.
Members of this House will be well aware of a number of vital infrastructure projects that are needed in Macarthur and south-west Sydney, particularly with the development of Western Sydney Airport. The member for Werriwa and I raise these concerns with the government on an almost daily basis. The rail link to the Western Sydney Airport from the south, particularly the Leppington line, is vital not only to provide a transport link for Macarthur residents to the airport but to connect both the major Sydney airports—Western Sydney Airport and Kingsford Smith airport—together so that people can join connecting flights by public transport. We also need a link from the Moorebank intermodal, which is being put in to bring goods from all over the state to Moorebank and then transport them to other areas. We vitally need a rail link from the intermodal to Western Sydney Airport, through Leppington. If you ask every expert and stakeholder, you will see that there's consensus on this front. Everyone is united behind the fact that the new airport must be connected via rail link to Leppington, Macarthur and Moorebank. Not only will this ensure that commuters are able to access this new airport; a rail link will be essential in ensuring that our already congested roads are not further overburdened with freight.
Shockingly, the government appears content with allowing development to proceed while neglecting to invest in a rail corridor that is already preserved, and is fairly short, to be completed from Leppington to Western Sydney Airport. What is worse, it is one standard for the north-west, where the infrastructure has been put in at a rapid pace, and another standard for the south-west, where population is being put in but no transport infrastructure.
One only has to look at the coalition's highly politicised City Deal stunts to see their failures in the infrastructure system. Local councils have been strongarmed into signing onto a deal with little detail provided on content. Campbelltown, for example, will get a billabong where there's already a fully functional Olympic-sized swimming pool, and transport is left high and dry. In fact, in the City Deal, Blacktown City was left out altogether. The rail link and rapid transit link, among other key projects, should have featured front and centre in this deal. But, for political reasons, they didn't. We in the south-west were neglected once again.
I have grave fears for the future of our community should we continue to be treated as second-class citizens. The city of Sydney is a planner's worst nightmare, the interconnectivity of communities and infrastructure not given a second thought over the last 200-odd years. Now, in 2019, at a time when we see urban sprawl at an all-time high, massive population growth in our outer metropolitan regions and hectares of farmland turning into new suburbs at the blink of an eye, the government seems unwilling to learn from the mistakes of the past. Infrastructure can't be retrofitted easily, and it's irresponsible for the Morrison and Berejiklian governments to continue to allow massive development without investing in proper infrastructure and services that our residents so desperately need.
The motion now needs to be seconded.
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Western Sydney is one of the fastest-growing regions in the country. For example, the Parramatta council area alone is expected to double in population between 2011 and 2036 to over 400,000 residents. As part of the 2019-2020 budget we have locked in a further $7.3 billion for infrastructure in New South Wales over the next decade, bringing our total investment to $33 billion. This includes a significant investment in Western Sydney to ease congestion, ensure people get to their destinations quickly and safely and help businesses efficiently transport goods and products around the city.
At the centre of this investment is the Nancy-Bird Walton Airport in Western Sydney and the associated M12 motorway and north-south rail link. Construction of the airport began 12 months ago. Nancy-Bird Walton Airport will support up to 11,000 direct and indirect jobs in construction and almost 28,000 jobs within five years of opening. Many of these jobs will be filled by people from Western Sydney, including people from my own electorate. The M12 motorway will connect the Western Sydney airport to the rest of Sydney's motorways. The coalition government is providing $405 million towards its construction, which will be completed in time for the airport's opening. The Australian government has committed a $3.5 billion contribution to deliver the first stage of the Sydney Metro Greater West, which includes the north-south rail link, with the New South Wales government. This will provide an important local rail connection to the new airport and will create the public transport spine of the new city.
I often comment that my electorate of Reid is the link between Sydney's eastern and western CBDs. Running through the middle of my electorate is Parramatta Road. Only a few weeks after being elected, I stood with the Deputy Prime Minister at the opening of the first stage of WestConnex: the opening of twin tunnels running from Homebush to Haberfield under Parramatta Road. We can already see the benefits of these tunnels, with traffic diverted underground and off Parramatta Road. The federal government has invested significantly in WestConnex, providing $1.5 billion as a grant plus a $2 billion concessional loan. This is such an important piece of infrastructure for Western Sydney, by improving links between Western Sydney and Kingsford Smith Airport, easing congestion, and also allowing commuters to bypass up to 52 traffic lights, saving commuters approximately 40 minutes in travel.
The $4 billion Urban Congestion Fund is improving roads across Australia. People who have travelled along Homebush Bay Drive near the Sydney Olympic Park in my electorate are aware of the congested road, whether it's weekday peak hour or the weekend when events are held at ANZ Stadium. The Morrison government has committed $50 million to improving traffic flow on Homebush Bay Drive between the M4 and Concord Road. In news that has been welcomed by residents of Sydney Olympic Park and Wentworth Point, the funding will also be used to investigate solutions to the infamous roundabout at Australia Avenue, also known as the DFO roundabout. The federal government is working with the New South Wales government, who will be delivering these upgrades. I look forward to providing my constituents in Reid with further updates in coming months.
Sometimes it is smaller projects that have significant impact in reducing congestion on roads. In Reid, $2.8 million has been delivered for smaller-scale road infrastructure projects such as roundabouts, pedestrian crossings and improved line markings.
On Arthur Street in Strathfield, we have funded pedestrian islands and a new Give Way sign at Hampstead Road. At Sarah Durack Avenue in Sydney Olympic Park, we have funded updates to traffic lights to respond to changes in traffic flow in the area. There are dozens of examples where small amounts of federal funding have addressed traffic issues raised by locals in these areas. Western Sydney is an area which is rapidly changing, and I am pleased to be a part of a government which has already invested tens of billions of dollars into infrastructure to meet the needs of our community.
I acknowledge the member for Reid and all of the funding announcements that the member for Reid has just gone through. That's what the electorates of Macarthur and Werriwa would be very pleased to see in south-western Sydney. We also need links to the airport and so forth. Rarely a week goes by without a news report about growth in south-western Sydney and the strain this puts on the lives of the people who live here.
In Werriwa, residents are all too familiar with underinvestment in infrastructure. Commuter car parks are full by 7 am. I have spoken in this House numerous times about the hellscape that is Edmondson Park train station car park. Despite a commitment by the state government prior to this year's state election, work thus far on this vital piece of infrastructure has not begun. For over a century, people have been pushed further and further away from major employment and transport hubs to find places where they can afford to live. I have heard many stories of hardships caused for families because of the lack of infrastructure—time away from families and costs involved. The New South Wales government's Greater Sydney Commission has sought to remedy that through the 'Metropolis of three cities' plan. The vision is for Sydney to incorporate three cites, made up of an eastern harbour city, a central river city, and a western parklands city.
A recent report by the Greater Sydney Commission, The pulse of greater Sydney, found that 16 per cent of Western Sydney residents still can't access major hubs within 30 minutes. But for many in south-western Sydney that is currently a dream, and a lack of action from this government leads one to suspect it's still a long way off. Only 30 per cent of working people who live in the Liverpool local government area also work in it. Of those who travel outside the LGA for work, 70 per cent drive and 12 per cent use public transport. It's only 12 per cent because public transport is just not available. For those who drive, two-thirds experience delays on the M5. For those who get public transport, trains from Liverpool to Central Station take almost double the time in peak hour than they did in 1975—from 37 minutes to now 63 minutes. To fix these unacceptable wait times and achieve a 30-minute city, Western Sydney needs plenty of good-quality jobs and great access to those jobs. And that's the intention of the aerotropolis around Western Sydney Airport.
Since the industrial revolution, Sydney and its economic hubs have developed around transport. Hubs in the 1800s were rivers and ports; in the 19th century, it was railroads; last century, highways and motorways opened up new areas for development. But for the 21st century it will be airports, as they provide the transport speeds that will allow goods and people to get to markets in Asia and beyond very quickly—an aerotropolis with industries like aeronautics, advanced manufacturing, logistics support, gate-to-plate agriculture and e-commerce fulfilment.
However, according to experts like John Kasarda, the critical factor for any successful aerotropolis is its connections. Well-cast roads, rail and telecommunications to support Liverpool and Campbelltown—Werriwa and Macarthur—will provide a far more efficient workforce and a far better quality of life for all residents. That's why it's critically important to the success of Western Sydney Airport and the aerotropolis around it that world-class transport links are built and built now.
The south-west rail line extension from Leppington through to Western Sydney Airport provides the quickest, most-effective solution. The land corridor is already preserved and would easily and quickly connect the airport to Liverpool, Campbelltown and the rest of Sydney. It would also provide a direct link between Western Sydney Airport and Kingsford Smith Airport. The north-south rail link from Western Sydney Airport to Macarthur would not just benefit the airport but would provide much-needed public transport for the entire south-west growth corridor, as would rapid transit links along Fifteenth Ave, from Liverpool CBD to Western Sydney Airport.
The south-west of Sydney is one of the key growth areas in Australia, and is on the cusp of realising its economic and cultural potential. However, it can only be achieved if vital infrastructure is funded and built, linking south-west Sydney's major population centres with Liverpool and Campbelltown. I call on the government to fund this infrastructure properly and promptly.
I thank the member for Macarthur for giving us the opportunity to talk about infrastructure in Western Sydney. The Morrison government understands that families in Western Sydney want to spend less time in traffic and more time with their friends and families or getting on with the job at work. We are united and determined to deliver the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan, build the Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport, and grow the industries that will create jobs in the Western Sydney Aerotropolis precinct, while Labor has no current plan to ease congestion on our roads and create local jobs by bringing investment and opportunity to the people of Western Sydney.
The Morrison government not only sees Western Sydney as being full of hardworking, aspirational Australians with great potential for growth and innovation but also is delivering on the commitment to make sure people in my electorate of Lindsay and Western Sydney have jobs of the future in emerging industries such as space, defence, advanced manufacturing, STEM, research, start-ups and more. As someone who was born and bred in Western Sydney, there is nothing I want more than for people to have the opportunity to live, work and stay in our community. These are not just words for the Morrison government; we're already taking action.
Western Sydney is one of the fastest-growing areas, and we are delivering exciting opportunities to take full advantage of this potential. As part of the 2019-20 budget, we've locked in a further $7.3 billion investment in infrastructure, bringing our total to $33 billion in New South Wales. This will help ease congestion, so people can get to where they need to be—for those going to work in the morning and coming home to their families in the evenings; for mums and dads getting their kids to school sport on Saturdays; and for businesses to transport their goods and products around Australia. This investment will go towards $3.5 billion for the first stage of the North South Rail link from St Mary's in my community of Lindsay and a further $405 million towards the $1.4 billion construction of the new M12 motorway. We're not just talking about getting people out of traffic; we're delivering on the vital infrastructure the people of Western Sydney deserve. In my electorate of Lindsay, the Morrison government's Urban Congestion Fund is providing $63.5 million to upgrade Dunheved Road and to upgrade commuter car parking right across Western Sydney. We are delivering the infrastructure upgrades to ease congestion and ensure we have safer roads in our community as Western Sydney grows.
The Morrison government is looking ahead to the opening of the Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport in 2026, and making sure that we have the transport options to accommodate the phenomenal growth and investment with the airport and aerotropolis and realise the full economic benefit for Western Sydney. People in Western Sydney know that the Morrison government can deliver the infrastructure to connect our communities with the emerging industries, the aerotropolis and the airport, which will create and sustain a new generation of jobs for the future—because, unlike those opposite, we know what it takes to run a strong economy that provides the opportunities for hardworking, aspirational Australians.
Western Sydney deserves to be recognised as a promising area for innovation and industry, and we're making sure that the infrastructure will match this enthusiasm with the Western Sydney City Deal. We're committed to realising the 30-minute city by delivering the first stage of the North South Rail link and we're creating 200,000 jobs by supercharging the aerotropolis and agribusiness precinct and building the skills in our local community through new education opportunities to ensure the jobs of the future in Western Sydney stay local, particularly for our kids.
The Minister for Education joined me at Samuel Terry Public School, where we had an inside look at robotics and STEM lessons, developing the skills that will be a vital part of the industries emerging in Western Sydney under the Morrison government. The Minister for Industry, Science and Technology and I were welcomed to Jamison High School to see how the Girls in STEM Toolkit is going to encourage more girls to get into science, technology and maths and experience coding, drones and robots. The students from St Marys South Public School and Nepean Christian School who visited me in parliament last week, will be part of the generation of our local kids who will be able to pursue careers in developing technologically advanced manufacturing and agricultural industries that are coming to Western Sydney as part of the development of the airport and aerotropolis. The Morrison government is delivering the infrastructure, education and jobs of the future for people in Western Sydney.
I have to say, it may or may not have been the member for Lindsay's intention, but her speech perfectly encapsulates why this side of the House has put this motion forward. It's because my colleagues in south-western Sydney, like those of us in the Illawarra, would like to see a fraction of the investment that the member for Lindsay's just spoken about. What's even more of a failure for this government in this space is that the areas of south-west Sydney and the Illawarra are actually going to be (a) massively impacted by the development at the Western Sydney Airport and the aerotropolis, and (b) capable of providing many of the strategic solutions to some of the problems that will be generated by such a major piece of infrastructure. For example, members have talked about some of the road and rail links in south-western Sydney. In my seat, we have a major port. Those opposite seem to have forgotten that they're going to have to have access for goods and products, not just people, in and out of a major development of the Western Sydney Airport. And if they think they're going to be able to access the inner-Sydney port consistently over that time frame, they're kidding themselves. There is a major port, the Port of Kembla, ready, willing and able to take on some of that task. There's no consideration being given by this government to our regions and the way in which we can be part of that story.
To get a bit of a picture and to do a bit of an audit on where these things are at, I put a question on notice to the Deputy Prime Minister on 30 July. I wanted some information on how much governments have actually spent on infrastructure funding in my region of the Illawarra. As would be appreciated, it's particularly relevant to the issues of this motion. The advice I received back was that the Illawarra has received $233,487,391 since the year 2000 for 18 projects. There has been $235,336,062 in rail, of which $25,851,127 was actually in the electorate of the Illawarra. That's $235 million in rail, with $25 million actually in my electorate. Of that $25 million, $17 million, nearly $18 million, was actually federal Labor government investment, not Liberal government investment.
Let's look at Picton and Appin roads. My colleagues work regularly with me on both these roads because they're so strategically important. How much was spent on Picton Road? Just over $48 million. All of these projects, except one, were federal Labor government investments—that is, nearly $46 million of that $48 million was federal Labor government investment in that road.
Appin Road has $50 million invested in it, as announced at the 2016 election the day after Labor announced it was going to invest $50 million. So we got $50 million, but it was only because of the prodding in an election campaign that embarrassed the government into taking up that action and that commitment. Overall, since 2000—that's 13 years of federal Liberal governments and seven years of federal Labor governments—of the $233.5 million the Deputy Prime Minister identified in spending on the Maldon-Dombarton rail line, Picton Road and Appin Road, $173.2 million, or 15 of the 18 projects, were budgeted commitments under federal Labor governments.
I have to say that this is an absolute embarrassment and a disgrace for this government and, indeed, for all governments since the first Abbott budget in 2014. My colleagues and I, such as the member for Whitlam, the member for Macarthur, the member for Werriwa, along with peak bodies, including radical organisations like the Illawarra Business Chamber and the Property Council, have been saying to this government, 'As you develop the Western Sydney Airport you need to look at connections to Port Kembla and the movement of people.' We've got a highly skilled, trades based workforce in the Illawarra and a high-quality university with major expertise in infrastructure and transport matters. You need to be looking at how this is part of the solution to the congestion issues that you talk about.' The member for Reid's contribution, as always I hear from the other side, boasting about what money they've got spent in their area, just shows exactly why my colleagues and I have put this motion forward. This government is playing favourites. It needs to play in the national interest, not to its own favourites in its own electorates. (Time expired)
Member for Fisher, long have I dreamed of being reigned over by you. It is so nice to see you occupying the high chair, and so appropriate too.
Mr Zimmerman interjecting—
No, I didn't, and there are obvious reasons why, Member for North Sydney. I congratulate the member for Macarthur for putting this motion forward. Of course, the member for Macarthur continues to get re-elected time and time again because he can say to half his constituents that he was there when they were born. It is an unhealthy advantage, and I think the ACCC needs to look into the member for Macarthur's unfair advantage in standing for federal parliament, unless we can find another paediatrician—let's actually have an honest conversation here in this place. The Liberal Party is doing so much for the western suburbs at the moment that it is an embarrassment to the Labor Party. They have done more for the western suburbs in Sydney and south-west Sydney than any two governments in the history of this federation. I put to you the following: NorthConnex—$8 billion. For 16 years the Carr/Keneally Labor government in New South Wales did nothing. The inside of a doughnut did more than those two did. WestConnex—$23½ billion. Let's not forget why WestConnex is so necessary. When the Greiner/Fahey government left office in 1995, they'd signed a contract for a three-lane tunnel on the M5 servicing the people of south-west Sydney. Michael Knight, that financial and intellectual genius, decided he would save $104 million by reducing the tunnel from three lanes to two. If only he'd had the foresight to realise that we were going to put a lot of people in south-west Sydney. Actually, he did know that; he just ignored everyone. He saved $100 million. Well, that's alright—it hasn't been that expensive to fix it up: just $23½ billion that we're now spending on fixing up the mistakes of the Labor Party. And what policy did they take to the last state election? They wanted to cancel that project. What policy did they take to the previous state election? They wanted to cancel the project. They have the gall to come into this chamber and cry crocodile tears over the people of Western and South-Western Sydney. They don't care about them at all. The fact of the matter is they wanted to cancel the one transport project that's made a difference to them in nearly 25 years. That's what the Labor Party thinks of people in south-west Sydney.
And then you have, of course, the Sydney Metro—a $23½ billion train project running from Bankstown to North-West Sydney. And what did the Labor Party want to do to that? They thought that it was a waste of money. They wanted to cancel that too. But they've got the gall to come in here and claim that they've funded a road to the tune of $48 million. Are they serious? How are the people of Western Sydney meant to respond to such outrageous behaviour from a group of people who pretend to care? They don't care about anyone but their large donors. For 25 years the Labor Party tried to stop the Aerotropolis from happening. Only this government made it happen. And even then the member for Chifley is still opposed to it. It is something that all his electorate wants, that will create massive amounts of economic opportunity and employment, but he doesn't want it. You see, Labor in theory is in favour of making things better, but when it actually comes to doing things better it prefers just to look good.
I come from a part of Sydney that has three of the most congested roads in Australia. We are begging, absolutely begging, for infrastructure to be built there. The previous Prime Minister Tony Abbott got $50 million for Beaches Link, the most amount of money that a federal government has ever spent in my region. Compare it to the 100 billion, the billions of dollars, the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent in Western and south-western Sydney.
I thank the honourable member for his animated speech.
Thank you to the member for Mackellar for that stirring speech, although I suspect the mover of this motion, the member for Macarthur, and also the member for Lyne, with their significant medical training, would say that it's probably not the type of speech that will help soothe declining vocal cord strength. I encourage him to take some scotch, lemon and honey before the day is out.
This is an important motion, but I have to say, in a similar vein to that of the comments made by the member for Mackellar, that I am surprised that the member for Macarthur would come into this chamber without the slightest bit of contrition about Labor's performance in supporting the public transport needs of south-western Sydney or, indeed, the greater Sydney metropolitan area. Because it is hard to ignore the fact that, over the life of a Labor government in New South Wales, we saw investment in public transport infrastructure come effectively to a standstill. What we saw in those governments from Carr to Keneally were governments that were very fond of glossy infrastructure plans which were republished, renewed, redesigned and reissued on an annual basis, but, beyond those glossy publications, we saw very little happening on the ground. In fact, during the course of Labor's administration, we saw basically half a railway line completed. That was their one claim to fame over something like 13 years in office.
In contrast, at the state government level in New South Wales now under a coalition, we have seen what is a public transport revolution. We've seen the completion of the South West Rail Link, which serves so many people in the region from which the member for Macarthur comes, delivered by this government early and under budget. We've seen the opening of the North West Rail Link which has transformed transport in north-western Sydney. We've seen work progressing so well on the Sydney Metro project, which will benefit not only my electorate but also all those along the line stretching, as it will, from Chatswood to Bankstown. We've seen the commitment the state government and federal government have made to expanding railways to service the wonderful new Nancy Bird Walton airport, which is already under construction. That is part of the coalition's agenda: recognising the importance of reducing congestion and improving the quality of life for people living in our great urban areas like Sydney or Melbourne.
The coalition government at the state level have taken the lead, but at every step of the way they are being supported by this coalition government at the federal level. You only have to look at our investment in New South Wales. Between the time that we were elected and 2028-29, we will have invested something like $33 billion in land transport projects in New South Wales. That commitment includes the $541 million that we're spending on congestion-busting projects in New South Wales. It also includes the $511 million that we're supporting to upgrade key transport corridors. That, of course, is all part of our $100 billion pipeline of infrastructure projects, which will make such a tangible difference to urban areas across the country.
I have to say that one of the most exciting features of our infrastructure plan is that massive and long-overdue project which will provide such benefit to the member for Macarthur's own electorate. That project, of course, is Western Sydney International (Nancy Bird Walton) Airport. That airport alone will generate something like 30,000 jobs, in the long-term, providing greater job opportunities closer to where people work. During construction it will provide something like 11,000 jobs.
Its benefits will not just be for Western Sydney. Obviously it will provide huge benefits for an industry that I know very well, the tourism industry, which is currently encountering the limitations of the bottleneck of Kingsford Smith airport. It will also provide an anchor for the Western Sydney Aerotropolis zone, which will follow the construction of the airport and which will also generate so many jobs. What I'm really pleased about, as someone who is a strong advocate for public transport, is we've recognised that the success of that airport will depend on adequate rail links. That's why we've indicated, as part of our Western Sydney deal, that we will contribute $3.5 billion towards an airport link as stage 1 of a metro line that will service that airport.
The member for Macarthur talks about other projects. I am confident that they will come. But the capacity to deliver this infrastructure has to be managed, and has to occur through that pipeline process. I am proud of what we are delivering for south-western Sydney, through the airport and through the land and rail transport links that are going to follow. It's a record that I think the member for Macarthur should more properly acknowledge.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the Government's commitment to Medicare;
(2) further notes:
(a) the record level of funding to Medicare in 2018-19 of $24.1 billion, which is an increase of 3.5 per cent in benefits paid in the 2017-18 financial year;
(b) that the national GP bulk billing rate of 86.2 per cent is a four percentage point increase on the 2012-13 figure of 82.2 per cent when Labor were last in office; and
(c) that patients made 136.5 million bulk billed GP visits in 2018-19, up 3.3 million visits on the previous financial year;
(3) acknowledges that on 1 July 2019, the Government increased the patient rebate for further GP items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule, and that specialist procedures, allied health services and other GP services such as mental health and after hours services, were indexed; and
(4) congratulates the Government for ensuring the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review will continue to ensure that Medicare services are effective and appropriate for patients now and into the future.
Over the past six years we have been witnessing an exceptional period in the growth of the Medicare system, and the huge commitment from the coalition government should be celebrated. The other side have traded on the historical fact that Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, leader of the ALP at the time, brought in Medicare as one of the party's signature policies. But, in fact, having operated in the Medicare system in both the public health system and the private health system, I can say that the period that we've been through in the last six years has seen the biggest growth of Medicare and the public health system, and we have delivered that to this nation. Also, all the other side did, instead of improving and putting up commonsense ideas, was to run off to an election and run a 'Mediscare' campaign rather than be constructive.
The record funding for Medicare is not really appreciated, with $24.1 billion—it's an increase of 3½ per cent on the previous year, 2017-18. The GP bulk-billing rate is actually at its highest level ever. In past administrations—John Howard offered incentives for people to use bulk-billing and to get the usage rates up again, while this coalition government's administration of the health portfolio has actually seen the rate of bulk-billing go to a record high of 86.2 per cent. This record means that 136½ million episodes of bulk-billing occurred, which is up $3.3 million from the year before. I might add that the bulk-billing rate when the ALP, the other side, was last running the government was only 82.2 per cent.
We have a wonderful system in this country. We have the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as well. And I might just add, $10½ billion—$10.6 billion, to be exact—has been invested in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme over the past year, delivering 2,100 new or amended medicines on the system. That's 31 new listings per month. That's one per day. Many medicines that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars are now available for $40.30 or, if you're a concession cardholder, $6.50 per script. Ninety-one per cent of pharmaceutical benefits scripts are dispensed to concession cardholders. It's an amazing system.
Other countries look at us with envy. In other countries, they don't have anything like this—not even the UK's NHS and our cousins in New Zealand. Being a passionate supporter of the Medicare system and working in the industry, we have the best system of delivering affordable medicines. We get cutting-edge medicines sooner than many other countries that have fully socialised health systems.
In the period that we have been on the government benches, we have introduced the Medicare Guarantee Bill where the first appropriation that comes out of each budget is to guarantee the payments for Medicare. We have also, in the 2017-18 budget, delivered another $1 billion to pay for the reindexation of Medicare bills. And in the last budget, 2019-20, this current year, $187.2 million goes towards paying for those indexations, including health assessments, chronic disease management plans and mental health services.
The Medicare Benefits Schedule Review process powers on. There have been some really great outcomes from that, not just getting rid of unused, unnecessary or out-of-date Medicare items, but in MYEFO in 2018-19 there was a decision to invest $108.6 million over four years for best practice in anorexia nervosa and bulimia treatment. It was an area that had mixed and very frustrating results. Some of these were provided by very boutique small public hospitals but, in general, there was no general practice planning that could do it. Renal dialysis—the list goes on. I commend this motion to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.
I rise to speak on the private members' motion moved by the member for Lyne. Rather than moving self-congratulatory motions, this government should be focused on the health of all Australians, particularly those living in regional and remote Australia. I've been a pharmacist since 1998 and worked at my local hospital for almost 10 years. The strain in regional communities is extraordinary. It needs to be properly acknowledged by this government.
New Medicare figures confirm what Australians already know, particularly those in regional and remote Australia: the out-of-pocket cost to see a doctor is higher than ever before. The government's own data shows that the average out-of-pocket cost to see a GP is $39.55—up $10.40, or 36 per cent, since the Liberals were elected. Costs are even higher in some states and territories. In my state of New South Wales, the increase is $10.93 or 39 per cent. It's worth remembering that this third-term government tried to impose a $7 GP tax in the 2014 budget. And what did they do when Labor blocked that increase in the parliament? They introduced a Medicare freeze—a GP tax by stealth. These figures confirm that this Prime Minister and this health minister have done what Tony Abbott and the member for Dickson couldn't do: they've increased the cost of seeing a GP by even more than the GP tax.
The same is true for the cost of seeing a specialist. The average out-of-pocket cost to see a specialist is now $91.50—up $33.40, or 58 per cent, since this government was elected. Again, the average is much higher in some states and territories. In my state of New South Wales, the increase is $37.19, or 59 per cent, to see a specialist. These costs are pushing household budgets to breaking point.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the government's own experts, say that 1.3 million Australians a year delay or avoid Medicare services due to cost. That includes 633,000 people who skip seeing a GP; 538,000 people who skip seeing a specialist; 274,000 people who skip imaging; and 144,000 people who skip a blood test. And of course the impacts of soaring health costs are unequal: they hit parts of the community much harder than others, particularly people living in regional and remote Australia—people living in electorates like mine own on the New South Wales Central coast. For example, when it comes to seeing a GP, people in regional and remote areas are 25 per cent more likely to skip care than people in cities. People who live in the most disadvantaged areas are 33 per cent more likely to skip care than people living in the least disadvantaged areas. Women are a staggering 66 per cent more likely to skip care than men. Recently I met with the Central Coast Community Women's Health Centre. They provide services across the coast from their centres in Wyoming, Wyong and Woy Woy. But they are under strain, and feeling the pressure of this government's health cuts and changes in the classification of 'health workforce'.
Of course, people who skip primary care don't get better; they just get sicker. They're often forced to go to our public hospitals. More than eight million people presented to public hospital EDs in 2017-18; that's almost a million more than when the Liberals were elected, thanks in part to the Medicare freeze. In 2013 the Liberals promised to fund 50 per cent of growth in public hospitals costs, but they lied. They're only funding 45 per cent, meaning a cut of billions of dollars from our public hospitals. Not satisfied with that, the Liberals also abolished an agreement with the states and territories that was specifically designed to cut waiting times. As a result, around one in three patients aren't seen on time in the ED. About one in 10 people wait an hour and 40 minutes or more to be seen.
Recently I joined the New South Wales Nurses and Midwives Association rally at Gosford Hospital, supporting local nurses working under enormous strain in our community. This is what they said: 'Frontline nurses and midwives are feeling the pressure of an overwhelmed public health system. There are more patients with comorbidities, and nurses are bearing unreasonable workloads. There is no real increase in regulated nursing and midwifery staff, and the demand is only increasing. Current funding is not adequate to keep up with the increasing demand from the growing and ageing population.' I heard from a young nurse. She was brought to tears when talking about the burnout and the strain on nurses, particularly nurses working in emergency departments in regional and remote centres. This government needs to stop congratulating itself, spruiking PBS listings and talking about Medicare. Labor established Medicare. Labor established the PBS. What this government needs to do is properly support health care in regional and remote Australia.
This government is committed to Medicare and committed to ensuring that Australians are able to access the medical services they need. In the last financial year we delivered $27.7 billion in funding under Medicare, with a projected figure of $30.7 billion in 2022-23. As an allied health professional I know the significant role that Medicare rebates play in facilitating access for patients to services they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. More Australians are accessing their GP via bulk-billed services. Nationally, 335.8 million bulk-billed services were accessed last year by Australians, including GP, specialist, pathology and diagnostic imaging services. In my electorate of Reid, 93 per cent of GP visits last year were bulk billed; that's over a million visits to the doctor in my seat alone.
Our ability to list more services on the Medicare Benefits Schedule is a result of strong economic management under the coalition government. We've been able to list an additional 2,100 medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which equates to more than 30 new medicines listed per month since the coalition government was elected in 2013. This includes lifesaving medications like Spinraza, to treat spinal muscular atrophy, saving patients and their families over $350,000 per year, or Kisqali, a breast cancer drug, saving 3,000 patients around $70,000 per year. These medications now cost patients the cost of a subsidised script—a maximum of $40.30. Ninety-one per cent of subsidised PBS scripts were dispensed to concession cardholders, who pay no more than $6.50 per script.
The Minister for Health has spoken about how the MBS and the PBS form a key component of primary care for patients—the first of four pillars which support the national health plan. Beyond investing in Medicare, the government is also investing in hospitals and ensuring that private health insurance remains affordable and continues to play an important part in our health system. The minister is also committed to preventive health measures, particularly in the area of mental health.
Mental health and suicide prevention are at the top of the government's health priorities. The minister has announced the expansion of the headspace program as well as a new intergenerational health and mental health study. This study will provide a detailed information base for mental health planning at the local level over the next decade. Almost four million Australians suffer from some form of chronic or episodic mental illness each year. Fifty per cent of us will face a mental health challenge in our lives.
In 2018-19, the government provided more than $4.9 billion in funding for mental health, through the health portfolio. In 2019-20 this will rise to $5.3 billion. Primary health networks will receive $1.45 billion over the next three years to plan and commission mental health services at a regional level. This will enable them to identify and fill gaps in the services available to their communities and respond to local needs across primary mental healthcare services, including therapy for conditions like depression and anxiety, mental health promotion, prevention and early intervention, psychosocial support, and, most importantly, suicide prevention. We are working towards a zero suicide goal, led by Christine Morgan, the CEO of the National Mental Health Commission and now the National Suicide Prevention Adviser to the Prime Minister. The final element of the long-term national health plan is investment in medical research through the Medical Research Future Fund, totalling $17.5 billion invested in ensuring that Australia is at the forefront of research globally.
I'm pleased to speak on this matter put forward by the member for Lyne, and join him in congratulating the Morrison government for continuing to guarantee an improved Medicare in this country and ensuring that all Australians have access to an affordable, quality health system. (Time expired)
It's always interesting to hear the Orwellian tones from the government when it comes to talking about health and Medicare because, while those opposite seek to trumpet their own alleged achievements—like those we've just heard from the member for Reid—the truth of the matter when you unpack this debate today is not what the government would have you believe. If we're being honest, it's much the same for all the government's policies and their so-called achievements. Let's face it: after six years, we've got nothing to show for it. That's why we get motions like this that are simply hot air designed to make things look better than they really are for the government. Moving all the motions you want in the world won't change the facts.
The first thing that people should know about this motion from the government is that the facts have been cleverly crafted to hide the truth about what is really going on here. The member refers to a bulk-billing rate of 86 per cent. But what you might not know is that this statistic refers to the number of services that are bulk-billed, not the number of patients. Patients who receive many services each year, such as older Australians with chronic diseases, are likely to receive more services due to being sicker and being bulk-billed due to holding concession cards. This inflates the percentage of services bulk-billed each year, but doesn't change the number of patients bulk-billed each year. The government doesn't even report the number of patients bulk-billed each year. This information comes direct from Dr Harry Nespolon, the president of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. He goes on to say:
… while it is true that 86.1% of general practice services are bulk billed, the proportion of patients fully bulk billed (and who therefore face no out-of-pocket costs for care) is actually much lower.
According to survey results … only 23% of GPs bulk bill all of their patients.
A report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that, when it comes to out-of-pocket costs 'only 66 per cent of patients had all of their GP services bulk-billed in 2016–2017'.
So I find it staggering that members of the government would come into this place seeking to present a set of numbers that would have Australians believing something entirely different—because it just isn't so. What these figures show is that one-third of all patients paid an out-of-pocket cost for their GP care in that time period. The same report found:
.. half of all patients accessing Medicare-subsidised services (including GP services, as well as other health services, such as medical specialists, allied health, pathology and diagnostic imaging) had to pay something from their own pocket in that year.
What does all this mean? It means that one million Australians are reported to be delaying or avoiding seeing a GP due to cost concerns. Let me say that again: one million Australians are delaying or avoiding seeing a GP due to cost concerns.
It's about time this government woke up to the truth—the truth that Australians are finding it tougher to make ends meet and that rising health costs inflicted by this government are making it even tougher. It is the following line from the report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, a government body, that I find sums up this government's lack of attention to Medicare and our health system. The report says that patient out-of-pocket costs for a GP visit have increased by 140 per cent since 2005-06, while the patient rebate for Medicare Benefits Schedule, MBS, item No.23—the most common item for which GPs bill Medicare—has increased by only 19 per cent over that period. The report says that patients now spend approximately $3 billion a year on non-hospital Medicare services around Australia.
That brings me to the chronic underfunding by the federal government when it comes to Queensland hospitals and Queensland patients. When the Treasurer handed down this year's budget, he also handed down a $316 million cut to Queensland hospitals, leaving the Palaszczuk state government to do the heavy lifting. Since being elected, the Palaszczuk government has delivered 527 new beds in Queensland hospitals—opened, available and treating patients right now—and an increase in health funding. Why was that so? Because the previous Newman government cut, sacked and sold Queensland. We saw nursing homes close under Campbell Newman. We saw the member for Groom, who was a failed minister in that government, thrown out of office because of their lack of commitment to health and hospitals funding in this state.
We know the federal coalition has sought to cripple health funding by continuously extending the Medicare and GP freeze over six years. We know that the rate of increase in the number of services bulk-billed is slowing, with annual Medicare stats showing that growth has slowed from 1.2 per cent in 2013-14 to just 0.2 per cent in 2017-18. If this trend continues, the bulk-billing rate is likely to begin to decline in the 2019-20 year.
I simply call on the government to stop with these motions congratulating themselves and get on with the job of providing accessible and affordable health care for all Australians.
I welcome this opportunity to speak in support of the motion from the member for Lyne in relation to the coalition government's commitment to Medicare. That commitment is all about guaranteeing Medicare and ensuring that all Australians have access to an affordable, quality healthcare system. I have enjoyed the opportunity to listen to the contributions from colleagues right across the chamber, and whilst the member for Oxley has had to depart, I was interested in his comments in relation to what he saw or portrayed as facts. For the benefit of those opposite and to assist them in their memory of facts, it is very clear that the people of Australia have rejected the mistruths those opposite told in relation to Medicare. Who could forget the so-called 'Mediscare' campaign? We can only ask those opposite how it went for them, because it didn't succeed. Those mistruths have been well and truly relegated to the gutter, where they belong, by our government's continued and guaranteed commitment to Medicare funding and our continued focus on bulk-billing benefits right across the Australian community.
As a number of colleagues on this side of the House have quite rightly outlined, that investment, that commitment and that guarantee for Medicare from the Australian government is all about the long-term future of Medicare, with an additional $5.8 billion being invested into services over the next four-year period. Funding for Medicare has increased from $19.5 billion in 2012-13 to more than $24 billion this year. It will continue to rise, to $29.9 billion in 2022-23. In terms of bulk-billing, as outlined in the motion from the member for Lyne, currently in Australia close to nine out of every 10 GP services are in fact bulk-billed, meaning that most Australian patients do not have any out-of-pocket costs when they visit their local GP.
Along with all members of the House, I have a very specific and serious duty to represent my community here, so I take this opportunity to refer to the statistics for the electorate of Groom, including my beautiful home town of Toowoomba, townships such as Oakey, Pittsworth and Highfields and the many villages and communities in between. Medicare funding from the Australian government increased by $37.6 million, or 32.2 per cent, between 2012-13 and 2017-18, from $116. 8 million to $154.4 million. In Groom, the number of bulk-billed GP services has increased by 231,056, or 31.9 per cent, in that same period—2012-13 to 2017-18. The percentage of GP services that are bulk-billed in Groom increased by seven percentage points in that same period from 77 per cent to a very impressive 84 per cent. Last year, over 821,307 GP services were bulk-billed in my electorate of Groom. That is 231,056 more than Labor's last year in government. Of course, I refer there to the period of 2012-13. The number of GPs providing Medicare services in Groom increased by 55, or 27.8 per cent, between 2012-13 and 2017-18.
That is where we see the rubber on the road in the government's strategy in relation to guaranteeing Medicare. The Toowoomba Hospital—in fact, the whole Darling Downs hospital and health service—is seeing those benefits that support constituents in my electorate. It's that sort of effort behind Medicare, that guarantee. Of course, the other reference in the motion to the PBS mental health focus in particular under our government, under our Minister for Health, is indeed worthy of recognition. So I'm very pleased to support this motion.
In the motion before us today, the member for Lyne wants us to note the government's commitment to Medicare and congratulate the government on ensuring Medicare services are effective and appropriate. I think the member for Oxley referred to those opposite as being 'Orwellian'. Talk about doublespeak! We all know the commitment to Medicare from those opposite is absolutely skin deep and goes no further.
Labor gave Australians Medicare, and Labor will always protect it and, indeed, enhance it. For the government to claim that it has a commitment to Medicare is courageous at the very least. On this side, we have not forgotten that those opposite went to a number of elections over recent decades wanting to kill Medicare. They did kill it once. They killed Medicare, or Medibank, and we brought it back under Hawke with Medicare, and we've had to fight tooth and nail for it in all the years since, with attempts by those opposite to try to either kill it outright or, when they couldn't do that, kill it through the back door with little privatisations here and there of various services, trying to chip away at it. We're on to them.
As late as 2013, they sought to impose a $7 Medicare charge for visits to the GP. That's nothing to be congratulated for. Rather than offer congratulations, I would like to ask the government to explain why they're sitting on their hands when it comes to taking real action on Australia's soaring out-of-pocket healthcare costs. As the member for Oxley explained, one million Australians are delaying going to the GP because of a fear of the cost. That wouldn't be happening if Medicare was working as it should be. If Medicare was working as it should be, Australians would not have this fear of out-of-pocket costs for going to the GP. The latest quarterly Medicare statistics released earlier this month have confirmed that healthcare costs burdening Australians under this government are continuing to exceed record highs. These numbers show that the cost for a patient to visit a GP has risen 2.8 per cent in the last 12 months, while the cost to see a specialist is now 4. 8 per cent higher than the same time last year. Costs are going up. According to the government's own figures, around 1.3 million Australians—the member for Oxley was lowballing it—per year skip or delay Medicare services due to costs. This is while waiting lists in hospitals for surgeries are at record highs and patients struggle to receive the health care they need. I won't go into the detail here about what's happening in my home state with public hospitals, ambulance ramping and all the rest; that would take another 10 to 15 minutes at least.
The situation in Tasmania is absolutely dire. Tasmania has the lowest bulk-billing rates in Australia but the fastest growth in accessing Medicare services. Anybody who knows what the socioeconomic profile is in Tasmania will know that having the lowest bulk-billing does not make sense. Tasmania should have the highest bulk-billing services, not the lowest. The national bulk-billing rate is 86 per cent, the member for Lyne tells us. In Tasmania, that figure is 76 per cent, and the people in my state are poorer, older and sicker. The rate in Tasmania is the lowest of any state and second only to the ACT.
The northern Tasmanian branch of the Australian Medical Association has voiced concerns around the demand facing GP services and the viability of bulk-billing. The chair, Dr Glenn Richardson, has said demand on services is being felt across the state, particularly in rural and remote areas. Under this Liberal government, out-of-pocket costs in Tasmania for a GP visit have increased—you'd be surprised to hear this, Deputy Speaker—by an average of $7 per visit. There's the co-payment; you got it in! We got it out of the legislation, but you've managed to get in your $7 per visit charge in the back door. For a specialist visit, the average increase is $17 per visit.
The General Practice: h ealth of the n ation report released last year by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners notes that out-of-pocket costs for GP visits increased by 4.35 per cent between 2016-17 and 2017-18. That's more than double the increase in the CPI over the same time. The report further noted that patients are increasingly delaying a visit to their GP because of cost, and it's particularly bad in areas in my electorate such as Richmond, Bothwell and New Norfolk, who will all stand to lose some of their GP services. You deserve no congratulations for what you do to Medicare.
I commend the member for Lyne's motion on the coalition government's commitment to Medicare. The member for Lyne is correct to note the record level of funding in one of Australia's pillars of health care: Medicare. Nationwide this is a 23 per cent increase on Medicare funding levels in the time that the coalition has been in government. When we came into office in 2013, spending on Medicare under Labor was just $18.6 billion. In our first year in office, we increased Medicare spending to $19.1 billion. Since then, we have boosted Medicare spending each year by about another $1 billion. Our long-term national health plan will see this commitment increase to $29.9 billion by the 2022-23 financial year.
Medicare is particularly important in my own electorate of Cowper, which has a larger proportion of older Australians. On the mid North Coast of New South Wales, our population is 33.4 per cent aged over 65 years compared to the national average of 19.7 per cent. Many of these older people are also on the age pension and over 28,000 in my electorate receive the age pension, so affordable medical care is vital to those on fixed incomes.
It is not only our older Australians who seek to benefit from the health and wellbeing benefits of the temperate climate of the regional coastal location; we also have some 9,436 people who are receiving a disability support payment and also pay close attention to medical costs. These vulnerable people are just the sorts of Australians that Medicare is designed to support and protect.
Given our large numbers of age and disability pensioners, I commend the 18.2 per cent increase in Medicare spending in Cowper from 2012-13 to last year. The coalition government deserves more credit for not only increasing Medicare spending but also enshrining it in legislation so that Medicare has the first call on the federal budget. The Medicare Guarantee Fund, established by the coalition government in 2017-18, is protecting Medicare funding now and into the future.
The coalition is the true champion of Medicare, and this financial and legislative commitment is proof of our passion to support this important pillar of health care. The Liberal-National coalition has also supported a four per cent increase in the national GP bulk-billing rate from 82.2 under Labor in 2012-13, to 86.2 today. Last year, 133 million visits to a GP were free, which was 27.3 million more GP visits under Labor than in their final year of government. To put this in terms all of us understand, more Australians are seeing their doctor without needing to pay because nine out of 10 visits to the doctor are delivered at no cost to the patient.
In my own electorate of Cowper, we have seen a much greater uptake in bulk-billed GP visits. Where the national average was a four per cent increase, we have seen four times that increase, and I thank the hardworking GPs who are happy to provide services for the scheduled Medicare benefit amounts. There were 16.1 per cent more bulk-billed GP visits in 2017-18, compared to Labor's final year in office: a whopping 1,016,000 bulk-billed visits in one year in Cowper. So this coalition government's commitment to the important health care being provided under bulk-billed GP visits can certainly be seen in my electorate.
The Medicare rebates for many medical services have also increased under our government. We have introduced higher Medicare rebates for important diagnostic services, such as ultrasound and X-ray imaging to reduce costs to patients. I would also like to bring to your attention how many more GPs are choosing to offer bulk-billed services. In my electorate the number of GPs providing Medicare rebate services has jumped 17.4 per cent. A total of 49 new GPs out of a total of 330 GPs are now providing Medicare services in the Cowper electorate. It is our government which has invested record funding ensuring medical treatment for all Australians, especially the most vulnerable. It is affordable for patients and delivers a fair rebate to medical practitioners.
I'm pleased to speak on the motion moved by the member for Lyne. I'm surprised that he's taken such a self-congratulatory tone in this, as the latest health statistics that have been recently published show there's in fact a step-wise reduction in life expectancy for people living outside our major cities—from inner metropolitan; it's worse in outer metropolitan; it's much worse in rural and regional areas; and it's absolutely atrocious in remote areas.
The government's approach to health care is a very biased one, and one in which we see those living in the poorest areas of Australia with the lowest bulk-billing rates and the worst health care. It's also very important to note that our universal healthcare insurance program was started by the Whitlam government—known as Medibank—because of huge public demand. What was happening at that time was that people could not afford modern health care. One of the commonest reasons for bankruptcy in Australia in the sixties was healthcare costs. Labor introduced the Medibank scheme, the first national health insurance scheme, designed in the sixties by two health economists, Scotton and Deeble, which was very successful at its introduction.
Of course, it was demolished by the Fraser Liberal-National government in the mid-to-late 1970s. It was resurrected again by the Hawke-Keating government in 1984 as 'Medicare', the scheme we know today. I actually started my private practice the same week that Medicare started in February 1984. I had people seeing me then as a paediatrician who were just amazed they could see a specialist paediatrician, because prior to that they couldn't afford it. What has happened over time is that there has been a gradual erosion in that universal healthcare aspect of Medicare. While the government say that they support Medicare, we know it's all smoke and mirrors with them. Don't forget this is the same group who wanted to introduce a co-payment, who have frozen for years the Medicare rebates for most services and have failed to understand the complexity of modern health care.
We now have an ageing population—a bigger population but an ageing population—and chronic disease is the major health issue facing Australia, and we've failed to come to terms with how we manage that through the Medicare system. My personal view is that we need a review of how our universal healthcare system works, because it's not delivering for all Australians. We now know that out-of-pocket expenses are increasing significantly, particularly in areas of more complex care, which more and more Australians are needing. We now have the ridiculous phenomena of people crowdfunding to get adequate health care. The waiting lists in our public hospitals are longer and longer than ever before. We have more and more people presenting to our accident and emergency departments, because they either cannot afford primary care or they have complex needs that are not being met by their general practitioners.
Health care is becoming more complex as technologies improve. We manage cardiovascular disease these days with acute interventions for people who are having heart attacks and with stents being put in coronary arteries. The same management is now true for people who have cerebral vascular accidents or strokes. In the inner city, outcomes are much better than in rural and regional Australia areas, and we need to look at ways that we can change that. We cannot have this almost medical apartheid system, where people in rural and regional and even outer-metropolitan areas are not getting access to the health care that they need.
The government have sat on their hands and think that a system that was designed in the 1960s is still fit for purpose. I'm saying to you that it's not. It's all very well to discuss bulk-billing statistics for pathology tests and GP visits, but people need complex care. The government do not understand how to deliver 21st century care to all Australians. I think that's evident by the press recently and is evident— (Time expired)
I'm delighted to speak to this motion which addresses one aspect of one of the most important subjects under review in this House. I'm pleased to say that the Morrison-McCormack government is committed to improving health care across this great nation and is focused on rural and regional health, as the Stronger Rural Health Strategy shows. Healthcare and service delivery is a priority to the people of my electorate, and scarcely a day goes by that I don't hear stories of individual journeys navigating rural and regional health care. The people of Mallee tell me they need responsive and sustainable health care, aged and palliative care, and I'm focused on improving the outcomes of the unique rural and regional settings in which services are delivered.
Structural change of Medicare funding is essential for reform in regional settings, including broadening activity funding to increase nurse practitioner and allied health services to manage chronic disease. The current Medicare task force is reviewing Medicare funding and the breadth of services it covers. I'm strongly advocating for the widening of funding for nurse practitioners. For those who do not understand the scope of nurse practitioners, they are registered nurses with experience and expertise to diagnose and treat people. They have completed additional university study at masters degree level and are considered some of the most clinically expert nurses in our health system. It is right that they are reimbursed for the level of study they have achieved and the skills they have developed and bring to their communities.
Last week, I held a forum in Mildura for Mallee hospital providers. This helped me to understand the issues experienced at the coalface. I have to say there was unanimous support around the room for the role of nurse practitioners. However, those present raised concern regarding the nurse practitioners' current ability to gain Medicare funding and, therefore, the viability of their role in private practice under the current model. This is one of the reasons that I'm so pleased that the Morrison-McCormack government is currently reviewing the Medicare Benefits Schedule, and I'm advocating that billing items be expanded to enable greater emphasis on the valuable role of nurse practitioners.
I have spoken to the people of Murrayville about their nurse practitioner Di Thornton, who is based at the Mallee Track Health and Community Service. I had the pleasure of visiting the Murrayville Cricket Club for Pink Stumps Day this year and heard from Heather and the gang there about the wonderful work that Di does in their community. We cannot overestimate the vital service nurse practitioners can make to our regional communities. I want to note that this government has overseen a record level of funding to Medicare in 2018-19 of up to $24 billion—an increase of 3.5 per cent in benefits paid in the previous financial year. In fact, over the coming year of 2019-20 the budget shows an increase in Medicare benefit spending of 8.75 per cent to $26.l billion.
Total health spending will make up 20.8 per cent of all government expenditure in 2019-20, at $104 billion. This represents $81.8 billion on health and $21.7 billion for aged care. This is a significant investment in Australia's future health and wellbeing.
The national bulk billing rate of 86.2 per cent is a four percentage point increase on the 2012-13 figure of 82.2 per cent when Labor were last in office. This increase means that patients made 136.5 million bulk billed GP visits in 2018-19, which is up 3.3 million visits on the previous year. This indicates our government's continued commitment to Medicare and access to healthcare for everyone.
I am particularly pleased that on 1 July 2019 the government increased the patient rebate for further GP items on the MBS, and that specialist procedures, allied health services and other GP services, such as mental health as well as after-hours services, were increased by 3.3 per cent.
There are many reasons why Australia holds the No. 1 position for clinical outcomes in health globally. It takes strong leadership to deliver strong results and the Morrison/McCormack government is committed to ensuring continued strong results in health care. This involves courageous review and commitment to deliver improved efficiencies and quality healthcare service delivery, including in regional and rural Australia.
The Member for Lyne is a country doctor. I'm a country nurse. We both understand that for rural and regional communities, Medicare is so important, and so I thank him for his motion and look forward to working with him to improve health outcomes for country people. I also look forward to working with the member for Mallee, who I am in furious agreement with on the role of nurse practitioners in regional and rural Australia.
When I was elected to parliament I committed to working with all sides to advance the interests of the people of lndi and of regional Australia. As an Independent, I have the advantage of being able to recognise good work wherever it is done. But also, where more work is needed, I can be an unflinching voice for regional Australians. And so I welcome the news of a record bulk billing rate and increased rebates to the Medicare Benefits Schedule.
For all Australians, this is good news. But the data is not all positive. The data shows us that the national bulk billing rate for GPs is at 86.2 per cent. This statistic measures the number of services that are bulk billed; it does not measure the number of people who are able to access the medical help they need. This proportion is much lower. The proportion of patients who are fully bulk billed and who do not have to pay out-of-pocket costs is 66 per cent. That means one-third of Australians have to open their wallets when they go to the doctor. Almost one million Australians delay seeing the doctor because of these costs.
The data also confirms that Australia has a two-track healthcare system, one for the city and one for the country, because country people are hardest hit by these out of pocket costs. Fifty-three per cent of regional patients have to pay to see a doctor compared to just 48 per cent in metro areas. People in remote and very remote parts of Australia access the Medicare Benefits Schedule at half the rate as their metro counterparts. This should hardly surprise us though, because access to Medicare is impossible when doctor-patient ratios are twice as high in remote regions as they are in our cities. Patients simply can't get in the door.
The government's motion today celebrates a record bulk-billing rate of 86.2 per cent. But this is a national average. On the New South Wales Central Coast, where the member for Lyne comes from, it's almost 2½ percentage points lower. In the Murray primary health network, where I come from, the figure is almost five points lower. In Wangaratta and Benalla, last year's bulk-billing rate was just 69 per cent—a full 17 points below the national average. How is this worth celebrating? How is this even acceptable? The government claims it is committed to Medicare. But how committed is it to Medicare in regional Australia?
All this matters, because country people still lag well behind their city counterparts on every indicator of health and wellbeing. Compared with city people we are 20 per cent more likely to have kidney disease, 47 per cent more likely to have diabetes and 50 per cent more likely to have cancer. If you do get cancer, the survival rate is four per cent lower for regional Victorians than for those who live in Melbourne. Benalla has doubled the state average of mental health patients, and the suicide rate in the Murray region is 40 per cent above the rest of the state. Why do we have higher disease burden but get less care? In Australia, where you live should not determine how healthy you are—and yet it does. In Australia, where you live should not restrict your access to basic health services—and yet it does. In Australia, where you live should not define how long you live—and yet it does.
We need a plan to fix this. Regional Australia is already facing enough challenges. Government neglect should not be added to the mix. I call on the government to develop a plan to address this health gap. We need a rural health strategy that looks at the problem dead in the eyes, outlines measures to fix it and commits the funding to make it happen. I commend this motion for the successes we've achieved, but I'll save my congratulations until all Australians can share in that success.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:12