I present report No. 5 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday 14 October 2019. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 17 September 2019.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 17 September 2019, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 14 October 2019, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Mr Bandt: To present a Bill for an Act to restrict activities in relation to thermal coal, and for related purposes. (Coal Prohibition (Quit Coal) Bill 2019)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 Ms Sharkie: To present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to the criminal law, and for related purposes. (Crimes Legislation Amendment (Age of Criminal Responsibility) Bill 2019)
(Notice given 16 September 2019.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3. Mr Giles: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Government plans to privatise Australia's visa processing system;
(b) under the Government's plan, a private tenderer will be given licence to run Australia's visa processing system as a for-profit business; and
(c) the Government will decide the winning tenderer in October 2019;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) visa and citizenship processing times have blown out under this Government;
(b) more than 230,000 people are on bridging visas;
(c) more than 220,000 people are on waiting lists for their citizenship; and
(d) the Government has failed to preserve and enhance the integrity of Australia's visa processing system; and
(3) calls on the Government to stop its privatisation of Australia's visa processing system.
(Notice given 17 September 2019.)
Time allotted — 50minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Giles — 5minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
4. Dr Martin: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that Tuesday, 10 September 2019 was World Suicide Prevention Day;
(2) confirms the Government's commitment to work with local communities to reduce the number of deaths by suicide in Australia;
(3) further notes the record level of funding of $736m provided in the 2019-20 budget for mental health including $503.1 million for the Youth Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan to support coordination of Government activities and services including:
(a) the largest single expansion of the national Headspace network through the establishment of 36 new sites; and
(b) provision of support to farmers and communities that been affected by drought to deal with the anxiety, stress and uncertainty of drought conditions; and
(4) welcomes the establishment of the Office of the National Suicide Prevention Adviser in 2019 to support a whole-of-government approach to suicide prevention, to ensure coordination of delivery of suicide prevention activities that reach Australians in the right way at the right time.
(Notice given 10 September 2019.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits —
Dr Martin — 5minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1. Ms Stanley: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 15 October is International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day;
(b) on this day, parents, families, friends and healthcare workers will memorialise babies they have lost through miscarriage, stillbirth and infant death; and
(c) infant loss is a tragic and terrible event to go through for families, healthcare workers and friends and International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day provides an opportunity to mark their shared loss;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) each year around 150,000 women in Australia experience some form of pregnancy or infant loss;
(b) further issues are commonly faced by those close to these tragic events such as depression, anxiety, changes in relationships, development of unhealthy coping mechanisms, and post-traumatic stress disorder;
(c) these effects, amongst others, are often underestimated and overlooked by healthcare professionals, friends, and even family members, especially concerning pregnancy loss related bereavement and subsequent grief; and
(d) greater research and understanding is required to aide in the creation and establishment of programs, resources and services that support and provide assistance to survivors of baby loss and their families, and enable them to overcome their trauma and integrate their bereavement into their life in a healthy, helpful, healing manner;
(3) expresses sympathy to all families who have suffered a miscarriage, a stillbirth or infant death; and
(4) commends each and every person who has supported parents and families through their journey from the loss of a baby.
(Notice given 9 September 2019.)
Time allotted — 30minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Stanley — 5minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration
of this matter should continue on a future day.
2. Ms Flint: To move—That this House:
(1) notes the:
(a) outstanding contribution women make to the Australian Defence Force; and
(b) the formation of the new Council for Women and Families United by Defence Service; and
(2) acknowledges that Defence embraces the concept of diversity, valuing differences, demonstrating fair, respectful and inclusive behaviour and aims to effectively attract and retain women who can support Defence to better reflect the community it serves.
(Notice given 10 September 2019.)
Time allotted — 40minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Flint — 5minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
3 Ms Claydon: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that Australia has:
(a) more than 59,000km of coastline;
(b) around 85 per cent of the population living in coastal regions; and
(c) nearly 39,000 buildings (as at 2011) and hundreds of coastal communities located within 100 metres of 'soft' shorelines which are at risk from accelerated erosion;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) coastal erosion presents a social, environmental, economic and existential threat to coastal communities;
(b) human-induced climate change will accelerate erosion, putting many communities in grave danger; and
(c) a number of communities are already starting to sustain serious damage from coastal erosion;
(3) is deeply concerned that there is no national leadership on the issue of coastal erosion and all climate adaptation activities have been defunded under Governments led by Prime Ministers Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison; and
(4) calls on the Government to take urgent action to support coastal communities seeking to restore their beaches and improve their resilience.
(Notice given 17 September 2019.)
Time allotted — 40minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Claydon — 5minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 4 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day
1 Congestion busting infrastructure: Resumption of debate (from9September2019) on the motion of Mr van Manen—That this House:
(1) notes with concern the growing congestion in our major cities, which makes it harder for workers to commute and takes time away from people to enjoy with their families;
(2) recognises that governments at every level need to invest in congestion busting infrastructure to provide the best outcomes for their citizens; and
(3) commends the Government on committing additional funding across urban and regional Australia, in particular the additional $3 billion to the Urban Congestion Fund so that $4 billion is now available through the fund to target pinch points in major cities to further reduce congestion.
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits —
All Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration
of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices – continued
4 Ms Thwaites: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 11 October 2019 is International Day of the Girl Child, which promotes human rights and supports action on gender inequality across the globe; and
(b) this year's theme is 'GirlForce: Unscripted and Unstoppable' to celebrate achievements by, with and for girls since the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the Convention on the Rights of the Child;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) movements across the world are stepping up to address discrimination, exploitation and abuse facing girls, including stopping child marriage, promoting girls' education and standing up to gender-based violence; and
(b) more needs to be done, with girls across the world still suffering disadvantage in many areas of their lives which can severely limit opportunities and life outcomes;
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) develop policies that will ensure Australian girls have every opportunity to live lives free from discrimination and achieve their potential; and
(b) actively work to support international communities to end gender-based discrimination and create opportunities for girls' voices to be heard; and
(4) urges all Members of Parliament to take the lead in promoting gender equality in their own communities.
(Notice given 17 September 2019.)
Time allotted — 30minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Thwaites — 5minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
5 Mr Pearce: To move—That this House:
(1) notes the:
(a) creation of 1.2 million jobs since the Coalition Government was elected, with 140,000 young Australians securing employment over that time period;
(b) strong commitment of the Government to reform the vocational education and training sector to better meet the demands of the modern Australian economy; and
(c) leadership of the Government in November 2018 to commission the Joyce Review, a comprehensive expert review of the Australian vocational education and training system which was delivered in March 2019; and
(2) welcomes the implementation of the Skills Package, a $525 million suite of measures that includes:
(a) a National Careers Institute and the appointment of a National Careers Ambassador;
(b) the Foundation Skills for Your Future program—an initiative which will support workers by improving literacy, numeracy, and digital literacy;
(c) a streamlined Incentives for Australian Apprenticeships program, which will encourage employers to take on apprentices and trainees;
(d) additional incentives to both employers and apprentices in areas affected by skills shortages under the Additional Identified Skills Shortage Payment measure;
(e) establishing ten industry training hubs in areas of high unemployment;
(f) further addressing youth unemployment in regional areas by funding 400 Commonwealth Scholarships for Young Australians;
(g) a National Skills Commission and pilot skills organisations that will promote a nation-wide approach to skills development and enhance the role of industry in designing training courses;
(h) an extension of the National Rugby League's VET Apprenticeship Awareness Program;
(i) Energising Tasmania—a partnership between the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian Government to train a skilled workforce for jobs for the future in pumped hydro and energy infrastructure; and
(3) welcomes the prospect of creating a further 80,000 apprenticeships in occupations with skills shortages over the coming five years.
(Notice given 10 September 2019.)
Time allotted — 60minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Pearce — 5minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 12 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
6 Dr Haines: To move—That this House:
(1) recognises:
(a) the Government's commitment to future-proofing Australian agriculture, including the Future Drought Fund, and its action on climate change, including its commitment under the Paris Agreement to achieve a 26 to 28 per cent reduction in Australia's emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 and to increase ambition over time under the Paris ambition mechanism; and
(b) the Opposition's commitment to the future of Australian agriculture and to action on climate change mitigation and adaptation;
(2) notes:
(a) that climate change represents a serious and present threat to the Australian agricultural sector's continued viability and international competitiveness;
(b) the calls from the National Farmers' Federation for a coordinated national framework to drive productivity and profitability while recognising environmental stewardship, and for a carbon neutrality plan for all agricultural commodities by 2025; and
(c) the calls from the Australian Farm Institute and Farmers for Climate Action for the development of a national strategy on climate change and agriculture based on a consultative, co-design process involving government, industry, scientific research bodies, Australian farmers, and rural and regional communities;
(3) affirms that in order to ensure the continued flourishing of Australian agriculture into the future, the design and implementation of a national strategy on agriculture and climate change should include:
(a) funding for comprehensive research on the direct and indirect risks climate change poses to Australian agri-food systems, including risks to primary production, biosecurity, food processing, food safety, farmer health, key infrastructure, equity, animal welfare, export markets and farm inputs;
(b) targets for adapting Australian farming to climate change in the short, medium and long term;
(c) financial and technical support for a just transition by supporting farmers and regional communities to adapt to future climate conditions including adoption of climate-resilient crops and regenerative farming and land use practices, investment in technology and infrastructure, and development of new rural industries;
(d) a long term plan to promote clean energy in rural and regional communities, including community and privately owned renewables projects that can provide sustainable, alternative income to land owners during drought;
(e) a mechanism to compensate farmers and land owners for ecosystem services they provide, including land-based carbon sequestration as a route to achieve net carbon neutrality of other sectors; and
(f) a plan to accelerate global emissions reductions by exporting Australian technology, research and expertise; and
(4) calls on the Government to develop a national strategy on climate change and agriculture that reflects these components.
(Notice given 17 September 2019.)
Time allotted — 45 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Dr Haines — 5minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
7 Mr Gorman: To move—That this House:
(1) recognises:
(a) the importance of Western Australia to the national economy; and
(b) that when Western Australia does well, Australia does well;
(2) notes that:
(a) it is clear that the Government is ignorant to Western Australia's drive on the national economy;
(b) without Western Australia there would have been negative national economic growth in the 2019 April-June quarter; and
(c) without Western Australia, the Government would have a budget deficit in 2019-20; and
(3) condemns the Government for:
(a) failing to invest in Western Australia;
(b) failing to offer any funding for Royal Perth Hospital or the construction of the new women's and babies hospital;
(c) refusing to waive historical housing debts for Western Australia, despite doing so for Tasmania; and
(d) giving Western Australia less than ten per cent of the $100 billion infrastructure package.
(Notice given 10 September 2019.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits —
Mr Gorman — 5minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia is the fifth-largest user of shipping services in the world. Ten per cent of the world's sea trade passes through Australian ports, with international shipping carrying more than 99 per cent of Australia's imports and exports by volume. A critical component of Australia's domestic freight task, around 15 per cent, is also carried by coastal shipping.
While shipping is the lifeblood of the global economy, transporting around 90 per cent of world trade, it also contributes around 13 per cent of global airborne sulphur oxide emissions. These emissions are known to have significant environmental and human health impacts, including acid raid, increased rates of lung cancer and respiratory illnesses.
As growth prospects for maritime trade continue to be strong, sulphur oxide pollution from ships will continue to increase if no action is taken to restrict these emissions. The cumulative impacts of air pollution, even away from coasts and shipping routes, add up in economic costs.
To address these impacts, the global shipping standards body, the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, has been progressively tightening sulphur oxide emission standards for ships since 2005.
In 2016, the IMO confirmed that, from 1 January 2020, the sulphur content in marine fuel oil must not exceed 0.5 per cent by weight—an 85 per cent reduction from the current maximum allowable 3.5 per cent. This latest IMO global sulphur standard is prescribed in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, otherwise known as MARPOL.
Ship operators have several options to comply with the new IMO sulphur regulations, including using low-sulphur marine fuel oil, diesel or alternative fuel types with low to zero sulphur, such as liquefied natural gas, biofuels and hydrogen, as well as using fully electric vessels. Ships can also continue to use high-sulphur fuel oil provided that they are fitted with an exhaust gas cleaning system, also known as a scrubber, to reduce sulphur in their emissions to below the 0.5 per cent limit.
In October 2018 the IMO agreed to further prohibit the carriage of high-sulphur fuel for propulsion purposes onboard a ship from 1 March 2020, otherwise known as the carriage ban. This is to ensure a level playing field by discouraging ships from burning high-sulphur fuel on the high seas, away from a country's jurisdictional boundaries.
The carriage ban comes into effect two months after the 1 January 2020 low-sulphur commencement date to allow ships sufficient time to dispose of any remnant high-sulphur fuel that they may be carrying for use.
As a signatory to MARPOL, Australia has already legislated the 0.5 per cent sulphur limit from 1 January 2020 in the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Sea) Act 1983, otherwise known as the POTS act.
However, the POTS act requires further amendment to legislate the subsequent IMO ruling on the high-sulphur fuel carriage ban.
This bill which I present today amends the POTS act primarily to:
These amendments are necessary to implement Australia's continued international obligations under MARPOL and to ensure that Australia's regulatory framework for our maritime industries is aligned with globally agreed standards. Australia's major trading partners have implemented, or are also working to implement, the sulphur cap, and this is a very important point.
The high-sulphur fuel carriage ban amendment will not impose any additional financial impact on shipping companies or increase freight costs, as ships are already prohibited in the POTS act from burning non-compliant fuel from 1 January 2020. That's also very important. We want to make sure that cost is an important part of this legislation. The fact is that the amendment will not impose—again, I reiterate—any additional financial impact on those shipping companies. We appreciate how vitally important trade is. This government knows fully well how important trade is, given our commitment to ensuring further free trade agreements. And I'm very pleased that the minister, Senator Simon Birmingham, and his assistant minister in this space, the member for Parkes, are working hard to broker even further free trade agreements based on the success we've had with South Korea, with Japan and of course with our largest trading partner, China.
The International Maritime Organization recognises that there may be transitional issues to the global implementation of the sulphur cap and has worked with member states, as well as the shipping industry and fuel oil suppliers, to develop guidelines on the consistent implementation of the 0.5 per cent sulphur limit to help ships meet the new requirement. These guidelines include standardised reporting of the nonavailability of compliant fuel to help port state control authorities to take the appropriate action to mitigate non-compliance issues. So they're all across it.
The bill also seeks to make other minor administrative amendments to the POTS act to:
The shipping industry is a very important component of our overall economy.
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has consulted on the implementation of the sulphur cap with Australia's maritime industry, fuel oil suppliers and port industries for more than 18 months. The industry is supportive of Australia's consistent application of the new sulphur standard to ensure a global level playing field.
The Australian government is committed to protecting our coastal communities from ship pollution. I know how important this is for the Prime Minister. He very often talks about our oceans and the environment, as you would expect. Implementing the new stringent global mandate on reducing sulphur emissions from ships in Australian waters will ensure Australians benefit from the improved health and environmental outcomes of cleaner air. It makes sense. It's good legislation.
The carriage ban on high-sulphur fuel oil is important for the global enforcement of the sulphur cap to ensure it is fairly applied across international shipping.
These sulphur related amendments to the POTS act will ensure that Australia has up-to-date legislation to implement our obligations under MARPOL.
With that, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the House calls on the Government to provide for:
(1) the allocation of resources for the Auditor-General to audit the reef science specific to turbidity and nutrient run off to the Great Barrier Reef to provide quality assurance in the assessment of the current reef studies; and
(2) a further allocation to audit current and future funding expenditure on the Great Barrier Reef action plans and studies, including the $120 million for crown-of-thorns starfish.
The sugar industry of Queensland brings in between $4,000 and $5,000 million a year. In fact, in Queensland we have only two major employers of significance. One is the sugar industry. In fact, if you go up the coastline, you see that Nambour was a sugar city but is not now; Maryborough is a sugar city; Bundaberg is a sugar city; Rockhampton and Gladstone are not sugar cities; Mackay, the next city up, is a sugar city; Sarina is a sugar town; Proserpine is a sugar town; Ayr is a sugar town; Townsville is a sugar city; and then there is Ingham. I could go on from Cairns right up to Mossman. The entire Queensland coastline is dependent upon this industry for its economic existence.
It may come as an extraordinary shock to the people that run Queensland—the two women who seem to consider having little babies killed before they are born a more important priority than actually doing something for the state of Queensland—that what they are proposing with the regulation of run-off onto the Barrier Reef would make it impossible for us to keep our soil nutritional. We have often advocated—and most of the industry is moving to this—a higher level of organic matter which makes the chemicals work better, but no-one, in the wildest stretch of their imagination, unless they know absolutely nothing about agricultural science, would propose that you attempt to do farming without any chemical fertiliser whatsoever.
As for the run-off, let me take the town of Ingham. There are 83 of what we call silt ponds, so all of the run-off from the farm goes into a settling pond. Then, once all the solid matter—namely, the fertilising chemicals—has filtered out, it overflows as clean water into the sea and onto the Barrier Reef. The idea here—and I have to be honest—is not to look after the Barrier Reef, because we've been farming there for 150 years. If we turn the clock back to 20, 25 or 40 years ago, before people started making big money out of screaming and bad-mouthing the reef, if no-one had ever claimed that run-off onto the Barrier Reef was destroying the Barrier Reef, nor was any evidence ever produced. Most of the talk on the Barrier Reef was about the crown-of-thorns starfish. So what has triggered this sudden concern about the Barrier Reef?
The Institute of Marine Science has been there for nearly 40 years now, and I interface regularly with people from the Institute of Marine Science, from the chairman all the way down to the janitor. I enjoyed a very close relationship with Dr Joe Baker, who founded the Institute of Marine Science. So I have always been extremely close, as is my duty. I represent an electorate that covers the most populated part of the coastline near the Barrier Reef, the area around Cairns and Townsville, which is the area most dependent upon tourism from the Barrier Reef. The last people on the planet who will want to be damaging the Barrier Reef are we people that live in North Queensland. I've done scuba diving. Most people in North Queensland at one time or another have been out on the reef fishing, scuba diving or whatever. It is our great place of recreation. We would react in great anger if someone were destroying the reef.
Just so people get a little idea about science and know what they're talking about, there is one of the galahs at JCU, the most condemned university in Australia. We're into Galileo stuff with Peter Ridd, a bloke who said you've got to test before you make a statement. There's got to be empirical evidence backing up the scientific theory. That's what he said. Because he kept saying it, they threw him out of the university. The Galileo example is very prescient. Galileo was famous. He was the father of science, because he said that a scientific principle put forward must be backed up with empirical evidence. Peter Ridd is the father of the device which measures turbidity and reef run-off contaminants. He's very famous. The devices are sold throughout the world. Our tiny little political party has a policy that those devices should be on every river mouth. We're not scared of fronting up if someone—or even the whole industry—is doing the wrong thing, but the monitors are already there and they are not registering a problem.
There are basically only two big employers in Queensland: the coal industry and the sugar industry. The ALP government in Queensland—no, not the ALP government in Queensland; that's not correct. The two women that are at the head of the ALP government in Queensland are most lacking in thought and intellectual capacity. They lack any governmental abilities and don't have any understanding whatsoever of insider trading. If they stay there, of course, there will be yet another landslide in Queensland, because the people are not so dumb as to fail to realise that the economy of the state depends upon sugar and coal. There are other things—I'm very proud of my homeland, Mount Isa, where we produce copper, silver, lead, zinc and other things; I'm very proud of the aluminium industry, which my party created for Australia—but they are nothing compared to the sugar industry, upon which almost every coastal town and city depends for its existence. The Gold Coast—I don't know if the sugar mill is still there—was a very big sugar-growing centre.
Having said all these things, we are moving this motion because we want to face up to real, scientific truth. The people running away and hiding from it are those advocating for the draconian measures taken on the reef, which were instituted by Robert Hill. I'm ashamed to admit—my mother would be very upset if she knew—that I used some extremely bad language when I saw the parameters that he was imposing upon us on reef run-off. It would close the entire sugar industry of Queensland. I said: 'Are you completely mad? You'll close the whole sugar industry down.' He said, 'In that case they shouldn't have been growing sugarcane there in the first place.'
To give you an idea of the lack of science: two of the loudest vegan advocates at JCU, a university shot to pieces with vegan advocates and the antiscience brigade, said that there must be immediate action because the dugong numbers have dropped by half. No-one read the report except me. I had read the report, and the dugong numbers had dropped by half on the southern half of the reef. But these two so-called scientists who got all the publicity forgot to mention that the dugong numbers had doubled on the top half of the reef.
What had happened? I did a lot of research. I spoke to senior scientists at AIMS. We had had a terrible drought in the bottom half of the reef. Central Queensland had terrible drought; North Queensland didn't. There was no run-off, so the seagrass was not getting fertilised by the nutrient run-off. If you impose these draconian nutrient conditions, goodbye dugong, because they also need nutritious grasses that are created by some small but extremely important nutritional run-off, which has been running off for 150 years now. Here is an example of an absolutely flagrant lie, a flagrant untruth, coming out of JCU. There are certain good elements at JCU—our medical school is the pride of Australia; it is easily the most important medical school in Australia for a whole raft of reasons that I don't have time to speak about today—but its good work is being drowned out by what is happening there.
There is a second matter. I praise our candidate in the seat of Leichhardt for bringing this to public attention. The people who are screaming about the Barrier Reef are making a squillion dollars out of the Barrier Reef. It turns out that $120 million allocated to remove the crown-of-thorns starfish has gone to a certain organisation; it went from GBRMPA. This organisation has a relative in GBRMPA—a very close relative. So GBRMPA gives this organisation $120 million and this organisation had an agreement with the CEO that he gets 10 per cent of all moneys they raise—I am reliably informed by two members of GBRMPA, one of whom will come forward. So he gets $12 million straight off. He is the CEO, and the CEO gets 10 per cent of all moneys raised. That's not uncommon. So he refers it to an extremely good friend of his, and she has a scientific assessment group. So he gives it to them and she scientifically assesses it and recommends that it goes to his company to do the work. So what we want to know is how much of that $120 million actually went to removing the starfish from the reef.
I have constantly held up in this place a picture of a charter boat operator—a couple of his boys and a couple of their mates—who have picked what looks to be about 2,000 starfish on the beach in one afternoon, for free. He just wants to do his job of fixing up the reef. If you gave these charter operators $1 per starfish, you would be killed in the rush.
Our tourism is down over 50 per cent. There are two or three elements to this. The major element is the continuous badmouthing and denigration of the reef. I had a press conference this week to announce what I was doing here. I took along to that press conference a front-page story from, I think, TheSunday Mail in which David Attenborough said the reef is beautiful, it is in wonderful condition and it is one of the wonders of the world. But when he got back to England he started telling everyone that the reef was shattered and dying. So he was singing a different tune when he was here in Australia.
But let me put that to one side and go back to the money. The second part of this is that there are people who are screaming about the Barrier Reef. Are they concerned about the Barrier Reef or have they found themselves a big milking cow? Clearly, on the evidence in the brown paper envelope that I received—and I know that the same documents went to the Federal Police and their investigations are continuing. How much of that money went there, or was it just a protection racket for those screaming about the Barrier Reef? That's what we want to find out. (Time expired)
Is the motion moved by the member for Kennedy seconded? This motion fails for want of a seconder.
Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling but I would like a vote on that.
No. To have a vote on your motion, it needs to be seconded. If it's not seconded, it fails for want of a seconder; it lapses. It is not a question of my opinion; it is the standing orders adopted by this House. That's why every motion requires a seconder. Every member moving a motion requires a seconder, and that includes you.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to define energy market misconduct and provide a series of penalties and remedies for companies engaging in misconduct that is prohibited.
The Australian energy market has not been serving consumers well. That's why the Liberal-National government directed the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) to undertake a retail electricity pricing inquiry in March 2017.
This review identified problems in the retail, wholesale and contract markets, calling the situation 'unacceptable and unsustainable' and noting that energy retailers 'have played a major role in poor outcomes for consumers'.
The ACCC found three key failures.
In the retail market, retailers deliberately confuse customers with their discounting strategy, often using what the ACCC call 'excessively' high benchmarks and complex offer structures.
In the wholesale market, a lack of competition has resulted in higher prices.
In the contract market, a lack of liquidity can act as a barrier to entry, where the dominant position of 'gentailers' can make it harder for smaller retailers to get hedging contracts and therefore to compete.
It is these problems that the government is seeking to address in order to strengthen competition in the market and put downward pressure on electricity prices.
The measures in this bill build on a package of other initiatives that the government has recently announced to ensure that Australians have access to affordable and reliable energy.
The government has introduced a default market offer, which acts as a price safety net for households and small businesses. The default offer protects consumers and small businesses from being exploited by inflated standing offers, while still allowing for the benefits of retail competition.
The Australian Energy Regulator, the AER, has developed cheaper, comparable default prices, with savings being passed through to families and small businesses from 1 July 2019.
The government has also acted to simplify the confusing array of offers that are currently on the market by requiring retailers to use the new default rate as a reference point for all advertised discounts. This gives customers more clarity when they compare retailers and offers and help ensure they get the best deal.
The government will also underwrite new firm, low-cost generation, which is particularly important for Australia's commercial and industrial users who the ACCC found were struggling to get medium- to long-term contracts. This program will be technology neutral, as recommended by the ACCC.
The bill we introduce today is an essential part of this package, and will address energy market misconduct, improve competition and bring down energy prices for Australian consumers.
The government has directed the ACCC to monitor retail prices, wholesale bids and contract market liquidity in the National Electricity Market until 2025, and announced that this would be backed up by a series of remedies where the ACCC identifies misconduct by electricity market participants.
This bill will establish the misconduct to be prohibited, and targeted, proportionate remedies to apply in respect of misconduct in three key areas.
First, the retail market. In the event of a 'sustained and substantial' reduction in supply chain costs, retailers will be required to 'make reasonable adjustments' to their retail prices for market offers, including to households and small businesses.
The explanatory memorandum makes clear retailers will not be required to pass on small or short-term cost variations that might last a week or a month. Rather, if they enjoyed a sustained and substantial cost reduction, they need to pass it on.
Second, the wholesale market. Generators will be prohibited from gaming the spot market. This can occur in a number of ways, for example by scheduling discretionary maintenance at high summer demand periods with the specific purpose of causing a spike in prices for their generators or by making low bids that were designed to discourage other companies from bidding into the market only then at the last minute increasing the price of their bids.
The ACCC has specifically recommended that rules around false and misleading bids be strengthened, and our legislation does exactly this by prohibiting bids that are fraudulent, dishonest or in bad faith for the purposes of distorting or manipulating prices.
Third, the contract market. Energy companies will be prevented from withholding hedge contracts for the purpose of substantially lessening competition, which draws on existing concepts from section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act.
Unlike 'gentailers', smaller retailers are unable to manage the risk of volatile spot prices without a hedge contract.
The measures in this legislation are designed to ensure financial market liquidity and facilitate competition in the energy market.
In each of these markets—retail, wholesale and contract—the ACCC will be actively monitoring behaviour. Where companies are in breach, they will act.
This legislation sets out a graduated set of penalties that can apply in the event of misconduct. The ACCC will be able to issue a warning notice, accept an enforceable undertaking or seek a financial penalty of up to the greatest of $10 million, three times the value of the total benefit attributable to the conduct, or 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the corporation in the 12 months before the conduct occurred.
For the most egregious conduct, the ACCC will be able to recommend that the Treasurer either issue a contracting order or pursue a divestiture order in the courts.
A contracting order will only be able to be made following a breach of either the contract liquidity or aggravated wholesale conduct prohibitions. A divestiture order will only be able to be made following an aggravated breach of the wholesale conduct prohibition.
Both are sanctions of last resort.
In respect of these orders, companies will be given a chance to explain their conduct before such an order is made. A contracting order would require generators to make reasonable offers in the contract market and the divestiture order could see companies required to sell an asset, allowing them at least 12 months to do so.
The Treasurer may only apply to the Federal Court for a divestiture order when the ACCC and the Treasurer are satisfied that the order has a net public benefit and that it is proportionate to the breach, namely that it is necessary to prevent such conduct occurring in the future and that no other remedy would achieve the same outcome.
These laws apply to government owned and privately owned corporations. In the case of a government owned corporation, a divestiture order can only require divestiture to another government owned corporation. The bill does not empower the court to order privatisation. This ensures the relevant asset remains in government ownership while still addressing the misconduct in question and promoting competition.
These new laws will commence six months after royal assent, allowing the ACCC time to develop guidelines and make its enforcement approach clear to industry.
Finally, this bill will also provide additional information-gathering powers to the Australian Energy Regulator (AER), bringing the AER's powers in line with comparable regulators, including the ACCC. The AER will be able to share this information with Commonwealth agencies.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is a great pleasure and privilege to follow my deep friend the Treasurer today. In particular, he is the father of my goddaughter, who has her birthday this week, and I am the father of his goddaughter. Gratuitous, yes, but a pleasure and a privilege to be able to note.
Let me address the substance of the bill directly. The Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 amends the Medical Indemnity Act 2002 and related legislation to streamline the legislation underpinning the government's support for medical indemnity insurance. This bill therefore provides certainty to insurers and practitioners of the Commonwealth's ongoing support for medical indemnity insurance, a level playing field for medical indemnity insurers and better protection for practitioners, be they medical, allied health or midwifery, in particular, which I want to note today.
I introduce the bill with the support of the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, allied health leaders and midwifery leaders as well as medical indemnity insurers. The bill is the culmination of a two-year consultation process for improving existing arrangements. The government thanks all of the practitioner groups, industry representatives and medical indemnity insurers for their assistance in developing the bill.
The improvements in this bill take effect from 1 July 2020. The government is introducing this bill with ample time prior to effect so insurers have time to implement necessary changes to their operational requirements, and I am advised it comes with the support of the opposition. For that, I thank them—for their involvement and engagement. I would note, indeed, the member for Ballarat, at this table, who in her former role was a very constructive participant in this process.
The Australian government decided to subsidise the medical indemnity market to prevent market failure and stabilise the industry after Australia's largest medical indemnity provider, United Medical Protection, was placed in provisional liquidation in May 2002. At the time, there was uncertainty as to whether practitioners could access indemnity insurance, coinciding with an increase in claims, costs and premiums.
The government continues to fund seven professional indemnity schemes to enable privately practising doctors, health practitioners and midwives access to affordable professional indemnity insurance.
The government remains committed to guaranteeing that these schemes continue to operate. In the 2018-19 financial year alone, the government provided $83 million in support of practitioners and to the continual operation of these schemes. This bill continues and extends that support but places it on a sustainable and competitive basis, going forwards.
The bill will therefore now create a level playing field for medical indemnity insurers. The Premium Support Subsidy Scheme is currently administered via contracts with four medical indemnity insurers. These contracts include the obligation for insurers to provide universal cover arrangements in specific jurisdictions. The effect of this is that universal cover for medical practitioners only applies to four medical indemnity insurers. Schedule 5 of the bill requires all medical indemnity insurers to provide universal cover to doctors. If an insurer chooses to provide medical indemnity insurance they must provide universal cover.
Following passage of the bill, these contracts will cease on 1 July 2020 and the Premium Support Subsidy Scheme and universal cover obligations will be embedded in legislation to apply across the market. All insurers accessing the medical indemnity schemes will be subject to the same requirements, including the obligation to provide indemnity cover to any doctor who requires insurance.
By extending these arrangements to all participating insurers, the government is ensuring that medical practitioners are protected and will be guaranteed medical indemnity insurance.
Universal cover protects doctors, allied health workers and midwives from being denied cover where the claims history relates to their speciality, location or patient cohort. It also reduces the risk posed by these individuals by increasing the risk loading which insurers can apply and enabling insurers to refuse cover in exceptional circumstances. Insurers will also be supported and given the flexibility to increase the risk loading based on the risk posed by a practitioner up to a 200 per cent cap of the standard premium price.
In schedule 6 of the bill, for the purpose of providing clarity in administration, the government will be providing for a separate allied health practitioner high cost claims scheme. The allied health schemes will mirror the existing high cost claims and the exceptional claims schemes. We have developed this in conjunction with the allied health sector, with the pharmacy sector, in particular—and I want to acknowledge and thank them for their engagement—and, as well, with the midwifery community and the medical community.
Through these amendments, the government will also be closing an anomalous gap in the medical indemnity schemes for which employed privately practising midwives are currently excluded. Until recently, a small number of employed privately practising midwives were limited from accessing professional indemnity insurance and were unable to practise.
The bill will ensure claims against these midwives will be covered under the allied health schemes on the same basis as other medical and allied health practitioners.
This is a deeply important reform. It acknowledges the role of our midwives, it values the role of our midwives and it protects mothers and families who are making a choice of seeking support during their birthing process and their pregnancy from and through the work of midwives.
Ultimately, after introduction of the bill, the government will be continuing the collaborative approach in the drafting of regulations and rules that support the medical indemnity legislation. These instruments will consolidate and simplify the current legislative instruments. The government will be consulting further with key stakeholders on the legislative instruments in October 2019 and looks forward to working with practitioner groups and insurers on the development of these instruments. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I am introducing the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019, which amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to ensure that Australia's research community can continue to be supported by the funding schemes of the Australian Research Council or ARC.
The ARC's purpose is to grow knowledge and innovation for the benefit of the Australian community by financially underpinning research of the highest quality, and by assessing the quality, engagement and impact of that research. The ARC also provides important advice on research matters and has a respected voice in the Australian research landscape.
ARC funding is awarded on the basis of a competitive peer review process, and it administers the largest single competitive grants process in Australia that is available to researchers across all disciplines from STEM to HASS—the National Competitive Grants Program or NCGP.
The NCGP comprises two programs—Discovery and Linkage—under which are a number of funding schemes that provide funding for basic and applied research, research fellowships, research training, research collaboration and infrastructure.
Researchers in universities around the country carry out research every day on different matters affecting the everyday lives of us all, not only in Australia but also right around the world. Cutting edge research is changing our world dramatically, but the incremental progress of long-term research programs is also vital for many industries, where commercial success comes from being just a cut above the rest.
ARC centres of excellence, funded through the NCGP, contain many examples of this. A group of physicists at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology based at the University of New South Wales has just this July announced that they have successfully built a super-fast version of the central building block of a quantum computer. They have constructed and demonstrated the first two-qubit gate between atom qubits in silicon—a major milestone on the team's quest to build an atom-scale quantum computer, all the result of a vision first outlined by scientists 20 years ago. This ARC funded centre is led by the 2018 Australian of the Year, Professor Michelle Simmons, a great Australian who is also the recipient of an ARC Laureate Fellowship. The success of this outstanding feat of research into quantum computing might never have happened in Australia without the continuous funding support that Professor Simmons and her team have had for many years through the ARC.
Many ARC grants are awarded to research teams on the condition that they have integrated their research with Australian industry—the researchers must have at least one industry partner on board, and many of the researchers on these grants are actually located in an industry setting. The ARC's Industrial Transformation Research Program is tailored to this kind of commercial integration, and there are training centres and research hubs all around Australia, working with hundreds of small businesses and large companies, to give them a commercial advantage and train the next generation of research leaders.
One such hub which was recently announced, in August by Senator the Hon. Jonathon Duniam, is the ARC Research Hub for Sustainable Onshore Lobster Aquaculture, leading the global charge in establishing the world's first sustainable onshore lobster aquaculture industry. The government, through the ARC, is investing $5 million into this research hub based in Hobart, with Tasmanian manufacturer PFG Group and Tasmanian spiny lobster hatchery operator Ornatas providing significant additional support. The research team at the hub, led by Associate Professor Gregory Smith, are building on momentum gained through previous ARC funding to position Australia at the forefront of onshore lobster aquaculture, with opportunity for technology transfer to other aquaculture sectors.
Many Australian research careers have been set in motion through the award of an ARC grant, and there are fellowships which are targeted towards early career researchers, as well as those at other career stages, and the ARC's Discovery Indigenous scheme provides funding for research led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers.
Research projects led by ARC funded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers are contributing economic, commercial, environmental, social and cultural benefits both to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and to the Australian community as a whole.
Just to give one example: a research project led by ex-state and Women's National Basketball League player, and a 2019 Western Australian Local Hero, Professor Cheryl Kickett-Tucker at Curtin University received over $1 million through the ARC's Discovery Indigenous scheme. Professor Kickett-Tucker's work involves the development, implementation and evaluation of Cultural Learnings, a program designed to secure the transfer of knowledge from Aboriginal elders and carers to children within school environments. The research is aiming to strengthen Aboriginal children's cultural knowledge and self-esteem, to create a positive shift in children's school outcomes, such as attendance, behaviour, attitudes, effort and achievement.
The amendments through this bill are required because the Australian Research Council Act is the legislative basis that supports the financial operations of these grants programs. This bill will amend the Australian Research Council Act to update the existing funding caps and insert new funding caps through until 30 June 2023 to allow continued funding of quality research in Australia.
The routine update to the ARC's funding caps that is enabled through this bill provides for anticipated inflationary growth so that the government can continue to support thousands of research projects like those I've mentioned, research which has applicability and an impact on communities, families and individuals.
The government have made a significant investment in science, research and innovation—in 2018-19 alone, we have committed $9.6 billion across all portfolios.
Funding the ARC is part of this investment, and over the next four years, with the passage of this bill, the ARC will deliver over $3 billion in funding for research projects, ranging in size from the tens of thousands of dollars to the tens of millions.
Australia's future economic prosperity relies on our capacity to harness the knowledge and innovation of our universities and our researchers, and that is why we bring this bill to the parliament.
By ensuring the ARC can play its role in supporting and expanding Australia's research strengths, we are ensuring the support of many thousands of direct and indirect jobs that our research and scientific capabilities sustain.
I commend this bill.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019 makes life easier for families and providers using the child care subsidy. It makes some important refinements to the operation of the government's childcare package that was implemented on 2 July 2018.
The childcare package represents the biggest reforms to child care since the introduction of the Commonwealth Child Care Act in 1972.
The development of the childcare package was led by the need for increased investment and genuine reform in early learning and child care. Just over one year into its implementation, it is delivering on both counts.
In coming years, it will bring the government's investment in early learning and child care to around $10 billion a year, to the benefit of the 1.1 million families utilising approved care.
We have combined two separate payments into a single subsidy that is helping parents access more affordable early learning and child care while they can work, train, study or volunteer.
The childcare subsidy provides the most hours of support to the families who work the longest hours. It also ensures the greatest amount of financial support goes to the families who earn the least.
The vast majority of families are entitled to 72 hours or more of subsidised care per fortnight and most families are entitled to a subsidy rate of 50 per cent or more—approximately one-quarter are entitled to the highest 85 per cent rate.
The latest childcare consumer price index figures from the ABS indicate that, across Australia, out-of-pocket costs for families are 7.9 per cent lower than their peak in the June quarter 2018.
More children and families are using subsidised care than ever before. There's no annual cap for more than three-quarters of the families using the system. This is a great relief for those families who previously hit the cap before the end of the financial year.
The Child Care Safety Net, including the additional childcare subsidy and Community Child Care Fund, is also helping our most vulnerable and disadvantaged children, giving them a strong start through access to quality early learning and child care.
Just over 12 months into implementation, it is clear that the government is delivering on its goal to create a more affordable, accessible and flexible childcare system.
We are also taking stock of areas for improvement.
A key to the successful implementation of the childcare package was the extensive consultation undertaken with families and the childcare sector.
Since July last year, the government has continued to listen to feedback from families and the childcare sector on what aspects of the childcare package have worked well, their concerns, and what we could improve.
The key measures contained in this bill reflect feedback from families and child care providers, and early findings from formal evaluation processes.
This bill makes amendments to the current A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, including:
A number of colleagues and providers have raised this issue with me, including the member for Mayo, who wrote to me on behalf of Woodside Primary School Out of School Hours Care in her electorate. I know that all the families from that centre who wrote to the member will be pleased to see this change, and I thank them for that feedback.
Another important change introduced by this bill is the inclusion of in-home care in the legislation. While in-home care is currently given effect in subordinate legislation, it was not included in the bill that gave effect to the childcare package, because the final details of the program were not completed until after the legislation was passed.
In addition to including the hourly rate cap for in-home care alongside other care types, the bill also allows eligibility criteria for access to in-home care to be prescribed in subordinate legislation to ensure that this capped care type is targeted to families for whom other options are not available or appropriate.
The bill also contains a number of other refinements, corrections and consequential amendments to bring clarity to policy intent and achieve closer alignment with related state and territory laws.
In conclusion, this bill demonstrates that the government is making life easier for families and providers using childcare subsidy and that the government has been listening to hardworking Australian families and the childcare sector.
The changes in this bill will reduce regulatory burden on families and childcare providers, support vulnerable and disadvantaged families' access to quality early learning and child care, and help parents access financial assistance to support their participation in the workforce.
The government's landmark childcare package is delivering significant and much-needed reform. This bill will ensure that the government continues to build on these significant achievements.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I'm introducing a package of bills to reform tuition protection. This includes the Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2019, which will establish strong and sustainable tuition protections for domestic students accessing a VET student loan, a FEE-HELP loan or HECS-HELP loan with a private education provider or TAFE.
To achieve this, I am intending to expand the successful Tuition Protection Service, TPS, for international students to also protect this cohort of domestic students who are accessing government loans.
These tuition protections will ensure that students are supported if their education or training provider stops teaching or closes entirely. Students protected under these new arrangements will be assisted to complete their studies in a similar course with another provider and gain a qualification, or may have their loan removed for the parts of their study they have commenced but were not able to complete.
It makes sense to expand the TPS model to domestic students accessing government loans. Since its inception in 2012, the TPS has proven to be successful for students and providers and contributes to the strong reputation of Australia's international education sector.
The bill also provides from 1 January 2020, the new tuition protection arrangements will:
Students, providers, and the training and education sectors can be confident the new tuition protection arrangements will support students, and replacement providers. This is all part of government's ongoing commitment to safeguard the integrity and reputation of its income contingent loan programs.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am also introducing the VET Student Loans (VSL Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019 as part of government's package to implement sustainable tuition protection arrangements from 1 January 2020 for students accessing a VET Student Loan, a FEE-HELP loan or HECS-HELP loan with a private education provider or TAFE.
The levy framework in the bill, has been developed by the Australian Government Actuary and is broadly consistent with the levy structure used by the Tuition Protection Service (TPS) for international students. The TPS is a proven success for students, the taxpayer and the sector and is financially sound.
The bill imposes a levy on non-exempt providers. The levy has three components—an administrative component, determined by legislative instrument by the minister, a risk rated premium, and special tuition protection components, which the VSL Tuition Protection Director sets by legislative instrument. The Treasurer is required to approve the legislative instrument made by the VSL Tuition Protection Director.
The strong governance arrangements of the TPS, and flexibility in the levy framework, will ensure the levies settings can respond to any emerging trends in the vocational training sector. This is essential as it will reward providers when the sector is stable, but also protect the sustainability of the model for government and the taxpayer.
This is why I introduce this bill today. I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Finally, I am also introducing the Higher Education Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019, which forms the final piece of this government's package to protect students, the taxpayer and the training and higher education sectors in the event of a provider closure.
The levy framework reflected in this bill was also developed by the Australian Government Actuary, drawing on the experience of the successful Tuition Protection Service for international students. The levies will apply to private and TAFE higher education providers offering HELP loans.
This bill will equally ensure the sustainability of the new model for the government, further enhance the already strong reputation of the higher education sector and benefit those providers who assist displaced students.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I have great pleasure in moving the second reading of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019.
Australians need access to safe and effective agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines. They protect our crops, livestock and domestic pets; safeguard our environment from invasive weeds and pests; and meet consumer needs for things such as household insecticides.
Agvet chemicals, as these products are commonly known, have brought long-term benefits to Australian agriculture by supporting increased productivity, better quality produce and more competitive industries.
It is important that the regulation of agvet chemicals continues to be streamlined to maximise the benefits for Australia. It is also imperative to ensure that the strong safeguards built into the regulation of agvet chemicals are not compromised.
Through a cooperative scheme with the states and territories, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—the APVMA—is the national regulator of agvet chemicals up to, and including, the point of supply. The APVMA has an important role in ensuring that agvet chemicals supplied in Australia are safe for people, animals, plants and the environment, and don't adversely impact our trade market access.
The APVMA needs to be both efficient and effective in its regulation of agvet chemicals. The bill supports these objectives by streamlining regulatory processes while strengthening the vital protections for the health and safety of humans, animals and the environment.
This measure has the potential to free up the time of the APVMA's assessors so they can focus on more complex assessments.
The bill also removes the need for industry to undertake two unrelated reporting activities—one for levies, based on chemical product sales, and a more complex reporting activity on active constituent quantities. It simplifies and aligns these reporting processes based on the quantity and value of product sales. This significantly reduces reporting costs for industry without compromising the availability of information for our international reporting obligations and policy development needs. The chemical industry has been seeking changes to the burdensome reporting requirements and the bill delivers these changes.
The bill also provides for incentives for registration holders to include on product labels certain uses of chemical products that they would not ordinarily register. Similar to the approaches applied internationally, the incentives in the bill operate by extending data protection periods on information for up to five years, if certain priority uses are included on labels. These extensions would be prescribed in the regulations. Based on the experience of these incentives overseas, this will encourage more priority uses on labels, including minor uses, where the costs of adding the use are not justified by the additional commercial returns to chemical manufacturers. This will significantly benefit Australian farmers.
Other measures in the bill will enable the holder of an approval or registration to vary the approval or registration while it is suspended. This will ensure that the issue identified that led to the suspension of the approval or registration can be appropriately rectified at the holder's request.
The bill also makes changes to strengthen the integrity of the regulatory framework.
To perform its role as a regulator the APVMA has to rely on information provided to it by applicants. The bill provides the APVMA with a broader suite of sanctions.
The board, appointed by the Minister for Agriculture, will consist of a chair, the APVMA's CEO and three other members selected on the basis of their skills. Board members will be appointed on a part-time basis. The CEO is included as an ex-officio board member to support informed and collective decision-making and ensure the board's policies are effectively integrated into day-to-day operations.
The APVMA will continue to deliver independent and evidence based decisions. The board will oversee how the APVMA does its job by establishing and monitoring the framework under which it operates. Day-to-day administration and decision-making, such as registering individual chemical products and undertaking compliance and enforcement activities, will remain the responsibility of the APVMA's CEO.
The APVMA is one of the few corporate Commonwealth entities that does not have a governance board to ensure corporate compliance and management accountability. All other Commonwealth regulatory entities with direct responsibility for protecting human life and/or health (such as Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority) have governance boards.
The board model chosen by the government is comparable with other corporate Commonwealth entities and with private sector companies. Its proposed size, composition, role, functions, duties and powers conform to Commonwealth policy as well as modern best practice guidance on corporate governance. Board members will be required to have appropriate qualifications, skills or experience in financial management, law, risk management, public sector governance, science and/or public health.
In essence, this bill brings a governance and regulatory framework around the APVMA that will not impede the commercial viability of the chemical sector. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill contains measures which will assist older Australians, help farmers and tourism operators, improve the efficiency of the Australian Energy Regulator, ensure that consumer privacy remains central to the Consumer Data Right regime and protect retirement savings from erosion.
Schedule 1 to the bill extends the concessional tax treatment of genuine redundancy and early retirement scheme payments to those under age-pension qualifying age.
A key feature of the treatment of these payments is the tax-free component. However, currently a person can only receive the tax-free component if they are aged below 65 years at the time of their termination or retirement from their employer.
The government is making this change to address the situation where some older Australians, due to their age, cannot access either the age pension or the tax-free component of genuine redundancy or early retirement scheme payments.
These amendments will therefore assist older Australians who receive a genuine redundancy or early retirement scheme payment but are not yet able to receive the age pension.
The measure applies to genuine redundancy and early retirement scheme payments made to individuals on or after 1 July 2019.
Schedule 2 to the bill provides further luxury-car tax relief to those farmers and tourism operators who purchase heavy-duty passenger vehicles as part of their business. Importantly, the proportion of luxury car tax that can be refunded will be increased and the maximum amount of the refund will also be increased to $10,000. These changes will apply to eligible vehicles acquired on or after 1 July 2019.
Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to expand the board of the Australian Energy Regulator from three to five members and ensure the expanded board can operate efficiently.
This measure recognises that the scope and complexity of the Energy Regulator's work have changed significantly over recent years through the growing number of energy market participants and rules to be enforced and through its key roles in energy policies such as the Default Market Offer.
Amendments are also made to ensure the validity of future appointments under the Australian Energy Market Agreement.
This measure implements the model agreed by the COAG Energy Council in October 2018. The amendments were agreed by the Energy Council in August 2019.
Schedule 4 to the bill amends the Consumer Data Right to ensure that consumer privacy remains central to that regime.
It requires that the ACCC activate the power already afforded to them in the original act to write rules allowing consumers to request that Accredited Data Recipients delete Consumer Data Right data that relates to them.
By legislating that the ACCC must include rules relating to the deletion of personal data we are encouraging longer-lasting confidence in the system; and helping to ensure that respect for consumer's wishes on how their data is used is a central element of the Consumer Data Right.
Schedule 5 to the bill improves the lost and unclaimed superannuation regime to enable the Commissioner of Taxation to calculate and pay interest on ATO-held super they proactively reunite with members' active accounts. This is another step in the government's agenda to ensure that peoples' hard-earned retirement savings are protected from erosion.
Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The coalition government has introduced a new era of superannuation guarantee enforcement.
In the last parliament, the government passed a robust package of legislation to ensure employers can no longer hide from their obligations to pay employees their full superannuation entitlements. Those laws give the ATO the tools it needs to detect future noncompliance and punish employers appropriately, including, where necessary, criminal sanctions in the most egregious cases.
New visibility into payment of superannuation guarantee combined with serious financial and legal consequences for noncompliance will all but eliminate future non-payment.
But we know that historical noncompliance has been significant. Last year the ATO found that, while 95 per cent of superannuation guarantee obligations are paid in full, in 2015-16 around $2.8 billion went unpaid.
Some superannuation guarantee underpayment is malicious on the part of certain employers. However, some is inevitably inadvertent or is the result of poor payment systems, often in a stressed business situation. Regardless of the motivation, in all cases it's the employees who, sadly, miss out.
Reuniting as many workers as possible with the superannuation that is rightly theirs is this government's priority.
With this objective in mind, this bill introduces a one-off amnesty to employers who come forward and do the right thing by their employees by rectifying historical noncompliance with their superannuation guarantee obligations. The amnesty complements our Super Guarantee Integrity reforms which were passed earlier this year.
Importantly, to qualify for the amnesty, employers will have to meet two criteria: they must come forward voluntarily, without direct prompting from the ATO, and they will have to pay all of their employees' entitlements.
Reuniting workers with their superannuation, as I stated at the beginning, is government's priority.
We want employers to bring these underpayments out into the open and pay them off as soon as possible so that their employees can receive the super they are entitled to.
The bill offers both a carrot and a stick to encourage non-complying employers to come forward.
Importantly, the bill does not reduce employees' entitlements by one cent. Everything that an employer owes to its employees must still be paid, paid immediately and paid in full.
Rather, the bill removes the penalties and fees paid to the Commonwealth, which might otherwise apply to historical superannuation guarantee noncompliance by employers that are eligible for the amnesty.
Employers who do the right thing and come forward during the amnesty period will also be able to claim tax deductions for payments made under the amnesty, which is the same outcome as if they had paid on time.
Those are the carrots.
The stick will be reserved for employers that could come forward during the amnesty period but choose not to do so and are subsequently caught by the ATO. Their failure to come forward will generally result in the imposition of a minimum 100 per cent penalty on the employer, on top of the other penalties and charges that are ordinarily associated with late payment of super guarantee obligations.
Of course, throughout the amnesty period the ATO will continue its usual enforcement activity against employers for historical noncompliance that they don't own up to voluntarily.
The laws we passed earlier this year, combined with near real-time reporting, ensures that the ATO now has much greater visibility of when super is not paid.
The amnesty period runs from 24 May 2018 to six months after the day this bill receives royal assent, and applies to any historical super guarantee debts up to and including the March quarter of 2018.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
As I was saying, South Australia supplies about 15 per cent of the live sheep export market. I'd have to say at the moment I think we're at a high-water mark for the next couple of years, because I can tell you that the drought across much of my electorate, which is much of regional South Australia, is really taking effect and stock numbers are plummeting. South Australia probably won't be looking to send a lot of sheep offshore in the near future, but things will return; things will change. The rains will come. We'll restock and we'll be looking for outlets for our stock again.
But it is in Western Australia in particular that the live trade is just so important. Western Australia is supplying over 70 per cent—75 per cent—of the Australian trade, and it's 30 per cent of the annual turn-off. One of the things that a lot of people don't understand about livestock businesses is that not all sheep are equal. People love their lamb, but you'd be hard-pressed—I've often spoken about that ugly word—to get them to eat hogget. How many times have you heard people say, 'I like lamb, but I wouldn't want to eat old hogget'? There is no such thing as old hogget, of course. Hogget is a yearling lamb, so it is dressed up in the wrong name. In fact, when sheep get past a certain age in Australia they don't really have much of a market. It is particularly in the wether trade that we see this, because there is not much point keeping an ageing male wether just to produce wool when you could have something else producing wool.
So they need a market, and the boat trade supplies that. What the boat trade does, besides supporting farmers, is support shearers, stock agents, merchandisers and freight operators. In my own electorate a stock food manufacturer invested heavily in providing pellets for the boat trade. When the suspension of the cattle trade happened in 2011, it really sent a very stressful time through their business. So, there is a whole investment chain right across Australia that actually benefits from this trade.
The government is committed to trade and those who rely on it for a living. We in this government have worked very hard to expand Australia's trade opportunities with a range of free trade agreements opening up access across the world not just for farmers particularly but also for livestock producers, grain producers and wine producers. This is just part of it: supporting those people who need to export.
In 2011—and I did say I would come back to this—there was a suspension of the live cattle trade for one month. One month doesn't sound very long, but it did enormous damage. I was referring to the members comments before of a stupid mistake with terrible consequences. That was certainly the case with the 2011 suspension. It happened in the middle of the mustering season in the Northern Territory. The mustering season up there is controlled by the weather. When it becomes wet you can no longer muster. As a result of that one-month ban, 500,000 cattle were not exported, even though they wouldn't have all gone out in that one month—that's what happened to the mustering process. Coupled with the wet season, thousands were then forced into southern markets. The beef market in Australia was down by 30 per cent over a two-year period after the one-month suspension of the live trade to Indonesia.
Therein lies a salient lesson. The thing I often say when we are in this place in Canberra is that we should work very hard to make sure that whatever we do causes no harm, that we don't make the world a worse place. We make it better, not worse. For every policy that comes before us in this place, we should run that slide rule over it to make sure that we are actually improving the situation. Certainly, that closure, for just the one month, did not meet that criterion.
Now, we seek to build on the strengths of what we have done to rebuild the system, on the establishment of the ESCAS system, which protects stock at the destination. If a customer country does not agree to treat stock in the manner we insist on, they will be cut off from the supply chain. That is working well. Those incidents have decreased. You can never say never, just as we cannot say never when we jump in the car and drive down to the shop to get a lettuce. We are not dead-sure we are going to come back. There is a risk in everything. But we are doing well in that space.
The change that we have made to increase the on-board space per animal is making a difference, as has the suspension of the trade during the northern summer, where we saw the worst of the footage from the Awassi Express. They are all good things. The mortality rate thus far this year is 0.61 per cent. That can happen in a lot of places. I suspect we are going to see better than that in the near future, because these changes are still washing through the system. So we know we can operate this trade safely and humanely. We have runs on the board and we have proof. What we need to do is ensure that we don't have a bad voyage or a couple of bad voyages or outcomes. We need to eliminate the outliers. One of the ways we will do that is to install the Office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. It will be the inspector-general's job to continue the improvements in the industry, to monitor the industry and to provide what I would call oversight of the industry or an audit of it. Importantly, they will be able to conduct reviews and compel people to contribute to that review. They will also be able to compel them to answer questions. The defence of self-incrimination will not be accepted.
So I think that indicates that the government is fair dinkum about this. We're fair dinkum about it because we know how important this trade is to Australian farmers, those other industries that I mentioned, the local communities and decentralised jobs. We know how important this trade is. That's why we're committed to it and to making sure it is safe and humane and that we do not see repeated atrocities on our television screens, which, ultimately, will lose the trade if they come about. So we are making the solid commitment to the people that we're going to get this right, and we'll keep that up.
It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Hunter, in regard to this matter of the restoration of an Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. This bill before the House today, the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019, really goes to the fundamental question of the day, and that is: 'Really, why has it taken the government so long—why did so many animals have to suffer so terribly before this government finally acted to take this one important, albeit quite modest, step towards a more robust regulatory regime?' I'll say upfront that Labor will support this legislation, but the fact that we are seeing it only now is a matter of grave concern.
The bill before us today establishes the independent role of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports, to oversee the regulation of the live stock export trade. In doing so, it presents a stark and damning confession from the Morrison government that they got it horribly wrong on live animal exports, because of course it was the former Labor government which created the position of an Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports—a vital role, that provided independent oversight of and confidence in the industry. That position was promptly abolished by the Abbott government on coming to power. That's yet more evidence that the Liberals can always be relied upon to stymie oversight and shut down scrutiny, especially if it helps lucrative business operations. As I mentioned, this bill is a glaring mea culpa—an admission that the Liberal government's abolition of the independent inspector role was a diabolical failure that led to untold acts of cruelty against innocent animals.
Sadly, if you think the government had discovered its moral compass all of its own accord and voluntarily moved to a greater oversight and transparency for this sensitive and troubled industry, you'd be wrong. In fact, it took the revulsion and fury of an entire country on the back of a shocking episode of 60 Minutes which showed secret footage of a sickeningly cruel form of live-export ship on its way to the Middle East. Even then, the government sat on its hands for almost a year and a half, and it took a damning report into the actions of the relevant department before the government brought this bill to parliament. The government's decision to remove oversight of this sensitive industry, especially given its troubling history, is shocking. It took a TV expose to force them to do the right thing. The fact that then a further 17 months passed before they acted is unforgivable.
This is a government that cannot be trusted with animal welfare. Indeed, they've broadcast this in no uncertain terms by removing the words 'animal welfare' from the inspector-general's title. While Labor will support this bill, because, frankly, it's an improvement on the earlier do-nothing approach, we call on the government to fix the rot that we know is at the core of the department that is supposed to oversee the live sheep export trade.
Like the rest of the country, I was shocked, horrified and angered by what I saw on 60 Minutes in April last year. Australia recoiled as we saw thousands of sheep crammed shoulder to shoulder, standing in piles of their own excrement, desperately panting to try to overcome the deadly heat. Many failed, and their corpses were either left to rot or callously tossed over the ship's edge to sea. When these dreadful revelations came to light, Labor called for action. From opposition we worked closely with key stakeholders, experts and community groups to develop a strong solution, including a plan to put an end to the cruel and inhumane live sheep export trade. We listened to the scientists when they said that these sorts of temperatures were absolutely incompatible with animal welfare. We wanted a review of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, ESCAS. We called for a staged phase-out of the live sheep trade and support for sheepmeat producers to make the transition to more domestic processing. We urged an immediate stop to the brutal northern summer live trade, which saw animals subjected to searing and deadly temperatures. And of course we demanded that the government reinstate the important Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Export position that the former, Labor, government had created.
Despite nationwide outrage and unquestionable culpability, the government showed no sign that it understood the severity of the revelations. To be fair, the minister at the time, the member for Maranoa, David Littleproud, did seem to be acting with largely good intention. But it was clear that neither senior Liberals nor indeed the Prime Minister shared his level of concern. Perhaps that's why he's no longer in the same position today. It's almost unfathomable how so many of his colleagues on the other side could be so uninterested in addressing such abject cruelty and terrible suffering—although I'd also like to note that a few of his government colleagues did actually speak out. Indeed, the member for Farrer, Sussan Ley, even had her own private member's bill to shut down this cruel trade. It was seconded by the former member for Corangamite, Sarah Henderson. But the powers that be, in the Morrison government, promptly silenced these two members by giving them ministries, trying to lure them into a position where they could no longer have their own voices with which to speak out on abominable Liberal Party policy. Regrettably, the two honourable members chose their ministerial positions over their consciences and promptly abandoned the private member's bill, along with their ethics.
That's why Labor put forward amendments to the government's live export legislation to mirror exactly what was in the member for Farrer's bill. We wanted to give members of the government a chance to have input, to vote with their principles, on this critical issue of animal welfare. Do you know what happened then? That's right: the government got so scared that they would lose the vote that they actually pulled the legislation from the agenda, minutes before the debate was due to start. Terrified to test the willingness of their own people to choose the party line over doing the right thing, they cut off the dissent they were so clearly expecting. Rarely do we see such overt acts of shutting down the democratic process. That is the shameful history of how we have got to this point today.
Finally, now we have a bill before the House to establish the role of an independent Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. This role is designed to provide an extra layer of accountability to Australia's live export regulation system, to make recommendations and to promote ongoing improvement within the department. Importantly, the inspector-general will have the power to compel any Australian to divulge relevant information or documents. The inspector-general will then deliver reports on any reviews and will submit an annual report—all of which must be made public. This will increase transparency and provide assurance to the community, trading partners and industry alike that our regulatory system is doing what the government says it is.
This role is important—which is exactly why Labor created it when we were in government. In fact, this position was initiated by the member for Hunter as agricultural minister in July 2013, to build on a regulatory framework for the export of livestock for slaughter. We knew that the changes we had made to the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance Scheme had substantially improved the regulatory regime, but we still needed another layer of independent oversight to give the Australian people confidence in the system. An inspector-general would have added another layer of assurance that our regulatory system was delivering on animal welfare outcomes through an auditing and reviewing process and ensuring that investigations into compliance were also undertaken. There would have been no additional burden of red tape on the exporters or on our trading partners through the development of this role.
But, of course, the then Abbott government came to power—it took the keys from the ministerial wing in September 2013—and promptly abolished the role of Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports the following month, in October 2013. At the time, the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, claimed that the inspector-general role was 'a classic example of layer on layer of bureaucracy without any practical outcome'. He went on to say:
The livestock export regulator was already, and remains, subject to appropriate oversight and review mechanisms.
And he proclaimed:
This is one bit of red tape we can do without.
Of course, in doing so, he not only shut down an important opportunity for oversight, transparency and system integrity but also sent a very clear message to rogue operators that this was a government that would not get in their way—that they would turn a blind eye if those operators wanted to cut corners or blatantly break rules on animal welfare. And, as history tells us, that's exactly what transpired. He had a similarly damaging and dangerous message for his own department: that they should get out of the way of industry and take a light touch on regulation and enforcement instead.
It's very easy to see how this sort of message can lead to serious systemic issues. Indeed, that's exactly what was found in the independent review of the capability and culture of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to regulate live animal exports. The Moss review, as it came to be known, was released in November last year and its findings were damning. It painted a picture of a department so starved of resources as a result of government cuts that it simply could not do its job. It showed an organisation which was so conflicted and so allied with industry that it failed to properly undertake its regulatory role; instead choosing a pathway of least resistance that would later be shockingly revealed by journalists in those terrible episodes we saw on 60 Minutes many months later. It demonstrated a culture that turned a blind eye to overt breaches of animal welfare standards, leading to the catastrophic consequences it took journalists to reveal.
The big question is: how did the government allow all this to happen? Why was political expediency allowed to take precedence over the integrity of government? What happened to the frank and fearless advice of the Public Service that should operate as a check and balance on this sort of toxic and compromised culture? And where was the minister when all this filthy rot was settling in? The Moss review put forward 31 recommendations. Regretfully, there are not too many that this government has acted on.
I'm pleased that the government has come to its senses, at least, with this bill before the House today. I'm pleased that the new minister, Senator Bridget McKenzie, has since quashed the member for New England's claims, saying, 'A suitably empowered Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports will provide an additional, independent layer of accountability and assurance over the regulation of Australia's livestock exports.' It's just a shame that it has taken over six years for the Liberal and coalition government to evolve sufficiently enough to, at least, get us to the place where Australians can be assured of having some protective framework in place over the live animal export industry. But this isn't enough. True, the inspector-general offers much needed independent oversight, but there are still a lot of deep systemic problems within the department that were identified by the Moss review.
I welcome the opportunity today to speak in favour of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019, because, as a fifth generation beef farmer, all animal welfare, particularly livestock welfare, is incredibly important to me. It's also important to the people that I represent in my electorate of Braddon, because Braddon's farming families are the best in the world at what they do—and one of the things they do is produce world-class product for the global red meat market.
Australia is the third-largest exporter of live animals in the world. It's an industry that adds more than $1.7 billion to our economy, most of which flows into our regional and rural communities, like my electorate of Braddon. It's an industry that not only supports the hardworking farming families who are directly responsible for the product but it also supports many of the small communities in which they live. Increasingly, the world wants what Australia has, and—if I could be indulgent just for a moment—the world wants what Tasmania has. We produce some of the best red meat in the world because we have an isolated, clean, green environment and farmers who are continually implementing world's best practice strategies.
I'm very proud to be part of a Morrison government that is committed to the continuation of livestock export and its industry. The potential for my electorate of Braddon to benefit from an increase in Australia's global market share excites me and reassures me as a farmer. That's why I support this bill. It's an important step by government, supports an important industry and gives greater resilience to ensure that the live export market prospers into the future. By improving regulatory practice, performance and culture of the regulator, the Morrison government is playing its part to drive a positive change in the livestock export industry.
I've said many times since arriving at this place that farmers are the original environmentalists and custodians of animal welfare. We care about our animals. Their animals are their livelihood. I personally don't know a single farmer who doesn't take that responsibility of professionalism and judicious care for their animals very seriously. Maybe what the wider public doesn't recognise is the strong connection we have as farmers with the welfare of our animals right through the supply chain, from farm to abattoir. As farmers we breed these animals, we breed the livestock and we invest enormous amounts of money in genetics and other resources to ensure that the right genetic mix of the animal and the herd is spot on. We make sure that their inoculations and drenches are up to speed. We give each animal a nutrition plan. We look after it. We care for it.
From an economic standpoint we do that to maximise our bottom line, to make our businesses viable and to ensure the ongoing viability of our agribusiness. But, from a personal standpoint, the bond and the sense of responsibility that we as farmers have for our livestock cannot be overstated. After all, farmers are the only things in these animals' lives that keep them healthy and happy throughout their life cycle. When an animal leaves our farm, our farmers have a sense of custody, and that doesn't stop at the farm gate. Even after these animals are loaded on the ship for export, farmers feel that their chain of custody still remains. After all, it's still their product—they bred it, they grew it, they fattened it and they exported it, and they don't rest until it reaches its destination. That provenance remains very firmly at the foot of the farmer. And why wouldn't they care, when we are delivering a highly-sought-after commodity right around the world? That's our national reputation and the individual farmers' reputations, and that is on the line every time a ship carrying live animals leaves our shores.
There is a very long list of acts, regulations, orders and standards that control the export of animals out of Australia. It is important that as a government we continually assess the value of the current framework and where improvements can be made. And we must make them continually, because by its very nature live animal export is a high-risk enterprise. With the implementation of this bill, the Morrison government intends to protect the industry and our farmers' livelihoods, rather than respond with a knee-jerk reaction that will ultimately send our farmers and our industry broke. That is why this important legislation needs to be passed. I can guarantee you that no-one would have been more devastated to see the 2018 footage of the appalling condition of the sheep transported to the Middle East than our farming communities and our farmers. No-one, no farmer or otherwise, should accept the mistreatment of any livestock at any point along the supply chain. The community rightly deemed it was unacceptable, industry deemed that it was unacceptable and government has now deemed that it was unacceptable. It was universally condemned.
As all parties expect, government has responded. A review of the regulatory capability and the culture of the Department of Agriculture and its role to regulate the live animal export industry was initiated. When the report was handed down the government accepted all 10 recommendations from this review and has actively supported their implementation. This included the recommendation that an independent external entity known as the Inspector-General of Live Animal Export oversees the department in its role as the regulator of the industry. The inspector-general will report to the minister and to the public and will provide an additional layer of accountability to the regulator. The public can be assured that the inspector-general will be a strong cop on the beat. That is exactly what the industry needs, if it is going to thrive into the future.
By introducing this independent layer of accountability, the livestock export industry gets what it needs to promote even greater confidence right across the supply chain. The Australian public can be assured that the federal government takes animal welfare very seriously and that we are committed to assuring that the welfare of these animals right across the supply chain continues. This bill will provide assurance to the broader community, to transport agents, to our foreign customers, to our oversight agencies and, most importantly, to Australia's hardworking livestock farmers.
I listened last night to this debate. Having listened to other speakers on this matter I was quite frankly disappointed. I was disappointed that the matter often digressed from the issue of oversight and protection of this important industry to one of political pointscoring. All we should be discussing is our farmers and their futures. All we should be discussing during the debate on this bill is the future of their industry, their livelihood and the future of their stock as it moves along the supply chain to the point of sale, rather than kicking a political football around. I want to assure all farmers that they are foremost in my thoughts as I represent this bill. There are people in this place who strongly believe in their industry. They do have a strong Morrison government that backs their industry in and backs them as farmers. We believe strongly in you and we are here to protect your livelihoods, as well as protecting your livestock as it moves from your farm to whichever point of sale that may be internationally.
It really is past time that this government took action to ensure high standards of animal welfare are enforced. After the footage from the tragic voyage of the Awassi Express was aired on 60 Minutes in April 2018, it took only minutes for the first of my constituents to contact me—and I am sure it was the same around the country—and share the horror and sadness they felt. Within days, there were hundreds of emails and calls to my office asking for action to be taken on the falling animal welfare standards in the live export sector, especially in relation to those voyages to the Middle East in the hot, unbearable conditions of the northern summer. It was later found that, on that voyage in August 2017, more than 2,400 sheep died due to the soaring temperatures and cramped conditions on board. I have received thousands of emails from constituents expressing their disappointment in this government. As recently as last week, I was being contacted by people asking me why action by the government is taking so long.
The member for Braddon said we should not have a kneejerk reaction. But Labor has long advocated and recognised the need for robust regulation of the live animal export sector in order to ensure that best practice is upheld and enforced and that the Department of Agriculture is able to thoroughly investigate any complaints or breaches of animal welfare standards. There is a feeling of deja vu in talking about this bill, because Labor introduced legislation to establish an inspector-general to oversee the live animal export trade back in 2013. After the election of this government, however, the then Minister for Agriculture, the member for New England, abolished the position of inspector-general, which, frankly, was one of the big factors that precipitated the beginning of a decline in standards and, indeed, the formation of a very lax culture in his own department.
So now we are here. This is what it has taken: six years of inaction by this government. In fact, they are walking backwards in their reversals. There have been countless incidents of animal cruelty; an investigation by 60 Minutes and the Australian media more broadly; the Moss review; the McCarthy review; and a campaign by members on the government side—their own backbenchers, one of whom is now the current minister. And after all of this the government was dragged kicking and screaming to finally restore an inspector-general. Whilst it is better late than never, many of my constituents would share my view that there is absolute frustration at this government's failure to address these issues properly, promptly and in a timely manner.
Our position on the need for an independent inspector-general to oversee the industry hasn't changed since we introduced the legislation six years ago. Whilst this government has been failing to act, Labor was also developing a raft of policies aimed at improving animal welfare. On that front, I commend the work of our leadership team—in particular, shadow minister Joel Fitzgibbon—in delivering the six-point plan for animal welfare put forward by Labor at the 2016 and 2019 elections. This included the immediate re-establishment of the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. We also sought to provide more transparency and accountability by requiring the Minister for Agriculture to provide quarterly reports to the parliament about the quality of the live export industry. Labor also committed to re-establishing state and territory cooperation on animal matters to ensure a consistent national response, and we committed to working with state and territory governments, industry bodies and welfare advocates to update our national animal welfare strategy to ensure a consistent national approach to animal welfare. We also committed to review the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, the ESCAS, and announced that we would ban the testing of cosmetics on animals—an issue on which we committed to act in 2016 and on which the government eventually came to the table.
This legislation only passed when the government agreed to measures to address Labor's concerns about loopholes in the legislation which we flagged back in 2017. It is counterhistorical, but, if we had won government at the last election, we would have moved to immediately ban the northern summer live sheep trade and proposed a plan which would phase out live sheep trade within five years. When I spoke in this place back in May 2018 on the legislation to ban the long-haul export of live animals during the northern summer, I quoted Mahatma Gandhi, who once said:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
I think that's a pretty good yardstick for Australia. I think it's pretty self-evident that this government should be doing much, much more, not dragging their heels on this issue as they have done.
I want to reach out and say to the hundreds of constituents who contacted me and called for action on this issue: our moral progress needs to go forward on this issue. That's how we become greater as a nation: by tackling these issues with the degree of decency and humanity that demonstrates who we are as a nation, not by dragging our heels like this government has. And, on that front, I will continue to call on the government to do more. I say to my constituents, 'Your voices are heard. They're being heard. I won't stop fighting for our values on these issues.'
Finally, to the organisations like the RSPCA and Animals Australia, who ran such organised and successful campaigns on this issue from day one, and to everyone across the country who made a call or sent an email to their local MP or to the minister or ministers or signed a petition: thank you; your voices were heard. That's part of our democratic system. It's part of our greatness as a nation that citizens can contribute to a debate like this and have their voices heard—citizens from across the political spectrum. This is not a Right or Left thing; it's not a Labor or Liberal thing. These are decent people across the country who see something going wrong and want action taken by the government. It is a crying shame that the government have not only dragged their heels but have gone backwards, frankly.
At least the bill before us today restores what could have been in place for the past six years. It may not be everything we wanted, but at least this small step has been made. There was the advocacy of hundreds of thousands of Australians through their own decency, through their own desire for moral progress in this country. They understand that the way we treat animals is a reflection of how we are as a nation—our moral progress. This bill is, in large part, a result of that wonderful advocacy. I ask them to keep up the fight, because Labor is in your corner and will keep fighting with you. Thank you.
I have great pleasure in supporting the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019. The Australian government is committed to continuing livestock exports. It offers legitimate business options to our Australian farmers, but farmers and the Australian public also see the need for the assurance of the government on animal welfare and the protection of all livestock exports. The bill is a step forward in providing that assurance for all those who operate within the industry. The bill will drive a positive change to the industry, improving regulatory practices, performance and the culture of the regulatory system.
In the 2018 footage, we saw appalling conditions, visible to anyone who wanted to watch those shocking tapes of what happened on a voyage. The origin of that footage is uncertain to a degree—how it came about and how it was so slow to get to the public and the government and show them what was actually going on. The Australian government has taken a range of actions to protect the welfare of livestock that are exported by boat, whether it be sheep, cattle, buffalo, camels or goats. No Australian wants to see those horrible images ever again.
The demand for welfare exists not only on boats but on farms, on feedlots and in abattoirs. The Australian farmer wants trade with Asian and Middle Eastern countries to continue. There's no doubt about that. Trade is always a two-way thing, with benefit to the exporter and to the importer. That's why I visited feedlots in Indonesia and later visited Kuwait and spoke to the key stakeholders in the live sheep market. There are benefits Australia-wide from the supply of cattle, sheep, buffalo and camels to various countries across the world. It also involves humanitarian aid. The supply of fodder on board those ships is an industry in itself. You can just ask any Western Australian fodder guy.
There must be an understanding by all Australians, who have a high standard of living, that some countries totally lack electricity supplies and cold storage. That's why, in Indonesia, they have a situation where a 30,000-head feedlot only kills at night-time, between 10 o'clock and 12 o'clock at night, and only kills small numbers of cattle, 10 to 12, and then that meat is distributed to the markets next morning. It hits the markets at, say, five o'clock, and by eight o'clock all that meat has disappeared into the hands of the consumer. The reason that the kills are small and the meat arrives at the wet markets and is gone by eight o'clock that morning, and is probably eaten by eight o'clock that night, is that that's what you have to do if you live in a hot country with no electricity and no refrigeration. So small amounts of the herd are killed at night, processed straight to the wet markets and into the hands of the consumer the next day, and eaten that night. That's the way it works, and that's the way it'll work for a long time. Indonesia is a land of 17,000 islands, and not all of those islands have electricity. So we must consider the humanitarian effects we would have if we were to stop live trade to those places in Indonesia.
I was quite amazed when I looked at that feedlot in Jakarta. It was only half full. I said to the operators of that feedlot, 'Why's this?' They said, 'Well, as you know, Australia has high-quality beef,' which I agreed with willingly. But they said: 'It is costly. We can import buffalo from India at a much lower price but, of course, a much lower quality.' So that's why that particular feedlot was half empty. But keep in mind that Indonesian people lack protein. It's a must-have for those who can afford it.
The story goes on with my visit to Kuwait. I spoke to the key stakeholders there. They said they would bend over backwards—and they have already shown signs of doing that—to help the live sheep industry, especially from Western Australia. Western Australia is probably one of the few places in the world that have huge herds of sheep. The stakeholders in Kuwait said that if the trade between Western Australia and the Middle East was to fall over, they would have alternative markets, probably South Africa and Romania. But that's not so appealing to them, because only the Western Australian sheep market can supply sheep in large herds of 50,000 to 70,000 to go on those boats. Romania is looking at the market for exporting their sheep, but they have herds of 10, 15 or 20, and to accumulate shipment loads of 60,000 or 70,000 sheep would be somewhat difficult. South Africa has similar supply problems.
So, we've got the sheep, and we've got access to those Middle East markets. They said that if the Australian government wanted it they could build smaller and faster boats. They are prepared, for the three months of their summer, to put the importing of sheep aside until it cools down. They took half a boatload straight into Kuwait, therefore freeing up the ship, making more space for the remaining sheep that went around other parts of the Arab world.
We admit that we want to improve conditions on the ships—ample fresh air, for instance, and waste disposal has to be handled properly. There must be a plentiful supply of fodder on the boats, and we'd all like to see—and it's happening now—that the sheep or cattle are actually putting on weight during their 10- or 15-day voyage to their final destination. That's an outcome that's very pleasing and is actually helping. The other thing is to have ample space for the sheep or the cattle to move around and to have a qualified stockman onboard, not just some person they've grabbed off the street and hired for the trip to Indonesia or into the Middle East. And now, of course, the inspector-general will oversee all these facets of high-quality transport arrangements so that the welfare of the animal is first and foremost.
When the Gillard government put a total ban on live cattle exports to Indonesia in 2011, the sovereign risk to our trading partners was blown out. Australia had been considered a good, reliable country for exporting high-quality product, in this case live cattle. The ban left our northern producers nowhere to go. Jobs were on hold; some jobs were lost. Transporters, the shipping companies—Wellard et cetera—and truck owners, the guys who cart the cattle from the properties in northern Australia into the port of Darwin for shipment, suddenly had no jobs. Their industry was blown apart.
Cattle prices plummeted right across Australia. It wasn't just in northern Australia; it had a flow-on effect right down to the Victorian markets. The cattle industry was in an immediate crisis. Customers on the other end of the chain, the people of Indonesia—with their drive for protein products or protein diets—were left wanting. Governments in Indonesia were saying, 'What have we done wrong?' This situation cannot happen again. The fact that the government is bringing in an inspector-general to oversee the operations will surely be felt as being a very positive move by this government.
I acknowledge the member for Flynn and what he said in his contribution. Whilst I don't agree with all of his content, I was however pleased with his discussion about feedlotters and the way in which the wet market works in Indonesia. As he pointed out, it's very important that Australians, who live in a wealthy country where electricity is not an issue—although rising costs are a potential problem—realise that we're predominantly selling into the Indonesian market and other South-East Asian markets where electricity is an issue. The way he discussed the way in which cattle are dealt with in the feedlot and the wet market was, I think, very instructive for all of us. So I would like to thank him for that.
I want to go back a few years, to 2011, when the live cattle ban was put in place by the then minister for agriculture under the Gillard Labor government. As the member for Flynn pointed out, it had a dramatic impact on the northern Australian cattle industry and, particularly, my own electorate of Lingiari, which is where all of the Northern Territory's cattle are produced. It had a significant impact on families, on communities, on producers, on secondary suppliers and the like. But I think we need to mindful of the dysfunctional exporters that existed at the time and their failure, at that time, to take control of the export of the stock that they were buying off producers. As a result of that bad management by exporters into these markets, we were left with a ban which impacted upon the producers. That was really significant.
But there was one very positive thing which emerged from that very traumatic experience, and that was the development of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, ESCAS. The subsequent development of the ESCAS over time has put Australian producers and exporters in front in the world in terms of standards applying for live cattle and sheep export. Of that, there is no question. We will have a difference of opinion with some in this place on the issue of live sheep exports, but there is an absolute desire, certainly by me—and I know that to be true for those of us on this side of the chamber—to continue to support the sustainable export of cattle from northern Australia.
I want to go to a bit of history here—and I note the member for New England is sitting in the chamber. He will well recall the then minister for agriculture, the member for Hunter, in July 2013 announcing the establishment of the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. In his announcement at that time, he said: 'An inspector-general will add another layer of assurance that our regulatory is delivering animal welfare outcomes that we want through auditing, reviewing and investigating compliance processes.' He committed to developing draft legislation. That was really important.
But sadly, in October of 2013, when the member for New England was responsible as the minister for agriculture, he abolished the proposal for the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. He said, among other things:
The current regulation of livestock exports is designed to minimise that risk. That's why I'm confident that we do not need to establish an Inspector General of Animal Welfare.
The Inspector General was a classic example of layer upon layer of bureaucracy without any practical outcome. The livestock export regulator was already, and remains, subject to appropriate oversight and review mechanisms. This is one bit of red tape we can do without.
I'm sure he now agrees that this is a very important thing we're doing.
I remind the House that in 2018 the shadow minister for agriculture, the member for Hunter, brought in a private member's bill for the establishment of an Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports, and he would know that it was also part of the ALP's six-point animal welfare plan prior to the 2019 election. I quote here from the Bills Digest, and I acknowledge their work. The Bills Digest quoted the election platform:
Labor will provide $1 million a year to establish the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare as an independent statutory position operating within the Department of Agriculture. The Inspector-General will be responsible for advising on the protection of animals in all Commonwealth-regulated activities and will report directly to the Minister of the day on issues concerning live export, animal welfare standards and guidelines. The Inspector-General will also work with the states and territories to establish an independent Office of Animal Welfare to oversee animal protection and welfare activities nationally.
That wasn't supported. That was the view we put forward at the time of the election.
Subsequently, we now have a piece of legislation put forward by the government, who opposed this proposition in 2013, to establish that office. I want to thank the former minister for agriculture, who is no longer the minister for agriculture—Mr Littleproud, the member for Maranoa—for his support for that proposal. An important thing he did was to pick up the importance of doing this—not operating on the basis of partisan politics but seeing the importance of doing this to ensure the welfare of our animals that are being exported. That was a very important thing for him to do, and I appreciate the fact that he did it. I want to thank the government for now actually establishing this position. It's taken a little while—in fact, some would say too long—but it's very important that we acknowledge that this position has now been established, that it is important and that it will help safeguard the interests of people such as those the member for Flynn talked about, those producers in northern Australia, particularly in my own electorate of Lingiari. This is another way of giving them confidence that exporting our animals offshore will be properly regulated in a way which will suit their interests as the producers so that we don't have any other interventions in the export of live cattle into the future.
The ESCAS itself, as the member for Flynn and no doubt the member for New England would know, has created unprecedented traceability throughout the supply chain and has over time, despite the very traumatic experience of the hurt caused by that interruption in 2011, had a very positive impact on the live cattle sector. I want to acknowledge my mate Simon Crean for his role in that sector currently, and I acknowledge the work which the exporters are now doing to ensure that the industry is sustainable into the future, particularly into South-East Asia, which is where I have most interest.
Again, picking up on what the member for Flynn had to say about his experience as to the feedlots and the wet markets of Indonesia, I would encourage any member of this parliament who has an interest in this subject to try and get involved in observing the loading of cattle onto ships, and to see how the stock are being looked after on those ships, with the stockmen and now the inspectors who work on these ships and are paid for by the industry—and that was an impost which the industry did not like, but I actually think is really important—and to see that the stock are being managed properly, and, if possible, accompany them on the journey.
I have had an invitation from an exporter to do exactly that. Unfortunately I was unable to do it when the ship that they proposed I go on left Australia, but I do intend to take up that offer and go from Darwin to Indonesia on one of their ships and to see how the cattle are handled on those ships. I know that it is being done properly—I know that already because of the feedback that we are getting from other sources. It is important.
There are sceptics in this chamber—as the member for Flynn and the member for New England would no doubt attest—on both sides of the parliament, who are saying that they have real issues with live exports. I think we've got to say to those people: 'Just get your act together and assure yourself.' Firstly, our producers look after their cattle well because it's in their interest to do so. This is their income. They are very high-quality producers who produce great cattle, and—except for periods of great drought, as we are in at the moment—you'll see very healthy cattle on most properties in northern Australia.
But the point is this. I remember the campaign of 2011, which people in this place sweated on, about shutting down the industry. Let's just say to the Australian public: 'It's really important that you understand this. This is a good industry. It's a strong industry. In 2017, live cattle export was valued at $1.2 billion FOB. That's an enormous amount of money. And there are many, many Australian families who survive on the fact that they're able to live and work on the land, whether as stockmen or other, or working in the supply side of the industry, or putting infrastructure in place, and they rely on this for their income. It's of great importance to Australia, for us to be selling protein into these markets in South-East Asia.' In 2017, 854,000 cattle were exported, with the majority of cattle being sold to Indonesia.
I mentioned the Northern Territory before, and Lingiari, my electorate. This industry is extremely important to us. We have the highest share of the live export industry, at just over 35 per cent of total live exports from Australia. In the NT, live export of cattle generates expenditure on transport, stockfeed, wages, port charges, demand for services, quarantine inspection, veterinary requirements and the like, and it provides significant employment opportunities to regional economies. The extensive grazing systems of the pastoral enterprises in the Northern Territory cover approximately 45 per cent of the NT land mass, in excess of 700,000 square kilometres. We export cattle from the Territory to a number of countries, particularly Indonesia. In 2018, 79 per cent of our cattle went to Indonesia and 13 per cent went to Vietnam. With every 100 jobs in the cattle industry in the NT, there are a further 36 other jobs created in the rest of the Northern Territory economy. This is spread throughout the Northern Territory. It's worthwhile noting that the cattle population in 2017 was around 2.1 million head, about 8.2 per cent of the Australian national herd. In 2017, the estimated cattle population by NT pastoral district was: Alice Springs, 20 per cent of the total; Barkly Tablelands and Tennant Creek, 30 per cent; Victoria River district and Katherine, 32 per cent; and Darwin, Elsey and the gulf had 18 per cent of the total Territory herd.
I want to acknowledge the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association for the wonderful work they do in representing the interests of their members. I want to acknowledge the very hard work that is being done by our producers. I acknowledge that, without them, we wouldn't have a cattle industry and Australia would be a lot worse off. When we take these oversight measures to make sure that we have a sustainable export industry in the future it's good for the industry and for the nation. Belatedly this has happened. It should have happened in 2013 when the member for New England was the minister. Nevertheless, it has happened now, and it's important that we acknowledge it.
If you go to the towns of Katanning, Merredin, Bruce Rock, Hyden, Geraldton, Narembeen and Williams, you will talk to people who understand how important the live sheep trade is. It's vitally important for the people of those towns. The commerce generated from live sheep exports allows them to run everything from the petrol station to the hairdresser. That money comes in.
It is the policy, and was the policy, of the Australian Labor Party to close the live sheep industry down—to shut it down. If there is a Miley Cyrus wrecking ball that is going to go through regional Australia, as noted by the member for Lyons in his reference to me, it will be what the Labor Party does to the live sheep trade. I am absolutely proud of the efforts that I put in to expand the live sheep trade to record numbers. This was vital in underpinning the prices going to farming families. I remember clearly when you did not get a price for sheep and you shot them. I remember when you got $2 or $3 for cracker ewes—that is, ewes with broken mouths who are not able to eat anymore. There was no money in them. Many people just let them die on their place. It wasn't worth the cartage. They just kept shearing them until they died. That's the cost-benefit reality of where we were.
We actually brought about a mechanism where they had substantial real value—in excess of $100 in many instances. People who were poor became rich again or became at least comfortable—they could renovate their kitchens, buy a new car rather than a second-hand car, and put money into these regional towns. I am absolutely proud of the work that we did to drive this industry forward. I want to maintain the capacity to drive this industry forward.
I saw the crowd at Katanning. It was a huge crowd for a small town. People were standing behind this trade. It was not just farmers; it was everybody in town, even the teachers and nurses, because they know that, if the commerce is not there, the kids aren't there and, if the kids are not there, the school is not there and the hospital is not there.
It's incumbent upon the Labor Party to show their credentials to the people in regional areas. We're seeing this not just in the live sheep trade; we're seeing the same ethos and philosophy conveyed to the coal industry. They just don't believe in it anymore, despite the fact that one in every three dollars of corporate taxation in Australia comes from three areas: coal, iron ore and LNG. Without this income our economy could collapse or our capacity to deliver public services could collapse. There has to be an epiphany in the Labor Party that moves it back to common sense. We are an exporting nation and, therefore, we have to have the resilience, the strength and the fortitude to stand behind our export industries, and live sheep is a crucial one of them.
In 2017-18, more than two million live sheep were exported and close to a quarter of a billion dollars came back in. The question you have to ask is: where would those two million sheep, which were not lambs, go if we didn't have the live export industry? They may be sold. But the problem is that the inspiration for a higher price would be lost, and I have lived in the market when that happens. Even when you take the live cattle trade—when they shut it down, it wasn't a huge part of our cattle production. It was about five or seven per cent. What happened to the markets next was absolutely devastating, because people knew you had nowhere to go but the processor. What the live sheep trade does is say: there is another venue, away from the processor.
In Western Australia alone there are 10,000 jobs involved in the live sheep trade. More than 709,000 sheep have been exported to all markets. The jobs include saleyard employees, transport industry workers, farmers, small-business owners, livestock agents, small regional towns et cetera. We have to make sure that we have a viable industry in Australia. Australia leads the world in husbandry practices, especially with the export of live animals. There are other markets for sheep. There are many other markets for sheep. They're just not Australian markets. And they won't have any of the protections that Australian sheep have—none. They have markets that go from Romania to South America to South Africa and even into Somalia and Kenya. There are markets. So what happens is, when we decide we're not going to play into these markets, we just give the commercial opportunity to another place that has no controls—no controls whatsoever.
We also have to note the full ramifications of the live animal export in general, especially with live cattle. Yes, there is a strong sense of doubt that if you close down the live sheep trade—because we know where they're going. I remember the member for Bendigo, I think it was, talking about what she believed was the infamy of the cattle trucking industry. That sent a shiver down everybody's spine, so they closed down the live cattle industry, and there are people in this chamber talking about transport. The people in the TWU might have something to say about that: 'We've had enough of you trying to put our members out of a job.'
We've got to make sure that people clearly understand that if you close down the live sheep trade—which is policy of the Labor Party—it's a very small philosophical jump to start closing down the live cattle trade. Then it's a very small jump to start putting caveat after caveat on the cattle transport industry. And we know where that leads. It leads to the impoverishment of a large swathe of regional Australia, from Katanning to Meridan and right up into the gulf and to Indigenous communities.
I remember, clearly, talking to Indigenous communities in the gulf and hearing back from them: 'You don't want us on social welfare. You want us to have our own commerce. You want us to have our own industry, and we had it. It was the live cattle trade. We were making serious money. There was the Delta Downs with 60,000 head of cattle. And what did you guys do? Once more, you came up here and closed us down.' As one pejoratively said, 'What do you wish us to do? Go and stand by the river with our foot on our knee for a postcard?' They said, 'We had an industry and we had pride in our industry, and we were bringing people through.'
I went to Broome, to the pound that brings in cattle before they load them. I would say 95 per cent of that workforce is Indigenous. They like it because they're away from some of the problems that are in the town. They have a job, they get paid and they do real serious work. That brings a very serious return to Australia. As you see the cattle go on, you can just count: $1,200, $1,200, $1,200. And this is real money coming back to our nation.
The live cattle trade produces vastly in excess of a billion dollars a year, and that is a billion dollars a year that, we should note, goes to those remote areas. That's about $1.2 billion a year. Overwhelmingly, that goes into our regional and dispersed areas. We have to make sure that we continue that and not show any mechanism that says we have doubts about the live export industry. It's got to be put in place. If it is really just a statement that you don't believe in live sheep exports—and the Labor party doesn't—and you are going to close it down just because of a philosophical position, which the Labor Party wants to do, then of course we are going to believe that your next step is live cattle.
I am annoyed at times when I see all these emails we all get—storm emails—and when you try to reply to some of them the people just don't exist. They are nonentities—'Mr Kafoops' and 'Really Angry'. They are deceitful in how they even approach you, with these generic letters. But it seems that many of them have more concern for the welfare of sheep than we are seeing in New South Wales for the welfare of a child. I find that to be noxious.
Going to another issue, a lot of the claims have basically been corrupted, because we have found the people who made the claims, such as Animals Australia, have got their information and their footage from people they have paid. I refer to Mr Ullah and the payments that went to him on the Animals Australia footage. He was actually supposed to be looking after the sheep. He was basically getting paid to kill the sheep and get the footage we saw on television. People were rightly disturbed. When the investigation was held they asked where the footage came from and which floor it came from. They went through it and when they saw it was from a certain floor they asked who the person there was. They were told it was Mr Ullah. They asked where he was and were told he is living in Pakistan. He made a motza and he is gone. What was his job? To do precisely what was not seen in that footage. We believe that he turned off the ventilators and moved the sheep up into the corner of a pen and stopped the defoulment process. The sheep went down and died. Animals Australia was seen as being associated with the payments for it and then Animals Australia made the ad that they put on television in a move to shut the industry down. They are the ones who created the animal cruelty.
I remember 60 Minutes ringing up and being furious with me after listening to the speech—maybe they are listening to it today. I said to them at the time that I was not attacking them, that I was absolutely certain that they were bona fide in getting the footage and reporting it. I said: 'You didn't actually go on the boat to get the footage. You relied on somebody else to provide you with the footage.' That was very dangerous, if they had an ulterior motive. Later on it became apparent that the other person did have an ulterior motive. They had a massive pecuniary benefit to inspire a criminal act—if one can prove that it happened in Australia, there is a crime. This is something we have to get to the bottom of, not just brush it off. I was at a meeting yesterday trying to get further information and seeing further documentation that further fleshes this out.
So this is what we are up against. We are up against people who are prepared to lie, bribe and corrupt the process. Maybe the inspector-general would like to have a look at that. Maybe we can expand the remit of the inspector-general to look at the corruption of information that has been provided to shut the live export industry down. We know the people who provided that information are not going to stop at live sheep. They want live cattle. And then it will be the same ethos that goes into battery hens, pork, cattle production in general and farming.
The reason we are on the balls of our feet in the National Party is that we want to protect farmers. We are driving through legislation to make sure you can't invade farms. People will say that it's over the top. No, it isn't. It wasn't at Lemontree Feedlot, where 110 people just made their own arrangements, dressed in uniforms and broke into private property, where there was a family with kids wondering what on earth was going it. They were terrifying people and causing problems with the stock. We have actually had to move legislation to stop that. These people have an anthropomorphic belief that animals are people and people are animals. When you do that, what you end up with is people being treated like animals, because people only have the worth of animals.
We have a great industry. We must stand behind this great industry. The only Miley Cyrus wrecking ball in this was the Australian Labor Party, when they closed down the live cattle trade. But they haven't learnt a lesson; they are going to do it again with the live sheep trade. Believe you me, if the Labor Party ever gets back into power, Mr Fitzgibbon, as weak as water on the export of coal, as weak as water in not standing behind his coalminers—he almost got booted out of his seat. He only won his seat by an absolute fraction. The Labor Party lost all their seats. They didn't win any seats in Central Queensland. The same Labor Party is going to come back in and end the live sheep trade. Then they will have a caucus meeting. The lefties will take over the show again. They will ban the live cattle trade. The lefties will come back again and ban the transport industry. And who will suffer? The people of regional Australia.
The people I represent took the full brunt of the decision to ban live exports. Over my 25 years in this place, if you damage the people I represent you will get damaged. That is not only a promise; that is a God-given commitment from the soul. Graham Richardson closed down the timber industry—and Hansard will show you what I did to Graham Richardson. When Julia Gillard closed down the live cattle industry I called a press conference and said I would shift my allegiance from the LNP, who I had been backing up until that date, to the ALP upon condition that she was removed. That night, she was removed.
I want to draw attention to a member whose only industry in his electorate is cattle. He never opened his mouth when the live cattle industry was closed down; he never fired a single shot. And it was left to me to look after his electorate.
What a load of rubbish!
And not only that—we'll start talking about First Australians in a moment. So I think you'd better leave the chamber, my friend, because you're going to get a big bath!
Order!
I can't wait!
Order! The member for Kennedy will be heard in silence, and the member for Kennedy will address members through the chair.
And be nice!
That's a matter of opinion.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the ban on live cattle halved the price of cattle. It was argued by a small number of people that it may hurt meatworks. In fact, it did—because our cattle numbers dropped dramatically. They couldn't make a quid out of cattle, so they just had to let the cattle die. To keep cattle alive, you've got to spend a lot of money. You have to give them supplementary feed. You have to go out and check the water and get that fixed up all the time. There are a hundred things. You have to get a vet out if a sickness creeps in. It costs a lot of money to keep cattle alive. When they didn't have that money, the cattle died, and the number of cattle going to the meatworks dropped dramatically. The ban on live cattle exports didn't help the meatworks; it had the exact opposite effect. You want to think your way through these things. A simplistic solution may disastrously backfire on you.
In North Queensland, two of the biggest cattle stations are Delta Downs and Lawn Hill. We have a problem at Lawn Hill: there is still white management. We will never achieve what we should achieve as a group of people in Australia—blackfellas, First Australians, often identify along these lines, and I'm doing that tonight—as long as we have whitefellas looking after cattle stations that we own. All the same, in spite of whitefella bosses, over the last few years the station has effectively been run by blackfellas. It is running 40,000 or 50,000 head of cattle. And Delta Downs, which is run exclusively by blackfellas—there are no whitefellas ever allowed near it; God bless Paulie Edwards and all the rest of them—has had 50,000 head of cattle for probably 30 years. Can we run cattle? Yes, we can. I hate racial stereotypes, but there is racial stereotype that we're very good at it.
But we're in the areas that feed the live cattle industry. If you hit the live cattle industry, you immediately create enormous problems for all of those holdings which are owned and successfully run by First Australians. I'll be the first to admit that the vast bulk of them are owned by tribes. We run around talking about tribes all the time. It's a stupid fantasy of this place. The tribes ceased to exist a hundred years ago. It was a great device by the whitefellas to get us all to fight each other instead of fighting them. There are those that argue that it's still happening today We turn on each other and, whilst we're fighting each other as tribes, we're not fighting the real enemy, which is that brood of whitefellas that want to run and have all the power and dictate to us.
A little First Australian child was seen to be taken by a crocodile—this is very relevant to the live cattle debate; bear with me, please—at Bamaga, the tip of Cape York, then two other kids vanished from that site. There is not the slightest shred of doubt for anyone on the planet that the other two kids were taken by crocodiles as well. Crocodiles are protected in North Queensland, and the people are not allowed to go near waterways. It would be pretty hard to walk a kilometre in Far North Queensland without running into a waterway, so I don't know how we're meant to move around if we're not allowed to go near the waterways. But the crocodiles are not allowed to be touched, and human beings are not allowed near their waterways. Our KP member, Shane Knuth, says, 'All we're asking for is that our waterways be returned to us.' Our kids in the Bamagas, the Pormpuraaws, the Kowanyamas, the Cairnses and the Mareebas don't have any fun parks; their fun park has always been the creek and the river, and it has been taken off them.
What this has got to do with live cattle is—I don't know how many suicides took place as a result of the cattle industry dropping in half, I don't know how many hearts were broken and I don't know how many generational people, some of whom had been there for 10,000 years, walked off the land; all I know is that the live cattle ban was the most deadly attack upon the people of northern Australia. It led to the person being removed. God bless the people in the Labor Party who made that decision, if for no other reason than for the live cattle ban.
When Kevin Rudd got in the saddle, I probably kissed goodbye to my political career, because Kevin wasn't real popular at the time, and I was always seen to be a close friend of his, which I was, but in the public arena that was not good for me politically. You do what you have to do, which you hope is the right thing to do, so I made my decision. Within a few weeks of Kevin Rudd taking office, he rang me up and told me that he was going to Indonesia for two reasons: (1) to fix up the terrible damage that had been done in their relationship and (2) to reopen the live cattle market. I said 'Do I say anything?' and he said, 'No, you have to shut up.' He rang me, when he came back, and he said, 'Within a fortnight you'll be a very happy man.' Within nine days it was announced that the live cattle market had been reopened. Within two or three months the price for cattle had doubled in Australia. That's the history of the live cattle trade. If you do the same with sheep, the same thing's going to happen.
Let me just step across to the other side of the argument for a moment. My first four telephone calls after that Four Corners show were from cattlemen who said: 'What the hell are you blokes doing, letting this happen? This is terrible. We love our cattle and we look after our cattle. At the end of the day, all right, they die; well, so do we at the end of the day.' But they were the ones who were horrified by the way the cattle had been treated. I've seen blokes work till midnight trying to get a beast out of a bog. The beast might have been worth $400 or $500! They'll work all night, risking themselves, in the middle of the darkness. So they do love their animals. They wouldn't be in this industry if they didn't. And they were the first ones who were shocked and horrified.
Did the ALP government at the time do anything about it? No—absolutely nothing. It was very simple to put in video cameras at the point of kill. There might be a few isolated incidents—backyard sorts of operations—but the vast bulk of the cattle that were being processed and the vast bulk of the people could have been captured on video. Did any knocking boxes go up to Indonesia to enable them to do things properly and humanely? Did any knocking guns go up there? No—the gentleman on my left is saying no. No knocking guns went up there. No video cameras went up there. No knocking boxes went up there.
In actual fact, they did, because the live exporter rang me up and said: 'Mate, I've just sent 12 knocking boxes and video cameras and knocking guns up there. Have I done the right thing?' I mean, here's an individual doing what the government or the Meat and Livestock Corporation that had known about it for four or five years should have been doing. The LNP minister, Warren Truss, had known about it for four years. The MLA or whatever the hell it's called—the meat and livestock authority—had known about it for four or five years, before the Four Corners program. They even knew that Four Corners was doing that program two or three months before. And even after all of this damage was done, the MLA, the minister and the government did nothing about sending the knocking boxes up there, as my colleague on my left so rightly pointed out. None of those things were sent up there. I'm not knowledgeable about the sheep industry, but I am about the cattle industry. It's so easy to fix this up in the cattle industry, to ensure that there is humane killing—instantaneous, with a knocking gun. And it is instantaneous with a knocking gun, but I'm not going to go into the details of it here.
The damage done to the people of North Queensland was colossal. It will probably be another five or six years—it takes 10 years to restore your cattle numbers. Because the price was so low, we couldn't sell the old cracker cows; we just had to let them die. And because the cracker cows died, even though they probably had another one or two calves left in them, the numbers have gone down, and to build those numbers up takes a long time. It takes seven years to build your numbers back up if you have losses of a quarter or a half of your herd. So, there was colossal damage, but we do give great thanks and tribute to Kevin Rudd, who's not here anymore but who acted with great alacrity to fix up a problem that his enemies within his own party had created.
I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019. Labor will be supporting the introduction of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill, because basically it is our bill, a bill that the Labor government introduced and that was immediately abolished by the new minister who came in, the member for New England. One of his first acts was to abolish the inspector-general of animal welfare, as we called it. It's interesting to see that the 'welfare' part has been dropped out from the title of this bill. I think it is a good thing to have an inspector-general to be able to oversee the export of animals. We've seen some horrific footage over the years, exposed by 60 Minutes, by TV channels like the ABC and many others. The scenes that we see on our television screens are scenes that no Australian wants to witness—that this type of behaviour is taking place with animals that are born and bred here in Australia and exported overseas.
We heard a lot from the last couple of speakers on the other side about the closing down of an industry and the detrimental effects it would have. I can understand their concerns, but let's also not forget the closing down of another entire industry in the nation, and that was the abattoir industry. We had thousands of people working in the abattoirs and meatworks just out of Adelaide at Gepps Cross. There were nearly 2,500 people working there at one stage. That just shut down overnight. We've seen that happen with other abattoirs across the country. We could rebuild this industry. We could quite easily value-add to our meat industry by slaughtering animals here in Australia, humanely, and exporting them, as we did for many, many years and as many other countries do. We know that many South American countries that export live cattle and sheep are moving out of the live export trade and deciding to slaughter on shore and export meat and carcasses overseas. They do so because they know it value-adds to the economy. It creates jobs. It ensures that people have an industry and a profession. It helps the economy in terms of job creation. So, when we hear about an industry being shut down, let's not forget about the thousands of workers across Australia that lost their jobs in the mid- to late nineties. There was an industry. They did have a profession. They did work. Thousands across the nation lost their jobs over a period of time.
It is interesting to hear those on the other side, including the statements made by the member for New England. I think a lot of those statements should be backed up. He should come in here and give us the evidence for those things that he said, not just make the statements without substantiating them. It was also interesting to see the list of speakers on this bill yesterday. There was no-one from the National Party on the list. It took the shadow minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, to come in here and give them a spray, and then they all turned up today. So it's very interesting.
As I said, this bill will establish the role of the independent Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to oversee the regulation of livestock, to ensure that the animals are being treated correctly and, when there are reports, to investigate, see why it's taking place and prevent it. On our side of this chamber, we know that the former agriculture minister Mr Fitzgibbon had a bill and we planned to introduce an Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. We announced that on 30 July 2013. The position of the inspector-general was to build on Australia's best regulatory framework for the export of livestock for slaughter. We understood that, whilst the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System significantly improved conditions under which animals were exported and how they were slaughtered, there needed to be a level of independent oversight for the regulator to maintain public confidence in it. That's really important, because every time we see scenes on our TVs the public lose confidence. The public lose confidence in the industry, they lose confidence in the oversight of it and they lose confidence in the future treatment of animals. So it's very important. We know that one of the first acts of the member for New England when he was minister was to abolish the proposal for the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. I suppose it took the 60 Minutes program exposing some of these things for them to come back to the table and reintroduce this position.
Can I just say as well that the media has played a significant role in this, exposing many, many times, over and over again, the mistreatment of animals. As Australians, I think we are appalled by what we see and what we hear. We've seen the industry, over and over and over again, being exposed for very bad treatment of the animals that are being exported, whether it be in slaughterhouses overseas or whether it be in transportation on ships where the conditions are absolutely horrendous. We know that at some stage this particular practice around the world will end. There are ways of doing it, keeping the economy going and value-adding to it, and that is by having our own meat industry here in Australia. We've done it in the past. We did it for many, many years. We supplied the world with meat. We can do it again.
For example, just in my own state, in South Australia, we have Thomas Foods, a very successful abattoir. It started from scratch. It was unfortunate that the place was destroyed in a fire recently. They employed around 1,500 people and were growing. They've rebuilt, and they're growing back to the same capacity. But it's a great example of where they're slaughtering meat here, in Australia, and they created 1,500 jobs in the Murray Bridge region. That money's going back into the economy, back into the local shops of this town, back into real estate, creating jobs, giving people the opportunity to work.
So, as I said, when we talk about destroying an industry, how about we think about value-adding to the industry? How about we think of the humane side of it as well, and ensure that we are acting in a way that protects animals, that ensures that they're not mistreated, and continue to do all that we can, whether through an inspector-general or, as we saw, the stopping of the export of live sheep during those summer months? That was so important, yet the government had to come to that position kicking and screaming. They weren't interested in it. All the science, all the international commentary was saying that this horrendous act should stop. We were exporting sheep in the hottest months of the northern summer in conditions that we all saw on our TVs, where sheep were dying, being trampled on by other sheep. But not only that: what about those poor workers who were interviewed who had to go and clean out the rotting carcases once they arrived at the destination, wherever they were going? These are scenes that we just do not want to see on our TVs. These are scenes that shouldn't be happening.
As Australians, we love our animals. The farmers who breed these animals—many were interviewed and were horrified at the treatment of these animals. It is so important—as Australians, as members of this parliament—that we do all we can to ensure that these animals are treated correctly, in the right manner. The inspector-general should provide independent oversight, making sure that when issues arise there is a proper, independent investigation. I've got to say, in years to come we'll be judged by the way we've treated these animals as a nation. This will be written in history. We've seen enough; we've seen too much. And I know it is an industry, I know it helps regional communities, but, again, there are ways out of it. There are ways of eventually getting out of live exports, value-adding to the businesses and creating jobs where animals can be slaughtered onshore in a humane way, in a way that everyone would be comfortable with and in a way that takes these horrible scenes, the reports that we see, off our TVs. We need to do more than just having an inspector-general. I'm hoping that this inspector-general will assist and go same way to ensuring that animals that are exported are treated in a more humane way.
The Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019 is an indication of the work that Minister Littleproud has put together. From the moment that these allegations were aired on 60 Minutes he knew, right at the start, that we had to clamp down on any bad behaviour, and he's set in place a process to do that, holding each of the transport companies responsible for any of this work.
What has recently come to mind now, though, is the fact that the people who were charged with getting hold of the footage were in fact paid. They are people who should have been looking after the sheep and were being paid to sensationalise the problems associated with live sheep exports. It certainly seems that some crimes were committed in the gathering of the evidence that the media used to blow this situation open.
Minister Littleproud has been strong all the way through—that, unless we put strong safeguards and strong regulation around this industry, then people like the Labor Party will move to ban it when they get a chance. It was already policy last year. They moved many, many motions in this House to ban live sheep export. We have some members of the Labor Party standing in this parliament pretending that they are in support of live export markets. We have others coming up here saying, 'We have to be careful that we haven't put abattoir workers out of a job by taking these live animals overseas.' Most abattoirs in Australia are operating on about 60 per cent capacity right now—maybe 70 per cent capacity. The reason is that Australians don't want to work in abattoirs. That's simply the case. So the concept that, by moving some of the very small market overseas, we had something to do with people in the abattoir industry losing their job is just a furphy. It just didn't happen.
But there's no doubt that the ban on live cattle had a drastic impact on the price of cattle, and there is no doubt that, if we do the same with sheep, especially the sheep that we are talking about—we're not talking about young, fat lambs; we're talking about sheep at the end of their life who have a much higher value in the Middle East than they do here in Australia. What we need to do is support this industry. In politics, you can't half support something. You have to be in there to support it and put some strict regulations around it or you have to get out and oppose it. But the Labor Party think that they can be all things to all people—'We don't like this and we don't like that;' 'We want to ban it, but we don't want to ban it;' 'We think we should ban it, but we probably won't.' All the members get up and talk about a load of nothing.
The coalition is strong in its support for live sheep export and live cattle export. We need to make sure that we look after the husbandry of those animals when they're on the ships. That's what the inspector-general will do: make sure that the live sheep exports and the live animal exports into the future are done in a humane way—in a way that is going to be atop any of the other animal husbandry practices around the world—and make sure that, as the member for Kennedy was saying, where overseas abattoirs need assistance with their practices, they are given that assistance, whether that is engineering assistance or practical assistance.
All we can really judge our political parties on is their history—what they've actually done. What the Labor Party did with live cattle had an absolutely detrimental effect. It had a horrible effect on the cattle industry here in Australia. What they intend to do with live sheep will be exactly the same. It will take away a modest amount of money from thousands of farmers around Australia. That's something that doesn't seem to faze the Labor Party, because they effectively want to appease their Green voters in the cities of Melbourne and Sydney.
There is no doubt that some laws have been broken with the gathering of the vision. People have been paid to make a tough situation horrendous—to make sure that they created a shocking piece of video. The worse they could possibly make it the better it was going to be for the television. The underhanded way in which this scenario has been captured on video is horrendous. It would sicken most Australians to think that the person who was supposedly blowing the whistle on this poor behaviour, this malpractice, the person who was going to bring everything to light, was the person creating the animal cruelty. People have to live with their consciences.
We need to give the industry every opportunity to operate in a way that most Australians can accept—'Yes, I see this plays a really important part for a whole raft of Australians.' We need to make sure we support that industry and those hardworking Australians. We want to see them get the best results that they can for their produce. If that's in Australia, great. If it's overseas, great. Don't come into this House and say that the live sheep trade is taking away Australian abattoir jobs. That just shows that you have no understanding of the abattoir workforce at the moment. We need to support this industry because it supports Australian families.
I begin my contribution to this debate on the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019 by responding to some of the comments made by other members in this place, particularly comments relating to the suspension of live cattle exports in 2011. I will reiterate some of the things said by the member for Hunter and the member for Lingiari in their comments.
If government members in this place want to rewrite history and ignore the facts relating to the suspension of live cattle exports in 2011 because it suits their argument to do so, they can. I want to go to that issue for a moment and point out what really happened in 2011.
Firstly, it was the failure of the previous coalition government to regulate the industry that led to what happened in 2011. Indeed, it was also the failure of the industry to regulate itself. Had both the government and the industry complied with all the regulations that were in place at the time, we would never have had a suspension of the live cattle trade in 2011 and we would not have had the incidents in Indonesia that led to that suspension.
Secondly, the suspension itself brought about the implementation of the ESCAS, the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System. It has since created security and stability for the cattle industry, which I believe has far outweighed the problems caused in 2011 in terms of providing income for the cattle farmers in this country. It has provided the security and sustainability into the future that is important to the cattle farmers of Australia.
Thirdly, members conveniently forget that in 2011 we were coming to the end of an extended drought in this country. It wasn't simply the suspension of live cattle exports that caused problems for cattle farmers. It was as much, if not more so, the drought itself.
I return to matters relating to sheep exports in this country that members opposite have also alluded to. This legislation doesn't arise simply because of what happened in 2017 as a result of the Awassi Express and the sheep losses there. Members may want to criticise the way that that footage came about and what it depicted, but the reality is that this was an ongoing problem for Australia for decades. Indeed, back in 2003, under a coalition government, the Cormo Express left this country with 55,000 sheep, and 5,500 of them were lost at sea. Ultimately, after three months of that ship being stranded at sea, those sheep were offloaded in Eritrea. The Howard government had to pay that country some money to accept them. My understanding is that the Howard government also suspended the sheep trade at that time because of what happened with the Cormo Express.
Then we can go back to 1980 and the Farid Fares, which lost 40,600 sheep when it caught fire at sea, and the Uniceb, which lost 67,400 sheep in the same way. Indeed, between 1980 and 2000, 2½ million sheep were lost in the live sheep export process—so many that the issue was raised in this parliament by a Senate select committee chaired by Senator George Georges in 1985. It was made clear then that the live sheep export industry had real problems that needed to be addressed if it was to continue, and nothing ever happened.
Most importantly, I understand that two former directors of the company that operated the Awassi Expresswhich is now the subject of this legislation more than anything else—are now being charged. It was the same company that, back in 2005, was being prosecuted for some breaches of animal welfare, so it wasn't the first time that this particular company was involved in breaches related to the live export trade of sheep. So there is a litany of examples showing that the industry needs to be changed.
Finally, after the government commissioned the McCarthy review and the Philip Moss review—and I believe it had its own internal investigation into the Department of Agriculture—it comes back with a policy that goes some way towards restoring what Labor had proposed to do and had done in 2013, and that is to appoint an Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports—except it doesn't go far as the Labor proposal of 2013 did, because Labor's proposal was for an Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. Its responsibilities weren't just limited to live animal exports. Nevertheless, this is legislation that we will support because it goes some way towards restoring an important position that needs to be there. It needs to be there because we need an independent body or person to oversee an industry that has been dogged with problems for years and years. Previously, the responsibility for regulating this industry rested solely with the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture was conflicted because, on the one hand, it was there to promote the export of Australian products, including live sheep, and, on the other hand, it was there to regulate. The reality is that it wasn't doing both properly. The independent oversight will be important, and it is something that I hope will go some way to restoring some confidence in the export of animals in this country.
Having said that, I believe that, whilst independent oversight was needed, the reality is that, even with this independent oversight, the issues faced by the live sheep export trade will still continue. Whilst Australia will have some control over what happens within its own territory, within its own borders, once the sheep leave Australian territory the reality is that even the inspector-general's authority will be limited, and we will then again rely on what the exporters themselves do or, indeed, on what happens once the sheep reach the destination countries, where the truth is that we have no control and no authority to act even if we are aware of mistreatment of those animals.
For that reason, Labor, prior to the election this year, committed to phasing out the live sheep export trade, because we believe that the trade is no longer necessary and we also believe that we can support our Australian farmers by supporting them to have the sheep that they grow processed here in Australia. I want to just talk about some facts in respect of all of that. In 2001, the Australian sheep flock was 110 million. By 2013, when this government came into office, it was down to 75 million. Today, it sits at about 65 million and, I understand, is still falling. There were 1.1 million sheep exported live in the last year for which I was able to get figures, and around 29 million sheep and lambs were processed in Australia.
So the reality is that it's only a very small proportion of the sheep raised in this country that are today still being exported live. The truth is that if the sheep flock has dropped from 110 to 65 million, and with world markets for Australian products growing—because Australian products are in demand, and that includes Australian sheep—it would seem to me that, logically, there is an opportunity to send all of our meat exports in a processed form from this country as chilled or boxed meat. I believe we can do that.
The arguments that countries that in the past received Australian live sheep because they didn't have refrigeration or because they wanted the halal slaughter method are no longer valid. We have abattoirs in this country that are halal licensed and able to provide the meat in compliance with halal processing conditions. We also know that most of the countries that we export to today have refrigeration. So the argument that they don't have refrigeration simply doesn't resonate. It might have been the case 30 or 40 years ago, but it is not today. Indeed, when we look at the countries where most of the Australian processed meat goes, we find that they are many of the same countries that would buy our live sheep exports. So it seems to me that both those arguments that are being used are nothing but furphies and that the real reason that the trade continues is because it's more profitable for the operators of that trade to continue to send the sheep in a live form to overseas destinations.
As was clear from the McCarthy report, regardless of stocking densities on the sheep—and the McCarthy report recommended that the stocking densities be reduced—taking sheep on a journey that lasts anywhere between three and five weeks, depending on how many stops are made, to destinations where most of the time they're in tropical areas, or the equatorial region of the world, makes the journey very difficult for those sheep. Indeed, the heat stress that they would be subjected to, regardless of stocking densities and regardless of the type of vessels that they are on, is something that needs to be taken into consideration. And it has been, to the extent that even the government is suggesting that the trade should be suspended during the northern summer months—which we agree with.
When you suspend the trade in the northern summer months and you look at the number of sheep that are currently being exported, it really comes down to this: we're being asked to support an industry that is actually declining and is now being limited to perhaps seven or eight months, at best, throughout the year. We have the ability in this country to process the meat, and I believe we have the markets outside of this country to take all of the processed meat, once it is processed here, without having to continue with an industry that is very, very difficult to manage and to regulate.
This issue absolutely matters to people out there in the community. Regardless of the election result—because elections are not won and lost on any one single issue—there is not an issue that I have been confronted with in my time in this parliament that has drawn more attention from my community than the live export trade. I have received more letters, phone calls and emails and had more personal conversations with people about live exports than I have on any other issue. It does matter to people. It is something they are deeply concerned about, and they don't wish to see animals suffering when the truth is they don't have to be because they could be processed here.
There are two other comments that I'll make about the processing of the animals here, in response to comments made by members opposite. Firstly, yes it is true that our abattoirs are not operating at full capacity—and, because of that, they do have the capacity to process the additional sheep that are currently being sent overseas. Secondly, an argument constantly being made is that this affects more than just the abattoirs, because it affects all the transport workers and the like. The transport operators will still have to cart those sheep to destinations, whether those be ports or abattoirs. So, quite frankly, that is also a nonsensical argument, because the sheep will still have to be taken from one place to another.
The real issue is this: either we do what we did with the cattle industry and put it on a sustainable footing, or we try to continue by muddling through with a system that we know will be continuously confronted with problems, when we have a better alternative. And the better alternative is to have the sheep processed here. That will create more jobs in the Australian abattoirs, without the loss of any jobs at all, and ensure that the sheep will not be subjected to the terrible conditions that, time and time again, they have been, and which led to the McCarthy report and then to the Moss report which in turn has led to the legislation that we have before us today.
I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019. It is a really important bill. This issue has occupied the thoughts and minds of millions of Australians. I'm really pleased that we are creating, with this bill, the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. Live animal exports have generated more interest than just about any other topic for many a year, but I am pleased to say that it has led to an improvement in the conditions in this trade.
What does this trade mean to Australia and what does it mean to the people who depend on it for their food source? It makes a huge difference. To put things in perspective, it is a $1.7 billion industry. The last popular press statement about the benefit to Western Australia alone, in TheWest Australian newspaper, said that on-farm income goes up as a result of the sheepmeat trade by $300 million. That's keeping a lot of families and businesses in regional WA afloat. It also has major ramifications for the other live animal exports, of cattle and goats. If we don't have this trade, it will have the same effect as when the trade to Indonesia was stopped abruptly some years ago. The ramifications of that were that the southern market had all the northern cattle pushed down into it and the market collapsed. There were family businesses, multigenerational farms, multigenerational businesses, that couldn't meet their commitments and went out of business. It was an absolute disaster.
That aside, this legislation will reassure both Australians and producers who didn't like seeing what they saw, but it will also reassure our trading partners. We already have a reputation for producing really high-quality meat products, whether exported as chilled meat or, in this instance, live stock. The reason this trade exists is that there are markets that demand it. They are not just in the Middle East, where there've been a lot of observations about things that have happened in the trade, but also in Indonesia.
It also has a lot to do with how much you can grow sheep and cattle in northern Australia. In northern Australia, you can breed and grow sheep and cattle out to a certain size, but the nature of the country means that you can't finish them to their full growing potential and you might need to get them into feedlots.
There is also the demand for freshly slaughtered rather than frozen meat in some of these markets. In Indonesia and in the Middle East there are new abattoirs. But there is still a huge demand, which will be met by other producers in South Africa and other countries around the world, because it's a longstanding phenomenon that the populations in the Middle East and in Indonesia can't produce enough protein. That's why they are trading with us. It is a matter of food security, whether you are a Kuwaiti or an Emirati or a Qatari, for those who depend on this trade for their animal protein.
The inspector-general will maintain the standards that we have set. We have the ESCAS system to follow the food chain and the processing chain into the importing countries. I don't know of any other nation in this trade that keeps the standards that we keep in this regard. We have high animal welfare standards, and the exporters are responding. We heard some figures quoted about things that happened in the 1980s, but what we are dealing with is what is happening now. From my own personal inquiries regarding the past couple of export shipments, where thousands of live animals were exported from WA, the death rates were less than half of a percent. More sheep die out in the paddock than that. The exporters have really got their act together. We've had the Moss review and the McCarthy review. We have had all sorts of reviews, and the exporters have responded in an appropriate way.
I hope the inspector-general will be regulating both sides of the situation here. What we saw in that clip in the popular press was abhorrent. But I have seen in The West Australian and in The Daily Telegraph that there are emails going backwards and forwards and bank records quoted whereby $38,000 was paid to a Pakistani worker on the boat to turn the fans off, to cluster the sheep and even to try to get some dead sheep and put them in to make the footage look even more dramatic. There has been some inquiry by the department about this, but it appears to have gone nowhere. I hope the inspector-general looks into this and doesn't allow it to be swept under the carpet, because that's the role of the inspector-general: to look at all the officers in the exporting chain to make sure that they're all doing their job.
This is a really good initiative. These nations do have a reliance on animal protein through exports from countries like Australia. But what I'm trying to point out is that we do it better than anyone else. And we have a quality product. All our producers are really proud of their good-quality meat and other animal fibres that come with that, such as wool—all the parts of the animal that provide food, clothing and protein for populations much greater than ours. So, I look forward to this regulator position being in force. We've had a temporary situation, but this legislation will make it permanent, and that will reassure Australians as well as people who are buying our product overseas, whether in the Middle East or in Indonesia. It means that the people who are producing these animals will be able to continue to have a return on their investment and all the care that they put into producing quality animals. I commend the bill to the House.
I am pleased today to have the opportunity to speak on the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019. Live exports are something that my community, in my seat of Cooper, and of course the broader Australian community feels very strongly about. We've all seen the distressing images broadcast on 60 Minutes earlier last year, and I'm sure I speak for every one of us in this chamber when I say that the outcry from the community was significant and understandable. It's been clear to us on this side of the chamber for years that the live animal export industry is in need of further regulatory oversight. As far back as 2013, Labor was committed to such oversight, establishing an Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. The role of this body was simple. It had two goals: (1) to ensure that animal welfare standards were being met by Australia's live exporters and (2) to ensure that the Australian public and our trading partners could have confidence and certainty that our live animal export industry was up to scratch.
Within three months of Labor announcing the inspector-general, the member for New England, the then Minister for Agriculture, scrapped it. The coalition called this body 'one bit of red tape we can do without'. Well, just how well did that turn out? How well could the industry do without it? How well could Australia do without it? In the almost six years since this coalition government scrapped the inspector-general, we have seen animals harmed beyond belief, Australia's reputation in this industry seriously harmed and the public's confidence in the regulation of the industry severely damaged. The public does not have confidence that the regulator will ensure proper standards—and quite rightly.
So I'm pleased today to see that, almost six years after the coalition scrapped the inspector-general, they have woken up to the reality that this industry and its regulator need independent oversight. They need a body that can assure the Australian public and our trading partners that this industry is meeting proper welfare standards for the animals in its care and that the mistreatment we've seen in this industry is no longer occurring.
But it's also important to note that this bill exists in a complete policy vacuum when it comes to proper regulation of live animal exports. The government is yet to implement the recommendations from the McCarthy review and the Moss review. This bill will go part of the way to addressing the findings of the Moss review, but we're left wondering how the government is going to address the failings highlighted in that report. Why would this action not be announced to coincide with this bill? Why does this government refuse to take meaningful action to address not only the genuine, valid concerns of the public when it comes to this industry and its regulator but the concerns of the authors of the independent reports it commissioned to investigate it? This will be the test of this minister: the proper implementation of the Moss review's findings, not the slight tweaks and partial implementation we've seen so far.
Unlike those who sit opposite, Labor was quick to move on this issue. Labor committed to ending the live export of sheep. We also said that we would support a total and immediate ban on the northern summer live sheep trade. It is clear that sheep suffer immensely when they are transported, and there is no justification for this to continue.
The live sheep trade continues to decline. It is terminal. The export of boxed meat and chilled carcasses to the Middle East continues to grow. That's our future. That's the future of the trade. It's a future with higher value-added exports, more jobs in Australia and, most of all, better animal welfare outcomes. We have the prospect of moving out of the live sheep trade altogether. We know it's possible. We know it's necessary. It's going to take leadership and courage, and we've shown that. It's about time some people on that side of the House stood up and did as well.
I say to the minister: let's have some real action to tackle the concerns surrounding this industry, let's see the proper implementation of the Moss review's recommendations and let's give the Australian people confidence that this industry is meeting the animal welfare regulations it needs to. It's nice that the government are bringing back Labor policy that was scrapped by them, but their job isn't done yet.
The Liberal government are masters at appearing to do something about a problem while in fact making the problem worse. We see it with climate change, where they say, 'Don't worry about it; we've got it all under control,' as pollution goes up and up and up. We're on track for 3½ degrees of catastrophic global warming under their policies. We see it with animals too. We see it with this bill that comes before us, the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019, and this approach from the government that perpetuates the myth that there is somehow some way of doing live exports where you can look after animals. You just can't. You cannot regulate how animals are treated on ships that are travelling halfway around the world from behind a desk in Canberra. You certainly won't be able to fix the problems by the methods in this bill either.
These are ships of misery. These are ships of death. Because we've had some brave people go in and expose what has happened, we know now what happens on these ships. We know now what happens when you corral animals into very small spaces and send them off on ships, especially when they sail through months where the temperature can hit above 30 or 40 degrees: they die after enormous amounts of suffering.
The government comes along and says, 'It's okay; we're going to introduce the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill, set up the inspector-general and look after it, and everything is going to be fine.' When this bill was introduced in the Senate it did not even have as one of its objects the promotion of animal welfare. This bill didn't even that say the purpose of the inspector-general is to look after animal welfare. It took us, the Greens, to bring in an amendment, which the government then picked up, to fix the most basic of problems—that is, if it's about looking after animals then it should at least have the pretence of saying that in the bill. The government was caught out as soon as it introduced the bill into the Senate.
When you look in a bit more detail into what this inspector-general will be able to do, it becomes apparent that they won't even be able to investigate individual allegations or instances where animals have been hurt, killed or mistreated. We know that because we tried to amend it in the Senate to say, 'At least give them the power to investigate particular instances,' and the government said, 'No, we're not even going to do that.' In many respects this inspector-general will be a toothless tiger, because, if they get a report that an animal is being mistreated, they can't actually go and investigate it. They don't tell you that when they bring this bill into this place. They make it seem like it is all wonderful. But, when you delve into the detail, just like with climate change and so many other things, it turns out that this inspector-general can't even go in and investigate claims of wrongdoing.
The government, again with the pretence of being seen to do something, commissioned the Moss review, after people saw on their TV screens what happens to animals that get put on these ships, and said, 'It's okay; we will implement all of the recommendations of the Moss review,' but they can't even bring themselves to do that. We had to force this government, against its will, to release the reports, which it knew about and sat on, about what was happening on its watch. When those reports were released, despite all the changes the government said would fix up the industry and make it all okay, this is what we found. Let me highlight a couple. One referred to the MV Ganado Express in 2018. Three cattle were killed in Townsville, and the independent observer report stated:
There were three mortalities which occurred prior to leaving Australian waters. Two of the cattle were spooked by the feeding process and fractured their leg when it was caught on the pen rails. The cattle were euthanased by the stockperson. These two cattle were in the 500 to 700 kilograms bodyweight range and were euthanised using a captive bolt that did not appear to be powerful enough for the size and breed of the cattle. The stockperson showed experience in technique and placement of the captive bolt, however both cattle required six applications of the captive bolt.
Already, after the changes that the government said fixed the problem, when we get access to the reports they didn't want to release, you can see that, even before the ships have left our shore, some of these animals are getting their legs broken as they get on board or as they're feeding, then they try to kill the animal and they don't have a powerful enough stunner to do it, so it takes them six attempts. This happened in 2018, according to the independent report, after the government told us that it had all been fixed up. That's before the ship has left shore.
What is amazing, though—and this gives you an indication about the approach that this government takes to it—is that all of the reports from the independent observer concluded that there was no problem, that everything is fine. I could go on and on with the other examples, but we've seen them on our TV screens. We know what happens when they get onto these ships. We know the torture that they get put through. That is why the only answer is to phase out and end live exports.
We know that we can replace live exports with chilled meat to many of the places that want our product. I say this as someone who introduced a bill into this place many, many years ago, and repeatedly, to phase out live exports. What we know is that, if all you cared about was money and you didn't care about animal welfare, there would be a better bang for your buck, for Australia, if we slaughtered and processed animals here. Some people would say we shouldn't even do that, but let's say you care about that and you want to export meat. Do it here; process it here. We had a situation where the Greens and a number of other groups—animal activists on one hand and the meat workers union on the other—were all saying, 'Let's come up with a common position to increase meat processing here.' When you have animal activists and the meat workers union working together to say there is an alternative to live exports, then the government should listen. I can say, as someone who spent university years in Fremantle, that you always knew when the sheep ships were in town, because you could smell them across the whole of the town, especially on one of those really hot days, and that was the smell of death. People across Australia get that. One of the issues that people contact me the most about and demand action from this place on is the phasing out of live exports. They are right.
I'm pleased that, over time, we've seen a change from some of the other parties—Labor agreeing to phase out sheep exports, for example. That was a good move and it was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do to say, 'This trade has to be stopped,' when we saw some of the barbaric instances exposed. What we need to do now is move towards a situation where our farmers are given notice and are looked after so that they can begin the transition. If the government need to help them—for example, by assisting with the creation of new abattoirs or by assisting them to transition away from live to boxed or chilled meat—then that is what the government should do. That is what a responsible government would do. That is something that the Australian people want. What the government wouldn't do is come back here and say, 'We're going to introduce a toothless tiger, an inspector-general. They're not going to have the power to intervene and investigate specific instances of wrongdoing. We suspect they'll be able to regulate and fix the whole industry from behind a desk. And, by the way, we didn't even think about making the welfare of animals one of the objectives of the inspector-general, but thanks to the Greens for picking that up in the Senate, so we'll include that in the bill as well.'
If people think that, once this bill passes, things are going to get better for animals that are put on these ships of shame and sent off, they are in for disappointment. Yes, this bill might help a little bit. It might give someone a little bit of oversight at a very, very high level, but do not be surprised if you see, on your TV screens and in the newspapers, more exposes of animals dying or being tortured on ships from here to other countries. As someone who has visited at least one of the countries where Australia's live export goes, what they are after is our product. We can provide that in the form of chilled meat, if that is what people are worried about. So, whether you look at it from the animal welfare point of view, whether you look at it from the economic point of view or whether you look at it from the point of view that it is just plain wrong to cause suffering to other beings when we don't have to, it all leads you to the same point: phase out animal exports. End them. End live exports. That way we can be guaranteed that we're treating animals better, and we will set up a better industry for our farmers and our workers as we do it.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
I've got a sad thing that I want to talk about today, and that is that I attended last Saturday a memorial for Anne Fien, a very close friend of mine and a wonderful contributor to our Labor movement. Anne was born in 1937, and she died in August this year. She was one of the finest progressive feminists in the Labor movement. She mentored and supported so many women—me and many others—through her lifetime of activism and leadership. It was a privilege to know Anne. She was a fierce and determined advocate for women, a compassionate, strong and committed unionist, a wonderful mentor and friend to many, and a member of the Australian Labor Party for nearly 50 years. She was also a competitive swimmer well into her 70s and a supporter of Emily's List, the organisation that ensures that progressive Labor women are elected. She had a love of life, a twinkle in her eye and a warm smile. She worked tirelessly for the Labor Party and for the union movement. She lost her parents very early. She became a mother figure to her sisters. She was a beautiful mother to three daughters as well, and I hope they're listening today, as well as her former husband, Alan. She will be much missed by them and very much missed by our Labor family too.
Australia has had some great prime ministers over its short federated history, but, if we look back on some of these giants, they were able to do their best work in collaboration with their opposition counterparts. There are often friendships between the party leaders—perhaps no more so than between our party leaders postwar. On Monday we were privileged to have an insight into this time and the leaders of the day when we were graced with the presence in the Main Committee Room of Heather Henderson and Mary Elizabeth Calwell, daughters of Sir Robert Menzies and Arthur Calwell. In conversation with Michelle Grattan, they shared wonderful insights on their fathers, their friendships, the state of Australian politics back then in the sixties, and their reflections on today. It was a fascinating event. We were able to hear firsthand the tales of their early lives, from Mrs Menzies chasing intruders out of the Lodge with a carving knife to the opinions their fathers held on various US presidents that they had worked closely with. Most telling was the deep friendship that the two men clearly shared, formed through regular meetings across long sitting weeks and solidified through working together in the national interest. I am hugely grateful to my colleagues who helped put the event together, the members for Calwell and Macarthur, but most grateful to Mary Elizabeth and Heather, who showed us that we can learn so much about statesmanship from them.
I again want to bring the desperate case of the Jenny's Place Domestic Violence Resource Centre to the attention of this parliament. Despite being the only service of its kind in Newcastle, it may soon have to close its doors to hundreds of women fleeing domestic violence. When I wrote to Minister Ruston about the plight of this service, I got a letter back saying frontline domestic services were a state responsibility, before it went on to say that the Morrison Liberal government had in fact allocated $82 million for frontline domestic violence services. While Jenny's Place does receive state funding for its refuges and outreach program, this doesn't fund the resource centre. What's the point of millions of dollars locked away in a fund that seeks to prevent violence against women and children if the government won't release a meagre $300,000 annually to save a frontline service that saves lives in an area of high unmet need? Three weeks ago I again wrote to the minister with a fully costed proposal and a heartfelt plea that she help vulnerable women in my region. Today I urge, beg and plead: please release some of the allocated $82 million for the very purpose for which it was intended, frontline domestic violence services. There are literally lives hanging on the balance of your decision, Minister.
With bushfires raging in various parts of Australia over the last few weeks, it's timely to remind other Australians, particularly my constituents, of the desirability of preparing for the dangers of the fire season. It's predicted that we're going to face a long, hot summer in the coming months; therefore, I encourage all Australians in fire-prone parts of this nation—particularly my constituents in Eltham, Warrandyte, Wonga Park, Research, Kangaroo Ground and other areas—to be fire ready, and a key to being fire ready is to have a plan in place. It's no good when the fires arrive on the doorstep to be planning what to do. It's very important to have a plan in place, and for all neighbours, family members and the like to be aware of what that plan is.
Some practical things that can be done now include cleaning up mess, debris, undergrowth and overgrowth, keeping grass short, getting rid of dry leaves, cleaning out gutters, removing shrubs near windows and cutting back on overhanging branches that may have grown over the last few months. All these things are very important. I commend, in this context, the Warrandyte Community Association. I recommend their Warrandyte firewatch website and recommend that people download the VicEmergency app at www.emergency.vic.gov.au.
How hard can it be for this federal government to fund a new car park and clubhouse for the Knapsack oval, which is home to the Blue Mountains Football Club, especially when the money's already promised? During this year's election campaign there was a bipartisan commitment of $1.3 million so that this much-needed work could happen in one go, not be dragged out over several years.
The only commitment I can get from the minister is that the program will be done by 2026. This is vital work. There's a car park that soccer players and their families have to cross to get to the field, and a clubhouse well past its use-by date. It was an accident waiting to happen, when I was driving my kids to soccer 12 years ago, and it's desperately needed.
The Blue Mountains mayor, Mark Greenhill, and I have been working with the club since the middle of last year to make this upgrade a priority. Council has allocated funds in this budget year and next to complete the work in two stages, but if the federal funding comes through in time they believe it can all be done in one go. Not only would it make a huge difference to the football club but also to the Glenbrook-Blaxland Cricket Club—Pat Cummins's old club—who have been forced to reallocate funding they received to Penrith while everyone's waiting for this major work to be done. The major message to this federal government is very clear: now's the time. Pay up.
The Launceston Benevolent Society is this month marking 185 years of caring. In 1834 a group of Launceston citizens met at the courthouse and passed a resolution to form the Launceston Benevolent Society, which was funded by voluntary subscriptions, donations and legacies. The society is among the oldest welfare agencies in our nation, with a charter to provide assistance, support and relief for those members of the community suffering from distress arising from sickness or incapacity.
At times throughout the 1800s the society was unable to operate, due to lack of support, but continued to bounce back to serve the community—setting a theme that remains relevant to this day. Like so many service and community organisations, the Launceston Benevolent Society relies heavily on generous volunteers. There are 30 regular volunteers who sort, pack boxes and distribute care boxes from the Kings Meadow centre where, somewhat uniquely, the society does not sell anything but distributes all items free of charge.
They hold an annual CanDrive, which receives great support from local businesses. In Northern Tasmania we are proud of our Winter Relief and Empty Stocking appeals, guided by the Launceston Examiner newspaper. The Launceston Benevolent Society is among the recipients of these appeals, highlighting the trust placed in the society as a valued welfare organisation.
On behalf of Northern Tasmanians, I thank the Launceston Benevolent Society for its important work and ongoing commitment.
As a member of parliament I receive invitations to some great community events. I can't get to them all, but there's one next week on 26 September that I'm particularly sad to miss. That's the fingerspelling bee at the Royal Institute for Death and Blind Children. I'm a huge fan and supporter of the institute, even though the latest redistribution moved my border across the road from them. So I'm across the road now, but I've been following them for many years. They do amazing things for deaf and blind children and I'm proud to have worked with them over the years.
The Auslan Fingerspelling Bee campaign has only recently been launched, and hopefully this event will be the first of many around Australia. As a campaign, it has two objectives: firstly, to promote inclusivity through the teaching and learning of Auslan and, secondly, to help raise awareness and vital funds for children with hearing loss. For those who don't know, the fingerspelling alphabet—which is quite fun; google it if you don't know it—is used in sign language to spell out names of people and places for which there is not a sign. The bee is something I'd very much like to attend, but unfortunately I cannot.
I would like to wish all the students participating in the bee the best of luck, and I commend the institute for their work and advocacy on behalf of our deaf and blind community. If you're watching this speech out there on social media, there will be a link in the description to where you can donate to this wonderful organisation. Now I will ask members of parliament to spell the word 'parliament' in fingerspelling, if they can—I'm not sure we can. Go!
I rise to congratulate EPIC Assist Gold Coast for 20 years of connecting thousands of people in our community with a disability, to find jobs. I met some truly inspirational individuals at their Nerang branch. One is Helene Warne from Carrara, who has MS and creates exceptional artworks, one of which hangs in my office.
The Morrison government is committed to helping people with disability, like Helene, who have the desire and capacity to work, to find and to keep a job. We are delivering $45.6 million through the NDIS Jobs and Market Fund to support the growth and capability of NDIS providers and their workforce. We are delivering $2 million to support people with autism to find and to keep a job. That is what the Morrison government does—it delivers.
Recently, I had the pleasure to open the 33rd annual athletics carnival for children with a disability. Six hundred schoolkids from across the coast took part in the event, including schools my electorate: Nerang State High School, Ashmore State School, Miami State High School, Southport State School and Southport Special School. Congratulations to Gold Coast Recreation and Sport, who give these kids the opportunity to participate at a competitive level, fostering the next generation of Paralympians. I'm proud to be a part of a government that's delivering $13.5 million to support our Paralympians to go to Tokyo next year.
Touch Football Australia and the Gold Coast Titans had a successful launch of the All Abilities Touch Football Program on the coast a few weeks ago, providing opportunities for people with intellectual and/or physical impairments to play touch football. I want to thank the special people who put these community events together to make a difference.
On Saturday, I gathered with about 100 people at St Paul's Anglican Church in Milawa in my Indi electorate to celebrate a service of morning prayer. We gathered in celebration of the marriage of two dear friends, who had wed in a civil service four days earlier.
'Nothing remarkable about that,' you may say. But there was something remarkable about this particular wedding and this particular morning prayer. The newlyweds are retired Anglican priests Father John Davis and Father Rob Whalley. They've been a couple for 20 years. Their story was told on last week's 7.30on the ABC.
In the fortnight preceding John and Rob's civil wedding, the Wangaratta diocesan synod of the Anglican Church, led by Bishop John Parkes AM, voted 67 to 18 to adopt a regulation enabling a couple in a marriage made by the law of the land to be blessed in the church—couples like John and Rob. This was a historic and courageous decision by representatives of 63 rural communities, most of them in Indi.
John and Rob planned to be the first couple to receive such a blessing. As it turned out, the church blessing was not to be. The synod's decision was referred to the Appellate Tribunal, the highest ecclesiastical court of Australia's Anglican Church. John and Rob were instead blessed in the presence of the bishop by their friends and the people of their congregation and the community who love them.
Congratulations, John and Rob. Your love, courage and faith is an inspiration to LGBTQI people everywhere. Patience—
I thank the member and I call the member for Grey.
I rise today to raise an issue that I think brings a lot of heartache around Australia, and it is, of course, family breakdown. As members of parliament, we regularly receive people who are dealing with that difficult part of their life, and access to children and property division, but particularly the issue of children. It would be fair for me to say that I get more complaints from men than from women about the current process. I'm very pleased that the government has announced that we are going to have a joint standing committee look at family law reform, following the delivery of the recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission in April. I made the remark in the party room that I look at the current law and I think it doesn't look too bad. I don't think it is particularly biased, but it is the application of the law. I think those who deal with this on a daily basis develop opinions and prejudices that are not particularly fair to the new customer coming in through the door. These will be the issues that I believe this inquiry will look at. I think it is overdue. It is 40 years since we have had a decent look at this. There is a lot of pain out there. I don't know whether or not we can fix it all, but I think it is time that we had a look to see what we can do.
Last Sunday I hosted the first Corangamite Youth Climate Forum, at Deakin University in Waurn Ponds. Over 50 young people attended to hear local environmental groups speak about the worsening impacts of climate change. This forum was held in conjunction with the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, who spoke passionately about the future and why they will join the School Strike 4 Climate this Friday, 20 September. The forum and the school strike are particularly important at this moment in our political history. We have government ministers denying the science, denying the causal link between catastrophic events and climate change, despite the evidence of escalating and devastating impacts. Young politically active Australians should be congratulated for raising their voices in a plea for urgent change and action. Much of Corangamite is on the coast and I witness daily the impacts my community—the erosion of the dunes, the loss of breeding habitat. The impact on us is minimal when compared to our low-lying Pacific neighbours. I will march with these young people as they raise their voices and bravely call this government to take effective action to protect Australians and our stunning flora and fauna from this man-made climate crisis. I invite others in this place to join me.
Tomorrow, or maybe tonight even, the Queensland state government will vote on new legislation that will spell the beginning of the end for many North Queensland farming families. These new laws, which aim at protecting the Great Barrier Reef, actually result in the Orwellian persecution of farmers, essentially dictating exactly what they will do with their own land, how they do it and when they do it. It degrades farmers to the level of common criminals, with government looking over their shoulder forcing them to do what some Brisbane based desk jockey tells them to do, or otherwise they get cracked with a huge fine in the hundreds of thousands. Farmers are already exiting the industry in anticipation of these laws and we are sure to see that continue. The sugarcane industry in Queensland contributes about $1.1 billion in tax revenue to federal, state and local governments every year and provides almost 10,000 direct jobs. Why then would the Queensland government want to harm an industry contributing so much to the state? Why would the state Labor member for Mackay, Julieanne Gilbert, choose not to back local farmers and sugarcane workers in her electorate? These new laws are anti-farming, anti-jobs, and they are anti-Queensland. In my electorate, sugarcane farming has been the lifeblood of many communities for generations. In recent times, low oil prices, rising power costs and rising water costs have put these cane farmers on the ropes. This legislation could be the knockout blow, and if they go ahead with it sugarcane communities will knock out the state Labor government at the next state election.
In 2017, I stood with the Central Coast community, my state Labor colleagues and the union movement to stop the New South Wales Liberal government selling Wyong Hospital. Before being elected I worked at Wyong Hospital for almost 10 years. I understand its importance to our community. The strength of the community campaign gave the New South Wales government no choice but to back away from its plans. Unfortunately, the New South Wales Liberals haven't completely backed away from their user-pays, private partnership approach to running hospitals. The New South Wales Liberal government will introduce parking fees at the hospital. At Gosford Hospital, the government has entered a five-year new lease with Secure, which will earn profits of $1.9 million from the health workers and patients of the coast. Wyong Hospital has never charged for parking. It has limited public transport, which forces staff, patients and visitors to drive for care. At Gosford Hospital, staff are now paying over $1,200 a year and visitors are paying $19.90 per day or $6.70 an hour. That's more than the John Hunter Hospital and Gosford Private Hospital. I absolutely oppose parking fees at Wyong Hospital. Labor MPs on the coast have gathered 10,000 signatures to table in the New South Wales parliament tomorrow. Those signatures will mean the New South Wales health minister has to answer the people of the coast, and they will be listening closely. We have now gathered another 5,000 signatures, and community members are still adding their names to the petition. I will keep campaigning to stop the introduction of parking fees at Wyong Hospital.
On Friday, 6 September I joined Wadjak Northside Aboriginal elders, City of Stirling councillors and Balga residents for the Balga Boodja Community Walk. The Walking Together group teamed up with the Heart Foundation to walk from Wadjak Northside to Wythburn Redcliffe Reserve to raise awareness of physical activity opportunities that are easy to access, socially inclusive and culturally significant to the local community. Better still, it was a very real, tangible expression of the need to walk together and work together to improve outcomes for Indigenous Australians living in Stirling.
As a new MP, I am gaining an ever-stronger appreciation for the diversity of my electorate every day from community leaders, who are a wealth of knowledge. To that end, I welcomed the opportunity to join Northside's Len Yarran for a yarn along the way as we walked to the reserve. He briefed me about the Balga Avenue initiative, which has identified an area of potential activation for the community as a safe, inclusive and welcoming space that promotes intergenerational respect, participation and support. I commit to walking together and working together with local Indigenous leaders in Stirling to ensure that everyone in our community can make the most of every opportunity.
Recently we have heard incredibly alarming reports regarding the situation in West Papua that detail violence, unrest and the suppression of communication. While Australia recognises Indonesia's sovereignty over the Papuan province—a bipartisan position enshrined in the Lombok treaty—the right to protest is fundamental. Everyone should be able to peacefully protest without fear of reprisal or violence. Reports coming from West Papua suggest that this right is not being upheld and that reporting has been significantly limited due to the suspension of the internet in some parts of West Papua. It is vital that the internet be restored across the region to allow for the freedom of the press, for the fair and accurate reporting of events as they unfold and for access to information in times of crisis. Restrictions on access for foreign journalists should be lifted. Human rights officers should be allowed into the region, and the reports of violence and unrest related deaths should be fully and properly investigated.
It is of the utmost importance that the human rights of all involved are respected. I urge all involved to exercise restraint and to respect the human rights of all those engaged in protest. As I said, it is a fundamental right of all communities to protest, and I appeal to everybody in West Papua to make sure that the people there have that right.
I rise to recognise the huge achievements of 14-year-old Port Macquarie resident Matilda King, who, with her family, emigrated to Australia from the UK six years ago. Tilly King, who attends St Columba Anglican School in Port Macquarie, attended the School Sport Australia swimming championships in Melbourne from 27 to 31 July and competed in the under-14s 50-metre breaststroke and the team medley relay. Tilly progressed successfully through her heats, making it into the finals in both events. In the 50-metres breaststroke Tilly secured a silver medal—only six one-hundredths of a second behind gold. And not only that: she and her teammates also won silver in the medley relay.
Tilly's success is hardly surprising. Her father, Gary, once swam the English Channel, a gruelling 22 miles, or 35 kilometres, just for something to do! Tilly has now been invited to the AIS for a swim camp, based on her results over the past 12 months. I congratulate Tilly for her hard work and thank her mum and dad, Gary and Lizzie, for the many early mornings and countless kilometres driving to and from swimming carnivals. I look forward to seeing Tilly at the 2024 Olympic Games—swimming for the green and gold and not the red and white.
I want to speak about brain health and the great work being done at the Sunshine Hospital in Melbourne's west, which services a number of my constituents. The Department of Neurology at the hospital is headed by Professor Tissa Wijeratne, who is pushing the boundaries of medicine to treat brain health with a holistic approach, rather than, as currently, through the prism of individual ailments such as migraines, dementia and mental health. Every day, between 10 to 15 patients are admitted to Sunshine Hospital's emergency department with debilitating migraines. That's about 420 people a month and about 5,040 people a year seeking treatment for a condition that is debilitating and imposes significant financial costs on the Australian taxpayer.
Professor Wijeratne, who is the chair of World Brain Day, hopes and aims to see the western suburbs of Melbourne become the nation's capital for migraine research, with the establishment of a national centre of excellence in the heart of the Melbourne's west. He says:
Australia is the only developed country with no national centre that is purely dedicated to the commonest medical disorder in the world that would drive research … We have some of the brightest and most brilliant young minds in the world. We need to create platforms for these younger and brighter minds to work with older minds collaboratively.
Professor Wijeratne attended and organised the first National Migraine Walk, which was held on World Brain Day 2019 at the Melbourne Arts Centre on Sunday 21 July and I congratulate him for his work.
Australians are now picking up the newspapers most days and reading about the horrible effects of the drought, and I imagine most people will be saying to themselves, 'I wish there was something we could do about it.' Last weekend, at the Nationals Federal Council, we passed an emergency motion stating that the Federal Council calls on the government to direct the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to trade 300 gigalitres for immediate use by drought-impacted communities in Victoria and New South Wales—critical for food production and manufacturing businesses.
At the moment, the minister doesn't have the powers to direct the Environmental Water Holder to do anything, And I think if Australians knew there was so much water available and knew that so much of the pain, hardship and detriment being faced by our farmers in drought could be alleviated by simply having the minister regain the power to control 200, 300 or 400 gigalitres of this environmental water which sits in reserves and is often carried over, then I think most of the people in Australia would want the environment minister or the water minister to have the ability to talk to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and make that water available for our drought-stricken farmers.
A call to the Family Violence Counselling and Support Service is often the first call people make when contemplating leaving a relationship due to family violence. This service, which provides counselling, information and support to victims of family violence, received 6,000 referrals last year. That means 6,000 Tasmanians were assessed, contacted, supported and provided with counselling, information and support at a traumatic time in their lives when it was most needed. The problem is that the Family Violence Counselling and Support Service is only funded by the Tasmanian government to deal with 2,000 referrals a year. This is a service that is chronically underfunded.
Despite Premier Will Hodgman claiming that eliminating family violence is a top priority for his government, he has failed to allocate even one single extra dollar to this service. The Liberal Premier has friends in this place. The members for Bass and Braddon and the Liberal senators in the other place should be getting on the phone to the Liberal Premier of Tasmania and saying, 'It is time to fund this service properly and give these 6,000 Tasmanians the support they need and deserve. Do the right thing. Save lives.' A woman a week is dying at the hands of perpetrators of family violence in this country, and more must be done.
Community preschools play a very important role in our communities, and one very important community preschool in my community is Jumbunna Community Preschool and Early Learning Centre. The school, headed by Karen McDermott, has recently been awarded several accolades, the most significant being the NDIS Update Enablement Award for the most outstanding early intervention management team in Australasia. Winning this award comes after the school picked up the health care and wellness industry award in the Richmond Valley Business Industry Excellence Awards earlier in the year. I'd like to congratulate the board—Jason Lawlor, Steven Morrisey, Sandra Binney, Kim Morris, Tahnee Batson, Annabelle Toohey and Noeline Olive—for their wonderful contributions.
I'd also like to thank the wonderful staff, who have dedicated many hours to their students to cover every need. The skill sets are important to these students and encompass special education, speech pathology, occupational therapy and psychology. There are also countless support workers, admin staff and volunteers who play a vital role in the school's success.
Jumbunna commenced in 1977 and has steadily grown into the award-winning community preschool that the Richmond Valley loves. It supports over 100 children a year, on top of the 60-plus preschool children. They are a wonderful organisation in our community, and I thank them for what they do.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I'd like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Olivia Newton-John, who is here today to promote the work of the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. It's great to have you back here in the House.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
This might be a bit of a letdown after that, but welcome. Maybe you could give her the $20 million the ONJ institute needs. My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does he agree with the Reserve Bank board, which said in its September minutes that wages growth 'appeared to have stalled'?
I thank the member for his question. I am familiar with the minutes of the Reserve Bank. I will read the full quote for the assistance of the member:
Wages growth had remained low and the upward trend in wages growth—
That's something that the Leader of the Opposition has been casting some doubt over in questions in recent times, but there has been an upward trend in wages growth. The RBA said that it 'appears to have stalled' and they are looking forward. That's why—
Opposition members interjecting—
What those opposite haven't acknowledged in this place is that real wages growth under this government through the last year is higher than it was when we came to government, from what we inherited from last time.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Member for Rankin!
I will help them out, because I know the Labor Party are not that good with numbers when it comes to managing money. They focus on numbers on plenty of other things, but, when it comes to managing money, they are not so good on numbers. Growth in real wages of 0.7 per cent through the year is higher than 0.5 per cent growth in real wages. The Reserve Bank rightly observed that 'the news on the international economy had confirmed that the risks to the global growth outlook were to the downside'. The Reserve Bank has made it very clear and has acknowledged the complex and difficult times that the Australian economy is facing with global pressures. I am quoting from the Reserve Bank minutes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Gosling interjecting—
I would just ask the Prime Minister to resume his seat. The member for Solomon has missed the moment again and will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
Yes, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question: does he agree with the Reserve Bank board that wages growth appeared to have stalled?
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Just before I call the Prime Minister, I am just going to point out again that, yes, it was a specific question, but the Prime Minister has addressed it and is being relevant on the policy topic. What members asking questions can't do is ask the question and then sort of demand the equivalent that the minister responding read something that they have prepared in response as an answer.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Well, it's your question time, not mine. The Prime Minister is in order and may continue.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can quote further from the Reserve Bank minutes, which said that 'there had been further signs of a turnaround in established housing markets, especially in Sydney and Melbourne'. The minutes also say:
Looking forward, the outlook for output growth was being supported by the low level of interest rates, recent tax cuts, signs of stabilisation in some established housing markets and a brighter outlook for the resources sector.
Our government has a plan to grow the economy, to keep the budget in surplus and we are the ones that the Australian people wanted at the last election. They voted for us to continue with our election plans and to implement those plans, and you on the Labor side are the ones they didn't want.
) ( ): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House about the establishment of a wide-ranging inquiry into the family law system and about how important it is that the inquiry hears from all sides of this difficult and complex debate?
I thank the member for Reid for her question and for the work that she has done as a clinical psychologist—particularly working with young children in so many difficult circumstances—dealing with mental health, which would also be the subject of the joint select committee inquiry that we have initiated, and that we seek the support of this parliament for.
We have initiated a wide-ranging parliamentary inquiry into the family law system. It will be chaired by the member for Menzies. The member for Menzies has a long history of experience in dealing with these matters, both as a minister of the government and as a member of a similar inquiry back in 1992.
I note the loud jeering coming from the opposite side of the chamber. This is a serious issue which the government is taking seriously by initiating this review. Family and relationship breakdown is a traumatic, personal and devastating thing that happens to Australians. It's devastating for all involved. It is a primary factor of suicide in this country, and we share across this parliament a commitment to the goal of zero suicides. It is a primary contributing factor to domestic violence also, and it warrants this level of attention. These breakdowns in families are heartbreaking but they are the function—as I'm sure all members of this chamber understand—of human frailty.
As advanced a society we are, and a compassionate society, we must always seek and strive to do better—to ensure that, when Australians are going through this difficult and traumatic time, the system works in a way that is as supportive and protective as possible. This inquiry is not about what sides people are on in particular disputes; it is about having an honest ear to the real concerns of Australians who are going through this system and going through great difficulty.
This is an inquiry that is in addition to, not in place of, the significant work that has been undertaken. By point of reference, I refer to the Henderson inquiry, which focuses on domestic violence. Just this week, as a result of that inquiry, it is now unlawful for a victim to be cross-examined by their abuser, and that is just one of the many responses that our government will be introducing and that we will continue to introduce, even yet while this inquiry continues.
This is an opportunity for all of us in this place to turn our ears and eyes to Australians who are going through this incredibly difficult and traumatic time, to listen carefully and fashion appropriate responses and to take further action.
Before I call the member for Rankin, for those members who I'm have asked to cease interjecting or who I've warned in the last couple of days—it's a regular list—just consider yourself warned. I'm going to save time. The member for Rankin has the call.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to reports that the final budget outcome will be released tomorrow. How much of the improvement in the budget position last year came from a spike in the iron ore price and the low dollar, which have absolutely nothing to do with actions of the government?
I thank the member for Rankin for that dixer. The reality is that our budget performance is always and has always been better than yours. The reality is that tomorrow, when we release the final budget outcome, it will show an improvement on what was forecast not only in the 2018-19 budget but also in April this year in the 2019-20 budget. The reason why our economy is strong and the reason why our budget is coming back into surplus is that more people are in jobs. We now have a record number of Australians who are in work. More than 1.4 million new jobs have been created, and the participation rate is at a record high.
The member for Rankin raises the issue of the terms of trade and iron ore prices. Let me remind the House that when Labor was last in office iron ore prices were over $180 a tonne, more than double what they are today. You know what? They still couldn't deliver a surplus, because, as the Prime Minister says, they can't manage money. And when you can't manage money you come after the people's money.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is engaging with its allies and partners to advocate for stability and certainty in a complex world and how this is in our national interest?
I thank the member for Wentworth for his question and for the service he provided to our country before he entered this place, as our youngest-ever ambassador representing Australia, in this case to the nation of Israel. He understands, like I would hope all members would understand—and certainly government members understand—that we can never, ever take our allies or our partners for granted. In a complex world, in a complicated world, a world of strategic competition, a world of great uncertainty, our partners and our allies are of great importance.
This, of course, will be a key focus of my visit to the United States when I depart tomorrow to meet with the President of the United States. That visit is a reflection of the tremendous relationship that exists between Australia and the United States. There is a good personal relationship between leaders, but it is far more than that. This is a relationship that has been forged in the crucible of our collective action together over more than a century. At this time, more than any other, it is important that we focus on the strategic significance and the value of this alliance, the most important of alliances for Australia, which is the bedrock of our security. We have a deep, strong and enduring relationship with the United States, from Hamel to the Coral Sea, and, most recently, we're now participating in the Strait of Hormuz. We are an alliance partner that the United States know they can rely on. We're an alliance partner that pulls its weight in the alliance.
Two per cent of GDP will be spent on defence next year for the first time in a very long time, as the result of the build-up we've been undertaking, which means that our defence spending as a share of our economy is second in the Five Eyes nations, greater than the all Five Eyes partners other than the United States, but also greater than Japan, greater than Germany, as a share of the economy, and greater, as a Five Eyes partner, than even the United Kingdom. This demonstrates that Australia is always prepared to do the heavy lifting when it comes to our alliance partnerships, and I look forward to that meeting with the President but also the other engagements which will see us engage on commercial issues, on important issues relating to future technologies, on issues of critical minerals, on issues regarding Australia's space program and on ensuring that we're well placed, as a strong alliance partner, to work together with the United States to secure the peace and stability of our region, working with other nations of our region for whom the United States has also been an important partner. This happens in the broader strategic relationships we have around the world, whether it's in Indonesia, Japan, India or our comprehensive strategic partnership with China. We are getting on with the job of managing our relationships in Australia's national interest. (Time expired)
My question's to the Treasurer. I refer again to reports that the final budget outcome will be released tomorrow. Treasurer, how much of the improvement in the budget position last year came from underspending in the National Disability Insurance Scheme?
As the member for Rankin would understand, we're fully funding the NDIS where they never did. It is a demand-driven project—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin is warned.
and there are currently 300,000 Australians who are on the NDIS, 90,000 of whom are getting care for the first time. The cost of the NDIS is forecast to increase to $17½ billion in 2019-20 and then to over $22 billion in 2020-21. I think I speak for all members on this side of the House: we are absolutely committed to the NDIS. It is making a difference. It's a demand-driven—
The member for Rankin on a point of order?
Yes, on relevance: the question was about how much of the improvement in the budget came from underspends in the NDIS.
I'll just say that the Treasurer is being relevant to the question.
The member for Rankin would understand, from when he was learning everything about economics from chairman Swan, that it is a demand-driven program and that in every MYEFO and every budget we revise the numbers. There is estimates variation. But the fact of the matter remains that we are fully funding the NDIS. There are 300,000 people who are getting access to care because we are responsible economic managers, and by bringing the budget back into surplus, back into the black, we can continue to provide the vital services that Australians need and deserve.
My question is to the Minister for Health. There's currently a proposed revision of the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure to strengthen the ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide national standards. Children are most vulnerable to air pollutants, as are the very frail and elderly and asthmatics. The recent Infrastructure Australia audit report found that Warringah has some of the most congested roads in Australia and that there's no regular air quality testing to notify us of the pollution and health risks caused by congestion. Health experts are recommending the expansion of the network of monitors, with daily monitoring of key pollutants and adoption of a much stricter national standard for ambient air pollution. Will you as health minister endorse these stricter health based standards for air quality?
I thank the member. We discussed these matters earlier this week. As I indicated, there are a number of important steps. One is that as a government we have moved to lift air quality standards in Australia—in particular, as I recall from a previous portfolio, by strengthening across the nation the standards for PM10 and PM2.5 in relation to air quality. The environment minister may have a more up-to-date account of that. As part of that we moved to ensure, across the country, that those standards were being implemented by all of the states.
We in particular made clean air a fundamental element of our work as a government over the past six years, for two reasons: (1) because it was the right thing to do for health and (2) because it was the right thing to do for the environment. So we have continued to do that. One of the essential elements in doing that is not just monitoring—and I am always happy to support additional monitoring in this space, as I indicated when we met this week—but also that we have a $4 billion urban congestion plan. The minister who has responsibility for this, the minister for urban infrastructure, is overseeing that and cannot work fast enough with the states to get these projects delivered. In particular, these projects are not only important for urban congestion but also important for reducing the impact on air quality which would otherwise be detrimental to health.
So, I respect the question. We have set in place a national standard. We have been one of the global leaders in terms of air quality and health. We have, in particular, put in place standards for PM2.5 and PM10. We have put in place a national approach there, and now we are working on reducing the source of those pollutants, through the $4 billion Urban Congestion Fund. I think that will make a real difference, not just in the member's electorate but in electorates around the country.
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 for regional Australia through the signing of trade agreements and how this has benefited the farmers in my electorate of Mallee?
I thank the member for Mallee for her question. She knows full well the benefits of the free trade agreements that our government has been able to arrange and broker, with Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, South-East Asian nations generally, and particularly China, our largest trading partner. The Mildura Fruit Company, in the member for Mallee's electorate, has experienced firsthand the value of these FTA agreements. The general manager, Perry Hill, said the trade with China has been the saviour of the citrus industry. John Hederics, a fruit grower from Trentham, said that the pink navel, which looks much like any other orange from the outside, can fetch as much as $1,300 a tonne. He said:
China's been a big change for us ... with that market opening up and the demand for our fruit, they really love our fruit, especially the pink navels.
This is free trade agreements in action—the benefit of free trade agreements writ large in the member for Mallee's electorate, in and around Mildura, in and around the Sunraysia.
The FTAs have made it cheaper to get product into these countries. The benefit flows on to growers, particularly through higher prices and security of market, of course. The FTA has enabled an expansion in plantings in the Sunraysia and has resulted in a five per cent year-on-year increase in exports since the FTAs have been signed by this government, from 2013. Agricultural exports to South Korea and Japan are up 21 per cent on last financial year and have combined values of $83 million. That's $83 million potentially going into the pockets of farmers. That is fantastic news. Ag exports to South-East Asian nations have grown by 25 per cent in the last financial year, and they're still growing, drought notwithstanding. The trade minister is continuing negotiations on a post-Brexit deal with Great Britain. We're aiming to grow our agricultural industry from $60 billion to $100 billion by 2030. We've got a plan, we've got a blueprint, we've got—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Have you ever been mellow? Why are you yelling out? This is a bipartisan thing. China is currently our latest—
Honourable members interjecting—
Well, I tried to 'get physical' with the member for Hunter last week. But, 'please, Mister, please', just be quiet for now! China is currently our largest agriculture, forestry and fisheries export market, Member for Grayndler. We have an Australia-only duty free quota of wool and we hold 74 per cent—nearly three-quarters of the market share—and that's tremendous. We account for 21 per cent of China's beef imports, with 116,000 tonnes of beef travelling from our Australian farms and feeding families in China. We want to increase it. We've got a trade minister and an assistant trade minister, in the member for Parkes, doing their utmost to make sure that we broker even further arrangements which are going to help our agricultural export industry and will help our farming families.
My question is to the Minister for the NDIS. I've met Gold Coast mum Shannon Manning, who lives in the minister's electorate of Fadden. She's still waiting today, after more than a year, for her profoundly disabled daughter, Meadow, to get a wheelchair and a hoist. In the meantime she's injured herself lifting her daughter. Are the shortfalls in care and delays like this being caused by the massive underspend of $1.6 billion in the NDIS?
Let me thank the member for his question. Can I assure you the NDIA and my office are well aware of Ms Manning's case. It is complex; it is highly sensitive. If the member wishes to have a brief about this case, he only has to ask me, and I will brief him about a very complex, very sensitive case regarding Ms Manning.
Can I also say that this is a demand-driven scheme, in many ways not like any other demand-driven scheme—pensions, disability support pensions and Newstart are all demand driven—and therefore it is uncapped. If we wish to look at numbers, the 2018-19 budget estimated that the average participant cost would be $46,400. The actual payment for 2018-19 that the final budget figure will show will be $46,800. So, indeed, based on what the government projected in the 2018-19 budget and based on the actual, the average participant cost has actually increased. Therefore participant supports have not been cut, as the member has just alleged on the floor of the House. They have actually increased, because this is a demand-driven scheme.
Is the member for Maribyrnong seeking leave to table a document?
I seek leave to table the reports which show that Shannon and Meadow have been waiting for over a year. How complex is that?
Leave not granted.
I have a question to the Treasurer, to whom we're hopelessly devoted—but a couple of questions late! Bill, you're definitely the one that I don't want! Will the Treasurer explain to the House how the Morrison government's stable and certain budgetary management, lower taxes and record of trade agreements 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 Bowman for his question. He is aware that in his electorate there are 68,000 hardworking Australians who are taxpayers who are going to get a tax cut as a result of legislation which this side of the parliament supported, and 28,000 of those taxpayers in Bowman will get the full $1,080. And there are 16,000 small businesses in the electorate of Bowman that will have access to the extended instant asset write-off.
The coalition bequeathed to the Labor Party, when they came to office, a pristine balance sheet—no government debt, money in the bank and a $20 billion surplus. That was what John Howard and Peter Costello bequeathed to the Labor Party. What was their gift for us? Two hundred and forty billion dollars in accumulated deficits—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gordon is warned!
and a final budget which was in deficit by three per cent of GDP, $48½ billion. Investment was in freefall. Unemployment was rising. We've turned it around. The coalition have turned it around, helping to create 1.4 million new jobs and employment growth which is now more than three times what we inherited. Trade relationships have been secured with China, Japan, Korea and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, opening up markets for Australian businesses to nearly two billion new customers. That's what we've done with our free trade agreements. And we have passed legislation to give tax cuts worth more than $300 billion in the last two budgets. That's the equivalent of the most significant tax cuts that this parliament has seen in more than two decades. That is our record: lower taxes and more jobs and a AAA credit rating in an economy that has just completed its 28th consecutive year of economic growth.
But I'm asked: are there any alternative approaches? We know that those opposite are committed to $387 billion of higher taxes. Could you imagine putting on the Australian economy now, with the challenges that we face, $387 billion of higher taxes? What is more, the Labor Party are still committed to their class warfare rhetoric. The Leader of the Opposition went to the BCA this morning and whispered sweet nothings in the ears of business leaders, but the reality is: they still talk about 'the top end of town', we still remember about 'welfare for the wealthy' and we still remember that small businesses were 'fat cats'. You don't just need to change your language; you need to change your policies. Until the Labor Party change their policies, they're still the party— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel. Can the minister confirm the government has a report in front of it which recommends scrapping the veterans' gold card, as we know it, and will the minister rule out reducing the entitlements of veterans and their dependants, including veterans with a disability?
I do thank the shadow minister for his question. I assume, by his question, he is referring to the Productivity Commission report, which was presented to the government a matter of six or eight weeks ago and released to the public within about six days, I believe, quite appropriately.
The Productivity Commission report had an extensive look at the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It took over a year to do. It was a report to the government, making in the order of 69 recommendations. As the shadow minister would be well aware, it's a very extensive report—purely by the size of the report, 930-odd pages—and has a large number of very significant reforms proposed by the Productivity Commission.
The government has, appropriately, taken the time for further consultations with the ex-service community, in relation to which ones of those recommendations the ex-service community supports and which ones of those recommendations it doesn't support.
Mr Burke interjecting—
I'll take the interjection. It would be inappropriate of the government to be ruling things in and ruling things out at this stage of the consideration of the Productivity Commission report. This government is proud of its record, in relation to looking after veterans and their families. We are committed to putting veterans and their families first. It's an area of public policy which has enjoyed enormous bipartisan support in the past and I would imagine so in the future. It would be inappropriate for the government to be ruling things out or ruling things in, at this stage, given the consultation which is occurring with the ex-service community around the nation.
I notice another shadow minister is nodding his agreement with my comments. And the comments I make are in relation—
Opposition members interjecting—
He was certainly nodding his agreement with my—what I would say, in relation to the question more broadly, is this is a government which is providing in excess of $11 billion per year to support 280,000 veterans and their families. We are working to make sure that veterans benefit enormously, into the future, in terms of any reforms we make. The Productivity Commission report, which is a report to the government, outlines a whole range of recommendations, and there is no intention whatsoever from this government to do anything which is detrimental to our veterans or their families. We are working with the ex-service community, as you'd expect a responsible government would do, and I'd encourage those opposite to also listen to the concerns of the veteran community and work with us as we continue to reform the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
The Australian people can be very proud of the fact that their taxes, their taxpayers' dollars, go into supporting the men and women who put on the uniform and serve our nation, and then when they transition into civilian life they are well supported in a way which the Australian people can be very proud of.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is providing certainty and stability for consumers by ensuring lower energy prices, whilst not raising taxes? Has the minister encountered any alternative measures?
I thank the member for Canning for his question. He, like all of us on this side of the House, is absolutely committed to affordable, reliable power for all Australians. That's why, on 1 July, we introduced price caps on standing offers. That's why we introduced the Retailer Reliability Obligation and the reference price. We are already seeing real results, with lower prices for some of the most vulnerable Australians and for about a quarter of small businesses, who have seen significant reductions in their standing offers.
I'm also pleased to say that the government today has introduced legislation to eliminate the market manipulation and dodgy practices we've seen in the past, practices which the ACCC described as 'unacceptable and unsustainable'. We know that these reforms are required, because of what we saw in Victoria. What we saw in Victoria with the mere announcement of the closure of Hazelwood—no change in supply and demand—was a more than doubling of wholesale prices from the baseload generators.
We on this side of the House are in favour of free markets, but they must be markets that are free of manipulation. This bill is critical for protecting energy customers, whether they be households, small businesses or industry, of course, which supplies so many jobs to electorates like Canning, the electorate of the member who asked the question.
The member asked whether there is an alternative. The alternative is what those opposite took to the last election. First of all, they opposed this legislation 13 times in the last parliament.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned.
In the last parliament, they refused 13 times to endorse the needs of Australian energy consumers. But they also took to the last election reckless emissions targets that we know were going to slash jobs, slash wages and slash the economy. Where they sit on all of this now is quite unclear. The chaos and dysfunction has reached new heights, with the member for Maribyrnong saying he is proud of their reckless targets from the last election. We have the member for Hindmarsh saying that every Labor policy should be reviewed in a ruthless and unsparing way, including their energy and climate policies. I couldn't agree more. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is in on this, too. He is barracking on the end of the coal industry and then claiming he is tone deaf. And we have the member for Shortland— (Time expired)
My question is to the . I refer to the government's decision to scrap the use of CapTel as part of the National Relay Service, which, through text relay, helps deaf Australians to make and receive telephone calls. Why must Patricia Woods, who is deaf and is 88 years old, now learn to use a different technology, instead of her CapTel handset, to contact triple 0?
I thank the member for her question. I make the point that the National Relay Service is a very important communication service for Australians who are deaf or have a hearing or speech impairment. The National Relay Service is delivered through a range of technologies and devices, one of which is the one that the member has cited, but it is delivered through a whole range of different devices. Can I make it clear that all existing relay channels will continue to be available for NRS users, with the exception of the one device that the member has mentioned. I want to make it clear that the government is absolutely agnostic about the services provided through the National Relay Service. The owner of the particular device the member has mentioned has cited an exclusive agreement with the existing relay service provider. But, of course, if that rights owner is interested in speaking with the Australian government, then we remain interested in speaking to them.
I correct particularly one extremely misleading claim the member has made, and it is very disappointing that the member would seek to create alarm and distress. Media reports claiming that the making of an emergency services call through the National Relay Service is difficult are misleading. Users of a TTY device can dial 106, which provides a direct connection to emergency services, through the National Relay Service relay officer. In the last financial year, there were over 1,500 calls to emergency services from National Relay Service users. All were successfully connected to the appropriate emergency service.
I repeat the point that the National Relay Service is continuing. It is a very important service for Australians who are deaf or have a hearing or speech impairment. It is delivered through a whole range of devices. There will continue to be $22 million a year being spent on the provision of this vital service in order to ensure that Australians who are deaf, hearing impaired or speech impaired can continue to make effective use of our telephone system.
Before I call on the next question, I'm just going to remind those asking questions that, whilst there are a number of rules for questions that are applied quite liberally, let's be honest, in the history of this place, one of the rules for questions is—and it's at 100(d)(i):
Questions must not contain—
and I won't read the whole thing—
… names of persons, unless they can be authenticated and are strictly necessary to make the question intelligible.
I'm just going to warn those asking questions. There have been two questions on this occasion. The names of people weren't required, okay, to make them intelligible, and in fact I'll rule questions out if I believe I've been deliberately ignored. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, I don't have the Practice in front of me, but I just wanted to confirm my understanding of those rules—that names are allowed if the member can authenticate them and that, if a member is willing to personally vouch for the accuracy of it, it counts.
Yes, it also says—that's true—
… unless they can be authenticated and are strictly necessary to make the question intelligible.
It's the last part of that standing order. I think it's there for good reason. Really what it turns on is: do you actually need the name to ask the question? I don't believe that's been the case with those two, and I just wanted to raise it with the House.
My question is to the Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's stable and certain economic budget management is supporting better outcomes for Australians seeking to buy their own homes? What is the Morrison government doing to better support these outcomes?
Can I thank the member for Bass for her question. She's a great champion for a better housing market not just in her electorate, not just in Tasmania, but throughout the country. I know the member for Bass knows that to provide certainty and stability to the housing market you need a government like the Morrison government, which supports people into housing and doesn't tax them out of it, as those opposite would propose.
Indeed, I was very pleased to visit the member for Bass in Launceston a bit over a week ago, where we were able to jointly announce with the state Minister for Housing that the federal government would forgive Tasmania's historic housing debt, which will mean $230 million of extra funding into social and affordable housing in Tasmania. I want to give particular credit to the members for Bass and Braddon, and I want to acknowledge the member for Denison, who's in the chamber as well, and others who really contributed to this effort.
I also want to say that the Morrison government, as we outlined prior to the election, is dedicated to assisting all Australians who aspire to buy a home to do so. That's why I was extraordinarily proud to deliver on part of the agenda that our Prime Minister outlined prior to the election, with the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. The First Home Loan Deposit Scheme will support first home buyers to purchase their first home with a deposit as little as five per cent. As members in this House know, one of the hardest parts of buying your first home is getting a deposit together. We know from data that in big cities like Melbourne and Sydney the time it takes to save for a deposit is eight years in the case of Melbourne and 10 years in the case of Sydney. So the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme is going to assist those first home buyers get into the market sooner. Ten thousand Australians each year, from 1 January next year, will be supported by the Morrison government in getting into their first home.
This complements work that we have already put into place through the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which members opposite opposed at the last election. We've had some 4,000 first home buyers utilise the First Home Super Saver Scheme to buy their first home, so we want to see the Labor Party change their form and support the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme.
In addition, we have set up the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, which is funnelling hundreds of millions of dollars into community housing providers to support more community and social housing throughout our country. In its first year, it delivered 560 new homes. The Morrison government wants to support everyone along the housing spectrum and will continue to do so. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. Can the minister confirm that members of parliament cannot use Commonwealth resources, including their taxpayer funded office, telephone and post office box, to run associated entities not related to their parliamentary duties?
I can confirm that office accommodation is provided for the dominant purpose of parliamentary business. Office accommodation must not be used for the dominant purpose of providing a personal benefit to any person and must not be used for any commercial purpose.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's stable and certain budget management enables us to implement important action on environmental protection?
I thank the member for North Sydney for his question and recognise his advocacy in this place for his constituents. I'm working closely with him as we deliver $21 million to open up defence sites for public use in North Sydney.
Australia's iconic environment is part of our national identity—we all recognise that—and we are committed to protecting and preserving it through our plan for a cleaner environment. But action is only possible through a balanced budget. It takes a strong economy to invest in environmental protection, just the same as a healthy, sustainable environment underpins long-term economic opportunity—a strong environment and a strong economy. The stability and certainty of the Morrison government are delivering both.
Some of our environmental measures include our $167 million recycling investment plan, incorporating the Prime Minister's leadership in banning waste exports, we hope, from the middle of next year, and working with the states and territories—not just talking about high-level aims, but actually landing on genuine targets that make a difference. We are working across the supply chain and with the member for Brisbane, local councils, state governments and innovators so that Australians can have confidence that, when they put things in their recycling bin, they will be repurposed effectively, not dumped in landfill. Think of the economic opportunity that nine new jobs create for every 10,000 tonnes of waste that's recycled.
I want to mention a couple of our other programs. The Communities Environment Program delivers $150,000 to each member's electorate. Members opposite don't seem to have an environmental policy, so we're helping them with this one, with $150,000 for each of their electorates. I look forward to practical, on-ground actions coming from that. I must also mention the unprecedented investment, $1.2 billion and growing, for the Great Barrier Reef and $9.2 million to control yellow crazy ants in the Wet Tropics—a project close to the heart of the fabulous reef envoy, the member for Leichhardt.
We hear a lot from members opposite about the doom and gloom—it's all too hard; it's all too big; it's all too overwhelming; what can we do? Hence they have no environment policy. Contrast that one, long whinge from the Labor Party with the government's positive plan, tangible outcomes, practical targets, real jobs and real environmental protection in the real economy.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister confident that all members of the executive are abiding by his ministerial standards? Specifically, is he aware that the Pinnacle Club—an associated entity of the Liberal Party—has been operating out of the taxpayer funded office of the assistant minister for customs? Is the Prime Minister also aware that the Pinnacle Club is holding a fundraiser hosted by the assistant minister for customs, attended by the Assistant Treasurer, and featuring the member for Chisholm as auctioneer?
Mr Speaker—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left will cease interjecting. I remind them, as I need to do regularly, that, when these questions are asked and there are points of order, I need to be able to hear the points of order so that I can rule on them. For those who found that statement a bit too long, let me just say that it's a high-risk time for interjectors—very high risk.
Mr Speaker, with respect to standing order 98(c), it's the case that the Treasurer, with his responsibility of representing the Minister for Finance, can certainly be asked about the use of electorate offices —not the Prime Minister; that's not within his responsibilities. It is also the case that the Prime Minister was being asked in the second part of that question about fundraising. Of course, there is a well-known prohibition against asking those questions here, as they are party political matters.
Mr Speaker, the question was in three parts. The first part is squarely with ministerial standards. The second, while referring to ministerial standards, questions whether one member of the executive—specifically the assistant minister for customs—has been acting outside of those ministerial standards by using his taxpayer funded office for an associated entity.
I'm going to rule on this point of order. In response to the Leader of the House, certainly the first part of the question is in order. The next part, which goes to the issues he said should have been referred to the Treasurer, would be right if it were any other minister who had been asked a question that related to a different portfolio. The Prime Minister, by his title, is really the minister for everything. Because of that, as the Practice makes clear, it has always been in the power of the Prime Minister to refer any question to any minister. That's why that power is there. That's why the Prime Minister has that right.
With respect to fundraising, the question was about a member of the executive and their office, so I think it does get over each of those hurdles. The question is in order. I call the Prime Minister.
I refer the member to the answer provided by the Treasurer, representing the finance minister, regarding the relevant rules in relation to these matters. In relation to the question directly put to me on this, prior to coming into question time today and indeed until now, I have no information in front of me that would suggest that any of the matters that they've alleged have fallen foul of the standards. I have learned, over a long time of coming to the dispatch box and responding to the allegations made by those opposite, to never take them at their word.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is warned.
You can't take them credibly. What we have from this very feeble and very lame opposition is an attempt to distract, frankly, from their own feebleness and their own lameness by seeking to smear other members of this House when at the same time their own party is in absolute shambles.
My question is for the . Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's stable and certain budget position enables us to build congestion-busting infrastructure in Western Sydney, including WestConnex? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?
I thank the member for Lindsay for her question and for her absolutely outstanding advocacy for the people of Western Sydney. Because of our strong financial and budgetary position, the Morrison government is able to provide a record $100 billion pipeline of infrastructure projects over the course of the next decade. That provides stability and certainty for commuters, who know that roads will be built now and in the future. That includes key projects in the member for Lindsay's electorate, such as the Mulgoa Road upgrade or the Northern Road upgrade, and, as she asked, includes vital congesting-busting infrastructure, such as the WestConnex project. As the member would know, it was only just a couple of months ago—
Are the refugees still blocking the highway?
The member for McEwen is now warned.
that we opened a critical section of the WestConnex project, the M4 tunnel. At the time, we said that this would provide savings for commuters of 20 minutes each way. Well, I can inform you, Mr Speaker, that we have well and truly exceeded those expectations. Yes, it is a 20-minute saving if you're going from Parramatta into the city each day in the morning peak hour traffic, but, in the evening peak hour traffic, it is an incredible 45-minute saving that people are getting. What that means is: over the course of a week, if you are doing this travel from the city to Parramatta and back every single day, you will save an incredible 5½ hours—time that you're getting back to spend with your family, to play sport or to participate in any of the other things that you want to do rather than being stuck in traffic.
I am asked about alternatives. Obviously, when the Labor Party were last in government, they spent only half the amount on infrastructure that we are spending now. That's because their budgetary position was so weak. But, interestingly enough, they had ideological objections to key roads, such as the WestConnex project—this project which is busting congestion as I've just outlined. Do you know what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was the shadow spokesperson in relation to the WestConnex project? He said that, despite the savings that this would provide in terms of commute times, he would not put a cent into that project. And why? Because—this is unbelievable—he said, 'It's a road to nowhere.' That's what he said about the WestConnex project! This is a project which we've just opened, a road from the CBD to Parramatta in Western Sydney, and the Leader of the Opposition said that was a road to nowhere! Well, we don't think Western Sydney is nowhere! And we will continue to invest in roads supporting Western Sydney and in Western Sydney to bust congestion while keeping the economy strong. (Time expired)
My question is again to the Prime Minister and I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer, refusing to concede certain facts about the minister for customs. So, to authenticate those facts, will the Prime Minister agree to the tabling of the following documents: an invitation from the Pinnacle club, the Pinnacle club's AEC return, the AEC Transparency Register, the contact details of the assistant minister on the Department of Home Affairs website, and the ministerial standards?
There's a very big problem with that question, I've got to say—that is, you can ask a question, and you can seek leave to table documents; documents are tabled—
Mr Robert interjecting—
The Minister for the NDIS—he's not helping, okay? He's not helping at all. I don't think it's permissible to ask the Prime Minister whether he'll agree to something. I mean, you need to seek leave. That's the way things operate. I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. He might have something miraculous I haven't thought of!
You're setting the bar pretty high! Mr Speaker, I rise to take a point of order. First of all, the Prime Minister, specifically, in his answer, which the question refers to, expressed doubt as to the claims that were made in the previous answer. Secondly, with respect to tabling, there are two ways a document can be tabled. One is by seeking leave, which private members can do; the second would be for the Prime Minister himself to table the documents because, as a member of the executive, he has a right that we do not have, and that is within the power of the Prime Minister as a member of the executive.
But that's not what the question asked.
The question asked whether he would agree to the tabling of them. It did not seek leave—
Hang on! Hang on! Stop right there. The question didn't say, 'If I hand you these documents, will you table them?' It didn't. You're right—ministers can table documents, do table documents, without leave. The only way they could be tabled would be for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to seek leave to have them tabled, and leave is either given or it's denied. Don't start again! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave—
Mr Porter interjecting—
No, he can seek leave. He's asked the question. Now we'll have the answer.
I seek leave—
Honourable members interjecting—
No, the question is out of order.
I know. I'm seeking leave—
Honourable members interjecting—
It'll now alternate—
An opposition member: He's not asking for a question.
Mr Robert interjecting—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
No, I don't need the help of the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for the NDIS. No, that's right. The question's out of order. It's concluded. Let's just not waste time. Just seek leave, if that's what you want. Yes, you've got the call.
I seek leave to table an invitation from the Pinnacle Club.
Leave not granted.
I seek leave—
No, you can't. You're not going to do it, one after another after another. We're not going to do that. I've known you a long time, but you're wearing out the welcome! The member for Herbert has the call.
My question is for the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to border protection and immigration and how this approach is keeping Australians safe? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his question and thank him for his service to our country. He does a wonderful job in Townsville in his electorate of Herbert. He's a great supporter of the government's strong policy to make sure that people who come to our country and don't abide by the law face deportation. It's a pretty simple proposition.
We welcome millions of people to our country, and 99 per cent of them do the right thing. If you come to our country and you commit an offence against a child or against an Australian citizen otherwise, you face deportation. We're very clear about it. We tightened the law in 2014, and we've now deported 4½ thousand criminals. We've made Australia a safer place as the result of that.
We're proposing to tighten the law even further, and yet the Labor Party are opposed to this. Amazingly, this concept has obviously escaped Senator Keneally, the shadow minister for home affairs: we're elected in this place to represent the Australian people, not the New Zealanders and not the New Zealand parliament or the New Zealand government. We are elected to represent the Australian people. This government acts in the interests of the Australian people, but Senator Keneally is out there saying that she doesn't support this tightening of the law to kick out criminals, because she is doing the bidding of the New Zealand government.
The Labor Party can adopt all these hypothetical positions if they want, but I'll tell you why it matters. There was a case which was highlighted in the Herald Sun earlier this week, and it goes to a very sad case in Victoria—and I'll read from John Rolfe's article:
THE sister of a woman murdered by an immigrant already been convicted of a serious crime in Australia is demanding shadow citizenship minister Kristina Keneally "spend a day in the life of our family" after Labor senators came out against a bill that would spare others their heartache. Turkish-born Mustafa Kunduraci stabbed Korinne Aylward and her partner Greg Tucker to death in their lounge room in December 2013 after a dispute over a plastering job he had done—
Mr Gosling interjecting—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
If the minister could just pause, and we will stop the clock. To those members interjecting, the members for Solomon and Lyons: cease interjecting. The point you're making is invalid. I'm not going to revisit the issue. If they want to learn about the basis of my ruling, they'll need to look at what the standing orders are on questions as compared to answers. It might be a better idea if they spent some time reading the Practice rather than interjecting. The minister has the call.
The article goes on. But, nearly four years earlier, he had violently attacked and threatened to kill a former partner. Had character test legislation now proposed by the federal government been in place at the time that earlier crime would have likely led to him being booted out of Australia.
We are not dealing in hypotheticals here. When we look at the 4½ thousand cases, these are people who in many instances have committed serious crimes against children and women in our country. We are not going to resile from the fact that we've been elected to represent and support the Australian public and to act in our national interest, and that is exactly what the Morrison government will continue to do.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the assistant minister for customs allowing the Pinnacle Club, an associated entity of the Victorian Liberal Party, to use his taxpayer funded office, his taxpayer-funded phone number and his ministerial PO box possibly consistent with the Prime Minister's ministerial standards?
The Leader of the House—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
Mr Speaker, it's certainly the case that that is asking the Prime Minister for an opinion, but, secondarily, there's no date that attaches to any of these allegations that have been made by members opposite. You had ample opportunity in your question to state a date. It's not even possible to know whether or not—
Honourable members interjecting—
Can I just remind members—
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
even the member for Ballarat, that the Manager of Opposition Business is actually trying to hear as well. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. I half-heard what he was saying about a date. I'm interested in how that's relevant.
Without any kind of specifics over what it is that the member opposite alleges, all that is left is seeking an opinion from the Prime Minister.
I just have to say to the Leader of the House that the question is in order. It's asking about the Prime Minister's ministerial code. It's asking about a minister. If your reference to the date is that you think it may predate the minister, the question is about the assistant minister for customs. He has been the assistant minister for customs since the last election. Prime Ministers can be asked about whether they think ministers and assistant ministers are abiding by the code. There have been many questions like that.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asserted a number of things and asked me for an opinion on these matters. I'm not going to venture opinions based on the assertions made by the opposition, for reasons that I stated before, but I can tell you one thing that wasn't happening: no-one walked into his office with a big plastic bag full of $100,000 and counted it out on the table like happens on Sussex Street on a regular basis, it would seem.
I seek leave to table the Pinnacle Club's AEC return, the AEC Transparency Register, the contact details of the assistant minister on the Department of Home Affairs website and the ministerial standards.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Decentralisation and Local Government. On almost every measure, country Australians have poorer health than our city cousins. We're twice as likely to get diabetes and cancer. In Benalla we have double the rate of mental illness, yet we have less access to health care. We are more likely to pay out of pocket. Doctor-patient ratios are twice as high. In Wangaratta the bulk-billing rate is just 69 per cent, seven points below the national average. Will the minister update the House of his plans for developing a new rural health strategy that commits to a timetable for closing these gaps in health care and health outcomes for regional Australians?
I thank the member for Indi for her question and I recognise her knowledge, history and understanding of rural and regional health issues before she came to this place. The Australian government is committed to improving the outcomes for rural Australians and to building a sustainable workforce distributed right across the country. But the truth of the matter is that, at the moment, the workforce is not evenly distributed. We have doctors located in capital cities and we need to move them to more regional areas.
So the government is continuing to implement a transformative $550 million rural health strategy which will give doctors more opportunities to train and practise in rural and remote Australia but, more importantly, also give nurses and allied health professionals a greater role in delivering the multidisciplinary-team-based model for primary health care. We must be using all of the assets, resources and people that we have. So this is the most comprehensive workforce reform package delivered in more than three decades. It is supported by the Rural Doctors Association, ACRRM, RACGP and AMA. The strategy is on track to deliver 3,000 GPs over the coming years. It might be interesting to the member for Indi that, in the first 12 months, already 300 more GPs and 400 nurses have been attracted to regional Australia through this program. So this strategy directly supports a continuum of doctors to learn, train and ultimately practise in rural and regional Australia, transforming medical training in the regions.
One of the ways that we're bringing more medical doctors into the region is the Murray Darling Medical Schools Network. It's been established to provide end-to-end rural training across locations in New South Wales and Victoria, including in the member's electorate at Wodonga through La Trobe University. That's in conjunction with other infrastructure spending like the $14½ million that went into Albury Wodonga Health's hospital campus, $12 million of which was to support funding for a mental health rehabilitation unit at the Wodonga site.
The member would also be interested to know that it's important that we're funding a generalist pathway to give doctors that are going to go and practise in rural and remote areas a broader range of skills, so we've allocated $62.2 million to develop a national rural generalist pathway. That's being implemented at the moment to help retain doctors with a broader range of experience in regional areas. I welcome any further contact with the member if she has individual issues. (Time expired)
My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is ensuring stability and certainty in registered organisations by deterring law breaking by those who appear determined to bring the sector into disrepute, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
As the member is aware, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 simply establishes certain basic standards of behaviour for holding office in registered organisations. It introduces sufficient deterrents for repeat law breaking by registered organisations.
The reason we need to do that is that we are facing organisations such as the CFMMEU, which has been described by a court as the most recidivist corporate offender in Australia's corporate history. We had this morning something fascinating, which was how that organisation sees itself—the most recidivist corporate offender in Australia's history. John Setka described the CFMMEU and his stewardship of this organisation this way: 'I am fit to lead an organisation. I run a union. Me and my executive, I think we're doing a pretty good job. Our members tell us we're doing a pretty good job, so we must be doing something right.' He was then asked about the 2,160 separate instances of law breaking and the $16 million worth of fines, and his response was this: 'They're not criminal breaches. Some of them are just civil breaches. That's all they are is just breaches.' He is right to this extent: the 2,160 breaches are on top of the criminal breaches.
But, really, when have the CFMMEU officials ever seriously broken the law? Well, there is the drug dealing. Sure, there's the drug-dealing. Yes, there are the multiple possession drug offences. There's that—oh, and the assaults. The assaults go without saying, of course—and, yes, the criminal contempt of court. There's that—oh, and the coercions, the criminal trespass, the unlawful access, resisting arrest, the theft, the attempted theft by deception, the hindering and the obstruction on worksites. But, besides the reported drug dealing, drug possession, assaults, criminal contempts, coercion, criminal trespass, unlawful access, resisting arrest, theft, attempted theft by deception, hindering and obstruction on worksites, what have the CFMMEU ever done wrong? What have they done wrong?
It is funny that we should ask that question, because just last week the CFMMEU were hit with a $34,000 fine for faking a safety complaint to disrupt a work site. And what was that work site? It was a school. The reason why we pay 30 per cent more for schools, hospitals and aged-care facilities is that the CFMMEU break the law, and they do it repetitively without any concern for the law.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I wish to inform the House that, following a competitive selection process, Ms Catherine Cornish has been appointed as Deputy Clerk of this House. I'm sure members will look forward to working with her in this new role. You're all familiar with Catherine. She's sitting here at the table today. Congratulations.
In accordance with the resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the registration of members' interests, I have appointed Catherine as Registrar of Members' Interests. Congratulations.
I move:
That leave of absence for the remainder of the current period of sittings be given to the honourable member for Bonner on the ground of public business overseas.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That leave of absence for the remainder of the current period of sittings be given to the honourable member for Spence on the ground of public business overseas.
Question agreed to.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
This Government's failures on education.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Just before I turn to the matter of public importance, I also congratulate Catherine Cornish, now joining Claressa Surtees. We have an all-female team in senior positions in the Clerk's office. Congratulations. It really is a historic moment.
The matter of public importance today, addressing the failures of this government on education, really is a critical issue for us to confront as a nation. Those opposite are now entering their third term; they're entering their 7th year. They've seen three Prime Ministers. In all of that time, what have we seen? Declining standards, declining achievement, declining investment in our education system, from early childhood education and care through to our schools, TAFE and university—cuts at every stage of our education system. This is set in an economic environment where our economy is growing too slowly and where wages growth is stagnant. Our economic growth is the slowest it's been since the global financial crisis and wages growth is the worst on record. There are about 1.8 million Australians who are unemployed or underemployed, looking for work or looking for more work. Our unemployment rate is much higher than it should be. Business investment is at its lowest level since the 1990s recession, productivity's going backwards and living standards for families are going backwards. A decline in investment and a decline in skills is really supercharging the problems in our economy at the moment. It's translating into record low wages growth and crashing productivity.
When it comes to early-childhood education, every expert will tell you how critical those early years are. The first 1,000 days of a child's life are so important to their later success. Ninety per cent of a child's brain development happens before that child turns five—even before they start school. Our experts here in Australia know that; parents certainly know it. Countries around the world are using this information to invest in the early years. The UK has near-universal preschool education for three-year-olds, and has since 2004. In New Zealand that's been the case since 2007. There are legal supports for universal access in Norway, Ireland and France. In South Korea, 75 per cent of three-year-olds attend preschool programs. China is aiming for universal access by 2020, and the number of Chinese three-year-olds in preschool today is greater than the total population of Australia. These countries are investing in the early years because the payoff is there for a child's lifetime.
In contrast, in Australia only 57 per cent of three-year-olds are attending some form of early education. What's really troubling about this is that more than one in five of our children are starting school without the foundational skills to be successful early learners. They're starting school developmentally vulnerable. We can change that. Labor had a policy at the last election to expand our very successful universal preschool access for four-year-olds to three-year-olds also. Those opposite, of course, will not guarantee even to fund preschool beyond the end of 2020.
When we look at schools we see a similar tale. A report from the OECD last week proves what Labor has been saying all along: education funding is falling in this country. Total government expenditure on schools and non-tertiary postsecondary education has fallen from 10.4 per cent of total government expenditure in 2010 to 8.9 per cent in 2016. The share of our national wealth that we are investing in our children, in our young people and in our workers' retraining and reskilling is actually falling. We saw it first with schools, with Tony Abbott cutting $30 billion from schools when he was Prime Minister and Malcolm Turnbull, when he was Prime Minister, pulling that back to $17 billion, and then the current Prime Minister restoring funding to Catholic and independent schools but retaining $14 billion worth of cuts to our public schools.
We saw what early-years needs based funding did for schools like Merrylands High School in Western Sydney, which lifted its HSC results and doubled the number of students going to university, thanks to targeted literacy and numeracy programs, or Eagleby South State School near Logan in Queensland, hiring and training extra reading aides; the year 6 and 7 reading age level went from 50 per cent to 70 per cent. That's what extra investment in schools does. But those opposite are so determined to turn their backs on need in this area that they were prepared to campaign against extra investment in public schools in their electorates. For example, under Labor's policy the schools in Mallee would have been $31.3 million better off; in Calare, $24½ million better off; and in New England, $26.1 million better off. Schools like Horsham College in Mallee would have been $1.6 million better off, Grafton High School $1.3 million better off and Bundaberg State High School $2¼ million better off under Labor's fair funding policies.
When it comes to the results that this underinvestment is causing, look at Australia's results going backwards in all the major international studies and in NAPLAN, too. In every domain, in different states, we are seeing results going backwards because of these funding cuts.
After billions of dollars cut from vocational education and training and from TAFE, we now have 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than when those opposite came to government. We see fewer apprentices and trainees today than when John Howard was Prime Minister. We actually see more apprentices dropping out of apprenticeships than completing them. But we've got skills shortages across the country. The mining industry have again been saying how worried they are about skills shortages emerging in their areas. There are skills shortages right across Australia—motor mechanics, panel beaters, bricklayers, stonemasons, carpenters and joiners, tilers, plumbers, electricians, bakers, pastry cooks, butchers, hairdressers, cabinet-makers, childcare workers—because of the government's failure to invest in vocational education and training. This is a brake on our economy and it is a tragedy for those 1.8 million Australians who are missing out on the chance of a great job. When you lock someone out of education, you are locking that person out of a job.
Of course, it's not just early childhood education, it's not just our schools and it's not just vocational education; it's also our universities that are suffering from the billions of dollars of funding cuts from those opposite. We're having a disagreement at the moment. Labor supports extra investment in emergency responses, but not at the cost of a $4 billion cut from our university sector. We've already seen $328.5 million cut from research and $2.2 billion cut when university places were capped. Because of the recapping of university places, 200,000 people will miss out on a university education.
What do we know about this fast-changing economy and the fact that the world of work is changing so quickly? We know that our young people need a post-school qualification—be it in TAFE or university. Those entry-level jobs that you could go straight into from year 10 don't exist anymore, and parents know this too. They want that education for their children. I have been travelling around the country and I have met with so many parents who are so concerned about their children's access to a great school education, to TAFE, to university and to the jobs that that educational pathway provides. Those opposite have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the demands of parents, the demands of teachers, the demands of Australians, for a great education for themselves and for the next generation. A great education is the ticket to a lifetime of success and fulfilment for individuals, but it is also the ticket to prosperity for us as a nation. We cannot be a successful and prosperous nation unless we invest properly in our schools.
I must say that I have a tiny bit of empathy for the member for Sydney, because every policy that she took to the last election—every single one of them—is now on the table. There is not one that she can currently stand by. Every single policy is on the table. It would be very hard to get up with energy and enthusiasm and really get behind what you're saying when everything that you took to the election is on the table, including the $387 billion worth of new taxes that were going to underpin what you were doing. So I do have some empathy for you, Member for Sydney.
But I do have to point out a few things. One is that we have record funding when it comes to child care, we have record funding when it comes to preschool, we have record funding when it comes to schools and we have record funding when it comes to higher education. So let's be very, very clear. What we've got to focus on now is making sure that we're getting the right outcomes from that record funding, and that is what the government is doing.
Let's start with child care. We've paid more than $7 billion in subsidies to more than 1.1 million families to support the childcare needs of 1.6 million children since our childcare reforms came into place—the most major childcare reforms that this country has seen in decades. The latest child care consumer price index figures from the ABS indicate that, across Australia, out-of-pocket costs for families are 7.9 per cent lower than their peak in the June quarter of 2018. That is a 7.9 per cent reduction in out-of-pocket costs for families. With the legislation we have brought into the House today, what we are also doing is making sure that the regulations continue to diminish, so that the system works even better.
When it comes to preschool, once again there is record funding: $890 million over 2019 and 2020. Since we were elected, $2.8 billion has been provided for preschool. What we are doing now is making sure that when it comes to preschool those who need it most are going to get it. We know that those from Indigenous backgrounds, those from low socioeconomic backgrounds and those from rural and remote areas aren't attending preschool like their city cousins. We want to make sure that the record investment we are putting into preschool will deliver results for those groups. That is what we are focusing on. That is why we have asked The Smith Family to work with us to tell us what we need to do to get that attendance up. We understand that if we can get attendance up in those areas that is where we will get the greatest return on our investment. We will continue to ensure that the money we are providing for preschool gets results right across our nation.
When it comes to schools, what we have achieved is something the Labor Party could never have achieved. We have guaranteed record funding to every school, on the basis of student need. We have done this through agreements with every single state and territory. Not only that, over the next decade we are providing record funding to schools, which has been provided without having to put $387 billion of new taxes in place. That is an extra $37 billion for schools compared to the 2016 budget settings. Importantly, it is a 62 per cent increase in per-student funding on average.
As well as that, as members on this side know, we also have our $200,000 Local Schools Community Fund. I know members are out actively going to their government and non-government schools and asking how they can help them with the local projects that they need at their schools.
Then we move on to higher education. Here, once again, the government is providing record funding for universities. Funding for universities has grown by nearly 19 per cent, around $2.8 billion, since we were elected, and will grow by nearly 29 per cent, around $4.3 billion, through to 2022. Funding for universities is at a record $17.7 billion in 2019 and will grow to $19.1 billion by 2022. Once again, when it comes to universities we want to make sure that the system is financially sustainable into the future. That is why we have put in place performance based funding. We want the focus for universities to be on producing job-ready graduates. If they do that we have said that we will increase their funding and do it for the performance that they do in getting job-ready graduates. We have also said that one of the things universities need to be very focused on is making sure that, when students decide to embark on a degree, universities do everything they can to make sure that the level of attainment is there, that the level of completion is there. So, we are working with universities to incentivise that when students start their degree they complete their degree. We are also working with universities to make sure that those students who come from low socioeconomic areas, Indigenous students and rural and remote students are a focus in ensuring that we can lift the level of attainment from those students who grow up in rural and remote Australia, versus those who grow up in our capital cities.
We all know that if you're born in Alice Springs then the chance that you will attain a higher degree is less than 22 per cent. If you're born in Melbourne or Sydney, it's as high as 44 per cent. We have to reduce that gap, for the good of our nation, and that is what we are working with the university sector to do. We've also had the Napthine report delivered, and the Napthine report is making sure that we get better attainment rates for regional and rural students and also that we get better outcomes for rural universities. There is a list of recommendations there that we'll also be working through with the sector to make sure that we get the right policies in place to absolutely endeavour to make sure that regional and rural communities also have all the benefits that higher education brings to this nation.
Although it's not my portfolio, I know that the minister responsible for vocational education, Michaelia Cash, would say it was remiss of me if I didn't mention what our record is in this space. Our record compares very well with that of those opposite. We are putting in place 80,000 new apprenticeships. And who can tell me this: under which government was there the greatest drop in apprenticeships and traineeships? When do you think it was? It was 2012-13. That biggest drop—that record drop—how many? Would it have been 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 or maybe 80,000? We have committed to put in place 80,000 new traineeships and apprenticeships. The record of those opposite is that when they were last in office there was the biggest drop in apprenticeships and traineeships, by 80,000.
What we have on this side is record funding for child care—the biggest reforms in child care that this nation has seen in decades. We've seen record funding for preschool, plus a focus on making sure that that investment benefits those from Indigenous, rural and remote backgrounds, those from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. We have the biggest funding in schools, both primary and secondary, and are making sure that it is needs based funding—something that those opposite could never, ever achieve.
Opposition members interjecting—
I know it hurts, but we were able to deliver needs based funding on this side. What we've got is major investments going into the higher education sector, major investment going into research, which is going to deliver better outcomes for everyone who attends university. Also, we've got sensible investment into vocational education, which is going to deliver 80,000 new apprenticeships. That compares and contrasts with those opposite, who had the single-biggest fall when it came to trainees and apprenticeships. Our record is an impeccable one.
I wanted to speak on my great colleague's MPI today and focus on early childhood, but I can't let some of the claims that the minister's made on vocational education, in particular apprenticeships, go unanswered, because he made them the other day as well in consideration in detail when I spoke at length on what's happened in the vocational education sector. The Minster for Education fails to identify that the changes that the Labor government made were not to apprenticeships; they were to traineeships. And they were because the fast-food industry was enrolling every young person they employed as a trainee, which is not the intention of the scheme—and I'm sure the minister and those opposite would have looked very closely at that themselves if they'd been in government and the scheme was being used in that way at that time.
Secondly, I think it's not really an appropriate skite by those in government to say: 'We introduced the Skilling Australia Fund and announced that we were going to create 200,000 apprenticeships. We've thrown up our hands in defeat. We're now 150,000 behind. We'll just pretend we never promised 200,000 and now say it's great that we're promising 80,000'—which doesn't even match their own target that they initially set, let alone make up for the 150,000 that have been lost since they took over government.
So I would really say that the conversation in the vocational education sector, like all of the conversations this government has in the education sector, follows a standard pattern: 'No. 1, claim we think it's really important. We really think preschool's important. We really think school education's important. We really think vocational education's important. We really think university education's important.' They make all the motherhood statements, followed up by, 'And we've given it record funding.' What's the basis of that? Generally natural growth. There's no actual program of reform and additional investment by the government in the education sectors that actually shows that they're prioritising this in the decisions that they make and the budgets that they bring down.
In particular, I want to talk about the early childhood sector today, because we know—the evidence is there—that investing funding into children before they start at formal school through a preschool program makes a significant difference to how well they perform over the whole lifetime of their education and, therefore, their opportunity to get employment and, indeed, to start the new businesses of innovation that will drive our economy into the future. One of the things you need to do is to make sure not only that the education program is available, accessible and equitable but also that it's quality and delivering what the nation needs. This is a particularly important focus in the early childhood sector. Only the other week—I think in the first week of September—we had Early Learning Matters Week. I was very pleased to be able to visit the Keiraview Children's Centre, an early education facility in my electorate, on Early Childhood Educators' Day. I give a big shout-out to the wonderful teachers who work in our early education sector as well. I noticed that the member for Page was talking about early learning centres before in the 90-second statements. I regularly visit early learning centres in my electorate. I've been to Book Week with Wollongong City Community Preschool. I recently—a month or so ago—visited the Corrimal Community Preschool. What happens when you go into those preschools is that you see their profound quality and dedication to giving our very youngest learners the very best quality of education. I always express—as I'm sure many colleagues do, including those on the other side who visit—deep appreciation for the value of the work that our early educators are doing.
What does concern me and many providers in the sector is that this government will not bite the bullet and put in place a determined program that guarantees ongoing funding for four-year-olds to get universal preschool access. If government members who visit their centres do appreciate the value of that, they need to tell the minister to bite the bullet and give guaranteed ongoing funding and, even better, maybe look at a really important initiative that, as our shadow minister for education pointed out, is happening in our competitors across the world: look at three-year-olds as well, because the best thing to set all of our children across the nation up for success in education is to fund three- and four-year-old preschool.
I'm very pleased to have this chance to speak on this MPI. What a wonderful opportunity it is for me to highlight some of the tremendous achievements that the coalition government has delivered to ensure that every Australian child receives world-class education! The fact is that the coalition is providing record funding of $310.3 billion to state schools, Catholic schools and independent schools. That's an extra $37 billion, or a 62 per cent increase per student on average over a decade. This is real, needs based funding that is increasing every single year under our government. This ensures that every Australian child, no matter where they are, can access world-class education.
This extends to child care as well. The coalition reforms have delivered a 7.9 per cent reduction in out-of-pocket costs to parents since our package was introduced. Our new $8.6 billion childcare package is providing greater access and more financial support for families who work the most and earn the least. Around one million Australian families who are balancing work and parental responsibilities are benefiting from the package. Seventy-five per cent of families pay no more than $50 per day in day care centres. Within that subset, 25 per cent of families pay no more than $20 per day to access quality childcare services. The new childcare package represents the most significant reforms to early childhood education and the care system in the past 40 years. I recently visited the Rockhampton South Kindergarten in my electorate to see firsthand the positive differences that these reforms have delivered to parents and young children.
Another local childcare centre in my electorate, Capricornia In Home Care, received nearly $200,000 in funding through our Community Child Care Fund. This is part of our government's Child Care Safety Net, which aims to give the most vulnerable children a strong start while supporting parents into work. As the Assistant Minister for Children and Families, it was wonderful to announce this funding with the CEO Jason de Bakker and his team in person. This funding will help overcome some of the unique challenges childcare services in remote and regional areas currently face. It means that more hardworking families in Capricornia can take advantage of our government's childcare subsidy to work, learn or volunteer. Families in the bush get slugged with challenges that families in the city don't often face. This funding will help support the service to become more viable in the future.
The coalition government has provided more than $120 million to 800 providers over five years to support more families to access child care through this initiative. I am very proud to be part of that. This government can be trusted with education. It should not be forgotten that, when Labor were last in office and the member for Maribyrnong was the education minister, $1.2 billion was cut from schools through secret funding deals. In government, Labor failed to provide ongoing needs-based school funding focused on students. They announced $6.6 billion in cuts to higher education. They cannot manage money, putting at risk our real-needs-based and record funding of schools.
Australian government funding for schools is now based on student needs. Our agreement is fair and provides certainty over the next decade. We are backing the full implementation of NAPLAN to ensure that parents and teachers get transparency on student progress. We are improving teacher quality by testing trainee teachers to ensure that they are in the top 30 per cent for literacy and numeracy before they teach in schools. We are refocusing the Australian curriculum on the essentials.
The Australian people can be assured that we remain committed to strengthening and building on our achievements in education. The coalition government are getting on with the job that the Australian people gave us because we continue to deliver.
I'm pleased to rise today on the member for Sydney's matter of public importance. I am pleased to share this with the House. Many would have heard on radio this week the interview with Julia Gillard in which she reminded us that in this place we need to keep our eyes firmly on the purpose and the passion that brought us here. The purpose and passion that brought me to this place is education—not education for education's sake but quality education for Australia's children. I know that that passion and that purpose is shared by the member for Sydney and by the member for Cunningham, who just left the chamber after her great contribution.
I echo the words of the member for Sydney today. We have a government that talks about education but has delivered nothing in six years but a decline in education across all the education sectors. We've been listening now for six years while they talk about the record funding that they are putting into education. I use the same statistic that the member for Sydney used. Expenditure on schools and non-tertiary postsecondary education in Australia fell from 10.4 per cent of total government expenditure in 2010 to 8.9 per cent in 2016. As a percentage, funding for education in this country has gone backwards. Those figures can't be twisted. It saddens me.
We're watching our schools slip back. We're watching our Australian children slip back on the international benchmarks. We're watching that happen not because our teachers and those employed in the sector aren't working hard but because all the other governments in the world have figured out how important education is to building an economy and society. Everybody else is out there doing the heavy lifting in their countries to improve the education of their children—countries that are delivering on kindergarten for three-year-olds, countries that are working to improve teacher quality—while in this chamber we hear rhetoric about those things, but fundamentally nothing is delivered.
As a former principal, I understand a school budget. I critically understand what a student resource standard means in my school. I understand what it means to be able to plan for the next year. So it is has saddened me since this government came to office that our early education sector cannot plan beyond the next year. How do you retain, train and build careers for people in early education when the funding model doesn't go beyond the next year. It is impossible. And this government is being tricky in this space—just like the way they undid Gonski. They turned Gonski from being needs based and sector blind into a funding funnel for private schools and independent schools, to cap funding for state schools at 20 per cent. That was an absolute crime. It was an absolute step away from our federal government's responsibility for school education.
Just like they have done that, it is my firm belief that they would prefer to see the states take responsibility for all education. And, every year, I think this is the year they are going to walk away from early education. We will wait another year and see if it gets funding in the next budget. But what we do know is that there is no intention from those opposite to join other countries internationally and fund kindergarten for three-year-olds. It is an imperative, and it should be this government's imperative.
Going to quality teaching, this government has done nothing about building the capacity of our teachers to continually improve in our schools. We have a testing regime that demonstrates where the gaps are, but we've done nothing about fundamentally supporting the sector that educates 75 per cent of our children. We've done nothing about providing them with resources or support, or asking them what they think we need to do about teacher training or how we might support graduate teachers. In an electorate like mine, some schools are turning over 30 per cent of their staff a year because they need another 30 per cent coming in—and they are in large schools that need experienced teachers around our young teachers to support them. This government's record is an indictment on itself.
A strong and effective education is one of the most important things a government can provide for the people that we all represent. The flow-on effects of having a well-educated society are immeasurable. The social and economic success of a nation hinges fundamentally on the strength of its education system. Those opposite tell us that education is their domain, that they were instrumental in the 'education revolution' that would 'transform Australian schooling'. In reality, under their watch, what happened? Labor has shown repeatedly that they talk a big game. When it comes to reform, they have had their chance. What did we get? The Building the Education Revolution. That's a big game. Those are big words. What does that mean? Everybody gets a hall—whether you want one or not, whether it fits or not. Like Henry Ford said: you can have one in any colour you want as long as it's black.
The botched so-called Building the Education Revolution has been labelled a misappropriation of funds, and one that did not deliver value for money for our kids. Inflated quotes were just the beginning of this sorry saga. A government task force, led by the respected Brad Orgill, found that the BER project in New South Wales, Queensland and my home state of Victoria overpaid for buildings by more than 25 per cent compared to those in the Catholic education sector and by a staggering 55 per cent compared to those in the independent sector. So much for the education revolution—or, rather, the education devolution.
While Labor are notorious for overspending their budget, those on this side of the chamber are studious, are diligent and look for best practice around the world when implementing educational reforms. The Morrison government and successive Liberal governments have a long list of achievements in the education space. Just today the Morrison government has reduced out-of-pocket expenses for Australian families with kids in preschool, providing financial support and assistance when families need it most. The coalition government is starting at the very beginning, building the foundations for lifelong learning in preschool. This means that 75 per cent of families with kids in child care won't pay more than $50 a day and 25 per cent of those won't pay more than $20 a day. We're ensuring that the formative years of a child through to adolescence are provided for, that they are given the building blocks for the next stage of life, whether that be university, higher education, an apprenticeship, joining the Defence Force or heading straight to work.
Our school education funding means that every Australian has access to a world-class education regardless of where they live or their socioeconomic background. In my electorate of Higgins the coalition government has delivered increases in funding across government, Catholic and independent schools, giving families options when choosing where to send their children. I know this as a previous chair of a local school. School funding has increased every year under our government. Across Australia our government is providing record funding of $310 billion across all three sectors. That's an extra $37 billion, equating, on average, to an increase of 67 per cent per student over a decade. This is real needs based funding and a real investment in our kids' future.
The Morrison government has provided record levels of funding for higher education and training, an increase year-on-year with every budget the coalition government has handed down. We're investing over $17 billion for higher education this year alone, and another $18 billion the year after. And it doesn't stop there; we're ensuring a good return on our investment, making our education dollar go further, by investing in research, including $3 billion for the Australian Research Council, important funding for our Australian scientists, because we know that, when we invest in good research, we drive innovation, and that results in jobs and a strong economy. Higher education is our third largest export, and we must continue to invest in our world renowned excellence. Despite the naysayers across the chamber, we are delivering— (Time expired)
On no other issue that we'll discuss today is there as great a chasm between those on this side and the government. I'm proud today to stand in defence of this motion and to speak, with the shadow minister for education, on a vision that has been developed over many years, a vision that this country sorely needs. This motion highlights not just how important that vision is but how starkly it stands in contrast to the failure of this government, now in its seventh year—seven years of failing to deliver in one of the most important areas of policy in this country. I'm going to speak about the government's failure in relation to two particular areas of policy, two interdependent ways of looking at the same important area of government service delivery. One is education as a critical way of providing equality of opportunity for our young Australians, and the second is education as a way of investing in the future and providing economic development and, as the shadow minister outlined, as a way of driving productivity growth, which is currently at an appalling low rate.
Let's first look at education as a way of dealing with equality of opportunity. I turn to my own electorate, an electorate sorely in need of greater investment in this area. Under the policies proposed at the last election, developed by the opposition and championed by the shadow minister for education, every government school in my electorate would have received additional equity funding. Indeed, four secondary colleges in my electorate would have received more than $2 million of funding over the life of the next term. None of that money will flow to them now. But every single government school would have received additional money that they would have needed and that would have been carefully calibrated to deal with the particular equity needs of that school.
I've spoken to a number of principals in my electorate, both in the lead-up to the election and since. They've talked to me about what they would have done with that money, about how they're dealing with incredibly diverse students but, often, student bodies with a number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. There are many students with language issues, many students with disabilities and many students who are refugees. Those principals had plans, had visions, for how they could spend that money on specialists, on teachers to help with language, on teachers to help with students' needs when they have a disability, on teachers who could have helped a school cope with 45 nationalities in a student body of fewer than 200 students. That's what principals were dreaming of doing with additional equity funding they so need. But, now, none of that funding will go to them.
What do those opposite say? When they defend their legacy—seven years—just about the entire defence of their legacy comes down to, 'We're spending more dollars than ever.' Their entire defence, almost, is that the nominal education budget is increasing—but, as all of the speakers on this side have so eloquently outlined, that's something that happens just through the process of population growth and inflation. That's really what they're relying on. They're relying on the nominal dollars increasing, and that's the end of the story. Well, no, that's not a vision, that's not providing real outcomes for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, that's not providing sophisticated holistic strategy in this space. It's not enough to say that we're spending more than ever before. That is not an education policy that this country needs.
The second test I want to explain, that this government fails, is the economic test. You could look at this from a number of perspectives. One is early childhood. The member for Cunningham spoke at length about how, if you look at what we're doing versus what a lot of our economic competitors are doing, we are falling behind. The shadow minister also stressed that. Let's look at the VET sector. This is an area where the absolute numbers are falling, despite the fact that population growth is occurring, despite the fact that we are entering a period when people are going to be changing their careers more than ever, and despite the fact that we all know that, in a world where the future of work is one of the great challenges of this parliament, lifelong learning, lifelong reskilling, is something that we will have to embrace.
I recently attended the opening of a really inspirational centre in St Albans, which will provide cybersecurity training to the cert IV level for students in my electorate. Do you know what that was off the back of? It was not from this government but free TAFE in Victoria, provided by the Victorian government. That's what would have been occurring, right across the country, with our party's policies but that's what is not occurring with this government in charge. Their policies fail the social policy and economic policy tests.
Prior to taking up this wonderful opportunity to be a member of parliament, I, like many of us, was a keen student of politics. I've observed for many years now those opposite unfairly and maliciously attempting to paint the coalition as, in some way, being uncommitted to the extremely important area of education. This is evident in today's spurious accusation articulated by the member for Sydney in her matter of public importance. So today I'm delighted to have been given this opportunity to do my bit, to speak about my personal passion for education and the passion of the Morrison government for continuing to deliver exceptional outcomes in education for all Australians.
Let me start by sharing what was my first action when I was elected as a new MP earlier this year. The very first action that I undertook as an MP earlier this year was to attend the wonderful St Andrew's Grammar primary school, in the suburb of Dianella, within my electorate of Stirling. There I attended the commemoration assembly regarding the Battle of Crete, in which Australian soldiers also fought. Apart from the wonderful dancing display that the children put on, it also gave me an opportunity to see firsthand the wonderful progress that that school has made. I've since met twice with the school principal, Craig Monaghan, and leader of the Hellenic community, which is associated with the school, Savvas Papasavvas, to hear from them directly on the future vision of the school. That future vision is best able to be delivered under the sponsorship of this Morrison government. Why? Because it is this government which is investing more than ever in the education of Australians of all ages. It is this government which is providing education funding increases for school children of $7 billion over just the next five years. This is evidence that the government is putting a funding commitment against the priority that we have to continue improving education outcomes, and that is why the children at St Andrew's have the best chance of their vision being realised under the Morrison government.
Another school that I visited recently in my electorate of Stirling is the Westborough primary school. Here, the principal, John Worth, showed me some of the wonderful projects that have been delivered at the school already. This includes a series of planter pots where the kids can get their hands dirty, muck in, plant fruit and vegetables and then watch them grow. That's associated with a storage shed which allows for the storage of the tools and equipment that the kids need to get stuck in and see that wonderful education in growing fruit and veg for themselves. The principal also showed me the future vision for his school, and that included a shaded eating area for the kids, who currently have to cram in on a very narrow balcony, avoiding the teachers who try and cut a path through them at the busy school lunch hour. It also includes upgrades to the flag pole, where they proudly display the Australian and Western Australian flags. In future, they will be able to display the Aboriginal flag as well. They use that flag station for school assemblies and commemorative days, including Anzac Day. They're very proud, but they want to enhance those facilities in line with local community expectations. Again, it is under the Morrison government that this school has the best chance of realising that vision. I'm working closely with that school and many others to help achieve their vision for the future of their children.
Let's consider some of the other facts in education. Let's consider very early education at child care. In child care, we're moving, in terms of investment, from funding of $8 billion in 2018-19 to $9.9 billion in 2021-22. That's an increase over a period of four years of $1.9 billion. In terms of child care, around 75 per cent will pay no more than $50 per day in day-care centres. The new childcare package represents the most significant reforms to early education in 40 years. I could go on. I'll leave that for some of my colleagues. Suffice to say that this government and I personally are committed to education and continuing on the best outcomes for all Australians.
It is quite simple: we need to have properly funded schools, TAFEs and universities for the future of Australia. I know all too well, in my electorate, the difference education can make to someone's job prospects, social engagement and self-esteem. The Liberal government's cuts are starving our education system of the funding it needs to function effectively. We need to invest in schools to make sure our kids have the best chance of finishing high school. We need to invest in apprenticeships so we can train the tradespeople of the future.
At the end of March 2018, my electorate of Gilmore had seen 810 fewer apprentices in training since the coalition took government in 2013—a 30 per cent drop. More people are now dropping out of apprenticeships than finishing them. In an electorate like mine, where we have the lowest workforce participation rate in Australia and the highest youth unemployment rate in New South Wales, this is simply not good enough. I've been banging on loudly for years about the loss of all pre-apprenticeships at my local TAFE campuses. These were popular courses that allowed people to start a trades career if they did not yet have an apprenticeship. Employers loved the courses and they were often utilised to employ apprentices. Students loved the courses too, as they gave them a foot in the door to an apprenticeship and to gain valuable trade skills. How do I know? As a local TAFE teacher for decades in my electorate, I taught in pre-apprenticeship welding classes and helped students get ready for their industry accredited work placements. It worked. Parents loved the courses too. That's what the coalition's $3 billion in cuts to the vocational education will do. It's disgraceful.
Contrast that to Labor's policies at the election: guaranteeing the public funding of TAFE, funding to bring back pre-apprenticeships and mature-age apprenticeships and the commitment I made in the lead-up to the 2019 election, to invest a further $2 million to upgrade local TAFE equipment. I have heard stories about students buying their own equipment, broken digital whiteboards, ageing equipment and many other problems. Students need the tools to gain the necessary skills for the 21st century jobs. But where was the coalition commitment? It wasn't there at all. That's what they think of TAFE. That's what they think of people in my electorate.
Who could forget the coalition's cruel and irresponsible decision in 2017 to outsource the federally funded TAFE AMEP program, which provided literacy skills to new migrants in my electorate? I questioned that decision loudly then. I knew it would not work. Here's the headline by my predecessor: 'Smooth transition. Sudmalis backs TAFE privatisation'. It hurt our local TAFE campuses—fewer enrolments, fewer teaching hours, teachers axed and, as a result, fewer literacy programs. It came as no surprise later when literacy students at Batemans Bay were told that the private provider was no longer providing the course and that they could—wait for it—travel to Nowra, over an hour and a half away with no public transport. That's what the coalition government does to TAFE. That's what the coalition government does to people in my electorate. They don't care about the less well off or the people who want to go. We need to be giving young people the best opportunities we can, and it starts with education. It starts in schools.
There are so many worthy causes in my electorate. The Bomaderry High School Aboriginal learning centre and literacy and numeracy centre is in desperate need of specialist equipment, books, computers and study zones. That is why during the election I committed $50,000 for brand new facilities at the school. I wanted to deliver an inclusive learning environment for Indigenous students, to help them boost their literacy and numeracy levels. I also committed a further $50,000 to Jamberoo Public School towards interactive whiteboards, iPads, laptops and a library upgrade. This funding would have facilitated internet based lessons and boosted student interests in science, technology, engineering and maths.
I remain committed to working with this government to deliver improved outcomes for my local schools. When students fall behind in reading, writing and maths, it can be so hard to catch up. Targeted investments in our schools can make the difference and help students thrive. I want to make sure that all children have the opportunity to reach their full potential, no matter where they live or how much their parents earn. So, today, I call on the government to properly invest in our education system so that our kids can have the best start in life possible.
It just seems like there's this constant hand-wringing on the other side—an almost Labor Party obsession with cuts to education. The problem is that in their six years of government we didn't see much in the way of increases from the Labor Party, because they ran the economy so poorly. But here's a little tip. I have some very good members from the Labor Party on my Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Training. There's evidence of early green sprouting of people on the Labor Party side that have an education background.
I commend the previous speaker for her work in TAFE. She's a great addition to the chamber. And we have another angry principal in the back row of the Labor Party. I am sure there's no mess in the playground and rubbish on the ground at her school. At least they have had hands-on experience. This is something we have been looking for, for decades, from the Labor Party—to replace people like the member for Sydney, who just have this constant union-driven refrain; handcuffed to the corpse of her union employer, just rolling out the 'cuts, cuts, cuts'. It reminds me of that supermarket jingle 'Down, down'—union membership is down. It is all down, down, down on cuts.
But the brutal reality is that education funding is in fact going the other way. There's this 'awkward' fact that the government committed $310 billion. The $310 billion committed by this coalition government—the government that runs the economy well—means that the average student can look to an increase of around 62 per cent per capita in education funding over the next decade. Part of that is what we call education inflation, but those figures can't be argued with. So we can waste our time talking about cuts that don't exist. The Labor Party talks about the funding going down. It is going up-down! These guys simply keep saying 'cuts, cuts, cuts'. It doesn't matter what the figures show.
Let me give them a tip: the reality is that they're in opposition. We say to each of you, including the member for Sydney: you're not going to be doing anything about education funding, because you are in opposition. So here's a friendly tip. Let's talk about the quality of the education system and a better spend, because that's what they can do something about. They can stump up, talk to their Labor mates in state government and start identifying what Gonski pointed out. What did Gonski point out? He pointed out that, fundamentally, teachers are basically being distracted from their good work by having to do unnecessary additional tasks. Teachers aren't being looked after for the hours that they do or paid for the work they do. They're taking home enormous amounts of work that they're not remunerated for, and some of these elements would liberate teachers to be able to do what they do best—to teach, to assess and to form those one-to-one relationships and understand student progress—because they'd have enough time to do it. But nothing was done when Labor were in government. Why? It's just this unionised obsession: the higher the student-teacher ratio is, the worse the education system is, as if a great-quality teacher can handle 26 students but can't handle 28. All the evidence from Europe disproves that.
What they are dealing with from opposition is they are looking at a coalition government that can run the economy and fund education—higher education and secondary, primary and early education. They're dealing with a coalition government that has brought the out-of-pocket costs for child care down, down, down—let's go back to the supermarket jingle. Seventy-five per cent of those using child care are paying less than 50 bucks a day. Of that cohort, a quarter pay less than $20 a day for child care. This myth of unaffordability is something which is generated in the Leader of the Opposition's office and pumped out for disappointing performers like the member for Sydney.
For our teachers, what's the obvious challenge? They're teaching out of field. Too many PE teachers in this country are teaching maths, poorly, particularly in regional areas. There is no lattice of support for our teachers. We need subject matter experts. We need leadership experts supporting young teachers and giving them some time to develop their skills. That's what we really need in our schools, but what we are let down by is a Labor Party opposition that is obsessed with cuts. I know it permeates their life in the union movement—lack of membership—but in education the story is different. The narrative is written. The debate's over. Funding's going like that. So move on. Be constructive. Stop reading out your opposition talking points. We're tired of them. We need teachers to have cutting-edge resources and new technology. This is a Labor Party blind to those opportunities because it's obsessed by what its teacher unions tell it: it's all about whether there's one extra kid in the class making teaching impossible. Great-quality teachers can teach 24, 26 or 28 students because they're great teachers. Let's work on making sure the money we are investing is supporting teachers to do the job they love.
The time for the discussion has concluded.
The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees.
by leave—I move:
That:
(1) Dr Haines be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network;
(2) Ms Bird and Mr Zappia be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety.
Question agreed to.
by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity of the 45th Parliament, I present the committee's report entitled Examination of the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2016-17, together with evidence received by the committee.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, otherwise known as ACLEI, is responsible for preventing, detecting and investigating serious and systemic corruption issues in Australia's law enforcement agencies. ACLEI is required, pursuant to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act, to provide an annual report to the parliament detailing its activities and investigations.
The annual report notes that 2016-17 marked another period of heightened operational activity for ACLEI, shown by the number of corruption notifications received and a significant increase in investigation figures. Additionally, this period saw a notable increase in the complexity of investigations. Compared with 2015-16, in 2016-17 ACLEI conducted over four times as many hearings, sought over three times as many telecommunications interception warrants, and sought over five times as many surveillance device warrants.
The annual report highlighted two overarching issues faced in 2016-17. These issues relate to staffing and to ACLEI's expanded jurisdiction to include the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection (otherwise referred to as DIBP, now the Department of Home Affairs), which raised corruption issues beyond ACLEI's traditional law enforcement focus.
Staffing issues had been largely caused by the expansion of ACLEI's jurisdiction to include the DIBP, and the subsequent need to increase its workforce.
In relation to ACLEI's increased and changing workload associated with the expansion to include the DIBP, the Integrity Commissioner highlighted to the committee that in 2016-17, this agency accounted for over 60 per cent of corruption issue notifications and 47 per cent more corruption issues investigated by ACLEI.
In order to address the key corruption issues associated with the DIBP, the committee was advised that ACLEI established a Visa Integrity Taskforce with dedicated funding from the confiscated assets fund. The committee was advised by ACLEI that this unit has generated a significant volume of intelligence and information relating to visa fraud. The committee notes that this increase in intelligence will result in an additional investigative workload, and we look forward to future updates from ACLEI on those outcomes.
The annual report highlights that ACLEI has sought to be more innovative and proactive by integrating its corruption prevention and intelligence assessment teams into one unit to better assist jurisdictional agencies in building their integrity culture and programs, as well as providing timely strategic insight into current and emerging integrity risks in LEIC Act agencies.
The committee recognises a product of ACLEI's expanded jurisdiction has been an increase in the number of notifications it has received. Despite this increase, the committee commends ACLEI on the high completion rates for assessments during the 2016-17 reporting period. In particular, the committee congratulates ACLEI in exceeding its benchmark for completing assessments within 90 days.
The committee is nevertheless concerned by the high numbers of investigations carried forward and will continue to closely monitor the number of investigations conducted by ACLEI, and in particular, the number of investigations that are carried forward into each new reporting period. The committee hopes that efforts to address the culture within the DIBP (and other LEIC Act agencies) will result in a reduction in the number of corruption issues arising in the years to come.
In looking forward, the committee's report recommended that in future annual reports, ACLEI should include a table of assessment statistics detailing the number of assessments conducted and completed in each year, as well as statistics on the number and percentage of assessments that meet the 90-day benchmark. I'm very pleased to note that in the latest annual report currently being reviewed by this committee, ACLEI has provided this detail. I thank ACLEI for responding to the committee's recommendation.
In conclusion, despite a number of challenges, ACLEI has yet again demonstrated its ability to adapt, respond and succeed as its jurisdiction and workload has expanded. The committee congratulates the Integrity Commissioner, Mr Michael Griffin AM, and his staff for their efforts to address corruption and improve integrity in Australia's national law enforcement agencies.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
The sad history that brings this bill to the House is necessary to recount at the outset. On 30 July 2013, former agriculture minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced that Labor would establish the post of an Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. Our position was to build on Australia's regulatory framework, to recognise that while the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System had improved conditions of animal welfare it was necessary to have independent oversight.
That inspector-general would have added an additional layer of assurance that the regulatory system was delivering appropriate animal welfare. It would have placed no additional regulatory burdens on exports, nor on trading partners. However, just a few short months later, on 31 October 2013, the member for New England, then the agriculture minister, abolished the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. The member for New England claimed, 'The current regulation of livestock exports is designed to minimise risk,' and that's why he was confident the establishment of an inspector-general was not necessary. He said the inspector-general was 'a classic example of layer upon layer of bureaucracy without any practical outcome', and, 'The live export regulator was already and remains subject to oversight and review mechanisms.' He said, 'This is one bit of red tape we can do without.'
That remained the position of the Abbott-Turnbull government until a 60 Minutes report on 9 April 2018 exposed animal welfare failings in the live export trade. That program showed some shocking footage of the mistreatment of sheep. Filmed by a navigation officer onboard multiple voyages, it showed thousands of animals packed into tiny pens, panting in the extreme heat. More than 1,300 sheep allegedly died over two days in an intense heatwave in the Persian Gulf. One of the crew said that the sheep were, effectively, being put into an oven. The footage shows carcasses being tossed from the boat into the sea, while other sheep fight for food or collapse and die in filth below deck.
The exporter, Emanuel Exports, was allegedly behind the recorded journeys. The footage was described by the now agricultural minister, David Littleproud. He said:
I am shocked and deeply disturbed by the vision and thank Animals Australia for bringing it to my attention.
Then came the backflip, the coalition announcing that they would support an inspector-general of animal exports. This meant that Australia had gone for a long period without such an inspector-general and had only reinstated it as a result of this footage from 60 Minutes. It's just another example of the damage that the member for New England did to the portfolio while he was there. As a representative of the ACT, I think also about the decision to move the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to his own electorate in Armidale, costing taxpayers more, damaging the process for review of pesticides and veterinary medicines, delivering no better outcome and having been heavily criticised by the scientific community.
Scrapping the inspector-general was a mistaken decision by the then agriculture minister, the member for New England, only to be reversed by the coalition today—and only reversed, it has to be said, after the industry itself called for change.
While the National Farmers Federation was slow to support change, change was supported by the exporter body themselves, which recognised, through the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, the need for action. After these shocking revelations, Labor called for a cessation of shipments of sheep to the Middle East during the northern summer. We took the view that that cessation was appropriate, as well as supporting the government's backflip on the creation of an inspector-general. This is reminiscent of what we had with the banking royal commission. It was only when the Australian Banking Association supported a banking royal commission that the coalition finally came on board. In this instance it was only when the Australian Livestock Exporters Council said that it had changed its position and supported an inspector-general that the coalition belatedly decided they would support such an inspector-general.
This is an issue of significant concern in my electorate. Let me share with the House a number of comments from constituents of mine. Amanda says: 'I'm not some looney extremist. I'm just an ordinary member of the Australian community that knows something needs to change … Let us be human, let us be kind, let us put a stop to this unnecessary cruelty.' Maya, from the suburb of Fraser, says: 'Australians are very proud of Labor's civilised policy to end live exports …. The ALP's live export position acknowledges what the majority of Australians want.' Kerry, from Latham in the ACT, says: 'Live export was an election issue this year for the first time ever thanks to the ALP's guarantee to end live sheep export.' Noral, from Canberra, says: 'Labor's policy to save sheep from the horrors of live export is so inspiring and is so deeply approved of.' Lynette, from Canberra, said: 'We've got to make this year the landmark year during which live sheep export stops.' And Natalie says: 'By persisting with the awful live-export trade, this government disregarded what the constituents want.'
So there is strong support for better animal welfare standards. This is one of those issues where I imagine future generations may well look back on ours and wonder why we tolerated such mistreatment of animals. A range of organisations such as 80,000 Hours, in thinking about ethical issues around effective altruism, have flagged the mistreatment of farm animals as being a signal issue for our age. It is vital to think about whether the way in which we treat animals is really appropriate to what we now know about the ability of those animals to feel pain and whether we can do better in the regulation of farming. This measure is a sensible one, but there is far more that could be done to ensure that live export, if it must be carried out, is done more humanely. Australia should move to a boxed meat export industry, with domestic abattoirs creating those jobs, avoiding the hardship for animals that takes place with live exports.
I attended an agricultural high school. I have spent my fair share of time around farm animals and seen their ability to engage with us and that sense that, when we are around animals, we are around fellow beings whose suffering we should be concerned about. So I do believe we can do a great deal better when it comes to our treatment of farm animals.
I congratulate the member for Fenner on the outstanding time he achieved in the Sydney Marathon on the weekend.
The Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019 was passed in the Senate on 10 September to establish the position of Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. The position empowers the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to review the performance of functions and exercise of powers by officials in relation to the export of livestock and to make recommendations for improvements. The Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports promotes continual improvements in the regulatory practice, performance and culture of the Department of Agriculture in its role as the independent regulator of livestock exports.
The bill provides an additional independent layer of accountability and assurance of the regulation of livestock exports. The bill also contributes to driving positive change in the livestock export industry—an industry that the government supports as a legitimate business option for farmers. There were two amendments to the bill, which included specific references to animal welfare in the work of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor will be opposing the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019. It is unnecessary and ill considered and would carry with it concerning consequences if enacted into law. I would like to say that these consequences would be unintended ones, but the intransigence of the government in response to Labor's efforts to reach agreement in the national interest in respect of the matters that are the subject of this bill makes that hard to accept.
This bill tells us quite a lot about this government. In their seventh year they don't have a plan for Australia and so continually resort to using this parliament, to debasing this parliament, for their own narrow political purposes. It is extraordinary and shameful that Australia's Prime Minister, recently re-elected, would boast of setting tests for Labor rather than talking up his vision for our country. It's telling too that there isn't much worth talking about in that regard. The default setting of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs is division.
While it's one thing to pick parliamentary fights with Labor, it's quite another to deliberately and consistently seek to generate fear and division. We saw this in question time today. This is unworthy. I believe Australians have had enough of this, especially when it comes to immigration and its relationship to our safety and security. There are plenty of things for us to argue about in this place—things on which our parties fundamentally differ. Let's argue about our differing visions for our country and not create needless conflict. Let me be very clear: there is no disagreement between Labor and the government when it comes to keeping our communities safe and national security. There is no substantive argument between us over the character test provisions in the Migration Act.
Whatever the rhetoric, the simple fact is that the government has not made the case for the additional powers contained in this bill—additional powers that have not been supported by anyone other than the government. In fact, the government haven't even tried to make the case, because it would appear that they are rather more concerned with cheap and nasty politics—using inflammatory language, generating misleading headlines and spreading fear—than getting on with serious responsibilities. Government members should reflect on this and on the signal sent by their obstinate refusal to engage with serious concerns and a genuine approach from Labor seeking to reach agreement on a pathway to realise what I believe are objectives that are shared across this parliament.
This bill is opposed by the New Zealand government, the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, the Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network, the Refugee Council of Australia, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the Visa Cancellations Working Group, the UNHCR, Victoria Legal Aid and Oz Kiwi amongst many others. Outside of the government, it is supported by no-one.
This bill, which is in identical terms to the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2018, which was introduced into this House on 25 October last year, seeks to—
Don't tell me they're trying it on again!
Yes, they are. It's another bill returning having not been properly considered. Maybe there's a reason for that, Member for Barton. This bill seeks to amend section 501 of the Migration Act so as to specify that a person does not pass the character test if they have been convicted of a designated offence, so they may have their visa cancelled or their application for a visa refused.
Labor strongly supports the existing character test provisions. They play a very important role in safeguarding community safety. I remind members opposite that in 2014 Labor supported changes to the Migration Act, introduced by the present government, that strengthened character test provisions and also introduced visa cancellation provisions. This included mandatory visa cancellation where a non-citizen is serving a full-time custodial sentence and has either been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or greater or been found guilty of a sexually based crime involving a child. This support then reflected Labor's consistent and constructive bipartisan approach and commitment to the safety and security of Australians. This commitment continues, but it's not reciprocated, as I will go on to explain.
Labor has always been constructive and will similarly always strive to be bipartisan when it comes to questions of national security and of the safety of Australians. These are fundamental responsibilities of government which no-one in this place takes lightly, and it should not be lightly suggested that anyone does so. But the Morrison government is yet to properly justify the enactment of the provisions contained in this bill or, really, even to attempt to do so, and this is concerning. The Minister for Home Affairs today has very broad powers to act in order to cancel the visas of noncitizens who present a risk to the community or indeed to refuse a visa, and this is appropriate. But over the course of two Senate inquiries the government has not been able to identify what this bill would enable it to do that is not already provided for in the Migration Act in order to cancel a visa on character grounds. Indeed, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee stated that the explanatory materials for this bill had 'given limited justification for the expansion of these powers', whilst there has been a large body of evidence brought forward from a wide variety of stakeholders to the effect that this bill is unnecessary.
This is why the shadow minister for home affairs wrote to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, seeking to find a bipartisan way through. The letter restated Labor's strong support for the existing powers to cancel or refuse visas on character or criminal grounds under sections 501 and 116 of the act. It noted the existing discretionary powers of the minister enabling him or her to refuse or cancel visas of noncitizens on character grounds, including in circumstances where a person has not been convicted of a criminal offence. This is in the context of the bill presently before the House not adding additional criminal offences triggering automatic cancellation and following two Senate inquiry processes which have, on the one hand, failed to identify a rationale warranting the provisions proposed whilst, on the other, indicating significant problems in the form of the undesirable consequences I referred to earlier—which may have initially been unintended, but now that case cannot be maintained. So Senator Keneally, the shadow minister, proposed a sensible resolution in the national interest. It's disappointing but thoroughly unsurprising that this approach has been summarily rebuffed by the government, and this speaks to the real agenda of the government here. This is yet more 'wedgislation'—provisions introduced to serve not public policy purposes but rather a narrow political agenda.
I will discuss, briefly, those matters set out in our letter, because they go to the heart of our substantive concerns with the bill. We sought the agreement of the government to changes that deal with three concerning aspects of the present bill—namely, its retrospective effect, concerns regarding low-level offending, and those going to our critical relationship with New Zealand. None of these should have been in the bill. If they were removed, we would support its passage and enactment.
I will briefly outline Labor's concerns and our proposed solution to each of these issues in turn. On removal of retrospectivity, at the outset, let me say that this is not just a Labor or stakeholder concern. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration, when chaired by the member for La Trobe, now the assistant minister in the Home Affairs portfolio, formed the same view that we have. Recommendation 15 of the report entitled No-one teaches you to become an Australian: report of the inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes proposed mandatory visa cancellation following conviction for certain offences, but said:
… this should be accompanied by a caveat that no retrospective liability is thereby created.
That was the recommendation. But the provision contained in this bill would apply to people convicted of a designated offence at any point in their past, including people who've been in this country for decades and have no recent criminal history, including people previously determined to have passed the character test. This is a matter of serious concerns to stakeholders, in particular the government of New Zealand. The bill should be amended to remove retrospectivity, which is not warranted here, and the double jeopardy issue that comes with it.
The government should also deal with the issue we have raised, genuinely, of reducing the risk that low-level offending that does not currently rise to the level of the character test leads to visa cancellation. Other than through retrospectivity, the only way through which a person who is not presently in the prospect of discretionary visa cancellation, but would be following the enactment into law of this bill, is where the conduct, which is the subject of the designated offence, is at a level where it could not found a reasonable suspicion that the person is not of good character. This bill differs from the present act in that it seeks to replace an approach based on the sentence actually served with a new test applying if a person is convicted of an offence that carries a term of two years or more, regardless of whether the person in fact served such a term. This is not a proposal founded in evidence. It is not consistent with the existing definition of 'substantial criminal record' in the Migration Act. That is the approach that should continue to apply here. I urge members opposite, in making their contributions to the debate, to pay careful attention to the submission of the Law Council and the concern expressed that this proposal 'has the potential to undermine the sentencing power of the judicial system'. This is a very serious matter.
The third issue we have raised that the government should have regard to and resolve on reasonable terms is reviewing ministerial directions in relation to New Zealand. The Prime Minister in question time spoke about how important our relationship with our allies is. He spoke proudly about us getting on with managing our relationships in the national interest. This clearly isn't the case with New Zealand. Whatever the Prime Minister said, all of us in this House heard what the Minister for Home Affairs said about that relationship—he used the most contemptuous terms to treat our closest ally and all but nearest neighbour. If we care about our relationship with New Zealand, as I believe almost all of us in this place do, we do need to listen to the New Zealanders. They made a submission to the Senate committee, and the High Commissioner herself gave evidence and said this bill would make a bad situation worse for New Zealanders. This is noteworthy. This is an area of policy which impacts particularly on New Zealanders. Particular concern was expressed—and this is a matter that, again, we should all think hard about—about the prospect of cancellation of visas of those who arrived in Australia as children. The submission also noted that New Zealanders were uniquely affected as the only nationality that can reside definitely in Australia on temporary visas. It highlights very significant implications for individuals in this case—issues going to human rights. Prime Minister Ardern has described this question as being corrosive to the relationship.
This cannot be ignored, especially when, once again, this view is echoed not just by submitting stakeholders but when the Joint Standing Committee on Migration has delivered to the government a recommendation, this time in its report The report of the inquiry into review processes associated with visa cancellations made on criminal grounds, dealing with precisely this issue. So we requested of the minister that there be undertaken a detailed review of the relevant ministerial directions used for section 501 and section 116 cancellations, looking specifically at the impact of these cancellations on New Zealanders; in particular, that consideration should be given to a sliding scale in the directions to take into account the duration of time a person has lived in Australia and their connection to Australia. Of course, again, the government has ignored this constructive engagement. I'd like to say I found this surprising, but of course it's not. It's true to form for this government.
So I move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name. I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House:
(1) declines to give the bill a second reading; and
(2) notes that the:
(a) Immigration Minister already has broad discretionary powers to refuse or cancel visas under Section 501 of the Migration Act;
(b) Government is yet to make a compelling case for the powers contained in this bill; and
(c) Government has not considered the wider impact of this legislation, particularly on Australia's important relationship with New Zealand and in light of the significant concerns raised about the disproportionate impact this proposed change will have on New Zealanders".
At a time when so many electors are so disenchanted with our politics we don't need unnecessary conflict in this place, which this bill, as presented, is. The government should have made a compelling case for expanding powers further. They should have set out a rationale, but they have failed to do so. They have failed to even try.
This has been all about the politics and not about the policy, and this has been demonstrated in the summary way in which the minister responded to the concerns and proposals put forward by the Labor Party to try to find a way through. There is no disagreement of principle here when it comes to the important role of the character test and the broad discretionary powers which are necessary to go with it. These are things that we support now, as we did in 2014. But what we have here is a failure by the government to have regard to the consequences of its actions and a failure of the government to look to the national interest in progressing significant legislation impacting on people's lives.
I urge honourable members to think carefully about the views expressed by submitters and stakeholders. I urge honourable members opposite to think about the matters set out in the second reading amendment, and I urge all members to reject this unnecessary and divisive legislation.
I'd like to say from the outset that I reject the drivel we heard from the member for Scullin. To come into this chamber and say that the Australian people don't want to see conflict here in this chamber but they want to see us unite and then to actually oppose a bill, and do so so ferociously, with inflammatory language—
Dr Aly interjecting—
I'm sorry, that just doesn't cut the mustard whatsoever! And as for the suggestion that this bill represents an offence to New Zealand, let me be very clear: I, like probably every single member of this House, including those opposite, love New Zealand. We don't have a closer friend in the world than New Zealand. Maybe the member for Scullin just forgets that what people do want to see in this place is what's in the best interests of Australia and Australians. What people want to see in this place is their legislators ensuring that the Australian people are kept safe and secure. That is our obligation, and that is an obligation that I believe this bill delivers on.
There are many people who come to Australia and love and respect our country. And there are many who don't. It is the aim of this bill to better identify those who seemingly don't and to remove them before it's too late. While the purpose of this bill, the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019, is not specific to terrorism, it will, however, embolden our efforts to mitigate the risks of terrorist attacks on our soil, here in Australia.
How?
This bill will do so, to answer the calling out from those opposite—I don't blame those in the Labor Party asking such questions on issues of security, because it's not something in their DNA. It's not something they really understand. This bill will significantly improve the current legislative framework in relation to discretionary visa refusals and cancellations on character grounds, with the key reform ensuring that noncitizens who have been convicted of a serious, designated offence and pose a risk to the Australian community are considered for visa refusal or cancellation. The Labor Party is still opposed to that. Let me confirm here that those in this chamber from Labor are opposed to the idea that people who are convicted of a serious offence and pose a risk to the Australian community should be considered for visa refusal. The Labor Party does not like that idea—unbelievable!
While terrorism is a violent crime that would certainly meet the definition of a designated offence under the provisions of the bill, it is the comprehensive list of violent and related offences, committed either in Australia or elsewhere, that makes the strengthening of current provisions so effective as an early-warning mechanism, a mechanism that will not only help to ensure that foreign nationals convicted of such crimes are weeded out but also that future violent non-citizen extremists can be removed from the Australian community, hopefully before they are radicalised to the point where they plan or participate in an attack.
This is not to imply that all violent crimes, or even the greatest risk of such crimes, come from noncitizens residing in Australia. That is certainly not the case. However, just because Australians must endure home-grown violent offenders—born or naturalised—who prey upon our community, that does not mean that our government, our society and our security agencies shouldn't use every means to identify and remove criminal noncitizens who pose a risk and fail to meet community expectations. To me, that is fair and reasonable. The reality is that Australians have very little tolerance for criminal behaviour by foreign nationals who abuse our trust.
The right to enter, to stay and to work in Australia is a privilege that should only ever be granted to those of good character. An Australian visa is not a licence to wilfully inflict harm upon Australians. Our generous visa regime should not be an opportunity for any foreign fox to simply enter the hen house. Those who by their actions feel that it is such an opportunity will be identified and, thanks to the stronger provisions in this bill, will quickly find that their visa may be either cancelled or refused, at the minister's discretion.
In this context, the point should be made that existing processes for the refusal and cancellation of visas are already very robust under section 501 of the Migration Act, where, under the character provisions, the Australian government can and does regularly cancel the visas of convicted criminal noncitizens, with some 4,000 visas cancelled since 2015. That's a lot of criminal activity removed from our community.
However, while the existing provisions are effective, the current threshold, where an offending noncitizen must be sentenced to a minimum of 12 months in order to trigger the mandatory cancellation or refusal of their visa, is not capturing all those found guilty of serious criminality and who may continue to pose a risk to the Australian community. It is important to note that the strengthening of the character test provisions outlined in this bill in no way alters the overall framework within which these provisions operate. There is, for example, no escalation of the aforementioned mandatory cancellation powers that already apply—that is, where a noncitizen would need to be sentenced to a minimum of 12 months or convicted of a sexual offence involving a child in order to trigger mandatory cancellation or refusal of their visa.
The amendments to strengthen the character test proposed by this bill significantly provide for discretionary powers only. It was actually a key recommendation of the 2017 Joint Standing Committee on Migration in their report entitled No one teaches you to become an Australian: report of the inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes that the character test provisions in section 501 of the Migration Act be strengthened. There is currently a character provision that can be applied to convicted noncitizens who receive lighter sentences and allows additional discretionary consideration based on past and present criminal or general conduct. However, the joint standing committee felt this was inadequate to objectively consider the refusal or cancellation of a visa for a noncitizen where their offending did not incur a sentence of 12 months or more and who, in all probability, would continue to pose an unacceptable safety risk to the Australian community.
This bill is a response to the committee's recommendation and provides clear and objective grounds for the minister to consider the refusal or cancellation of a visa for any noncitizen convicted of a designated offence. This amendment will effectively expand the character test beyond a predominantly sentence based approach by allowing the minister to consider the individual circumstances of the offending and the severity of the conduct in each case. The strengthened character test will set a new objective standard to clearly and consistently determine exactly what constitutes a designated offence and, in doing so, will rely on existing criminal law in each state or territory, or even the law of a foreign country, to determine a uniform measure of seriousness for each offence.
A 'designated offence' is determined by the bill to be the offences that involve acts of violence against a person, including: murder; manslaughter; kidnapping; assault; aggravated burglary and threat of violence; possession or use of a weapon; non-consensual sexual conduct, including sexual assault and sharing an intimate image; breaching a court or tribunal order for the protection of another person; and abiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of such a designated offence, including through threats or promises. And, where the offence is against Australian law, it must be punishable by imprisonment for a maximum term of not less than two years.
This bill should serve as a warning to non-citizen sex offenders, violent thugs, wife-beaters, child abusers and anyone who participates in a violent criminal enterprise—because, a commuted sentence or not, a sympathetic magistrate or not, if you are convicted of any of these or equivalent crimes in Australia or overseas then the minister will look very closely at your visa and adopt a very firm and consistent approach. It should be noted that, where a person's visa is cancelled or refused in Australia, they will be liable for immediate detention under section 189 of the Migration Act 1958 and be removed from Australia. The Australian community simply will not tolerate violent criminals and sex offenders from other lands who seek to enter and stay in our country.
I could go on with examples, but I shall save the House from some pretty awful stories and case studies except to say that the Liberal-National government is firmly resolute when it comes to protecting the Australian community. It is resolute in protecting them from violent criminals who enter our country and, provided our laws and actions are compatible with recognised human rights and freedoms, which they are, our law enforcement and security agencies will find these individuals, no matter where they choose to hide—and once they're convicted they'll be locked up and kicked out.
While the focus of this bill is clearly on addressing the criminal behaviour of noncitizens, it should be remembered that the minister does have the power under the Citizenship Act to denationalise dual citizens for terror-related activity. The dual citizens who may be seduced by violent extremist ideology would do well to consider that fact before they indulge their delusions any further.
We should also give thanks to the fact that Australia, despite some events of recent years, remains such a safe country in which to live and such a safe country in which to raise a family. We continue to be, in many ways, isolated from the conflict and tragedy that define and scar so much of this world. However, whether it be our splendid isolation or other reasons, some of that safety can be eroded, and that is the challenge we face. The events of recent years show that the easy-going attitude of Australians, the professionalism of our police and security agencies and, indeed, the vast sea that surrounds us can no longer be relied upon to guarantee our safety as they once did.
Australia's migration program must always serve the best interests of Australia. Those interests include the labour that's needed to work on farms, the service of our communities and the strength of our economy. However, as important as all these sorts of interests might be, they should never override or distort the integrity of our migration program or threaten the security of 25 million Australians. By strengthening the character test, this bill will help to deliver on that obligation. It's for that reason that I'm happy to commend this bill to the House.
Basically, the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019 seeks to provide further grounds for the minister to cancel noncitizen visas. We know that. It attempts to expand ministerial discretionary powers to refuse or cancel the visa of a noncitizen, according to both section 116 and section 105 of the Migration Act. Labor supports the powers that are already granted to the minister under this act. The government's bill, which purports to strengthen the character test, does not expand the substantive powers available to the minister, nor does it add new offences that will trigger visa cancellation. Two Senate inquiries have confirmed this.
Even though the bill is ultimately redundant, on three points the government's changes to the Migration Act have unintended and undesirable consequences. Labor has already put forward three amendments to address these problems. If the government include them in their bill, Labor will support its passage through the parliament. Unfortunately, the government are more interested in what we're now calling 'wedgislation', quite appropriately, than legislation. They are more interested in antagonising the opposition than working productively in a bipartisan manner, which would actually further the national interest.
The amendments that Labor proposes are as follows. Labor would amend the bill so that the Migration Act does not impose retrospective liability on residents who have, in many cases, been in Australia for decades, effectively subjecting them to a form of double jeopardy. Labor would prevent trivial offences, such as teenage shoplifting, from being considered as part of a character test by amending the bill to use the current offence definition. Finally, in light of Prime Minister Ardern's comments about the corrosive effects of this bill, Labor is calling for the government to launch a review of ministerial decisions under the Migration Act, particularly focusing on the cancellation of New Zealanders' visas.
Now that Labor has considered the Senate committee's report on the inquiry and the government has rejected its amendments, Labor will oppose this bill in the House. We oppose it because why this bill is necessary has not been justified. It's going to have those unintended consequences that will harm Australia's relationship with New Zealand. I heard the Minister for Home Affairs earlier in question time complaining about Labor talking about the rights of New Zealanders. Actually, we're talking about what is an integral and critical bilateral relationship between Australia and New Zealand. That is in our national interest. The bill could cause significant damage to Australia's relationship with New Zealand. We have heard this time and time again, from both Prime Minister Ardern and, as recently as yesterday, the High Commissioner. They have been clear about what they think about this bill. The New Zealand government wrote to the Senate inquiry and said that the changes 'would make a bad situation worse for New Zealanders and therefore for New Zealand'.
The existing law is already effective, as I've said. It's not necessary to pass this bill into legislation, because the broad discretionary powers are already in the possession of the minister for immigration. It already protects Australia from people who represent a danger to the community. It already achieves what the government claims it wants to do with this unnecessary bill before us. The immigration minister already has extremely broad discretionary powers to refuse to issue or to cancel the visa of a noncitizen. Section 501 already applies to noncitizens who represent a danger to the Australian community. We understand—and they on the government benches should understand—that section 501 of the Migration Act gives the minister both mandatory and discretionary powers to refuse or cancel a visa of a noncitizen if they fail to pass the character test.
As I've said, we strongly support the current powers to cancel or refuse visas on character or criminal grounds under section 501. The existing legislation already allows for mandatory cancellation of visas for foreign nationals who have served a custodial sentence of a minimum of 12 months or who have committed a serious crime. That character test is defined under section 501(6) of the act. If a person has a substantial criminal record, has been convicted or suspected of committing offences, has a conviction for immigration detention offences or is subject to an adverse security assessment, they fail that character test. The act defines a substantial criminal record as 'a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more'. Most noncitizens who fail the character test do so because they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more. If the home affairs minister or immigration minister suspects that a noncitizen does not pass the character test or that there is a risk to the community while they are in Australia, they can use these existing powers to cancel their visa.
Given all this, it is quite clear that this bill is unnecessary. The government has not offered any substantive justification as to why these expanded powers are needed. Basically they have done this because they're a policy-free zone. They have no plan, no agenda, no vision; they have nowhere to go. They need to look busy, so they pass their 'wedgislation' and play politics instead of focusing on the national interest. There is a further disturbing element—that is, the concentration of power to the minister. Not only is this bill unnecessary for the reasons outlined; the expanded powers will likely have a problematic effect in the sense of concentrating powers to the minister—another example of poor drafting, of overreach. Powers that will have unintended consequences have become far too common under this government and the Minister for Home Affairs in particular. In many respects this government is like a drunken boxer, throwing haymakers, hoping to land a political punch, hoping to find a wedge they can carry on about, because they are otherwise substance-free.
This bill overreaches, and how much power it gives to the Minister for Home Affairs is of serious concern. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills said:
… the proposed amendments would allow the minister the discretion to cancel or refuse to issue a visa to a person who has been convicted of a designated offence but who may have received a very short sentence or no sentence at all.
It is self-evident that Labor is committed to the safety and security of Australians. It has been demonstrated, and the Minister for Home Affairs shouldn't politicise Labor's bipartisan commitment to Australia's national security like he has on an ever-increasing basis over the past weeks and months. There is a complete lack of support from stakeholders. The bill has virtually no support at all. Important stakeholders that have considered the consequences of the bill include the New Zealand government, the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Refugee Council of Australia, Legal Aid New South Wales, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and Oz Kiwi.
Of the 17 submissions that the Senate inquiry received, only one supported the bill in its current form. All the rest—16 organisations, experts in their fields—are opposed to the bill in its current form. These stakeholders in their opposition talked about the bill being 'overly broad', an 'unwarranted expansion of executive power', 'entirely disproportionate' and 'adding to a draconian framework' and said that it:
… will offer no greater protection or safety to the Australian community beyond what is already provided for in existing law.
These are quotes from the Law Council of Australia, the Refugee Council of Australia and the other organisations. All these organisation say—as we do in the Labor Party—that this bill overreaches and will have those unintended consequences, and it achieves nothing that isn't already possible under the current laws.
Now, if you've been paying attention on the other side you might have a great deal of suspense about which one of these submissions—the singular submission—was in support of the government. There was one stakeholder that wrote to the Senate inquiry and supported the legislation in its current form. Can you guess which stakeholder that was? Can anyone guess? Drum roll—it was actually the one organisation that supported—
The Department of Home Affairs.
Well done, Member for Blair! It was the Department of Home Affairs, of course.
In conclusion, it is not in Australia's interests to undermine one of our strongest relationships over legislation that hasn't been justified by this government, that is completely unnecessary—that is an expansion of power that would be problematic on a number of levels, as I've outlined. The minister already has these powers. The minister already has the powers to cancel those visas if they're already there. The government has no justification for this bill. They are searching around, as I said, like a drunken boxer throwing punches every which way, hoping to land a political punch. They are not putting the national interest first. They're pursuing this for political reasons, for 'wedgislation', so that they can play politics with our national security, as they've always done.
We cannot support this unnecessary expansion of the powers of the Minister for Home Affairs. We will not support it. Labor does strongly support the current laws that work to protect Australians from people who might pose danger if they were allowed to come to our country, and we'll always put the national interest first, above politics.
It's a pleasure to rise in support of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019. The bill inserts a list of designated offences into section 501 of the Migration Act, making it very clear that anyone convicted of these crimes, whether in Australia or overseas, will objectively fail the character test. It's another example—and a potent example at that—of the Morrison government coming down on the side of everyday Australians who are concerned to ensure that their family, the people they love and treasure the most, are safe. All I heard from the speech by the member for Wills just then is that Labor is on the side of the New Zealand Prime Minister. Is that where they really want to be? I've seen them play politics with a lot of issues in this place in the past couple of weeks, whether it was on drought funding, disaster relief funding or union lawlessness. They're playing politics with the safety of Australians so that they can side with the New Zealand government. It truly has to be a new low. Indeed, I find it hard to see what is controversial about this bill at all.
Read it!
Yeah, read it!
Well, let me go into it. I'll take the interjections of the Labor members. The offences covered by this bill are significant and grievous in nature. Which of these do they not think is a serious criminal offence? There is violence against a person, including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, assault, aggravated burglary and threat of violence; non-consensual conduct of a sexual nature, including sexual assault and the non-consensual commission of an act of indecency or sharing of an intimate image—that's 'revenge porn' offences; breaching an order made by a court or tribunal for the personal protection of another person; using or possessing a weapon; or procuring or assisting in any one of these designated crimes.
These are crimes that create victims out of good, hardworking Australians. These are crimes that send ripples through our community, through family, through friends, through our healthcare system and through our support and victim services. These are crimes that, if a visa holder is convicted of them, most certainly make those visa holders unsuitable to stay in our community, on character grounds. Let's be really clear about what this means. Under the Morrison government, Australians will receive protection from visa holders convicted of these heinous crimes: they will be deported. But this protection is not guaranteed. Indeed, the Labor Party has consistently failed to deport criminal visa holders, consistently failed to support legislation to give us the power to do so, and they are now opposing this legislation today.
Australians expect that visa holders convicted of these serious crimes be removed from our community. We understand that. The Morrison government understands that this is the community's expectations. It beggars belief that Labor still do not. They are so out of step with community expectations that they would rather stand up in this place, as the member for Wills did, and explain that they understand the expectations of the New Zealand government more than they do their own Australians.
As I see it, there are two key reasons to see this bill implemented. Firstly, because for non-citizen visa holders it is a privilege, not a right, to be in Australia. A generous migration scheme which prioritises those willing to roll up their sleeves and contribute is vital to ensure strong communities and a strong nation. It served my electorate of Ryan particularly well. Our most famous migrant is Professor Ian Frazer, inventor of the Gardasil cancer vaccine. But it is a deep and solemn pact we have with the Australian people. We are a people that are generous and welcoming, not in spite of but exactly because we have tight control over our borders and are exacting against criminal elements that come here and abuse our trust. We must always seek to honour this unwritten compact with the Australian people. This bill does exactly that by making sure that those who have broken that sacred trust with Australians, who have committed and have been convicted of serious offences, can be deported home. If you are a non-citizen visa holder and you commit the kinds of crimes outlined in this bill, then Australians expect there to be consequences, and everyday Australians certainly believe that you have failed the character test.
However, the current legislation requires a jail sentence of over 12 months when convicted of these kinds of offences. Ironically, in my state of Queensland, for example, the prospect of deportation is a relevant sentencing consideration for judges, meaning that an argument can be made in court for a lower sentence, based on the fact that a higher sentence would trigger section 501 of the Migration Act and lead to deportation. This issue—don't take my word for it, Labor members opposite—has been raised by the Police Federation of Australia in their latest submission to the inquiry. I'll quote, because I know the Labor members opposite love quoting submissions. Here is a quote from their submission:
… the intent of the Act and Section 501 could be averted by the judiciary, simply by imposing sentences of less than 12 months, thus ensuring that the non-citizen before the court does not become exposed to the mandatory cancellation provisions of s501(7)(c) and (d) of the Act.
Opposition members interjecting—
This is leading to some perverse outcomes. I want to give you an example of an outcome, because again the Labor members opposite are interjecting to say this is an unnecessary bill. Let's consider the kind of examples that this amendment would deal with. For example, consider a scenario where a person who is a permanent visa holder in Australia is convicted of sexually related offences, including indecent assault and attempted indecent assault; but this person has not been sentenced to imprisonment of 12 months or more. Under the current character provisions, he does not objectively fail the character test on the basis of this criminal history. So when the Labor members opposite and the member for Wills, as he just did, stand up in this chamber and claim that this bill is unnecessary, they are saying that this scenario, which is in fact based on facts about an individual in the Australian community at the moment, is acceptable. It may be acceptable to Labor, but it sure as goodness is not acceptable to the Morrison government and to everyday Australians. Under the proposed designated offences ground in this amendment the person would objectively fail the character test, as they have now been convicted of a violent offence which is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum term of 14 years. So we could take action and deport this individual if this new bill and amendment is passed.
I mentioned there were two key reasons. The second important reason for this bill, if Labor members will bear with me, is that future offending in Australia can be prevented with this amendment. In question time today, I was drawn, as was the home affairs minister, to the case of a woman whose sister was murdered in 2013 by her ex-partner. In February 2010, some three years prior, her sister's ex-partner violently attacked and threatened to kill a former partner. He was sentenced to six months jail, suspended for 12 months. So, he was convicted of a potentially violent offence but didn't receive a 12 months sentence. That conviction therefore wasn't enough to trigger the legislation, as it currently stands—
He just hasn't done it; the minister just hasn't exercised the power.
Order! The member for Blair.
but it would have come within the amendments proposed today. If the current amendments were in place at the time, the seriousness of this single offence would have led to a process for the cancellation of the visa. If this had occurred, it is likely the man would have been removed by the end of 2010 and would not have been in Australia three years later, in 2013, when he subsequently followed through on his threats and murdered his ex-partner.
Surely even Labor members opposite think that this kind of situation is unacceptable. So, when they say that this amendment is unnecessary they are choosing to ignore circumstances like this. But I know how much the Labor members love submissions to the inquiry, so let me quote from the inquiry report. In fact, what I am going to do is quote from their dissenting report—they like to use this figure:
… 44 per cent of New Zealanders deported on character grounds re-offend in New Zealand.
Well, if they re-offend in New Zealand after the Morrison government deported them, imagine if we hadn't and they were allowed to re-offend in Australia against Australian citizens. That is part of the reason that the coalition, since 2014, has cancelled more than 4,700 visas. I commend the Minister for Home Affairs for his leadership in this regard.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! I dislike doing this but I am going to ask the member for Ryan to take his seat and I'm going to tell the member for Blair and the member for Cowan to stop interjecting. Take a lesson from the new member for Corangamite, who is behaving, and let's get on with this debate. Your names are on the list and you will be able to have your say at a later time. The member for Ryan has the call.
Thank you for your protection, Deputy Speaker Georganas. Of the 4,700 cancellations of visas, 420 were for child sex offences, including child exploitation offences, 87 were for murder, 200 were for rape and serious sexual offences, 350 were for armed robbery, 830 were for drug offences and 1,680 were for assault and offences involving violence. Of those, 1,250 were in my home state of Queensland, including 100 cancellations for child sex offences, 23 for murder, 55 for rape, 85 for armed robbery, 215 for drug offences and 430 for assault and offences involving violence—people who, clearly, by the objective measure of everyday Australians fail the character test. They are people we don't want living in our community.
Labor is all over the shop on this issue. We know that during their time in government they blatantly failed to keep Australian families safe. During Labor's previous six years in government they took little action over foreign criminals committing crimes against Australians. Between 2008 and 2013, Labor cancelled just 650 visas of foreign criminals. That is seven times fewer instances than the Liberal-National government. There hasn't been some unexplained sevenfold jump in crime since then. This is simply a case of Labor leaving dangerous and convicted offenders in our community rather than deporting them, because Labor is not on the side of Australians on this issue. In fact, they have previously come down on the side of these criminals. Again, in their dissenting report to the inquiry on these amendments, Labor put forward a similar sliding scale for Australia as New Zealand currently has. In New Zealand, exclusions are applied on a sliding scale, which means that persons who have lived in the community for 10 years or more cannot be deported.
On this issue, I'm sure they're proud to say they're on a unity ticket with the Greens, who hold the position that any noncitizen who has lived in Australia for more than 10 years should not be able to have their visas cancelled. This is some kind of perverse form of squatters' rights and denies Australian citizens their ability to enforce their expectations that, if you are lucky enough to have a visa to be in Australia, either short term or long term, you contribute productively and lawfully to our community. The time alone should not be the determining factor as to whether you are fulfilling that commitment. Rather it should be your actions that speak the loudest. It's a slap in the face not only to Australians but also to those migrants who are absolutely doing the right thing and who want their families to be safe in Australia as well.
The Morrison government is on the side of Australians who want to keep their families safe. It is why we won't let visa holders convicted of serious crimes, even if they get a sentence of less than 12 months, to continue to commit crimes against Australian families or continue to live in our communities. Instead, we will deport them. Labor won't. It's that simple. They didn't when they were in government, when they had the opportunity, and they don't support this legislation now. As I said at the beginning, I've seen Labor play politics with a lot of issues—disaster recovery, drought funding, power prices, union lawlessness—but to play politics with the safety of Australian citizens takes the cake, even for them. We on this side of the chamber will always provide stable and consistent government to keep Aussies safe. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.
I sat there while the member for Fairfax failed dismally to explain why this bill was needed. But I must admit I did enjoy his feeble attempt to explain radicalisation to the House and how this bill was somehow going to stop terrorism. I've also just now sat through the member for Ryan's lengthy discussion on this bill, and I'll respond to that in due course.
This bill, the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019, is part of the Morrison government's bubble-and-squeak agenda. I've never cooked bubble and squeak, but I understand it's something that you make when the cupboard is bare and you've got nothing else. That's what this is. It's part of the bubble-and-squeak agenda—something cobbled together purely for the purposes of wedging Labor. The Morrison government seem obsessed, but they're not obsessed with the welfare and wellbeing of Australians. No. They're not obsessed with the protection and safety of citizens and those who would seek to be citizens or residents. But they are obsessed with us. They're obsessed with Labor.
Perhaps we should be flattered by the government's obsession with us. But we came here to work and we came here to achieve meaningful change, not to support a one-sided conversation where we are the only ones listening to the Australian people. All we hear on the other side of the chamber during question time and elsewhere is the government blaming us for their failings. On this particular bill, we agree without equivocation that dangerous criminals should be able to have their visas revoked. In fact, since 2014 the government has cancelled around 4,700 visas, as the previous member noted, under section 501 of the Migration Act because Labor supported and still supports—let me say that again: we supported and still support—the current powers to cancel or refuse visas on character or criminal grounds. That's right. The immigration minister can already cancel the visas of noncitizens and deport foreign criminals convicted of serious crimes.
We heard the member for Ryan give a long list of such serious crimes. He even gave an example of a case where somebody did not get a conviction, or got a conviction under 12 months, and argued that this current bill would enable the minister to revoke that person's visa. Well, guess what. The minister can already do that. It's called ministerial discretion and it is already in section 501 of the act. If the minister is not doing that, if the minister is allowing people of questionable character who have committed crimes or who are on a trajectory to committing even more violent crimes and escalating their violent crimes, then the failing is not with the act, the failing is not that we need a bill. The failing is with the minister, who seems to only use his discretionary powers when it comes to au pairs.
This minister's discretionary powers in this regard, under the current act, are so broad that noncitizens don't need to spend time in jail, or even be convicted of a crime, to have their visas cancelled. Let's think about this rationally. There are 4,700 people who have already had their visas cancelled and been deported, and the minister has a broad-ranging discretion to deport noncitizens. So you would think there would be no need to introduce any further legislation. You would think that what would in fact be needed is some more scrutiny over exactly how the minister uses his discretion. The fact is that this bill, this amendment, does almost nothing to change existing laws. What it does do, however, is introduce some unintended and undesirable consequences about which Labor has raised concerns with the relevant ministers.
The government says that it should be able to revoke the visa of anyone who has been arrested but not charged with a crime. Let's take the example of a student who has come here to study and has been here two, three or maybe even five years. They work part time. They pay rent. They have friends and they have established a community. One night they are out with friends in the city and one of them is assaulted or takes part in some form of altercation. Those present are all arrested, even if they are trying to subdue the situation. In that situation, in that context, does a bell ring in the minister's office to let him know there's a noncitizen who has been arrested but not even charged and he needs to get this person out of the country as soon as possible? Is that how this is going to work? The bill does not affect the broad ministerial discretion to cancel a visa on character grounds which, I repeat, already exists within the Migration Act—including in circumstances where the person has not automatically failed the character test but the minister 'reasonably suspects' that the person does not pass the character test, regardless of whether the person has committed a crime or not.
The member for Ryan gave the example of somebody who had committed a horrendous crime and had committed an assault previously. Why didn't the minister use his broad-ranging powers? Why didn't he have a reasonable suspicion that this person would not pass the character test? Surely this is a failing of the minister. Right now, under the existing legislation, the minister can cancel a visa if he has reasonable grounds to form a view on an individual's character. He can do it right now. This bill, I argue, does not represent a policy or legislative position—far from it. What it does represent is a purely political position. As I said, it is part of the Morrison government's agenda to try to wedge Labor on a range of issues. We came to the party. We put forward a negotiating position. That negotiating position has been knocked back, undoing years of bipartisan work and bipartisan support on matters of national security, because this government is not interested in working together.
In the position that we put forward, we stated our concerns. We stated our concerns that these amendments create significant risks. The first risk that we are concerned about is retrospectivity. We're talking about people who have lived in Australia for decades and have no recent criminal history. They may have previously undergone assessment for criminal behaviour by the department and the minister, and the assessment of any criminal behaviour was deemed as not of bad character. Now the Morrison government wants to reach back and have another go at getting those people. We know this because the only circumstance in which a person would be vulnerable to discretionary visa cancellation under this bill, but not under the existing law, is where they have been convicted of 'a designated offence' but the conduct was so trivial that it could not reasonably support a suspicion that the person is not of good character.
The retrospective liability is not only a concern for the practical implications but also strikes at the heart of the significant principle of common law and justice: people not being judged and sentenced retroactively for an offence when the consequence of that offence at the time did not include the outcome that is then effected on them. The second concern is about capturing low-level offending that does not currently rise to the level of the character test. We're not talking about the kinds of serious criminals that the member for Ryan and the member for Fairfax were talking about. The minister, as I've said, can already cancel the visas of noncitizens and deport those kinds of criminals—those convicted of serious crimes involving violence or sexual offences et cetera. The bill currently means that a person convicted of low-level offences but who received no sentence could have their visa cancelled. We're asking that the bill be amended to align with the definition of a substantial criminal record, where a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. This morning, the minister for immigration confirmed that the whole point of this law is to have a clear and objective way of cancelling the visas of noncitizens who have committed serious crimes, even if they are sentenced to less than 12 months imprisonment. But, as I said, we already have that in place.
The third point of concern that Labor has raised is the significant damage this bill would cause to Australia's relationship with New Zealand. I know that those who have stood up to speak on this bill from the other side have basically dismissed that. They have very clearly said they don't really care about Australia's relationship with New Zealand. In question time today, the minister made remarks to the effect that he was not concerned with that relationship. He basically said on record that he has no regard for our longstanding relationship, which is in Australia's national interests. I wonder what the foreign minister would have to say about that?
As I have acknowledged many times in this House, I have a wonderfully diverse electorate, and that means that I get a lot of inquiries in my office relating to issues people are having with visas. This includes citizens of New Zealand who live here and are particularly concerned. But I also have large cohorts of communities from other migration locations, including one of the largest cohorts of migrants from the United Kingdom and South Africa, as well as a broad range of new and emerging migration locations. What am I supposed to say to someone the first time they come through my door—someone who has lived in Australia for 10 years, 20 years or 30 years? Let's say that person made a poor decision two decades ago, where they committed a crime and ended up with a suspended sentence, but since then they've been an upstanding member of the community and they've contributed to the community. Say, for whatever reason, the government starts looking into their past and decides to go for them, based on this bill, and decides that they no longer meet the requirements of being of good character in order to stay in Australia. What am I supposed to say to that person?
In concluding my remarks, given the government's record to date with regard to discretion, how are we supposed to know how this new instrument of legislation will be used? The minister has said that there will be no discrimination, but I note that experts have warned that the bill would lead to a fivefold increase in the number of people facing deportation, with residents from New Zealand and humanitarian refugees being disproportionately affected. We don't know whether to be worried as to whether the minister will or won't exercise discretion because of this bill. We've already called on him; we've already said, 'You've got the powers to exercise your discretion.' If things are happening, if non-citizen criminals are not being deported, then that's on the minister's shoulders. I don't know whether I should be telling the French au pairs in my electorate that they have nothing to worry about, but I'm telling the ethnic communities that they'd better watch out.
This bill represents the very worst of the wedging that the Morrison government is attempting. If this is any indication of the next three years, we should be very concerned about how much discretion this government wants and how little they are actually delivering for Australians.
The Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019 is a short bill. It is less than seven standard pages in length. You could read out the entire text in the time allotted to a single speech in this place. But the contrast it draws between the Liberal-Nationals coalition and the Labor Party opposite is far greater. Each of its pages is another ringing indictment of the Labor Party's total failure in government's most important responsibility, and that of course is to keep Australians safe.
The bill before us highlights the inescapable fact that the Liberal-Nationals coalition has the principles, the strength and the willingness to do what's necessary to protect our borders and to keep Australians safe. Time and time again we're seeing the mettle of the Labor Party tested in this place, and the people of Australia have found that they have been left wanting. Labor does not have the stomach to protect our borders. They do not have the fortitude to deal with those who would have come here illegally or those who break our laws when they arrive. Labor cannot keep Australians safe. As a party, they lack the character to make the tough decisions needed, and in the debates on this bill they have been found wanting yet again.
Migration has contributed a huge amount to our country. But coming to live in Australia is a privilege, not a right, for those who are born overseas. The great Liberal Prime Minister John Howard famously and rightly said, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' Those words are as true today as they were 18 years ago. However, we must apply the same principle to those we permit to stay here. If people come to our country to work hard, to contribute and to help us build our nation, then Australians welcome and embrace them. But if someone who was granted the privilege of coming to this country chooses to commit serious criminal offences, to commit acts of violence or sexual assault, then our community rightly demands that their government protect them. Australians expect that those people will be considered for removal, and this coalition government is acting to meet that expectation.
As the law stands, a noncitizen must be sentenced to a minimum of 12 months imprisonment in order for cancellation or refusal of a visa to be considered, on the basis of their character. This provision, in the Migration Act 1958, is designed to ensure that only serious offences are taken into account. However, in this regard, in the world of 2019, it fails to meet community expectations. The criminal justice system today deploys a variety of techniques to punish and rehabilitate offenders. A 12-month jail term in and of itself is no longer the best marker of a serious offence.
My constituents in the electorate of Fisher, like all Australians, would consider violent assault to be a serious offence. Sexual offences, offences involving a weapon, aggravated burglary and kidnapping are crimes which our community rightly understands to be serious. Yet with fines, good behaviour bonds, intensive correction orders and youth supervision orders, they are all crimes which in 2019 may not always attract a 12-month prison sentence.
This bill will ensure that the expectations of my constituents and people around Australia will be met and that if you choose to commit a crime of this nature the department will have the power to cancel or refuse you a visa for this country. It does this by changing the character test to specifically list types of offences which will constitute grounds for considering cancelling or refusing a visa. The types of activity that we are discussing are crimes of the most serious kind—violence against a person, including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, assault, aggravated burglary, threatening violence, non-consensual sexual conduct and using or possessing a weapon. This new approach includes appropriate protections for migrants. In making its decision to refuse or cancel a visa, the department would be required to take into account the nature and extent of the person's ties to Australia and our international obligations. However, just as importantly, the department would be required to consider the impact on victims. It would be required to consider the best interests of children in Australia, the expectations of our community and the protection of our people from criminal conduct.
I am certain that the people of my electorate, like most Australians, will see nothing but benefits to our community in this bill's seven concise pages. So the question is: what will members opposite do? Will Labor members vote against the bill before the House? If they do, I hope that every Australian will hear that fact and take the time to understand what it means and what they stand for. It will mean that Labor want to allow a temporary visa holder in Australia who has been convicted of a violent assault not only to stay in this country but to apply for a permanent visa. It will mean that Labor want to allow a sex offender in immigration detention to remain eligible for a temporary visa to this country. It will mean that they want a young permanent resident involved in violent gang crime to remain part of our community indefinitely.
These are not invented cases; they are real-life examples. They are the truth of what is happening in this country without this bill. This is what Labor would be voting to allow. Which assaults do Labor think a foreign resident in Australia should be permitted to commit without being removed? What weapons should they be allowed to carry? Which aggravated burglaries or sexual assaults do Labor believe should not disqualify a person from continuing to live among us?
The reality is that to commit a crime of that nature is to utterly reject Australian values and the hospitality of our people. In committing these crimes, these individuals have told us that they have no interest in being a contributing part of our community. No-one who wasn't blinded by fanatical ideology could possibly want to keep them here after such a violent and fundamental rejection of our very way of life. Yet that is what the Labor Party want to see. By opposing this bill, they are opposing even giving the department the option to consider removing these individuals from our community. Too weak on border protection themselves to ever exercise such an option, they want to deny it to Liberal-National ministers with the backbone required.
Labor's opposition to this bill is saddening, even shocking, but I doubt that many Australians would be surprised by it. Earlier this year, Australians saw clearly, once again, what will happen to our migration system if Labor are ever given the chance to govern, and our constituents saw that Labor never change and they never learn. When the opportunity arose at the end of the last parliament to take a lead in passing legislation in this place, the first thing Labor did with that opportunity was to weaken our borders and invite criminals and economic migrants to try their luck with us once again. If Labor ever have the chance to govern, there is no doubt they will go even further. How many more boats will it take for Labor to finally wake up? How many more deaths at sea? How many more crimes committed by those to whom we have granted the privilege to come to our country? Eight hundred boats and 50,000 people were not enough for Labor to do the right thing on border security. Twelve hundred deaths at sea were not enough. Eight thousand children in detention couldn't strengthen their resolve. That is their track record. I fear for our future should they ever form government again. When will Labor find the backbone to stand up to the armchair metropolitan ideologues in their party and put Australia's interests ahead of their own political convenience?
This side of the House has shown them the way. The Liberal-National coalition created Operation Sovereign Borders. For more than six years, we've presided over its complete success. We have stopped the boats. We have stopped the deaths at sea.
Mr Neumann interjecting—
That's a big statement to come from you. We've removed the children that Labor put in immigration detention. We've reduced the numbers of adults on Manus and Nauru from Labor's peak of 20,000 to fewer than 1,000 remaining. Yet Labor still cannot see it, and they still want to argue the point. They still vote against our border protection measures. When given the chance, still, they legislate to undermine and dismantle Operation Sovereign Borders. Members opposite know the facts. In fact, the main interjector on that side of the House was the shadow responsible for Labor's policies at the time.
Mr Neumann interjecting—
They've seen what works. Labor have seen what works, and they know what happened when they were last in government. The simple reality is that they either don't care or they are bound by their Green friends. Labor are more interested in satisfying the left-wing and green activists in their own ranks than they are in keeping Australians safe. Labor would rather protect themselves than protect our borders. It's as simple as that.
The Liberal-National coalition knows what it takes to keep Australians safe. With this bill, we are demonstrating that yet again. We need to send a message to those who would abuse our community's hospitality and reject our way of life. Whether they attract a 12-month prison sentence or not, committing violent crimes or sexual assault, carrying weapons or threatening to harm another person are not behaviours that Australians will tolerate. You cannot expect to come to Australia or to stay here if those are the choices that you intend to make. We need to give our government the power to reject those migrants who have rejected our way of life. Where the opportunity exists, we need to protect our citizens from individuals who would otherwise do us harm.
Australians expect us to keep them safe. That is our duty. And it is a duty the Liberal-National coalition resolutely and steadfastly embraces. That is what this bill is about, and I commend it to the House.
Wow! The member who spoke is actually not a bad bloke, but I think he must be going for a promotion—with the member for La Trobe falling over—with that right-wing drivel. This bill is so urgent that the government had been in power for five years before they introduced it! From listening to the member opposite, you'd think that they weren't now in their third term and hadn't been in power for five years. Apparently everything was all right, but now they had to introduce it. It was so urgent that they introduced it last October and didn't even debate it! It sat on the Notice Paper month after month after month, but it was so urgent and so important to our national security that they didn't even debate it! This bill does almost nothing new. There is no actual agenda there. That speech we heard absolutely typified what this is about. The speech was not about the government's bill; it was about Labor. The speech wasn't full of facts; it was about creating fear in the community. It was about Labor. It's all politics.
This bill has almost no policy or legislative effect in a positive sense, but it does have a whole bunch of unintended and negative consequences which I'll get to. The truth is—a simple statement—the minister already has extremely broad powers to cancel or refuse visas. Section 501 of the act has been there since 1992, 27 years. Labor supports the use of this section. We have not opposed the minister's use of this section. We used it when we were in government. John Howard's government used it when they were in government. The character provision has been there for decades. We know the minister comes in here just about every day and, when he's not scaring people about boats, he's scaring them about criminals. He tells us just about every day in question time how many people he's deporting under the current provisions.
The government has failed to justify in any substantive way why this legislation is actually necessary, and the best they can dream up—a little, tiny fig leaf—is a dodgy committee report tabled in 2017. It was called No one teaches you to become an Australian.
I was on the committee.
You were on the committee. The member for Blair was on the committee. I actually spoke on the committee report. In summary, it was a funny little report, because most of it was actually really good. It had a look at settlement outcomes, what we do right as a country and where we could improve. It said stuff like: 'We don't give enough English language classes. We need to invest more in that. We need to make the settlement support more flexible, often for women who are stuck at home in the first few years raising kids; then, when they get the chance to go and do something, presto! Their five years is up. They get no more support.' It talked about a greater role for the community and local government in settlement. The government hasn't done any of this. It was just the last chapter.
You read the report, and it makes sense. Then you get this last chapter, which is politically driven garbage. It may as well have been called, 'And now we will beat up on black people,' because it was driven by the Victorian Liberals' obsession before the state election with driving up community fear about South Sudanese gangs. The police actually said that in most cases there is no such gang; they don't exist. But that didn't stop the government with this chapter in the back of the report that this ridiculous legislation is now based on. Of course, you would notice that most of that fear about South Sudanese gangs—'We can't go out to dinner in Melbourne'—stopped when the Liberals lost the state election. We don't hear much about that anymore, but we had 12 months of it. So that's what this legislation is driven by.
It has no stakeholder support. Even the government's committee report said:
The majority of submitters to this inquiry largely held the view that the current character and cancellation provisions in the Act were an adequate way of addressing non-citizens who have been involved in criminal activities.
The dissenting MPs, including the member for Blair, expressed concern with the report's focus on youth crime and reliance on anecdotal and unsubstantiated so-called evidence—dodgy, misquoted statistics. Recommendation 2, to amend the character test, was actually contrary to the evidence, but this government never lets the evidence get in the way of a foregone conclusion. The evidence overwhelmingly indicated that the current character provisions are adequate. So what did the minister do? He said: 'Well, I don't like that. You can have another inquiry.' In February 2019 the committee tabled another report. Even in the majority report, the government members found that overall the character provisions of the Migration Act 'operate well and are achieving the aim of protecting the Australian community'. That's what the government members found. They also found that the AAT merits review reduces the incidence of judicial review, which is more costly and time consuming. But, again, don't let the evidence worry you.
So if there's no policy basis for this, if the minister already has the power, if cancellations are already up under this minister, why is the government doing it? The simple answer—and again we heard it in the speech from the previous member—is that it's 'wedgislation'. This is about wedging Labor. It's about politics. We heard it repeatedly. It's a test for Labor, apparently. It's not government policy that we want to do to advance the country or make the community safer; it's a test for Labor. Well, here's a test for the government: you could stop with this sort of nonsense. You could actually acknowledge that people elected you to be the government of Australia. The minister could spend his time dealing with the crisis in aeroplane people—the more than 80,000 overwhelmingly dodgy asylum seekers sent to this country in the last few years by criminal people-smuggling syndicates. Maybe you could do something about that instead of spending your time on dodgy 'wedgislation' to try and play games with us.
You could deal with your contract management and the billions of dollars of contracts under this government which the Auditor-General continues to find are not handled properly, do not represent value for money and go to Liberal Party mates, as it turns out. You could deal with the backlog of citizenship applications. There are 250,000 people waiting for citizenship to be processed. Or you could resource the character assessment function in the Department of Home Affairs—because one thing that this bill will do is provide a tsunami of potential work for the department, with no extra resources. I put this question to the minister: what impact will this have on an already stressed and broken department?
The National Compliance and Character Centre, the NCCC, is shockingly under-resourced. In 2016, the NCCC—that's the part of the department that actually does these character assessments and finds the criminals that need to be deported—had 92 staff. The Ombudsman found that that part of the department was under-resourced in 2016 and that even then—following the changes in 2014 to section 501, and a massively increased workload—it needed 25 extra staff. Three years later, an FOI request revealed the truth: they have five extra staff. It was released on Valentine's Day this year, 14 February. They're already short of staff to do this important work. There is a backlog of character assessments. There are criminals running around the country that should not be here and could be deported under the current provisions, but you have not put enough staff in the department to do the work. It's ironic that it was released on Valentine's Day, as there is no love in the Department of Home Affairs. It is officially the worst department in the whole of the Commonwealth to work in—75th out of 75 agencies in the public sector census. It is a broken department. Morale is at an all-time low. A third of the staff want to leave.
If the minister already has the power, if this bill isn't needed and it's a political trap for Labor, then the question for us is: why wouldn't we just vote for it if we think it isn't really needed? The simple answer—and this is important to have on the record—is that it is badly drafted and it will have seriously negative consequences. I'll outline three. The bill proposes to add additional elements to the character test, including conviction, as we've heard, for a designated offence that is punishable by imprisonment for more than two years, regardless of the time sentences. The explanatory memorandum does not give any advice as to how many more people will be deported. We have no idea how many. At the Senate inquiry into the previous version of the bill, they admitted, 'We have no idea; we're not getting into that.' They had no idea what this is actually going to mean for the department. You can't just waltz into the House and say, 'It's national security; it's a crime,' and therefore expect everyone to vote for it before they look at the detail.
There are three key reasons. Firstly, this bill in its form could have serious and significant unintended consequences, including, and I quote from the Law Council, 'undermining the sentencing function of the judicial system'. It's not proportionate. It's going to make people far more likely to plead not guilty and clog up the court system. It's going to make it far harder for prosecutors to get sensible deals and get convictions. If people know they are going to be deported and they would only get a light sense because it is at the very low end of offending, they will plead not guilty. It's going to tie up the resources of the court system. It will remove the discretion of judicial officers to sentencing. It's going to make juries and judges far less likely to record a conviction when one should be recorded, because offenders are then mandated to fail the character test even when the sentence is light and even when they have incredibly strong connections to Australia.
The second reason is about damaging our international relationship with New Zealand. This is a really important point and it should not be underestimated—and I think it is disgraceful of those opposite to dismiss this, to laugh about it and to ignore it. New Zealand has taken serious umbrage with Australia's deportation of New Zealand nationals following conviction for offences. We hear the minister in question time talking about very serious cases. There was no-one in this House who would disagree with the kind of stuff that we heard in previous speeches. Just for the record, the opposition don't support rape. We don't support paedophiles. We don't support violent crime in people's homes. Of course, those people should be dealt with, and it is absolutely mischievous and misleading to suggest to the Australian people that we do not support that kind of action.
The New Zealand High Commissioner came to a parliamentary committee and submitted. It is incredibly rare that that happens. She submitted that this would make a bad situation worse for New Zealand. Indeed, I actually heard from her directly this morning in a private meeting. She made the point that this will make a bad situation worse and all they're asking for is some kind of reciprocity for our closest neighbour, partner, ally and friend, our cousins, our brothers—that we can sit down and try and treat their people in the same way that they treat our people. This legislation will disproportionately affect New Zealanders, more than any other group.
The graph, which you can get, that shows the minister's cancellations in the last 12 months shows that 411 of about 850 cancellations were New Zealanders. The vast majority of people who will be affected by this bill are not the kinds of criminals the minister likes to paint them as with his racially based slurs—talking about African crime gangs, making people think this is all about black people or Lebanese migrants from the seventies, or making people think this is all about Muslims. It is about New Zealanders. The primary targets of this bill will be New Zealanders. It's corrosive to the New Zealand-Australia relationship. Many of these people who will be and are being deported have lived in Australia since they were one or two years old.
The simple truth is, I believe, morally: if we broke them then we take responsibility for them. If people have lived in this country for 35, 40 or 50 years of their lives and don't have any connection, any family connection, the New Zealand society had nothing to do with the fact that they became criminals. We should take some responsibility for that. The reciprocity—the New Zealand high commissioner pointed out that they have similar rules; they deport people and get rid of criminals, but once they've been there for 10 years the New Zealand community thinks: 'They're our responsibility, and we need to take responsibility for them. We put them in jail. We broke them. We deal with them.' That is not too much to ask. It is not supporting criminals; it's being decent to our neighbours across the ditch.
These are the negative consequences. I get this in my electorate office. I've seen some shocking cases—very low-level offending, people being deported, having no families. How do you think their families in Australia feel? How do you think their families who are Australian citizens feel when their family member gets deported for what is relatively low-level offending? The punishment does not match the crime.
Children can be subject to visa cancellation and deportation, under this bill, for sending one intimate image of themselves to their partner or for petty shoplifting. It results in family separation and uproots far more than just the child. Parents will choose to leave or be separated from their children when visas are cancelled. I call that immoral. You may as well call it the 'deport New Zealanders bill', because that would be a far more honest title.
In my remaining time I'll touch on the other aspect, which is the retrospectivity. One of the appalling consequences of this bill—and Labor said we would support it with amendments if, for example, we remove the retrospectivity—is that there are untold thousands of people who may have committed a crime 10, 20 or 30 years ago, who were convicted of that crime, who might have served a few months in jail or might not have served any jail time at all. Under this legislation, they can automatically be deemed—if the department ever gets resources to go back and find them—to fail the character test and they can be deported. That's if they committed a crime 30 years ago and have lived as perfectly good or model citizens for the following 30 years—having a family, falling in love, having Australian children. All of a sudden, under this government, someone can turn up at their door, stick them in detention and deport them to a country they've never lived in. That is absolutely unfair. It is disproportionate to the crime. We should not be passing retrospective legislation like this that will also clog up the department and clog up the courts with appeals.
I do note, finally, that even the government recommended in their report, in the inquiry, some changes to the existing framework, to include a specific provision to acknowledge the special immigration status. The government let New Zealanders live here, but they don't give them a pathway to citizenship. They can have lived here for 40 years, but they can't get citizenship, at the moment, and then they suffer deportation. Fundamentally, I think that's unfair. There is no case for this bill. The minister has the power. There's no stakeholder support for this bill. It's damaging and has unintended consequences, especially to our relationship with New Zealand. The bill's only purpose is to wedge Labor.
If this legislation had good policy grounding, the Abbott government would have introduced it in 2013. But they didn't. In its last term, this government—and it is a third-term government—introduced this legislation into the chamber on 25 October 2018. It let the legislation stay there, month after month. It went to an election and didn't bring it on for debate. This is poor policy. Those opposite know it. This is about wedging Labor—nothing more, nothing less. I take umbrage at LNP members opposite from Queensland saying we're on the side of criminals. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Labor believes the minister has broad grounds. This legislation is almost identical to the legislation that was brought in in the last parliament. Labor had this legislation looked at. We looked at this type of legislation then. We opposed it then; we oppose it now. The origins of this legislation are in the fantastic imaginings of the member for La Trobe. I served on that parliamentary committee with him, and that committee did some good work in its report No one teaches you to become an Australian. Labor dissented when it was necessary. The committee also did another report in relation to it, because the government wasn't satisfied with one report; it had to do two.
This legislation was brought back after the government won the last election, but I doubt whether members opposite have actually looked at section 501 of the Migration Act or section 116 of the Migration Act. The minister already has extraordinary powers under the legislation to do the things that the minister says he needs to get done. There's not an example that the members opposite have used that couldn't enliven the minister's discretion right now to deal with a foreign national and deport them under section 501 of the Migration Act or under section 116 of the Migration Act. The minister's powers are extraordinary.
Labor has supported section 501, I might add, and we supported the amendments that took place in the term before last as well. We supported legislative changes that the government brought in. Under section 501, someone can mandatorily fail if they have a substantial criminal record, as defined in subsection (7) of section 501—that is, say, that they've been in prison for 12 months or more, cumulatively over two or more terms or individually. But under section 501(6), if the person doesn't pass the character test then the minister has discretion. If the minister reasonably suspects that that particular person's past or present conduct—criminal conduct or conduct generally—doesn't pass the character test, he or she can deport them. That is as broad as, for example, if the minister believes that person is:
… a danger to the Australian community or to a segment of that community, whether by way of being liable to become involved in activities that are disruptive to, or in violence threatening harm to, that community or segment, or in any other way.
There are a whole range of things, like harassment, molestation, intimidation, stalking or vilification of a segment of the community. So a person doesn't actually have to be charged with a criminal offence before the minister's subjective discretion can be enlivened and the minister can deport them.
In addition to that particular provision, the minister also has a very low threshold in terms of their power to cancel visas under section 116 of the Migration Act. They are significant and broad powers. For example, the minister can cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that:
… the presence of its holder in Australia is or may be, or would or might be, a risk to:
(i) the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community; or
(ii) the health or safety of an individual or individuals …
I don't believe there's a member opposite in the government who has actually read the Migration Act before they've made a speech today. I don't think they have! If they'd read it, they would not have made the kinds of nonsensical, stupid speeches that they've been making this evening. The minister already has the powers.
If the minister believes this legislation is necessary, what does it say about the failure of the Minister for Home Affairs? It says that he's failed monumentally if, in the third term of this government, they need to bring this legislation before the chamber. It's unnecessary. It will impact adversely on New Zealanders and other nationals—people who may have been in this country for years. I've spoken to the previous high commissioner and the current high commissioner. I served on the parliamentary committee. I listened to the submissions of so many people in relation to it. It's not just one Senate inquiry that has looked at it; a number of Senate inquiries have looked at it. There has been zero stakeholder support for this legislation. Even the Department of Home Affairs in the previous Senate inquiry was insipid, weak and pathetic in their defence of this legislation. They gave examples in their submission where, on any objective reading, the minister could now deport that particular individual for the conduct they were engaged in. There wasn't one stakeholder who supports this particular legislation. It is not just the New Zealand government; it is also the Law Council of Australia. Australia's Minister for Home Affairs, not just New Zealanders, opposes this. The list includes the Law Council of Australia, the Human Rights Commission, the Refugee Council of Australia, Legal Aid New South Wales, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, the New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and even Oz Kiwi—Kiwis living in Australia who want a better deal for New Zealanders.
There is simply no support for this legislation, as I say. Look at what some of the people have said. The Refugee Council highlighted that 'this legislation will lower the bar for visa cancellations to such an extent that a child could be subject to an indefinite detention or deportation for sharing an intimate image of their girlfriend or boyfriend, or for shoplifting'—or for simply being an accessory, for example, where that person had no actual knowledge of that. A child could be caught up in that situation and deported—and this government is prepared to undertake this!
What about the fact that we have a situation where the government, with this legislation, is not proposing to give extra money to the state and territory court systems, which are going to be clogged up because people aren't going to plead guilty. There is no way they are going to plead guilty here, because, even if they are convicted, they would not have to be sentenced to 12 months or more. If they are guilty of a crime that carries up to two years imprisonment, or more, they are going to be in a situation where they are likely to be deported. So who's going to plead guilty in those circumstances? Where is the legal aid funding for this government-proposed increase? What's going to happen with the AAT as well? There is going to be a massive clogging of the system.
The government here is bringing legislation before this chamber and suggesting that somehow we are weak on criminals, when this piece of legislation is an indictment of the government itself in its third term. The New Zealand government has said that this bill, the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019, would make a bad situation worse for New Zealanders and, therefore, worse for New Zealand. They come into this chamber and disparage our closest friends, our cousins, people who are our closest allies. No-one in Australia would not think that New Zealanders were our closest cousins and our closest allies. Yet the government comes in here and disparages them. We have heard it in speeches tonight. We heard the Minister for Home Affairs disparaging New Zealand in question time today. I don't think they understand. There is a mandatory aspect in the current legislation and discretionary powers for the minister. I don't think any of the members opposite who made a speech understand that the minister already has broad discretionary powers to refuse or cancel a visa of a noncitizen if they fail to pass the character test.
What this government seems to be doing here is not doing good public policy but actually playing to the baser angels of our nature. That's what they're doing. It's all about whipping up fear in the community and trying to wedge us. It's about that and that alone. I'm very concerned about what they are doing here. What they are trying to do is cause harm among migrant communities. That's one of the reasons why FECCA has opposed the legislation. In FECCA's view, 'given the devastating and long-lasting impact on the individual, their families and communities, visa cancellation measures should be limited to serious crimes as judged by the courts on the basis of the penalty applied by the judicial system'.
Since at least the early nineties, that has been the basis on which powers have been exercised under section 501 of this legislation, the Migration Act—the basis of conviction and sentencing and the duration of the imprisonment and, in addition to that, the subjective aspect since 2014 and the minister having powers and limiting it to a 12-month provision with the amendments that took place in 2014. That has historically been the bipartisan position in this place. But this government will trash the bipartisanship, as they do so often and as they have recently done on national security. They are doing it in relation to this. Why? For political reasons—not for good public policy reasons.
Labor does not want in this country people such rapists, criminals engaged in sexual assault, people in serious breach of domestic violence orders, or anyone engaged in robbery, armed robbery or assault on Australians. If the minister is not exercising those discretions now it is his fault and his responsibility. He should be doing it. Why is he coming here with this legislation? This is not about good policy. Every committee that's looked at this—the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which examined this legislation in detail—listened to the stakeholders who understood the unintended and negative consequences on migrant communities in this country. If those opposite don't think there will be a huge number of people caught up by this legislation, they are not listening to the stakeholders and they haven't read the bill or the reports. When they come to their electorate offices and whinge and complain about what is happening, and give them those stories, often heartfelt, I want the Minister for Home Affairs and members opposite who have spoken on this and will vote for this legislation to think long and hard about what they are going to do tonight and the impact it will have on migrant communities, families and children—the separation of families, as the New Zealand government and FECCA have talked about. Consider the adverse impact on women and children here. This is bad legislation and they should not be supporting it. But it is not just FECCA. The Refugee Council of Australia said:
… it adds nothing to the existing sweeping powers of the Government to protect the safety of Australian citizens …
You would think this legislation was absolutely crucial for protecting Australian citizens—that nothing had been done for the last six or seven years. The minister comes into question time all the time and talks about how many thousands of people he has thrown out of the country. How is that consistent with this legislation. The Refugee Council of Australia said:
… it lowers the bar for visa cancellations to such an extent that a child could be subject to indefinite detention or deportation for sharing an intimate image of their girlfriend or boyfriend, or for shoplifting.
An accessory even. As the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties said, this is 'not about protecting the Australian people', and those opposite know it. They might have some of their backbenchers giving their speeches with their talking points, but the executive of this government knows it is not about protecting the Australian public. They already have the power to do it.
The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties said:
This bill will subject people who are of no danger to society to the rigours of indefinite detention, or to being deported.
The bill presupposes that careful decisions of the court, after making proper process, input by experts and the experienced judgment of judges, are inferior to decisions made by the minister, with the aid of his department. After all, sentences take account of the desirability of deterrence both to the individual and to others. That is, they take into account the dangers to the community. The bill makes no exceptions for children. The bill entirely ignores the prospect of any form of rehabilitation.
The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre said:
There is no utility in passing the Bill as it does not empower decision makers to do anything they cannot already do.
The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre further said—and I would urge those opposite to look at this:
There is no indication in the Explanatory Memorandum or elsewhere that existing cancellation and refusal powers are insufficient, or are in any way hindering the Government's ability to protect the Australian community.
The government has made that case out each and every day in question time, each and every day during the election campaign and each and every day on which they sit in the Treasury benches.
This legislation is very poor policy. The government should hang their heads in shame about it. They are ignoring the experts and they are ignoring our brothers and sisters across the Tasman. They should oppose the legislation.
I rise to contribute to this debate on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019. Labor strongly supports the current powers to cancel or refuse visas on character or criminal grounds, as set out in sections 501 and 116 of the Migration Act. I echo the comments from the member for Blair that clearly those in the government who have spoken on this bill are very unfamiliar with those sections of the act.
In 2014, Labor supported amendments to the Migration Act which strengthened the character test provisions. Those 2014 amendments introduced mandatory visa cancellation provisions for foreign nationals who have committed serious crimes. In addition to these mechanisms under the act, the act also gives the minister broad discretionary powers to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds, including in cases where a person has not been convicted of a criminal offence. So the existing legislation provides strong protections for the Australian community when it comes to cancelling the visas of people who pose a risk to the community, have engaged in serious criminal conduct or are persons the minister assesses as failing to meet the character test.
The bill now before the House does not add any new offences which would trigger automatic visa cancellation, nor does it affect the minister's existing broad discretionary powers. The government has failed to provide a clear rationale for this bill. It has not been able to explain why this bill would allow the minister to do that which cannot already be done under the existing migration legislation. However, the bill does risk creating a number of unintended and undesirable consequences. My colleagues have already canvassed a number of the unintended consequences, so I wish to focus on one area of concern: the bill's impact on Australia's international relationships in the Pacific region. The bill's measures have the potential to damage Australia's standing in the region, and I would submit that it has already done so. This would undermine the government's own Pacific step-up policies for Australia's engagement with the Pacific.
Let me take the chamber through those concerns. As I've noted, the Migration Act 1958 already contains strong powers for the minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds, as it should. These existing powers are designed to ensure the minister can remove the right of noncitizens to remain in Australia when they pose a risk to community safety or security. The existing powers in section 501 of the act give the minister the power to refuse or cancel the visas of people with a substantial criminal record: those convicted of sexual offences involving a child; those involved in people smuggling, trafficking in persons or serious international crimes; those who are members of a criminal organisation; or those who are assessed by ASIO as a security risk or not of good character, having regard to their criminal conduct or their general conduct. Labor supports these existing provisions. Let me repeat that: Labor supports these existing provisions.
In 2014, we voted in favour of amendments to the Migration Act. We strengthened the character test and the powers to cancel visas on character grounds. So we have a track record of supporting strong and effective measures to protect the safety and security of Australians. The existing provisions in the character test are extensive. They target noncitizens who pose a risk to the Australian community, including people with a substantial criminal record. A 'substantial criminal record' is defined to include having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
The bill now before the House seeks to amend the existing powers by creating additional elements to the character test, but the way these elements have been drafted could see the visas of people cancelled with little regard to the seriousness of activities. It could see the visas of people cancelled when they do not pose a risk to the Australian community, such as people whose conduct is trivial and could not reasonably support a suspicion that the person is not of good character.
The bill adds a new category of designated offences to the character test provisions. This new category is defined as including offences punishable by imprisonment for a maximum term of two years or more. The problem with the drafting of this element of the definition of a designated offence is that it pays no regard to the actual sentence imposed by a court. An offence may carry a maximum term of two years, but, in a specific case, a court may impose a lesser sentence, a suspended sentence or no sentence of imprisonment at all. This reflects the court's view of all the circumstances of the case, including the seriousness of the offence. So the bill detaches the character test from any consideration of whether the person poses a risk to community safety. It could mean a low-level or trivial offence results in a person's visa being cancelled, even if a court decided not to impose a prison sentence at all. These changes are not necessary to protect the Australian community, because, as I have said, the existing legislation already provides powers to cancel or refuse visas on a whole range of character grounds. These existing grounds include whether the minister forms the view that a person is not of good character, having regard to their criminal conduct or their general conduct.
The potential impact of the bill on Australia's relations with Pacific countries is highlighted by our recent experience with New Zealand. Since the character test was strengthened in 2014, the number of New Zealand nationals having Australian visas cancelled has increased significantly. Department of Home Affairs statistics show more than 1,600 New Zealand citizens have had visas cancelled in the last four years. In 2014, nearly half of the 888 people whose visas were cancelled on character grounds were New Zealand nationals. There have been cases where the individuals concerned had come to Australia as children, lived here for many years and had little remaining connection to New Zealand. These deportations are causing tensions in our relationship with New Zealand. The New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, described the issue as 'corrosive' to trans-Tasman relations during her recent visit to Australia. In February this year, Prime Minister Ardern said:
New Zealand has no issue with Australia taking a dim view of newly-arrived noncitizens committing crimes. But equally, the New Zealand people have a dim view of the deportation of people who move to Australia as children and have grown up there, with often little or no lasting connection to here.
One of this bill's unintended consequences may be to further increase the number of New Zealand citizens being deported. This would further strain our bilateral relationship. The New Zealand government took the unusual step of launching a submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill in the last parliament; such is their concern. That submission said:
The … Bill … would make a bad situation worse for New Zealanders and therefore for New Zealand …
Let me be clear: foreign nationals engaged in substantial criminal activity should not be allowed to remain in Australia. Foreign nationals who represent a danger to the Australian community should not be allowed to remain here, nor should foreign nationals who are assessed by our national intelligence agencies as a security concern. That's why the Migration Act was amended in 2014 to provide extensive powers for the minister to refuse or cancel visas in these circumstances. The government has failed to give a clear explanation of why these existing ministerial powers are insufficient.
The amendments in this bill are poorly drafted and risk creating unintended adverse consequences for Australia. As I've outlined, the proposed new definition of 'designated offences' fails to take into account the actual sentences imposed by courts. That will create the potential for deportations of people who have not committed significant offences and who do not pose a risk. This will create ill feeling in countries in our region. It is in Australia's interests to maintain good international relations in our region. We need to work co-operatively with partner countries on issues of mutual concern like border protection, law enforcement, security and defence.
I am concerned that this bill will see deportations of New Zealand nationals who do not pose a risk to the Australian community. As I've said previously, the New Zealand government has warned of the 'corrosive effect' on the relationship. This is one of Australia's closest international relationships. New Zealand is a significant bilateral partner in its own right. It is also a valuable partner in our engagement with the Pacific. Australia and New Zealand work closely together on Pacific issues, including in the Pacific Islands Forum and on strategic and security issues in the Pacific.
This bill could undermine Australia's wider Pacific policies, which is very significant in its own right but also given that the Prime Minister has made the Pacific step-up his so-called signature diplomatic initiative. Significant numbers of New Zealand nationals have Pacific heritage. These are people who've migrated or whose parents have migrated from Pacific island countries to New Zealand and who have gained New Zealand citizenship. Given the open border arrangements between Australia and New Zealand, a considerable number of the New Zealand nationals living in Australia are likely to have Pacific heritage. They may also be making remittance payments to family members in Pacific island nations. If this bill results in deportations of Kiwis of Pacific heritage who do not pose any risk to the Australian community, it will damage Australia's standing in the broader Pacific. This would be another example of how the government is undermining its own Pacific step-up with poorly designed, poorly administered and poorly thought-through policies.
Labor has long advocated deepening engagement with the Pacific. It's a region which faces challenges such as lack of economic opportunity; the need to improve health, education and gender equality outcomes; the risks posed by climate change and other environmental pressures; rising strategic competition; and security threats ranging from illegal fishing to drug smuggling. It is in Australia's national interests to help our Pacific neighbours meet these challenges, so we welcome the government's renewed focus on the region after years of neglect. But the problem is that the government's Pacific step-up is being undermined by its inaction on climate change, its cuts to the aid budget, poor implementation of programs and contradictory policy approaches. Leaders of Pacific island nations have declared that climate change is the most significant threat to their people. This government's inaction on climate change is seriously harming Australia's standing in the Pacific.
In migration policy, the government's new Pacific Labour Scheme has been undermined by its deregulation of backpacker visas. Only 203 workers from Pacific island countries were granted visas under the Pacific Labour Scheme in 2018-19, in its first full year of operation. The coalition has undermined Pacific labour mobility programs by deregulating working holidaymaker visas at the same time. These backpacker visas are running at more than 185,000 visas granted annually. The coalition's further deregulation of backpacker visas in 2017 has already seen the number of visa holders granted a second year's stay in Australia jump by 5,328 or 15.3 per cent in 2018. This trend is likely to continue, as the next round of deregulatory backpacker visa changes came into effect on 1 July 2019. That undermines the Pacific Labour Scheme.
So it is little wonder that the scheme delivered only 203 visas in its first year, a 10th of the 2,000 the government expected. This has practical effects. Thirty per cent of those who live in the Pacific live below the absolute poverty line of US$1.90 a day. If the government had managed this program properly and seen 2,000 visas granted, that would have resulted in an extra $8 million of remittances going back to these Pacific nations annually. This money is vitally needed for the economic sustainment of this region.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs was clearly rolled in cabinet by her National Party colleagues, who are desperate to get through an agricultural visa by any means possible, and they are using a deregulated backpacker visa as a backdoor to achieve that outcome. That is bad for Australia, and it is bad for our Pacific neighbours. If we're trying to find motivated workers to work in the agricultural sector and in our tourism and hospitality sectors, we should be looking towards our Pacific island neighbours, not attempting to exploit backpackers from First World nations coming in for a holiday. That is what the National Party have secured with their changes. This is an outcome which is causing disappointment and concern amongst governments in Australia's Pacific region.
Now we have this bill which, as currently drafted, risks putting a strain on our relationship with New Zealand and negatively impacting our standing with Pacific island countries. Labor believes these risks need to be addressed. We are seeking a detailed review of the ministerial directions, with specific regard to the impacts of visa cancellations on New Zealand nationals. Such a review has been recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. This review should consider directions used for section 116 and section 501 visa cancellations. It should consider the implementation of a 'sliding scale' in ministerial directions, similar to the approach taken by New Zealand.
Labor is strongly committed to ensuring the safety and security of all Australians. That's why Labor supported changes to the Migration Act to strengthen the character test and to introduce mandatory visa cancellation for foreign nationals who have served a sentence of a minimum of 12 months or who have committed a serious crime. If the Morrison government accepts Labor's proposals to remove the bill's unintended consequences—including the potential impacts on our relations with New Zealand—the opposition will support the passage of this legislation. But, absent this agreement, Labor will oppose this bill, as it should, because it will not achieve what it seeks to do; it is a petty political diversion from real issues that affect people; and it undermines our relationship with New Zealand and the broader Pacific. Again, it is emblematic of this government's approach of putting day-to-day petty politics first before the national interest.
As we just heard from the member for Shortland and from many other members from this side, Labor strongly supports the current powers that exist for the minister to cancel and refuse visas on the grounds of character and criminal activity under sections 501 and 116 of the Migration Act. So one has to wonder why the government has brought into this House a bill called the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill, when the minister already has all the strength that he requires to do the things that he's talking about.
It only leads one to think on why this is happening. If you look at the pattern of this current government, since they've been in government and when they were in opposition, they've had one focus, and that is for migration to be used as a political football to divide the community, and to make them look tough on migrants, migration, boat people, visas and a whole range of things.
It's very easy—when you've got nothing to offer to the Australian public, when you've got people on unemployment benefits, when there is 'robo-debt' where people are being asked to pay back money that they don't owe, and when you've got a range of issues that the government is not dealing with and doesn't want to deal with—for them to then produce rubbish like this. I call it 'rubbish' because, as I said, currently the government has all of the powers to do the things that are in this bill. So it makes you wonder why we're discussing it.
As with many other things, we've been discussing migration and issues to do with migration for a long time in this place, and it's done with a political purpose, with one thing in mind: to scare the pants off people, as if we've got these thousands of migrant criminals here conducting themselves in such a way that we must fear for our safety and lock up our houses. That is not the point. The minuscule number of migrants who commit offences is no larger than in any other part of the community.
In 2014, we supported the changes to the Migration Act to strengthen the character test provisions and introduce the mandatory visa cancellation provision for foreign nationals who have served custodial sentences of a minimum of 12 months or have committed serious crimes, including offences against children and women and a whole range of other things. So the minister already has extremely broad discretionary powers to refuse or to cancel a visa of a noncitizen on character grounds—as I said, including in circumstances where a person has not been convicted of a criminal offence.
Today we heard the Minister for Home Affairs and others get up and grandstand about how tough they are and how tough the government is on these criminals. They already have those powers. We agreed to them in 2014. As to every bit of what is in this bill, they already have the powers to do those things. As I said, the minister has extremely broad discretionary power.
So this bill does not add any new offences that would trigger automatic visa cancellation. It does not affect the broad ministerial discretionary powers under those sections that I mentioned earlier, sections 501 and 116, to cancel a visa on character grounds, including in circumstances where the person has not automatically failed the character test but the minister 'reasonably' suspects the person does not pass the character test regardless of whether the person has committed a crime. Now those are very broad powers. In other words, the minister has the right, at pretty well any time, to take action.
We've had two Senate inquiries, and in those inquiries the government has been unable to identify what this bill enables the minister to do that he could not already do under the Migration Act in order to cancel a visa on character grounds. Again, it brings me back to what I said when I started to speak: it makes you wonder why they brought this bill into the House. It makes you wonder what the real purpose is. It makes you wonder what the goal of this bill is. And it is political. It's nothing else. It's an absolutely political bill.
We're playing with people's lives. We're demonising a whole sector of the Australian community by just washing them over with this and saying all the derogatory things that were said today in question time by the minister, in terms of acting tough and being tough on migrants and how he is going to send everyone back. Well, he's got the powers to do that now. He has, or any future minister will have, those powers.
As I said, evidence provided at both those Senate inquiries demonstrates that the limited impacts of the bill do, nonetheless, give rise to significant unintended or undesirable consequences. It's because of these consequences that we've come to that position. Earlier today the shadow minister, the member for Scullin, outlined a series of conditions the government must meet for our support. If the Morrison government would come to the table and meet us on these conditions we would support the passage of this legislation. But, at the moment, there is no need for a change.
For example, the imposition of a mandatory failure of the character test would apply to people who have been convicted of a designated offence at any point in the past. Some of these individuals would have lived in Australia for decades, with no recent criminal history. A number would have been previously considered by the minister or the department and would have been determined through that process to pass the character test, but they could now face a new prospect of visa cancellation, regardless of whether they served a prison sentence or not. In these circumstances, the bill introduces a form of double jeopardy in relation to visa cancellations. We've asked the government to amend the bill to ensure that no retrospective liability is created.
We've seen the history and the track record of this government when it comes to migration. The government has constantly talked negatively. All you have to do is listen to question time to hear the views of the ministers and others, and the dorothy dixers that are written for backbenchers to ask the ministers. It's a constant daily activity of this government, through subtle language and speeches crafted to demonise a whole group of people in this nation. We are a nation built on migration. I'm very proud that my parents migrated here, as did a lot of people in this room. All you have to do is scratch the surface and you will find that waves of migrants have come here, whether they've come as refugees or business migrants, whether they came in the fifties, sixties or seventies, when we were bringing many European people to Australia. It has made our country what it is.
Instead of embracing migrants and saying what a great thing it is for our nation, we hear language constantly being used to demonise them and we have constant silly bills that make the government look tough. That has one purpose. It's to play political football with these people, and it's sad. We look at the thousands of refugees that have come over.
On the weekend, I went to my local shopping centre, Foodland, which is an independent grocer. I met the owner, and he told me about his plight in Syria and how he came here and within a few years they were running a supermarket, employing over 80 people in my electorate. There are some great stories that they could be telling us, and the Minister for Home Affairs could be highlighting them in this place. Instead, day in, day out, he chooses to use the negativity that has been the practice in this place since this government's been in power, to constantly demonise and use language that is very subtle, very planned, with dorothy dixers, to make the Australian public fear migrants and think that they are something else.
Sure, there are people that commit crimes. There are people that don't abide by the law. By all means, the minister currently has the power to refuse visas or cancel visas and send people back to where they came from. No-one disagrees with that. You won't fine anyone disagreeing with that in this House, I don't think. So why do we have to be debating this bill again? This is what we can't understand—the purpose of this particular bill. I think it's about time that the government seriously look at the whole issue of migration—the way that they have conducted themselves and the language they use—and ensure that, for the future, we embrace people and bring them in. We have thousands and thousands waiting to become citizens. The minister's not dealing with that at all. There are people who come to my office that have been waiting for two, three or four years to get citizenship. They are eligible. They have passed all the tests. They have their permanent visas. They are working, and many are in businesses, yet there is this massive delay.
The whole idea of citizenship is to make it easy for people to feel like they're part of this wonderful multicultural family that we call Australia. We embrace them, we bring them in and we make them part of our family. We don't alienate them continuously; we don't sidestep them continuously. That is what this government is doing on a regular basis, day in, day out. They are creating the problems of the future through their migration policies, through the language that's being used and through the way that they conduct themselves in this place when it comes to the issues of migration.
I have to say that I'm very disappointed with this bill. I'm very disappointed with the way that this country has gone in the last few years and how we're dividing the community. We won't be supporting this bill in its current form, and I'm very proud that we won't be, because this bill does nothing to better the current legislation or better this country.
My concern with the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019 is twofold. Firstly, it widens the already extraordinary powers of the minister by lowering the threshold for visa cancellations; and, secondly, it's another attack in a long list of harsh decisions on people living in Australia on visas. Section 501 and section 116 of the Migration Act provide clear and adequate scope for the minister to cancel a visa, and Labor supports the ministerial powers contained within those sections. For the benefit of anyone listening, I'll read just a small part of section 501. It begins by saying:
The Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
... Character test is defined by subsection (6).
It then goes on to say:
The Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(a) the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test; and
(b) the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test ...
Those two parts of the act alone make it absolutely clear that the minister has extraordinary powers with respect to visa cancellations. Section 116 then goes on to also expand on how the minister can use those powers and what criteria could and should be used.
The concern I have with this legislation is that the minister already has extensive powers and we are going to increase those powers. I have a real concern with having one person in this country with such powers. Of course, the response from the government and others will be that the minister will use those powers appropriately and in the national interest, and the response will also include that the minister will always use those powers responsibly. The reality is that we have no guarantee of that whatsoever. We also know that whomever the minister is today will not necessarily be the minister next month, next year or in a few years time. Ministers will come and go. So what we are saying is that we are granting to individuals powers, literally without any criteria attached to them, that they can use when and if they choose to do so.
We also know that politics drives all kinds of decision-making, and we have seen that all too often, where political opportunism prevails. And, if it's in the political interest of the government of the day for a minister to use such powers, they will do so, not because it's the right thing to do but because it's politically expedient and convenient for that minister to do so.
What's even more concerning about those powers is that the decisions of a minister are final. There is no right of appeal against the minister's actual decision with respect to the person that they're making a decision about. There is no accountability, no procedural fairness and no justification for the decision is required. To increase ministerial discretion by lowering the threshold is, indeed, concerning.
Visa cancellation has serious consequences, not just for the individual concerned but for other family members of that person. And, if the visa happens to belong to a person who has children, perhaps a spouse, or brothers and sisters in this country, then a decision to have a visa cancelled has serious implications for the rest of the family. That's why it should be used with great care. And, again, I reiterate that I have serious concerns about such power resting solely with one person.
We know that the real purpose of this legislation is to wedge Labor on it. I urge any member who wants to take an interest in this issue to read or listen to the speeches of government members who have spoken in this debate, because they have made it absolutely clear that their intent and their hope is to paint Labor as a party that is soft on border protection and that this is a test for Labor. That's the clear objective from this government. The reality, however, is this: if border protection is what is driving this legislation, then why does the government want to privatise the visa processing system in this country? That would do absolutely nothing for national security and, quite frankly, would itself pose real concerns for our national security. Yet the government is prepared to do that and not think twice about it.
I could talk about other areas of visa processing in which this government does very little. But I want to turn to the second concern that I alluded to in my opening remarks, and that is the constant attack—which is now becoming a narrative of this government—on migrants to this country, people who are still here on visas. I want to run through some of the things this government has done, or would like to do if it had the opportunity. We've seen the long delays in the processing of entry visa applications—delays that now mean that people are waiting for years before their applications are being processed. We've seen applicants who have legitimate visa applications before the government rejected simply because they come from certain parts of the world. I have personally dealt with many families who have come to my office asking for assistance because of a visitor application rejection.
We've seen application fees jacked up by this government, putting the fees out of the reach of many of the people who would otherwise want to apply. We've seen payments cut to pensioners when they travel overseas, in the full knowledge that many of the people who come from this country, when they reach pension age, are likely to want to go back and visit their homeland. So, we know full well that a great proportion of the people who are going to be affected by those changes are indeed people who migrated to this country. We've seen the proposed extensions to the eligibility period before social support cuts in for people who've come from overseas—another attack on migrants to this country. And we've seen the long queue for citizenship applications that are not being processed.
Indeed, I had a motion in this House only last week with respect to that. In 2013, when this government took office, the queue was 20,000 people waiting to have their applications processed. By the end of June, the list was 221,000 people—an eightfold increase in the number of people waiting to have their citizenship applications processed, after they had met all the relevant criteria and after they had jumped through hurdles because the government raised the bar in terms of the eligibility criteria for applying for Australian citizenship. And the government does all that because what it is really doing is keeping at bay people's ability to get on with their lives in this country and keeping at bay the entitlements and support that they would otherwise get once they became full citizens.
Including the vote, remember?
I thank my colleague for his comment about the vote, because I made that point very clearly when I debated my motion in the House last week—about how it disenfranchised over 200,000 people in the May 2019 election—people who would otherwise have been eligible to vote but were not able to do so simply because their citizenship application had not been processed. As I said at the time, I believe that was deliberate. Nevertheless, I will move on, because I have other comments I wish to make about it.
But can I say, with respect to all those attacks on the migrant population of Australia, that the migrant community are fully awake to it, and they can see exactly what this government is doing. They are not naive to the tactics of this government and the games that it is playing. At the same time the government is pretending that it supports migrant communities around Australia.
This government is happy to pave the way for migrants to come in as cheap labour on a temporary basis, without very carefully checking their visa applications, simply because it knows that that cheap labour is going to benefit big business in this country. We've seen it in some of the free trade agreements that have been signed. We've seen it with the shipping legislation that this government supports. We've seen it with the skilled temporary visa processes that this government also supports. With respect to the shipping legislation, if this government is concerned about border security and border protection, what is it doing about the ships that are fully crewed by people who are not Australian citizens yet land here and operate within our waters?
Labor has identified three specific areas of concern with this legislation. The first is the issue of retrospectivity. The second is that it captures low-level offending that does not currently rise to the level of the character test. The third is the effect that it will have on the relationship with New Zealand. Only last night, at the reception for the Australian police federation here in this House, the strength and importance of the relationship between the two countries was highlighted by a New Zealand police officer—and I apologise that I didn't catch his name. He spoke about the support that this country gave to the New Zealand Police at the time of the terrorist attack in New Zealand. He highlighted the closeness and strength of the relationship between the two countries. It is a relationship that goes back 100 years—indeed, we talk about ANZAC, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. The two countries should not be in disagreement over legislation that affects one or the other, yet that is exactly what this legislation is going to cause. The New Zealand government has made it absolutely clear that this legislation does not do anything to encourage or support the friendship between the two countries.
Labor have made it absolutely clear that we support the provisions that currently exist within the Migration Act that allow the minister to cancel visas if necessary. We totally support that, and we did so in 2014 when the Migration Act was changed. Any decision that is made in respect of that needs to be made with the underlying principles of fairness, justice and transparency. That can't be guaranteed under this legislation. My view is that this legislation is not necessary. Quite frankly, it is legislation that the government is bringing in for the wrong reasons. It has been made absolutely clear by pretty much all of the people who made submissions to the Senate inquiry—almost universally, with the exception of a couple—that this legislation is unnecessary. I believe that the government should think clearly about legislation that it brings into this House, because it's not just legislation that this government will have control over but legislation that will continue into the future.
I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to sum up the debate on this most important piece of legislation—the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019. We'll come back to this, but it's absolutely extraordinary that this bill does not have the support of the opposition. We're going to have a bit of time to reflect on that in this speech, but I want to start out by very clearly articulating what this bill does.
This bill protects Australians and it keeps Australians safe. The only people affected by this bill are noncitizens who have committed serious crimes. That's who we're talking about here. The people affected by this bill are noncitizens of Australia who have committed serious crimes. This bill makes it simpler for their visas to be cancelled because they've committed a serious criminal offence, and the opposition says we should not do that. It is extraordinary.
Let's go through the four offences which are the subject of this bill. They're designated offences. They're defined in the legislation: violence against a person, including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, assault, aggravated burglary and the threat of violence; non-consensual conduct of a sexual nature, including sexual assault and the non-consensual commission of an act of indecency or sharing of an intimate image; breaching an order made by a court or tribunal for the personal protection of another person, generally in the form of an AVO; or using or possessing a weapon in an unlawful manner. There is also procuring or assisting in any one of those four categories. What this bill says is that if someone has been convicted of one of those four offences and they're not a citizen of Australia, as long as the offence has a maximum sentence of two years or more, that creates an objective ability for the government to cancel their visa. We're talking about, maybe, someone who has committed a serious assault being convicted and sentenced to nine months imprisonment. They are not caught by the existing mandatory cancellation for the 12-month period. This bill says we should be able to objectively cancel their visa, because this is a noncitizen who has committed a serious crime against an Australian. That's what this bill says.
Those opposite say we should not pass that legislation through the parliament. It is an extraordinary proposition. Let's go through them one by one. The first proposition from the opposition is that the government should not have a clear objective power to cancel the visa of, say, a noncitizen who's been convicted and sentenced to 10 months jail for violence against a person, including offences such as kidnapping, assault, aggravated burglary or the threat of violence. They say we shouldn't have the ability to objectively cancel the visa when that person has done that. That is extraordinary. They say that, if a noncitizen of Australia has been convicted of non-consensual conduct of a sexual nature, including sexual assault or the non-consensual commission of an act of indecency or sharing of an intimate image, and is sentenced to, say, nine, 10 or 11 months, we should not have an objective power to cancel that person's visa. The extraordinary thing is that, a few moments from now, what apparently is going to happen is that members of the opposition are all going to walk into this chamber and vote against that. That is an extraordinary proposition.
You know that's not the issue.
It is the issue. It is precisely the issue, because this is about protecting Australians from serious crimes committed by people who are not citizens of Australia. We welcome people to Australia, and we issue eight million visas a year for people to come to Australia. But what we don't welcome and will never, ever accept is that people who are not citizens can come to our country and commit serious crimes. Not acting upon that is absolutely unacceptable, because if someone commits a serious crime in Australia they have breached faith with the pact that they have with Australia under which they are a guest in our country. It is self-evident that there should be an objective capacity to cancel that person's visa, and that's what this law provides.
The fact is that this law will have some very important implications in different situations. I want to turn to a number of different examples. Here is a practical example: a person who has been convicted in Tasmania of sexually related offences, including indecent assault and attempted indecent assault, but hasn't been sentenced to imprisonment of 12 months or more and therefore is not caught by the mandatory 12-month cancellation. These are very serious crimes: indecent assault and attempted indecent assault. The person has been sentenced to a period of less than 12 months. This person's not a citizen of Australia, by the way; they're in Tasmania but not a citizen of Australia. This law says that we should have the objective ability to cancel their visa—pretty straightforward, right?
The opposition says, 'No; we shouldn't have an objective ability to cancel their visa,' which is absolutely unbelievable. The Labor Party has also made a number of other points, which I will come to in a moment.
I want to touch on a submission to the inquiry by Maria Aylward. This is a very sad case and it touches on why this law is so important. In that submission, Ms Aylward says:
Mr Mustafa Kunduraci murdered my sister, Mrs Korinne Aylward and her partner, Mr Gregory Tucker on 8 December 2013 in Melbourne.
Their deaths and the impact on … the family would not have occurred if this proposed legislation was in place.
That is because, in February 2010, Mr Kunduraci was sentenced to six months jail for very serious crimes. So there wasn't the ability to have the mandatory cancellation of the visa and there wasn't the ability for the objective cancellation that this law provides. Ms Aylward said that, were this law in place, that individual would have had his visa cancelled and the tragic consequences that her family suffered wouldn't have happened. That's why this law is so extremely important.
The opposition wrote a rather curious letter yesterday in which they basically said that they don't support this law and they're not going to vote for this law, and then they raised three purported reasons why they are not going to support the law. One of the reasons is they say that it's going to have an impact on New Zealanders who commit serious crimes in Australia. We have a very close and important relationship with New Zealanders. But the reality is that, if a New Zealander has committed a serious crime in Australia, they should be treated precisely the same way as someone from Spain, United States, France or wherever who commits a serious crime. Frankly, it's absurd to suggest that the law of Australia should not apply to someone because they are from New Zealand, when the person from New Zealand has committed a serious crime against an Australian. It makes absolutely no sense at all.
The opposition also say in this letter from Senator Keneally that we should change the definition of the amount of time of the seriousness of the offence and then basically says, 'You could use the definition of 12 months.' That's the definition we already have. The entire purpose of this legislation is to capture situations of serious crime where the sentence was less than 12 months. That is the entire point of this legislation, because we have no sympathy for non-citizens who commit serious crimes in our nation. So this is extraordinary. The other thing that Senator Keneally says is: 'If somebody committed a serious crime against an Australian three months ago it is really quite unfair if we then kick them out of the country.' No, it's not; it's entirely appropriate. If three months ago somebody committed a serious crime against Australians, I am pretty confident that the average Australian would say, 'Of course, you should be able to kick that person out,' and, 'Of course, there should be an objective standard to kick that person out of the country.'
The opposition's position on this bill is outrageous. It shows once again that, whenever it comes to these matters, the opposition's position is never to say, 'How do we make these laws stronger?'; it's always to say, 'How do we make these laws weaker?' We're standing with Australians against non-citizens who commit serious crimes. It is common sense. It is the right thing to do, and it should be supported by everyone in this chamber.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Scullin be agreed to.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
When I talk to people in my community, I'm amazed at the aspiration that they have for the community at large. Whether they're looking at more, better or affordable housing models or whether they're looking at community composting to reduce travel time or build the local economy, they want our community to be better and they're keen to find ways to work together to make that happen. Unfortunately, in our communities, it's quite difficult to find people of like mind and collaborate in the ways that we need to.
I want to talk today about one of my organisations, which has a really interesting lens through which to look at this issue. It's Parramatta Mission, which has a Centre for Faith and Public Issues that'll be holding a day-long symposium in October called: 'Is "great" good enough?' It will look at the language that people are using to describe the growth of our city at the moment, which is to build a 'great city'. It will ask: is being a 'great city' enough, or should we be a 'good city'? In their context, it comes from principle 3 of the Parramatta Mission's 'inSpire the Common Good' project. It's really interesting to look at the future of our city from that particular lens, looking for cohesion and looking for a community which supports the vulnerable, which worries about equity and which is concerned if people in the lower socioeconomic status still have access to the NBN—all of the things that we would want for a city to be a good city.
But for me there's another side to it as well, which is being good at being a city, which is also different from being a great city. Being good at being a city for me really means recognising that in many ways our cities have passed their use-by dates. We spend too much time travelling. I have people in my community who go to the train station before 7 am in the morning, even though they don't start until nine, because they can't park otherwise. We have a whole range of young people and people over the age of 45 with an incredible capacity to contribute and no real way to do so. We have people who care about biodiversity. I have two businesses that have approached me in the last week in the CBD that can't recycle. They are putting all of their bottles, in spite of the 10c deposit scheme, in the general waste because the recycling companies will not come into the CBD and down those lanes to collect them.
There are many ways for us to improve what we do as a community. I'm going to suggest to my community to have a real think about the three ways that we can look at our city: as 'the great city', which is what the state government talks about when they talk about building infrastructure; as 'a good city', which is what Parramatta Mission talks about and will spend a whole day on in late October; and 'being good at being a city'—working out how we actually use the fact that we have so many of us in a small area that produce a lot of waste. There's an opportunity there. We have dead spaces along our footpaths and in our yards where we can really rapidly scale up biodiversity. We can build local economies by supporting each other. Again, I know many people who have said to me, 'The new food delivery services are really interesting, but I'm waiting for the local one so people can be properly paid and we can actually support local businesses.'
I'm asking my community to join with me. If you're interested in any of these things, please send my office a bit of a message. I think that through the months of late October and November, it would be a good idea for some of us to get together and form groups of like mind to see if we can get some of this stuff done. There are extraordinary examples all around the world and all around Australia of people who are working to be good at being a city and making their cities a better place. We, as Western Sydney, should be part of that. As other parts of the world try to find solutions to better recycling, better composting, better soil quality, better water retention and all of that stuff that we know we need to do in our cities, we want to be world leaders in it.
Please get in touch with my office. I already have quite a large list of people from various fields. We've got some world experts in recycling. We have some world experts in urban ecology living in our community. We have a world expert in international models for affordable housing—incredible skills at the University of Western Sydney and the other universities that are now moving into the area as well. We can get stuff done and we can make a difference. We can be a great city and a good city, and we can be good at being a city.
Our communities are full of wonderful community groups: groups that help locals in need, groups that bring others together and groups that make our community stronger, cleaner or better in some other way. These groups are the lifeblood of our community. Without them, our suburbs would be less rich, less integrated and simply less interesting or vibrant. But many of them are struggling, operating with volunteers and goodwill but with very tight bottom lines. This is why this government has been putting money into community groups through a number of grants, one of which is just closing and another which has a way to go yet. The Stronger Communities Program supports the Australian government's commitment to deliver social benefits to communities across Australia. We've been running this program for five years now, and this latest round will provide $22.65 million to fund small capital projects across every electorate.
The program is designed to improve local community participation and contribute to vibrant and viable communities. Crucially, a panel of community leaders was assembled to assess each application so I could ensure that the process is transparent and in the best interests of our community. Each electorate has a total funding of up to $100,000 that can be allocated to successful applicants. We can choose no more than 20 projects, but in Bennelong we had 31 projects, costing a total of $415,000, demonstrating the huge interest this project has gathered over the past few years. We chose our preferred applications last week and we look forward to seeing if the department ratifies this decision. This is a fantastic program, one which has provided huge amounts of infrastructure and goodwill across our diverse community. I look forward to working with the successful applicants to grow their projects to completion, not to mention working with the unsuccessful applicants on future rounds.
The other grant project, that is still to close, is the Communities Environment Program. This program was announced in the last budget and will provide $22.65 funding to support small-scale community-led environment projects that address local environmental priorities across Australia. The program forms part of the Australian government's 2019 environment policy election commitment—our plan for a cleaner environment. It aims to support the environmental priorities of local communities and environment groups, in their regions and neighbourhoods, to recover and strengthen the environment and to build and strengthen local communities.
The grant can be used to fund a huge range of environmental activities, including 'citizen science' activities that encourage people to collect and contribute information about their local environment, activities that protect or support recovery of native species, or activities that reduce the impact of waste and litter, such as clean-up events. One hundred per cent of the eligible project's costs are available for funding, so community groups are encouraged to apply as soon as possible to ensure they have a chance of receiving this funding.
We have run the Stronger Communities Program for many years now, and a trend has emerged. Locally, we are giving a huge number of these grants to schools. Obviously, there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving this money to schools, where appropriate, and there were many fantastic things that helped both schools and the community that were funded through these programs. The wheelchair ramp at Karonga School, which allows their many wheelchair users to get up to the sports field, is one that leaps directly to mind. But the fact remains that our schools could do with a dedicated fund, so the government is providing $30.2 million this year for the Local Schools Community Fund, with up to $200,000 available in Bennelong. This fund will benefit students and assist schools to meet their priorities through the contribution of funding for small-scale projects. The fund is open to all schools, government, Catholic and independent, and schools can apply for any amount between $1,000 and $20,000. Also, importantly, funding requested can be for the total cost of the project.
This grant is only open until the end of this month, so it is imperative that schools get in now. Application forms can be accessed through the school hub and must be in before 5 pm on 30 September. These grants will make a great difference in our community. (Time expired)
Accessing health and mental health services can often be challenging in regional and rural areas like those in the Gilmore electorate. Services can sometimes be hours away, often requiring overnight stays, travel costs and time away from loved ones. One thing I always hear from locals is praise for the hardworking doctors, nurses, paramedics and health workers, who are there every day caring for our community and going above and beyond to help those who are in need. I thank them for everything they do today and every day, and I hear that echoed in the voices of those I speak with.
But I am regularly hearing from local people who are suffering because of the state of our local healthcare system. Only this week, I was contacted by a gentleman who wanted to tell me his story, not because it would help him but because he thought it would help others. He waited over a year for an appointment at Shoalhaven Hospital to have some very important tests. It caused a great deal of distress to him and his family. He was then given a referral to the hospital's gastroenterology clinic. However, with only one gastroenterologist he was told he would need to wait until late 2020 just to get an appointment. He has now been forced to travel to Wollongong for this important appointment, costing money to travel and taking more time away from his family.
Tina also contacted me this week to tell me her daughter's story. Last week Tina's daughter presented to Shoalhaven Hospital's emergency department with a bleeding bowel. She was bringing up blood and in a terrible situation. Tina told my office how her daughter had to wait for over 24 hours, lying on a bench in the ED, before a bed could be found. They were also told that for at least a week there was no available theatre time for the procedure Tina's daughter needed. Tina had nothing but praise for the wonderful staff who cared for her and her daughter.
But these delays are unacceptable. Shoalhaven Hospital is known to often be in 'bed block', with ambulances backed up and unable to transfer patients, because there are simply not enough beds. According to an article in the South Coast Register, Shoalhaven Hospital ED has the second-worst delays in New South Wales. Patients are being transported to Shellharbour Hospital to cope with increasing patient numbers and bed shortages. Patients who needed treatment within 10 minutes—people with imminently life-threatening conditions—waited over 52 minutes for treatment.
I know that the lack of acute mental health services in Shoalhaven hospital is impacting on wait times and 'bed block'. That is why during the election Labor committed $35 million in federal funding for an acute mental health facility at the hospital as part of its redevelopment. Bed shortages often forced people with severe mental health conditions to travel to Shellharbour or Wollongong for care, or miss out altogether. It is essential that hospital infrastructure targeting mental health services is strengthened and I urge the minister to work with the New South Wales government to match my commitment and deliver this facility.
Shoalhaven Hospital is not alone. Ask the people of Milton about the need for more funding for their local hospital. The birthing centre in Milton Ulladulla Hospital has been closed down, forcing expectant mums and families the travel long distances on the notorious Princes Highway to the hospital at Nowra or Moruya. The community would also dearly benefit from a CT scanner but, again, the lack of funding is an issue. In Eurobodalla two-thirds of patients are forced to travel outside of the area. This has real impacts on local people. This means time away from their families and support networks. It means travel and accommodation costs. It means time on the road instead of time in recovery. During the election, Labor committed $25 million to the new Eurobodalla Hospital, because we want to make sure that mental health facilities are included in the planned new hospital. Again, I call on the government to match this commitment.
I have invited the minister to work with me to improve health services for the people of the New South Wales South Coast and Far South Coast. We deserve to have the same quality services that those in Sydney and Canberra have. I look forward to working with Minister Hunt and the government on these and many other important local projects.
I rise this evening to speak about an exciting opportunity that currently exists for Australian farmers, the agriculture sector and others: to think big and dare to dream in making a contribution that will help to shape a more profitable and sustainable future. Last month Agriculture Minister Bridget McKenzie asked the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources to conduct an inquiry into the bold vision of growing Australian agriculture into a $100 billion industry by 2030. This inquiry process now represents a golden opportunity for people to have their say and provide visionary ideas to help guide the agriculture sector's destiny and build future success. Another way of describing this work is as the prelude to a 10-year policy plan for turbocharging Australian agriculture by $40 billion. For me, as someone who has spent a lifetime living and working on the land and is extremely passionate about ensuring that Australian agriculture remains strong and sustainable along with our rural communities, it's a great responsibility and honour to chair this committee process and serve along with my committee members. Evidence and testimony will be gathered to harvest expertise and ideas of all shapes and sizes on how this $100 billion goal can be achieved.
According to the latest figures from agricultural forecasting agency ABARES, farm value is forecast to decline by five per cent in 2019-20 to $59 billion, largely due to the drought and commodity price fluctuations. Increasing the industry's value by $41 billion in 11 years may seem like a huge task, but, as the saying goes, nothing worth having ever comes easy. That's why we're looking for blue-sky thinking and ambitious ideas with a strategic and pragmatic edge. We want to hear inspiring leadership, with industry leaders from all quarters encouraged to put forward their daring and innovative thoughts. This 'dare to dream' attitude is reflected in the fact that the committee's inquiry terms of reference are very broad and written in just one sentence:
The Committee will inquire into and report on, the opportunities and impediments to the primary production sectors realising their ambition to achieve a combined $100 billion value of production by 2030.
The National Farmers Federation has already demonstrated positive leadership and a can-do attitude in taking up this challenge and championing the cause. Last year, the nation's peak farm lobby group released a road map detailing the core values and principles on how the nation's agricultural output could increase by $40 billion to reach $100 billion by 2030. This work outlined areas of growth opportunity such as a rapidly expanding global population that's forecast to hit 10 billion by 2050. This population spike will underpin burgeoning food and fibre demand, especially in Asia, where Australia exports the vast majority of our clean, green agricultural produce. The NFF's road map also highlights some of the growing trends, such as increased community and consumer expectations and heightening demands on traditional farming practice, including animal welfare, water use and environmental sustainability. Growing export competition is also an escalating threat due to modernised farming methods and supply chains in other agricultural nations that are selling more of their major commodities such as wheat and beef into the same markets we do. The NFF have described this road map as a gutsy plan that's resulted from their exhaustive consultation with leaders throughout the agricultural value chain, farmers, researchers, agribusiness, educators, the community, government and others. But they've also said it's just a first step on the journey to 2030 and pledged to lead a collaborative approach to pursue common industry goals which will include NFF members, partners and industry stakeholders, including the government and community.
In the report's introduction, shadow agricultural minister Joel Fitzgibbon made a notable contribution, highlighting the spirit of bipartisanship that's needed to support this aspirational aim. I'd like to acknowledge and welcome this message expressing the opposition's commitment to work together collaboratively, but we must be pragmatic and conscious of the need to work towards developing an industry battle plan to outlive any one particular entity or term of government and to achieve this $100 billion goal. That's why I'm looking forward to working through a process that ultimately delivers a report which reflects this bipartisan spirit and demonstrates firm leadership from the federal parliament.
Without pre-empting any of its final recommendations, our overall aim is to identify the right policy settings needed by government to support industry's efforts to collaborate better and take Australian agriculture to $100 billion and beyond. It will not only capture blue-sky thinking but also seek to enhance policy initiatives that have already proven successful, such as this government's taxation measures around the farm management deposits, the $30,000 instant asset write-off and the $5 billion Future Drought Fund.
Submissions are due by Monday, 14 October, and the inquiry's process is also set to include public hearings at dates and venues still to be finalised. I urge and welcome participation in this inquiry process to explore the potential of this future $40 billion growth spurt, which can deliver broader social and economic benefits not just for Australian agriculture but for the longevity of rural communities and the national economy.
It snowed in Canberra this week, a fortnight into spring, while Queenslanders are experiencing the sort of hot, dry weather we are more accustomed to during our summers. The unseasonally hot weather was accompanied by strong, gusty winds. This has created a perfect storm for bushfires. There were more than 50 fires burning across my state last weekend—fires that have been frighteningly destructive. The Sarabah fire in the Gold Coast hinterland was particularly destructive, destroying 11 homes and five businesses, including the historic Binna Burra Lodge, a place of which I have many happy memories stretching back to 1983. The Sarabah fire is still burning.
I take this opportunity to thank all of the fire service personnel, including the volunteer firefighters who've been working day and night to get these fires under control and to save properties and lives. You go above and beyond in times like these. I appreciate it and I'm in awe of your selfless dedication. So to every last one of you: I'm grateful for your service.
But we need to address the elephant in the room. We, young and old, are seeing the impacts of climate change now. I know it and most Australians know it, including my own son. They've recognised it. The annual Climate of the nation report was released recently, and it showed that 80 per cent of Australians acknowledge that we're already experiencing the impacts of climate change. The Australian Medical Association—a cautious, fact based group—has formally declared climate change a 'health emergency'. They point to:
… clear scientific evidence indicating severe impacts for our patients and communities now and into the future.
It seems that everyone knows that climate change is real and we are already experiencing its impacts—everyone except the Morrison government.
The Morrison government's water minister made a startling admission on television just last week. When asked by David Speers: 'Sorry, just to be clear on this, you're not sure whether man-made climate change is real?' the water minister answered: 'No, I'm not.' That's direct, and about as clear as mud. His admission is in stark contrast to scientists in Australia and around the world.
And what did we see on the weekend? The federal council of the minister's party, the Nationals, endorsed a motion to establish a 'watchdog', a 'national scientific quality assurance agency'—a push led by federal MP George Christensen to create an 'office of science quality assurance'. Maybe we could call it the 'ministry for vibes' or the 'ministry for gut feelings' or something like that! Instead, in the real world, we have the view of the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Department of Defence, the RBA, insurance companies, 99 per cent of global peer-reviewed climate research, every academy of science in the world, the UN and NASA all agree about the reality of human-induced climate change.
The water minister's scepticism is even more worrying when we know that climate change will impact on his own portfolio and his own electorate. The CSIRO has noted:
Climate change by 2030 is likely to reduce average river flows by 10 per cent to 25 per cent in some regions of southern Australia but further climate change could produce even more profound reductions of water resources in southern Australia.
And I say that as someone who grew up beside the Balonne River.
Scientists know that climate change will have real impacts on how we live. Health experts in Australia have already estimated that hundreds of deaths were caused by heatwaves in Victoria in 2009 and 2014. Asthma related admissions to intensive care increased 3,000 per cent during the 2016 thunderstorm event in Victoria. And those events are more likely to occur more often.
It is already costing the economy over $8 billion annually through reduced productivity due to extreme heat, and those losses will increase significantly as climate change impacts worsen. Yet this government's only plan is to continue the voted-out Tony Abbott's failed climate policy, which has seen carbon emissions rise every year since 2014. In fact, in the year to March 2019, Australia's carbon emissions rose 0.6 per cent. Not only are emissions not going down; they're actually going up. The Morrison government's own projections show that emissions will keep rising all the way through to 2030. This government will miss the 2020 Kyoto commitment of a five per cent cut on 2000 levels. The government's inaction on climate change is already impacting on our lives, and it will get much worse without real action.
In Queensland, where tourism contributes more than $12 billion to the economy, they're especially concerned about the impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has downgraded the long-term outlook from 'poor' to 'very poor'. It says climate change is escalating and is the most significant threat to the region's long-term outlook.
You're not serious about protecting Australia's greatest natural wonder if you don't have a serious plan to tackle climate change. Young people want the government to stop fighting amongst themselves and start fighting climate change with a forward-looking climate policy agenda. Our children, my children, our grandchildren—all of our grandchildren—demand more.
House adjourned at 19 : 59
Every day around the world, people are killed because of faith or their beliefs: Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha'is, Jews, Falun Gong practitioners and others. For every one murdered, countless more are persecuted or living in the knowledge that their own life could end violently, yet their faith is unwavering even in the face of death or persecution. That tells me that for people of faith, or deeply held values, their faith and values are paramount and will guide their lives.
The founding fathers of the Australian Constitution well understood the significance of faith, having included it in section 116 in the Constitution, which states:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Section 116 is very simple but is very carefully worded.
Australia is also a signatory to international human rights instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide religious protections. Right now, the government is mired in a debate about religious freedoms. It is a complex matter which the Philip Ruddock led inquiry, the Law Reform Commission and the Attorney-General's draft legislation have attempted to address but, which to date, have added to the uncertainty. Freedom is never absolute. One person's freedom comes at the expense of another's. The Law Council of Australia has called for an Australian charter of rights. The challenge for legislators, therefore, is to strike the right balance where the wider public good prevails. That means consulting with every sector and listening with an open mind to the views of all those people who will be affected by the change.
The Barnabas Fund has taken an interest in the government's proposed religious freedoms legislation and has raised two petitions signed by 24,143 people calling on the government to protect religious freedoms. On behalf of the Barnabas Fund, I present the petitions and ask for them to be referred to the Petitions Committee for consideration. In particular, I bring the petitions to the attention of the Attorney-General and ask that he take note of them as he consults over his proposed laws.
The documents will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that they conform with standing orders.
I know the member for Cowan and will be interested in this, because there is a game played in heaven and, on the weekend, some of those people who are angels were playing it. I'd like to mention some of their names: Ross Fletcher, Dave Healey, Richie Hunt, Mike Whitton, James Ashleigh, Sandy Cameron, Will Fletcher, Lachlan Brown, Thor Crombie, Simon Newton, Charlie Keen, Tom Bucknell, Ed Cordingley, Richard Young and Dom Bower; and reserves, Wally Davidson, Sam Colwell, Tom Rose, Henry King, Jacob Sherrin, Billy Porter, Lachie Fletcher, Troy Yarnold, Henry Leslie and Tom Hoy.
Once more, a great Walcha rugby side has missed out on a grand final. When you think about a town such as Walcha—a town of about 2½ thousand people—going up against a city such as Tamworth, which has around 60,000 people, we are so proud of the Walcha side. Congratulations must go to the Pirates. I don't know how many they've won on the trot now—400 and something—but it's an unsurprising result with the population they've got.
I didn't manage to get to the game, because I had the Nationals Federal Conference in Canberra which I, of course, must attend. From what I've gleaned and from my brief observations, it looks like the Pirates had a massive pack. If you play a massive pack, you've got to able beat a massive pack. Walcha was always an incredibly good attacking side in the backline.
I would like to make note of Doug Biffin and congratulate him on being the central north best-and-fairest player. He has had a prestigious career—coming from my old alma mater St Albert's College as well. I used to play for central north in the past. I also want to acknowledge another club I played for, Moree, who in second grade beat Pirates; the Gwydir River Rats, who beat Pirates as well; and the Gunnedah women's side, who beat Pirates.
I hope in the future we get clear understanding that we have to acknowledge that smaller towns do exceptionally well when they match up with a city such as Tamworth and an incredibly strong club such as Pirates. A lot of my colleagues support Pirates, and I forgive them for that. But my heart will always be with my local area, my local town and all the names—some of the family names—that I know so well.
In closing, I would like to once more commend Walcha for the outstanding effort—third time unlucky. I know absolutely the boys will be back at it hard next year. Don't lose heart, stick to your guns, work out where you can improve and win the grand final next year.
Cowan, like most outer suburban electorates, is an eclectic mix of new and old residential, industries—both traditional and emerging—and commercial. Bridging the gap between these different types of businesses, understanding the challenges they face and keeping a finger on the pulse of what is affecting business owners in such a diverse electorate can be a challenging exercise. But I'm extremely lucky in Cowan to have a wonderful relationship with the Wanneroo Business Association, whose purpose is to provide economic empowerment for businesses via access to networking, advocacy, education and collaboration.
The WBA is a not-for-profit, with a hardworking volunteer board of members, attracting businesses from 83 suburbs. Last month it celebrated 20 years since its incorporation. The value of the WBA is recognised by the fact that in recent years its membership has grown significantly and it now represents and connects almost 400 local businesses in Cowan. In turn, the WBA recognises its members and their achievements with annual business awards. Last week they also hosted a business expo to show off the best of what Cowan has to offer, and there was a lot on offer.
Recently, I had the pleasure of hosting members of the WBA in my office for a networking morning tea. I had business representatives talking to me about everything, from how to optimise my gym session—should I have a gym session—where to get dinner and what's best on the menu, where to take a holiday, where to get new blinds for my house and financial advice. I even had an offer for a celebrant, should I want to get married again. I can confirm that I declined this kind offer, because I do not want to get married a fourth time—so a message to my husband, 'Dave, you're safe'.
I would like to place on record my thanks to the president of the WBA, Mr Dinesh Aggarwal, and the whole board. I also want to acknowledge the pivotal role of Lauren Bell and Kellie Foskett, their full-time staff. I also need to thank Janelle from the WA state government Small Business Development Corporation for joining me with the WBA to provide further assistance to their members. And I want to thank my staff, in particular Iman from my office, for helping put together a wonderful event. I look forward to seeing the WBA continue to celebrate their success. All the members of the WBA know the door to my office is always open.
This week marks the 30th anniversary of one of history's most important but little-known turning points. On the 16th of September, 1989, Boris Yeltsin, a newly elected member of the Soviet parliament and Supreme Soviet was visiting Houston as part of a US-Russia joint space mission, his first trip to the USA. After Yeltsin made a visit to the space facilities and on his way back to his hotel and the airport, he made an unplanned stop at a small grocery store called Randall's. Yeltsin had been brought up under the Soviet ideology that the best way to provide goods and services to the public was through government central planning. No doubt Yeltsin would have studied the so-called kitchen debate of 1959, when the Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev told the US Vice President Richard Nixon:
Let's compete. Who can produce the most goods and services for the people, that system is better and it will win.
When Yeltsin walked into that American supermarket for the first time, he was able to compare it to the breadlines and shortages of food he experienced in the old Soviet Union, and at that very moment his ideology changed, which is captured in a most famous photograph. Yeltsin realised that capitalism had won by a country mile. He wrote in his autobiography:
When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people. That such a potentially super-rich country as ours has been brought to a state of such poverty! It is terrible to think of it.
An associate of Yeltsin later wrote, after his visit:
For a long time, on the plane to Miami, he sat motionless, his head in his hands. 'What have they done to our poor people?'
Yeltsin later wrote in his autobiography:
I think we have committed a crime against our people by making their standard of living so incomparably lower than that of the Americans.
It was two years later that Yeltsin famously stood on a tank outside the Russian parliament to stare down the reactionary forces that threatened to overthrow the reforms that the Soviet Union was going through. No-one knows how the history of the world might have been different if Boris Yeltsin hadn't summoned the courage, the bravery, that was installed in him upon that first visit to a US supermarket, where he realised that the Soviet economic system had betrayed and failed the Russian people. This is a lesson from history that should be taught in our schools so that children can understand where the prosperity that we enjoy today comes from.
The apple, pear and cherry growers in my community of Mayo have done it very tough in the last couple of seasons. Spring hailstorms have caused immense destruction through the growing regions in the Adelaide Hills. There is fear that climate change is making volatile the new normal. Indeed, we know, from a ministerial response to my questions in writing in the last parliament, that there is a relatively high degree of scientific certainty that South Australia will face more severe storms into the future. If this were not enough, climatic pressures are also displacing flying fox and bird populations, leading to increased damage in horticultural regions across Mayo.
Our community has got squarely behind our growers through initiatives such as Hailstorm Heroes. I hope every member in this place has heard of Hailstorm Heroes. It's about buying good quality fruit with beauty spots from hail damage. However, after multiple seasons of devastation, many growers do not possess the funds necessary to make the capital investment in netting as future insurance to protect their crops. In 2015 a report by the Apple and Pear Growers Association of South Australia noted that there would be water savings of between 15 and 45 per cent and temperature decreases of between one and three degrees on warm days and between three and six degrees on hot days for orchards that are under netting. This would fundamentally change how we grow fruit in the Adelaide Hills.
Many of our growers are near breaking point. My vision for the future is for government to assist our growers to a sustainable future, with a dollar-for-dollar scheme for the purpose of investing in netting infrastructure that would help protect and futureproof their crops. It's not about a handout; it's about a hand up. It would provide long-term certainty and sustainability for our grower community. I think every person in this chamber wants their kids and their grandkids to be able to eat Australian fruit into the future. We need to make sure that we can support our growers with this.
I've had successful meetings with many ministers, talking about this issue. I look forward to working with government into the future on this matter. This is essential for my community of Mayo. It will mean that we'll have less waste, we'll be using less water and we'll be futureproofing our crops for future generations. We will also be making sure that the next generation actually wants to work on the land. That's something we need to make sure of. To the growers of Mayo: know that your federal member is behind you all the way with respect to making sure we can get some netting funding. I look forward to working with government into the future.
The city of Redland in the electorate of Bowman has been severely let-down by its Labor state member, Don Brown. It's fair to ask the community: what has the state MP ever achieved in office? We ran a survey and discovered that he donates his tent to the local school fetes, and that's the limit of it. But more concerning is, just recently, Mr Brown has really let us down. He started attacking all three levels of government, and the latest is our mayor, who's fighting for an Olympic bid in 2032. Mr Brown elected to say that he didn't think our city had a chance. That was really disappointing. Mr Brown, there's no 'I' in team. When it comes to an Olympic bid, the IOC watches the media very closely, tracking the level of support and tracking the kind of commentary that Mr Brown is engaging in. Last week, he decided to attack the mayor again for almost no reason, saying that we didn't have an emergency SMS system in place in our city, knowing full well that the mayor was going to announce it the following week. This kind of pedantry is not welcome in democracy, particularly when it's the only thing one is engaged in.
It got a little better because, last year, a vile and vicious email was sent to every community, school and club in his electorate, suggesting that the local councillor—without direct reference by name but adding an attachment that showed his name—was a perpetrator and that the community should stand together and be very cautious about who they deal with. Of course, Mr Brown was trying to get his own staff member elected to replace the person who was the subject of that email. It led to a police investigation, and the police ultimately found who had set up the Gmail account. It was linked to the staff member of Mr Brown. Australians everywhere would be horrified that this kind of puerile and disgusting campaigning can come from a Labor MP's office, but that's exactly what appears to have happened, with the Gmail account cleverly registered in the name of his staff member's wife!
The police visited and secured a confession. When I wrote to the Speaker, who is yet to respond, and the Clerk, there was a suggestion there wasn't sufficient evidence about where the email was used. With respect, I would say: without breaking the law, how would I be able to prove whether that state member's email account was being used within the office? That's the point of investigating. To have the authority to say there's insufficient evidence is to suggest that they didn't actually pick up the phone to ask for the police file. It's that simple. The police have investigated it and secured a confession.
It's time that Mr Brown stop letting us down and start working on what we all expect democratically elected officers to do. This kind of secretive email campaign to traduce a councillor just so you can make your staff member the new councillor is the kind of disgusting, grubby tactic we don't need from the Labor Party.
I rise in the Chamber today to congratulate Shorncliffe State School on their centennial, which we celebrated on the Friday and Saturday of this past weekend—100 years strong. It gave me cause to reflect upon the strong and proud tradition of strong and resilient Shorncliffe women who have graced us for more than 100 years in serving our community. In 1919, Ms Sarah Hall was the headmistress who opened what was known then as Shorncliffe Infants School and today is Shorncliffe State School. It was a woman who opened that school and, flash forward today, Ms Rehm is the principal, a strong woman keeping that school thriving and flourishing in that community. It also gave me cause to reflect upon something I mentioned in my first speech, which was that Shorncliffe Pier is home to Queensland's first women's surf lifesaving club, the Sandgate Ladies Lifesaving Club, which used the bathing sheds at the pier that opened in the 1950s.
In 1980, the first woman elected to the House of Representatives was Elaine Darling, who was elected as the member for Lilley. Shortly after she was elected, there were some horrific fires in Brighton, which is topical when you think about Queensland today. She did not sleep, did not rest, did not leave that suburb until everybody whose homes were damaged had a place to stay that night, had something to eat and had a pathway to recovery and to getting their homes repaired.
I rise today to celebrate our history of strong Shorncliffe women, from Ms Sarah Hall, who opened Shorncliffe school 100 years ago, right through to Ms Melanie Rehm, who runs the Shorncliffe State School so well today, and Kristen Davie, who is the P&C president there. They are strong women all, and I pay tribute to our strong Shorncliffe women who keep our community thriving.
I also wish to congratulate the organisers of the Zillmere Festival, which had their 17th annual festival across the weekend. Specifically, I'd like to pay tribute to Kika McIntyre of the Multicultural Development Association and to Brett Roland at Jabiru Community, Youth and Children's Services, who did so much work and put in so many hours behind the scenes to get that festival up and running. The conditions were very hot and dry but because of the strength of that community thousands of people rolled up anyway to support their organisations and to raise money for the organisation that is doing work in their community. It was supported by the PCYC Zillmere, an institution in the area doing so much work against crime and on helping youth stay connected. The North Star Football Club offered their grounds, and I congratulate them on their recent grant funding which will see them get some very jazzy new lights to light up the field. That is thanks to all tiers of government—council, state and federal—working together to secure hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money so they could get those lights.
There is lots happening in Zillmere. They've got a new school opening at Jabiru, thanks to their new local MP, Bart Mellish. It is a wonderful community, and we don't do enough to celebrate that. Congratulations to everybody in Zillmere.
Dr Howard Ralph AM is a truly commendable and valued member of our Australian community. This is demonstrated through his exceptional and selfless work in the conservation of our environment and in the care of all types of animals, big and small. During his distinguished career, Dr Ralph has worked in numerous fields. But the constant is that he always aligns himself with the goal of bettering others.
He first received a doctorate of veterinary medicine and spent the early years of his career focused on the treatment of domestic animals. After returning to study, Dr Ralph graduated with honours and a doctorate in medicine. He continued his postgraduate studies in anaesthesia, emergency medicine and forensic medicine. At one stage in his career he worked in our very own Mona Vale Hospital, amongst other hospitals and private practices, his motto being: treat anyone in distress.
Although qualified in many arenas, Dr Ralph's true passion is the healing and protection of our Australian wildlife. Thus, I stand today to commend him on his ongoing aid and conservation of our Australian fauna. Dr Ralph and his wife, Glenda, established Southern Cross Wildlife Care, a charity dedicated to the treatment of orphaned, sick and injured native wildlife, with its major centre in Braidwood, in the southern tablelands of New South Wales, and a smaller centre in Mackellar, close to their home and children.
Dr Ralph comments:
I don't subscribe to the theory that we should treat people, domestic animals and native animals differently. They're all living, sentient beings that feel pain and suffering, and should be treated with respect and compassion and not be denied access to modern, high quality treatments.
He lives out this philosophy. A clear example of that was his orthopaedic surgery on a giant burrowing frog, a threatened species, which had been hit by a car. He adapted his medical technology to facilitate the needs of such a small amphibian, inserting sterile surgical metal pins into the frog's legs.
With a yearly average of 2,500 patients, Dr Ralph makes note of the sobering truth: too many wildlife fatalities are often at the hands of humans, with vehicle incidents taking the heaviest toll. Dr Howard Ralph has touched and healed many hearts in the community and our nation. Many call Dr Ralph 'the man with magic hands'. He is a truly deserving recipient of the AM medal. I congratulate Dr Howard Ralph, a man with a generosity of spirit. I thank him for his continued protection of Australian wildlife, and I look forward to following his future endeavours in the field.
I was absolutely delighted and really pleased to take a step back into my own childhood by participating in Early Learning Matters Week from 1 September to 6 September. It's a terrific national initiative for service providers to increase the understanding of how important early learning is in the lives of our children. The first thousand days of a child's life are the most important and influential and set everyone up for a successful life—if they can have that opportunity. Research shows that disadvantaged children in particular who attend quality early learning centres at least two days per week are more likely to finish school, more likely to get higher paying jobs as adults and more likely to own their own homes as adults. This is what the evidence shows us.
I was fortunate to visit the Samaritans Early Learning Centre at Woodberry to see the quality education there in action. Like so many terrific childcare centres in our community, this centre provides children with invaluable activities that support children's developmental, social, emotional, cognitive and language skills. I just want to shout out to Brad Webb, the Samaritans CEO; the director of the Woodberry centre, Sam Kulupach; the early childhood educators at the centre, Amanda, Sharron, Rhonda, Bec, Rachael, Natasha, Michelle, Megan and Louise; and all of their team. You do such an incredible job with our precious children.
One of the highlights of the visit was undertaking the You Can Do It! program, used to teach school readiness skills and tools that our children need to succeed in life. The children learn lots of lessons from some terrific puppets. I want to take the House through them. There's Connie Confidence, who teaches the children, 'It's okay to make mistakes when I'm learning something new'; Pete Persistence, who teaches, 'I never give up'; Ricky Resilience, who teaches, 'I can calm down when I am upset, sad or angry'; Oscar Organisation, who teaches, 'I take care of things by putting them away when I have finished using them'; and Gabby Get-Along—this is a really important one—who teaches, 'I like to get along with other people and I try and fix problems by talking, not fighting'. I think that the You Can Do It! program would go well here in parliament. Maybe we need to get Connie, Pete, Ricky, Oscar and Gabby Get-Along here in parliament to teach us all some valuable lessons.
While I was at the centre I also learnt about some of the challenges and frustrations they face. I want to appeal to the Morrison government: if you want to help disadvantaged families, make early education easier, not harder.
There is a saying that charity begins at home. On Saturday, 24 August I was fortunate to assist at NewHope Baptist Church in Blackburn North. NewHope provides dinner, free of charge, on Saturday evenings. I had the pleasure of meeting with the volunteers who prepare and serve the meals and of meeting the people who come for dinner. This service brings people together and provides a sense of community for all who attend. Some of the guests travel all the way from the CBD by train to Blackburn Station, with NewHope providing a bus service to and from the station. As someone who values volunteering, I was happy to help serve as well as dine with these exceptional people. I want to thank NewHope Baptist Church for allowing me to assist and get a better understanding of volunteering in Chisholm.
As I said in my maiden speech, sport is a great way to bring people together. On the weekend, I visited many sporting groups within my electorate, including the Mount Waverley City Soccer Club and Glen Waverley Badminton Centre and the Nunawading Basketball Centre. I would like to commend two groups in particular, the first being Nunawading City FC, who made it all the way to the football Victorian State League Division 1 grand final, and the second being the Waverley Hockey Club, who won the Hockey Victoria women's pennant A premiership.
I would also like to congratulate the following groups in the electorate who have taken out the premierships in their leagues this year, including: the Wattle Park Saints under 12 girls basketball team, the Eastern Lions Soccer Club, the East Burwood Rams division 2 under 19s, the Surrey Park Football Club division 4 reserves and the Surrey Park Junior Football Club under 16s girls section 2 and under 15s boys section 1.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
Through Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 and the 2019-20 budget, the Social Services portfolio continues to support our government's goal to improve the lives of Australians. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) will provide the Social Services portfolio with $9.1 billion in funding to deliver on the government's policy priorities, programs and services that improve the lifetime wellbeing of Australians and their families.
The 2019-20 budget includes funding for innovative approaches to assist people to get off welfare; reduce violence against women; increase support for Indigenous students and young carers; and improve social housing outcomes, as part of the Hobart City Deal. As some of these measures show, the government believes it is essential to try new approaches when dealing with complex social problems that have proved resistant to previous approaches. The cashless debit card is an example of this new approach. Trials of the cashless debit card in four sites in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland have shown promising results. The government will provide $128.8 million in funding for a 12-month extension to June 2021 of trials in the current sites and allow enhancements to make the card more user-friendly. Significantly, this funding will support a transition from the less flexible income management program to the cashless debit card for about 23,000 people in the Northern Territory and Queensland. With the ability to transfer money between accounts and shop online, the more advanced cashless debit card will give people better options than income management. The government will also provide funding for a further program under which people who can show responsible and reasonable management of their affairs generally, including their financial affairs, can exit the cashless debit card trial.
Another measure in the 2019-20 budget indicative of the government's new way of thinking about social services is social impact investing. This involves a $14.1 million investment in three payment-by-outcome trials in the social services sector. In a payment-by-outcome contract, the service provider is typically paid a portion of the contract value upfront, and a portion is paid for the outcomes the service provider achieves. The trial programs will focus on improving employment opportunities and improving education and child development for disadvantaged children. The trials send a strong signal to service providers that the government is increasing its focus on the verifiable achievement of measurable outcomes that the community expects from taxpayer funded social services investments. The government is providing a record $328 million over five years for the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children and $22.5 million over five years for the establishment of the National Centre for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse. Funding for the Fourth Action Plan includes the $60.4 million safe places capital grant program to build new or expanded emergency accommodation dwellings for women and children experiencing domestic violence. These initiatives are strongly supported by survivors, victims, advocacy groups and the Australian community at large.
The government will also provide $527.9 million over five years for the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Additional funding of $84.3 million over four years for integrated carer support services includes an emphasis on education, training and employment for young carers. This funding will increase the number of targeted financial support packages for carers, including young carers. In Australia, there are more than 2.7 million unpaid carers looking after a person with a disability, chronic illness, dementia, mental illness or frailty due to age. Of these, 272,000 are carers aged under 25. Young carers are a high priority for the Australian government. If young carers in receipt of welfare payments are not adequately supported to complete their education or gain employment, 50 per cent are likely to still be receiving income support in 20 years time.
The government recognises the importance of education in overcoming many forms of disadvantage. At present, for example, about 60 per cent of Abstudy boarding students are dropping out of school between the ages of 15 and 17. The government will extend the family tax benefit to families of children studying away from home until the children finish year 12, which will help more than 12,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander secondary students who need to attend school away from home. I urge the House to support the Appropriation Bill (No.1) that will make available the funding for these important measures.
The Morrison government is suffocating an already weak economy, which is getting weaker, and is trapping vulnerable Australians in poverty by refusing to increase Newstart. I would describe the approach of this government at the moment in relation to vulnerable Australians as heartless and without evidence, and I have a scathing opinion of it despite the fact the minister has very large ranks of advisers.
One in four Australians on Newstart are aged 55 or over—the single largest cohort of recipients of the allowance. Older Australians experience particular difficulty re-entering the workforce due to structural barriers and age discrimination, and many Australians are finding that they simply aren't receiving enough hours of work to get by. In fact, almost one in five—that's 130,000 people, Minister—Newstart recipients have a job but do not receive either enough hours or income to get by off the payment.
Younger Australians are also doing it tough, with youth unemployment double the national average. The reality is that it is not possible to live on Newstart; it's making it more difficult to re-enter the workforce; and it's also making trying to find a job more difficult. It's not helping, and you know it.
Last week this out-of-touch government introduced five pieces of legislation: legislation to pursue its ideologically-driven, ineffective, indiscriminate and extraordinarily expensive cashless card, which will make it more difficult for Australians trying to re-enter the workforce to purchase essential items and basics at affordable prices. It also introduced legislation to force Australians trying to enter the workforce to eat more into their savings before they can access income support—an absolutely disgusting move. It introduced legislation to make it more difficult for single mothers, carers and people on DSP to access the education entry supplement to undertake further study.
Australians trying desperately to re-enter the workforce have a right to ask: how will the cashless card, urine tests or saliva swabs, or cutting education support create one single job? It took this government more than four years to do something about deeming rates, which was too little, too late, but the pensioners won't be fooled. This government has tried to cut the pension in every single budget since 2014 and, worse than that, they're blowing the dust off some of those old policies because there is no agenda from this government. In 2014 they tried to cut the pension indexation—a cut that would have meant pensioners would be forced to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. They also in the 2014 budget cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions—support designed to help pensioners with the cost of living. In 2014 they axed the $900 seniors supplement. In 2014 they tried to reset deeming rate thresholds. In 2015 they did a deal with the Greens to cut pensions to around 370,000 pensioners, and in 2016 they tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel. In 2016 they also tried to cut the pension to over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners.
There are some questions for this government to answer, and I will lay out four of them, as some of my colleagues will do as well. First of all, Minister, do you think that $40 a day is enough to live on, particularly given one in five Newstart recipients has a job but doesn't receive enough hours or earn enough income to get off the payment? Secondly, Minister, do you agree or disagree with the Governor of the Reserve Bank that the economy will get more stimulus from Newstart than tax cuts for the wealthy? Thirdly, Minister, why is the government forcing Australians trying desperately to re-enter the workforce to eat more into their hard-earned savings before being able to access income support by doubling the liquid assets test waiting time—a change that will disproportionately impact men in their 50s and 60s who have recently been retrenched or need time to retrain?
Finally, Minister, since 2014, how many of the government's budgets have sought to increase the pension age? I know the answer; I wonder whether you do. I go back to where I started, and I want people to listen carefully to this. The approach to people on social security by this government is reprehensible. People don't choose to be on social security. It is their lot in life after a curveball has been thrown. What on earth are you going to do about it?
I have an alternative view. I think that caring for the most vulnerable in our community is a rewarding and sometimes challenging job. I've had the privilege of meeting many carers throughout my electorate who are looking after our elderly and those with a physical or intellectual disability. I recently went to the Gold Coast annual athletics carnival for children with a disability, and it was so heartwarming to see parents, friends and carers from my electorate cheering on their loved ones, including my young neighbour Tilly. Tilly has MS and is in a wheelchair. When I saw Tilly's mum leaving for work the next day, she told me how very happy Tilly was to be included in this event. I congratulate Daphne Pirie, who started this event some years ago, and Anika Sulky from Gold Coast Recreation and Sport.
I've also visited nearly half of the retirement homes in my electorate in the past month. I feel humbled by the love and support carers in my community give to our most vulnerable Australians in their golden years. There are 2.7 million unpaid carers looking after a person with disability, chronic illness, dementia, mental illness or frailty due to age. I'm proud to be a part of a government which is introducing the single biggest reform in more than a decade to better support Australian carers. We support carers so they can continue to provide informal care that delivers significant financial benefits in the form of replacement care costs that are avoided.
Of those 2.7 million carers, 272,000 are under the age of 25. This age group is a priority for the Morrison government. Up to 25 per cent of the 5,024 targeted financial support packages will be given to young carers, specifically those who self-identify as recipients of income support payments. I'm pleased the government is implementing a new early intervention and support program called Carer Gateway. Carers will have access to free phone counselling, self-guided coaching and online skills courses. These services will give carers access to a range of support measures to help them reduce stress, build resilience and cope with their daily challenges. For example, if you're a carer who wants to get back into the workforce, you can access a financial support package that will contribute to your education and training. The targeted financial packages will provide a range of practical support, and there is an anticipated very high demand. This measure increases the number of packages available to meet that demand. Under the new model, the instances of support packages for unpaid carers are expected to double in the first year and to increase fivefold by 2021 from 130,000 occasions of support to an estimated 700,000 occasions of support per year. This government is delivering an unprecedented number of new services for carers.
Further to this, the Morrison government is committed to help people with disability who have the desire and the capacity to work to find and keep a job. I've seen firsthand the wonderful work that EPIC Gold Coast from my electorate of Moncrieff do to connect those who have disability or mental illness with a job they can do. EPIC understand individual talents, skills and personalities and are changing the lives of thousands of people in my community. They are working hard to create a fair and equal society for people with a disability. Jobs change lives. They give us purpose and they help build our confidence. Everyone has the right to meaningful employment, and people with a disability are no exception.
I met Tim Morrison, who has Down syndrome and has been connected with a job through EPIC, an outstanding team of people who scaffolded him to make a film to raise awareness on ways we can improve the lives of people with disabilities. Film is where Tim's passion lies, and I'm so proud to be part of a government that is helping those with Down syndrome find work if they have a desire and ability to do so. Currently the government is implementing a pilot program in Victoria called Impact 21. It aims to meet the learning and employability needs of people living with Down syndrome. It will help build their skills, improve their health and fitness and train them for real jobs with employers who are committed to inclusive work practices. It will help them network and build social and professional connections, and it will prepare them for a job that is paid, meaningful and sustainable. How wonderful it is to have this program, which will improve the development of those with Down syndrome by building their self-esteem and a pathway to meaningful employment.
I would like to ask the minister to outline how this pilot program and other government policies will help improve the employability of those living with a disability in my electorate and around Australia. For the final seven weeks of this pilot, participants will be matched to a job placement with one of five national employers, including DuluxGroup, PwC Australia, JB Hi-Fi, Sodexo and Deakin University. This is great news for Australia. The Morrison government is delivering and will continue to deliver into the future, and those on the other side should open their ears and listen. Open your ears.
It's an absolute pleasure to enter the Chamber today and have an opportunity to ask some questions of the minister. I note, as did the member for Barton, the department people sitting behind him, and it highlights for me the difficulty there is in opposition. We can't get the evidence, but the government can. The government could provide us with the evidence to justify some of the crazy things that we've seen across the past six years. I want to welcome the new members to the Chamber who perhaps might get a quick history lesson by attending today's consideration in detail. All I can do in this Chamber is bring in the anecdotal evidence of people who are walking through the door of my office which reflects the changes that this government has made to the support systems of our most vulnerable Australians.
There are people like Aaron, a 19-year-old who applied for youth allowance in February but had to wait till July to receive one cent of his youth allowance. He's from a single-parent family. He turned 18 the year before, so he spent the entire summer without support. His mother would have lost child support when he turned 18 and finished school. He was asked to wait until July to get his youth allowance. What chance has that family got of keeping that young person at university across those six months? What kind of pressure are we putting on that young person and his mother when we say to them: 'Continue to aspire. Have a go and you'll get a go. But we'll pull the rug out from under you because the payments you thought you would get to support your son to study are not going to get there till July'?
Minister, it's a disgrace. From my electorate to you, I ask: how can you justify this kind of waiting time? How can you justify a waiting time for pensioners in my electorate that has gone out to eight months? How can you justify someone at Centrelink saying to a pensioner, 'Come back when you're down to your last $800 and we'll expedite it'? You want someone who is completely eligible for the age pension to spend every cent they've got in the bank bar $800. They would have no emergency fund and no chance if something were to happen and they needed to access health support. Minister, why is this government treating all of the vulnerable Australians in my electorate like they are second-class citizens? That's what's happening.
I note the member talked previously about carers, and I note the minister talked about young carers. In my electorate, Emily is a young mum of three who has a child with a disability. She is running a small business whilst having a child with a disability who is spending long periods of time in hospital. She went to apply for the carer payment. She did not get one cent from this government until she came to my office months later. The worst of it was that there was a four-month period where she waited to hear from Centrelink. She kept ringing the Werribee office. When they eventually got back to her, four months after she had first applied, she was told that, although she'd provided a lot of income payslips, there was one payslip missing. No-one rang her after she made that application. She'd waited for four months.
Minister, why are people in my electorate waiting so, so long for the support that they are eligible for and deserving of? Minister, why has this government continually attacked age pensioners across this country? I note that yesterday, when asked about the pension supplement in question time, the Prime Minister responded that, under his government, welfare goes where it is needed. Is that the minister's attitude? Does the minister consider the age pension to be welfare? I can tell you that in my community we consider the age pension to be an entitlement for Australians who've worked their entire lives. Does the minister consider it to be that?
The Prime Minister went further. He went on to say, 'We won't take away the imputation credits for pensioners who simply want to manage their own money.' My final question to the minister is: are imputation credits welfare?
I speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 and would like to touch on one issue which is particularly relevant to the people in my electorate of Curtin. As at the last census, 15 per cent of the Australian population, 3.8 million people, were aged 65 years or older. In my electorate of Curtin, we have a slightly higher percentage than the national average. There are close to 24,000 people who are over 65 years of age, and they make up approximately 16.5 per cent of Curtin's population. They are often referred to as the baby boomers, and their expectations and desires regarding how they want to live their lives are changing, with many preferring to stay in their own home for longer. One of the consequences of this is that many older people end up living alone, particularly after the death of a spouse, another family member or another loved one. In fact, the statistics show that close to a third of all seniors live alone.
According to research in this area, living alone is generally considered to be a risk factor for social isolation. That is particularly so when other environmental factors, like the loss of physical or mental capacity or the loss of friends or family, are taken into account. Research has shown that social isolation—that is, the objective state of having minimal contact with others—is associated with increased mortality, poorer health behaviours and biological effects such as high blood pressure. It is currently estimated that one in five older Australians is socially isolated, with the highest rates occurring in the largest urban regions and in sparsely populated states and territories.
I know that many members in this place would have had the opportunity, while out in their community, to chat with an elderly person who lives alone. This has been a common experience for me as I have met with residents in my local community. Some are clearly thriving. I recently met one—a lady who proudly declared herself to be older than 90—fixing her car in the driveway. She was ostensibly waiting for her son-in-law, but she was doing a far better job on her car than I ever could hope to. But there are others who are clearly not thriving. During the election, while out doorknocking, I met a woman who was also aged 90, who told me she woke up every morning disappointed that she was waking up. She had no visitors, would often go weeks without speaking with anyone and did not know why she got out of bed in the morning. She felt like there was no purpose or meaning in her life. It was heartbreaking.
Research indicates that introducing interventions as part of a wider strategic approach helps to address social isolation. The sorts of initiatives which have been shown to have the best effect are those which target specific groups of older people, use existing community resources, use volunteers to run programs, use targeted and tailored approaches and involve older people in the planning, delivery and evaluation of the programs. I would like to note, at this point, that there are a number of not-for-profit organisations and volunteer groups within my electorate of Curtin that actively engage with isolated elderly people in Curtin. They do a remarkable job, and I commend them all on it, but the fact is: we need more people and we need more reach.
In this context, I would like to acknowledge the government's $10 million investment in the Seniors Connected Program, which will provide grant funding to community organisations to deliver activities to address loneliness and social isolation amongst senior Australians, helping them to lead meaningful and independent lives in retirement, in their own homes. Two point five million dollars per year will be made available over the next four years for these initiatives, some of which have already been identified. They include increased funding for phone support services. The number of senior Australians who are able to access phone support is expected to increase from around 1,400 a year to 65,000 a year. There is also the expansion of Village Hub services, which provide support and camaraderie for members, helping them to age well and lead meaningful lives in retirement. There is also the encouraging of volunteering activity amongst senior Australians, to improve their sense of connection and purpose. Other initiatives and service providers are going to be identified over the coming years, and I would encourage all of the providers and groups already operating in my electorate of Curtin to look to this opportunity to supplement the great work they are already doing.
By way of finishing: our government's support for older generations matters to me and to the people in my electorate of Curtin. I commend the minister on all he is doing and ask that he outline some of the further initiatives being undertaken.
I am so pleased to be able to rise today to ask the government questions about their approach to some of the most vulnerable people in our community, about an approach that is punitive and that is punishing. They would like us to think that this is about people who are not doing their bit, that this is about people who are not 'having a go to get a go'. That's not the case. We know that's not the case. This is about people over 55 on Newstart who are trying to look for a new job and trying to make their way through. This is about single mums who are stressed out about how they are going to look after their children and put food on the table. This is about ordinary Australians who deserve support from the government, not punishment.
I'm fortunate that my electorate is home to Odyssey House, which runs a number of residential treatment programs across Australia. I went out last Friday to Lower Plenty to visit that facility and ask them about the government's approach to drug testing welfare recipients and whether they thought that would lead to people getting the support they needed to turn their lives around and move away from alcohol and drugs. I spoke to a participant there who was very clear with me that what he needed to turn his life around was not punishment. He wasn't looking for a punitive approach. In fact, he told me the punitive approaches he had been faced with earlier in his life had meant that he had turned away from treatment.
I spoke to experts there, who told me that really what they are dealing with is intergenerational trauma—people who have never seen the system as something that works for them, who think that authority is something you run from and who only know relationships as up or down below—'Are you on top or are you below?' These people are not going to benefit from walking into Centrelink and having a saliva test taken. How is that going to get them to trust, to come to the rehab programs they need and get the support they need? These people need to know what this government's approach is and what it's going to do for them.
The experts there told me that they are not alone in knowing that this is not the approach that is going to work. I'm going to quote from a few other experts we have heard from in this debate. We have heard from St Vincent's Hospital:
International experience shows when you push people to the brink, like removing their welfare payments, things just get worse.
There will be more crime, more family violence, more distress within society. We can expect at Centrelink offices there will be aggression and violence as people react to this. Had [the government] spoken to the various bodies who work in this area and know about this work, we would have been able to advise them this is not the right way. Pushing people to the brink won't make it better.
What about those people at Centrelink? What is it going to mean for them when they have to administer these tests to people who are on edge and may be violent? How is the minister going to support them?
My question to the minister is: what is the evidence that the cashless card, urine tests or saliva swabs will create jobs? How much will each of these drug tests cost? Can the government guarantee that drug testing will not cost more than the $10 million in intended savings claimed? How will they support Centrelink workers who are expected to administer these tests, to ensure they are safe in their workplaces?
I also want to raise the case of North East Citizen Advocacy in Watsonia in my electorate. This is an organisation that has for many years been working in disability advocacy. They do a wonderful job working individually with people with disability but also working to help people with a disability through the system. As we know, that system is not easy. I have person after person rocking up at my office telling me how hard they are finding it to get the support they need from this government—and the way they are managing the disability system. This organisation has done a wonderful job in supporting those people to navigate that maze—these are complex areas—often people with intellectual disabilities for whom these are really complex matters.
For the past three years the government has been reviewing disability advocacy funding, so their funding has effectively been frozen. They have had to rely on the council supporting them by paying their rent. What a disgrace. Labor promised to double disability advocacy funding in the recent election. My question to the government is: why has the government not matched this commitment? Why have you not shown your support for these people who need support with advocacy in our community?
I thank the members who have spoken in this consideration in detail discussion. Let me first refer to some of the claims made by the shadow minister and by the member for Lalor in relation to the age pension. Some $48 billion a year is spent supporting the 2.5 million Australians who receive a full or part age pension. I would like to draw the House's attention to the fact that, since we came to government in 2013, pensions have increased by $125 a fortnight for singles and $188.20 a fortnight for couples. Pensions have increased by these amounts since we came into government in 2013. I must say that most of the contributions made by those opposite were conspicuous for no mention of where the funding for social security is to come from. Of course, critically, it depends upon a strong budget. It depends upon a government that can manage the budget and meet the commitments that Australians have a right to expect the government to meet.
Can I make the point that there have been a number of fallacious claims made by the Labor Party when it comes to the pension. The key fact is that the amount provided under the pension has increased steadily since we came to government, and we are funding the age pension so that Australians who rely on this can be sure that the government has the capacity to pay for it. That stands in stark contrast to the previous government, which left a deficit of close to $50 billion when they left office. It was deficit after deficit after deficit. One of the consequences of that is that the rate at which social services expenditure was increasing under the previous government was almost twice the rate at which tax revenue was increasing. Anybody who's ever been involved in the process of managing money would know that if your out-payments are increasing at twice the rate of your revenues then you have a problem; you can't sustain the payments. If you have a government that cannot sustain its payments, ultimately the Australian people are going to be let down. We are not going to let down the Australian people. When we make a commitment that we will meet people's welfare entitlements, we are determined that we have the capacity to make those payments.
Let me also address a couple of comments that were made about the cashless debit card. It was interesting that the member for Jagajaga spoke. The previous member for Jagajaga was Jenny Macklin, a longstanding Labor social services minister and opposition spokesman who consistently supported income management—income management in the Northern Territory, for example, and indeed income management in a number of projects around Australia. We've seen a dramatic shift to the Left under the more modern Labor Party, driven by the desperate desire to try to win back votes from the Greens. They've turned their backs on an approach that is working. The cashless debit card is one of the most successful and exciting initiatives in the field of social welfare that we have seen for many years. When you have the chance, as I have during my term as minister, to hear from senior Indigenous leaders who are saying, 'This is important for our people,' and when you hear police and healthcare workers in small country towns saying, 'Since the cashless debit card was introduced, we are seeing a dramatic reduction in the number of presentations for domestic violence in the local clinic,' we say that is evidence that cannot be ignored. That is evidence that suggests that we are on the right track. (Time expired)
The Social Services portfolio should be about providing a social safety net to support Australians who are unable to work, to prevent poverty and to ensure our community is inclusive. The department's mission statement is:
… to improve the wellbeing of individuals and families in Australian communities.
Well, they are certainly not being empowered to do that under this Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. As the adage goes, usually attributed to Gandhi, you can judge a society by how it treats its most vulnerable members, and Australia is failing them under this government.
The most obvious and No. 1 priority that needs to be urgently addressed in the Social Services portfolio is increasing Newstart. New research released this week by the Centre for Social Research and Methods at the ANU shows that households surviving on government allowances, such as Newstart or youth allowance, are twice as likely to be living in poverty than they were 25 years ago. In 2017 around 80 per cent of households with government allowances as their main income were considered to be living in poverty after housing was paid for, compared to 39 per cent in 1993. A really important thing to consider as well, though, is the poverty gap showing the depth of poverty—the amount by which households fall below the poverty line. This has increased massively. Households with allowances as their main source of income were living $124 a week below the poverty line in 2017, a huge increase from $25 a week below in 1993.
Poverty in Australia is not limited to those receiving social security payments. Around 1.26 million households are considered to be living in poverty after housing is paid for, including households where income comes from wages, salaries, business or pensions. Everything is going up, everything except wages and our disgracefully low unemployment benefit. The Morrison government is suffocating an already weak economy that is getting weaker, and it's trapping vulnerable Australians in poverty by refusing to increase Newstart.
The Reserve Bank governor is calling on the government to do more to boost the economy but they are ignoring his advice, along with that of other economists. The government have no plan to address poverty and won't even accept that Newstart is too low. Instead of addressing serious issues in the social services area, the government are dredging up the worst parts of their disgraceful 2014 budget. Instead of actually developing policies to address issues, they are continuing their mission to demonise and stigmatise anyone receiving social security and our system itself.
These sittings we have seen the government reintroduce the disgraceful policy to drug-test social security recipients. There is no issue here to actually address; it is just part of an ideological crusade. Labor are proud to oppose this abomination, as we did in the last parliament. The government know, just as the experts do—those doctors who treat people battling addiction—that people need to be ready to seek help. This just puts pressure on services that are already desperately stretched. If the government are so concerned about people battling addiction, why don't they invest in rehab and treatment services? There is no evidence that there is an issue with drugs among social security recipients; I'm not sure how the government thinks they can even afford drugs. The reality is it's desperately hard to survive on the Newstart allowance, let alone find a job.
The Prime Minister says that everyone who has a go gets a go. What an insult to people desperately seeking work in this insecure job market and to single parents desperately trying to give their children the best start in life. What's the Prime Minister's answer to them? It's inadequately low payments and humiliation. Drug tests won't create one job.
The government is also again attempting to cut the pensioner education supplement, a relatively small payment for single parents and people with disability who are seeking training to help them re-enter the job market to cover things like textbooks and bus fares. They are having a go, but this government has no agenda but cruelty. It has no agenda except to attack people receiving social security—a system that is so important to ensure we have an inclusive society and to support people who are unable to work, people who are doing things like caring for older people or caring for children, victims of a job market that is not creating stable work, or people who have jobs but don't have enough to live on because they can't find stable employment. It's an absolute disgrace that the government has no plan for these people, and Labor will stand up for the most vulnerable in our community, as we did in the last parliament. We will oppose these bills that, again, are just an attack on the most vulnerable in our community.
The member for Canberra asserted there is no evidence that there are drug issues faced by those who are unemployed. I refer the member to the 2016 National Drug Strategy Household Survey undertaken by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which shows that the unemployed were 3.1 times more likely to use methamphetamines than the general population and 1.5 times more likely to use cannabis than the employed population. What the member for Canberra said was the one thing I noticed that was precisely 100 per cent wrong, and, I imagine, if I'd investigated the rest of what she said, there would've been quite a number of other errors in it as well.
Let me now respond to a question from the member for Moncrieff, who asked that I explain the pilot program Impact21. It's a one-off grant of $300,000 under which the community organisation e.motion21 has developed a pilot program that aims to improve the education and employment outcomes for people living with Down syndrome. It's a structured learning and work experience based program that builds relationships and makes sure that both parties are work ready. Thirteen participants commenced the pilot on 11 February this year, and it is based at Torrens University in Melbourne. It's a very exciting project which our Liberal-National government is pleased to support. We support it in the confidence that we've got a strong budget so we're able to fund these programs—unlike the previous Labor government, which, of course, could never maintain spending discipline and ran deficit after deficit after deficit.
I'll also respond to the question asked by the member for Curtin, who rightly asked about the challenge of social isolation faced by older Australians and asked whether this government is doing anything about it. I'm pleased to say that we do have a program in place, the Seniors Connected Program, which will provide grant funding to community organisations to deliver activities to address loneliness and social isolation issues amongst older Australians. The initiatives to be supported include a telephone support service which expands on an existing service delivered by Friends for Good and the expansion of village hub services—based, I might note, on the model established by the Waverton hub in the electorate of my good friend the member for North Sydney. It's a mutual organisation formed by residents of Waverton, Wollstonecraft and neighbouring areas in Sydney which provides support and camaraderie for members, helping them to age well and lead meaningful lives in retirement.
One of the other initiatives to be funded under the Seniors Connected Program is encouraging volunteering activity amongst senior Australians to improve their sense of connection and purpose. I can inform the House that funding of $2.5 million a year will be available over four years from 2019-20 through to 2022-23. This measure is designed to reduce the incidence of loneliness amongst senior Australians, helping them to lead meaningful and independent lives in retirement in their own home. It's also expected to lead to reduced expenditure on aged-care and health services. Around 10 village hubs are expected to be established across Australia, providing supports and camaraderie for up to 3,000 senior Australians a year. The number of senior Australians who are able to access phone support is expected to increase from around 1,400 a year to around 65,000 a year. I am very pleased to be able to place before the House factual, evidence based information, in contrast to the wafty range of unsubstantiated assertions we've heard from our political opponents.
The Federation Chamber will now consider the National Disability Insurance Scheme segment of the Social Services portfolio in accordance with the agreed order of consideration. I give the call to the minister.
As the House knows, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is a world-first, once-in-a-generation reform—frankly, the biggest since the introduction of Medicare in the seventies. This will be life changing for up to 500,000 Australians with disability over the next five years. Many of these people—almost one in three, to date—will have never received disability supports before. The NDIS provides the tools and services people with disability need to engage with their community socially, culturally and economically. It is about improving the quality of life for people with disability as well as for their family and carers. Through the NDIS, funding now sits with people with disability so they can choose which services and supports they need to enhance their daily lives, be part of the community and enter the workforce, if that is their choice and their goal.
We have seen the scheme grow to almost 300,000 Australians now benefiting from the NDIS nationwide, available in all states and territories around Australia, with Western Australia coming on board from 1 July this year. For the first time people with disability are at the centre of government services with a scheme that invests in people and their potential. I strongly believe the NDIS replaces a broken, rationed system where people missed out, had no say or control over their supports and faced an inequitable structure that disadvantaged some people, frankly, because of where they lived. In contrast, the NDIS represents an opportunity for people with disability and offers scope to innovate in service delivery and product offering. We are seeing this steadily grow and increase each quarter. The NDIS provider market now has more than 12,300 active providers, offering genuine choice for participants. More broadly, the NDIS represents immense opportunity for the disability sector, with the scheme expected to contribute to the creation of up to 90,000 full-time equivalent workers across Australia over the next half decade. Participant satisfaction with the NDIS rollout remains strong, with over 90 per cent of participants rating their overall experience as either very good or good. These are great things. I have seen and the Prime Minister has seen and heard stories about how the NDIS is making a substantial difference in the lives of so many Australians.
We always know we can do more, and we can do more with the NDIS—taking it from a great service to an exceptional national service as a national endeavour. At the top of my list as minister for the NDIS is improving services on the ground to ensure that we genuinely deliver. We want to listen directly to Australians with disability and the people and organisations who support them to ensure the NDIS can continue to improve. On 26 August, we opened public consultations on a review of the NDIS legislation and processes that are intended to cut red tape and wait times for participants. The review will focus on making NDIS processes simpler, quicker and more straightforward and removing barriers to positive participant experiences within the scheme.
Importantly, the review will lead to the development of a new NDIS participant service guarantee to improve participants' experiences with the scheme. The guarantee will set new standards for the time taken for key steps in the process. This means there will be shorter agreed time frames for people to get their access decision to have their plans approved and reviewed. A participant focus will be on improving processes for children and participants needing specialist disability accommodation, assistive tech or other services that require quotes or approvals. This is only one of the ways we are improving processes and services.
In the most recent meeting of disability ministers on the DRC, the Disability Reform Council, we came to new agreements on the boundaries between NDIS and health-related services. From 1 October this year, participants will be able to receive funding for the disability-related health supports they need as a direct result of their disability as part of their daily life through their plans. It's estimated this will benefit around 60,000 Australians with disability.
We are busting bureaucratic congestion with a plan over the next six months to resolve delays and backlogs for children accessing the early childhood early intervention supports. We will also support the rollout of the new participant planning pathways, making sure that people have a single point of contact with the NDIS and can choose to be on a longer NDIS plan, for up to three years. This builds on significant improvements that have already been made in pathways, including new pathways for people with complex needs, people with severe and persistent mental health issues and people with hearing impediments. The Morrison government has already implemented a range of reforms to build confidence in the SDA market, and this will continue. I'm proud of my fellow Australians, and as a representative I look forward to continuing to build and improve this impressive national endeavour.
Just how out of touch is this minister? I listened to his report about the NDIA and I—
Government members interjecting—
Look at the government—they don't want to talk about people with disability. They're proud of what they are not doing.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a good idea. Labor created it, and now the government are wrecking it. Only Labor can rescue it. Liberals' cuts, chaos and staffing caps have undermined the NDIS. The only way to get it back on track is to stop the cuts, the chaos and the caps and to put people with disability back at the centre of the scheme. The government raided the NDIS. They've got design faults in the system which meant they manufactured an underspend, which they have now used to prop up their budget.
Specifically, as this is consideration in detail, we have several questions for the government. How many complaints to the NDIA over Australia were there over the 2017-18 period? How many of these complaints were resolved successfully? What actions were taken to ensure clients were satisfied with the outcomes of the complaints process? Was there an independent review of the complaints process? How many complaints are there where the NDIS are now going to the AAT? Has there been an increase in the number of complaints going to the AAT? How many complaints have been referred to the Ombudsman? What percentage of complaints resulted in proposed or agreed NDIS plans being amended? How long does it take to solve an issue or complaint on average? In relation to NDIS operational requirement 6.2—which I'm sure the minister is intimately familiar with, but if he's not it's called 'prioritising participants with urgent circumstances'—what are the average wait times for all the time frames associated with this measure? What is the longest average wait? How was the wait justified? What percentage of cases that fall under this category are met within the required time frames? How are they measured? How are they reported? What is the NDIA doing to address the wait times or improve meeting these time frames? How many people's first plan is subsequently cut in their second plan? How many plans have been subsequently cut in their third plan? What is the average waiting time for people requesting wheelchairs? What is the average waiting time for people requesting assistive technology?
There are more questions. In relation to the NDIS, how many clients have requested that their plan be reviewed? What are the qualifications of the planners doing the plans and the reviews? What percentage of clients have had their funding provided for their packages reduced between their initial package and the subsequent package? What is the average reduction? Has there been a directive or any encouragement given to reduce the value of packages from the NDIA, the department or the relevant minister? Who's reviewing the cases? When the planners are reviewing their own matters, is there a conflict of interest? With the number of reviews which are going to the AAT, how long has it taken for the AAT to deal with these matters?
Furthermore, how many staff are there in the NDIA as of 30 June 2019? How many staff in the NDIA were there at 30 June 2018? What is the average length of time of an employee at the lower levels in the NDIA in that employment before they resign or change jobs? How many contractors are being used by the NDIA? How many of the NDIA senior leadership are actually in their offices in Geelong as opposed to their offices in Melbourne? How many recruiters for NDIA staff are there on the NDIA panel? What is the average length of time for a person working as a local area coordinator? How are the qualifications of local area coordinators set? These are a range of important questions that I have been informed of by talking to people who are currently participants on the NDIS. To be very clear, some participants in the NDIS are experiencing very good service and are very happy with the program, and that gives me much personal pleasure, and it's important for Australians that that happens. However, a lot of people are complaining.
Another issue which is constantly raised with me is the issue of car modifications. What is the average length of time that people are waiting to get car modifications approved or vehicle budgets approved? When it comes to the transport costings within the NDIS packages available to people, what is the average length of time that it takes a participant to use up the allocated transport budget? Has the government given any consideration to increasing the amount of money which is available for transport? At the core of the NDIA and the NDIS is Labor's concern that this is an organisation in drift. When will a new CEO be appointed?
I'm pleased to speak in this debate today about some of the truly life-changing support our government is providing through the NDIS. I would like to begin by recognising the minister for his wonderful work in his portfolio and his commitment to ensuring that the NDIS is accessible to people living with disability and supporting their families. The minister recently visited my electorate of Boothby with the Prime Minister, and they both provided local members of my community the opportunity to share their experiences with the NDIS and to give feedback about that. In my mind, this is the big difference between the government and those opposite: we are listening to people, we are asking them for their feedback and we will be acting on that feedback. It's a very clear difference. We certainly learnt during the election that we were the people who were listening to people, and we will continue to listen to people to make sure that policy settings best meet their needs. By listening to NDIS participants, to their carers, to their family members and to service providers, we're ensuring that the NDIS will be the best scheme that it can be.
During the visit by the Prime Minister and the minister to my electorate, we also had the opportunity to officially open the new in-house specialist disability accommodation services. Also known as SDA, specialist disability accommodation provides specialist housing solutions, including houses that are equipped to assist with the delivery of supports catering to extreme functional impairment or very high support needs. The house that we visited was absolutely magnificent. I'd be very happy to live there myself. It was beautifully designed, and the interior design was fantastic as well. What the design means in a practical sense is a greater level of independence for people living with a disability and confidence for their families that they are receiving the support that they need.
Once the NDIS is at full maturity, it's estimated that almost 28,000 participants will benefit from nearly $700 million in SDA funding each and every year. The Morrison government is working with our state and territory colleagues and has a strong and ongoing commitment to the long-term provision of funding of SDA through the NDIS. We are determined to build the SDA market with investors, developers, and existing and new providers, growing their confidence in SDA. Our government has implemented a range of reforms to build this market confidence, including through the government's national action plan for younger people in residential aged care, which will reduce the number of younger people living in residential aged care by helping them access more age-appropriate accommodation.
With more than 13,000 NDIS participants now with SDA in their plans, we are seeing more accommodation options for more people. Today I would like to ask the minister to provide an update on these and any other measures that are supporting NDIS participants access high-quality specialist disability accommodation.
The Prime Minister did meet NDIS participants in Boothby, South Australia a fortnight ago, and I was very interested to see what he said. The Prime Minister said:
The thing I love about the NDIS is it's not about compensation, it's not about welfare …
It's about enablement, it's about enabling Australians to live the lives they want to live regardless of what challenges they have.
The Prime Minister was half right. The NDIS is supposed to be about choice and control for those living with disability in Australia. Labor created the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and the Liberals are wrecking it. The cuts, chaos and staffing caps have undermined the NDIS. The only way to get the NDIS back on track is to stop the cuts, the chaos and the caps and put people with disability back at the centre of the scheme.
Let's look at the facts. Because of delays, 77,000 people are missing out on the NDIS, many of them living with major mental illness. On average, people only use about 50 per cent of their first plan and people have to wait an average of four months to get a plan. Many wait much longer. In my electorate of Dobell on the New South Wales Central Coast, the rollout of the NDIS is causing heartache for the very people it was intended to help. My office has helped over 250 people and families with the NDIS, many over months and years.
There are people like Barry of Blue Haven. Barry called my office on 5 September this year. His adult daughter, Donna, is clinically blind. With her permission and with the help of their GP, he sent off all the paperwork and completed the NDIS application process in January 2018. He heard nothing back from the NDIS. He said, 'Every time I take Donna to the doctor, he asks me, "Does she have NDIS yet?" because he believes she should be entitled to help. So I finally called the NDIS this week and they told me the application was invalid and that they would send me out another form. I had to get Donna's consent again for them to send the form out.' Barry says, 'We're not out for money. I'm Donna's stepfather. I promised her mother before she died I would look after her, and I just think she could do with a little help.' Minister, Barry has never heard back from the NDIS.
Or what about Sarah? Sarah lives in The Entrance, which is where I live. Sarah called my office in July regarding delays in a review of the plan for her husband, Brian. Brian's application for a mobility scooter and a bed were rejected. Sarah told me that Brian's OT had informed the NDIS that he required both the mobility scooter and the bed, only to be told that the technology was 'not safe' for him to use, contrary to the opinion of the OT—contrary to the opinion of the expert health worker who had assessed Brian. With our help, Brian appealed this decision—due to the strain this lack of assistive technology was placing on him and his family. We were informed by the NDIS that Brian's review was in its infancy, so they could not even provide a time frame for the estimated completion of the review.
What about Toni? Toni lives in Ourimbah and is wheelchair bound. The NDIA built a ramp to go from her home into her garage but not an automatic garage door so that Toni can leave the garage. Because of this, Toni is only able to leave her home when her NDIS carer is present, and the NDIA is insistent that a garage door opener would be an unnecessary expense. It would be an unnecessary expense to allow you to get out of your home! When a garage door opener is considered an unnecessary expense, is it any wonder that there's an underspend of $1.6 billion in the next year alone?
I want to finish with the words of Matthew. The member for Maribyrnong and I heard from Matthew. Matthew is 38. He's highly intelligent, highly educated and lives independently. But Matthew wakes up every morning scared that he will have to go into an aged-care facility because of a lack of proper support through NDIS. This is what Matthew told us: 'I shouldn't have to feel like this, but I am scared.' He was tearful when he said this. No young person, no 38-year-old who is living independently, should wake up fearful that they are going to end up in a residential aged-care facility.
Minister, the government has many questions to answer. What will they do to address the delays and backlogs that are causing heartache for people who are entitled to proper support? Will they lift the staffing cap to help clear the backlog? What is their plan to improve employment outcomes for people with disability? When will they appointment a new CEO, and will it be someone with lived experience and proper knowledge of disability?
I'm delighted to have this opportunity today to speak on a scheme which I know is important to so many Australians. I want to start by acknowledging the minister and congratulating him on the outstanding work that he is doing to make sure the NDIS is even stronger. The scheme is one of the biggest and most extensive social reforms that Australia has undertaken in modern times. It is making a real difference to the lives of so many Australians. In fact, over the next five years, over 500,000 Australians with a disability will benefit from the scheme. Importantly, the NDIS has significantly relieved the burden which has been carried by families and friends of Australians with a disability and has allowed Australians to choose which services and supports they need to enhance their daily lives as part of the community and enter the workforce, if that's their goal.
I particularly want to record my thanks at the way the minister is conducting his responsibilities in this newly created cabinet role. The fact that we have a cabinet-level minister dealing with the NDIS in particular does reflect on the Prime Minister's determination to improve the NDIS and make it a success.
I saw this firsthand when the minister agreed to come and talk in my electorate, at a special NDIS forum, to some of the users of the NDIS, their parents and community organisations in my area that are providing such excellent disability services. The forum was immensely valuable. It was immensely valuable, I hope, for the minister to get the feedback that he received but also immensely valuable to those who came and participated. If there was a common thread amongst the contributions of those at the forum, it was a recognition that there are many processes in the NDIS that can be improved—and they welcomed the minister's determination in his role to make those improvements. But the overriding message from that forum was that, whilst at times the process could be improved, those participants and their families were so pleased with the outcomes that they were receiving. So many people commented on the fact that, before the NDIS, they or their children wouldn't have been receiving the support that they are today. I'm very grateful that the minister spent so much time listening to the issues they raised. To the last person, they went away satisfied that the minister would be and is addressing some of the issues that they mentioned.
I'm incredibly proud to be part of a government that has made improving the NDIS such a priority. Part of this commitment is the introduction of the new NDIS Participant Service Guarantee. This new initiative's purpose is to improve participants' experiences with the NDIS. The guarantee will address three key areas, including the timeliness of NDIS planning processes, the administration of reviews and the quality of the NDIA decision-making process. It will achieve these by setting new standards for the time it takes for key steps in the NDIS process, including access decisions, having an NDIS plan approved and having a plan reviewed. These were some of the very issues that were raised by my constituents.
The guarantee will support quality decision-making, ensuring people with disability, their families and carers have a consistently positive experience with the NDIS. These proposed changes are specifically targeted in direct response to the feedback that NDIS clients and those around them have been providing and represent a very exciting new phase that will allow the full potential of the NDIS to be realised. I note that these proposed changes have been welcomed by so many NDIS participants, families and carers, particularly those who have experienced delays in having plans approved, executed or reviewed in the past.
I also want to acknowledge the fact that the minister has commissioned a review, which is being overseen by Mr David Tune AO, PSM. The submission process for this review is currently underway, with submissions being invited, as the minister mentioned, from 26 August. This will provide an opportunity for participants and those interested in the NDIS to have a meaningful input into how the government can continue its work to make sure that the NDIS is the success that it can be and that we are actually listening and responding to those concerns.
Minister, I want to raise one particular issue which I'm very familiar with as the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, and that is the support of the NDIS for people with profound hearing loss. I'd welcome your remarks on what you're doing to make sure that the NDIS is serving those people.
I am very much looking forward to hearing some answers from the minister today on some of the questions that the people who are struggling with the NDIS in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, in my electorate of Macquarie, have. These are their questions. To be honest, the thing I'd really like to know, especially having heard some of the remarks of the member for North Sydney, is: is the minister happy with how the NDIS is going? Are you happy with where it's at, with the experience that every single person is having? Are you satisfied? Is it good enough? Or, as the member for North Sydney indicates, is there a lot of room for improvement? If you're happy with the NDIS, if that's how you feel, you need to tell us now so that people can stop building up their hope that things are going to change, that things are going to get better. Right now they do have hope. They think you are working behind the scenes to fix things. Do I share that hope? Not particularly.
Let's talk about getting a plan. I listen to my constituents, and what they're telling me is that the current system is really terrifying for them. This current system is making mums and dads and carers fight for their kids not just once but again and again and again. The government's playbook appears to be: 'Make them spend hours on the phone fighting to get what their kids need or what they themselves need. Get them to a point of exhaustion. Have them give up. Then deliver a $1.6 billion underspend on the NDIS.' Was that the government's plan all along? Is the government's idea of good policy delivery to make the service completely inaccessible so that an underspend can then be funnelled into a budget surplus? How do you intend to fix this mess so that mums and dads all across the country, particularly in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury, aren't reduced to tears on a daily basis fighting for their child to have what they're entitled to?
It's like you've modelled it on The Hunger Games, and only those who have the energy to keep fighting are going to make it through your system. And I'll give you examples. This has been raised with me by Rachel, mother of nine-year-old Cameron. She is fighting and is exhausted from the fight. Chris Mousley tells me he calculated that he spent 100 hours trying to get basic service delivery for his two children under the NDIS. Are you happy, Minister, with the requirement that, once people have gone through all of this, they have to do it again every 12 months? What are the key changes you intend to make to improve the journey for parents and participants?
I want to talk about the advocacy of service providers and volunteers who recognise what this struggle is for many families—people like Able2, who, unfunded, go into bat for their clients because they are emotionally invested in their work; people like Julianne; and people like Linda Fenech, the mum of Lucy. Linda is currently supporting 28 people on a voluntary basis as they navigate the red-tape-heavy NDIS, and she does that because she wants to be able to share some of the wins she has had as a mum of a daughter she fights fiercely for. Does the minister have any plan to recognise the work that providers and individuals do as advocates?
Let's talk about quality of planners. Is the government happy with the quality of planning being done? And, if not, what do you intend to do to fix it? How do you plan to improve the skills and expertise of planners? Currently we have drastically different plans being written for very similarly impacted individuals, often meaning someone is really undersupported while someone else gets what they need. Why doesn't the government allow for drafted plans to be viewed by participants? Every participant tells me this would absolutely streamline the process.
When the plans are approved, there are huge delays in receiving assistive technology, whether it be a leg or a wheelchair. I have been contacted by people who have been waiting for 12 to 24 months, and, unfortunately, letters to your office have not had responses. So I ask the minister: why does it take so long? Why do they need to renew those OT assessments? Why is the system so laden with red tape? There are the same problems with car modifications. Liam, dad of three-year-old Asher, raised this. Why does it take so long? Why are the rules so inflexible, given the reality that people can't always buy a brand-new car? These are some of the many questions my community has. My other question is: will the minister come and meet with my community? I would happily invite them to share their experiences with you.
Thank you for the opportunity to sum up the discussion. The government is absolutely committed to ensuring that the NDIS remains fully funded and fully built to meet the needs of Australians. We are also fully committed, as a national endeavour, to keep this a bipartisan rollout going forward. References to this being akin to The Hunger Games are beneath the parliament.
The rollout of the participant planning pathways—making sure people have a single point of contact and can choose plans of up to three years to ensure that the plans meet their needs—is a key issue as we go forward to make adjustments to the plan. Likewise, community connector programs support hard-to-reach communities, including Indigenous Australians, culturally and linguistically diverse communities and ageing parents of children with disabilities, and assist them to navigate the NDIS and get the services they or their children need. Remember, we're changing from a system where states and territories decided what was best for people with disability to one where there will be 500,000 individually crafted and designed plans.
In 2015-16 the combined states and territories spent $8.4 billion on people with disability, and going forward that number will rise to $22 billion. Very rarely will you find an area of public policy expenditure that has grown in such great quanta, which again is reflective of how important the government sees the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
The participant service guarantee that David Tune is currently taking soundings on as part of the review will set new standards for shorter time frames for people to access the plans and to have their plans reviewed, with a particular focus on children and participants requiring specialist disability accommodation—an area the member to my left, from Boothby, raised so well.
Can I respond to the member for North Sydney regarding hearing services. As you know, participant pathways have been updated so that there is a full hearing services stream for children aged zero to six. We'll continue to work with Hearing Australia to improve access to the NDIS for children from birth to six years old, and then continue to look at wider ways we can engage with Australians in need of hearing. We are working with Hearing Australia, also, to move people from current hearing services and supports to the NDIS where this is indeed appropriate. If they're not eligible for the NDIS, we'll help them to access other government or community services so that parents and carers will be able to access supports their children need to avoid the risk of developmental delay in that area. I look forward to continuing to work with the member for North Sydney on this particular area.
We will continue to put money into the national disability information gateway, including a website and 1800 number, to assist all people with disabilities and their families to locate and access services in their communities. The parliament should not forget that the SDAC survey, which is a survey on disability, ageing and caring, indicated that 4.3 million Australians live with some form of disability. The NDIS is for significant and permanent disability of up to 500,000 Australians. That means there are 3.8 million Australians with disability for whom the provision of services rests with the states and territories, and it's important that the states and territories continue to provide service to those 3.8 million Australians as per the various agreements that have been put in place.
The public service will also introduce a seven per cent employment target for people with disability right across the Australian Public Service by 2025, and I look forward to working with all of my ministerial colleagues to ensure that that target is met. We'll also provide $2 million to support people with autism to find and keep a job, and $1.5 million for the national expansion of the very successful Dandelion Program in partnership with DXC Technology.
The member for Boothby also raised the issue of specialist disability accommodation. Right now there are about 13,000 Australians in specialist disability accommodation, much of that transitioning from the states. We believe up to 28,000 Australians will be eligible for specialist disability accommodation, which means many thousands of houses will be built by the private sector. We've already implemented a range of reforms to build confidence in this market to allow the private sector to engage with and build the many thousands of houses that we need. The SDA pricing and payments framework has been updated to provide greater confidence to investors by keeping prices stable while the market is developing, and the legislative rules have been amended to remove the requirement for participants to exhaust all other options before accessing SDA.
There is still much to do on the national endeavour, and the government looks forward to working with the parliament to achieve everything that we know the scheme is capable of.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
It's quite interesting that the shadow agriculture minister has not even shown enough respect to the industry of agriculture, a $60 billion industry, to turn up here and ask questions. It just demonstrates Labor's commitment to agriculture. They talk a lot, they promise a lot, but they just don't care. Oh, here he is! The member for Hunter finally has decided to appear and ask some questions.
You'll be sorry!
We've heard that one before. It's good to see the member for Hunter can finally join us and show some interest in the agriculture sector—a $60 billion industry that we have committed, along with the NFF, to turn into a $100 billion industry by 2030. We started that journey after the agriculture white paper that the member for New England started and in fact ticked off, piece by piece.
We have continued that journey over the last 18 months, not only with research and development but also with the trade agreements that we put in place as a government, with China, Korea, Japan—the TPP 11. Those opposite said: 'Never. Forget it. It's all gone. It's history. We're never going to get it.' But we stuck to our guns and we got it delivered—Peru, Hong Kong and now Indonesia—because of the commitment our government has to free trade and because we understand how important that is to the agriculture sector. We're a nation of 25 million people and we produce enough food for 75 million. If we don't engage with the world, if we don't trade with the world, then we oversupply and we don't need an agriculture sector or regional communities. So trade has been a centrepiece of this government's efforts towards building us towards a $100 billion industry.
It will be interesting to see, when the ramifications of those trade agreements come forward, whether those opposite will commit to it, particularly with Indonesia—hundreds of millions sitting above us, to our north, ready to trade with us, to give our agricultural production, our farmers, the advantage they need in a trading environment that is becoming even more competitive. It's becoming competitive not only on price but on quality. Australian farmers produce the best food and fibre in the world, and we underpin that with a strong biosecurity system to make sure that that clean, green image is protected. That is our market advantage. We continue to make investments in the biosecurity area to ensure that we protect that.
But we are also looking for the smarts of the 21st century. We are investing in our people. The most important capital we have in this nation is our human capital. We are investing in R&D. We are currently No. 20 in the world for research and development. I challenged the research and development sector when I was the agriculture minister to make us No. 1. EY was tasked with the responsibility of providing a report that would give us an undertaking of how to get there. They tasked us that we could get there by 2050 but I challenged the research and development sector that we could do it by 2030, and the current agriculture minister is following through on that to make sure we can create another pillar of agriculture in research and development.
We want to bring our young people home. These are not just the jobs of the old agricultural sector—the pick and shovel—but the new jobs in science and technology. We want to be a hub, a centre of excellence in the world for research and development. We have the brightest minds in the world, and it is time that we allowed them to create the framework for that agriculture sector to flourish. We will continue to do that with the research and development corporations and by making sure there is better collaboration. What might work in the cotton industry could also work in the horticultural sector. What might not work in the cotton industry may work in the wheat sector. There needs to be greater collaboration between RDCs so that failures may not necessarily be failures; other industries can pick them up. But that's about making sure we put a collaborative environment around them.
We also need to attract the financial capital, to create another pillar. The Australian government puts over $300 million a year into research and development, which is matched by primary producers. So it's important that we try to find more financial capital, and we can do that in partnership with other foreign states but also with corporates—and commercialise the smarts of our Australian researchers.
So, agriculture, while having challenges at the moment with drought, has a bright future, one that we should not talk down. It is one the next generation is strongly and heartily grabbing with both hands, because they see the future in agriculture and they see the future in regional and rural Australia.
I would have thought the former minister for agriculture would have been in this place long enough by now to know that you do not question why people haven't turned up at a certain times for debates like this. That's because, Minister, you never know what people might be doing and why they might be late, do you? There might be a good reason for that. So I just advise him to show a bit of maturity in this place rather than going back to National Party fundamentalism and sticking to the spin that we just heard from him with respect to the agriculture sector.
I do lament losing the minister from the agriculture portfolio because, from time to time, both prior to the election and even here this morning—not all the time, I emphasise—he does sound a little bit like the member for Hunter, particularly when he starts talking about research and development and innovation, for example, and about less siloing and more cross-sectoral work in research and development. But what we want him to do, with his colleagues, is stop talking about it and do something. He spent $2.3 million prior to the election on an EY report on R&D, and we are still here talking about it. And now we have another committee. What our farmers and people more broadly in rural and regional Australia want from this government is less talking and more doing. Minister, they just want you to do something, particularly those drought-affected farmers, families and communities who just see you form committee after committee. And we had another one this week on this Water Grid Authority. They don't want a water grid authority, Minister; they just want you to do something. Please, do something! The last time a dam was built in this country was under a federal Labor government, and you know that. In six years, you've done nothing but talk about it and talk about it. We've had a drought coordinator, a drought envoy, a drought task force and a drought summit, but what we haven't had is any action.
On rural assistance, I refer the minister to the budget papers, which say: 'The rural assistance function is expected to decrease by 13 per cent in real terms from 2018-19 to 2019-20 and decrease by 22.4 per cent in real terms over the period 2019-20 to 2022-23.' This is a pretty important question at a time when farmers are struggling in the face of drought as to whether they are getting more assistance or less assistance. One of the things the minister might want to share with the House is the extent to which families are now being forced off the farm household allowance because they've come to the end of the period for which they qualify.
I said in an article in one of our newspapers when we agreed on a new strategy on drought reform in 2012—when I say 'we', I mean all the parties, the NFF and all the stakeholders—that we agreed to do a number of things and one of those was to make the farm household allowance time-limited. In other words, farmers would be told, 'In that time'—it was three years and now, I think, it is four in total—'you have to either adjust your business model and build resilience or basically get out.' That's to put it bluntly. But none of us could have conceived back in 2012 the severity and longevity of the drought, the high temperatures and the rates of evaporation people would be experiencing on the land at the moment. It is just inconceivable to me that we are going to farming families in the middle of a drought—and it is probably the worst drought now in our history—and saying, 'You've had your income support long enough, you haven't adjusted and we're not paying you any longer.' While I'm always talk about adjustment, building resilience, adaptation, new farming methods, regenerative farming and all of that, you can't make that adjustment during these circumstances—the worst drought in our history. That is just impossible. Our farming families need ongoing assistance. I know you want a budget surplus, Minister, but you don't want a budget surplus at the expense of our farming families.
The agricultural industry is worth $60 billion to the Australian economy and is our second-largest exporter. The Liberal-Nationals government is fully supportive of the goal of the National Farmers Federation to turn agriculture into a $100 billion industry by 2030. The agricultural industry in my electorate of Mallee contributes approximately $4.2 billion per annum towards the economy, largely driven by cropping, horticulture and livestock.
But there are undeniable challenges to reaching this goal. Some challenges are more recent, such as farm invaders who defy the rights of a farmer to operate their legitimate business. These activists target farmers in the privacy of their homes, creating risks to their families, their stock and their livelihoods, causing them to live in fear. The aim of these terrorists is to shut down the agricultural sector. I'm proud to say that last week the Liberal-Nationals government stood up for farmers and passed laws that will punish those who incite these criminal acts.
Another perpetual challenge that farmers experience is the variability of weather. The decision to plant or not to plant is a gamble that farmers must make annually. Throughout this great land many electorates are currently experiencing one of the worst droughts on record. In the northern Mallee, in the Millewa, our producers are experiencing the worst drought since settlement. The impacts have been severe, with many destocking or not planting at all.
Farmers from the Millewa have come to me for support. It is nothing short of devastating. I've spoken with the minister, David Littleproud, and asked for further support for the farmers of the Millewa. I want to commend the work the Australian government is doing so far in providing significant funding to aid in current drought response and developing future-ready approaches to preparing for future droughts. So far over $7 billion has been committed in assistance, including the Future Drought Fund, $5 billion in 2020, allowing for a drawdown of $100 million per year for drought response and resilience; the establishment of the Regional Investment Corporation for low-interest loans; the farm household allowance; $77 million for the Rural Financial Counselling Service; and $110 million for the Drought Communities Program, which has provided $1 million to declared council areas as identified by data calculated in the office of the minister for drought. This funding expenditure is for infrastructure spending to keep economies ticking over in difficult times, acknowledging in my electorate Buloke Shire, Yarriambiack Shire and Mildura Rural City. In addition to the designated Drought Communities Program is the Drought Community Support Initiative, which is delivered in those same shires through the great work of the Salvation Army, CWA, St Vincent de Paul and Rotary.
The work to relieve drought affected farmers is also the responsibility of our state governments. Just across the Murray River the New South Wales government has led the way in drought support with over $1.8 billion already committed in drought relief, providing interest-free loans for transport of feed and stock, as well as the Farm Innovation Fund, which provides loans of up to $1 million for infrastructure, and support through subsidies and waivers of rates and permit fees such as local land service rates and ag vehicle registration fees.
But on my side of the Murray, the member for Hunter may be interested to know, the Victorian state government has done very little. I call on them to do more. The current stance on the drought taken by the Victorian Labor government shows that they are not committed to helping or supporting this vital industry and the families who provide it.
Despite these trials, the agricultural industry is impressive for its resilience and innovation, highlighted by an ability to overcome challenges and to become more competitive, productive and profitable. Australian farmers historically excel in finding and developing ingenious solutions to target the problems they experience every day, resulting in improved efficiencies. Research and development and implementation are essential to the ag industry's future. No-till farming, for example, keeps fragile topsoil intact. Digital solutions, such as cameras on sprayers, assist in efficiently eradicating weeds. And I observed at the Mildura Fruit Company last week machine learning, where cameras and computers manage the rapid grading of fruit.
Our farmers strive to implement solutions that make them more efficient and profitable. With that said, I ask you, Minister, given the ag industry's goal of growing Australian agriculture to $100 million in 2030, how is the government working with industry to achieve this goal?
I thank the minister for giving way to me, and, now that we've exchanged pleasantries, I want to add a number of questions to the two questions I've already asked. Minister, did the government undertake a competitive tender process before providing $4 million to the National Farmers Federation to develop and trial a farm biodiversity certification scheme? Has the scheme been developed, and where will the trials be undertaken? Has the government commenced the development of a national policy on agriculture biodiversity and a trial of a grants program? Why is the government ignoring dairy farmers' calls for the mandatory code of conduct to be implemented immediately rather than waiting until July next year? I remind him that the sugar code was developed and implemented in about 24 hours.
The budget papers claim that funding for the dairy code of conduct will be partially offset by redirecting funding from the Rural Research and Development for Profit program, which was an initiative of the failed agricultural white paper. I ask the minister: (a) how much funding is being offset? (b) why was funding offset from the Rural Research and Development for Profit program and (c) how much funding has actually been spent on the Rural Research and Development for Profit program? My last question, Minister, is: when do you expect a biosecurity levy to come into effect?
I thank the member for Hunter for his questions. I'll go back to the original ones around research and development, which said: just do something. We have. We've accepted the EY report and we're getting on with the job. As I articulated in my opening response, it clearly said that by 2050 we could be No. 1. We're challenging the industry to do it by 2030. We're challenging the research and development corporations to collaborate and come together. If the big arm of government reaches in, which those opposite want, you can have unintended consequences of breaking up scientific work that is paramount to growing the agricultural pie. So it's important that we do it in a calm and methodical way, and Minister McKenzie is doing that. She's taken the torch up, after I put the framework in place, and she is continuing on that pathway.
With respect to dams, let me tell you: it has never, ever been the responsibility of the federal government to build a dam. Since Federation it has always been owned by the states. Our forefathers gave responsibility and ownership of resources to the states, but this government acted, with $1.3 billion in grants and $2 billion dollars in water infrastructure loans. The reality is we have enticed them. There have been 20 dams built since 2003, and 16 of them have been built in Tasmania. Under the coalition government in Tasmania, they're looking to expand water infrastructure further. The federal government stands ready to partner in a collaborative way with state governments.
With respect to farm household allowance, let me make this clear: we lifted the threshold to $5 million of assets to be eligible for FHA. We also undertook a review, and one of the recommendations within the review quite clearly stated that four years is the limit on which the farm household allowance should be, over a 10 year period. We respect the eminent Australians we asked to go out and undertake that review and to listen to farmers—to sit at the farmer's kitchen table and to listen—and that's what they did.
With respect to the budget items, the fact is that the reduction—it's a demand-driven program. The reality is that we make estimations of the demand that will be required of it. That is why it has gone down. But it's being complemented—
Opposition members interjecting—
I will never be lectured on drought by those opposite. It is the same organisation that, in October last year, in the lowest political act in this place, voted against the future drought fund. It took a change of leadership for those opposite to support struggling farming families out there—a $5 billion future fund.
But, no, the member for Hunter, who had a near-death political experience himself because he listened to the last leadership of the Labour Party, said, 'We don't want to look after farmers in drought. We don't need to worry about them. We'll just let them be run off.' But, no, once he had had that near-death political experience, he came out from under that rock where he'd been hiding for six years and he got back the values and the principles that he had once had. He's now saying, 'We will support it.' He will support it! The Future Drought Fund complements the $2 billion we've already spent, so let me make this clear: as we have always stated, we will continue to be agile around this drought and we will continue to work with our states. As the member for Mallee said quite clearly, the states also have a responsibility in this. In fact, the Labor state government in Queensland have pulled back some of their programs. In another low act that shows that those opposite do not care and do not understand agriculture, they have reneged on $5 million that was to go towards prickly acacia.
Let me continue to work through the other questions that the member for Hunter has asked around the biodiversity scheme, which was announced in the budget. That's currently being worked through with the NFF, making sure that we get the science right, because the intent of that was to allow farmers to be rewarded for their stewardship not only in the improvement of biodiversity but in carbon abatement. Therefore, it would allow them to link into the Climate Solutions Fund, and that is something that we'll continue to work through.
With respect to the mandatory code of conduct, we've been quite clear about dairy: it will come in in July 2020. As we've stated previously and as I've clearly articulated to the member for Hunter, it has been set for July 2020 because there are contracts in place. This isn't the same as sugar. There are contractual arrangements. It's a different industry, and that's why it's dangerous for the member for Hunter to finally get some values and try to take an interest in agriculture—he doesn't understand it. Clearly, we have to wait for those contracts to take place. I'll come back to the next one at the end because I'm out of time. (Time expired)
I give the call to the minister.
With respect to the biosecurity levy, we've been clear that consultation with those industries that will be impacted is imperative. That's why we've undertaken that consultation in a bipartisan way to work through where the risk is. That is where biosecurity has always been. It's predicated on a risk assessment. We'll continue to work with industry bodies to make sure that we get the right balance, but our biosecurity is still underpinned by a very strong economy because of the stewardship of this government. We'll continue to make sure that we invest in the biosecurity needed to keep our agricultural sector safe, that we are fair and equitable to those industries that pose a risk to our biosecurity and that we do that in open and fair consultation. We'll continue to make sure that, as we make these announcements, industry bodies are rightly considered.
I ask the minister to confirm that the money from the Future Drought Fund will not commence drawing down, at $100 million, until after July next year? Can he confirm that not one cent of that money will go to farmers until then? Given he's likely to have no choice but to confirm that, does he agree that it's wrong for the government to present the Future Drought Fund, which doesn't draw down until after July next year, as an immediate response to the terrible impact the drought is having on farming families?
I again thank the honourable member for Hunter for finally showing an interest in the Future Drought Fund, which they opposed in October last year. It was an absolute disgrace and the lowest political act in this nation's history. Now he feigns care about those farmers doing it tough, but in October last year he and the Australian Labor Party did not care one iota. They decided to play politics because they had an election to win. That's what they were playing. The reality is that we worked constructively with those who did care. We worked constructively with the crossbench, and I have to acknowledge the former member for Indi and the constructive role she played in formulating that legislation. What we have done is put a framework around protecting the governance of that fund. Yes, that $100 million will be delivered on 1 July next year, but it is being complemented by the nearly $2 billion that we are spending in the here and now. This is for the future, in the good years and bad years. This is about foresight of drought policy in this country, saying: we need to look to the future and we need to underpin that with money. That's what this government has done.
Those opposite said: 'We'll match it. We'll put $100 million a year in the forward estimates.' A 'rolled-gold promise' from the Australian Labor Party—haven't we heard that before! Let me say that, if we had a Labor Treasurer, as soon as it rained what would happen is: 'Look, we're a bit short this year,' as the Labor Party always are. They would take that $100 million and cut it. They would either cut it to zero or to a very small amount. What we have done is we've protected that $100 million, year after year, in the good and the bad, because of our economic management and stewardship. But we've made sure that the governance around the decisions that need to be made on how that money should be spent gives confidence to those opposite, who now have an interest in it—governance.
Yesterday I announced an independent panel that, through the 42 days of consultation, been legislated. They must go out and, low and behold, ask those who the money is for how it should be spent and then formulate a plan. But then, to give even greater confidence not only to those opposite but to the Australian people, we will table that plan in parliament. I don't think there has been a fund created with as much governance and transparency to the Australian parliament and to the Australian people as this. But it's important, because we wanted to rise above the politics of this. We wanted to show how important this was for drought policy into the future, to underpin the resilience of not only the agricultural sector but our communities.
It looks at a range of different aspects, like climate adaptation. Sadly, the states—of all persuasions—have dropped the ball when it comes to making sure we build economic resilience in those communities. That's what good policy is. That's why I acknowledge in a bipartisan way the member for Indi for the constructive role that she played. Instead of just saying, 'No, I'm not interested,' she cared. She cared about agriculture and she cared about regional and rural Australia. So we made sure that we gave her confidence that we could do that.
I'm proud to say that will roll out on 1 July. In fact, the consultations will start in the first couple of weeks of November. The new panel is meeting next week. It's chaired by Brent Finlay, the former NFF chairman, who has had extensive experience in drought policy. I think even those opposite would have to say that he is eminently qualified to lead that expert panel of economists, scientists and those in natural resource management. I met with an NRM group this morning who were quite excited to see that an investment in natural resource management does build resilience and profitability in the agricultural sector. These are the decisions we're making, as a government, about the future of agriculture and the future of regional and rural Australia.
Question agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 13:03 to 17:00
It's my pleasure to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, part of this year's budget, which increased the federal government's overall infrastructure commitment by $23 billion, to a record $100 billion over the next 10 years. That is $23 billion this financial year. We're providing not only the investment but also the strong national leadership, as you would expect, to deliver on our commitments as shown by my colleagues here today. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this consideration-in-detail process of the budget.
Taking all the factors into account, the government is helping to get Australians home sooner and safer—that is what it's all about—improving productivity, supply and freight chain lines across our freight networks, and boosting local businesses and job opportunities. I say to the members present that I can confirm that this is well and truly the age of infrastructure. We are spending $9.8 billion in this financial year alone. The budget has been boosted by $23 billion. I'm proud to say that we're maintaining our historically high spend on transport infrastructure, which now averages more than $10 billion over the forward estimates.
This year's budget includes a number of new commitments spread across every state and territory. Our prudent approach to economic management means that we are able to invest taxpayers' money where it's needed, and our infrastructure pipeline provides an excellent example of this. To ensure we can roll out as much infrastructure as possible in the most effective and sensible way, we are working collaboratively with all states and territories, which includes bringing forward projects where appropriate. This means we'll be able to get major 2019 budget commitments underway as soon as possible, such as $2 billion for fast rail between Melbourne and Geelong in Victoria; $1.6 billion for the M1 Pacific Motorway extension in New South Wales; an additional $1 billion for the Princes Highway across three states; $800 million for Queensland's Gateway Motorway Bracken Ridge to Pine River project; and $140 million for the Albany Ring Road in Western Australia.
Many of our projects and commitments are aimed at busting congestion in and around our major cities, which will directly tackle local traffic issues and lift the burden on commuters in these centres. The government is proud to be delivering the $9.3 billion Inland Rail, including $44 million this year for the Interface Improvement Program to maximise connections to the national freight network and work to get the most out of the project for communities along this 1,700-kilometre corridor of commerce.
We have, as we always do, backed regional Australia in this budget, by increasing our $3.5 billion Roads of Strategic Importance initiative to $4.5 billion. This initiative will help get produce from farm gate to plate and resources from mines to ports, creating the connected land transport network this country deserves—not necessarily national highways but those vital linkage byways—to help with productivity and efficiency. Further supporting our regions, we announced $100 million over four years to support regional airports to maintain their essential infrastructure.
Fundamentally we're delivering, and we're delivering big, for all Australians. This budget builds upon last year's strong infrastructure focused budget, and I'm delighted to be able to deliver our vast nation-building infrastructure pipeline along with my colleagues and fellow ministers.
I want to take some time going through the government's so-called $100 billion infrastructure program. This is a third-term government, and we are now in its seventh year. I think it is fair to say that the budget this year, in the lead-up to the election, was very much a political document as opposed to an economic plan, seeking—frankly—to paper over the past years of inaction and cuts. It's a government that appears to have two infrastructure ministers but no infrastructure plan—or a plan that is probably based more on an episode of The Hollowmen than it is on an actual economic development plan.
You could see the government sitting around a table going: 'You know, what could we say? How do we make it? Let's have a $50 billion plan!' And then someone else bid, 'No, let's make it $100 billion!' I remind people that, in fact, that $100 billion includes things like the Financial Assistance Grants' roads component, which is a regular part of what governments funds to local government for roads; the Black Spot Program, which has been a bipartisan program for many years; and the Roads to Recovery Program, again, a program that has been supported by both sides of parliament for many years. When you look at that $100 billion, it includes a number of programs that have been around for a long, long period of time.
I particularly want to refer to the components of the so-called $100 billion plan that are off in the never-never—that are not within the forward estimates and that are not even within this election cycle let alone the other. If you refer to Budget Paper No. 1 on pages 1 to 16, we know two of the biggest projects are well and truly off in the never-never. Minister, can you confirm for the parliament that only three per cent of the $1.6 billion budgeted for the M1 Pacific Motorway extension to Raymond Terrace in New South Wales will in fact be available in the next four years? That is, only three per cent of the funding is budgeted. Can you also confirm that work on the South Geelong to Waurn Ponds rail upgrade in Victoria won't commence until at least July 2024?
The so-called $100 billion infrastructure program also doesn't add up. It relies on projects that frankly are not adequately budgeted for and that are also not supported by state governments. Minister, why do you persist on including the Perth Freight Link and the East West Link in Victoria when these are not supported by state governments and certainly not supported by some of the communities that they actually go through? Why does your plan fail to include sufficient funds for major projects like the Geelong fast rail, which do require much more than you have actually budgeted for?
Thirdly, the government continuously promises and underdelivers. Six years into their term, they haven't even been able to deliver what they promised. We've seen an underspend in the infrastructure budget by $5.1 billion dollars. Again, this budget forecasts that there will be a $252 million underspend for last year's infrastructure program. With this dismal record, I ask: how can the Australian people have any confidence that you will deliver what you forecast, and how much of the so-called projected budget surplus in the final budget outcome will be because of underspends in this portfolio?
I will go on to talk about a couple of other programs, in particular the Urban Congestion Fund and the Roads of Strategic Importance, announced with grand ambitions almost 18 months ago now. The minister for urban infrastructure last night publicly confirmed that construction has not commenced on even a single project under that fund. I ask the minister: how can this government claim to be serious about addressing urban infrastructure when not one single Urban Congestion Fund project has even started construction? Noting your fairly weak response on the news last night, can you please advise exactly which projects will be started before Christmas? I will continue on the Roads of Strategic Importance in my next contribution, but again I'll be asking the minister: when will they be starting? (Time expired)
I'm pleased to speak on these appropriate bills in greater detail and to consider the positive impact of the government's forward-thinking decentralisation agenda in the budget and the positive impact in my own electorate of Cowper.
In the Cowper electorate, decentralisation of government services is a key driver in building our economy and boosting our employment. It delivers benefits to our community as well as increased services and more consumers in our regional economy. Introducing government services in regions and investing in our regional infrastructure provides the incentives and the confidence to encourage private enterprise to expand, relocate or even start up in our regions. Regional locations offer more than just workforce benefits. They also offer reduced rents and lower home prices, making relocation a cost-effective solution for businesses and their people—a valuable workforce of people, who will be warmly welcomed into regional sporting clubs and community groups.
The government's decentralisation is strategically planned, and opportunities have been identified by government departments and agencies to better connect them to the communities and the citizens they serve. In this budget, 191 positions will be established or moved in decentralisation opportunities which are targeted to locations. Regional development offices should be located in regional Australia. That makes good sense. Of course, Indigenous services need to be closer to the forefront of large and active Indigenous communities. This makes good sense. For instance, Coffs Harbour is an identified location for some of the 35 budgeted positions from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's Indigenous Affairs. The group is to relocate from Canberra, and we look forward to welcoming these staff in due course. My electorate has significant numbers of Indigenous people, an active land council and Indigenous services. They are already operating in our communities, so there is greater opportunity for networking and sharing of resources from this relocation. It makes good sense.
Among the other budgeted 191 positions to relocate from Canberra to regional Australia are 10 staff from Indigenous Business Australia. We already have one of the four New South Wales Indigenous Business Australia offices in Coffs Harbour, supporting the development of Indigenous business. This makes us an ideal location for some of these relocating staff.
Some years ago, my predecessor the Hon. Luke Hartsuyker secured a Centrelink call centre in Coffs Harbour. This regional office is one of the decentralisation success stories of the government, reporting high productivity, low absenteeism and low turnover. Most importantly for Coffs Harbour, the Centrelink call centre meant 350 new jobs as well as the hundreds who worked on the construction of the Centrelink building. Indeed, two months ago the Minister for Regional Services, Decentralisation and Local Government, the Hon. Mark Coulton, and our Deputy Prime Minister attended Coffs Harbour and opened the new regional head office of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. In time, 50 staff will work at the new Australian Maritime Safety Authority regional headquarters in Coffs Harbour, and the move makes sense on so many levels. The most obvious difference is geography; the relocation brings AMSA much closer to the maritime industry it serves. Our regional commercial vessel operators and seafarers can now deal with local AMSA staff for their vehicle registrations, survey certificates and licensing without the need to travel to Newcastle. Not only is it providing 50 new jobs in a community which needs these jobs it also has an important flow-on effect to our economy. This brings much needed additional spending to our region, and the new people—especially partners with their own skill sets—add to our social capital.
It is very easy to speak of my own electorate of Cowper. It continues to benefit from this government's investment in our regional infrastructure and services and its ongoing commitment to making our regions better places to work, live and do business. The rollout of the NBN is connecting businesses to the world. We are located on a major highway halfway between the major capitals of Sydney and Brisbane. Coffs Harbour will soon benefit from a bypass and will only be hours from Brisbane; Port Macquarie is only four hours from Sydney.
So I ask the minister to update the House on what else is planned under the 2019-20 budget to further decentralise government services, and the likely benefits of these initiatives.
Going to the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative, if you go to last year's Budget Paper No. 2, there were four key corridors announced last year, with further projects to be announced before the election. However, we know from the questions on notice provided by the government just a couple of days ago that, so far, out of those projects, only a small project in Tasmania has in fact commenced. Again, this was a fund the government had announced, with great fanfare, out of which they were going to be funding these projects, yet we have so far seen only one commence. My question, of course, is: how can the government claim to be serious about delivering vital infrastructure when it has so far been able to commence only one small project under Roads of Strategic Importance? In particular, will construction on any other projects commence before Christmas?
I want to sum up on this component. This so-called infrastructure, frankly, fails to paper over six years of inaction from this government. Analysis from Infrastructure Partnerships Australia in fact confirms that infrastructure spending as a proportion of the general government expenditure will fall to 1.37 per cent over the forward estimates. That is down from 1.46 per cent over the last decade. Ministers, how do you explain this independent analysis that, on your watch, infrastructure spending as a proportion of general government expenditure is actually going down and will be weaker over the forward years than in the past decade? Ministers, I trust that you will confirm that, in terms of your infrastructure plan, much of the funding is off the out years and onto the never-never. The program does not actually add up. You can't deliver what you have promised. Only one project is under construction under the Strategic Roads of Importance and none are under the Urban Congestion Fund, and funding for infrastructure will fall as a proportion of general revenue.
I also want to go to what has been fairly topical in the portfolio since the election, and that is the weakness in the economy and the importance of infrastructure in bringing good, strong economic development forward to stimulate the economy. We know that Australia is facing its slowest economic growth in a decade. We have stagnant wages, record household debt, high underemployment and declining living standards. I cannot understand why this government continues to wilfully ignore the advice of the Reserve Bank governor to bring forward infrastructure projects. I particularly was very surprised to see the Treasury put out a PowerPoint presentation attempting to debunk the claims of the Reserve Bank governor in relation to the need to bring forward infrastructure spending. In July, after the Reserve Bank governor had three times called for the government to act and twice cut interest rates, the Treasurer provided an 18-slide lecture for the RBA governor on why the government did not need to bring forward infrastructure spending.
What I'd like to know, ministers, is: were you consulted? Did the Treasurer consult you about the development of this slideshow, and do you share the Treasurer's view that, under your government's watch, there is 'no stock of shovel-ready projects'? And do you share the Treasurer's view that maintenance funding on your watch has not kept pace with new construction spending? That is from that PowerPoint presentation. I note that the Treasurer's intervention did not deter the Reserve Bank governor—and nor should it—as he went on to say:
… I encourage governments to look at the possibility of a series of smaller projects.
And he said:
… there is scope to do more across the country …
Of course, in the days after the governor's appearance, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he would be happy to work with any government to bring projects forward, but then we had the Prime Minister saying that we are hitting our heads on the ceiling in relation to this capacity. There seems to be a contradiction within the government about whether we can bring forward the infrastructure projects or not. Again, we've had the Prime Minister saying there is no capacity. I think that's not the experience of the Master Builders Association. I ask the ministers if they could give the House an update of their understanding of the actual capacity across the country— (Time expired)
The government is committed to a practical planned decentralisation agenda to support the growth of our regional areas and to better connect the government agencies and communities to the citizens they serve. I acknowledge the contribution from the member for Cowper and remind the House that I was pleased to be there with the Deputy Prime Minister a month or two ago to open the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's premises in Coffs Harbour that will create 50 full-time jobs in that town.
Since 2013, over 1,700 positions have been established or relocated outside Canberra, inner Sydney or inner Melbourne, including over 1,000 positions relocated to regional Australia to support local employment and economic diversification in communities. Approximately 14 per cent of the Australian Public Service staff are now located in regional Australia, up from 12 per cent in 2012.
Under the decentralisation agenda the Australian government departments and agencies have undertaken a thorough assessment of their functions to identify opportunities to locate appropriate functions and staff closer to communities and to relieve the pressure on capital cities. I'll give some examples: 76 positions are to be relocated within in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority from Canberra to Griffith, Mildura, Murray Bridge and Goondiwindi. Just to note, there's also a Murray-Darling Basin Authority, a Commonwealth government authority, living permanently in Menindee, and the job that he is doing in helping that community through difficult issues around the drought and the state of the river has been an immense advantage to that community.
So 25 Department of Infrastructure, Transport and Cities and Regional Development positions will move to Orange, and Indigenous Business Australia will relocate 20 Canberra based positions to regional offices in Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's Indigenous Affairs Group will relocate 35 positions from Canberra to Broome, Coffs Harbour and Alice Springs. New Comcare offices will be established in Darwin, 20 positions; and Launceston, 10 positions, including staff transferred from existing offices and new positions advertised in the local area. The Australian Financial Security Authority will move 15 Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne based positions to Perth, Hobart and Adelaide.
You can see that government departments are all doing their share of the lifting to move people to undertake services on behalf of the Australian government in the communities they serve. But there are other ways to encourage decentralisation. Infrastructure is one, and obviously I will leave it to my other colleagues to speak more on that.
I will touch on Inland Rail because some of the things the member for Ballarat said about the sluggish pipeline for infrastructure just don't ring true. At the moment between Narromine and Parkes, in the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate and mine, I think there are 600 people now constructing the Inland Rail. Over the period of the project, 16,000 jobs will be created on the 1,700 kilometres of Inland Rail. Despite the fact that the member for Ballarat and others are quite happy to play politics with this project, it is progressing. In the Moree to North Star area at the moment, sleepers, steel and the planning work in that section are taking place.
But decentralisation is actually more than that. It's important, if we are going to get people to move to regional Australia, that we make sure that the services are there. The other part of my portfolio is regional health, communications and education—all those things are important to encourage people to move either from the large metropolitan areas or from overseas. If people have the willingness to work and the skills to move to a regional area, migrants are more than welcome in regional Australia, and indeed in my own area now we have a DAMA that's going to bring skilled migrants into the Orana region around Dubbo.
Infrastructure is a broad approach, but the idea—and I wish the Labor Party would not keep talking down our economy, because speaking to WorkPac, a labour hire company in Brisbane, a couple of weeks ago, they said they employ 11,000 people around regional Australia and have identified thousands of jobs to come that we're going to fill. The problem we're facing with decentralisation is to encourage people to take up the opportunities that are there, and they are there in the hundreds and the thousands. (Time expired)
I'm glad you've gone to Inland Rail, because I've got some questions particularly around some of the funding mechanisms that the government is utilising for its infrastructure pipeline, particularly in relation to Inland Rail. Frankly, there has been very little detail released about when the spending will take place for some projects. In particular, some of the equity funding claims the government has made do need some testing.
From a response to questions on notice released earlier this year, I understand that there are five off-budget infrastructure projects in the government's program, on which, with total equity allocations of some $13.457 billion over the decade from 2028-29, I note the government has not released how much off-budget infrastructure spending it forecasts for 2019-20. I would appreciate a response to that. Nor has the government frankly been transparent about when projects will and are expected to pay a return on investment. There are estimates floating around of off-budget infrastructure spending this financial year of $1.7 billion and others of $3.3 billion. We do need some transparency. This is a very important part of the financing mechanisms you have utilised to make some of the claims you are making. There does need to be some transparency. Can you provide this chamber with some clarity on your forecast expenditure for each offset, off-budget project each year over the decade? Can you also provide the chamber with detailed analysis of how each of these projects will deliver a commercial return to government? And, very importantly, when will that return be realised? Failing to provide the chamber with this information only serves to undermine public confidence in this as a funding mechanism.
Of the five projects, I'm particularly interested in Inland Rail. We supported Inland Rail in government with almost a billion dollars from the Labor government to get it going. After four years, frankly, of not doing very much at all, the government then finally injected $8.4 billion of equity into the ARTC to progress it. We were happy to see that, but experts after experts have raised questions about the likelihood of the project providing a commercial return in the near future. In particular, we have had the Deputy Prime Minister's predecessor, John Anderson, as well as Infrastructure Australia, the former CEO of the ARTC, the former secretary the department and others all raise concerns or issues about that. We know that in 2015 the Inland Rail Implementation Group noted that the government would not be likely to see a return for at least 50 years, and substantial public funding is going to be required to properly deliver and finish the project.
Deputy Prime Minister, I'm not asking you to hold it up at all. I am asking for proper scrutiny of what is a very important project. There should be proper scrutiny on the way in which the government is implementing a billion dollar project, and that's the job of this parliament and the job of the opposition.
Deputy Prime Minister, why do you refuse to be transparent about the viability of your government's equity injection into the ARTC for Inland Rail? The equity financing model isn't our only concern with Inland Rail. Obviously, we have seen a number of concerns about communities along the route. They've been seeking to get a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, including the New South Wales farmers federation and others. I understand you cancelled a meeting just recently. I hope that you will meet with them fairly shortly.
Briefly, I also want to mention what is happening with the Infrastructure and Project Financing Agency. We were surprised to see that quietly moved over into Treasury. The biggest project that the government has is obviously Inland Rail. We've repeatedly raised concerns that the IPFA does duplicate some of the work of Infrastructure Australia, particularly now with the abolition of the Building Australia Fund. There are concerns about the viability of Infrastructure Australia to bring forward and develop projects and to fund those projects. Frankly, it did seem to me that you had seen a bit of a failure of confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister, moving IPFA away and dragging it over into the Treasury into Minister Tudge's portfolio. Can you explain what the reason behind moving IPFA to Treasury actually was?
The agricultural industry in my electorate of Mallee contributes approximately $4.2 billion towards the economy, largely driven by cropping, horticulture and livestock. It is the biggest industry and largest employer in Mallee, and without agriculture most of the towns in Mallee would not exist.
There are undeniable challenges in agriculture right now. Some challenges are more recent, such as farm invaders who defy the rights of farmers to operate their legitimate businesses. These activists target farmers in the privacy of their homes, creating risk to their families, their stock and their livelihoods and causing them to live in fear. The aim of these terrorists is to shut down the agriculture sector. I'm proud to say that last week the Liberal-National government stood up for farmers and passed laws that will punish those who incite criminal acts.
Another perpetual challenge that farmers experience is the variability of weather. The decision to plant or not to plant is a gamble that farmers must make annually. In northern Mallee, in the Millewa, our producers are experiencing the worst drought since settlement. The impacts have been severe, with many destocking and not planting at all. The farmers from the Millewa have come to me for support. It is nothing short of devastating.
I've spoken with the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, Mr Littleproud, and asked for further support for the farmers of the Millewa. I want to commend the work that the Australian government is doing so far in providing significant funding aid in current drought responses and developing future-ready approaches to prepare for future droughts. So far, over $7 billion has been committed in assistance, including: the Future Drought Fund, $5 billion in 2020, allowing for a drawdown of $100 million per year for drought response and resilience; the establishment of the Regional Investment Corporation for low-interest loans; the farm household allowance; $77 million for rural financial counselling services; and $110 million for the Drought Communities Program, which has provided $1 million to declared council areas as defined by the data calculated in the office of the minister. This funding expenditure is for infrastructure spending to keep economies ticking over in difficult times.
In addition to the designated Drought Communities Program is the Drought Community Support Initiative, which is delivered in those same shires through the great work of the Salvation Army, the CWA, St Vincent De Paul and Rotary. The Drought Communities Program has provided key support to 110 shires across Australia, and, in particular, I want to highlight three local government councils in Mallee who have benefited from this program: Buloke Shire Council, Yarriambiack Shire Council and Mildura Rural City Council.
The Drought Communities Program provides immediate economic stimulus in drought-affected communities by funding targeted local infrastructure projects and drought relief activities to provide employment opportunities for people experiencing hardship. The people of Mallee have seen local projects which create local jobs and sustain local communities.
This funding will allow Councillor Carolyn Stewart, the mayor of Buloke Shire, to deliver a range of community infrastructure priorities derived from the community plans, including: a drought and climate change farming event; infrastructure upgrades which include several new roadside rest facilities at Nandaly, Berriwillock, Culgoa, Nullawil and Wycheproof; another fabulous silo art at Sea Lake; urban art and street murals at Charlton; upgrades to the clubhouse at Donald Pony Club; improvements to the irrigation system at the Birchip Community Leisure Centre; and upgrades to local halls, including the Watchem Hall. These projects encourage visitors to the regions, increase community participation and, importantly, provide employment opportunities for locals.
Further to the vital community support for drought-affected communities, the Nationals understand the need for decentralisation and are committed to it. That is why I, and many of the irrigators in my electorate, welcome the move to establish 20 Murray-Darling Basin Authority staff in Mildura close to the junction of the Murray and the Darling. It is only through this process of decentralisation, where key decision-makers live in the regions where the impacts of their decisions are being felt, that we will see change. I commend the work of the minister in this space of decentralisation and water oversight. With that said, Minister, I ask: could you please provide an update on the rollout of the highly successful Drought Communities Program?
I'm very concerned about the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure because whenever he talks about my home region—the fastest-growing and one of the biggest regions in the country, Western Sydney—he has three knowledge touch points: Parramatta, Mulgoa Road and Badgerys Creek airport. So I want to ask a series of questions of him to understand what he's actually intending to do for the rest of the region.
Firstly, does he know what Google Maps is? Secondly, does he ever use it? Thirdly, can he please use it to chart a car trip from Mount Druitt to Parramatta? Next, can he confirm that even his own bodies say that that trip, from Mount Druitt to Parramatta on the M4, is one of the major congestion points in the country—traffic jams that hold people up continually. The next question: can he indicate whether or not he believes that the reimposition of tolls on the M4 by the New South Wales Liberal government has created, in part, this traffic jam, because people will not use the new extensions on the M4 because of those tolls, and so they get off at Parramatta to avoid those tolls.
I would also ask, does he have any plans to co-invest with the state government to alleviate what has been identified by his own bodies as a major traffic jam affecting people in Western Sydney? Does he know that in north-west Sydney, 150,000 people will be moving into that part of Western Sydney over the next few years? Can he identify actual financed projects that will help people move more easily in that part of Western Sydney? Can he tell us whether or not he will upgrade and widen major arterial roads like Richmond and Windsor Road in that part of Western Sydney to help people move easier?
Does the government have any money to commence the build of the M9 motorway that will run parallel to the M7? Does the government have any money to help build connecting railways from Rouse Hill to St Marys, other than just doing the St Marys to Badgerys Creek rail line? Does he know that residents in my electorate have to put up with being late—using public transport on the T1 railway line that affects people between Parramatta and Penrith—and they will be late three out of five days a week coming home using public transport there? Will he work with the New South Wales government to invest in establishing expressways on the T1 line, to improve travel for people that use that rail line between Parramatta and Penrith? The next question I would ask is: will he support our action with the Australian Human Rights Commission to take on the New South Wales government for failing to upgrade public transport infrastructure that currently breaches federal disability law, in that it has no lifts that would allow the disabled or elderly to use public transport in their own local area.
Now, given those questions, it's clear that whenever the federal government talks about infrastructure they only talk about a few things in the area, and they have no conceivable, concrete plans to deal with known bottlenecks, be it on roadways or public transport, and they simply have no plan for the massive growth that is happening in north-west Sydney. There is no plan whatsoever, nothing that has been thought of or even financed, that will help people move more easily in our part of Western Sydney. Given all that, is it true that the idea that the coalition government has put forward of a 30-minute commute—a 30-minute city—is just a fantasy or media spin, and will never actually happen in the lifetime of any person that is in this room right now?
It's a pleasure to rise and speak in this consideration in detail stage of the infrastructure, cities and population portfolio. It's pleasing to see the senior minister here, the Deputy Prime Minister, as well as my electoral neighbour, the Assistant Minister for Roads and Transport, and the Minister for Cities, Infrastructure and Population. All three have been regular visitors to my electorate of Forde. The reason they are regular visitors to my electorate is because it's one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia. In that vein, I want to thank all three of them for the work they have done constructively with me, over the past six years that we've been in government, to ensure that we address the issues that my community is facing, and that I know the member for Wright, the Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport, is facing in his part of the world—we share a border—in terms of rapid urban development and the consequent shortfalls in infrastructure.
All of this can be done because we as a government over the past six years have sought to build a budget that has the capacity in it to fund infrastructure projects, and not just the big ticket items such as the M1, which I know both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure have been frequent visitors to. They are probably more than tired of hearing me talk to them about it, but I'll remind them both, while I've got the opportunity, that there's still more work to be done. I'm sure you're both pleased to hear about that!
But I'm very pleased about the projects we have in place today. One of the reasons I'm very pleased about the projects we have today is that, as part of our $100 billion infrastructure pipeline, we have succeeded in achieving a commitment from the federal government for the three stages of the M1 from the Gateway Motorway to the Logan Motorway and for the two stages from Mudgeeraba to the border, which is a little bit further south from my patch but I know impacts the member for Wright.
The reason it's important that we've committed that funding and put that funding on the table is that those projects can now be done in a sequential manner. The consequence of those projects being done in a sequential manner is that we see the costs of stages 2 and 3 of those projects coming in a little bit under what we originally estimated, and so it gives us the capacity to do more in the Infrastructure portfolio than we'd originally planned. That was always my argument to my colleagues: if we put that money on the table and do the projects sequentially, we're going to get better value for money for the taxpayers' dollars being spent, and we can get more infrastructure being built. So I'm very pleased that we've been able to achieve this for the electorate of Forde and for the other electorates surrounding me.
I want to touch on some of the smaller community projects that we as a government have succeeded in delivering for the electorate of Forde, including through our Stronger Communities Program, which has seen some $600-odd thousand worth of Commonwealth funding going into the electorate, producing some $1.6 million of projects across the electorate, from small projects at schools and community centres to a new truck for our Rural Fire Service and a whole range of projects that have assisted our community groups build their capacity to continue to serve our community.
More recently, there have been some of our election commitments to developing our sporting clubs. In an area that's growing rapidly, we see the need for our sporting infrastructure to keep growing to meet the pace of that community growth. Whether it's the $600,000 we provided to Ormeau Shearers Rugby League club or the $350,000 upgrade to the clubhouse facilities at Loganholme Lightning FC and a range of other clubs across the community, we're starting to see the benefits of those commitments.
My question to the ministers here is: why is it so important that we maintain a strong budget and continue to fund these community projects to deliver results for our local communities? How do these deliver jobs and get people home sooner and safer but also strengthen our communities by providing local community facilities?
I'm sure that the minister would agree with me that water is not just another commodity. It's one of our most precious resources. In water policy and water management, what is needed is a focus on what's in the national interest. When it comes to making sure that there is confidence in water policy and water management, the national interest must always be considered. That's vital not just for our national economy but also for protecting our Australian way of life. A range of issues like fish kills, speculators in the water markets, the inadequacies in scientific measurement across the Murray-Darling Basin, the real fear and suffering caused by the prospect of towns running out of water, controversy about the application of government programs and some of the reporting we've seen in that regard, have all contributed to plunging public confidence in the coalition's capacity to deliver water policy and manage water in Australia. In relation to the Murray-Darling Basin specifically, I'm sure the minister would agree with me that the sustainability of the basin is critical to the future of our communities and to our entire nation and that action is needed and is needed now.
I want to kick off by asking: given the National Party's Federal Council decision to abandon the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and to oppose the recovery of 450 gigalitres being returned to the basin, does the minister and does the government still support the plan? Will the minister distance himself from the National Party Federal Council decision or does he intend to do that council's bidding and abandon key elements of the plan? If so, what is the minister's and this government's policy and plan for the Murray-Darling Basin? I also raise—and I flagged it earlier in these remarks—the issue of water speculation. I know the minister is well aware that there has been a substantial amount of reporting in relation to big speculators in the water markets. When will the government stop passing the buck on water speculation and take action? We have had significant reports that water speculation may be driving up water prices and creating significant issues for farmers and communities in the Murray-Darling Basin, and this does require serious action from the federal government. If it is the case that water barons are hoarding billions of litres of water, that will ultimately inflate prices and further hurt farmers, communities and the environment.
On 7 August 2019, the government announced that it would direct the ACCC to conduct an inquiry into markets for tradeable water rights in the Murray-Darling Basin. The ACCC has been asked to recommend options to enhance markets for tradeable water rights including options to enhance their operations, transparency, regulation, competitiveness and efficiency. The interim report is due by the end of May 2020. The government has directed the ACCC that the inquiry does not extend to seeking to identify the social and economic impact of water trading on communities in the Murray-Darling Basin. Minister, when will submissions to this ACCC inquiry be invited? And, with concerns being raised about speculators hoarding water and driving up the price of water entitlements, why does the government think that competition in the water market should be the subject of an inquiry but that the social and economic impact of water trading on communities should not?
I turn to the appointment of an inspector-general in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin. On 1 August 2019, the minister announced the creation of an inspector-general for the Murray-Darling Basin. The minister stated that the inspector-general role would be established through an amendment to the Water Act 2007. He subsequently announced the appointment of Mr Mick Keelty AO APM as the interim inspector-general. Mr Keelty had previously begun a three-year term as the Northern Basin Commissioner on 11 September. In his release, the minister described the inspector-general as a tough new cop on the beat across the Murray-Darling with the powers needed to ensure the integrity and delivery of the Basin Plan, but the minister also admitted that the legislation to amend the Water Act to create the position is not expected to pass the parliament until next year. He said that, even though his media release somewhat defensively stated that the announcement had been in train for months. Minister, is it not true that, until the amendment to the Water Act is passed, the office of inspector-general has no statutory basis, is not an authority and has no statutory powers? (Time expired)
I thank the member for Griffith for her questions. I acknowledge that she is new to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the complexities of it. The essence of this is that she answered her own question in relation to what we are doing about water traders. We went to the ACCC straightaway. They are the vehicle that should investigate whether this market has evolved to a point where there is an imbalance in it. And when there were further allegations made by the Almond Board of Australia and other users, we referred that specific matter to the ACCC for immediate investigation.
The ACCC have been given terms of reference that they have been asked to clearly follow, and they will open up that investigation for any interested party to make a submission and they will come back to me, I expect, with interim findings within 12 months. But we won't see a final report until 18 months. That's the way we should do it—in a calm and methodical manner. This is an important aspect where governments should not interfere in a marketplace unless there is an imbalance, because there are unintended consequences. You have to understand that, if the big arm of government comes in, like those opposite want it to, there are people and farming families out there that have licenses and allocations that their banks are lending to them against and so it is important we make sure that any reform is methodical and is in concert with the states. That's why it is important that it's not just the federal government that owns this. That's the thing I brought to water policy when I became minister. I stopped the shouting and worked in a collegiate manner with the states, and we have achieved a lot over the last 18 months—the Northern Basin Review, the sustainable diversion limit and an agreement on the 450-gigalitre up-water, which I will get to as it is important . That was akin to getting peace in the Middle East. Let me tell you: that was a big step forward in the delivery of this plan.
We have delivered 80 per cent of this plan. The last 20 per cent can be delivered through infrastructure, not by going anywhere near farmers. That's the exciting part of where we are, despite the pain that this has caused. You talked about the economic and social impacts this plan has had. What you might not have picked up on, Member for Griffith, is that I also have an independent panel for the first time in the basin's history working around the basin to get a granular understanding of the social and economic impacts on these communities. This is not government or the MDBA but an independent panel. In fact we have just announced $3.2 million for them to get some professional assistance to make sure that they get a full understanding on, 'How do we equip these communities that have been seriously impacted to be able to recover, and what tools do we need to provide them with?'
The other question you asked was around the inspector-general. Yes, legislation is required. Mick Keelty, who is the interim inspector-general, can take that rollup in an interim capacity until the legislation is completed. But what you may not have read out of the ministerial council dialogue was that the states wish to be consulted in the final consultation. I gave that commitment because we have not achieved what we have today without the agreement of the states. That consultation is being started now between the departments and the states, and that is how it should be. We will make sure the states have a say in that. That's very important.
You talked about the science and the fish-kill events. Well, we've also acted on that. We have announced $20 million only in the last couple of weeks to expand on the science that we have around the Murray-Darling Basin. We've had 114 years of science and climate data to feed into the plan. We are putting in another $20 million to update that. We are making sure we understand the complexities of this. The Deputy Prime Minister was there on Saturday. We are proud to be part of a broad church in the National Party, where there is a diversity of ideas. But one of the challenges of removing the 450 gigalitres, as you would know, Member for Griffith, is that you remove the sustainable diversion limit. The sustainable diversion limit was tied to the 450 figure. Unfortunately, if you take away the 450 figure, you take away the sustainable diversion limit, which effectively means that the balance of the plan to be recovered cannot be done through the smarts of the 21st century, the infrastructure. It has to be done through the blunt instrument of buybacks. That is something that, as someone who lives in the basin and has seen the decimation of our community, I cannot go towards because it has hurt so many people's lives. But we have an opportunity to complete this, the biggest environmental program in our nation's history.
We are 80 per cent of the way there. We've got the heavy lifting done. It's now just time to back ourselves with the smarts of the 21st century and complete it with infrastructure, not buybacks.
It's interesting that the minister would try to talk about peace in the Middle East when he can't even get peace in the National Party. Maybe start a little smaller, Minister! You've had the federal council make the decision it has, and you are well aware of it. But I might also say that, in terms of the question of the inspector-general, the minister seems to have acknowledged that, in the absence of legislation, the inspector-general has no statutory authority and has no statutory powers. In other words, he doesn't have a tough cop on the beat. What he has is someone who lacks statutory powers. For an announcement that has been in train 'for months', it seems to be very, very underdone.
Of course the minister ought to be consulting in relation to the powers, but he also ought to get his skates on, because he gave this release on 1 August and still no draft legislation has been provided for consideration. As he well knows, the inspector-general requires statutory powers to become a tough cop on the beat. We all want to see a tough cop on the beat. The question is: when will he have those powers? I also ask the minister: since his release of 1 August indicated that the inspector-general would, in his capacity as a tough cop on the beat, be able to refer issues to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission, once it's established, given that the government has not yet tabled legislation to establish the Commonwealth Integrity Commission and given that we therefore do not even know what jurisdiction the commission will have to investigate misconduct in the basin and given the government's recent decision to vote against legislation seeking to establish the Commonwealth Integrity Commission and, Minister, given your release indicates that your inspector-general appointment will be—
Mr Tudge interjecting—
Well, you referred especially to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission; it's a quote from your own release, Minister. When will the bill to establish the Commonwealth Integrity Commission be tabled in the parliament and what jurisdiction does the government expect the Commonwealth Integrity Commission to have in relation to allegations of misconduct made in connection with the basin? I ask the minister those questions on the basis of his own media release, in which he referred to that commission being established. Minister, in relation to the question of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission, when can we expect to see the bill tabled in the parliament? In relation to the inspector-general, when can we expect to see a bill tabled that will confer, finally, some actual statutory powers on the inspector-general?
The minister referred to the issue of science and the basin, and the minister would agree, I'm sure, that tested, peer reviewed, independent science is at the heart of solutions in the basin. I ask this question because climate change is a significant issue. It's a driver of water availability, and water availability is very important in the context of this policy area. Despite the minister's subsequent assertion in the House, why did the minister recently and very clearly, in two separate interviews with separate media outlets, state that he didn't know whether man-made climate change was real? This is an important issue. If we've got a water minister who doesn't believe in man-made climate change, I could see why he'd be defensive about these questions. I could see why he wouldn't want to be asked these questions. If he is on two different media outlets denying that man-made climate change is real or maybe just saying he doesn't even know—'I don't know if it's real or not'—that's a relevant question that can be put to the minister.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The minister and the member for Ballarat will contain themselves.
Ultimately, Minister, you can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. Basin communities and communities across this country can't afford to see science devolve into a separate political science with separate facts tailored to sectional interests. We need genuine scientific inspection of these issues and we need a minister who actually puts science and facts at the centre of the discussions about climate change.
I note that the minister said that he ended the shouting with the state governments. Why, in that case, when this government has failed to provide the national leadership required to ensure water security, has the minister been all over the news recently, pointing as many fingers as he possibly can to blame state governments collectively for a lack of water security?
Mr Tudge interjecting—
Well, I was talking about water security. If you were talking about ending the shouting with state governments, Minister, I think the question about why you are now pointing fingers as much as you can at every state government you can think of to blame them in relation to the issue of water security is relevant. The minister is obviously now trying to deflect attention from his own lack of action. (Time expired)
Can I thank all the members for their questions this afternoon, and let me try to address at least a few of them. I'll start by addressing one of the core issues from the member for Ballarat, and that is what projects the government has underway right now. What I can confirm is that we have a $100 billion pipeline of projects over 10 years, but this year alone we are spending almost $10 billion on transport infrastructure. That means there are 130 major projects underway as we speak. I have the entire list here. It would take me the full five minutes to go through every single one of these projects. It includes the Pacific Highway, WestConnex, the Northern Road, Bruce Highway, the Northern Connector, the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, NorthLink WA, the M80 Ring Road, the Monash Freeway upgrade et cetera. I could literally spend every single one of my minutes going through the 130 major projects underway right now. On top of those major projects, we also have 166 smaller-scale projects under the Urban Congestion Fund. As the member for Ballarat knows, that funding largely started in this financial year, which was literally just 2½ months ago. That is 166 projects. We have work going on on every single one of them, and construction will begin later this year, before Christmas, on the initial ones.
What I can tell the member for Ballarat, though, in terms of projects which aren't underway—and I know she is concerned about that—is there are two very big ones which are not underway. She mentioned those in her comments. The first, which she would know exceptionally well, being a Victorian, is the East West Link, which we want to see built. We have the full government share of the funding needed to get that project built. All we need is for the state government to give the green light for it to go ahead. That would mean that 80,000 motorists who get stuck on the Eastern Freeway today would have a better commute in. It would also support the member for Ballarat's constituents. Maybe she should ask them because if they're trying to get across to the other side of Melbourne, they would benefit also from the East West Link. I would encourage her to use her position to actively lobby the state government to get on with the job of actually building the East West Link and stop opposing this. The second one that she mentioned was, of course, on row 8 and row 9—another project for which we have considerable funds on the table, ready to get the job done—which would take an enormous amount of traffic, particularly freight traffic, off some of the major roads in the south of Perth. We want to get it done. We have the money there as a contingent liability so that we can get those projects done.
The member for Ballarat mentioned Geelong fast rail, another project. We have $2 billion. We're wanting to get on with that. She says we haven't got sufficient money. It is a $10 billion project. Six billion dollars is already accounted for out of the Melbourne Airport rail link. That leaves $4 billion remaining. We've put up half—$2 billion—and we're working constructively with the state government to get on with the job. They share our aspiration for Geelong fast rail to be done.
I will mention two other things in the time available. She said to bring forward infrastructure projects. She mentioned the RBA governor. I wish she'd listen more closely in question time, because the RBA governor himself said to the House of Representatives economics committee, 'Can I just clarify something: I have not called on the government to do fiscal expansion.' Having said that, the Prime Minister has written to every single Premier and said, 'If you have projects which can be brought forward, please let us know,' because at the end of the day it is the state governments which set the construction schedule. We have money there. If they can bring projects forward, we said we'd consider bringing them forward, just as we did with Premier Andrews recently in providing extra money to get on with the job for the Monash Freeway, starting early next year. They're the type of projects which we want to get underway.
Finally, in my last remaining seconds, I will mention the WestConnex project. I mentioned this in parliament today. I do not understand why they are so opposed to WestConnex, why they think the M4 tunnel is 'a road to nowhere', as Leader of the Opposition said. It is a great project saving motorists a huge amount of time every single day.
It's just become very interesting because earlier in the afternoon I was unfortunately delayed for agricultural appropriations, and of course Minister Littleproud was here representing Minister McKenzie. He admonished me for being late. I rather advisedly pointed out to him that it's not wise to criticise members for not being present in the chamber at any given time because members just don't know what has caused the member to be late. I won't be too hard on Minister Littleproud; I'm not going to make the same mistake he made. Maybe the Deputy Prime Minister will be happy to answer questions on his behalf.
I want to start by inviting the Deputy Prime Minister to add to, and indeed authenticate, some of the answers Minister Littleproud gave me earlier in the afternoon. Obviously, I'm going to indicate to the Deputy Prime Minister what those questions and answers were.
The first one is that, in what I thought was a pretty extraordinary response, when I asked why it is that the budget papers demonstrate or show that rural assistance funding is falling year on year, even though we are, of course, in the midst of what's probably our worst drought in history, Minister Littleproud said, 'Because the program is demand driven'. Think about that, Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie. Government funding for rural assistance is falling in the middle of a severe drought, and Minister Littleproud tells us that that's because the program is demand driven. Something doesn't add up there, and I'd be very interested to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister. Second, Minister Littleproud made an allegation that the Queensland government's drought funding has been cut. I'd invite ministers—any of them, for that matter—to authenticate that, to demonstrate that that is true because I believe it not to be true.
Now, while he is contemplating the answers to those questions, I'll remind him on behalf of farmers that this government refuses still to release the reports of the drought envoy and the drought coordinator. I don't need to pursue the drought envoy's report any longer because we just learnt in the Senate only minutes ago that there is no drought envoy report. My colleagues will be shocked that the drought envoy didn't produce a report.
There is a drought coordinator's report. We know this to be fact, and we've pursued it through an order for the production of documents in the Senate. But, surprise, surprise: we've been informed that the government isn't able to make that report available. This gets really interesting because on 9 June Minister Littleproud put out a scathing media release claiming that the Queensland government must make public its drought program review immediately. Indeed, Minister Littleproud said:
Taxpayers pay for this report and they have a right to see what it says.
Well, very sage words from Minister Littleproud. So I suggest that the government make available to the taxpayer the report they funded, undertook, developed and produced by Major General Day. And if they're not prepared to do that, they need to explain to the Australian people, and, in particular, farmers in rural communities, why it is they're not making that report public.
The report done by the Queensland government was authored by no less than the former CEO of Queensland Farmers', Ruth Wade, and the AgForce CEO Charles Burke—not paid –up members of the Labor Party. The Queensland government is proud of the report. They've embraced most of the recommendations, and that puts them in line with the agreement met with the Commonwealth on future drought programs. It makes them consistent with what Minister Littleproud has asked them to do. So they've done their work: they're released their report. Deputy Prime Minister, what has the government got to hide; and, on drought, when will you stop having committees and reports and actually just do something?
It is really good to speak here today in this consideration in detail stage on a very serious and important topic of road safety. Road safety is a story of both triumph and tragedy in Australia. We have had some quite incredible results in terms of bringing the road toll down. But, as anyone who works in the road safety space knows, we have a goal of zero deaths, and we won't be satisfied until we reach that.
Road safety is everyone's responsibility. It's not only road users, it's not only heavy vehicle drivers, it's not only mums and dads driving their kids to school, it's not only pedestrians and cyclists and every level of government. We all have some input into road safety. Certainly, in terms of our safe systems approach to road safety, all levels of government understand the vulnerabilities of people, and we have to design a road system around those, as well as ensuring our vehicle standards are such that we make vehicles that will save and protect people as best we can.
Our national road toll is somewhere over 1,200 for last calendar year. That is a shocking, shocking number. But it does represent something of a decrease in terms of deaths per 100,000. We are at 4.6 deaths per hundred thousand. Internationally, while we are certainly at the pointy end of that list of countries who are achieving good results on road safety, if you look at the countries above us, they are very, very different geographically. They are a lot more concentrated. These are the countries that don't have as many fatalities are we have. They are very concentrated populations. They haven't got over 900,000 kilometres of road like we have here in Australia to manage. When you think that some 550,000 kilometres of that is unsealed, and predominantly a 100 kilometre per hour speed limit, it is something of a minor miracle that we have the numbers that we have.
While talking about our achievements—and these achievements are owned by all sides of government over many, many decades—but we can never lose sight of the fact that one death is one death too many, and we need to always strive for zero fatalities. One of the frightening elements we face at the moment—and I know the Deputy Prime Minister is well aware of this because I've spoken to him personally about this—is the increasing rate of serious injuries on the roads. We are heading up to some 35,000 now.
We need to work together, and that's why the Deputy Prime Minister has formed a joint select committee which I'll be chairing. I understand that my parliamentary colleague and road safety advocate, Senator Alex Gallacher, will be helping me with that. I hope there is some bipartisan spirit associated with that, because both of us and our committee members really want to achieve.
The government, the Morrison-McCormack government, is doing great things in relation to road safety. We've appointed an Assistant Minister for Road Safety, Scott Buchholz. We've announced the joint select committee into road safety, and, very importantly, we have established a National Office of Road Safety. Many billions of dollars are being spent on infrastructure and our road network. We've got some 14,000 kilometres of national highway. That's the biggest national highway in the world of its type.
We have a lot more to do. I can proudly say as a former police officer, as a dad and as a regional person that lives in an area with a high rate of fatalities, both the previous coalition terms of government and the current one are delivering on infrastructure, particularly on the Bruce Highway. I would like the minister to elaborate further on what great things we are achieving in the space of building infrastructure that will save Australian lives, and make our economy prosper as well, into the future.
I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Wide Bay. I hope that, in the context of their joint parliamentary, committee they will be working with local government to talk about out how this government can help local government in the area of road safety. I know it's an issue which the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory is concerned about, and it's something about which they've made submissions to the federal government. It's very important that we understand that the primary deliverers of roads in this country are local roads, and it's, therefore, important that we work with local government. I would like to think—and I hope that the minister will give an undertaking—that in the context of this road safety review you will work closely with local government and do what you can to support local government, and I would ask what you will do.
I am sorry Minister Coulton's not here, but he did talk about the regionalisation of services, the allocation of new jobs going into the bush as a result of the government making decisions. I make this observation: they are just replacing jobs they cut. This is not something which is new. What they are doing is augmenting jobs in various government departments, and many of the jobs had disappeared as a result of deliberate decisions by the government. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to guarantee that the Department of Social Services will cut no further staff out of the department in regional Australia. One of the huge problems for people who live in the bush is access to the Department of Social Services and social security workers. This is important, because if you live in remote communities like I have in my area, people are asked to get on the phone, pay for it themselves, spend one to two hours waiting to get service from the Department of Social Services, from Centrelink officers. This is a problem which needs to be addressed, and I want to know what the government proposes to do about it. It's a cost being borne by people who can't afford to pay for those telephone calls, yet they are asked to do it because it's a 1800 number, but the number they are calling is one which they have to pay for.
The other thing I'd like to know is if the government can give an absolute guarantee that in the future it will not go around and again freeze financial assistance grants to local government. I know that the freeze has been lifted, but local government would like a guarantee that you have no intention in the future of again freezing local government grants. Again, I make the observation that the people who most need these local government grants are people in regional and remote Australia. The big cities—fine—they've got a heap of money and they've got a great big ratepayer base. If you live in a regional part of this country, affected by drought, floods and fire, your services are being called on all the time and your capacity to pay for them is undermined by the fact you don't have the ratepayer base nor the grants that you really do need from federal government to make things viable for you and your community. I think of my own communities in the Northern Territory, where the regional shires largely covering remote Aboriginal communities virtually have no ratepayer base at all. So we need an absolute guarantee you will fix up local government funding.
We talked about infrastructure funding already, but we know it has been put off for a long period of time into the future, being spent over 10 years, with most not coming till 2022-23. What is the government doing to realise the productive potential of Australia's freight routes? What is it doing to ensure that local government can promote equitable access to local government services? What is it doing to help local government across this country protect their communities from natural disasters? What's it doing to support local communities with the challenges of climate change? Local communities which bear this responsibility and have great difficulty doing this sort of work. What is the government doing to support communities on their digital transformation journeys? It's very clear that these are issues which challenge remote communities particularly but rural communities right across this country. If you are able to give us some guarantees on what you are going to do, that would provide some surety to the people around this country, who want to know that the government is working for them and not for itself.
I'd like to ask one further question if I may. When you are handing out contracts for huge developments around this country, what are you doing to maximise local engagement, local contracts, subcontracts and local employment and give priority to local workers?
I will keep my comments short, because the debate is going to mature at 5.30 and I want to give the Deputy Prime Minister the opportunity to respond to some of the earlier questions, which I know he has an appetite to do.
On the process of road safety and the questions I received from the member for Wide Bay: road safety is the responsibility of all of us. There is not one person in this parliament who is not joined at the hip with the same ideology of making sure that family members, employees, friends and family get home every night. We are absolutely united in that position, and we want to make sure that that evolves. I do acknowledge the work that the member for Wide Bay did as a law enforcement officer before coming to this place. Unfortunately, he was too often the first responder to fatal accidents on the Bruce Highway. Road accidents do have a lasting legacy for our first responders, and we need to be mindful of that.
What I can say to members present with reference to road safety is that whilst there is more to do, arguably the roads we drive on today are safer than they were 30 years ago. The cars that we drive, arguably, are safer than they were 30 years ago. I'd prompt the member for Lingiari, being one of the elder statesmen—I remember that cars came off the production line 30 years ago potentially without seatbelts in them. The progress that we have made here in Australia with the introduction not only of seatbelts but of airbags and electronic braking systems has transformed how motorists are being treated on the roads. In 1980, there were 22.3 deaths per 100,000 motorists on the road. In 2018, there were 4.6—the member for Wide Bay addressed that. We have made enormous progress, but there is more to do. We still experience 1,200 deaths per year and, while half of those might be through suicide, there is still more we and the government can do.
The Deputy Prime Minister now has carriage of road safety. An office of road safety has been set up, but we are not moving forward on this in singular. We are taking stakeholders with us. We are taking with us the Royal College of Surgeons, automobile clubs around Australia and up to 30 different stakeholders that the Deputy Prime Minister and I sat with in Sydney more recently. We met with these stakeholders and heard their concerns: pedestrian groups, cyclist groups and traffic controller groups. We are moving forward collectively, because we're going to produce the national strategy for road safety and we're going to make sure that the member for Lingiari's concerns around local government are a part of that process. We will be consulting with state governments and local governments. That is part of our process, which is underway at the moment.
Because of the time that's available to me, I'm going to cut to the chase with all of the rats and mice stuff, because everything that I was going to say about our $100 billion spend and the smaller programs is already on the record. The member for Ballarat asked a question around the Roads to Recovery Program, which I have carriage of. The question was about whether projects would be delivered or started by Christmas. It depends on your definition of 'started'. Consultation has actually started. There are $4.5 billion worth of funds for the project nationally, of which $1.7 billion is quarantined for northern Australia. We've done three lots of consultation in northern Australia—in Broome, Darwin and Townsville—in conjunction with local government, some of the peak bodies, the Minerals Council, transport operators and the state government and their engineering firms, because the Roads to Recovery Program will need 20 per cent co-contribution. We make sure that we have the states in the room, irrespective of their political persuasion, because they need to be part of the planning process. Yes, projects have started: consultation is under way and corridors have been identified. In Queensland, the government has an appetite to seal parts of road on the Hann Highway which are still dirt, because, when we do that productivity gain for the nation, we can take about 480 kilometres off the trip from Cairns to Melbourne by bringing vehicles down the inland road. In the member for Lingiari's home state, the Tanami Road was an area that was offered as a priority.
I note the time, which therefore means the so-called senior portfolio minister for this is not going to get an opportunity to respond to any of the questions that were asked of him.
I guess my question particularly goes to when I asked about the removal over into Treasury of some of the infrastructure funding mechanisms. Frankly, who is the minister for infrastructure? We've had Minister Tudge basically behave as if he is the senior minister for this portfolio, answering questions on the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative and the Urban Congestion Fund and some of the projects that are well outside either of those particular funds such as WestConnex et cetera. He appears to be the senior minister. What is it in the infrastructure portfolio, other than Inland Rail, which I understand is your signature project, that you actually do? It would appear you have become the junior minister when it comes to infrastructure. Frankly, it's a bit hard to know who to direct our questions to now in question time given that.
I briefly want to go to the area of road safety while we've got the assistant minister here. As a former minister for road safety who was partly responsible for the development of the National Road Safety Strategy, I want to hold the government to account a bit on this. You have been in government for three terms now. This is your third term. I think it is a pretty damning indictment, frankly, after six years in government—you're in your seventh year—that you have had an independent inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy, of which you have yet to respond to. You then had the departmental report Review of national road safety governance arrangements state:
The Australian Government—
the Morrison government—
has not provided sufficiently strong leadership, coordination or advocacy on road safety to drive national trauma reductions.
That's a pretty damning indictment of a portfolio area that is so vital to keeping people safe on our roads. What have you been doing? I note that you've put forward the joint select committee, which we have supported. Frankly, I hope it sticks to its original terms of reference, which seem to be slightly different to those that were actually tabled in the parliament. I'm sure the previous member, who is going to be chairing that committee, the member for Wright, would like to see that as well. This is a really important area and you have dropped the ball on it. You have absolutely dropped the ball.
We want to give bipartisan support, but you actually have to do what you promised to do—that is, implement the National Road Safety Strategy. The fact that we now still can't properly measure serious injury is not something that you should be proud of it all. You've got some work to do. We'll certainly be watching you in this area.
Again, I'll go back to where I started from. In developing this budget, you can imagine the blokes around this table—in this portfolio there are blokes around the table—going: 'What is it that we can say? Let's have an infrastructure fund. And here we go. Let's have $50 billion. Will it be $30 billion? No, I know, $100 billion.' It's reminding everybody that that includes things like the Black Spot Program, financial assistance grants, the roads components to local governments and the Roads to Recovery Program—longstanding programs. On its signature policy, the Urban Congestion Fund announced with huge fanfare by the previous Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, well over a year ago—18 months ago now—there is yet to be a single project actually started. I asked specifically which projects and how many projects will be started by Christmas. It's not that far away; I think it's only 15 weeks until Christmas. How many are actually going to be started? You've made a big fanfare about all of this. It's the same with the Roads of Strategic Importance. How many are actually going to be started?
This is a government that is big on rhetoric but very, very short on delivery. It's not just been there for this term; it's not just suddenly got elected and appeared. This is a government that has failed on infrastructure, has not started the projects that it says it has to do and, frankly, it should be condemned for what it has failed to deliver when it comes to infrastructure in this country.
The shadow minister could have given me a bit of time to answer some of her questions, but she just likes to hear herself talk. I will answer the member for Lingiari: tier 2 and tier 3 contractors are definitely part of our contracting going forward, but the states and territories contract out the work. I'm delighted that Queensland Labor Minister Mark Bailey trumpeted the fact that, with the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, that wonderful bypass, 80 per cent of people used were locals and local companies had a large part of the action because of the work between the Commonwealth and the states. The shadow minister should tell some of the state Labor counterparts to also get on board.
On some of the projects that we're doing, some of the planning needs to be brought forward, and therefore we've had some good negotiations with state Premiers, with state infrastructure ministers and with transport and road ministers in the area of road safety. I commend the work being done by the member for Wright in this space. We have a dedicated minister around the full ministerial table talking about road safety. To suggest that we've in any way neglected our role in road safety—you shouldn't tweet the fact that our work is costing lives, because that is a bridge too far. As the member for Wide Bay said—and I commend the work that Senator Alex Gallacher has done in this space—road safety has always been done in a bipartisan way. I appreciate the efforts of the member for Grayndler when he had carriage of the shadow portfolio and the work that he and I did in relation to road safety, particularly on the Princes Highway.
If I have time, appreciating the fact that it's past 5.30 pm, I will take up the financial arrangements for the Inland Rail. Yes, it is a signature project. The Commonwealth's $9 billion equity investment in the ARTC for the delivery of Inland Rail has been classified as equity on the basis that the Commonwealth's investment in ARTC will generate a real return. It mightn't leave much for the coastal electorates that you, quite frankly, are always pushing, but the fact is it's going to be for all of Australia, particularly regional Australia. The finance accounting treatment is, as I say, consistent with accounting standards and budgeting rules. That's because we are transparent when it comes to the Inland Rail. We have those consultative committees in place. Whilst I appreciate some people on the coastal fringe don't appreciate the value of the Inland Rail, they will certainly—
An honourable member interjecting—
They'll appreciate that too, but they will benefit largely, as will all the nation. It's not just the eastern states; indeed, the entire nation will benefit from getting product from paddock to port within 24 hours. I appreciate too that the Reserve Bank governor, Dr Philip Lowe—
Order!
Can I keep going?
The time for debate has passed, but continue.
There are constraints in infrastructure, because there's so much infrastructure being built. I'm particularly told of the Perth Link Roads in Tasmania. Tasmania is developing its workers from 'stop go' people to geotechnical experts from within their own state. Owen Cavanough of VEC Civil Engineering, who has three decades of industry experience, particularly likes that and is particularly keen on that principle, as should you be.
I'm very pleased to speak about the budget in this debate today and also discuss some of the more recent measures in my portfolio of Industry, Innovation and Science. Investments in industry, innovation, science and technology drive economic growth and job creation in Australia, helping business thrive and meet the many challenges that exist in today's economy. The Morrison government is committing to driving all industries—both emerging and traditional—forward and ensuring all Australians are equipped with the skills they need for the jobs of the future. One of the most important aspects of this budget is that we are delivering a surplus to get the budget back in the black and back on track. Strong economic management is the bedrock for Australian industry. It's also essential to be able to encourage and support science and innovation. So the very best thing we can do as a government is get the basics right and balance the budget. It's something Labor and the Greens never seem to understand. Because we are responsible economic managers, our government is able to invest more than $170 million in spending measures for industry, science and technology through this bill. Among many other things, this includes funding for the Space Infrastructure Fund and measures to encourage and develop STEM capability to build a stronger workforce.
I want to keep this opening statement brief so I have maximum time to respond in this debate, and later I will expand on how we are delivering our election commitments in my portfolio, including the $50 million Manufacturing Modernisation Fund, $5 million to reinvigorate the Australian Made Campaign and $5.2 million to assist migrants to establish a start-up business. During the remainder of this debate, I look forward to discussing these positive policies that our government is delivering and outlining how this budget benefits all Australians, including those many quiet Australians who put their faith in us at the election in May.
This government is in denial about the role it needs to play in the public safety issue of construction quality and flammable cladding. That's what I want to discuss this evening and I also want to ask questions of the minister. Clearly, while it is a federal responsibility—and other jurisdictions have prime responsibility in some of the areas that go to the building industry, particularly going to this question of the flammable cladding product—there are issues that are the direct responsibility of the Commonwealth. There are issues that need to be attended to by the Morrison government and by the minister on the other side of the chamber that have yet to be attended to.
We do know, of course, that the problems in the building industry have been going on for some years. We also know that the minister who is now responsible for this department was the assistant minister responsible for this particular issue. We also know that there many things that state governments have to do to make sure that the public is safe and that tenants in dwellings that may have this flammable cladding as part of the construction are also safe. Therefore, there needs to be some leadership at the federal level to ensure that there is a proper response to this potential public crisis in the building industry. What we do know is that many professionals are struggling to secure indemnity and struggling to acquire insurance in the building industry because of the uncertainty and the risks. We do know of the failure of the Morrison government to attend to phoenixing in this country, in particular in the building industry, and the failure to have significant and appropriate legislation in place to tackle the absolutely outrageous conduct by companies and directors who, quite often, leave creditors in their wake, close down companies, start them up again and, of course, avoid their obligations, and we know that these are also the same companies that are involved in improperly using products that could potentially lead to the deaths of Australians in those dwellings.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of dwellings across the country which need to be properly audited. They have to be properly dealt with. The Commonwealth needs to put in place laws to respond to these cowboy companies who act so improperly, yet they fail to do so. Even today in the parliament, we have legislation that don't include provisions that were in prorogued bills of the last parliament. We had the government clearly agreeing at one point to having a director identification number to make clear the accountability that directors must have to ensure with greater clarity the identity of directors of companies, yet those provisions have been taken out of the proposed bill before the parliament. So the minister responsible and, indeed, the minister in this chamber now need to deal with phoenixing, which is rife in the building industry; they need to deal with questions around the auditing of buildings; and they need to deal with the issues of uncertainty, and the resulting failure of professionals in the building industry to be able to access insurance, because of the uncertainty and the risks. And it's no good having a meeting with counterpart ministers in other jurisdictions, coming out, calling a press conference and saying, 'We've fixed everything. We've got a report. We've got the Shergold Weir report. We're going to deal with all of those recommendations.' This has gone on now for years. We've seen disasters in other countries, like the Grenfell Tower disaster—a tragedy the like of which we hope never happens in this country. But disasters can happen, and we need to avoid those types of risks. We can only do that by ensuring that the government attends to these matters. It's critical that the government does that. Before the government says and before the minister suggests that there is no responsibility for the Commonwealth in relation to audits, of course, they're responsible for the ACT. We need to know what's happened in this jurisdiction.
The fact is, we need to ensure that all parts of Australia have a proper audit. My question to the minister is: has the government completed the audit of all buildings on Commonwealth land or leased by Commonwealth departments? That's an important question. Whilst the government may want to blame state governments for not acting, my question is: more specifically, has the government completed the audit of all buildings on Commonwealth land or leased by the Commonwealth department, and will that information be publicly released, if indeed that has been undertaken?
Quite excitingly, the 2019-20 budget provided $19.5 million for the Space Infrastructure Fund, and I want to speak on that today. I welcome the government's ongoing interest in this area. My electorate has a strong connection with the space industry, through what is now the RAAF Woomera Range Complex, the largest land-based test range in the world, at 127,000 square kilometres. To put that into context, it is about double the size of Tasmania. So it is a good place to have a play around with a bit of equipment like some satellite-launching gear. It has been important to this nation and it will continue to be.
In recent years we have seen large upgrades on the range—$297 million to rebuild the digital monitoring and communication technologies across the range. Significant further investment is under further consideration. Maybe we will never see a return to the glory days of Woomera when there were more than 6,000 people living there, but there is a significant whiff of revitalisation in the air. Woomera is ideally well-placed to provide significant services to our new commitment to the space industry.
Last month I met with a consortium, Southern Launch. They are hoping—in fact they are planning—to launch satellites off the southern Eyre Peninsula, not the big geostationary satellites that we have become familiar with but new-age low-orbiting satellites. These will operate about 400 kilometres above the earth's surface. Geostationary satellites are at about 35,000 kilometres. If we are talking about delay in communications—you might get your head around that—this is a much shorter distance, virtually instant. There will be no drag in that communication chain. It is highly likely that hundreds if not thousands of these will be launched over the next decades.
They have a useful lifespan of about two-and-a-half years, and they fall back to earth after about four years and burn up completely in the atmosphere because they are not big. Southern Launch are very confident that, should they get a foothold in this industry, we can build an industry in South Australia by building these satellites, because they are quite small; we are talking kilograms rather than tonnes. I look forward to working with them and helping them fulfil their dreams.
My understanding is the Space Infrastructure Fund will back priority projects across states and territories and address the gaps, transforming the Australian industry. So far, the government has committed $73.2 million to support the development of Australia's space sector, including $32.7 million towards the ongoing operation of the Australian Space Agency, $15 million for the International Space Investment Initiative, and $6 million for the Space Discovery Centre announced as part of the Adelaide City Deal.
I know the government understands the profound benefits of space technology and services on the lives of Australians—it touches virtually every one of us. Australian farmers—and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I are both farmers—already value the space industry and the capabilities that are offered to us to monitor on-farm the health of our crops. Marine pilots use GPS guidance. They guide cruise-liners. Emergency workers track the progress of bushfires. Scientists study the effects and impacts of droughts. I know, as a proud South Australian, that much of the space industry activity is centred in South Australia. The headquarters of the Australian Space Agency will be at located at Lot 14 in Adelaide.
Mission control facilities under the Space Infrastructure Fund will provide a platform for small and medium enterprises or researchers to control small satellite missions and provide access to space enabled data. The $6 million Australian Space Discovery Centre is part of the Adelaide City Deal, and is funded separately, not as part of the Space Infrastructure Fund. Geoscience Australia's investment in South Australia includes $14 million over the forward estimates for the ground station infrastructure. The new SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre is also being headquartered in South Australia. The SmartSat CRC will create leapfrogging technologies in advance of telecommunications and smart satellite systems to build Australian space infrastructure. I appreciate the minister further outlining now how this commitment to science and space technology in this budget will deliver real benefits and create jobs in South Australia and all around the nation.
I want to say thank you to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Rick Wilson, because I travelled through part of your electorate recently to sample northern Australian roads. It's northern Australia that I want to talk about tonight because, while it has been given a lot of promises and a lot of undertakings, not a lot has happened. We have seen the NAIF not produce a great deal, not a lot of money is coming out the door, and that's been a cause of frustration for many. I'd like to know from the minister what NAIF projects are currently in play. When are we likely to see more NAIF money being announced to support projects in northern Australia? I know there are concerns from some proponents that the NAIF is not wanting to support some big proposals because of their assessment of risk on returns, even though private-sector finance will be made available for these projects should NAIF funds be made available as a stimulus.
Mr Deputy Speaker, these are important issues, as you would know, for people who live in northern Australia and regional Australia generally. I'd like to know what the NAIF is doing to attract and support smaller proposals, particularly from First Nations organisations to set up small businesses, and how it is working with these businesses, if it is working with them at all, to mitigate any risks in their investment profiles. I know of one group, for example, in the Victoria River region who have a $4 million guaranteed contract on Defence land at the Bradshaw training range, but they require capital to buy equipment to be able to undertake the contract. Would NAIF be an attractive proposition for these people, or what other government agency might there be to assist them in acquiring the capital they require to get the equipment to undertake the contract? The contract itself is guaranteed. It's a huge area of land they'd be assisting to look after for the Department of Defence.
This is an important question, and it arises because of the belief from First Nations people across northern Australia that they are not being engaged with properly by government to assist them to get the benefits of the announcements which have been made. I'd like to know what actions the government is intending to take or thinking about to assist First Nations people to leverage their asset base. I say that knowing, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that around 50 per cent of the Northern Territory land mass and 80 per cent of the coastline is under Aboriginal title—in this case, it's under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. A lot of the other 50 per cent is subject to native title, as is the case in Western Australia. What we need to know is: what is the government proposing to do to assist these landholders to develop the north of Australia and leverage their assets so that they can get resources to be able to develop businesses either on their own or in partnership with others? These are very important things that need to be contemplated, and I'm not sure the government has thought through them clearly.
We know that the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia is about to undertake an inquiry which will address some of these issues, but these are things that should have been thought of by government previously. There has been a fascination with talking about the tourism industry, the fishing industry and the cattle industry—all very important—but the missing piece in this is the development of the human capital of northern Australia and the human capital which exists within the First Nations communities across the north, whether it is in the Kimberley, the Pilbara, the Northern Territory, Far North Queensland, Cape York or the Torres Strait. These people need to be engaged with, and it's important that the parliament understands what the government is proposing to do to assist and work with First Nations people so that they can be part of a productive workforce going forward and develop businesses on their own country and on their own water to benefit them, their communities and the national economy.
There are a lot of other questions I'd like to ask, such as on Roads of Strategic Importance and what the government's time frame is for the development of Roads of Strategic Importance. A little later, I might get the opportunity to articulate what those questions are.
I thank the member for his questions and his strong interest in infrastructure investment in northern Australia and the role of local Indigenous people in those projects. These are important questions. There are enormous resource opportunities in the north—the Beetaloo Basin and many other projects which the federal government is involved with, and I'll come back to that in a moment. I do want to point out though that I'm extremely disappointed that the shadow minister for resources hasn't come along to his own consideration in detail. I would've thought this was a sufficient priority for him to turn up to. The member for Hunter has been acting oddly lately. There has been some odd behaviour. He's been busy constructing a new carbon tax for the opposition, I think, and clearly doesn't have enough time to come along to the consideration in detail.
Let me make a few comments about NAIF and the role that NAIF is playing. The member for Lingiari is right to say there's a very important role that NAIF needs to play in the development of northern Australia, and it's already doing exactly that. It's made a total of 11 investment decisions so far, with two conditional credit approvals on top of that. They're significant investments. In fact, they total now approximately $1.4 billion of investment, supporting projects with an estimated total capital of $2.8 billion. So the government is leveraging significant private sector investment alongside the investment coming from the NAIF.
There are three investment projects for the Northern Territory, five in Western Australia and three in Queensland. That's made up of $781 million for Queensland, $345 million for the Northern Territory and just under $300 million for Western Australia. In total, those projects are expected to deliver $2.6 billion in public benefit for northern Australia. That includes a forecast of just under 4,000 jobs, including Indigenous jobs in construction and during the operations. The draw-downs that will come from those projects have already commenced for three of them. As at 27 August, the department has made total payments of about $42 million, including into the Onslow Marine Support Base, the Voyages Indigenous Tourism Australia project and the Humpty Doo Barramundi project. These are all important contributions to northern Australia.
I will also point out more directly in my own portfolio the work that's going on in the Beetaloo. We see an enormous opportunity in the Beetaloo, with a gas resource that looks to be as good as any we've ever seen in Australia. It's particularly good because it has some of the same characteristics as the gas resources that have revolutionised gas in the United States. It's wet gas; it has oil as well as gas coming from it, and that changes the economics dramatically. In the budget, we made a very significant contribution to getting the Beetaloo developments happening. We're working closely now with the local Indigenous communities up there, because they are important stakeholders in these projects. We see enormous potential for jobs, for exports and, importantly, for improving the affordability and reliability of the gas market on the east coast of Australia. It will be connected in through the gas pipeline network to the rest of Australia. So this is a very, very important project, and one that we are absolutely delighted that the Northern Territory government is supporting us on. It's a disappointment that other states in Australia are not showing that kind of foresight. Indeed, it's tragic that the Victorian government has shown no interest in gas—none whatsoever! In fact, they've banned onshore gas exploration and development, in contrast to the Northern Territory government, which sees the opportunity there.
I will make a final comment about northern Australian roads, because the member opposite did ask about the Roads of Strategic Importance, the northern Australia package, which is a $1.7 billion package for projects over 10 years. It's all part of our $100 billion infrastructure project. Of course, it's not congestion we are busting up in Queensland; we're busting the time it takes to move people and product around. Getting access to market is absolutely crucial for beef producers and other producers of goods up in the Northern Territory. Under the NABRP, the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program, there are 37 projects, of which 36 have been approved. We have a strong commitment to northern Australia, and it's a commitment I know northern Australia will deliver back in great bounty for the people of Australia and northern Australia.
I want to touch on another matter. I appreciate the fact that the minister kept her opening comments brief to allow questions and comments to be made on the department and government issues. The one matter that I want to touch upon, if I could, is the issue of not being able to use the 'Australian Made' logo for many of our companies and many Australian products. In fact, since 30 June this year, we have products that are not able to use what is a very commercially advantageous logo on those products for those companies and for the workers that produce those products. There's been a failure to ensure that they are able to gain that advantage, because of the inability of those companies to label their products in such a way. This matter has some history. Indeed, it has been at least 12 months since the government could have acted. The advice I've received is that, in the broad, the other jurisdictions are supportive of this matter being resolved. I don't think there's a significant contest or argument amongst jurisdictions about this issue. It really seems to be incumbent on the minister to convene a meeting of the counterpart ministers in state and territory jurisdictions in order to expedite this issue.
What companies are saying to me is they're putting millions of dollars into investment. Arguably this is a $5 billion industry. Thirty thousand workers rely upon this industry for their livelihoods, and yet the government has been derelict in that it has failed to ensure this matter was resolved so that the 'Made in Australia' logo—a very famous and popular logo allowing for commercial advantage of Australian products—was to be used in that way. Since, as I said, 30 June it has been unable to be used. I'm asking the minister what regulatory steps the government will be taking, whether its regulation or legislation. What other steps, engaging other jurisdictions, will be undertaken in order to ensure this problem is fixed? What time frame will be outlined so we can expedite this issue? It's gone on too long and it needs to be fixed. Really, the government needs to explain itself and outline a path to resolution, because there's great uncertainty and great anxiety. We can see, potentially, job losses and profit losses. It's in the government's remit to fix this. The questions are when and how.
Yesterday in this place I spoke about the jobs of the future, the need to invest in a changing workforce and the importance of ensuring our children have the skills to succeed in this changing world. I spoke about how we must strive for excellence and how we need to be at the forefront of ensuring we have job-ready students for the future. With 75 per cent of jobs in the future slated to require skills in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, it is now more than ever important that we arm our students with the skills.
As a medical researcher, I have seen firsthand how early STEM education has long reaching effects in health innovation and how this, ultimately, saves lives. As a university professor, I feel incredibly privileged to have supervised dozens of higher education students to undertake honours, masters and PhDs. They have gone on to help society understand why things are happening and how to find evidence based solutions to questions such as why food allergies are on the rise, how to best feed our infants in the safest possible way, how to prevent diseases through improved immunisation, how to have improved screening programs and optimal food safety through improved food labelling, and how to use the genetic revolution to help society.
In my electorate of Higgins in Melbourne, health and science are in the top five employers. We have a large population of students at the primary and secondary stages and also a very large group of undergraduate and postgraduate students. With regard to primary and secondary students, we need to ensure that all students are able to access the information they need to have a good, solid foundation in STEM, regardless of what school they went to or where they live. We want the next generation to be a generation of big ideas and great understanding and to lead the world in innovation, science and technology. We need businesses to be open to change and to recognise the potential and value the skills of STEM that our students are learning.
In years gone by, jobs were often gendered. Girls were flight attendants; boys were pilots. Boys were mechanics, plumbers and electricians; girls were teachers, nurses and receptionists. That is not the case now, and I'm pleased to say that we are in the time of geek girls. Women and girls are coders, scientists, aerospace engineers and astronauts, and I'd like to take the opportunity to recognise one of my great mentors, Professor Ruth Bishop AO, who, in 1972, discovered rotavirus at my home institution, the Royal Children's Hospital. Her discovery has led to a rotavirus vaccine that literally saves hundreds of thousands of lives every year around the world. She should have got a Nobel Prize; I wish she had.
I note some of the specific programs that the Morrison government is delivering to assist in participation in science: $15 million to support the expansion of Questacon's education and outreach programs and $3.4 million for greater participation by girls and women in STEM, including funding to extend the Science in Australia Gender Equity initiative in higher education and research institutions to showcase the benefit of STEM skills and careers to our children and encourage more participation in STEM. I'm delighted that the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, where I was a theme director, the University of Melbourne and the University of Manchester, where I have been a professor, are all institutes that are proud members of SAGE. The SAGE program has been embraced worldwide, and Australia is a very proud participant. Could the Minister expand on how these programs are being rolled out in Australia? I also note that last week the Girls in STEM Toolkit was officially launched. Could the minister further outline how this toolkit can be utilised by parents, students and teachers? And could the minister outline some of the ways our government continues to support the science community?
Australia can't afford to be left behind. We've always punched above our weight in science, technology and innovation. We gave the world the bionic ear, the pacemaker, wi-fi and the ultrasound. Who knows what possibilities lie ahead in the field of STEM, but they require solid, real and tangible investment in our students.
It's been an interesting day. Because of parliamentary commitments, I was a little late for agricultural appropriations and, sadly, Minister Littleproud admonished me in my absence for not turning up. I counselled him and said he should know better. He should never question why a member is not in the chamber because he does not know why the member is not in the chamber. He should learn from that, as should all members. Later I came to water and drought appropriations to ask questions on some serious issues affecting the farming community, and, to my surprise, he wasn't there. For all the time I was in the chamber, Minister Littleproud wasn't there, having admonished me for being late for earlier appropriations. I've come here now to talk about resources appropriation, and Minister Taylor has left the chamber. His responsibility is to be here until 7.30 pm. There is no delineation of the time as to whether we will talk about industry or resources or whatever other matters we have before us this evening. Minister Taylor should be in here to front the parliament to answer opposition inquiries about the resources sector.
The real tragedy is that I was only really here to again extend Labor's bipartisan support on the resources sector. We recognise its value. We support it. We recognise the jobs it creates and the foreign exchange it earns for this country. I wanted to have a conversation about how we might work together to further advance the sector and talk about further advancing carbon capture and storage, for example, and to further advance what we might do on value adding in the resources sector and how we might further progress opportunities on rare earth and other new opportunities. But, sadly, Elvis has left the building.
This budget is clearly all about getting the economic settings right, and that's all about making sure businesses can grow and that we as a nation can create more jobs. That flows through to all local communities. Certainly that is the case in my electorate of Groom. While the government have been working on getting this budget back in the black, we also recognise there's a very important role to support businesses and encourage enterprise, innovation and so forth. We want to back those who are having a go and creating those jobs and opportunities that we all look towards. That's certainly the case in my electorate of Groom.
I can mention so many examples that our government have supported, encouraged, promoted and just been there to help along the way. Tim Neale of DataFarming of and Phil Tickle Cibo Labs are both operating at world's best practice in the agricultural data analytics field, for example. Mark Peart at Direct Injection Technologies is using innovative stock liquid supplements and systems together with remote monitoring. He's taken advantage of the government's facilitation of crowdfunding programs for the growth of his business. The former managing director of Pacific Seeds, one of the nation's hybrid seed companies, is based in Toowoomba. It has a state-of-the-art seed treatment plant. Scott Farquharson at Toowoomba Engineering has innovative precision planting equipment that has markets across the nation. Then there is Asterion, which has proposed the world's largest medicinal cannabis cultivation, research and manufacturing facility.
I want to pay a significant tribute here to Minister Andrews for her assistance in getting this project 'major project' status from the Australian federal government, which, in turn, has allowed them to secure a licence for medicinal cannabis projects such as this. Why is that important in regional Australia? In my case, it's 800 full-time jobs, as well as 300 part-time jobs. I will also mention the minister's launch of the University of Southern Queensland's Mount Kent Observatory expansion, part of the support for NASA's transiting exoplanet survey satellite and also for research and industry development in new industries. I know the minister is certainly a champion of space industry development potential.
One of the examples of how our government is providing real, practical support to regional businesses is the $20 million SME export hubs initiative. The minister was in my electorate of Groom to launch the Southern Queensland Innovation in Export Hub just a few months ago, and it's already working so very well to help local businesses. It's another classic example. At a function the Cattle Council of Australia held for rising champions in 2018, we met the 2019 NAB agribusiness state and territory rising champion finalist Emily Pullen, CEO of Jim's Jerky, a beef product business in Toowoomba with significant export potential. It is in that context that I very much welcome the minister outlining how these export hubs are delivering for local communities, as is the case in my community, right across the country.
I note there are other programs through the minister's department that provide grants to help businesses grow and expand, and I would therefore welcome the minister perhaps outlining how the online service, business.gov.au, is being utilised in that respect. I'd also welcome a bit more information on the new programs that are being delivered, in particular, our election commitments to support business. I could mention the $50 million Manufacturing Modernisation Fund; the $5 million to reinvigorate the Australian Made Campaign; and $5.2 million, so important in my electorate, to assist migrants to establish start-up businesses through the incubator support element of the Entrepreneurs' Program.
This budget certainly demonstrates, as per the examples I've shared from the electorate of Groom, the government's commitment to promoting an environment where business can access the right support to pursue their own innovation to grow, export and employ more Australians. That's significantly important in regional Australia in particular. I'm proud the Morrison government is doing that.
I'm quite happy to speak on consideration in detail in respect of resources today because Labor is the party of working Australians. We seek to maximise employment opportunities wherever we can, and the resources industry is such a critical part of that. One of the things that we always need to make sure in supporting the resources industry and supporting the opportunity for jobs is that we also have an eye for the way in which that industry is rapidly automating. This is good because it creates efficiency and productivity in the industry, but we need to make sure that we work closely with government and the states, and in particular with the TAFE and VET sector, to ensure that they are providing the training that is needed for our workers, not only for people trying to come into the resources industry but to help people retrain when their jobs are going to become, and are already becoming, automated. We need to make sure that they are able to be retrained properly.
It's great to see in Western Australia, in my own electorate, the South Metropolitan TAFE working with one of our great resources companies, Rio Tinto, in creating a course on automation within TAFE. They are also working with our local high schools, including high schools in my electorate, to make sure that kids as they come out of school are job ready and able to go into the resources sector, the newly automated and much more productive resources sector, that we see in Australia today.
We also need to make sure that we continue to work with our mining equipment technology services, making sure that they can grow not just through growth in the industry here in Australia. We need to help that sector to diversify so that it can become a supplier of mining services and technical services throughout the world, so that, as we see upswings and downturns in the resources sector in Australia, it can take advantage of how those ups and downs across the globe are going and make sure that they are protected from not just what is happening in Australia.
Of course Labor recognises the critical importance of Western Australia in the resources story of this nation, and that's why we have elevated into a shadow ministerial portfolio WA resources because not only is it a different resources sector; it is one that is based around iron ore as well as oil and gas, and especially important now are our critical mineral industries—minerals like lithium and other minerals that are going into and are part of our battery and modern technology around the world. This is a growing area that Western Australia is uniquely placed in.
Let's just look at the stats when it comes to resources: resources jobs across the nation, 240,000—Western Australia, upwards of 210,000 now; economic value, $138 billion nationally—$76.7 billion just in Western Australia, that's over 55 per cent of the nation's resources sector; share of the economy might only be 7.6 per cent of the national economy but for Western Australia the resources sector is 30 per cent of the state economy; exploration, $1.9 billion nationally—$1.2 billion of that is happening in Western Australia. And a little-known fact: two per cent of Australia's GDP goes out of just one port in Western Australia, Port Hedland. That's how much of the heavy lifting we're doing in Western Australia, and it comes from the resources sector. That's what we have recognised. Not only is the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction not here now but—bearing in mind Western Australia is one of the biggest producers of LNG exports in the world now, together with our friends in the Northern Territory through the INPEX project—guess how many times he has come to Western Australia in the term of this government? Zero times. That shows how the government recognises the importance of this sector to the economy and, in particular, to Western Australia. I think that is very telling. When we look at some of the most important issues in the resources sector, the recommendations of the report—
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:20