I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I am pleased to introduce theOfficial Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019.
The purpose of this bill is to appropriate money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, to meet Australia's existing and future obligations to:
This bill will provide a standing appropriation to meet Australia's international development commitments. Consistent with our membership arrangements of these organisations, Australia pledges to replenish our financial contribution every three to four years with payments being made over a three- to 10-year period.
This special appropriations bill will allow the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to meet our ongoing financial obligations to the six specified funds without the need for annual appropriations to be made. This reflects a change to the appropriation arrangements instituted in 2014-15.
Funds to meet the commitments authorised by this bill will come from within the agreed official development assistance budget.
Our contributions to these organisations constitute an important component of Australia's support for the promotion, protection and improvement of the international rules based order.
These organisations complement Australia's efforts at the country and regional level to promote the prosperity and security of the Indo-Pacific region.
The commitments outlined in this bill will contribute to and be made in our national interest.
There are six funds to be supported through the passage of this bill.
The World Bank's International Development Association operates the largest pool of concessional finance in the world.
It provides grants, technical expertise and concessional loans to promote growth and reduce poverty in the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries.
Australia's contribution has supported 1.5 million new labour market programs across the world, including 3,500 young people to complete job-ready training and enter the workforce.
The World Bank managed debt relief schemes, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative, provide debt relief to eligible poor countries. In 2005, the Howard government made a 40-year commitment to support this fund. Between 2001 and 2015, the average decline in crippling debt in eligible countries has fallen by 1.5 per cent of GDP, freeing up local government spending on health and education and reducing reliance on foreign aid.
Australia's contributions to the Asian Development Fund, managed by the Asian Development Bank, provide grants to developing countries at moderate to high risk of debt distress, to promote poverty reduction and accelerate development in the poorer countries of the Asia and Pacific region.
Our contributions have assisted to lift 16 million people out of poverty and improve economic growth in recipient nations.
And Australia has been providing support to the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund since its inception.
Our contributions have assisted the protection of over 350 million hectares of seascapes and ocean life, supported the phase out of over 29,000 tonnes of ozone-depleting pollutants and the safe disposal of 200,000 tonnes of chemicals, including in the Pacific. The fund's work has supported a 60 per cent increase in tuna stocks in the Pacific.
Australia's contributions to the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol assist developing countries to phase out ozone-depleting substances. Collective action through this fund has seen over 215,461 tonnes of ozone-depleting substances eliminated since 1991.
Conclusion
Australia's engagement with these global bodies and our participation in international institutions must and will be done in our national interests.
Australia leverages the financial resources, expertise, influence and geographic reach of these organisations to achieve greater development outcomes.
These organisations bring financial resources, policy influence and convening power that complement and enhance Australia's bilateral programs.
I recommend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme.
by leave—I move:
That Ms Claydon and Mr Dick be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme.
Question agreed to.
I rise to sum up on these bills, and can I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. The Higher Education Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019 supports the Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2019. The higher education support bill 2019 will seek to impose the higher education tuition protection levy, prescribe the levy components and the manner in which they will be determined each year. The VET Student Loans (VSL Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019 supports the Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2019. The VET Student Loans (VSL Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019 will seek to impose the VET student loans tuition protection levy and prescribe the levy components and the manner in which they will be determined each year. The Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2019 will seek to expand the tuition protection services for international students to domestic students accessing a VET student loan, a FEE-HELP loan or a HECS-HELP loan at a provide education provider or TAFE. I commend these bills to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Cooper has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So, the immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security I am pleased to present the committee's advisory report on the Identity-matching Services Bill 2019 and the Australian Passports Amendment (Identity-matching Services) Bill 2019.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Both are reintroduced bills that were referred to the committee for review in the 45th parliament. In examining these most recent bills the committee resolved to accept all previous evidence received and was provided with 20 further submissions for this new review. I will speak on the Identity-matching Services Bill 2019 first. The purpose of this bill is to facilitate a secure, automated and accountable exchange of identity information between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. It proposes to do this through establishing a range of services that identify, recognise or verify a facial image and systems that allow collation, access, use, sharing and disclosure of biometric data.
The bill authorises the Department of Home Affairs to create and maintain facilities, such as an interoperability hub, which would operate as a router for participating bodies to access identity-matching services and the national driver licence facial recognition solution, which would contain identity documents such as drivers' licences from all states and territories. Participating bodies would need a legal basis for accessing the facilities and certain access requirements would apply.
The genesis of the bill came from the need to combat the growing incidence of identity crime, which has devastating impacts on individuals and the economy. The bill seeks to do this by implementing a framework for national identity-matching services as part of measures agreed to by COAG leaders on 5 October 2017 contained within the Intergovernmental Agreement on Identity-matching Services. The bill also serves to boost the effectiveness of existing services through expanding the type and quantity of biometric data and by housing it in a centralised location with strict access criteria.
Many participants to this review expressed broad support for the underlying objectives and rationale of the bill. For example, one submitter welcomed 'measures that aimed to address identity-related crime and enable law enforcement bodies to cooperate to achieve this objective'. Statements such as this were echoed through the evidence the committee received. However, some participants raised with the committee a need to ensure appropriate governance, accountability and protection of the individual's right to privacy. The committee acknowledges these concerns and believes that while the bill's explanatory memorandum sets out governance arrangements such as existing and contemplated agreements and access policy, they are not adequately set out in the current bill. In the committee's view, robust safeguards and appropriate oversight mechanisms should be explained clearly in the legislation.
The committee also expresses broad support for the objectives of the bill but agrees that the bill, as it stands, does not adequately incorporate enough detail. It is for this reason that the committee recommends that the Identity-matching Services Bill 2019 be redrafted according to the following principles: (1) the regime should be built around privacy, transparency and subject to robust safeguards; (2) the regime should be subject to parliamentary oversight and reasonable proportionate and transparent functionality; (3) the regime should be one that requires annual reporting on the use of the identity-matching services; and (4) the primary legislation should specifically require that there is a participation agreement that sets out the obligations of all parties participating in the identity-matching services in detail. Additionally, the committee recommends that the redrafted bill be referred to the committee for further review.
The committee also simultaneously examined the Australian Passports Amendment (Identity-matching Services) Bill 2019. The passport bill proposes amendments to the Australian Passports Act 2005, which would authorise the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to disclose information in order to participate in identity-matching services and provides for computerised decision-making in confirming identity. This bill would also support the objectives of the IMS bill by making Australian travel document data available to identity-matching services by the interoperability hub.
Again, submitters supported the broad objectives of this bill. Few objections were raised but there were some concerns regarding the use of automated decision-making, in particular where unfavourable outcomes were made for the subject. Most felt that an element of human decision-making should be kept and that avenues for review of decisions should be implicitly incorporated into the bill. The committee agrees and recommends that the bill should be amended to ensure that automated decision-making can only be used for decisions that produce favourable or neutral outcomes for the subject and that automated decisions should not negatively affect outcomes.
The committee recognises that redrafting of the Identity-matching Services Bill 2019 may have consequential effects to the passports bill. Should this occur this, this report also recommends that the amended passports bill also be referred to the committee for further review. I want to reiterate the importance of the objectives of these bills and that these objectives have the committee's full support. Wanting to ensure the safety and security of all Australians is something we all have in common but we also need to protect citizens' rights whilst doing so. I commend the report to the House.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is declining to recommend the passage of the Identity-matching Services Bill 2019. Instead, Labor and Liberal members of the committee are uniting to recommend that the Identity-matching Services Bill 2019 be completely redrafted and referred back to the intelligence and security committee for further inquiry when it is reintroduced. In taking this step, I congratulate all members of the committee for putting the national interest first and sending a strong message about the value of this committee.
The Identity-Matching Services Bill purports to facilitate the exchange of identity information pursuant to the objectives of an intergovernmental agreement reached by COAG in October 2017, but it includes none of the limitations or safeguards anticipated by that agreement. The bill includes almost no limitations or safeguards at all.
As explained in the committee's report, the Identity-Matching Services Bill would authorise the Department of Home Affairs to create and maintain facilities for the sharing of facial images and other identity information between government agencies and, in some cases, nongovernment entities. The bill would also authorise the Department of Home Affairs to develop and maintain two centralised facilities for the provision of what I called 'identity-matching services'. The first of these two facilities would be called an interoperability hub. The hub would act as a router through which government agencies across Australia could request and transmit information as part of an identity-matching service. The second would be a federated database of information contained in government identity documents. As discussed in the committee's report, the potential implications of these two new facilities for the privacy of all Australians are profound. Those implications do not appear to have even been considered by the Minister for Home Affairs or by his department.
While the bill provides for six different identity-matching services, the service that elicited the most concern from submitters to the committee's inquiry was the face identification service. That service would enable authorities across Australia to use huge databases of facial images to determine the identity of an unknown person. Using that service, a law enforcement agency could submit a facial image for matching against a database of facial images contained in government identification documents, such as a database containing every driver licence photo in Australia. In return, the agency would receive a small number of matching or near-matching facial images from the database. The agency could then access biographical information associated with those images.
The potential for such a service to be used for mass or blanket surveillance, such as CCTV being used to identify Australians going about their business in real time, was raised by numerous submitters to the inquiry. The Australian Human Rights Commissioner, for example, submitted that the bill 'appears to contemplate intrusive surveillance of persons or, indeed, of the community at large before any crime has been committed and indeed, potentially, before there is any reason to believe that a particular crime will be committed.' Like my colleagues on the committee, I do not believe that the government is proposing to engage in or to facilitate the mass surveillance of Australians, but I do accept that, given the near complete absence of legislated safeguards in the Identity-Matching Services Bill 2019, those concerns cannot simply be ignored. If there is no intention for the proposed identity-matching services to be used to engage in mass surveillance activities, the government should not object to amending the bill to ensure that those services cannot, as a matter of law, be used in that manner.
Concerns were also raised about the proposed one-to-many identity-matching service being used to identify people who are engaging in protest activity. This does concern me. It was only this month that the Minister for Home Affairs, the minister responsible for this very bill, called for mandatory prison sentences for people who engage in protest activity; called for the same people to have their welfare payments cancelled; and also called for them to be photographed and publicly shamed. As presently drafted, this bill would not prohibit authorities from using the proposed face-matching services to identify individuals in a crowd who are engaging in lawful protest activity. That would be concerning in the best of times; it is particularly concerning in the light of the authoritarian disposition of the Minister for Home Affairs.
A raft of other concerns was expressed about the Identity-Matching Services Bill, including in relation to this government's abysmal record on cybersecurity. I do not propose to list all of the concerns here today, but I encourage everyone to read about them in the committee's report.
I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee, Labor and Liberal, for their work on this important report. It should not escape anyone watching these proceedings today that, by agreeing to the set of recommendations contained in this report, the Liberal members of the committee have placed the national interest first. For that, I would like to pay tribute to Senators Stoker, Fawcett and Abetz, and the members for Canning, Berowra and Goldstein. I would like to pay particular tribute and extend my thanks to the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the member for Canning. I also thank the committee secretariat for their excellent work, both in this parliament and in the last parliament, which underpins this report.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) recognises the importance of cash for conducting transactions around Australia; and
(2) notes the concerns that have arisen in some parts of the community about the bill, in the context of the stagnating Australian economy under the Coalition Government".
This bill, the Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019, establishes a cash payment limit and introduces offences for entities that make or accept cash payments of $10,000 or more from 1 January 2020. Offences under the new provision would carry a maximum penalty of $25,000, or two years imprisonment, for individuals or businesses which recklessly break the cash limit. These offences can apply whether the individual is a recipient of or a payee of the cash value. The bill follows on from the 2018 report of the government's Black Economy Taskforce, which found that large cash payments can be anonymous and untraceable, allowing businesses to underreport their income and to offer consumers discounts for transactions that reflect the business' avoided obligation. It has also found that the cash economy is a vehicle for money laundering.
The bill does include the power to make exceptions to the cash payment limit, through a legislative instrument made by the relevant minister. I understand that the government's draft rules—which are not a part of the bill—would exempt the following types of payments. Firstly, payments related to personal or private transactions—for example, purchasing a motor vehicle off somebody in your neighbourhood. Secondly, payments that must be reported by an entity under the anti-money laundering and counterterrorism legislation, provided that, broadly, the entity with a reporting obligation complies with their obligation under that legislation. The third exemption under the draft rules would apply to payments made or accepted by a public official, in which the public official is legally required to make or accept a cash payment in the course of their duties. The fourth exemption would apply to payments that only exceed the cash payment limit because the payment is part of a transaction involving collecting, holding or delivering cash that is undertaken in the course of an enterprise of collecting or delivering cash. That seems to be an obvious one, as well. The fifth exemption would be payments that only exceed the cash payment limit because the payment is or includes an amount of digital currency. The draft rules also provide to exempt payments that occur in situations where no alternative method of payment could be reasonably used, although I do make the point that it is unclear whether this would apply as an exemption or a defence to an offence arising under the legislation, a matter that requires further interrogation. Future rules could exempt other types of payments or be changed to remove exemptions for types of payments.
There has been a lot of concern within the community about the impact of this bill. There wouldn't be a member in this House who hasn't received representations from constituents in relation to it. To facilitate the orderly interrogation of those concerns and the swift passage of this bill to the Senate, where it may be further interrogated and investigated, Labor won't be opposing the bill in the House. But we have been working with the crossbenches to ensure that there is a rigorous examination of the provisions of the bill in the Senate in order to ensure that all of the community concerns that have been raised with Labor, and presumably with the crossbenches as well, are thoroughly ventilated, investigated and dealt with. It is a significant provision, with significant penalties, and we want to ensure that there are no unintended consequences and that those community concerns can be dealt with.
While the tap-and-go phenomenon—which, I must confess, I've adopted—is an amazing convenience, we do recognise that cash remains a favoured medium of transaction for many law-abiding members of the Australian community. Those in small business, pensioners and retirees and members of Australia's diverse multicultural communities have an attachment to cash and to using cash for their everyday transactions. Older Australians use cash for more than half of their payments. Australians in the lowest income quartile use cash for more than 40 per cent of all of their payments. We recognise their concerns, and the concerns of the communities, as being worthy of further consideration. This is why we have worked with the crossbench on ensuring that we can investigate, and hopefully allay, the concerns that have been raised.
It is important to understand why Australians have these concerns with the government's proposed cash-transaction ban, and it's why I've moved an amendment at the second reading stage of the bill's consideration. The truth of the matter is that Australians have no faith in this government's capacity to manage the economic problems that the country is facing right now, and they certainly have no faith in the government's ability to manage those problems in the interests of ordinary everyday Australians. The Morrison government quite simply has a plan for a slogan—it's got a political plan—but, to coin a phrase, as to an economic plan, 'Where the bloody hell are you?' They've no plan for the country when it comes to managing economic growth or managing the parlous state of wage increases. Of economic growth, we have the lowest rate since the global financial crisis. The economy is struggling. The government loves to blame every problem on somebody else. Whether it's economic headwinds or Labor, somebody else is always at fault; somebody else is always the cause of the problem; it's not the parlous state of their own economic management.
Our economy is struggling, but the New Zealand economy, just across the ditch, is growing at nearly twice the pace of ours. No Australian ever likes to be beaten by a Kiwi in anything, and, while the Kiwis have raced ahead, Australian household living standards have declined under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison disaster show. Real household median income is lower now than it was in 2013. Wages are growing at the lowest rate since record keeping began. We've got 1.9 million Australians who are either looking for work, or looking for more work because they are underemployed. Business investment is down 20 per cent from when the Liberals came to office, and it is now at its lowest level since the 1990s recession. Consumer confidence and consumption growth are incredibly weak. Weak growth like this is the inevitable result of a government with a political strategy but no economic plan. And what's the government's answer to the challenges which the Australian economy is facing? Quite simply, it's silence. They've no plan to get business investment moving. They've no plan to deal with the deepening drought. In fact, we've seen the National Party backroom revolt going on—entirely politically motivated. They're more concerned about their own political futures than they are about the future of drought-riven communities and more concerned about who takes credit for the woeful policies than about what's going on in those communities that they represent. They've no plan to deal with this at all. There's a lot of noise, but no plan. Instead, the coalition has one answer and one answer only, and that is to continue with their current strategy—which is doing nothing, which means flat growth, flat wages and a decline in confidence.
It is no wonder that members of the public are rightfully concerned when they see legislation such as this. They are saying: 'What is the real agenda here? What's going on? Why is the government introducing this bill when they haven't dealt with any of these other issues which are affecting wellbeing at the household level?'
I want to say another thing about the government's management of not only the economy but also the business before this House. As I said at the outset, this bill was in part a response to a recommendation of the Black Economy Taskforce about restricting the use of cash which would then lead to tax avoidance or to money-laundering activities. If only the government were so active in introducing and paying attention to all of the recommendations of the Black Economy Taskforce, because a very important recommendation of the Black Economy Taskforce was on dealing with anti-phoenixing activity. Phoenixing activity is where a business or a set of directors deliberately send a business into liquidation, strip or transfer the assets from that business to another business and leave the creditors stranded, whether they're tradies or small businesses—
Hear, hear!
I see the member for Kennedy is agreeing with me on this point at least. He would know about this. I'm sure there are thousands of small businesses, tradies and creditors in his electorate who have been impacted by this. We know the cost to the economy as a whole is about $5 billion per annum. The cost to small businesses and the cost to creditors is about $3 billion per annum. That is a small business each and every year going to the wall because of the unconscionable phoenixing behaviour of dodgy directors who, time and time and time again, blow their company up, move on down the road and get a slightly different name and a new ABN—maybe it's the same director number or maybe they put their dog down as the director of the new company; that's possible. And the government persists in doing nothing.
When we saw legislation addressing the Black Economy Taskforce on the forward Notice Paper, we had some hope that they were actually going to do something about this, but it was hope forlorn. They've actually pulled from the agenda this week the legislation purporting to deal with phoenixing. We have to ask why. Why has the government, after having received and sat on the Black Economy Taskforce report for so long, abandoned all hope for those small businesses being left high and dry by dodgy directors and by this government, which can't manage its business and can't manage the legislation before the House? It is now the case that we will have to wait until at least next year before we get some feeble legislation from this government to address the problem of phoenixing in this country. We'll have months of delays, months of unpaid bills to creditors and months of small businesses going to the wall because the government has taken no action against these dodgy developers. If we are going to have legislation before the House which deals with the implementation of the recommendations of the Black Economy Taskforce, let's deal with all of the problems, not just pick at one by one. Let's deal with all of the problems and let's ensure that we provide some relief to those small businesses that are being driven to the wall. If only the government and the hapless Assistant Treasurer could manage their business, perhaps get a bit more influence inside their show, we'd have some proper legislation before this House to deal with this issue.
We did learn last night in Senate estimates that they are introducing director identification numbers—which, of course, is the real key in this; every Australian has a tax file number. The real key to ensure we crack down on dodgy developers and illegal phoenixing is putting in place a system of director identification numbers. When we quizzed the government, through Senator Hume in Senate estimates last night, they admitted that this was still a priority for government, but obviously it's not a priority for the assistant minister, or it's a priority in name only. Legislation has been pulled on the matter and we are yet to see legislation in this term of government to deal with director ID numbers.
We're right to be sceptical about the bill before the House today. The community is right to have some concerns, which is why we'll be referring this matter to a Senate inquiry. We invite those members of the community who have concerns to make submissions to that Senate inquiry to ensure that all of those concerns can be adequately dealt with.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I commend the previous speaker. A lot of what he said is very relevant to what we are discussing here today. I don't know whether the schools still have compulsory reading of 1984 and Brave New Worldthe idea that big brother is watching and that you have no right to privacy. They were both profoundly scary books and they were meant, by the people who wrote them, to be scary books—big brother is watching you all of the time. In China, one of the ugliest communities on earth, there is a camera for every three people and the cameras have the ability to face-identify. So big brother is with us in at least one country on earth and it happens to be the biggest country on earth. If ever I've seen 'big brother is watching' legislation, this most certainly is it.
It is particularly relevant in one of the industries that I come from. I've had cattle all of my life. When the banks take you from 6½ per cent to 29 per cent and you have no ability to protect yourself, then you would think you are entitled—because the law forces that upon me—to dodge the law. I would say that of many of my brother cattlemen—I would put that figure at maybe 25 or 30 per cent—when the banks started screwing them. I repeat the figures. I know the figures because I was a person who borrowed at 6½ per cent and, the year before we sold the St Francis station blocks, I was paying 29 per cent and I can assure you I was not Robinson Crusoe. The banks just take it upon themselves. You've signed a document which is not a contract. There are no obligations on the bank's part. As Henry Bournes Higgins, one of the great jurists in this nation's history, said to the courts: 'A contract made by a single person is not a contract.' You sign a document with the banks and he says they can do anything to you at any time they like and you have no right to do anything to them at all. They can simply take you up through huge interest rates.
In the infamous case which probably had eight million or nine million hits on the internet, the Charlie Phillott case—Charles Phillott is one of the great Australians—he had kept his interest and repayments going. He thought he had a contract to keep interest and repayments going. He went hungry to keep his interest and repayments going. He lived in grinding poverty. He is a very honourable man, a very God-fearing man, a man who has said his prayers every morning and evening on every day of his life, and he felt that, if he had a contract, he had to fulfil it. So he fulfilled what he thought was a contract, but of course there was no contract. It was a contract with one person, not two people, so by definition it wasn't a contract. But he kept what he said was his side of it and the bank just said, 'We don't think that you've got any hope of pulling through. All the banks think your equity is lower than we want your equity to be now, so we're going to sell you up,' which they proceeded to do. It was a case so notorious that it was run twice on 60 Minutes. It got massive nationwide publicity. As I said, there were maybe seven or eight million hits by the time it had run its race. There was the famous letter by David Pascoe, 'Letter to my fellow Australians', which had a picture of Charlie Phillott at the top of the page.
What a cattleman can do is sneak a few head away, sell them and put the cash in his pocket where it can't be found, and he might have some ability to survive and repay the banks. He's still got the debt to the banks, of course, but they can't see his ability to survive. According to the legendary stories I know, the biggest cattle-owning family in Australia got their start doing exactly what I just described during the Great Depression. A First Australian—a ringer—and a lady lived up in the mountains. She took the cattle up the mountains in North Queensland where they couldn't be found and traded by cash. The biggest private drilling operator in Australia, again, traded by cash when they were foreclosing on him in the collapse of the mining industry. But when we were desperately, desperately chasing drillers, when the mining boom came again, thank the good lord, he was there. He had a number of drills and could start the programs that created five of our mines around Charters Towers, which brought in nearly $2½ billion a year into the Australian economy and created 2,000 jobs. It doesn't matter whether it's our cattlemen or whether it's our mining drillers or a thousand other groups of people.
I'll give another example. The owners of a hotel were deeply in debt through no fault of their own. The government closed down the wool industry, the government closed down the railways, and the town in which they had the hotels, of course, had no income at all; there was nothing left. Where there had been five or six sheep stations supporting maybe 10 shearers in the town, now there was one cattle station and no shearers. Cattle stations don't need labour, really. A husband and wife can run a very big cattle station by themselves, or six or seven sheep stations converted to cattle stations. I've given you the case of the driller; I've given you the case of the hotelier. The hotelier survived. Two industries came to the town and we were able to base the workforce in that town and, therefore, provide prosperity for that town that had been massacred by the ALP decision to deregulate the wool industry and by the ALP decision to sell off the railways in Queensland. I'm not saying if the other side had been there it would have been any different; they would have done both in my opinion. It just so happened they weren't there—that's all.
We constantly have the police force wanting to make life easier for themselves. Heaven only knows, they have a hard job to do. Who could blame them? But the government is there to protect the rights of the people. Going back to the grim, horrifying Orwellian spectres of George Orwell in 1984 and Brave New World, can you imagine a society in which the only people allowed to have guns were the people in uniforms? John F. Kennedy, when he had all of the Nobel Prize winners gathered together, said, 'This is the greatest aggregation of intellect the White House has ever seen with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.' He was one of the great intellects of human history, Thomas Jefferson, and he was primarily responsible for drawing up the bill of rights. So every time an intelligent group of people have sat down in human history—including Stephen Langton, William Marshall, who drew up the Magna Carta—they have realised the grave dangers of having a society in which the only people allowed to have arms are the people in uniforms—the government people, the king's people, whatever.
I back up the previous speaker very strongly on the phoenix cases. The Sydney Morning Herald highlighted 14 major cases and in each of those cases ASIC or APRA should have been involved. There was the notorious case of the sugar cane mill at Innisfail. We allocate $100 for every million tonne of cane. So if it is two million tonnes, as this was, it is worth $200 million. It was sold out from under the farmers for $2 million. I cannot go into the details of the case here today, but the person who bought it was the person who had offered $57 million the year before. Through a nice, cosy, little arrangement with the liquidators, they got it for $2 million. So they offered $57 million the year before and, with a nice, cosy, little arrangement, they got it for $2 million and the farmers lost $200 million. To provide further proof of what is going on, that sugar mill was sold two years later for $76 million. I am sure it would have been sold for $150 million except for the fact that they would have probably gone to jail. That would have been so outrageous that maybe then and only then would they have gone to jail. But no-one went to jail. We know what the value of the mill was. We know what it was sold for. We know the dirty dealings that went on behind the scenes.
Now, this is the point: there are people who are paid nearly half a million dollars in salaries at APRA and ASIC. In the case of the sugar mills, the then Treasurer Wayne Swan was so enraged that he took a risk—because it is a risk. It can be argued that you are interfering with the course of justice, but it is his duty to see that justice is done. He insisted that ASIC meet with the representatives of the farmers. He ordered them to not once but three times, and they completely defied him and ignored him. If I were to criticise Wayne—and I think he is one of the finest treasurers since the Second World War; the history books will record that—in this case, he should have ruthlessly and brutally sacked them. If I had been in his place, they would have been recklessly and brutally sacked. Everyone knows my reputation when I was a second-ranking minister when the government fell. There was no doubt that, if you defied justice and those principles that we have to protect ordinary people, if you defied those principals with your lazy stupidity and your callous disregard, then we would get you, and we did. It was not only me but other ministers in that wonderful, much-maligned Bjelke-Petersen government.
By the way, I will just mention in passing, since we are talking about legal things here, that he died penniless. He did not have two bob to rub together. There have been only two members of parliament since the Second World War who have refused to take their superannuation because they believed it was the wrong thing to do. He was one of them. He was penniless and refused to take his superannuation. I know, because I was the person designated by cabinet to plead with him to take something because his family was destitute. He never took a free cup of tea for himself.
Interestingly, easily the most important person in Australian history when we are talking about laws and justice is Edward Granville Theodore. That is not my comment; it is Paul Keating's comment. 'The greatest man in Australia's history' is not my comment; it is Malcolm Fraser's comment. The Liberal Prime Minister described him that way. Edward Granville Theodore was in partnership with Clive Packer, someone who he was very close friends with. They formed the Consolidated Press together. He was the founder of the labour movement in Australia, when it was a very great movement, and we were all very proud to be associated with it in those days. In the history books, he was also referred to by the Mungana scandal, like he was some crook. He is the greatest man in Australian history. But let us set that aside.
These criminals, which the previous Labor speaker referred to, get away with anything they want. 'If it suits us and lines my pocket, then I will sell a $200 million mill that is owned by the farmers for $2 million and get away with it!' (Time expired)
I'll start by acknowledging that I've been approached by quite a lot of people in the community—not just constituents but people from right around Australia—who have expressed a broad range of concerns with the Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019, so much so that I won't be supporting it. The sorts of concerns that have been raised by constituents include everything from concern that it's designed to push people into the clutches of the banks so that they have to engage in the banking system to concern that it's an attack on people's fundamental right to use cash. An interesting line of argument, which I think has some merit, is: if Australia does eventually reach negative interest rates, cash will assume new importance but this bill will diminish the ability of people to use cash.
I would add to these concerns what is perhaps the biggest concern to me personally—that is, this bill is simply not necessary. It's theatre by a government that is trying to be seen to be doing something about the issue of money laundering by introducing into this place a bill that does something which we just don't need. At the moment, as all members would know, there's already a requirement to report transactions over $10,000. That and the other laws of the land such as the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No. 1) and the Financial Transaction Reports Regulations 1990—in other words, we have an abundance of laws to do with money laundering and the black economy. The problem is that those laws are not being implemented and enforced; that's the problem. That's what the government and the opposition should be focusing on: the weak governance we have in this country and the weak enforcement and regulatory framework we have in this country. That's the reason the black economy exists. That's the reason money laundering occurs.
That concern about weak governance and enforcement and regulatory agencies is one of the reasons I've been so preoccupied with the Crown casino crisis over the last couple of years. It's not that I have an unhealthy obsession with Crown casino or James Packer; it's that I see the Crown crisis as an excellent case study which really illustrates the problems we have in this country and the problem that agencies are not doing their jobs. Last week there was the remarkable video evidence provided by whistleblowers, who were in fact casino inspectors inside the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation. It was unambiguous evidence of money laundering going on inside the private gaming rooms of Crown casino. Who can forget the images from last week of three gentlemen—apparently it looked like they had come in from overseas—with an Aldi freezer bag, no less, containing what we estimate to be over $3 million in cash. Where was AUSTRAC? How can that be going on at Crown casino? This isn't just about Crown now; this is about a question mark over AUSTRAC.
We all know that casinos attract trouble. We all know that casinos are just about the best place in the country to launder money. You would think then that the people who own and run the casino and that the people who regulate the casino, like the VCGLR, and the people who have a particular interest in money laundering, like AUSTRAC, would have a keen eye on what's going on there—but obviously not. Those whistleblowers, those gambling inspectors who have had to break ranks because the VCGLR is doing nothing about what is going on at Crown, tell me that that sort of scene—millions of dollars in an Aldi bag—happens repeatedly in any one month. I understand it was going on as recently as seven weeks ago. You would think that AUSTRAC would have had a wake-up call. You would think that, since last week, AUSTRAC would have got in touch with me and asked for the names and contact details of those two whistleblowers. But there has been silence. I can only assume that AUSTRAC not only allowed the money laundering to go on but doesn't have an interest in the unambiguous evidence that was made public last week.
But it's not just AUSTRAC; when you look at Crown, just about every agency I can think of has failed us. The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation's own inspectors have had to turn whistleblower because the people who are running the VCGLR are either dunderheads or they are corrupt. They are the only two options: they are dunderheads or they are corrupt. That is why the inspectors from inside the VCGLR have had to break ranks.
What about the Victorian Police? What are they doing about what's going on in Crown? Nothing. I've been told by ex and serving Victorian police officers that they are told not to go to Crown and they refer to Crown as the 'Vatican'—a law unto itself. What about Border Force? Can we rely on them in Australia? No, because we now know that a number of witnesses have spoken up about flights coming in and out of Australia saying that the first time they land is in Melbourne and the aircraft aren't checked and the people on the aircraft aren't checked. We heard a remarkable story from one whistleblower, a Crown driver. He spoke about two Chinese gentlemen getting off a plane for a couple of days at Crown with 15 bags! Given the other evidence we cross-reference it with about the Aldi freezer bag with $3 million in it, I have a sneaky suspicion that I know what's in those 15 bags—probably millions of dollars of cash, drugs, guns and who knows what else. So what is Border Force doing about it? Nothing.
You would think that ASIC would have a particular interest in what goes on in a place like Crown Casino. There is no evidence that they are doing anything about what is going on—even though it is an open secret that majority shareholder James Packer is in almost daily communications with the CEO of Crown. What right does one shareholder in a company have to receive privileged information from the management of that casino? I take this opportunity to call on ASIC to look into that particular matter and the cosy relationship between James Packer and John Alexander, in particular. I call on ASIC to have a look at that relationship and to see if it is unlawful and whether or John Alexander is providing privileged information to one shareholder—information which is not being made available to other shareholders.
What is the Australian Stock Exchange doing about this? What is the ASX doing about the fact that it has been repeatedly deliberately misled by Crown Casino? I remind the House that about two years in this place I made a number of allegations about Crown Casino and, in response, Crown Casino put out a full-page ad in the national papers in which it rebutted all allegations, and John Alexander put his name to it. Of course, afterwards, Crown was found to be guilty of two of the offences that I had raised as allegations and Crown was in fact fined $300,000. What has the ASX done about the fact that it was misled by Crown Casino and was misled again just recently when 60 Minutes and nine newspapers ran their expose of Crown? Again, Crown put out a full-page ad in the newspapers rebutting ambiguous claims of wrongdoing at Crown. That's at least twice that we can think of where Crown has misled the Stock Exchange and the Stock Exchange has done nothing about it.
What other mechanisms are there in this country, when you've got AUSTRAC—fail; VCGLR—fail; VicPol—fail; Border Force—fail; ASIC—fail; and ASX—fail? Who can the community turn to? You would think that the community could turn to their political representatives to do something. So let's look at our track record. When the allegations in nine newspapers and 60 Minutes appeared a couple of months ago, I sought to move a motion in this place that would establish a parliamentary inquiry into the corruption at Crown, the failure of our regulatory agencies and the unhealthy relationship between Crown and politicians serving and former. What did this place do? It voted it down. Just when the public most needed their political representatives to come to their aid and to do something to sort out a mess, the government and opposition voted against the parliamentary inquiry. Just last week, in response to the remarkable video evidence of money laundering at Crown Casino, and other evidence I released last week from a driver who was picking up people from these 'black flights' at the Tullamarine private jet base, I sought to move a motion in this place to establish a royal commission. What happened? It was voted down—again.
What do the government and the opposition have to hide? If they've got nothing to hide they would have no objection to a parliamentary inquiry and they'd have no objection to a royal commission, and a royal commission it needs to be. It is no good having this unnecessary bill today, in which we're going to make cash transactions over $10,000 illegal. There is no point doing things like that when we have much bigger and much deeper problems. What do the government and the opposition have to hide? Is it the amount of the political donations you get from people like Crown Casino, who are deeply corrupt? Is it to protect your mates, like Conroy, Coonan and Bitar, who are now associated with Crown Casino? What's going on here? If you've got nothing to hide, you should have supported the parliamentary inquiry and the move for a royal commission.
I'm talking a lot about Crown Casino here in regard to this cash bill, but I think it's the best example I can find to illustrate the fact that the problem in this country is not a lack of regulation, when it comes to misconduct and money laundering in particular; it's the fact that our politicians are not doing their job, our enforcement agencies are not doing their job and our regulatory bodies are not doing their job. If we want to do something to improve this country and to crackdown on money laundering, we should be having a proper inquiry into what's going on and we should be making these agencies do their job. I take the opportunity to point out that the Victorian government could also do the same. The behaviour of the Victorian gaming minister, who reckons the VCGLR is doing a great job, has become a high farce. She is saying at the same time that VCGLR inspectors have turned whistleblower, releasing evidence from Crown's own security cameras, because their bosses in the VCGLR are either corrupt or they are dunderheads. And you have the Victorian gaming minister saying 'I have all the faith in the world in the VCGLR.' And is Daniel Andrews any hope? No—useless. Nothing to say, move on—further proof of this bizarre and at least legal corruption in the relationship between Crown Casino and the gambling industry and political establishment.
Heavens, don't we need an integrity commission in this country—an independent, strong integrity commission with teeth! They could look into all these issues. Unfortunately, the Attorney-General and I are going to have to continue to disagree with his decision to appoint the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI to look into the Crown crisis. I have a lot of time for ACLEI, as far as its remit goes—and I wish it well in its current inquiries into Crown—but I note when I looked at their website just yesterday that the public hearings about Crown that are being held by ACLEI in Melbourne next week are only to look into Border Force. No-one is looking into AUSTRAC. As we are talking about money laundering today I hope we would agree that AUSTRAC is central to dealing with money laundering, and there's a huge question mark over AUSTRAC. Surely there has to be the most robust inquiry into AUSTRAC and all these other federal organisations—Border Force and ASIC. And ASX, the company, should be looked at as well.
I won't be supporting this bill. It is entirely unnecessary. It is an unhealthy distraction from the reality, which is that our problem is not an absence of money-laundering rules and regulations. The problem in this country is that we have weak governance, politicians who want to hide from the truth and from scrutiny, and just about every agency I can think of at the federal level, and in Victoria at the state level, that's related to money laundering is useless when it comes to money laundering. By some estimates less than one per cent of money from crime is intercepted in this country, and, when you can have an allegation like money laundering last week and AUSTRAC has not even given me a call and asked for the names of the witnesses, it is no wonder that this is so.
I have several strong reservations about this bill. More than any other bill, the Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019 exemplifies the nanny state that this government pretends it has not become. Restricting peoples' ability to purchase products with cash and forcing them to use banks or other financial intermediaries for purchases over $10,000 is an unreasonable restriction on their personal freedom. I know that cash can be a vehicle for money-laundering, but it is grossly unfair to label everyone who pays in cash as a criminal. I know that the government has a role to be diligent against money-laundering, but this has not stopped them from political inaction on the allegations of money-laundering levelled at Crown casino. The government was remarkably low-key in its commentary when the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was found to have failed to report more than 53,000 transactions of $10,000 or more through its supposedly intelligent depositing machines. For a period of three years the Commonwealth Bank also failed to do its required red-flag checks on transactions on over three-quarters of a million bank accounts.
Let's be clear: as the member for Clark says, we have AUSTRAC, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, a federal government department that's funded to the tune of $100 million in the 2019-20 budget. They are there purely to track money-laundering. They are there purely to look at criminal transactions related to money. As the member for Clark says, what is happening with AUSTRAC? What is happening? On the topic of banks, the other reason that I really struggle with this bill is that bank branches are being ripped out of rural and regional communities at a rapid rate of knots. Where do you suppose we go to bank this? We just do not have the access to banking and financial services that we used to, and not everyone was born into the digital generation.
Older Australians facing the digital divide and who do not live in a metropolis, who do not live in a CBD, will be seriously disadvantaged by this bill. In just the last few years in Mayo our electorate has lost an ANZ at Goolwa, and ANZ at Lobethal, the Commonwealth Bank of Stirling and the Commonwealth Bank of Strathalbyn. If you go back a few more years the number almost doubles. There is not even a bank in Hahndorf. That is the busiest tourist town in South Australia. In some communities cash can genuinely be the only option. How many elderly people who sell their second-hand car will have an EFTPOS machine and a wi-fi connection able to do the transaction? We're just not serious. Clearly nobody from the government side has attended a clearing sale lately. The banks have taken away our chequebooks. They have done everything possible to remove cheque accounts, so we are really disadvantaging regional and rural Australians with this bill.
This bill has not only a strict liability offence for making a cash transaction over $10,000 but also a mental element defence for doing so, yet the mental element defence looks only at whether the person knew that there was a real risk that the payment would in essence result in their committing the strict liability offence, not whether the person actually intended to make the cash payment for some nefarious purpose. We are focusing on criminalising their knowledge of risk rather than focusing on criminalising black economy activities that we actually want to stop. If we want to address money laundering, if we're really serious about this, we need to look at the gambling industry. We have footage. We know that that is where money gets washed. We had a vote in this place last week, and both the major parties had no interest at all. They saw the footage and had no interest at all.
Another issue that has been raised with me by many people is that we have interest rates at an all-time low and we don't know, as I heard this morning on AM, whether the interest rates are going to go down further than the three-quarters of a per cent that they are currently. We can look at international examples. The Bank of Japan adopted a negative interest rate in January 2016, essentially meaning it costs money for people with savings to have their money in the bank. But, with this bill, we are not providing them with any alternative, and that is just plain wrong.
While Central Alliance will reserve its position in the Senate until the Senate inquiry into the bill concludes, on the basis of the information currently available and the level of concern—very real concern—in my community, particularly from older members, about this bill, knowing that I am truly representing a regional and rural community that the banks have left, I cannot support this bill in the House.
Firstly, I'd like to thank those members who have contributed to this important debate. In the 2018-19 budget, the government responded to the Black Economy Taskforce's final report by announcing measures to address the growing economic and social problem of the black economy. This bill establishes the cash payment limit and introduces offences for entities that make or accept cash payments of $10,000 or more. It does not apply to personal or private transactions other than real property transactions.
There is an increased possibility that participants in a transaction involving large cash payments are doing so to reduce their tax bill by underreporting their taxable income; avoiding other obligations, such as child support payments; or engaging in welfare fraud or other criminal activities. It will help level the playing field for honest businesses that do the right thing, and remove the notion that acting in the black economy is a victimless crime. 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 Whitlam 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 Whitlam be agreed to.
The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
As there are fewer than five members on the side of the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of the members in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Mr Katter, Ms Sharkie and Mr Wilkie voting no.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House recognises:
(1) the importance of Australia’s long-standing relationship with Israel; and
(2) the need to support cooperation between national tax authorities".
The Treasury Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Bill implements the convention between the government of Australia and the government of Israel for the elimination of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and the prevention of tax evasion and avoidance. As signed by Australia and the State of Israel on 28 March 2019. Labor supports this convention, as we've supported previous efforts to encourage cooperative and cooperation between national tax agencies and help detect and prevent tax evasion. Consequently, we'll be supporting this legislation.
The convention will support new trading opportunities for Australian businesses by reducing withholding taxes, helping to create a more favourable bilateral investment environment between Australia and Israel. The convention will also improve tax certainty for businesses and investors by introducing antidiscrimination and arbitration rules as well as a range of rules to prevent double taxation. Additionally, the convention will help detect and end tax evasion. It does this by authorising the revenue authorities of Australia and Israel to exchange taxpayer information on all taxes that are covered by the convention.
Finally, the convention incorporates important integrity provisions from the G20 OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, known as BEPS. These provisions are designed to minimise tax avoidance opportunities and to ensure that multinational corporations pay the appropriate amount of tax. The new convention will enter into force following the last notification that both countries have completed their domestic requirements, which includes the passage of this bill. As well as amending the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give force to the convention, the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to introduce a new deemed source of income rule. This will ensure that Australia can fully exercise the taxing rights it has negotiated under the new convention and will streamline the negotiation of future international tax agreements. For these reasons, I commend the bill and the amendment to the House.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the motion.
International trade stands as the bedrock of global peace and stability. Fostering economic connectivity between nations has always been the surest sign, not only in increasing prosperity but in facilitating the exchange of ideas. The state of Israel has been referred to as the start-up nation, and Australia has much to gain from amending the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to foster closer economic ties. The Treasury Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Bill 2019 will eliminate double taxation with respect to taxes on income and is similarly an important step in preventing tax evasion.
This bill is the first of its kind between Australia and the state of Israel; it is long overdue. It encourages closer linkages in commercial trade, investment and innovation that go along with our already close cultural ties. Australian businesses are some of the most innovative and internationally competitive. In a world where having a technological edge can make all the difference, the Treasury Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Bill 2019 provides greater ease of access for Australian companies to some of the world's leading technology companies coming out of Israel. As a nation of entrepreneurs and small- to medium-business owners, this government will continue to work in supporting Australian businesses on the international stage and safeguard a fair, rules based trade system. As an important step towards that goal, we are removing double taxation.
The current tax regime has seriously undermined innovative Australian or Israeli companies seeking to expand abroad. Any business owner faced with this tax regime will have thought twice before considering Israel either as a place for expansion of their own businesses or for some of the most innovative Israeli technology companies to come to Australia. For business owners seeking to expand internationally, it is already fraught with tremendous risk, without having to navigate prohibitive tax regulation, freer and fairer markets, and trade, in particular, continues to provide Australians with incredible business opportunities and access to extraordinary technology originating from overseas. Reducing tax barriers to investment is long overdue and helps to support more effective and minimalistic regulation that maximises outcomes for Australians and our partners abroad.
This government is focused on providing Australian businesses with ease of access to overseas markets so that the extraordinary talent and innovative spirit of this country can continue to shape the world and improve the lives of people everywhere. Australian entrepreneurs are at their best when free from government interference and treated equitably wherever they choose to do business, and, through technological innovation, continue to exceed expectations. This bill is as much about supporting Australian businesses and entrepreneurs as it is about providing a much-needed tax reform.
The friendship that Australia and the state of Israel have enjoyed will be strengthened through this bill, as will the history of mateship between our two countries. It is important to note that this new convention does not impact Australia's continued support for a two-state solution, including the resolution of the final status issue. This bill is a genuine reflection of fundamental Australian values which have always stood in support of freedom and democracy. Israel is one of the few genuine democracies in the Middle East, and it is our responsibility to partner with those countries and people who are upholding these ideals. Now, more than ever before, the imperative to collaborate is critical. We cannot take democracy, freedom of speech or free markets for granted but must continue to support these pillars of global peace and prosperity wherever they may be. This bill will encourage our two nations with like values to work together more closely and will enable entrepreneurs from both countries to innovate without being held back or disadvantaged by inhibiting tax regulations.
The nature of this amendment also introduces a domestic source of income rule. This ensures that Australia will still be able to exercise its taxing rights under the new convention and future international agreements.
The passing of this bill is time sensitive. If it were not passed in the spring sitting, the economic benefits would not come into effect until, at the earliest, January 2020.
Whilst the benefits of this bill to Australian businesses and entrepreneurs is clear, the passing of this bill is also critical to implementing the recommendations made by the G20 and OECD. This bill will help tackle tax avoidance, base erosion and profit shifting. A key element in combating the malpractice is through increased information exchange and cooperation with Israel to better tackle this issue and ensure honest and free markets. Both Israel and Australia are members of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS, which provides governments with practical solutions domestically and for use in international treaties, to close loopholes and gaps that may be exploited by organisations to shift profits to lower-tax jurisdictions. This is a decisive bill which shows the government's commitment to tax reform, innovation and closer ties with like-minded peoples.
Australia currently has over 40 bilateral tax treaties in place. That has served the interests of growing Australian businesses and has given Australian consumers access to more goods and services, as foreign companies are encouraged to set up here. It remains an important part of our country's focus on being one of the world's leading start-up powerhouses and innovation leaders. We consistently rank in the top 20 most innovative countries across multiple innovation indexes, and, whilst this is a testament to the Australian entrepreneur, we can be doing more. This bill represents an important effort by the government to provide our business owners with a level playing field when it comes to expanding internationally. Despite the fact that Israel and Australia both have comparatively small populations, we continue to out-innovate, on a per capita basis, many other nations. We will continue to build on this success by supporting an integral part of what keeps our economy growing and acts as a key source of generating new jobs for Australians. It is the ingenuity and hard work of everyday Australians that continues to drive this country forward. The least we can do as a government is to provide them with many of the same opportunities that innovators are afforded across the world. Helping to ensure a fair trading system and encourage a level playing field are important to the continued integrity of our domestic market and to maintain Australia's reputation as the No. 1 destination to do business.
We have a zero tolerance policy for any company or organisation deliberately avoiding paying their fair share of tax when other companies are playing by the rules that this parliament sets. We cannot cut corners or delay when the integrity of our financial markets is under threat. Any unfair advantage is akin to stifling innovation and undercutting entrepreneurs. By the same token, the notion that double taxation is taking place is just as ludicrous and detrimental to consumers and businesses alike. The government announced in the 2019-20 budget to give this convention the force of law to provide that certain income covered by tax treaty is deemed to have an Australian source. As a government that continues to deliver on its promises to the Australian people, we look forward to strengthening our economic and trade ties with the state of Israel, providing more opportunities for Australian and Israeli businesses.
The framework this bill provides is broadly based upon the Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital. This OECD model tax treaty establishes many of the internationally accepted standards on tax and cross-border transactions. By following this recommendation, Australia is implementing a global standard and uniform approach that resolves many of the most common problems related to the application of tax on international transactions. This will improve certainty for Australian taxpayers deriving income from Israel and makes it just a little easier for entrepreneurs wanting or wishing to expand abroad. Under this treaty, tax would be reduced on cross-border dividends, interest and royalties in both Australia and Israel. This all contributes to the economic growth of a more attractive investment and innovation environment between our two countries which have so much in common.
An integral part in the development of this bill was an extensive consultation process run by the Treasury. State and territory governments were consulted through the Commonwealth-State-Territory Standing Committee on Treaties, as well as the public at large. These public consultations took place in 2014 and were later complemented by additional dialogue in 2015. These submissions were received from companies and professional bodies which provided consistently positive feedback and support for the measure. The feedback pointed to strengthening economic ties with Israel, increased investment and trade, as well as further cooperation in areas of science, innovation and technology. In an age of rapid change and disruption in many industries, we must not only be at the cutting edge of technological development but seek to lead these changes in industries where we choose to compete.
The benefit of being innovative and being innovation and technology leaders can be felt by everyday Australians, with new industries providing more jobs, better pay and better opportunity for all Australians. Any bill which is able to support innovation, businesses and consumers, and help ensure the integrity of our tax system is one well worth supporting. For these reasons, I commend this bill to the House.
I'm speaking in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Bill 2019, which gives force of law to a taxation treaty between Australia and Israel and will help alleviate concerns about double taxation between our two countries. This is one of 40 taxation treaties that Australia undertakes with other nations to avoid double taxation in both signatory countries. It is nothing new to Australia, but it does support and grow the relationship between our two great countries. The treaty supports cooperation between Australia and Israel and our tax authorities, and may help address multinational tax avoidance issues as well, something both Australia and Israel have been at the forefront of through OECD processes—in particular, the base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, regime that's come into play in recent years.
The bill also introduces a general domestic source of income rule to ensure that Australia can exercise its taxing rights. Legislating this rule will help streamline future tax treaty negotiations. The requirement for the legislation of this particular rule comes about to overcome a 1965 High Court decision regarding the ability to tax international income. Australia's rules have provided that income profits or gains that are permitted to be taxed by Australia under the relevant treaty are taken to be sourced in Australia. Currently, Australia seeks to secure agreements to include specific source rules in the course of negotiating a tax treaty or legislate a specific rule where such agreement cannot be secured. Legislating a general rule will ensure that this is not required and will streamline future tax negotiations. The new general provision only applies to Israel's convention and any future international agreements. Existing legislation will apply to previous agreements.
This bill will support a healthy economic relationship between Australia and Israel—a relationship that has certainly stood the test of time and, in recent years, has been growing. Australia's bilateral trade with Israel was worth nearly $1.3 billion in 2018. Significant Australian exports to that country include beef, plastics and aluminium. Obviously Australia derives a benefit from trade with Israel as well. Israel is known as the start-up nation. It has a very healthy start-up and tech sector, and I think that we could learn a lot from Israel in terms of incentives for businesses around research and development and the start-up community to encourage new business enterprises to begin in Australia. Israeli investment in Australia was more than $250 million in 2015, while Australian investment in Israel was worth more than $650 million in that same year.
There are 20 Israeli companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, making Israel the third-largest source of foreign company listings in Australia. As I mentioned earlier, that relates to that great culture in Israel of encouraging new business enterprises and businesses to start up within their economy. There's no doubt that the Australian stock market and Australia more generally have benefited from that culture. Australia's relationship with Israel has a very strong historical dimension that's supported by the large Jewish diaspora that live in the many cities and regions of Australia, going back to particularly post World War II. Australia and Israel have cooperated at all levels of international bodies, particularly around economic cooperation and issues associated with tax transparency and accountability, which have been a trend in international tax relations in the wake of the global financial crisis. I'm talking, of course, of OECD programs around base erosion and profit shifting. This particular treaty is based on a model treaty program that is conducted through the OECD to avoid double taxation between countries and to reduce barriers to trade between countries as well, and it will ultimately grow incomes between countries and create jobs.
This is a bill that supports stronger economic ties between Australia and Israel, growing the economic relationship into the future and ensuring a smoother economic relationship, particularly when it comes to taxation issues. Nothing in this treaty will change Australia's commitment to a two-state solution in Israel and negotiation of that particular issue. But this bill ensures that, in the future, the economic prospects between our nations will grow and the relationship will get stronger and stronger to the benefit of both nations. I commend the bill to the House.
I echo the contribution made in this place by the member for Kingsford Smith, who has been a long-time supporter of the Jewish community in his electorate. I know that that support is much appreciated by many members of his community.
This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Bill 2019, is a fairly straightforward bill and one that the Labor Party supports in this place. The bill gives force to a taxation treaty between Australia and Israel that will remove the double-taxation concerns that currently exist between Australians and Israelis. As many Israeli expats live in Macnamara, this is particularly important. We have a vibrant Jewish community, including my family, in the place where I grew up in Macnamara. We have a growing number of Israelis coming to both Macnamara and surrounding communities. The member for Goldstein has a growing number of Israeli expats in his electorate, as do a number of other electorates. This bill will mean that, if people have dual citizenship or have income from one country, people won't be double taxed in Australia. I think that will be welcomed by people in my electorate and is ultimately a good thing.
The other thing this bill will do is create a situation where the Australian taxation authorities and the Israeli taxation authorities will have more cooperation. This will be especially important when dealing with multinational tax avoidance, which is a key part of our relationship with Israel economically. Both countries have a fairly similar economic story and certainly similar economic conditions. Both Australia and Israel are countries where economies have evolved and are evolving quickly. In Israel they do not have as many resources as we have here in Australia. We are absolutely blessed with resources around the country, which have been key drivers in our economy, but in Israel they are resource scarce and have had to rely on ingenuity.
In 1948, when the Labor Party was pivotal in helping to create the state of Israel, my grandfather was one of the first migrants to help establish a newly formed Jewish state after seeing many of his family and his people persecuted throughout World War II and killed off in the Holocaust. He moved to Israel and fought in 1948, in Haifa, and then also served in the Israeli navy, where he brought refugees and Holocaust survivors from Europe to Israel to give them a safe place to live after years of persecution. This is how that relates to this bill: in those days it was a desert land—it is very hot in Israel and, especially in the south, there isn't much green. What happened was that small pockets of communities—kibbutzes—were small socialist utopias, as many people fondly remember. They were small communities where they shared resources and funds, and helped build and transform a country. My grandfather was part of that generation where they turned a desert into an oasis through hard work and ingenuity. They share many of the problems we share. They have a scarcity of water. They have agricultural needs. They have a situation where they need to innovate.
Modern Israel is a far distance away from what the country looked like 70-odd years ago when it was first created. This bill allows for further cooperation. If you're in Tel Aviv now, it is one of the most picturesque, relaxing and wonderful cities in the world. It is a metropolitan city that is deeply progressive and deeply international, and where people are celebrated; one of the largest pride marches in the world happened in Tel Aviv. It is a fabulous place to go and visit.
But Israel is also one of the world's powerhouses of innovation and of IT. Many of the world's largest IT innovators and companies are in Israel, because Israel has this mentality of fostering entrepreneurship, as the previous speakers have spoken about, and a real culture of research, of innovation and of taking risks. That is why a lot of companies choose to do business there. The people and the students coming out of Israel are desperate to make their mark and to find the new innovation, the new thing, that's going to help their community and also humanity more broadly.
When I was working in the Victorian government, in 2017 I had the privilege of going with the Premier, Daniel Andrews, to Israel, to set up the first state based trade office with the state of Israel. We set it up in the same building where Google have their offices, as do PayPal and a number of other major international companies. It was all about making sure that we had more collaboration between, at that stage, the state of Victoria and Israel. It was focused on these ideas of innovation and research, and on how we can assist each other, which was really quite great to be a part of.
One of the things that that trade office signed up to in 2017 was a focus on biomedical science. Israel has some amazing research institutions. They are constantly looking for new ways to push medicines forward and the treatment of various conditions forward. In my electorate, we have the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, one of our nation's most outstanding medical research centres, focused specifically on the heart. We announced a partnership, funded by the Victorian government, where the Baker Institute partnered with the Sheba Medical Center to look at ways of protecting the heart from arrhythmias and also to help produce medicines that work against heartbeat irregularities. That is just one small example of the way that collaboration between Australian institutions and Israeli institutions can benefit both countries. Another collaboration we announced was between the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, which is in Parkville in Melbourne, and the Hadassah Medical Center, on a really fascinating piece of research focused around schizophrenia and the ways in which we can help to treat and better understand it.
This bill goes further on that notion that there is much to be gained by cooperation between our two countries. We have many similarities, economically. We both rely on water, and neither of us have very much of it. We both rely on innovation and we both have a large section of our economy which is powered by services and by IT, research and innovation. It is absolutely in our interests to ensure that Australians and Israelis can work together, and so to prevent double taxation, ultimately, is a good thing.
While I'm on my feet, I'll say: obviously, there are serious challenges that both our countries face, especially Israel. While I don't diminish many of the difficulties that Israelis and other people—and, of course, the Palestinians—face on a regular basis, I would say that this bill is important for the relationship between our peoples and our two countries, which is all about allowing people, growth, innovation and economic relationships to flourish, because Israelis and Australians deserve no less.
Finally, I also want to briefly say that yesterday I was very proud to work with the member for Wentworth on a day—and it was quite a difficult day—where we hosted Dassi Erlich and Nicole Meyer, and, unfortunately, their sister Elly Sapper was unwell. These are victims who suffered the most awful abuse at the hands of their school principal, who fled to Israel.
This bill shows that there is much to be gained by having a productive relationship. There is much to be gained by working together with the Israelis. I know that many people in Israel, including the ambassador, understand the pain that that particular case is causing Australians. It is a feature of our relationship and it will be a feature of our relationship until justice is served. In the meantime we on the Labor side of the House support this bill, because it enables further and greater economic cooperation between Australia and Israel, but until such stage as Malka Leifer is returned, it is important that we continue to apply the pressure. I thank the member for Wentworth and all of those on the other side of the House who helped yesterday in providing a really important day and support to the sisters, who have suffered more than enough. On that note I am pleased to support this bill. We have much to gain from improving economic relationships and improving economic conditions. We have many shared challenges, but we have much to gain by working together. I commend the bill to the House.
I thank all those members who've contributed to the debate. I especially thank the member for Macnamara. That was an excellent speech and contribution. The Treasury Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Bill 2019, by amending the International Tax Agreements Act 1953, gives effect to a new tax treaty between Australia and Israel. It also introduces a new deemed-source-of-income rule for the purpose of the new tax treaty and for any future Australian tax treaties. The new treaty is the first of its kind between Australia and Israel and will provide an avenue to support closer linkage between Australia and Israel. The new treaty will create new trading opportunities for Australian businesses and will encourage trade and investment that is critical for our businesses to export, expand and employ more Australians. The new treaty will also help ensure that multinational corporations pay their fair share of tax and further demonstrates Australia's resolve to stamp out international tax avoidance. 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 Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Whitlam be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise today to support the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019 but, in so doing, I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes:
(a) that the focus of the Government's trade priorities in the short, medium, and long term should be to diversify Australia's trading relationships in order to balance against further external economic shocks; and
(b) the government's failure to allow the Productivity Commission to conduct independent modelling of bilateral trade agreements prior to ratification; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) proactively engage with the Opposition on trade matters, maintaining bipartisanship in the trade portfolio in the face of increasing global economic uncertainty; and
(b) reaffirm Australia's support for a multilateral trade system, including continuing engagement with international trade institutions such as the World Trade Organisation".
In moving these amendments we're ensuring Australia's commitment to a balanced, practical rules based system that serves to further Australia's best interests internationally and at home. In line with that and more broadly, Labor supports the bill before the House. The bill amends the Customs Act to streamline the product-specific rules of origin, or PSRs, for six of Australia's free trade agreements, including the Australia–Chile Free Trade Agreement, the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement, the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Malaysia FTA and the Thailand-Australia FTA.
For the benefit of the House, I'll just briefly explain that product-specific rules of origin are an essential component of FTAs that must be met by importers seeking preferential tariff treatment for goods that include materials not originating in the territories covered by the agreement. They're based upon the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding Systems, well-known as the Harmonized System, which is an international naming system for the classification of traded products. It currently covers thousands of commodity groups and is used by more than 200 economies as a basis for customs tariffs and the collection of international trade statistics. Due to a revision of the Harmonized System, the proposal is to replace individual definitions of Harmonized System with new ones according to each specific free trade agreement. Simply, the amendments aim to simplify the way in which the product-specific rule annexes in each FTA are implemented domestically. So, while this is a fairly technical bill, it speaks to some of the wider issues in the international trading system, and Labor supports bills such as this as part of a bipartisan effort to support a rules based order in international trade.
Australians need to see the tangible benefits from these free trade agreements and others to better understand the part they play in the economic advancement of Australia. In that light, it is worth going through some of the details of the trade agreements concerned in this bill. The Australian-Chile FTA entered in 2009. It was Australia's fifth agreement and first with a Latin American country. It included the elimination of almost 92 per cent of tariff lines, covering 90 per cent of merchandise trade. It also confirmed the commitment of both countries to liberal services and investment regimes. It locked in both countries to high standards on intellectual property protection for patents, trademarks, geographical indicators and copyright issues.
The Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement is one of the most comprehensive bilateral free trade agreements in existence. The agreement came into force in 1983 and covers all trans-Tasman trading goods, including agricultural products, and was the first to include free trade in services. It included a prohibition on all tariffs and quantitative import or export restrictions on trade in goods originating in the free trade area of the agreement. It also contains measures to minimise market distortions in trading goods, including through domestic industry assistance and export subsidies and incentives. There was also a harmonisation of the trans-Tasman food standards through the Australia New Zealand Food Authority agreement of 1995, which means lower compliance costs for industry, fewer regulatory barriers and more consumer choice.
The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement came into force in 2005 and represented a landmark in improving Australia's trade and investment relationship with the world's largest and richest economy and most significant merchandise and services exporter and importer. The agreement significantly improved Australia's attractiveness as a destination for US investment—important for our efforts to maintain Australia at the leading edge of growth and competitiveness. I want to recognise the very important direct investment of US companies into Australia, particularly my state of Western Australia. The investment of Chevron into building the LNG plants across the north-west has been a remarkable boost and of course was part of the construction boom that we saw in recent years. In recent sitting weeks I was pleased to host in my office the US Chamber of Commerce, along with some Labor colleagues that also attended. I want to acknowledge Mr Patrick Kilbride, Senior Vice-President of the Global Innovation Policy Center of the US Chamber of Commerce, and also Miss Kelly Anderson, the director of policy from the same group.
The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement included provisions where tariffs were reduced. Also, 60 per cent of agricultural tariffs went to zero immediately, with a further nine per cent dropped to zero in 2008, and the trade in all metals and minerals became duty free upon entry into force. There was also a closer harmonisation of Australian and US intellectual property, which benefits Australian exporters and creates a more familiar and certain legal environment.
The Korea Australia FTA came into force in 2014. Under that agreement, Australian exporters to Korea gained a competitive edge for their goods exports, with nearly all Korean import taxes on Australian goods eliminated over time. Australian services exporters also have better access to that market. Under that agreement, more than 99 per cent of Australia's goods exports to Korea were eligible to enter duty free or with other preferential access and about 88 per cent of Australia's manufacturing, resources and energy exports entered into Korea duty free from entry into force and all remaining tariffs will be phased out by 1 January 2023.
The Malaysia free trade agreement came into force in 2013. Under that agreement, Malaysia and Australia cut tariffs on a wider range of goods earlier than was negotiated under the earlier agreement, the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. The agreement also addresses other barriers to trade. It makes administration for traders much simpler and there were significant tariff reductions. The agreement has benefited many industries, such as tourism, research and development, mining-related services and also the potential for majority ownership by Australian companies into Malaysian companies.
The Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement came into force in 2005 and was focused on eliminating the majority of Thai tariffs on goods imported from Australia and the reduction of Thailand's previously very high tariff barriers for some goods—tariffs of up to 200 per cent. It's a significant benefit for Australian businesses, opening up a range of export opportunities in South-East Asia's second-largest economy. It was important for many industries, but, in particular, it opened up access for Australian companies to Thailand's services markets, and there was a commitment to liberalise two-way services trade into the future.
It is important to note that trade with Thailand and trade with Malaysia has increased ever since both of these agreements were made, and still far outweighs trade with Indonesia, which is a remarkable fact given the much larger size of the population of Indonesia, and it goes some way towards demonstrating how underdone the relationship is between Australia and Indonesia and how important it is for all of us in this place and outside of this place to work very hard on people-to-people and economic ties with great nations such as Indonesia. Despite some reservations, Labor were supportive of the IA-CEPA, which is still to go through the other place, and we look forward to working with our friends and colleagues in Indonesia in the future.
But, for all the benefits that are claimed about trade agreements, we must also be cognisant of the potential costs that can come from open trade, and that is why the Labor Party has called consistently for independent economic modelling of free trade agreements. In fact, it was Labor in government that did the first economic modelling of the IA-CEPA, the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, when negotiations commenced in 2007. We also welcome the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is now conducting five-year reviews of all free trade agreements. There is an obligation on the government, on Labor as the alternative government and on the business community to ensure the wider community does indeed benefit from open trading relationships with the world and to argue, as we need to do, that the benefits do outweigh any negative impacts and the concerns of the community about those.
We must only look to our friends and strong allies the US to see what happens when domestic politics weaponise international free trade. Those anxious about the economy and in their own very challenging financial and social circumstances were invited to and did, and continue to, blame global open trade for their struggles—and, without an adequate social safety net in the US, who can really blame them for turning to trade as the cause of their quite desperate circumstances?
That's why it is important for a country like Australia to maintain a social safety net, our Medicare system and our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—so that people who are struggling, who have their challenges, are supported by government and by all of those in this House, and are not made to feel like a target for attack by certain people who like to reprimand, and see as negative, people that are in the social safety net and do depend on it to get by. If we fail to do this, we may find ourselves in the situation that the US is in, where people in circumstances where they are struggling turn the blame straight onto global trade. That would not be in the best interests of Australia.
The international trading system, as we know, has entered a period of extraordinary instability and uncertainty over recent years. That has been compounded by the recent events unfolding between the two largest economies in the world. Every tariff imposition and each trade sanction enforced by these countries against one another continues to rip the fabric of international markets and institutions, and there will be a ripple effect that will only widen in diameter. The failure to appoint further judges to the WTO Appellate Body is another crushing blow to an international organisation that has benefited Australia greatly since its inception. In 2019, demand for international products has continued to grow, and interconnected global supply chains criss-cross scores of different regions. A conflict of the magnitude that we are seeing between the US and China only serves as a disruptor to a peaceful working order.
Put simply, the international trading system as it stands is under immense pressure. Now, more than ever, Australia must continue to seek out new markets and new agreements—but good-quality agreements that are fair—to diversify against external financial shocks. We must be a model for other nations in our region and around the globe in a clear pursuit of multilateralism over unilateralism. We must continue to show a willingness to engage in a rules based system that is balanced, fair and rewarding for nations that choose to participate.
The build-up of bilateral trade agreements across the globe has been welcomed in the sense that nations are willing to participate in the trade process; however, as time has progressed the proliferation of these nation-to-nation agreements has resulted in significant underlying concerns for the wider trade system. This noodle bowl effect, as it is called, is detrimental to the multilateral approach under which the World Trade Organization operates and continues to have counterproductive effects in the promotion of open international trade. This is not to say that there are not benefits from bilateral trade agreements—there clearly are—but the greater gain over the longer term is very much in pursuing true multilateralism. That takes time and that takes patience.
The noodle bowl effect not only allows countries to ignore the existing rules based order but presents multiple layers of complicated processes in relation to other international trade agreements which can be both costly and reductive to global tried priorities. This is a disincentive to multilateralism and only serves to amplify the risk of situations like the US-China trade war. The trade war between China and the US should not and cannot become a foundation for the legitimatisation of aggressive trade disputes between nations. Labor supports action that will reinforce institutions like the WTO in order to provide a balanced, reasonable and arbitrary conciliation process to avoid what we can see unfolding internationally.
In this period of global uncertainty, here at home we have seen the gulf widen between the major parties on a number of domestic issues, but this cannot be allowed to happen when discussing trade, and international trade in particular. Trade should be bipartisan in nature, as all members of parliament have an interest increasing the prosperity of our great country. According to a recent Lowy Institute survey, 75 per cent of Australians believe that free and open trade has been good for their own standard of living. That's eight points up since the survey of 2017. It's an obligation on us in this House to do better at explaining these benefits.
At this point I'd like to thank the trade minister, Senator Birmingham, for his willingness to engage with me on a number of issues in relation to the trade portfolio and to address them in a very constructive manner. I look forward to being able to continue to work with him in the national interest and with my colleagues, of course, on this side of the House and on the other side of the House.
Is there a seconder for the amendment?
I second the amendment. I spoke in the debate earlier this week about the specifics of the Indonesia free trade agreement, the largest of the three free trade agreements that we're discussing in this subsequent bill, the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019. Labor supported those free trade agreements, as we have supported trade liberalisation in Australia for nearly 50 years. This goes back to Gough Whitlam's decision in 1973 to cut tariffs by 25 per cent and to the decisions of the Hawke government to cut tariffs in 1988 and 1991. They did so not out of any ideological belief in free trade but because of a practical recognition that tariffs are a regressive tax and that the burden of tariffs falls more heavily on low-income Australians than on high-income Australians as a share of their income.
Just as it has been the Labor side of politics that has been sceptical about the benefits of consumption taxes, so too has it been the Labor side of the House that has been most sceptical about the benefits of tariffs, which are a consumption tax on overseas imports. We have recognised, too, that open markets benefit workers by creating more jobs. Exporting firms tend to pay higher wages and do more research and development. Multinational firms are more likely to pay higher wages. We recognise that openness is not an unmitigated good but, managed well, it can be one of the drivers of prosperity for Australia. Labor has always recognised that a strong social safety net must go hand in hand with trade liberalisation. Just as the Hawke government in the 1980s, through people such as John Button, worked with industries to engage in suitable restructuring packages, so too Labor today believes it is vital to have strong social supports and a cooperative relationship with industries to manage the impacts of trade. While trade boosts aggregate incomes, it doesn't follow automatically that every worker and every industry is made better off by trade, so we need to ensure that social supports are in place as we work to gain the benefits of trade. Labor's commitment is shown through our Australia in the Asian century white paper, delivered by the Gillard government, and the Future Asia suite of policies which Labor took to the last election.
As the shadow trade minister has pointed out, multilateral agreements are the best way of achieving trade liberalisation. The Productivity Commission notes that bilateral and regional agreements may have limitations. In this case, Labor saw these three bilateral agreements as being good, on balance. As the shadow trade minister has eloquently pointed out, they weren't negotiated precisely as Labor would have done, but on balance we saw the need to support them. As the trade shadow minister noted in The West Australian today, Indonesia, as a result of this agreement, will provide duty free or preferential access for 99.9 per cent of Australia's goods exports and there will be new services opportunities for Australian exporting firms. In return, Australia will scrap any remaining tariffs on Indonesian imports.
I acknowledge Michiko Mokodompit, who's been working in my office this week. She is a young Indonesian woman who assisted me in preparing my remarks earlier this week. My own background with Indonesia is as somebody who lived in Indonesia for three years and has a great deal of warmth and personal affinity for Indonesians. I see this agreement as encouraging those strong ties.
The Productivity Commission, in its trade policy review that was brought down this year, noted that Australia has signed 15 bilateral and regional preference agreements. It's useful to go through what those 15 agreements are: New Zealand in 1983, Singapore in 2003, Thailand and the United States in 2005, Chile in 2009, ASEAN and New Zealand in 2010, Malaysia in 2013, Korea in 2014, China and Japan in 2015, PACER Plus in 2017, CPTPP in 2018, Peru in 2018 as well, and Hong Kong and Indonesia in 2019. Those agreements will potentially be built on by the negotiations which are underway on prospective bilateral agreements with the European Union and India and the negotiations which are ongoing over the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership—an ASEAN-centred proposal for a regional free trade area which would include 10 ASEAN member states and the countries that have existing free trade agreements with ASEAN: Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and New Zealand. The RCEP participating countries account for almost half the world's population, 30 per cent of global GDP and a quarter of world exports.
It's important that we go into free trade agreements or preferential trade agreements with clear eyes. Preferential trade agreements necessarily cover a smaller volume of trade than a multilateral trade agreement would encompass. A study by the Productivity Commission in 2003 found that two-thirds of the free trade agreements they surveyed diverted more trade from non-members than they created among members. So not every FTA is a good FTA. There's potential, as the Productivity Commission pointed out, for internal discrimination and for powerful vested interests to have more sway over what's included within a preferential trade agreement than might be the case through multilateral negotiations.
There's also the complexity. The shadow trade minister referred to Jagdish Bhagwati's metaphor of a spaghetti bowl, which we in the Asian region tend to refer to as the 'noodle bowl effect'—the risk that preferential trade agreements can end up diverting more trade than they create. But we also need to be pragmatic. We need to recognise what the World Trade Organization negotiations have become. The Doha Round has potentially become 'dead as a Doha'! We may not see another multilateral trade deal in our lifetimes of the scale that we saw in the Uruguay trade agreement negotiated by Labor.
In that context, we may be operating in the world of the second-best regional agreements and third-best preferential trade agreements. But if we are in that world, we need to have appropriate modelling. Labor has called for modelling not just by the department that is a responsible for negotiating the agreement, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, but also by the Productivity Commission, which is well set up to carry out the sort of independent modelling that is necessary to have a clear-eyed assessment of the cost and benefits of these agreements.
We have also called in the past for a review by the Productivity Commission of the benefits of preferential trade agreements a decade on, to find out after the dust has settled how they have panned out and whether the promises that were made in the signing ceremonies, which are always bold, have been delivered in reality. We continue to take the view that expert independent modelling would be desirable not only from an economic standpoint but from a political one too.
As the shadow trade minister has noted, the global view of trade is hardening in some countries. While in Australia we still see strong popular support for free trade and a recognition by many that trade benefits their household, in the United States the backlash against trade has been strong. The hardship that has been experienced, particularly in parts of the rust belt Midwest through rapid job loss, has been blamed too heavily on trade, even though technology is doing far more job destruction than trade. Trade is an easy scapegoat for right-wing populists, and it is a danger that we must face down here. It is important that, in Australia, we do not descend into populism. The cost of a trade war would be massive.
As the Productivity Commission noted in 2017, a major trade war could see Australia slip into recession, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. The impact of a global Smoot-Hawley style rise in protectionism would be dramatic and negative for Australia. A relatively undiversified country like ours would suffer far more than large economies which can turn inwards to their own domestic market were a trade war to start. Maintaining popular support for openness is vital, and that is why we on the Labor side of the House believe that more needs to be done to ensure that there is independent assessment of the benefits of preferential trade agreements.
I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate on the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019. The bill will amend the Customs Act to simplify the way in which the product-specific rules of origin annexes in six of Australia's free trade agreements, the FTAs, are implemented domestically. The Customs Act will refer directly to the annexes, enabling future changes to the annexes to be reconsidered in the Customs Act. This will remove the need to prescribe the product-specific rules of origin in regulations to amend them when the annexes are updated.
The changes to the Customs Act proposed by the bill are technical in nature and do not change the benefits available under any of the FTAs. These amendments, however, will streamline the implementation of updates to the FTAs that relate to goods, help facilitate smoother trade between Australia and our FTA partners and reduce the administrative burden on importers. Further, it is expected that the size of the regulations for the six affected FTAs will significantly reduce over 3,000 pages to about 90 pages, lowering the cost administration of the FTAs and removing unnecessary red tape.
Regarding the opposition amendments, this bill has nothing to do with economic modelling, IA-CEPA or the other free trade agreements considered by this House on Monday. It is concerning that the shadow minister for trade and the shadow assistant minister for Treasury cannot work that out. All we ask the opposition to do is actually read the bill. This has nothing to do with that. I therefore commend this bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Brand has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the immediate question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that, under the Coalition Government, Australia's higher education system is failing kids, workers and businesses, as demonstrated by:
(1) falling entrance marks for teaching degrees;
(2) the Government leaving behind our regions;
(3) a skills crisis where 150,000 apprentices and trainees have been lost and more than $3 billion has been cut from TAFE and training; and
(4) restricted access to university, with 200,000 Australians locked out of university, especially in the suburbs and the regions".
Of course, Labor won't be opposing the content of these bills. They provide some sensible measures that make it a bit easier for students to take up aviation courses, making sure that those students are not saddled with unreasonable debts. It is very expensive to undertake an aviation course; the funding previously did not reflect that. We support the government's decision to allow students to receive better support for aviation courses.
We also support the measure that will allow student teachers' HELP debts to be reduced or even completely waived if they move to a very remote school. We won't oppose measures that are aimed at addressing the critical shortage of teachers in our remote communities. I'd like to particularly draw attention to the fact that this bill also covers teachers going into early-childhood settings, going into kindergartens or early-childhood education and care settings. We are very supportive of that. We really want kids who are growing up in remote communities to get the very best start in life, and having qualified teachers, including in early-childhood education and care settings, is a really important part of that.
Aside from describing these measures that we are supportive of, I think it's important to say that, more broadly, this government has really let down young Australians when it comes to education. The consequences are serious for young people who are not getting the best education, which they really deserve. It's also very important for us as a nation to continue to invest in high-quality education. We've seen productivity go backwards in this country in recent years. The best and most important investment we can make in continuing to improve productivity in our country, given how quickly our world is changing and how quickly the world of work is changing, is in our young people—invest in people throughout their working lives to make sure that they have an education that helps them get a job, do that job well and continue to improve in their work. We've seen so many examples in recent times of a government that's letting us down when it comes to this type of investment.
We are still very concerned, of course, that there is no guarantee that funding for preschool will continue beyond 2020. Certainly it was Labor's intention, had we won office, not just to confirm that preschool funding for four-year-olds would be universally available permanently but also to extend that to universal funding for three-year-olds, to make sure that they have access to preschool. Countries around the world are investing more in early-childhood education and care, because we know that when we give kids a great start in life it follows them through their lives. It means that they are more successful when they start school and it means they are more successful in the workforce. It's a great advantage for those children, but it's also a great advantage for us as a nation. It's a really important way that we can reduce the disparities in our nation and make sure that we continue to be a wealthy, successful nation globally.
We've also seen, of course, this government's determination to stick with its $14 billion of cuts for public schools. We've had different iterations of school funding from this government. We had, when Joe Hockey was the Treasurer and under Prime Minister Abbott, an effort to cut $30 billion from schools. That was softened a little bit under Prime Minister Abbott—a $22 billion dollar cut from schools. When Scott Morrison became the Prime Minister, we saw that the cut was reduced to hitting only public schools. Of course Labor supported the restoration of funding to Catholic and independent schools. We had been standing side-by-side with them in their fight for fair funding. But how can it possibly be okay that these cuts now fallen entirely on public schools? Our public schools right around the nation will miss out on more than $14 billion in funding because of the decisions that this government has made.
When it comes to universities, 200,000 young people who will miss out now because of the recapping of university places. We've seen the slashing of funding for research in universities and, most recently, we've been talking about a skills crisis. The Prime Minister's has been saying that he wants young people to study a trade; I agree. I would be so happy if my kids came home and told me they wanted to study a trade. My dad was a plumber. He liked to tell me that plumbers had saved more lives in the 20th century than doctors.
Electrician.
Electrician, as the member opposite is saying. They're all great jobs. But to really give parents, teachers, career advisers and young people themselves the confidence to pursue vocational education, we need to invest in vocational education. After billions of dollars of cuts and close to a billion-dollar underspend that I revealed yesterday, it's no wonder that people, when they are making a decision about what they're going to study and are looking at TAFE campuses around the country—with their facilities running down, campuses closing, being sold off by state governments and courses being cancelled—think twice about TAFE in that environment of uncertainty with fees going up because of the decisions of some state governments.
What you can say for certain is that education policy under those opposite in recent years has been letting down our young people; it's been letting down our businesses. We see skills shortages right across the economy, businesses struggling to find the skilled staff they need—they're telling us that; I'm not saying that. Businesses are telling us that they're finding it hard to find the skilled staff they need. Three-quarters of businesses have told us in one survey that they can't find the qualified staff they need. At the same time, we've got close to two million Australians who are unemployed or underemployed. So we've got skills shortages, we've got unemployed Australians, we've got extraordinarily high numbers of people here on temporary skilled migration visas or other temporary work visas and we're cutting funding, not even spending the funding that's still allocated to fix that mismatch. It is so wrong that in Australia today, skills shortages and high unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, can coexist. We should never let those things coexist. We should be training Australians for those jobs that businesses tell us they need trained staff for. This, of course, is set in a time, in a context, with a background of very uncertain economic circumstances. Australia's economic growth is the slowest it's been since the global financial crisis. When Labor was in government we at one stage had the fastest or the second-fastest growing economy in the world. For quite some time we were the fastest or second-fastest growing economy in the world. When those opposite came to government, Australia was the eighth-fastest-growing economy in the world. We're now 20th on that list. Under those opposite, we've fallen from the eighth-fastest-growing economy in the world to the 20th-fastest-growing economy in the world.
Wages are stagnant. People are feeling it in their family budgets. We know that household debt has skyrocketed, living standards are going backwards, business investment is at its lowest level since the 1990s recession, productivity is not keeping up and we have dampened consumer and business confidence. When you combine all of these things, when you set underspending or cuts in education or failure in education against this backdrop, you see how critical it is for our economy, for our people, to get education properly on the move.
What's the plan to fix the failure that we see in our education system? What's the plan to stop our results in reading, writing, maths, science and computing from continuing to fall? What's the plan to attract more of our best and brightest into teaching? What's the plan to address the skills crises that we see right across the economy, the shortages that we see in every community around Australia? What's the plan to get young people who are unemployed or underemployed into the workforce? What's the plan to invest in our universities and make sure they're driving research and discovery and contributing to our national wealth? What's the plan from those opposite? There isn't one. So, while I say that the measures in this bill are inoffensive—they're fine—where is the plan to lift education standards in this country?
At a recent conference, the minister responsible for TAFE and training, Minister Cash, said, 'This government is about jobs, jobs, jobs.' Well, people are going to need all three of those jobs to make ends meet as we continue to see the lowest wages growth on record. We see more people than ever before working multiple jobs, including four or more jobs. I'm really concerned that our economy is heading to a time when people are working multiple, unskilled or low-skilled jobs just to make ends meet, and even with those four or more jobs they won't be able to have a decent standard of living for themselves and their family. Part of the reason we have to invest in skills is that we want people to get the skills they need as they leave school. We know that nine out of 10 jobs that will be created in coming years will need either a university or a TAFE qualification to do them. We know that at the moment there are more than five people competing for every entry-level job. We need to upskill people so that they can take on those more complex jobs that the modern economy is producing. We also need to continue to upskill and reskill people throughout their working lives. One of the reasons is that Australia should never become a low-wage, low-skills economy. By investing in TAFE and training and universities and schools, we're not just investing in individuals and giving them the opportunity to make a decent living for themselves and their families. What we're guaranteeing is that our workforce will see increased productivity; they'll be better at their work; they'll be more innovative; they'll be discovering and inventing new ways of working, in a way that benefits us all. That's why we invest, as a community, in educating each of us, because the personal benefit is important, but the collective benefit for our economy is vital.
Instead of this investment, what we've seen from those opposite is cuts—$3 billion, as I said, already cut from TAFE and training. But yesterday I also described the underspend that we've seen, year after year, in the TAFE and training area. In the financial year 2014-15, there was a $138 million underspend; in financial year 2015-16, a $247 million underspend; in financial year 2016-17, a $118 million underspend; in financial year 2017-18, a $202 million underspend; and in financial year 2018-19, a $214 million underspend. That is a total of $919 million less spent on vocational education, apprenticeships and traineeships than those opposite had promised.
We opposed the cuts. We thought the cuts were terrible. We made our case against the cuts.
But, on top of those cuts, we've seen those opposite underspend by close to $1 billion and then heard the minister say, in Senate estimates: 'Oh, it's demand-driven. If there's an underspend, it just means there's not demand in the economy'! How can we say there's no demand in the economy when we've got youth unemployment at close to one in four in some communities—certainly, one in five in many communities—and we've got skills shortages across our economy that are holding back our businesses? How can the minister possibly say there is no demand for this funding when those two things coexist: unemployment and skill shortages? What we know is that this government has failed to support our TAFE and training system, failed to make it attractive and failed to give people confidence that it's a good option for them. In doing that, they've let down Australians and they've let down Australian businesses. The sorts of programs that have been underfunded include apprentice incentives for business, support to help people finish apprenticeships and a fund designed to train Australians in areas of need. How can these programs have been underspent on when the need is so obviously there?
I think that, if the Prime Minister is serious about his claim that, as he says, he wants 'to really lift the status of vocational education in Australia', what he needs to do is to make sure that the programs that currently exist are actually meeting the needs of people who are seeking training and of employers, and he needs to restore some of the billions of dollars cut from this sector so that it is no longer treated as the poor cousin of our universities.
I was very proud to work with my friend former senator Doug Cameron in the lead-up to the last election to make sure that we were properly funding our TAFEs—two-thirds of Commonwealth funding going to public TAFE—and that we had a very substantial program for rebuilding our TAFE campuses, making sure that Commonwealth funded projects had at least one in 10 of their employees as apprentices. These are the sorts of measures that would actually make a difference in Australia.
Instead, what we have seen is: under those opposite, Australia has lost more than 150,000 apprentices and trainees. So we've got skills shortages, we've got youth unemployment, and we've got 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees.
I've seen the difference that a great vocational education system can make. I have met people whose lives have been transformed by the opportunities that a TAFE education provides—a 43-year-old single mum who left school at 15 getting her first qualification and her entry into a job in early childhood education and care; or a refugee who is now a university law student because of the English language and tertiary preparation courses offered through TAFE. These things are life changing. They are life changing. We need to get our investment in TAFE right. We also need to get our investment in universities right.
Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman said:
Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run it is almost everything. A country's ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker.
We and those opposite have very different ideas about how you improve productivity. One of the most effective ways that we can improve productivity is to continue to invest in the education of our workforce—in TAFE and in university. Our university sector has been a driver of so much economic growth in this country by educating students, obviously, but also by inventing and discovering things that will make Australia rich: new processes, new devices, new medicines, new medical breakthroughs, new scientific breakthroughs. It is such an important investment. In fact, both the OECD and Universities Australia have estimated that the real rate of return to the Australian economy from investing in tertiary education is more than 14 per cent. That represents the second-best return on investment in higher education of all the OECD nations. So we invest in education at a university level, but we get a return on that. In 2013 the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency found that every extra dollar invested in tertiary education would, on average, grow the economy by $26 within a decade. That's not a bad return, 26 bucks on one buck.
So many of us in this place are beneficiaries of the Whitlam government's opening-up of Australian universities to working-class people, and it's always Labor's intention and it's always our determination to ensure that that opportunity continues to be available based not on your parents' ability to pay but on your desire as a student to educate yourself, to work hard, to learn something and then to put it to good use for the community that you're part of. We want to make sure that a university education is never out of reach based on its cost.
After years of neglect under the previous Howard government, Labor almost doubled university spending during our time in office, from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. We invested in magnificent new research facilities that upgraded our universities. Because of our policy under Julia Gillard, the uncapping of university places, we saw close to 220,000 extra students get the opportunity of a university education, including many, many who were the first in their family to get a university education. Financially disadvantaged student enrolments increased by 66 per cent, Indigenous undergraduate student enrolments increased by 105 per cent, enrolments of undergraduate students with a disability grew by 123 per cent and enrolments of students from regional and remote areas increased by 50 per cent. It shows how important it is, and what a difference it can make when we refuse to starve universities of the funding they need.
I want to follow up on the point about regional students: enrolments of students from regional and remote areas increased by 50 per cent when we were last in government. One of the things that I find most perplexing about those opposite, particularly the ones that sit at the bottom of the chamber 'U', the National Party members, is their preparedness to allow students from regional and remote areas to miss out on educational opportunities. Our needs based funding for schools would have benefited the electorates of National Party members much more than my electorate, for example. The needs based funding formula was great for remote, small, needy schools like those represented by National Party members. That's why the New South Wales Nationals MPs, part of the coalition government in New South Wales, were so keen on the original needs based funding formulae. I remember the former education minister in New South Wales, Adrian Piccoli, saying how good this funding was for regional and remote communities.
But it's not only schools. Those opposite, as well as starving small, regional, remote schools of funding, are underinvesting in regional universities. Just one tiny example: we had a plan for La Trobe University's Bendigo campus. If we'd been elected, you would have seen an extra thousand students, because of our uncapping of student places. It would have been great for the thousand students, who would have had the opportunity for an education that they're otherwise going to miss out on, but imagine what having an extra thousand students in Bendigo does for the local economy and jobs in the local area as well. Research has found that seven in 10 regional university graduates take up work outside of metropolitan areas once they've graduated, and those students reinvest more than $2 billion a year in those regional communities with university campuses. A Productivity Commission report tells us that rural, regional and remote students are significantly more likely to drop out, however, compared to their metropolitan peers. This is the point.
We need to open up opportunities for regional and remote students and then we need to support them on their journey through higher education. We need to take into account the difficulty of relocating and travelling significant distances or the loneliness and the difficulty of completing online study. We need to make sure those students have options available to them. The recent Napthine review is not bad. It told us that student places should be uncapped for regional and remote students. Yes—or you could go the whole way, back to an uncapped system where, if you're prepared to work hard and you have the ability, you can get a university education. We need to make sure that students right across Australia have the opportunity of getting a really good quality education. I'm never going to accept that a young person from Sydney's North Shore is five times more likely to get a university education than someone from the Northern Territory. It's not because there are five times as many clever people there; this is about opportunity. Opportunity should be equally available to every single Australian.
I'll conclude with a few words on schools. Public schools educate 70 per cent of kids in rural, regional and remote areas. They educate the majority of kids in poorer families, children with a disability and Indigenous students—those for whom extra resources make the biggest difference. That is why it is so heartbreaking that, under the government's new school funding formula, all nongovernment schools will reach or exceed their fair funding level but nine in 10 public schools—90 per cent—never will. No Australian can accept that kind of educational disparity for Australian children. I'll work my hardest to make sure we're in a position to change this.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment. It's an honour to follow the member for Sydney. I think everyone in this place understands that she has a total commitment to education in this country. She is a person that fully understands that education is a great enabler for Australian children and also that the most essential investment a country can make is in human resources through education. In saying that, we will be supporting the passage of this bill. Nevertheless, I don't intend to let the government get away with fooling everyday Australians or let people believe that this government actually cares about what's happening in our schools, universities and TAFE colleges.
Essentially, what this bill does is it introduces two fundamental changes. Firstly, the bill makes sensible changes to cover the costs of training for licences and rating required by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the most practical commercial aviation requirements. The bill increases the combined Higher Education Loan Program, the HELP scheme, for students undertaking eligible aviation courses from 1 January 2020 from $104,440 to $152,700. Essentially, if we are going to have the pilots that we need for tomorrow, we need to invest in those aviation students today, and the cost of aviation education, as most people in this place would understand, is very high and is continually impacted by the various requirements of the air safety authority for commercial pilots. So reducing the barrier to enrol in aviation education, I think, is a good thing, and we fully support that.
Secondly, the bill also introduces remission of an individual's HELP debt relating to their recognised initial teacher training qualification after four years of teaching in remote schools. I've got to say that this is a very good thing. This is about trying to get new graduates to actually commit to teaching in remote and regional areas. For the purpose of this, schools will be defined as early childhood education and care services providing a preschool education program as well as preschools themselves and schools providing primary or secondary education. The measure also waives indexation of a teacher's accumulated HELP debt on the years they are teaching at such schools. Again, that's a good thing. It's something positive we can do to encourage people to consider not only education in the first instance but also committing to teaching in remote areas. So that is a welcome addition and something which should be supported.
As a parliament, we must be working to ensure that every child in every classroom in every school gets the same first-class education. That's always been the desire of Labor. It's the position we've taken to a number of elections. We believe first and foremost in education.
I certainly won't be opposing any of the sensible changes brought in by this legislation, but I do want to draw attention to the relentless attacks that have been made by this government and its predecessor Liberal governments particularly on higher education areas and vocational and technical education. After the election of Tony Abbott, followed by Mr Turnbull and then Prime Minister Morrison, we have seen attack after attack on our universities. We have seen them cut $2.2 billion in funding from our universities, which has certainly impacted tertiary education for Australian students. Since the election of Mr Abbott in 2013, where he promised no cuts to education, universities have had fee deregulation, policy chaos and, from a university administrator's point of view, an overlay of uncertainty.
The government used the 2017 MYEFO report as a back-door way of cutting $2.2 billion off universities, effectively re-capping undergraduate places and changing the higher education program. They were reckless and unfair. They ensured up to 200,000 Australian students would effectively miss out on the opportunity to attend university. That government, simply by capping those places, not only devastated the aims and aspirations of many families and their children but it also had a devastating impact on our society and particularly on our economy. Professor Margaret Gardner, the chair of Universities Australia, correctly described as a double-whammy on students to lift fees and erode funds for courses and support.
The government tried to talk up the support for rural, regional and remote students yet it continued to ignore the recommendations that came out of the Napthine review. By the way, its very first recommendation was to reintroduce Labor's demand driven system for regional universities. The member for Sydney has just very eloquently explained the significance of not getting regional children tertiary education through regional universities but also what it meant for those universities to not be able to attract additional tertiary students and what it meant to the economy of remote and regional areas.
Of the extra 213,064 additional students between 2009 and 2017 who got a university education because of Labor's policies, you realise that 25 per cent of those, quite frankly, came from the lowest socioeconomic quartiles in our society. This actually made a difference. People could be educated and then use that education to lift themselves out of the low socio-economic status that many of them came from. In saying that, I particularly refer to the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. Their representation in universities nearly doubled from 7,391 in 2009 to 14,429 in 2017.
If the Liberals had their way, they would have also introduced $100,000 degrees. They have forced students to start paying off their HELP debts when they earn $45,000, which is only $9,000 above the minimum wage. On this side of the House, we know that debt is a significant barrier to study, particularly for those from low-income families. I want to see a greater participation rate of Australian students, particularly from areas represented by me and the member for Blaxland and the member for Werriwa, areas which have a significantly high proportion of disadvantage. We see the opportunity of a university education as what can lift people out of poverty to fulfil their aims and aspirations in life. We think that's a good thing. Professor Barney Glover, Vice-Chancellor and President of Western Sydney University, succinctly summed up the ramifications of this government's savage cuts to our universities, stating:
The changes the Government is proposing constitute a significant risk to the sustainability, quality and competitiveness of Australia's universities.
When leaders of universities are speaking like that, I think the government should be taking note. We want to make sure that our universities are competitive, can deliver courses and can support the demand that is out there for tertiary education.
No wonder the Prime Minister is conducting a series of seminars saying, 'Well, you don't need to go to university; you could actually become a tradesperson.' That could be true, until you look at what the government has done to TAFE colleges and vocational education. The $3 billion cuts to TAFE don't bear out his proposition that, instead of a tertiary education at a university, 'maybe you should think about going to TAFE'. I think it is time that the government put their money where their mouth is. If you believe in education, make the investment—don't be mealy-mouthed and go around using MyInfo to justify cuts to universities or TAFE colleges.
Quite frankly, we need a government that is prepared to invest in the future of our nation. An investment in education is the biggest and most effective investment a government can make in the future of a nation. Yet this government looks at ways to cut that investment and make it more difficult for those who educate our students—whether it be at a university level or at a vocational education level—to go about their job of ensuring that we have the talents and skills that we need for the future of this country.
In speaking about education, I would also like to talk about our teachers. We should be looking at what occurs in other countries, particularly countries in Europe. We need to have a system where we have the top achievers in universities seeking to compete for the opportunity to become teachers. We believe that those who teach should be treated and seen with the same degree of respect as any professional, whether they be in medicine, law or any of the other professions. We need to ensure that we have the best and brightest people committing to educate our children. After all, they are the ones who are going to be developing people for the future. We want them to help develop in our young people a lifelong thirst for education. It does not help when we see the rankings required to qualify for teaching degrees going lower and lower. As I said, we need to ensure that we have the best and brightest people committed to education and remaining in that profession doing what this nation needs them to do—developing our human resources.
In closing, I will just make a few comments on TAFE. This government has to acknowledge that, over the course of their term, we've lost 150,000 apprentices and trainees—and that was before their $3 billion of cuts to the TAFE sector. Two of my sons are tradesmen. They both went through Miller TAFE. One is a builder and one is an electrician. They both do very well and we are very proud of what they do. But courses like that have been cut back. A young person in Western Sydney now has to find a TAFE—not where the people are; you've got to go somewhere else now—to try to get educated and skilled in the most basic aspects of building, electrical, mechanical and other trades like that. We need TAFE colleges applying their training to where the people are—to where the buildings are being constructed and where they can work in partnership with employers. But the government just closes their eyes to that and say that it is a state matter. Education is not something that we can just kick around on some geographical map or some constitutional requirement to say whether this is or a state or federal issue.
If we are serious about developing this country, if we are serious about having the skills sets that we need for the future, we must be determined to invest in the resources we need. This government should be condemned for their lack of attention to and investment in both higher education and TAFE and vocational training.
I'm pleased to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 before the House today, as I, like many of my colleagues on this side, take education seriously. I only wish those on the other side of the chamber shared that sentiment. I'll speak a little bit about that later in the course of my remarks on this bill today. I'm very proud to represent the south-west corridor of Brisbane and Ipswich, where there are around 53 schools, which I have the pleasure of representing. At each one of these schools there are amazing principals, amazing teachers, amazing support staff, amazing cleaners and, of course, amazing students. Every principal or teacher I speak to is in it for exactly the same reason—the kids—be they prep teachers with our young five and six-year-olds, just starting school, learning the alphabet and learning to count, right through to the amazing and wonderful teachers who support our year 12s, who have just come out of the fire of year 12, their final year of schooling, before heading off to university or TAFE or to begin their careers. All of them believe in the value of a good education. All of them put their students first to ensure they have the best chance of success. I'm also really proud to acknowledge the work of each and every one of the educators in my electorate, in particular my sister Susan, who has been an educator for over 30 years. Like thousands of teachers across the country, she loves her job and puts her heart and soul into it every single day. Like many teachers, she works long hours, often into the night, and is not afraid to call me day or night with her great ideas about how we can improve education. On my phone, as the member for Blaxland would appreciate, the ring tone when she calls me is Darth Vader. I am fully aware of her frontline experience and I value it every single day.
We as members of parliament are charged with the duty of ensuring our schools, principals, teachers and students receive the support they need, which brings me back to the bill we are considering today. The bill makes amendments to several pieces of education legislation—namely, the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Act and the VET Student Loans Act. As the shadow minister, the member for Sydney, has indicated, we will not be opposing the changes put forward by the government but I do want to speak strongly on the second reading amendment by the member for Sydney, which outlines the significant concerns we have on this side of the House about the government's long track record of failure after failure when it comes to supporting our schools and students. It is not an issue we hear the Prime Minister speak about a lot and we don't hear a lot of commentary from the government. We note that, if the government were committed to giving kids in the most remote schools, and indeed all schools, the best chance to get ahead, they would be adopting, as we've heard from the previous speaker, Labor's sector-blind, needs based approach to funding, which would have seen the most disadvantaged schools get the most funding in the shortest amount of time. But, as facts speak for themselves, that sadly is not the case. Like so many times before, this government has shown they aren't serious when it comes to supporting our schools. If they were fair dinkum, every public school in the nation would be sharing in an additional $14 billion to support needs based learning and development. The attitude from this government is: schools have enough. Public schools educate two-thirds of students in this country. Just over 2½ million children attend fantastic local public schools. In particular, it's public schools that educate the majority of kids in poorer families, children with a disability and Indigenous kids.
I want to ask a question of the government: why doesn't the government give these schools the proper funding they deserve? We've got classrooms that desperately need IT and infrastructure upgrades to keep up with the learning needs of the 21st century. We have teachers who dig into their own pockets just to buy the supplies needed for kids in their classrooms. We have principals pleading for funding so that they can plan for the future in order to ensure our growing population has the education needed to meet demand. In fact, a recent school infrastructure report estimates an additional 229,000 school-aged children will live in Queensland by 2036.
I recognise the work of the Palaszczuk Queensland Labor government in doing all it can to support this growth with $705.3 million in the 2019-20 state budget allocated for recurrent funding grants and a further $100 million allocated for capital assistance grants for non-state schools. Since 2015, Education Queensland has delivered 13 new schools in the fastest-growing areas of the state. We hear a lot from the opposition about alternative approaches, which is the robotic response to everything, so what was the alternative response before 2015, before those horrid, toxic three years of the failed experiment of the Newman government? It was to close schools. It was to shut schools down, sell off land, sack teachers and sack teacher aides. That was the commitment of the LNP, and it's still the commitment of the LNP in the state in which you were a former minister, in that failed government, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan. You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, and each and every member of the LNP in Queensland knows, that was utterly rejected. That approach to slashing, sacking and cutting services has been rejected by Queenslanders.
I'm very proud to be a member of a party that, in a state government, has not closed schools and has not sold off land but has built schools, delivered schools and increased funding for educators in our state. We saw the terrible example of the state LNP leader, Ms Frecklington, criticising teachers getting a pay rise. I think it's a brave politician who turns up to a school in his or her electorate and says, 'You don't deserve a pay rise. We think you don't work hard enough.' That is not acceptable if we are to be a smart, educated nation. We heard examples from this side of the chamber when the member for Bowman talked about teachers having too many holidays. We heard the member for Bowman saying—
It was recanted, though.
Well, he obviously met some teachers in his electorate and turned up to a school or two, I would hope, and heard the feedback when teachers said, 'You know what? You expect a lot from us. How about you start investing in us?' This side of the chamber is committed to that. Over the last six years, we've continuously seen the government fail students. What I noted on this debate, looking at the speakers list today, is that there is a big fat zero for the number of people opposite interested in speaking about this issue—situation normal. There are no talking points on this one today! No—wait! It's all record funding. Hold your horses; cool your jets. We've got record funding. But test results over the last few years show the federal government is failing to reverse the alarming declines in reading, writing and maths. If the schools are being properly funded, I'm not sure what to make of our education future under this government. Kids in every state and territory are going backwards in some of the critical areas because we are not funding enough at a Commonwealth level. It's that clear. We want our kids to get the basics, because we want them to have a rich learning experience for the rest of their lives, but, if we can't get the fundamentals right for the schools that most need it—the disadvantaged schools—the sector-blind funding that is required, it's pretty hard to succeed in more sophisticated subjects, which we want them to offer as students get older and more mature through the schooling system.
After six years of the current federal government, there's been enough time for a student to start and finish high school. Despite thousands doing so, we saw the spectacle of the education minister this week. I don't know what that answer was in question time, when he spent about two minutes just saying 'Um' and 'Ah'. You may be a student up there from the mighty St Thomas Aquinas School in Springwood, out in force and ably remembered by your great representative, the member for Macquarie, Ms Templeman. She knows, as every school knows, that, we've got a job to do here to make sure that we deliver for your schools. The member for Macquarie and other colleagues, including the member for Lilley, the member for Gilmore and the member for Dunkley, are education experts on this side of the chamber. We have a principal of over 27 years. I'm amazed at some of the talent that we see on this side of the chamber. We have the member for Lalor, who has lived and breathed this experience. It's about time those opposite got their note pads out and listened to what it is like for a teacher in our classrooms right here in Australia.
At a time when we should be increasing education funding to meet the needs of the 21st century, this government has come up short, and it's not just in Australia's poor results where we're seeing a problem; when it comes to the marks for getting into teaching, they're failing too. Schools are being starved of the support they need. It's a disastrous combination.
But the failure on education funding doesn't stop there. At a time when we've got close to two million Australians who haven't got a job or want to work more hours, and an economy that is crying out for skilled workers—with skill shortages across mechanics, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, hairdressers, pastry chefs and welders—we learnt this week in Senate estimates that the government has significantly underspent on the TAFE and training budget. The government's response on that was: 'There's not the demand.' Are you kidding me—'there's not the demand'? Do any of those members opposite actually go into workplaces, and sit down with employers and talk to owners of businesses? I don't know about you, or what alternative universe they may be living in, Mr Deputy Speaker, but people are crying out to make sure that they do have enough tradies in their workplaces, and they don't have enough support.
When you look at the actual figures under this government—all of those sitting there are culpable—there are now 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than when the LNP came to government. That's 150,000 fewer apprenticeships and traineeships happening in this country. If you were to listen to the government's spin and talking points—which have been splashed across every newspaper in the country—you would think that the economy was travelling well; that's what they allege. Well, if it's travelling well and it's building, wouldn't you think businesses would need access to apprenticeships? Wouldn't you think that businesses would need to grow? So what is going on over there? The number of Australians doing apprenticeships and traineeships is lower than it was a decade ago. So, 10 years ago, we had more people in the apprenticeship, training and TAFE system, and since then we've had population growth—and yet now we've got fewer people in that system than 10 years ago. There are now more people dropping out of apprenticeships and traineeships than finishing them. Businesses are crying out for trained staff. The Australian Industry Group says that 75 per cent of businesses surveyed are struggling to find the qualified workers they need.
This is all in lockstep with what the government has done to university funding. Since the election of the government in 2013, universities and students have been under constant attacks, with cuts, attempts at fee deregulation and policy chaos and uncertainty. You never hear anyone from the other side actually talk about university funding. You hear about their wacky, weird ideas about Western civilisation as being taught at universities or what shouldn't be taught or who's being taught communist dictatorship nonsense, in op-ed after op-ed from all those crazy right-wingers on the other side of the chamber; no-one actually talks about—oh, they're proud of it! They're all nodding and going along with it: 'We want to have a debate about Western civilisation in universities'! Start talking about funding universities! 'Ahem, cough, cough'—no response.
Don't be so rude.
Well, if you did want to speak—through you, Deputy Speaker—Member for Higgins, put your name on the list! Jump up!
The member for Oxley is warned on two things: props, and he'll address the chair.
Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise. I said, 'through you,' when I made those remarks. My apologies—through you. But if those members opposite want to speak—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I won't hold up the Notice Paperthey can get up and speak. They can enter the debate. In fact, I will yield my last couple of minutes, for any member to speak in this debate and defend their record.
I didn't think so! That says it all. When it comes to university funding, when it comes to funding our schools and our non-government sector, when it comes to funding our TAFE and apprenticeships, the government is silent, just like in this debate today. They aren't here turning up to do what they're supposed to do—to represent and support the students that have come here to witness the debate. They aren't doing their job, in my opinion.
We need a government that is going to be focusing on the future of our nation, with a plan to deal with proper economic growth, a plan to deal with properly investing in our education system, but, most importantly, a plan to ensure that education opportunities are there for every single Australian child entering into school this year or finishing school this year. The options simply aren't there, because this government is not taking enough action when it comes to properly funding our schools and investing in the future of our kids, but, more importantly, delivering the infrastructure that we need so that Australia and our economy can grow.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Many Australians participate every year in the Cancer Council's Pink Ribbon campaign to raise awareness and funds for breast and gynaecological cancers. A number of those events are held this month because October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, described by Cancer Australia as an opportunity for all of us to focus on breast cancer and its impact on those affected by the disease. Those affected by the disease include the families, spouses, friends and colleagues of those diagnosed with breast cancer.
Today, on behalf of the approximately 50 people who are diagnosed every day with breast cancer, I want to acknowledge and thank those families, friends, colleagues and communities who offer us love and support in our time of need. It is very difficult to be a family member, or a friend or a colleague of someone who is battling a disease, and you don't always get the support that you need. But we appreciate everything that you do for us.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who over the last few months have reached out to me to offer their love and support; those who know me and those who have never met me. It is appreciated and I thank you very much.
I acknowledge the member for Dunkley's heartfelt contribution.
I rise to present a petition of more than 7,000 signatures from families affected by food allergies, calling on the Minister for Health to facilitate all necessary policy initiatives, legislation and administrative action required to establish an Australian program of food immunotherapy.
Living with food allergies has been likened to walking a tightrope: living life in a perpetual state of hypervigilance that the next meal may result in a serious and life-threatening reaction called anaphylaxis. A new form of treatment, food immunotherapy, is being trialled overseas but is not yet available in Australia. The treatment takes many months, but in many cases it enables a child with a food allergy to live and eat food more safely, and it helps families to get off the allergy tightrope.
I acknowledge the work of Melissa Mooney, Simone Albert and other parents with children suffering from severe food allergies who have presented this petition to the Petitions Committee. These families want to ensure that other families don't have to go through what they have. These families have travelled overseas to find a cure for their children and have spent many months and money being there to keep their children safe. If successful, the outcomes of this petition will negate that need. Trials for food allergies require government support in Australia because they involve giving a food, not a drug, and therefore pharmaceutical companies cannot profit.
I present this petition to the House as approved by the Petitions Committee.
The petition read as follows—
We therefore ask the House to call on the Minister for Health to facilitate all necessary policy initiatives, legislation and administrative action required to establish an Australian trial of food immunotherapy.
from 7,265 (Petition No. EN1040)
Petition received.
After years of community opposition, an energy-from-waste incinerator at Eastern Creek by Dial A Dump Industries was rejected last year by the New South Wales Independent Planning Commission and the Environmental Protection Authority—as it should have been. It's currently before the courts, but it was the right decision by the New South Wales planning commission. It was rejected because it would have had severe impacts on our community; it would have increased pollution. This was an important win for Western Sydney.
But now another company is trying the exact same thing. Cleanaway wants to build another incinerator at Horsley Park in my electorate. It will have the same problems, the same people will be affected and it's pretty much the same location. We've fought it once and we'll fight it again. This proposal is very similar to the last one; it must be opposed and it should be rejected.
One of the biggest complaints I get from the people of St Clair and Erskine Park is odour from waste disposal. St Clair and Erskine Park in Western Sydney are not Sydney's dumping ground! Some companies just don't seem to get it. We have a lot to offer Sydney but we are not Sydney's dumping ground, in my electorate or in Western Sydney more generally. Just as the original proposal was rejected because it didn't stack up by the EPA, the planning commission and the New South Wales Department of Health, this proposal, which is very similar, should meet the same fate. The people of Western Sydney can be assured that every Labor member on this side of the House will oppose this incinerator, as our state colleagues will do. The state member for Mulgoa did not oppose the previous incinerator. We will oppose this one.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Doncaster East athlete and hammer thrower Stephanie Ratcliffe, who has been named Manningham Leader's Junior Sports Star for 2019. The 18-year-old has claimed gold medals in the under 18s, under 20s and open age competitions. She has represented Australia at the Oceania Athletics Championships and hopes to represent the nation at the Commonwealth Games and the Olympics.
I would also like to congratulate Eltham Lacrosse Club's Keith Nyberg for taking out the senior category of the Diamond Valley Leader's 2019 Local Sports Star Awards. It was a great year which saw Keith captain the Australian men's indoor lacrosse team at the world championships. It was his third time captaining the country and the seventh world championship cap. Keith started playing lacrosse in year 5 at Eltham Primary School and was driven by a goal of winning a gold medal for Australia at a world championship.
The Leader community newspapers in Victoria have done a wonderful job of unearthing and celebrating grassroots talent over the past 40 years, with this year's program gaining nominations from over 66 sports from athletics to wheelchair basketball across both junior and senior competitions. Over the years, the honour roll has included some of the nation's biggest sporting names, including Shane Warne, Lauren Barnes, Brooke Hanson and Matt Welsh.
While this government oversees the lowest wages growth in decades—and, as we heard from Senator Cormann, 'This is a deliberate feature of our economic architecture'—Alice Workman reports today:
According to the Department of Finance, as of October 1 the Prime Minister has signed off on 52 "personal staff" in his ministerial wing being paid a "salary that is above the top of the range of their classification" …
This is a cost of $1.4 million. Yet, in our electorate offices, in the public-facing place of this parliament, our hardworking electorate officers, who are inundated with people seeking support with Centrelink, NDIS and immigration issues, are earning as little as $51,000. These roles are critical in our electorates, often supporting people on their worst day.
I also note that this government has 456.9 personal staff, which is significantly higher than any federal Labor government in recent years. Let me be clear: this government is deliberately keeping wages low for the average Australian but is paying 52 of their personal staff well above award wages. Hypocrisy much! There are tens of thousands of Australians who took another cut to their penalty rates this year. This government's hypocrisy must finish. There are people doing it tough, and you have tin ears.
Today I rise to pay tribute to a wonderful lady Hazel Elaine Bushby, who passed away in Launceston over the weekend. Elaine served her community over a lifetime as a volunteer, faithfully and humbly working behind the scenes. Elaine's considerable service included with the Tasmanian Christian Endeavour Union, the Royal Commonwealth Society ladies auxiliary, Newstead Baptist Church, Launceston City Mission, Order of the British Empire Tasmanian association and the National Council of Women. Born in Hobart in 1934, Elaine began her training as a nurse in 1953 before marrying Max Bushby in November 1954. She was unable to complete her nursing training at that time as women had to resign upon their marriage.
Her husband Max was elected to the Tasmanian House of Assembly in 1961, where he served until 1986. Together, Elaine and Max were quite a team. They were involved in many community organisations and together raised five children, including my parliamentary colleague Senator Wendy Askew and former senator David Bushby, as well as Peter, Michael and Helen. In 2001, Elaine was awarded the Centenary Medal for contributing to the care of people and improving the role of women in society. In 2017, she was inducted into Tasmania's Honour Roll of Women. Elaine's commitment to the community is to be admired and serves as an example to future generations. Vale Elaine Bushby.
On 12 October, I had the honour of officially opening the Eurobodalla Health Expo at the Batemans Bay Soldiers Club. This is a great local event with over 50 stalls to promote and link people with local health training and jobs. Our health and social sector workers provide invaluable support to our community, but in regional areas like ours those workers can sometimes be hard to find and even harder to retain. At the same time we have high unemployment rates, and young people are finding it harder and harder to get a job.
That's why forums like this are so valuable. They link jobseekers with good, quality jobs in areas of need. You never know—one day you're visiting a health and wellbeing expo; the next day you might be starting a new, lifelong, rewarding career in health or social services. There were so many community groups and local health and wellbeing organisations holding interesting and informative stalls. There were even mini health checks. The expo was a huge success and I had a great time chatting with our local community members, providers and trainers.
Thank you to the University of Wollongong, TAFE NSW and the South Coast Careers College for coming along and providing advice and information for prospective students. I'd also like to thank all the stallholders, local service providers and employers for their support. Congratulations to the Eurobodalla Health Service Community Representative Committee and the Eurobodalla Shire Council for organising such a wonderful event.
Today I rise to speak about homelessness in my community and the incredible work that Rosie's in Southport does to help those in need. I had the experience of going to Rosie's a few weeks ago to see firsthand what they do and how they do it. Every day, the team open their doors to 50 to 80 people who have slept rough. They come to have a shower, a coffee and a hot breakfast, and for a listening ear. The coordinator, Rosanne, said that these three things are important in the morning, because they start the day off on the right foot. It was great to meet with the volunteers who give up their time to cook eggs, fish and chips on the barbecue. Across the road, Beck and Carla were at the Southport Courthouse, offering tea, coffee and biscuits and extending their kindness to anyone under stress before their matter came before the courts. These selfless volunteers create a safe zone for many in the community who are struggling. They form friendships to help overcome loneliness, which is a difficult part of being homeless.
Whilst homelessness is a complex issue, it's also vital to recognise there are organisations and governments doing good things in this space. The Morrison government understands that housing is integral to the welfare of every person. That's why we're contributing more than $6 billion a year to support the states and territories. Sadly, in Queensland, a lack of homes continues to be an issue. The Queensland state government has the second-lowest number of public housing dwellings in the country, at 10.3 per 1,000 people. It's important to remember that, while the federal government is doing everything possible to address homelessness, this is a state responsibility, so the Queensland state government needs to step up and deliver more to address this growing issue. I'm determined to work alongside the organisations in my electorate to make a difference. (Time expired)
I was delighted to attend the first-ever Australian Muslim Social Services Agency open day earlier this month, along with Ellen Sandell, the Greens state member for Melbourne, and hundreds of others. When AMSSA needed over $3 million to purchase their centre and mosque in North Melbourne, Somalis managed to raise the entire amount from the community. When they were $800,000 short six months before settlement, members of the community donated money that was supposed to be for house deposits and emergencies. Others provided interest free loans. They didn't have money to spare but they gave it anyway. Because of that sacrifice, AMSSA is a thriving hub for African Australians and other Muslims in my electorate, where people go almost daily to pray, learn, eat and play.
The open day was a magnificent celebration of the community's contribution to our city and included free food, drinks and even a jumping castle, which my kids loved. I know it was a big decision for many at the mosque to hold their first open day, but it was the right one. I congratulate President Abdirashid Ahmed, Adem Salah and all of the committee and volunteers. I live a short walk from AMSSA, and I'm proud not just to have them in my electorate but to know they're my neighbours as well.
Despite the best efforts of some in the media and parliament to demonise Muslim Australians, AMSSA and other hardworking community organisations and individuals have managed to create a welcoming, peaceful and culturally rich community that has made, and will continue to make, an invaluable contribution to the Melbourne community. I thank AMSSA for the invitation to speak and attend, and I'm looking forward to the next open day.
I'm pleased to update the House on the Upgrade Greenway Park campaign in Cherrybrook, in my electorate. In 2018 the local community came to me with petitions and a campaign that they had run to try and upgrade the sporting facilities at Greenway Park in Cherrybrook, in the demographic heart of my electorate. That campaign ultimately resulted in a successful application for $2.7 million of funding to upgrade the top oval at Greenway Park, which was done over the last summer; to install new drainage, which will be done shortly; and, in the third and most important phase, to commence construction on a new clubhouse at Greenway Park. Last night Hornsby council approved the development application, which will see the construction of this clubhouse commence shortly. This is a terrific thing for the people of Cherrybrook, particularly the 8,000 users of Greenway Park from athletics, AFL, baseball, cricket and rugby league.
I want to pay tribute to the members of the Greenway Park sports committee: Phillip Hare, its chairman, Andrew Miedler, Paul Vink, Perry Waldron, Jeff Hardman, Bob Wray, Charlene Stewart, Nicky Jenneke, Mathew Marsden, Jamie Davidson and Joe Nati. All of these people represent the different sports that use the club. All of the clubs, and the broader Cherrybrook community, will benefit from a better oval with better drainage and a clubhouse that people can be proud of and that will provide better facilities for the growing female participants in all of those sports.
I congratulate the staff, students and supporters of the University of New South Wales, which celebrated its 70th anniversary last week. Established in 1949 with a focus on scientific, technological and professional disciplines, UNSW is one of Australia's leading research and teaching universities. Indeed, it's one of the top 100 world-ranked universities, with more than 59,000 students, and a cutting-edge research community of 7,000 members. It was highly appropriate that it achieved the 71st world ranking on its 70th birthday. Most of the students who come to the main campus at Kensington, in the electorate of Kingsford Smith, leave to take on the world. UNSW and its alumni have made a huge contribution to local innovation and global advancements. Last Thursday evening I joined the chancellor, David Gonski, the president and vice-chancellor, Professor Ian Jacobs, and many others to celebrate that 70th anniversary. Cath Harris, who spoke as a former student, I think summed it up when she said, 'If you want to make money, you go to the University of Sydney. If you want to change the world, you go to the University of New South Wales.'
It was also an occasion to recognise the current direction and to provide a glimpse of what the next 70 years might bring. The university continues to pioneer research and sustained innovation, addressing some of the world's most important issues, including quantum computing, renewable energy, refugee law, lifesaving medical treatments and breakthrough space technologies. Congratulations to the University of New South Wales on your 70th birthday.
One hundred years ago, in October 1919, sailors from Brighton and Seacliff came together to form the Brighton and Seacliff Yacht Club. I was honoured to attend the opening of their 100th season, on 12 October 2019, to mark this momentous occasion, along with Premier Stephen Marshall and state government colleagues Corey Wingard, the sports minister and David Speirs, the environment minister, with a special appearance by the tall ship One and All. As the premier remarked when he opened the season, sailing is one of the few sports that can be enjoyed by all ages, with generations of families competing and volunteering at the same time.
The Brighton and Seacliff Yacht Club has certainly seen many notable competitions in the past century. The club made Australian yachting history when it hosted the 505 World Series, in 1966, the first world series ever held in Australia. The club hosted the 505 World Championships again in 1983 and in 2007.
The club achieved another significant milestone this year with the appointment of the first female commodore, Lisa Brock. Lisa has always been a trailblazer in the club, a lifelong competitor and volunteer. Her fellow officers including retiring commodore, Rob Turton, Vice Commodore Peter Woolman and Rear Commodore Phil Scapens, and I know former commodore Bruce Noble will continue his support, as will Junior Commodore Charlie Piro, and Junior Vice Commodore Josh Webb, who gave an outstanding speech at the season opening. Congratulations to Brighton and Seacliff Yacht Club members and volunteers on their centenary and all the best for the years ahead.
Earlier this week by colleagues and I were delighted to celebrate the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, with Australian Sikh Council and Sikhs from around Australia. The prayer, led by Guru Granth Sahib, and celebration in the Mural Hall was the first-ever Parkash ceremony in any parliament house in Australia. A special thankyou to the Presiding Officers of Parliament House, who respected the Sikh tradition of wearing a Kirpan during yesterday's ceremony, and arranged for that to be allowed into the parliament. Census data reveals that Sikhism is now Australia's fifth-largest religion. As we celebrated the Guru Nanak's birth anniversary in this place, many Sikhs around the country celebrated too, including in Victoria, the home of the largest Sikh community in Australia. When Guru Nanak established Sikhism, he sought to create an egalitarian, progressive society, while developing organised resistance to injustices. In this say, Sikh values are Australian values. I see these values lived out every day in the Sikh community in my community in Melbourne's west.
The concept of langar was initiated centuries ago by Guru Nanak. At the langar, no-one goes hungry and everyone gets a hot meal, regardless of caste, creed or religion. In my electorate, this takes the form of breakfast clubs that feed 230 children every day. I also see these values in the volunteer work of the Young Sikh Professionals Network, as they find ways to ensure recent migrants are adequately supported and prepare young Sikhs for positions of leadership in our country. The work of the Australian Sikh communities is evidence that we're on the way to realising our potential as a multicultural success story.
I'd like to inform the House today about the local government elections for the City of Stirling in my electorate which occurred last weekend. I've got a bit of a soft spot for local government because my mother was a councillor when I was a kid, and my father ran the IT department at the same council. I was extremely pleased to see so many strong candidates stand in the election. Their passion was amplified by campaign volunteers—ordinary, hardworking Australians who sacrifice their time, their money and their energy to stand up or to support candidates who they believe in. This passion is a fundamental ingredient for a strong, vibrant democracy. For the first time, the mayor was directly elected in recognition of his ongoing ethical and professional leadership. Mayor Mark Irwin was re-elected to continue as mayor. Five councillors were re-elected—Keith Sargeant, Stephanie Proud, Karlo Perkov, David Lagan and Joe Ferrante. Three councillors were newly elected—Felicity Farrelly, Chris Hatton and Lisa Thornton; my heartfelt congratulations to them. To the unsuccessful candidates, I commend you for your dedication and I encourage you to maintain your drive to serve our awesome community, whether that sees you running again or directing your passion elsewhere. I enjoy a very close relationship with the City of Stirling and I am excited to continue working together to make Stirling an even better place to live, to work and to raise a family.
Well, this weekend will be very exciting in Bendigo. On Sunday, we will have the official season opening of the Bendigo Cricket Association open women's cricket competition. It is exciting because we have teams from eight clubs competing. It almost didn't happen. There was a little bit of concern that maybe the clubs couldn't get full teams together and did the women really want to play? But the clubs rallied and said, 'No, our girls want to play. Let them play.' So, the association got behind the clubs and we are very excited to have a competition of eight teams. It is wonderful to see women getting actively involved in cricket. Our women at the elite level are doing outstandingly. Their performance in the Ashes and on the international stage is fantastic. Australia can be very proud of what our women are achieving on the cricket grounds.
What's also important is a strong grassroots club competition. Women love their cricket too and want the opportunity to play at a club level. This is one of the only comps that exists in regional Australia, and I'm very proud that Bendigo has rallied together to get behind these women. Thank you to the sponsors, thank you to the clubs. Good luck to all the women who will be playing this weekend. I know this is going to be the beginning of a very long journey for women's cricket in Bendigo.
I rise to speak about just one project of this government's record infrastructure build that I'm very passionate about—that is, the Coffs Harbour bypass. The $1.8 billion in funding towards this record infrastructure build for Coffs Harbour will not only deliver the bypass but will also deliver major improvements for motorists, road safety and provide some 12,000 direct and indirect jobs during the build. The 14 kilometre bypass will save 11 minutes of traffic time and bypass 12 sets of lights. But one thing that I'm most excited about is the revitalisation for the CBD of Coffs Harbour, removing 12,000 vehicles a day from the heart of Coffs Harbour and letting Coffs Harbour breathe again. Just like it did for Kempsey, just like it did for Taree, it will revitalise the centre of Coffs Harbour. I congratulate the Department of Roads and Maritime Services, which has done a great job in communicating the EIS to the public of Coffs Harbour. There have been five drop-in sessions, six pop-up displays and a project display in the heart of Coffs Harbour, which has been visited by hundreds of people. The project's environmental impact statement will close this Sunday, so have a voice and be heard.
This government's arrogance absolutely appals me. One of my first actions as the re-elected member for Macquarie was to ask the government to include me on the Forum on Western Sydney Airport, which is the only forum where concerns about the flight paths of a 24-hour-a-day airport can be raised. The various ministers responsible for this airport have refused to include me on FOWSA, clearly afraid of having a person who isn't in love with the idea of having a major airport with no curfew on her doorstep.
Minister Tudge again rejected my request, saying that the forum's membership only has four people who are state or federal members of parliament. What the minister conveniently forgot to mention was that he intended to put another pro-airport member on the forum, the member for Lindsay. Now, I know the member for Lindsay is well aware of the impact that flights will have over our homes because she lives in one of the Blue Mountains areas most likely to be affected. Her home, her neighbour's home, their children's schools are all expected to bear high noise levels. But I don't hear her demanding that the government release information about flight paths or demanding noise protections.
This was meant to be the Forum on Western Sydney Airport, not a powwow of 'Fans of Western Sydney Airport'. It is yet another example of this government doing everything it can to avoid scrutiny and to avoid the voices of people who don't agree with it being heard. They need to include more people from the Blue Mountains and representing the Hawkesbury on this forum.
Yesterday I had the privilege of hosting representatives of the Committee for Greater Shepparton here in the parliament. The Committee for Greater Shepparton is the united voice of the region's business and community leaders, and its mission is to influence public policy, to advocate on issues to strengthen the economy and to make the region a more vibrant place to live. The committee is supported by over a hundred leading businesses, community organisations and statutory authorities from within the region.
Leading this dynamic group are the chair, Lesley Hart; and the CEO, Sam Birrell. With them were the mayor of the City of Greater Shepparton, Kim O'Keeffe; the CEO of the city of Greater Shepparton, Peter Harriott; from Gouge Linen, Rob Priestly; from McPherson Media, Damian Tresize; from J Furphy & Sons, Adam Furphy; Jane Macey from Spiire; Sonke Tremper from Primary Projects; Matt Sharp, the CEO of Goulburn Valley Health; Elizabeth Capp from La Trobe University; Professor John Fazakerley from the University of Melbourne; Peter Hill and Josh Kreskas from Kreskas Bros Transport; Lisa McKenzie from the Lighthouse Project; and Stuart Brown from Tatura Milk.
The committee had the amazing opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, as well as the ministers for immigration, agriculture, environment, education and regional services, and even some shadow ministers. I want to sincerely thank all these ministers who presented yesterday.
I congratulate the Committee for Greater Shepparton on the work that it is doing to make Shepparton a greater place to live right now and also into the future.
Last week I condemned this government for presiding over an economy which has seen TheCourier Mail call my village of Nundah Village the 'village of the damned'. This week we've had revelations from the ABC that, at a cafe in Chermside, 11 workers who are visa holders and who are under 21 are being partially paid in meals, in drinks and in desserts. This is the economy that this government is presiding over, and all we hear day after day in question time is smugness and complacency. I condemn them for the retail crisis that they are presiding over. This is a crisis in wages that we are seeing, and we are failing to see any plan to address it.
We've got stolen wages, where two of my constituents have had $28,000 and superannuation stolen from them, and one of them had never been paid super in her entire life—nothing being done about it. We've got underpayment of wages, where vulnerable food attendants, those I've just been speaking about, being paid in food and desserts and drinks. We've got stagnant wages. With economic growth at its lowest since the GFC, people are crying out for pay rises. Yet today we find out from Alice Workman in TheAustralian that the government has some recognition that there are stagnant wages in this economy. They recognise that some people's wages are stagnant—in fact, their own staff, 52 advisers of this government who are paid above the top end of the EBA. So there was a recognition that their wages were stagnant but not the rest of the country's. How good is nepotism? How good is nepotism and looking after your own people? I condemn the government for your lack of a plan and I call upon you to look after actual Australian workers, not just your own.
This week I had the absolute honour of being invited to celebrate the 550th birthday of Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the founder of the Sikh religion and the first of 10 Sikh gurus. It was the first time this special event has been celebrated in Parliament House. Guru Nanak preached the message of equality, justice and respect for all. More importantly, Guru Nanak was one of the most important religious figures to have contributed to the empowerment of women in India. Sikhs have played a very important role in Australia's rich multicultural life for the past 200 years, and I am fortunate enough to call many Sikhs my friends, including Daljit Singh and his family, who travelled from Cairns to attend the event this week. It was Mr Singh who, through our friendship, educated me in Sikh culture, tradition and religion and made me aware of a horrific event against the Sikh community in India in November 1984. The anti-Sikh riot resulted in the killing of more than 3,000 Sikhs in New Delhi, and a further 8,000 to 17,000 Sikhs were killed in 40 counties across India. It's high time Australia recognised this horrific event for what it was. It was an act of genocide. There are many in the Sikh community who will never forget the harrowing images of 1984 and who want to see justice in their lifetime. It's time for healing, but in order for that to happen we must recognise the past and do that by acknowledging this as an act of genocide. That way, hopefully, we can prevent it from happening in the future. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 43 the time for members statements has concluded.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the reason his government won't commit to a bipartisan approach with Labor on the drought that he can't even manage a bipartisan approach with the National Party?
No.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how government services are being guaranteed for Australians through the Morrison government's elimination of the budget deficit? Is the Prime Minister aware of alternative approaches?
Throughout the course of this week and last we have been noting how the stability and certainty of the approach the government has taken, particularly to managing our government's budget that we manage on behalf of the Australian people—the fact we're able to keep our head, understand the many and significant challenges, whether they be global or domestic, and respond in a disciplined and targeted way while maintaining the resilience which is necessary through our budget to meet challenges that we know will come in the future—continues to ensure we can deliver the essential services that Australians rely on.
The increase in funding and support for those dealing with mental health challenges in this country is something we outlined very clearly in the last budget and at the last election, and we are getting on with the job of delivering that support all around the country, whether it's what we're doing in headspace or particularly in the area of dealing with eating disorders. We're increasing funding for farmers and for graziers, particularly by 21 projects around the country that are dealing with resilience through the water infrastructure we're supporting, with some $1½ billion being directly invested in those projects. We're providing world-class settlement services, as was recognised last night at the Migration Council dinner. These are the best settlement services of any in the world. They are the world leaders in settlement services, and our government continues to fund these important essential services by having a strong budget. Supporting first home buyers, through the first home super saver scheme and the first home loan deposit scheme—that's what a strong budget can do to back the budgets of first home buyers, who are getting back into the market, and we welcome that. We are maintaining our strong border protection regime—which, as I know the Minister for Home Affairs knows, is well-known by the Australian people—and the Australian government's strong border protection policies, and we are keeping our region safe and stable through the investments we are making through our Pacific Step-up program to ensure we're investing in their stability, prosperity and security for the future in front of the challenges they face.
We are not adopting the panicked crisis policies of the Labor Party, which they continue to urge us to do in this place, channelling their former compatriots, the Rudd and Swan government, who recklessly raided and destroyed the budget, taking away the resilience of Australians. We will not adopt Labor's policies of panic and crisis; we will continue the policies of stability and certainty that give Australians confidence to plan for their future.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Does the Deputy Prime Minister endorse the drought plan leaked by the Nationals backbench as government policy—a plan which includes regional funding?
I thank the member for Hunter for his question. The National Party always comes up with a range of policies because we care about regional people. We care about rural people and those who live in country, coastal and remote Australia. They're doing it tough at the moment. Regional people in those drought-stricken communities are doing it very tough at the moment, and that's why I'm delighted I'm part of a government which is helping them with changes to the farm household allowance—taking it from three years, which was Labor's policy, to four years in every 10.
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
I thought it was my National Party colleagues cheering me on! Indeed—look at them—they are! The National Party is coming up with the policies for rural and regional Australia. We are absolutely making sure that we're committed to helping those drought-stricken farmers.
At the end of the day, it's all about delivery on the ground for those communities. It's not about who gets the credit in this place; it's about actual delivery on the ground, like 122 councils receiving $1 million of support so that they upgrade their memorial hall. The other day I was in Weddin Shire in Grenfell, seeing new horse stables and new horse stalls built at the local showground. Councils can ensure that the local rugby league field has water. At the moment, the rugby field is as hard as this dispatch box. Next year, thanks to that $1 million drought communities support program, it's going to be as green as the leather on the chairs that we're all sitting on, and that's a great thing. These drought-stricken communities want to see us talking about them, not about each other.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's stable and certain budget allows us to build water infrastructure, particularly in my seat of Flynn? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Flynn for his question. I have just gotten off the phone with Dr Anthony Lynham, the water minister in Queensland, talking about a range of infrastructure water projects in Queensland. In Queensland the federal government has put $176.1 million on the table for Rookwood Weir in the member's electorate. Of course the member for Capricornia also has a great interest in this project. There is also $47 million, including $5 million of enabling roads for the Emu Swamp Dam in the electorate of the member for Maranoa, the drought minister.
This is going to help drought-proof Australia for the future. These dam projects and these water storage infrastructure projects are going to help build resilience. We're spending $1½ billion on dams. That's right—we're going to build these dams. We're going to get on board with local communities. We've got the national water grid in place. I wrote to the states last October to see them bring their water priority projects forward, and we currently have 21 water infrastructure projects underway—significant dam projects, weirs and pipelines to help drought-proof regional Australia.
In the member of New England's electorate we have Dungowan Dam. In my electorate we are raising the Wyangala Dam wall by 10 metres. It builds capacity. Those two projects alone—Dungowan and Wyangala—are going to provide an additional 1.2 Sydney Harbour equivalents in inland New South Wales. That is significant, that is delivery and that's what we're doing.
Victoria brought forward its priority projects, and we committed to them during the election campaign. There's the Mitiamo and district reticulated water supply project, at $14½ million. The East Grampians and South West Loddon rural water supply projects are significant too, at $32 million and $20 million respectively. Just this week—yesterday, in fact—I was briefed on the idea to build the Big Buffalo project near Myrtleford. I had Peter Walsh, the Nationals leader, and his deputy, Steph Ryan, in my office, and we were talking about that.
The Victorian water minister, Lisa Neville, doesn't want to build dams, unfortunately. She is reading too much from the playbook of her mate over there, the member for Melbourne, and thinking that climate change means it's not going to rain anymore. Well, indeed, it will rain. In fact, when it rains it's going to come in such volumes that we're going to need water storage capacity to help secure that water and to help store that water for the drought that is obviously going to happen after this one, because that's the story of Australia: droughts and flooding rains.
We are a government which is getting on board with building the dams that we need. In South Australia, Premier Steven Marshall is on board with us. Will Hodgman in Tasmania—they built 16 of the last 20 Australian dams in that state. Well done to them! I was visiting Scottsdale the other day, and that is an example of what this government is actually doing.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Who is running the government's chaotic drought response? The Prime Minister or the National Party backbench?
The cabinet.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the sickening revelations on the ABC last week exposed the vile treatment of horses in New South Wales and Queensland. If it's happening in those two states it's a safe bet it's happening elsewhere, including in Tasmania. Prime Minister, systemic animal cruelty is rampant in Australia—in horse racing, greyhound racing, live exports, puppy and kitten factories and in the industrial production of animal based food and textiles. Clearly, the states and territories cannot be trusted to regulate animal welfare, especially when they defer to industry self-regulation. Prime Minister, will you finally acknowledge the systemic failings in animal welfare in this country and establish a national independent office of animal welfare?
I thank the member for his question. I share with him, and I would be certain that all members of this House would share their deep concern, at the images that were seen recently and screened. I found them very concerning and very disturbing, and I have no doubt that Australians across the country were equally disturbed. We are a country that cares for our animals. In particular, our farmers and those across our rural districts care deeply for their livestock and want to manage those issues in the best possible way.
The government of course will consider all its options in relation to dealing with these matters. I'll ask the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture to add further to the answer.
Thank you, Prime Minister. I do share the concern, the sadness and the anger that the member for Clark has also articulated. I don't think there's anyone in this place who would not agree that that's abhorrent.
We are working with the Queensland government in a constructive way to make sure that action is taken and that the assessment of that vision is undertaken as quickly as we possibly can. Any resources the Queensland government requires, it will get. But we are confident in the ability of the Queensland government to continue with the processing of that vision.
I just caution the member, however, in generalising the behaviour of industries. This has been something that is quite traumatic to many in those industries. The vast majority of participants in those industries find this abhorrent; it is against their morals and their culture, and they are hurting from this as well. We expect the states to live up to their responsibilities, as they have, in managing animal welfare in this country. We don't need a another layer of bureaucracy, we simply need the bureaucracy to do its job.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the Morrison government's stable and certain budget management and record jobs growth? Is the Treasurer aware of any threats to Australians getting ahead?
I thank the member for Longman for his question and note his strong commitment to small business, having worked extensively in that sector, and the fact that in his electorate more than 60,000 taxpayers will get a tax cut as a result of the tax package that passed the parliament with the support of this side of the House. And more than 13,000 small businesses will be able to access the extended instant asset write-off which we announced in the budget of this year.
The Australian economy is in its 29th consecutive year of economic growth. We face some major challenges, with the drought domestically and the global trade tensions which are like a dark cloud over the global economy. But we have maintained our AAA credit rating, we have brought welfare dependency down to a 30-year low and we have delivered the first balanced budget in 11 years. We have a balanced budget and will have a surplus budget in 2019-20, which will help build the resilience of the Australian economy, so that it gives us the fiscal flexibility to respond to external shocks whenever they may occur.
But the reason why our economy and our budget have remained strong is because of the employment growth, with over 300,000 jobs being created over the last year—a record number of Australians who are in work; a record number of women who are in work. Over the last three years, every single month, we have seen jobs growth. That is the first time that has occurred in recorded history, in terms of the Australian economy. Today there was a NAB small business survey—which looks at the business conditions for small business—which showed the biggest jump in small business conditions since 2013, for the September quarter.
I'm asked, 'Are there any alternative approaches?'
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin—who, we know, likes to tax a lot—sits by and smiles, when Labor still has on its books $387 billion of higher taxes, and housing and retirees taxes, which he said he was proud of and pleased with! The Labor Party have often described small business as 'the top end of town'—the member for Rankin was the worst offender: more than 300 times—and we know they've described retirees as receiving 'welfare for the wealthy'. Well, the reality is: when the member for McMahon asked the people of Australia to vote against the Labor Party if they didn't like these policies, they took it literally!
My question is to the Treasurer. Is the real reason that the Treasurer always bangs on endlessly about Labor that he wants to distract Australians from the fact that he has presided over higher household debt and government debt than any other Treasurer in the history of this country?
We are not going to take a lecture from a Labor Party that delivered $240 billion of accumulated deficits. Mr Speaker, do you remember the four budget surpluses that the then member for Lilley, Wayne Swan, announced? Guess who wrote the speech? The member for Rankin—who, we know, likes to tax a lot.
The reality is: we are paying back Labor's debt, and we are doing that by growing the economy. What we will never do is: we will never whack the Australian people with $387 billion of higher taxes.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government's budget—its strong and stable and certain budget—is supporting Australians who are suffering from eating disorders and other mental health conditions?
I want to thank the member for Fisher for his passionate advocacy for those with eating disorders and other mental health challenges, as well as for his support—along with the member for Fairfax and other members from Queensland, as well as members across the House—for the Day for Daniel Morcombe and the emphasis on child safety.
In terms of the ability to support patients with mental health challenges around the country, we know that it's absolutely critical that we have a strong investment regime which provides for strong employment, which therefore gives us a strong and stable budget, which allows us to make these investments with certainty. In particular, one of the areas which this government has focused on—and I want to acknowledge that the member for Fisher has been a leading national advocate in this space—is the support for patients with eating disorders. There are up to a million Australians who suffer from some form of eating disorder. Every person in this chamber will be associated with, and will have been touched by and involved in some way with, patients facing the challenge of eating disorders.
A little while ago I had the pleasure of joining the member on the Sunshine Coast, where we were able to turn the first sod for the first residential eating disorder clinic in Australia to be supported by the government. That will be the first of a network of residential eating disorder clinics, with over $63 million invested around the country. That will provide patients with options which have never previously been available. Whilst we were there we met Millie Thomas. At age 12, Millie had the first signs of anorexia and battled for 15 years. She told us how she had even been at the point of palliative care. She had been taken to the Sunshine Coast for what her mother thought would be her last days, and, through the care, attention and support of those around her, she was able to make a recovery.
What was evident, though, as Millie said, was that the support was not there in terms of access to services. In eight days from now, on 1 November, the Medicare Benefits Schedule will be changed and patients will be able to access 60 treatments and sessions for eating disorders. That will include 40 psychological sessions and 20 sessions with dieticians. It is part of a much broader national plan which includes the residential centres; the Medicare treatments which will be available, as I say, on that scale for the first time; and the support for research, with $5 million recently allocated to the University of Sydney and Deakin University.
Ultimately, all members of this House have come together in support of patients with eating disorders, and we are changing lives, saving lives and protecting lives as a parliament.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the real reason the Prime Minister obsesses about Labor that he wants to distract Australians from the fact that net government debt has more than doubled on his watch?
Net debt under this government is coming down, because we are in surplus this year. It has been a long time since we've been in surplus. After six painstaking years of getting the budget back into shape, getting spending under control, conservatively budgeting on the forecasts on revenue and ensuring that we are getting Australians back into work—so they are going off welfare and they're paying taxes—the budget is now in surplus this year.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton is warned.
That means that debt is now coming down. It will fall, as the budget was saying, by some $50 billion over the forward estimates.
I will tell you why I talk about Labor. It is because I don't think that we should ever return to the reckless policies of the Labor Party when it comes to the budget and anything else. Australians know the mistakes that Labor made when they were last in power, and the reason we are talking about Labor is that the shadow Treasurer wants those policies reintroduced. In that wonderful book that the shadow Treasurer often quotes, Glory Daze, he talked about—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
He asked me about Labor.
The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
Mr Speaker, the question was about how, on his watch, debt has doubled.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. If that was all that was asked, the Leader of the Opposition would have a stronger case. I've made the point about taglines. When a tagline includes a political party and their policy approach, I think it does make the capacity for the answer pretty broad. The Prime Minister has the call.
In Glory Daze, the shadow Treasurer talked about his glory days as the chief-of-staff to Wayne Swan and he said:
The Chief-of-Staff's job is tremendous, and worth the greying hair and expanding waistline. All at once you are the key adviser and confidante to the Treasurer … This requires a closeness with the boss and an ability to know his mind without even speaking with him about every issue.
He was at one with Obi-Swan—and he remains at one with Obi-Swan in this place. And as he listens to the Yoda of the time, Kevin Rudd, all he can hear is, 'Higher taxes, he must, higher taxes, he must!'
Mr Speaker, I'll tell you why I talk about the Labor Party and fiscal restlessness; it's because on our watch we will put in place stable and certain fiscal management. We will not return to the policies of panic and crisis of the Labor Party, which Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd championed.
My question is to the Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister inform the House how the Morrison government's strong and stable budget is helping Australians get into their first home? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I particularly thank the member for Boothby for her question. Like the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and myself, the member for Boothby understands that we must be steadfast in providing certainty and stability to the Australian people by honouring our commitment to deliver—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned!
a budget surplus and also to manage the economy prudently. Strong and stable budget management gives confidence to the economy more broadly. But, as we've seen since the election, that gives confidence to the housing market. And, most importantly for the policies that we are progressing as a government, it gives confidence to those many hundreds of thousands of young Australians who are looking to get into the housing market.
The alternative, though, if you don't manage a strong economy and if you don't prudently manage the budget, is that you cannot do the things that this government is doing. I was very pleased that last week we passed our signature policy that we took to the election, which was the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. From 1 January, 10,000 Australians will be able to purchase a property with a deposit of as little as five per cent. We know that for prospective first home buyers saving that deposit is the hardest part. In Melbourne it's taking up to eight years to save a deposit. In Sydney it's taking up to 10 years to save for that deposit. But when you manage a budget properly you have the ability to fund programs like the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme.
That may partly explain why our other outstanding policy assisting first home buyers, the First Home Super Saver Scheme, was so strongly opposed by those opposite. Mr Speaker, can you believe that the Labor Party went to the election opposing a policy that gave a tax cut to first home buyers? Five thousand first home buyers have utilised the First Home Super Saver Scheme—
What!
The Leader of the Opposition said, 'What?' as if in surprise—
He didn't know!
He doesn't even know what policies they took to the election. You voted against it! Don't you know what you voted against?
I will just say to the Assistant Treasurer that I didn't vote against anything. I don't, and he can just put his remarks through the chair.
Sorry, Mr Speaker. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is very confused about what he voted against. The First Home Super Saver Scheme has helped 5,000 first home buyers to buy a new home. And now, the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme is going to assist 10,000 new first home buyers per year. That's what this government is doing. That's what a stable budget and prudent economic management can deliver, unlike those opposite, who have opposed us every step of the way.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his comments in this parliament on Monday, when the Prime Minister told the House the following:
… whether they're politicians, journalists, public officials, anyone—there is no-one in this country who is above the law.
Does he apply this standard to his own ministers?
It's a fairly obvious answer to that question. No-one is above the law in this country.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's stable and certain budget is providing important settlement support to migrants moving to Australia, and is the minister aware of any risk associated with alternative policies?
I thank the member for Higgins for her question. Stable and certain economic management allows the government to invest in our immigration program—including in our humanitarian program, which is an important part of our overall system.
In the year that just ended we welcomed some 18,750 people to Australia under the refugee and humanitarian program, one of the most generous programs in the world. We focus on assisting people in greatest need. To that end, this year I have directed the department to increase the women-at-risk component of our humanitarian program to its highest-ever level. Twenty per cent of the program will be reserved for women and children who are fleeing some of the world's most appalling situations. Also, in the humanitarian program, we are focusing on the government's overall objective in immigration of increasing regional migration. I'm very pleased to inform the House today that in the year that just ended we saw the highest-ever proportion of Australia's refugee and humanitarian entrants settle in regional Australia—over 40 per cent.
We'll also invest in settlement services, which help new refugees and humanitarian entrants to become part of Australian life. That's in everyone's interests. It's in the interests of the people who arrive and it's in the interests of the broader community. There are lots of examples under settlement services: the Access Gateway program in Logan, which helps new entrants with access to employment programs, to English and to so many other areas of Australian life; the Red Cross in Wagga, in the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate, who are working closely with the Yazidi community and doing fantastic work helping them with accommodation and with introducing kids to other kids in the area; and so many other important services. Right across the country, there are churches, multicultural groups and community organisations all participating in our orderly settlement services program.
I'm asked by the member: are there risks and alternative approaches? There are. Under the opposition, we saw the most catastrophic failure in Australia's postwar public policy history in its appalling loss of control of our borders. We know the extraordinary economic cost of $17 billion and counting, we know that 17 detention centres were opened and, most tragically, we know that 1,200 people lost their lives at sea. We also know that the Special Humanitarian Program, which previously welcomed 5,000 people a year, was slashed to 500 people under Labor because they lost control of our borders. We run a stable budget and stable borders, unlike those opposite.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Section 253 of the New South Wales Crimes Act creates a serious indictable offence for making a false document to influence the exercise of a public duty. I refer to his provision of a forged City of Sydney document to The Daily Telegraph in an attempt to influence the Lord Mayor of Sydney in the exercise of her public duty. Will the minister assure the House that this forgery was not made by him or his office?
Yes.
My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's secure and stable economic management is making our region more stable and secure by assisting our Pacific family to secure their own economic prosperity? Minister, do you know of any alternative approaches?
Opposition members interjecting—
It's nice to be popular! I want to thank the member for Fairfax for his question, and I note his strong advocacy of Australia's role in our region. With a strong and stable economy we're obviously able to play a strong role in the Pacific assisting our Pacific family, protecting their security, including their environmental and economic security. It's the Morrison government that's concerned about enacting on the illegal unreported and unregulated fishing activities in our region, which cost our Pacific family over $150 million every single year in stolen fish and lost economic opportunity. Of course, for the same reason our government is working on tackling ocean plastics. This, combined with improved illegal fishing compliance activities, will see fish stocks in the regions lift. As the Prime Minister has noted—and I think it's important for the House to remember—without action, scientists tell us that in the next 30 years the weight of plastics caught in our oceans will outweigh the number of fish in our oceans. Australia, of course, is going to keep doing its bit to make sure the economic security of our region is secure.
The landmark Pacific Maritime Security Program will see the construction of 21 Guardian class patrol boats, 19 of which will be gifted to the Pacific and two to Timor-Leste between now and 2023. These patrol boats, built by Austal, here in Western Australia, will have greater range, allowing for them to be longer at sea, and assist in the fight against illegal fishing, thereby aiding our economic security.
Just this week, the Australian Defence Force completed Operation Solania. It's the latest mission to support the ongoing fight against illegal fishing in the South West Pacific, with a focus on the exclusive economic zones of the Solomon Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and, of course, Palau. I want to thank all the ADF personnel and the DFAT staff who contributed to the great success of Operation Solania. Our ongoing strong economy enables this significant support in the form of the patrol boat program to Pacific countries to help them tackle illegal fishing.
And I'm asked by the member for Fairfax if there are any alternative policy approaches to the stable and certain budget management that we have. Well, the Morrison government will be delivering 57 new naval vessels in our time through our strong budget management. Of course, I've looked for an alternative to the commissioning of 57 new naval vessels, but it's not 47, it's not 37 and it's not 27 in the alternative policy from the opposition that they will commission. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: it isn't seven vessels. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: you, in your six years in government, delivered no vessels—none. Fifty seven vessels have been commissioned by this government and zero from the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, it's strong economic management that enables the ability to build 57 vessels. It's strong economic management that restores the defence budget and allows us to secure the prosperity of our Pacific family and our region.
My question is again to the minister for emissions reduction. I refer to the minister's previous answer. Where did the minister get the forged document?
I absolutely reject the premise of the question and the bizarre assertions being pedalled by those opposite.
My question is to the . Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's stable and certain budget management enables critical investment in regional Australia, including in telecommunications? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I'd like to thank the member for Mallee for her question. I acknowledge her strong advocacy on behalf of her constituents in relation to the delivery of critical investment and services in her electorate of Mallee. In this context, I'm pleased to advise the House a new mobile base station at Nullawil in the member's electorate has recently been switched on under the government's Mobile Black Spot Program The Mobile Black Spot Program is an excellent example of the record levels of investment we are making in regional Australia and a reflection of the improvements in services we are providing because of the strong, stable budget environment delivered by this government. A strong budget management, which has delivered a record of 36 consecutive months of jobs growth, underpins the investments that we are making in regional services through the government's $220 million Stronger Regional Digital Connectivity Package. Through this package, the government is proud to be delivering improved mobile coverage and digital connectivity for more regional communities. The package includes $160 million for round 5 and round 6 of the highly successful Mobile Black Spot Program, taking the overall investment in this program to $380 million, with social benefit to the regional communities, including emergency service facilities, schools and tourist sites.
Through this program, people living, working and travelling in the Nullawil area, in the member for Mallee's electorate, can now experience the real social, economic and safety benefits of improved mobile coverage that these new mobile base stations provide. The Nullawil base station will provide up to 100 square kilometres of new and improved 3G and 4G mobile coverage to the Nullawil township and surrounding area, including over 20 kilometres of road coverage along the Calder Highway and adjoining roads, which obviously the member for Mallee would be very pleased about.
Our side of the House also recognises that regional communities are diverse and have different telecommunications needs. For this reason, the Stronger Regional Digital Connectivity Package also includes $60 million for the new Regional Connectivity Program. This program will provide improved access to digital technologies for Australians living in regional and remote areas. This means people will be better connected and will have access to services like telehealth. I know the member for Mallee is very passionate about the possibility of telehealth. We are working closely with local communities, industries and all levels of government to ensure the best possible design of the program. I know the member for Mallee understands what the government's investments in infrastructure and services mean for the people of her electorate. Whether it is addressing mobile back spots, funding key road corridors through Roads of Strategic Importance or delivering more rural medical training places for the Murray Darling Medical School, these initiatives certainly improve the capabilities of so many people living in regional Australia.
The minister's time has concluded.
My question is again to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. I refer to his previous answer. Where did the minister get the document?
The document was drawn directly from the City of Sydney's website. It was publicly available.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
My question is to the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel. Next month, on 11 November—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Canning will just pause for a second. Members on my left will cease interjecting—the member for McMahon in particular. The member for Canning can begin his question again. The clock will restart.
My question is to the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel. Next month, on 11 November, Australia will mark Remembrance Day. Can the minister advise what this government is doing to recognise Australia's veterans both on Remembrance Day and throughout the year?
I thank the member for Canning for his question. I think all in this place understand the nature of service. The reason we run for parliament in the first place is to serve our communities. The greatest risk we face is perhaps a paper cut or a bruised ego from time to time. There are those of us who have actually served in uniform, like the member for Canning. We say to them and to those opposite as well who have served: thank you for that service to our nation. On Remembrance Day, we recognise those who have provided the ultimate service to our country. As a mark of respect throughout Australia, in our large cities and in our small country towns, we stop, we pause, we remember and we reflect on that service. As a grateful nation, as a mark of respect we pause to remember and give thanks to those who have served in the past but also those who continue to serve today.
We have a great deal to be thankful for in this nation. The freedoms we enjoy today have come at a huge price. There are 102,000 Australian names on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial, many thousands more were injured in conflicts and there are those who came back and carry the scars for life. We have a great deal to be thankful for as a nation. On this Remembrance Day, we give thanks to all those who served in the past but particularly also thank the families who supported them. As a government we are endeavouring—I must say, with overwhelming support from those opposite—to improve the services we can provide to our veterans and their families throughout our nation, particularly our younger veterans on their transition, whether it is from peacekeeping missions or from deployment in conflict zones. We are working constructively and practically, with the goodwill of those opposite, to continue to deliver better services, better facilities and better support for veterans and their families throughout our nation.
This Remembrance Day, we encourage the Australian nation to take the time to pause and reflect on those who have gone before us and also spare a thought for those who are serving today. They can be injured in training. They can be injured during humanitarian missions. They can be injured during peacekeeping duties or on deployment throughout the world. As we pause to reflect on the service of our forbearers, I encourage each and every one of us to keep in our thoughts and our prayers those who continue to serve today. We say to them: thank you for your service. Lest we forget.
on indulgence—I associate Labor with the comments of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Remembrance Day is indeed a very important day in our nation. I will be I'm sure with the minister and I assume the Prime Minister at the national War Memorial on 11 November, representing this side of politics. Wherever people commemorate our past, present and future veterans, it is a significant day.
My question is again to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. I refer to his previous answer. Does the minister stand by his claim that he downloaded the document from the City of Sydney's website, in light of information released today by the city that metadata logs prove conclusively that the original documents had not been altered since being uploaded to their website almost 12 months ago?
As I said, again, I am advised that the document was drawn—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Members on my left! The minister will pause. The member for McMahon is now warned. Members on my left, I need to hear the answer. I have said it repeatedly. Minister, I could not hear the last 10 seconds during the ruckus.
As I said, the document was drawn from the City of Sydney website, and it was publicly available. I reject the bizarre suggestions and assertions being peddled by those opposite.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. What are the risks of alternative approaches to the Morrison government's well-known, stable and secure approach to border protection policies?
Before I call the Minister for Home Affairs, I made my position clear yesterday on the content of answers. I am not in a position, obviously, to know what the minister is going to say, but I have a fair idea. I am going to say to the minister that the House of RepresentativesPractice and the standing orders are very clear. I think the question is cleverly written and is in order, but it is the answer I will be focusing on. I am not going to allow questions—I am going to make this point about House of Representatives Practice. The standing orders make it clear that ministers can only be questioned about matters for which they are responsible. I say in all seriousness that the government is very keen to enforce that when it gets questions from the opposition about matters for which there are not responsible. The Practice makes very clear that some Speakers have had a very strict approach and indeed not even allowed taglines like 'alternative policies'. I have been more liberal, but there has never been a time when an entire answer can be about an opposition's policy. I am saying that because the policies the minister is responsible for are the government's. The question is, as I said, cleverly written and in order, but, for the minister to be in order with his answer, he needs to take the approach that I have been allowing. I will let him have a go.
I feel the weight of your expectation, Mr Speaker. I'll make this very important point: the policies on border protection of the Morrison government are not only well-known but well liked by the Australian people, because they backed them again at the last election. I tell you what else is well-known: the border protection policies of the Howard government were well-known and well liked. It's important to point out, as part of this debate, not only our position but the position of those opposite because their policies on border protection are also well-known, not so well liked. The Australian public made a judgement about Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard—that they were a disaster when it came to border protection policies. They put people on Manus and Nauru, people drowned at sea, kids were in detention, it was a huge failure and the chaos was unbelievable. It's strange that the Leader of the Opposition has continued exactly the same bad policy as that of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, so you can understand it is not very well liked. Who in this parliament would offer up policies that are not well liked? KK is the answer—Senator Keneally. Senator Keneally has presided over policies not even known to many of those on the front bench.
I'm just going to say to the minister: he has to relate his material to his responsibilities. That's what he needs to do. The question wasn't about whether anything was popular; the question was about risks to the government's current policies. In order to do that in the remaining time, he needs to at least outline what the policies are if he's going to outline what the risks are; otherwise we'll move to the next question.
We stand for strong border protection policies. It is at the heart of the Morrison government. We have introduced laws that have kept our borders secure, stopped people smugglers in their tracks, but the threat has not gone away. It's important to understand that there are alternative approaches to that which we've presided over. The alternative approach is the medevac law introduced by Labor which has sent a green light to—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
It was absolutely introduced and supported by you. The Leader of the Opposition says, 'I don't know anything about Medevac.' That's what he interjects.
I just say to the Leader of the Opposition: if he's got a point of order, I'll hear it. If he's wishing to answer something the minister said—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
If the Leader of the Opposition has a point of order, I'll hear it. But the point of order can't be that he disagrees with something that minister said. He can take that up at the end of question time, as he knows. The minister has 27 seconds left. The minister has the call.
We know under the medevac law that people are coming to Australia through a back door. We know that people have come here not for medical needs. That is very clear because people have arrived and have refused medical attention. We know that of 135 people that have come, about 10 per cent went into hospital; none of them are in hospital. Labor was all about bringing people in through the back door, as always. (Time expired)
My question is again to Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Section 316 of the New South Wales Crimes Act creates an offence for failing to bring information about the commission of a forgery designed to influence a public duty to the attention of the New South Wales Police Force. Has the minister reported this matter to the New South Wales police or does he still seriously claim that the document he provided the Daily Telegraph is not a forgery? If he does make that claim, will he provide metadata to support it, as the City of Sydney has?
Opposition members interjecting—
I say to members on my left that one of their colleagues has asked a question that I presume he wants answered and they are preventing that happening. The Leader of the House, on a point of order?
Yes, on standing order 100 (d) (iv)—imputations. The first question and the subsequent question went to the origins of a document. The minister has been absolutely straight in his answers with respect to the origins.
Opposition members interjecting—
It may not have been the answer that members opposite wanted, but the answer was provided. Now they ask a question which infers and imputes that an offence has been created or, indeed, asks the minister with respect to that which is not at all proven and not at all clear.
The Manager of Opposition Business, on the point of order?
Mr Albanese interjecting—
I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I can't listen to two people at once. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
The question is effectively in three parts. The first describes an offence; the second asks whether the minister has reported it; and the third then asks whether the minister is in fact claiming that this would happen, in which case the offence would not have been committed. So none of the imputations that the Leader of the House just referred to are made in the question.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House for that. I am just going to make two points, without detaining the House for too long. On these sorts of issue, I've taken the approach of Speaker Andrew, which is if questions tend to contain accusations, by not allowing them you don't allow the minister the opportunity, at least, to respond. To the Leader of the House: I'm glad he raised the point of order that he did about a strict reading of the standing orders. As I've said before, if I were to apply that, that would change a lot of questions. But, of course, I would also be applying it to answers. So the House can perhaps reflect on that over the next four weeks. The minister has the call.
I absolutely reject the premise of the question. Those opposite will believe anything they read on their favourite website. The truth is that the member for Hindmarsh wants to distract from his woes—from the open hostility between he and his colleagues. They are all smear and no idea.
My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney outline to the House how the Morrison government is creating stability and certainty in the building sector by cracking down on unlawful behaviour on building sites across Australia? Is the Attorney aware of alternative policies?
I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. The member refers to government policy, being the Ensuring Integrity Bill, which establishes a fit-and-proper-person test for holding public office in registered organisations—both employer and employee organisations. Why is that necessary? It is because militant unions like the CFMEU have now racked up more than $16.7 million in fines and 2,190 incidents of lawbreaking—and that's just for industrial laws.
Of course, we heard that John Setka resigned from the Labor Party yesterday—not from the union movement; from the Labor Party. The point about the necessity of this legislation is that, whilst John Setka is clearly a problem, the problem is much bigger than John Setka. Of those $16.7 million worth of fines and 2,190 incidents of breaking the law, John Setka is responsible for only 22 offences, or one per cent of that lawbreaking. In fact, since January 2017, of the 80 CFMEU officials who've racked up 420 contraventions of industrial law, none of them have been John Setka.
I am asked the question by a tennis great—a tennis great who was ranked in 1975 at No. 8 in the world. The reality is that, notwithstanding John Setka's amazing record of lawbreaking, if he were in the grand slam of lawbreaking on construction sites, he wouldn't even be a ranked player this year—not even a ranked player this year—because everyone else in the CFMEU is doing an amazing job themselves at lawbreaking.
I'm asked about alternative policies. The Labor alternative is to do nothing about out-of-control behaviour of unions and to oppose the legislative change that would do something about that. Why? Well, that might have somebody do with the $14 million given to the ALP since the year 2000 by the CFMEU. I wanted to just note the Leader of the Opposition's comments on this matter. We know from this week that the Leader of the Opposition has an unshakeable, a watertight, a near-fanatical commitment to straight answers, and he was asked a straight question the other night. Leigh Sales said of Mr Setka, 'It is not just him,' and asked:
… will the Labor Party keep taking money from that branch of the union?
The opposition leader said:
… the CFMEU is affiliated to the Labor Party …
LEIGH SALES: So that is a yes, I take it?
She says:
… it's a pretty straight question—will you keep taking their money with him as leader?
The opposition leader said:
Well, they're affiliated to the Labor Party …
Is it a yes or a no? Are you going to keep taking money from the CFMEU—a yes or no? But it's okay, because we had the shadow AG clear it all up when he was asked the question by Hamish Macdonald, 'Clearly all those breaches don't just go down to Setka; don't quibble'— (Time expired)
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes the:
(a) Prime Minister's statement in the House on Monday this week that "Whether they're politicians, journalists, public officials, anyone—there is no-one in this country who is above the law";
(b) reported provision of a forged document to The Daily Telegraph by the Minister for Emissions Reduction in an attempt to influence the public duty of the Lord Mayor of Sydney;
(c) creation and/or knowing use of a forged document in an attempt to influence a public duty is a serious indictable offence under New South Wales law punishable by up to 10 years in prison;
(d) failure to report knowledge of a serious indictable offence is also an offence under New South Wales law punishable by up to two years in prison;
(e) Minister for Emissions Reduction has failed to explain his role in, or knowledge of, the creation and/or use of a forged document used in an attempt to influence the public duty of the Lord Mayor of Sydney; and
(f) Minister has refused to give straight answers to simple questions about these crimes, as if the public has no right to know; and
(2) having regard to the foregoing, calls on the Prime Minister to ask the New South Wales Police to investigate whether the Minister for Emissions Reduction has committed a crime.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes the:
(a) Prime Minister's statement in the House on Monday this week that "Whether they're politicians, journalists, public officials, anyone—there is no-one in this country who is above the law";
(b) reported provision of a forged document to The Daily Telegraph by the Minister for Emissions Reduction in an attempt to influence the public duty of the Lord Mayor of Sydney;
(c) creation and/or knowing use of a forged document in an attempt to influence a public duty is a serious indictable offence under New South Wales law punishable by up to 10 years in prison;
(d) failure to report knowledge of a serious indictable offence is also an offence under New South Wales law punishable by up to two years in prison;
(e) Minister for Emissions Reduction has failed to explain his role in, or knowledge of, the creation and/or use of a forged document used in an attempt to influence the public duty of the Lord Mayor of Sydney; and
(f) Minister has refused to give straight answers to simple questions about these crimes, as if the public has no right to know; and
(2) having regard to the foregoing, calls on the Prime Minister to ask the New South Wales Police to investigate whether the Minister for Emissions Reduction has committed a crime.
We need to know whether the forgery was 'Taylor' made, because it looks exactly like that—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Seconded. The public has a right to know about these crimes, not have debate shut down yet again—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Hindmarsh be no further heard.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.
The most accident-prone minister—
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question is that motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison government is continuing to implement its stable and certain plan to create a stronger economy and a secure future for all Australians? Is the Prime Minister aware of the impact of any alternatives to this plan?
I thank the member for Herbert for his question and for his service. Earlier today we awarded the first of the defence veterans pins, which are available to all veterans in Australia as a way of symbolising their service and so they can also be very well known to others in the community. Many from this chamber from both sides, including the member for Herbert, will be proud to wear their pin. We presented the first today. I say to all of them: thank you for your service. It is a great opportunity for Australians all around the country to say that same simple set of words, which I know are deeply appreciated by all veterans around the country.
We came into this last sitting fortnight with a lot of work that had been done by this parliament. Through the legislation the government has put forward over the last two weeks we have been able to legislate the tax cuts, which we said we would do at the election; we have been able to establish the Future Drought Fund; we have been able to keep terrorist foreign fighters from Australia with new legislation to keep Australians safe; we are keeping the cashless debit card program running to protect more vulnerable Australians from social harm, bringing that legislation though the parliament; we are closing more tax loopholes for foreign multinationals, protecting children from sexual exploitation and protecting the hard earned retirement savings of millions of Australians from undue erosion through inappropriate insurance arrangements. As we came into this fortnight that is what we were doing: getting on with the job and providing that certain and stable leadership—putting the promises that we made at the election into legislative effect and keeping faith with those who showed trust in us at the last election.
But over the past fortnight we've continued that work. I am pleased that legislation has passed to establish the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme; that we've established the Emergency Response Fund, ensuring we are better prepared as a nation to respond to national disasters through a new $4 billion fund which is providing the resilience that is needed in a country such as Australia, which is used to having to deal with national disasters.
We began the grandfathering of conflicted remuneration so financial advisers must put the interests of their customers first. We have given police new powers to prevent terror attacks at airports. We've established the new Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant that acknowledges and thanks veterans, as I said, for their service and to acknowledge their families. And this week, through this House alone, we have ratified the government's free trade agreements with Peru, with Indonesia and with Hong Kong. We have provided extra drought support for affected farmers, with the farm household allowance. And the big stick legislation passed through this House. That's almost 50 bills going through this place since the last election, because we're a government that is getting on with the job, serving the Australian people, putting those Australians first and staying focused on their needs.
And on that note, Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I present a revised ministry listing reflecting changes to representative arrangements with the other chamber that will take effect from the next sitting period.
The document read as follows—
The document was unavailable at time of publishing.
Today will be the last sitting day for a long-term employee of our House, Trish Bicket. Next week Trish will retire after working in the Table Office for 34 years. She joins us in the Speakers Gallery in the front row today.
She is one of the few House staff remaining from Old Parliament House. Trish has been committed to the institution of the House of Representatives and dedicated to supporting and preserving its practices and traditions. Her main roles in a long period of service have included producing the official record, the Votes and Proceedings, and, for more than 20 years now, the printed procedures we use here in the chamber. Chairs, ministers, members and clerks rely on these, as you all know, to keep things running smoothly.
There would be very few members who have not received direct assistance from Trish. She has been the voice on the other end of the phone explaining how to give notice, move a motion or present a document. It is Trish who is responsible for setting up our chamber each sitting day, making sure all the right papers and resources are on the right desks. As well as giving that practical support, Trish has a deep knowledge and understanding of the standing orders and practices of the House. In situations that arise very infrequently, or for the first time, she has been able to retrieve the correct precedents from years past and create appropriate procedures at very short notice.
She has worked with a number of generations of technology in supporting the production of chamber documents, from the time when they were marked up by hand and sent for typesetting to the government printer by underground pneumatic tube—which would occasionally flood, I'm told!—to the present day, when Trish creates and prints all the documents we use in the chamber from her desktop and printer in the Table Office.
She has also been a very important mentor to countless staff of the House over the years, and always generous in passing on her technical and procedural knowledge. Of course it goes without saying she will be greatly missed by all of us and by her colleagues. I'm sure members would now like to join with me in thanking Trish for her incredible service over 34 years.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
():
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 move:
That leave of absence from 25 November 2019 until 2 April 2020 be given to Ms L. M. Chesters, for parental leave purposes.
Question agreed to.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gorton proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Morrison Government to acknowledge and address structural problems in the economy including record high underemployment and record low wage growth.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
We saw today that the government is willing to use its numbers to stop substantive and procedural debates from happening when it comes to ministerial responsibility. We saw last week that the Leader of the Opposition invited the Prime Minister to debate the economy, and the government, of course, used its numbers to stop that debate. This is the place where the big debates should happen, in the national interest, and yet, time and time again, the government refuses to have those debates. We have a Prime Minister and a government in denial about the structural weaknesses in our labour market and our economy—either that, or a deliberate failure to acknowledge or address these pressing challenges, including record high underemployment and record low wages growth, and a deliberate attempt to manipulate or omit evidence that casts serious doubt on the government's economic record.
Let me just state some pertinent facts for this debate. Economic growth presided over by this government is at the lowest level since the global financial crisis. Wages are growing at one-sixth the pace of profits, with the government presiding over the lowest wages growth on record. This is one of the reasons why household debt has surged to record levels—in fact, 190 per cent of disposable income. It in part explains why consumer confidence has fallen and consumption growth is very weak. It in part explains why business confidence is down and why productivity is down, while net public debt has doubled under the time of this government.
Then there is the fantasy of employment nirvana imagined by this government. Labor accepts that there has been employment growth—due, in the main, to population growth. But there are many facts that the government fails to recognise and to acknowledge and, as a result, fails to address. As Labor has been arguing for years now, underemployment is an increasing problem in our labour market. Under-utilisation—that is, the combined number of unemployed and underemployed Australians—has continued to climb. We are witnessing some employment growth, as I say, but what the Prime Minister does not care to admit—and we saw it again today in question time—is that we are heading towards almost two million of our fellow Australians looking for any work or looking for more work, but unable to find it—almost two million of our fellow citizens in that situation. Over the past year—and this is another fact that you wouldn't hear from the Treasurer or the Prime Minister—the number of unemployed Australians has increased by 43,600, and the number of underemployed Australians in this last year has increased by 34,100. That's nearly 80,000 more people looking for work, or looking for more work, than there were a year ago. That is something that's never acknowledged by this government. Under-utilisation now is hovering between 13½ and 14 per cent of our labour market, and that is very high.
Indeed, if you look at one of the reasons why we're seeing persistent low wage growth, it's that the labour market is not contracting. When you have over a million Australians looking for more work, that means there is slack in the labour market. Really the only thing that the government is relying upon to see any future wage growth is a contraction and tightening of the labour market, and that's not happening.
This goes to some of the questions around Labor's performance and the revisionism that we see by those opposite. When last in government, Labor's unemployment rate, compared with that of the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and, in fact, most European states, was lower—in fact, in some cases, much, much lower. Today, Australia's unemployment rate is higher than that of the United States, the United Kingdom and, indeed, New Zealand. In fact, we have not seen a decline in the unemployment rate in the way in which the government describes. We have seen a fall, but, compared to countries that we tend to use as benchmarks, there has not been a significant decline in the unemployment rate and there's been an increase in underutilisation and underemployment numbers. Because of that, as I say, over one million of our fellow citizens can't find enough work and, because of that, they're not earning sufficient income; hence household debt and falling consumption.
Those are the problems that exist in the labour market and, if they're not acknowledged by the Prime Minister, by the Treasurer or by the government, then of course we're not going to see anything put in place to address those issues. That's why the tax cuts have almost sunk without trace. Just ask small and medium enterprises about what has happened with respect to the first tranche of the tax cuts? It's been an almost negligible impact insofar as those businesses are concerned. They're not feeling greater consumer confidence. There's not greater consumption at the levels that the government boasts. Ask the large retailers as to whether they've seen the benefits of those tax cuts and they would say to you that the benefits are negligible. And yet the government continues to revise history to argue that things are going very, very well. The fact is that this revisionism, this attempt to deny the facts, may well explain why the government stubbornly refuses to deploy a fiscal strategy to kick-start our economy.
As we know, the Reserve Bank Governor has been gently advising the government for some months to bring forward infrastructure investment. Indeed, as the economy slows and the budget proves to be deficient in improving our economic performance, the Prime Minister's hubris and arrogance are on full display. It's not just the Reserve Bank warning the government about inaction and inertia; just last week the International Monetary Fund belled the cat. The IMF's economic outlook slashed Australia's economic growth forecasts so it would appear that growth this year has been slower than that of the United States, that of Spain and even that of Greece. As we can all see from the evidence presented, the Prime Minister misrepresents the facts, denies the evidence and contrives a story that belies the truth. In doing so, he not only sullies the office of prime ministership but ignores the economic reality, thereby refusing to address the challenges in our economy.
Meanwhile, of course, the government continue to look after their own mates and pretty much nobody else. Just think about the debate we've been having over the last little while. How slow are the government and how much little action have we witnessed by the government in looking after our nation's farmers, who are confronted with one of the worst droughts on record? The government have not brought forward support fast enough, have not been big enough, have not been fast enough, and have thrown farmers off support, and they're supposed to be the natural constituency of those opposite. Frankly, if they're supposed to be your friends, I really do care for those you have little regard for. The fact is that there's been a hopeless response by the government with respect to dealing with the drought, despite the rhetoric of those opposite.
How little care does the Prime Minister exhibit? What little empathy does he show to the 800,000 hospitality and retail workers who had further cuts, in material terms, to their wages this year as a result of the Fair Work decision to reduce penalty rates? At the same time, as was revealed in estimates this week, the Prime Minister's own staff are defying the two per cent pay freeze and, as we've been advised, they are being provided secret, huge wage increases, described by one of their colleagues as 'cheating the system', according to Alice Workman in The Australian. Frankly, we should not be surprised about the secrecy. This Prime Minister is no stranger to providing incomplete answers to questions asked in the public interest. Remember, any question he chose not to answer when he was immigration minister was on a water matter. When he was Treasurer and, indeed, now as Prime Minister, he refuses to answer questions deemed to be a 'Canberra bubble' question. Most recently, he declined to confirm whether the White House, no less, vetoed one of his guests because it was 'gossip'. The public deserve better from this government and this Prime Minister. The public and the media have a right to know.
Just as the Prime Minister is failing to admit that there are structural economic challenges, he refuses to accept that he has an obligation to be accountable, to be up-front with the Australian people, and the Australian people will mark him down as he continues to act in this arrogant manner. It is unreasonable, unconscionable conduct by any Prime Minister.
I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the government to the matter of public importance brought on by the member for Gorton today. I would like to put on record at the start some of the actual facts in this debate that are pertinent. Jobs growth of 2.5 per cent throughout the year is stronger than any G7 economy, is more than double the OECD average of 0.9 per cent and compares to 0.07 per cent when the government came to office. A record number of Australians are in work and the participation rate has never been higher with nearly 1.5 million jobs having been created since we came to office.
The member for Gorton mentioned looking after their mates. I'll tell a little story that I heard somewhere around Easter time leading up to the federal election. I was talking to a mate of mine who is a plant operator on the local council. By his own words, he is not a wealthy man but he is a working man and has been a union member all his life. He expressed to me his concerns of having a Labor government running the country after the election in May. He said to me: 'I'm a working man and I've got two things to look after myself in my retirement. I have a second house in town. It didn't cost me a lot of money but it is negatively geared and that's going to help fund my retirement and my kids want the same opportunity. They're working FIFO—fly in, fly out—in the mines in the west of the state and they would like the same opportunity.' The other thing he said was, 'The only other thing I will have besides the pension is my superannuation and I don't want anyone to touch that.'
If the Labor Party want to look at who is looking after who, they might want to have a close look at their traditional mates and find out that they are no longer behind them because Labor no longer have the policies to support working Australians. We on this side have recorded three years of consecutive monthly jobs growth, the first time on record, with 310,000 jobs created in the last 12 months. The Treasury secretary at Senate estimates only a couple of days ago said we're seeing strong labour market outcomes, and employment growth of 2.5 per cent is strong. When we came to office, unemployment was 5.7 per cent and rising compared to the 5.2 per cent today. Under Labor, an additional 230,000 people were unemployed after six years of them being in government.
Female workforce participation is at record highs, while the gender pay gap is at a record low of 14 per cent, which is $1,100 per year lower than when we came into government, so that is a significant improvement. The proportion of those of working age on welfare is now at the lowest level in 30 years. It is also important to understand that the minimum-wage earners have benefited under this government, with the latest minimum wage increase at three per cent, which is well above the rate of inflation.
I also wear the hat of minister for decentralisation. As someone who represents a large regional area, an electorate that is half of New South Wales, I want to touch on the opportunities that the coalition are providing for people in regional areas. The massive $100 billion infrastructure spend across the country, not only in regional areas but in the cities as well, is giving an enormous boost into employment and opportunities right across Australia. The Inland Rail project is coming through my electorate at the moment. I was only speaking to a farmer this morning who is actually working on that project with a gravel truck, earning income in this particularly difficult time of drought.
I've got to admit the drought is severe. We have never experienced a level of dryness and drought like we've seen over the last three or four years. But, despite that, unemployment levels in regional Australia are quite low. Indeed, before the drought, unemployment in Dubbo was 2.2 per cent and across my entire electorate, which has some very small western towns, it was under four per cent. One of the challenges we, as a government, have is to highlight the opportunities and the employment possibilities outside the cities. I know some of the members opposite are regional but many of them focus on what's happening in the cities, but the truth of the matter is that there are opportunities for employment even now with the drought. We are having an enormous skills shortage across regional Australia. There are opportunities in health care, aged care, trades as well as in the mining sector. In my area of the Orana region around Dubbo, we've actually just started a DAMA to open opportunities for people with aptitude, skills and a desire to do well to move to a regional area to set up home, establish their family and add to a regional community.
It's also important that we look after our own. I'm particularly proud of the regional apprenticeship program that was announced in the budget, which is encouraging, through financial support, apprentices and employers to look after our young people. It's all very well to bring people from elsewhere, but we've also got to make sure that our young people have a start. The regional apprenticeship program, supported by Clontarf, has seen, right across Australia, particularly in my part of Australia, young Aboriginal men staying at school, going into traineeships and going into employment. That's the future of this country—looking after our local young people and getting them into employment.
While we might have debates in this place on a broader scale, it's important that we actually knuckle down and do things that make a difference. Right across regional Australia we are seeing the work that's been going through. In my part of the world, inland rail will provide 16,000 jobs in construction from end to end, and the opportunities for relocating businesses right along that corridor are enormous. There's a big discussion in this country at the moment with waste recycling—it's a massive problem—and the opportunities for regional Australia to take advantage of recycling, to take advantage of cheap freight through inland rail and to take advantage of the increased road networks, provided through the Roads of Strategic Importance program, the Roads to Recovery Program and other programs, to help grow local economies.
There is no greater form of welfare than having a job. Opportunities come from secure employment and stability in families. In disadvantaged areas where we have introduced the cashless debit card, that card has helped families manage their income. It's put stability into those communities and made those communities a much more pleasant and safer place to live. That, in turn, has encouraged our young people to stay in school and to move through apprenticeships and into local jobs. They have the pride that comes with that, which is central to this government. Things like the asset write-off for small business so that there's a cash stimulus generating income for young tradies so that they can upgrade their tools and equipment create jobs and certainly provide a very, very good, solid base. Small businesses is actually the largest employer in this country, so we need to create an environment where small businesses get incentives not only to invest in their business but to buy equipment to grow their profitability and get that cash moving around.
The member for Gorton mentioned the drought, and I will touch on that. The government has invested billions of dollars in drought assistance. Obviously, as it continues to bite, we will need to do more. As someone who has lived in regional Australia and lived in my electorate for all my life, I know how important it is that we have policies that are relevant to the people we represent—not knee-jerk reactions driven by populism. We need to make sure that those funds are going to the communities. The 12½ thousand farmers who are now on FHA are testament to the fact that we have policies that are getting to the people who need it the most.
I wish her well over the next few months and I call the member for Bendigo.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I might blush if people keep talking about what is going to happen in the next few weeks!
I want to take a moment to remind the House what the subject of the MPI is, because it appears that the minister representing the government has kind of missed what we are trying to get at. The subject of the MPI is: 'The failure of the Morrison government to acknowledge and address structural problems in the economy, including record high underemployment and record low wage growth'.
There are some structural problems in our community and the government keeps glossing over them and throwing out these tinkering programs and suggesting that they are going to be the be all and end all—and they're not. And the stats speak for themselves. The previous speaker said that women have never had it so good—that things are going really well. Well, the stats just do not back that up. Australian women are $800 a year worse off than they were last year. The reality is that women are worse off, and we need to start to talk about why. Cuts to penalty rates is one of the reasons that some women are worse off. Women who work in hospital and retail—the majority of the workforce in these sectors targeted by this government—had a penalty rate cut. Here we are almost at the end of those staged cuts and women are worse off.
Women predominantly work in low-wage industries—in award based industries—whether that be in care, community or retail. They are working in insecure jobs and part-time jobs. But we don't hear the government talking about how they are going to address those structural issues. Instead, they say, 'It's great; the gender pay gap is closing, because men's wages are dropping.' That's not addressing the structural problems that we have in this economy. It's not addressing the fact that we have stagnant wages growth and that people are, on average, in real terms, earning less today—and, in some cases, less than they did a decade ago.
The government have no plan to address the insecure work crisis that we are experiencing. Today you are more likely to be employed as a casual, as labour hire or in an insecure arrangement than have a full-time job. Those opposite probably walked out of high school or walked out of university into a job for life. Today that is a distant past. It is almost a myth. You meet young people today who are leaving school who say, 'What do you mean a job for life?'—not realising that their parents or their grandparents could do that. Today those jobs don't exist.
The other alarming statistic that the government is not taking seriously is underemployment. Almost two million Australians are underemployed and looking for work. These are the people you want to get behind. These are the people who are desperate for and wanting to do more work. People are working more than four jobs. This is a crisis; yet the government has no plan—no strategy whatsoever; no urgent crisis summit—to deal with the fact that people are trying to make ends meet by working for four different employers.
How is that helping our productivity? How is that helping our economy? How is it efficient to be working for four different people? Just consider the paperwork involved in working for four different people—not to mention the increased volume of work involved for some of our agencies with labour hire. I guess we can't expect the government to take on big business when it comes to labour hire, when they won't even sort it out in their own departments. This government is one of the worse for labour hire. We learnt through Senate estimates that at the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which is so proud to say it supports our veterans, 45 per cent of the time the person who picks up the phone is going to be someone who is working for a labour hire contractor. In the Department of Veterans' Affairs, where we want to have the most tailored and direct support for people, it is labour hire. And it is not just DVA; it is across the Australian Public Service. This government is addicted to labour hire. They just wash their hands—and its actually more expensive. We also learnt that through estimates—that it is not good economic management.
We also know about and need to point out the underspend in TAFE—$1 billion. There are 150,000 fewer apprentices than 10 years ago. This government has no plan to address the long-term structural problems that we have in our economy. We need a government that will. People want full-time work, if we give them the chance and if we help make it happen.
It's a remarkable achievement that Australia has completed its 28th consecutive year of annual economic growth. This is important because a growing economy is good for all Australians. Despite challenges, including ongoing international trade tensions, the housing market downturn and the persistent effects of adverse weather conditions on the rural sector, the Australian economy grew 0.5 per cent in the June quarter, to be 1.4 per cent higher through the year. Net exports, new public final demand, household consumption and mining investment all contributed to growth in June quarter 2019. Australia's real GDP growth is forecast to pick up to around its estimated potential rate of 2¾ per cent in 2019-20 and 2020-21. Household consumption, business investment and public final demand are expected to contribute to this.
Labour market conditions continue to be positive. Through the year to September 2019, employment grew 2.5 per cent and the participation rate in September was 66.1 per cent. The unemployment rate is 5.2 per cent, slightly higher than at the beginning of the year. At Senate estimates on 23 October the Treasury secretary said that we are seeing very strong labour market outcomes. Employment growth, at 2.5 per cent, is strong. The 2019-20 budget forecast employment growth of 1¾ per cent through the year to both the June quarter 2020 and the June quarter 2021. Since the coalition came to government in September 2013, over 1.4 million new jobs have been created. When we compare this to the six years prior, unemployment increased between November 2007 and September 2013 by more than 205,000 people. No wonder the Australian people welcomed the election of a Liberal government, because it is a Liberal government that's focused on growing the economy and, in doing so, growing the opportunities for Australians to contribute to the economy through their work.
The government continues to build on this very proud record by creating a further 1.25 million jobs over the next five years. When we look at employment growth, under Labor it was just 0.7 per cent. Now, it's 2.5 per cent. Under Labor, unemployment was 5.7 per cent and rising, compared to 5.2 per cent today. Labor is in no position to lecture us on employment or underemployment, particularly since the policies it took to the election were job-destroying policies.
We talk about wages. Wage growth is expected to gradually pick up, in line with continued strength in the labour market and a pick-up in economic growth. Wages, as measured by the wage price index, rose by 2.3 per cent through the year to the June quarter 2019. Most states and territories and most industries recorded higher wage growth compared with a year ago. Going forward, wage growth will be supported by key drivers of wages: spare capacity in the labour market, inflation and labour productivity. The Labor Party seeks to come here today to score points on the issue of wages, but under Labor real wages were growing at just 0.5 per cent when they left office. Today they're growing at 0.7 per cent. Minimum-wage earners also have benefited under this government, with the latest minimum-wage increase at three per cent, well above the rate of inflation. When Labor was last in office those on the minimum wage were hit by real wage cuts in three out of six years.
You can't just listen to what the Labor Party say; you actually have to look at what they do. What they do proves the point that the Australian Labor Party are no longer the party of middle Australia and they are no longer the party of the worker. They are the party of the social elite. They are the party of the inner city trendies. They have forgotten the basis of the creation of their party. They are not the party of a stronger economy. They are not the party of greater employment and higher wages. In fact, They are a party that will seek to destroy the opportunities for Australians who seek to be rewarded for their effort in our economy.
There being no further speakers, the discussion has concluded.
The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Broadbent, Mr Conaghan, Mr L. S. O'Brien and Mr R. J. Wilson be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety.
Question agreed to.
I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australian aviation is an essential part of our economy. It links our regions to our cities, and our cities to the world.
A strong aviation industry requires continuous improvement in the regulatory system which governs it. While Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety—built on a modern regulatory framework—any regulator must continue to keep pace with the industry it regulates.
Some sectors of the general aviation industry are seeking assurance that CASA takes into consideration the economic and cost impacts on industry, and the relative risk environment in the different aviation sectors, when developing broadly applicable aviation safety standards.
The Australian government is very conscious of the challenges faced by small business in Australia and the need to remove unnecessary costs and regulatory burden.
We are committed to aviation safety being the most important consideration in safety regulation and recognise that CASA must be allowed to ensure aviation in Australia is safe and reliable.
Costs and risks are both carefully weighed by CASA when it develops aviation safety standards. The requirements behind this process are spelt out in the government's statement of expectations issued to the CASA board.
Today I introduce into the parliament a bill that incorporates those guiding principles from the government's statement of expectations into the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill is in direct response to the concerns raised by the general aviation industry.
The bill will allow the government to ensure CASA continues to consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community. It will take into account the differing risks posed by those sectors when developing legislative aviation safety standards.
It is important we continue to support an aviation industry that is dynamic and sustainable, with a regulatory system that is responsive and proportionate to risks. The government seeks a level of regulation that maintains the safety of the system without unreasonably restricting innovation and growth.
I commend this bill to the House.
The opposition has a very proud record of bipartisanship when it comes to aviation safety. There are, frankly, no margins for error when it comes to aviation safety. As more and more travel, freight movement and recreation is undertaken in our skies, it is important that our aviation safety system keeps people safe. At the same time, Labor understands that the viability of the general aviation industry can be jeopardised by unreasonable regulatory burden.
We understand the importance of the aviation industry in the day-to-day lives of Australians, and this is nowhere more the case than in regional Australia. We also understand that some members of the general aviation sector have raised concerns about red tape and the impact on their operational costs, and the viability of the general aviation sector and jobs in the general aviation industry. Clearly, the regulatory burden that small airline operators in general aviation can carry is vastly different to what can be carried by the larger airlines. If we as legislators don't get that right it could have unintended consequences for the smaller operators and, by extension, regional communities and aviation sector jobs.
We are broadly satisfied that this bill the government has brought forward does take a balanced approach between the need to protect the safety of the travelling public as the pre-eminent operating reason for CASA's existence—it's primary operating order, in essence—and, of course ensuring that red tape does not get in the way of the general aviation sector being viable. This bill responds to concerns from some in the general aviation sector who have been concerned that overregulation is costly for smaller operators. While we understand that there will always be groups who say the balance is completely wrong one way or the other, and that the legislation will never be perfect, on balance we are supporting this bill. We will continue to monitor implementation, however, of these reforms. We do know that this bill does not go as far as some in the general aviation sector would like, but we also know that there are others concerned that any change in the Civil Aviation Act could be seen to water down CASA's primary purpose of ensuring that aviation safety is paramount in their regulatory activities. They are concerned about this bill as well.
We are very strong in and very proud of our track record when it comes to the aviation industry. In government, the now Leader of the Opposition, as transport minister, delivered Australia's first, and only, aviation white paper. One of the stated objectives of that white paper was the maintenance of a safe, efficient and innovative general aviation sector. The white paper provided a comprehensive and balanced framework, bringing together all aspects of aviation policy into a single, coherent and forward-looking statement. Importantly, it included initiatives designed to give the general aviation industry the certainty and incentive to plan and invest for the longer term. To this end, the former Labor government introduced more generous accelerated depreciation rates for aircraft as an incentive for owners to upgrade their aircraft; reduced the number of 24-hour restricted airspace areas from 81 to 15; committed to the continued operation and growth of secondary capital city airports; ensured that the master plans for secondary airports maintained a strong focus on aviation development, not non-aeronautical uses that could compromise future aviation activities; and we lessened the financial burden of regulation on the sector by restricting increases in CASA regulatory service charges to rises in the consumer price index.
These were very important reforms, and I would say to the government that I think there is a distinct lack of coherence today when it does actually come to aviation policy. It may well be time for the government to look, particularly, at the general aviation sector but also at the overall aviation sector in a more comprehensive way once again. Labor will continue to advocate for the aviation sector, to ensure safe and effective aviation services are available to the Australian community.
In conclusion, the opposition will continue to monitor the implementation of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 to ensure that safety is not compromised and that the regulatory burden remains manageable for the sector. But with that, we will be supporting this bill.
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.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
(Quorum formed)
I present a chart showing the program of sittings for 2020. Copies of the program have been placed on the table. I seek leave of the House to move that the program be agreed to.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the program of sittings for 2020 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
It's always a pleasure to rise in this place and speak about the importance of our childcare system and the support that we are providing to it. I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019, which will make it easier for families and childcare providers accessing early childhood education. I have the great privilege of representing the electorate of Forde. In that electorate, I have many young families who very much take advantage of the education facilities in early childhood that are available across the electorate. I have the pleasure, as part of my job, of regularly going and visiting our childcare centres to see the great job that they are doing across the electorate of Forde. It's the thousands of young children attending those local childcare centres and kindergartens that this bill looks to support.
We've always been a great supporter of the educators and the staff—as well as the children—who do such a great job each and every day looking after the next generation of Australians. It's always a rewarding experience to visit these centres and hear from the teachers, the directors and the families to gain some valuable insight into how they're doing. During my visits I have the opportunity to present them with flags—they're always impressed with that—and the books that we provide. We take the opportunity to provide these books because it's a great way to seek to encourage children to develop the love of reading. I believe that this is one of the keys to a great start in life. At every opportunity I take part in story time and enjoy making reading as fun as possible, because when learning is fun kids are more likely to engage and grow. Our children are the future. As someone who is getting to the stage where I'm thinking that maybe at some point in the next few years my children will have children of their own, and I'll have grandchildren, it's more important than ever that we continue to support the childcare sector so they can continue to give our kids a great head start in life.
The Morrison government is committed to ensuring that families are supported, too. Our childcare package implemented in July last year has ensured more financial support is targeted to the families who work the most and earn the least. This package delivered approximately $8 billion in 2018-19 to support families and will grow to $8.6 billion in 2019-20, increasing to over $10 billion a year in the coming years. The Morrison government has paid subsidies to more than 1.1 million families to support the childcare needs of some 1.6 million children since July 2018. This is a worthwhile investment in our children's early childhood education, but also in the families and parents across Australia. It means parents may be able to return to work sooner, earn an income or more income, and support their families while their children are in care. More importantly, our once-in-a-generation reforms have delivered a 7.9 per cent reduction in out-of-pocket costs to parents since the package was introduced. The new childcare package is providing more access and more financial support for those who need it most. In fact, around one million Australian families who are balancing work and parental responsibilities are benefitting from the package and 75 per cent pay no more than $50 a day in daycare centres. Within that, 25 per cent may pay no more than $20 a day. The new childcare package represents the most significant reform to the early childhood education and care system in 40 years.
This bill will make life easier for families and providers accessing the childcare subsidy. It makes some important refinements to the operation of the government's childcare package that was implemented in July 2018. In particular, the bill will make it easier for families and childcare providers, particularly those who only attend care in the school holidays, by extending the time frame for ceasing enrolments due to non-attendance from eight to 14 weeks. This will greatly reduce the regulatory burden on both families and childcare providers by eliminating the need for children to be re-enrolled following most regular breaks in attendance, such as when a child attends care during school holidays but not during school terms. It will remove the 50 per cent limit on the number of children childcare providers can certify for the additional childcare subsidy, to allow providers to better meet the needs of children at risk of serious abuse and neglect.
The bill will create a rule for the minister's rule-making power to enable specified third-party payments to be used in combination with the childcare subsidy to reduce or eliminate gap fees for vulnerable and disadvantaged families. This includes a provision to prevent childcare providers charging higher fees because a third party is contributing to the cost of childcare. It will create a minister's rule-making power to allow a subsidy to be paid in limited circumstances where children do not attend care at the end or start of an enrolment to ensure parents are not unfairly disadvantaged—for example, where a child is absent at the start or end of their enrolment due to illness.
The bill will include provisions to support delivery of in-home care such as power to specify eligibility criteria for families to access an in-home care service. It will make another number of minor policy refinements, clarifications and corrections. There will also be an amendment to clarify that providers are required to ensure that individuals who are providing care on behalf of the provider hold current working-with-children checks. Currently, providers are required to ensure that employees hold a working-with-children card under state and territory law where the service is located. This provision has resulted in some ambiguities, as a requirement is unable to be applied consistently across different states and territories, as some states and territories issue physical working-with-children cards, while others electronically register individuals required to have those checks. This amendment will change that requirement to ensure that consistent standards are applied to individuals who provide care.
Since July last year, the government has continued to listen to the feedback from families and the childcare sector on what aspects of the childcare package have worked well, their concerns and what could be improved. The key measures contained in the bill reflect this feedback and the early findings from the formal evaluation processes. The changes in this bill will reduce the regulatory burden on families and care providers, providing vulnerable and disadvantaged families access to quality early learning and child care, and help families access the financial assistance to support their participation in the workforce. When it comes to reforming childcare, it is this government that has put the time and effort in to consult with parents, families and childcare providers. We've done the hard yards and are beginning to see the benefits of the government's childcare package, which is delivering significant and much-needed reform. The government's reforms will assist childcare centres across the electorate of Forde. As I said earlier, I get to visit many regularly, whether it's the Amaze childcare centre at Ormeau, the Waterford Early Learning Centre or the childcare centres at Boronia Heights, which do a fantastic job each and every day in supporting children who, sadly, live in some very difficult circumstances. The early learning centres in Eagleby equally support families, many of whom struggle each day just to make ends meet. That is why the changes in this bill to support these hardworking families are so critically important.
As we move forward, we will continue to see the opportunities that are created by a sound early education system and we hope that, as the children go through early education, into preschool and then into primary school, the skills that are built in our early learning systems provide them with the foundations necessary. As they build their lives and grow, we will see the results flow through from their education in primary and high school. The whole purpose of our education system, from early education right through to our tertiary education system, is to ensure that we provide the greatest opportunities for people in this country to be the best that they can be. That is why I'm so pleased.
With these measures and any number of other measures that this government is providing across the education sector, there is record investment in school funding, in primary schools and in high schools. We are doing work in vocational education and training and in tertiary education. I have discussions with the tertiary sector about seeking to work better with business. But the foundation of all of this is our early learning education sector. We see that this bill, by building on what we already did from 1 July last year, creates the opportunity for our children to be the best that they can be. In delivering for families across the electorate of Forde and across the country, they rely on the certainty and stability that we're providing through this package. This bill will continue to ensure that we can build momentum and build on those significant achievements.
I want to take these final few moments to thank some very, very valuable people in this sector in my electorate and across the country: the educators and the volunteers who work in these centres. Each and every day, they turn up to teach and educate our children. I want to thank them for their dedication and for their effort in their job, because it is the time, effort, love and care of our educators at our early childhood centres and across our education system, in our primary schools and also our high schools, and their desire to see the children achieve the best that they can be, that ensures that our kids have a wonderful foundation for the future.
I commend this bill to the House because these much needed reforms will benefit families across my electorate of Forde and will benefit families across Australia. Once again, I want to take the opportunity to thank all of those who work in our early childhood sector. They do an outstanding job each and every day. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate interrupted.
My electorate of Hindmarsh has been the home of Australian shipbuilding, submarine building and submarine maintenance for decades. The shipyards at Osborne at the top of my electorate are home to a level of expertise, experience and dedication to Australia's naval security that you simply can't find anywhere else in our country: 2,100 highly-skilled workers at the Osborne shipyards have dedicated their working lives to that work and to Australia's national security.
But this government has shown the workers of South Australia nothing but contempt in return for that dedication. Already this government betrayed shipbuilders and submariners in Hindmarsh when they had no plan—not a single thought in place—once the Air Warfare Destroyer Program had wound down, costing 577 workers their livelihoods. They decided to send the supply ship contract to Spain, not even giving our local shipyards the opportunity to bid for it, putting at risk hundreds of shipbuilding jobs at Osborne as the AWD project reached its conclusion.
Now they are further betraying the workers at Osborne. Freedom of information documents revealed that the government has already spent $14 million on a plan to remove submarine full-cycle docking from Osborne, despite Australian naval infrastructure boss David Knox saying that there are two land options available at Osborne to continue this vital work and to protect the 700 jobs at ASC that have been performing this work literally for decades. Under questioning from Labor, officials from the Department of Defence revealed that, in addition to the 577 workers who have lost their jobs in South Australian shipbuilding just since 2017, a further 220 jobs are now at risk by the end of March 2020. South Australian workers will be going into Christmas not knowing whether their jobs are secure or whether they'll have a job by Easter next year. Removing submarine full-cycle docking from Hindmarsh would not just devastate those 700 workers and their families; it would affect almost 800 businesses and leave a $400 million hole in the economic fabric of South Australia.
This government has form in betraying the people of South Australia. First they goaded the car industry, which had been there for decades, to leave our state, betraying thousands of South Australians, including in my electorate of Hindmarsh. That decision affected not only those who were directly employed by Holden but also 24,000 workers employed across the supply chain for car manufacturing. We know that many of the Holden workers who have found new work, after this government abandoned South Australian manufacturing, now work for lower pay, fewer hours and in worse working conditions.
Not only is this federal Liberal government leaving hundreds of South Australian workers in limbo; the South Australian Liberal state government can barely be bothered to fight for the shipyard and submarine workers. It was revealed in Senate estimates this week that the Marshall Liberal government of South Australia did not even bother putting their plan to defend those South Australian full-cycle docking jobs to the Department of Defence until last Monday, two whole weeks after the Western Australian government had submitted their claim to that work, which, as I said, has been performed in South Australia literally for decades. Premier Marshall and his weak government are more interested in keeping their Canberra mates happy than in standing up for South Australian jobs and for South Australian families.
Under the Marshall Liberal government, unemployment in South Australia is a full one per cent higher than the national average. Last month Premier Marshall laid claim to the dubious title of having the highest unemployment in the country. Even with that, he simply can't be bothered to lift a hand and to fight for 700 South Australians and their jobs. Steven Marshall's Liberal government is simply missing in action on South Australian jobs. The South Australian federal Liberals are missing in action on South Australian jobs. State and federal Labor are the only ones standing up for the Osborne shipyards, for the nearly 800 South Australian businesses who will suffer from a downgrade of those shipyards, for the 700 workers whose jobs are at risk and for all South Australians who benefit from that economic activity.
This weekend is a very important and special weekend for Western Australians, and my fellow Western Australians in the chamber will well know that. It's our annual Telethon appeal, run by Channel 7. It was established in 1968, by philanthropist Sir James Cruthers and Brian Treasure, so those of my generation have grown up with Telethon. In the days when TVs shut down of an evening, with a 'test pattern', Telethon, running live throughout the night on one weekend a year, was an incredible treat—the anticipation of seeing which celebrities might attend, how much money would be raised, and how often the annoying but somewhat catchy tune 'Thank you very much for your kind donation' would be sung! I remember with great fondness the year in which the tally kicked over to $1 million for the very first time. We, in Western Australia, were so proud.
Telethon was created by and belongs to the community of Western Australia who, over five decades, have generously donated more than $306 million to ensure a better life for our children, both now and in the future. The two major beneficiaries of Telethon are the Perth Children's Hospital and the Telethon Kids Institute, both of which are in Curtin. The Telethon Kids Institute, based at the Perth Children's Hospital, is one of the largest and most successful medical research institutes in Australia, and there is no doubt that the money raised through Telethon has played a significant role in enabling this institute to be a world-class facility.
Earlier this year, I attended the official opening of the Telethon Kids Discovery Centre, based in the hospital. It's a fantastic new interactive hands-on space and is designed to give kids who are visiting the hospital the opportunity to engage with and learn about science and health research. At that event, I also had the opportunity to chat with the former member for Curtin, the Hon. Julie Bishop, who is the newly appointed chair of the Telethon Kids Institute. The institute is in very good hands, with Julie at the helm, Professor Fiona Wood AC as patron, and Professor Jonathan Carapetis AM as the director.
The Telethon event normally runs for about 26 hours nonstop, and the event aims to raise money for its beneficiaries from donations from private citizens and corporations, as well as special fundraising events held throughout the year. Each year there are also two children who have been chosen to represent all children who will benefit from the money raised. From 2010, these two children have been referred to as 'the Little Telethon Stars'. This year, the Little Telethon Stars are Callum Berrisford and Eva Molloy. Callum was diagnosed with stage 4 neuroblastoma, an aggressive childhood cancer, at the age of seven months. Eva, who is now eight, was born with spina bifida that affects her mobility and means she is unable to walk. Callum and Eva and their families face incredible challenges that are beyond the contemplation of many of us, but the way in which they do it—the way in which they live life to the full, with resilience and hope and with joy—are inspiring, and a salient reminder to all of us who don't face such challenges to focus on what's important, to not sweat the small stuff and to live our lives to the full. Callum, Eva and their families are the epitome of what Telethon is all about. It's about tackling things head-on and never losing confidence in the ingenuity and ability of our Australian researchers to find solutions to the most challenging issues of our times.
Given the generosity of those in the west, and particularly in the electorate of Curtin, it is not surprising that our Western Australian Telethon is the highest donating telethon per capita in the world, with it surpassing $100 million in total donations in 2010, $200 million in 2015 and $300 million last year. Last year alone, there was a record-breaking $38 million raised. The money raised has helped make significant advances in treating some of the life-threatening diseases our children face today. Telethon also provides equipment, resources and critical services for children across WA.
I would like to congratulate and thank everyone involved with Telethon, especially those who make donations, for your fantastic contributions, changing the lives of children across our state. Indeed, it has impact not only across our state but also, because the research has wider implications, across the nation and across the world. I encourage everyone to dig deep this weekend and make sure we have another record-breaking Telethon.
Can I say hello to all the school kids who are up in the gallery watching the House of Representatives during the adjournment debate today. Welcome to Canberra.
South-side families in Brisbane are spending longer in their cars and less time with their families under the Morrison government. When I talk to local families, there is a real sense of frustration. There is frustration that the daily grind of traffic to and from work, to and from after-school sports, to and from music lessons and even to and from the shops is taking longer and longer, with no end in sight. South-side families have been thinking to themselves, 'If only we had government that could relate to the daily challenges we face, a government that actually listened to us.' As it turns out, south-side families have a lot more time to ponder this issue on their extended commute to and from work.
The latest data from the HILDA Survey shows that Australia's capital cities are dealing with longer commutes, with an average of 66 minutes each day, and there is no sign of things getting better. But in question time this week the government again failed to answer numerous questions about its failures on infrastructure policy. The Morrison government continues to ignore and deny Reserve Bank advice to fast-track infrastructure investment to stimulate the economy. In its first five budgets, the Liberal government underspent on infrastructure by $5.1 billion. Scott Morrison needs to urgently bring forward infrastructure spending to boost the sluggish economy. There is no better example of this government's preference for hot air ahead of action than the fact they spent $17 million on taxpayer-funded advertising on congestion busting in the lead-up to this year's election but did not spend a single cent from the Urban Congestion Fund in 2018-19.
People in my electorate, just like those in inner-suburban communities across Australia, have had enough. The so-called quiet Australians are quite angry. The roads in major cities across Australia are paved with broken promises and empty words on road and public transport infrastructure from this tired, third-term Liberal government. Instead of empty slogans like, 'Hand up, hand out,' or 'How good is Scomo?' or 'Have a go, you get a go,' locals want some substance to replace the incessant spin from this government. South-siders want action.
The point of government is to make people's lives better. This should be self-evident, but it doesn't seem to be to the Morrison government. People on the south side of Brisbane are wondering, 'What is the point of this government?' Under this Prime Minister, the economy has stalled, family incomes are stagnant and small businesses are hurting, all while childcare, electricity and health costs are skyrocketing. It is a real struggle for people. Ministers in this government need to step away from their desks in Sydney and Melbourne, put down their media releases, grab a shovel and get to work. This government is now in its seventh year and third term, and it has no plan for the economy and no plan for congestion, which gets worse with every minute of inaction. Unfortunately, everywhere you look with this government, they are asleep at the wheel. Thanks to this government, families are spending longer in congestion on local roads.
Queenslanders—Queensland families, Queensland workers—have been left out in the cold under the Morrison government. They have a Prime Minister trying to sell them a Ferrari during his media appearances and then dudding families with a Holden Gemini from the policy scrap yard on delivery. The problem with this Prime Minister is you can't believe a word he says about infrastructure, because you cannot believe him on any issue. He is always seeking to evade questions. He is always loose with the truth, short on solutions and long on spin.
And there is not just a cost to our precious time with our families; there is a real economic cost to inaction, to not tackling congestion. Infrastructure Australia's report says not only that Brisbane's congestion is getting worse but that increasing congestion in our cities is now costing the economy $4.7 billion. Good roads and reliable, accessible public transport are an economic investment in productivity. But, most importantly, investment in infrastructure is an investment in the quality of life for locals. Unfortunately, the Morrison government's sloganeering is back-to-front. They are actually building congestion through inaction, and they are busting infrastructure investment through empty slogans and economic uncertainty. South-side families are paying the price.
South-side families, I hear you. I share your frustration with this do-nothing government that has no plan to address any of the real and everyday frustrations that you confront on a daily basis. I have heard you loud and clear. South-side families, south-side workers, south-side pensioners—they are all talking to me about the daily struggle that is being faced on the south side. We need real investment. We need genuine congestion busting. It is time that the Morrison government got out from behind their desks, picked up a shovel and started to deliver for south-side families.
A long-term strategic vision is required to guide the development of the northern suburbs of Perth, spanning several decades. I take this opportunity to make the case for the federal government to assess the outer north metropolitan region of Perth as a high-priority area to implement its City Deals program. In particular I refer to the area surrounding Yanchep, Alkimos and Joondalup. Through strategic investment in infrastructure and decentralisation, this region can be activated into a thriving and vibrant metropolis. There is synergy in the development of Joondalup, Alkimos and Yanchep.
In order to develop Perth's northern metropolitan coastal corridor, we must look beyond arbitrary electoral boundaries. A regional approach to infrastructure in our broader north-west suburban corridor is essential for the development of the cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo. This region spans a large area covering three federal electorates, namely Moore, Pearce and Cowan. Cooperation is essential to achieve the best strategic outcomes for the region as a whole and see cities such as Alkimos, Yanchep and Joondalup develop to their full potential. Population growth will provide the critical mass of consumers necessary to drive market demand, economic development and, in turn, commercial viability.
There is a requirement to improve transport linkages to the agricultural hinterland to the east. The establishment of a regional employment node at Muchea requires improvements in the transport linkages from Muchea across to the more populous suburbs along the northern coastal suburbs. This will link Muchea as a hub for agriculture and the gateway to the state's mining and resources industry via the Great Northern Highway with Yanchep, Joondalup and Perth. Better connectivity will capitalise on the recently completed NorthLink project and other investments in the Perth to Darwin highway, which has been funded by the Commonwealth.
Yanchep City Centre has been designed as a transit-oriented city. A successful city at Yanchep is critical to the overall economic development of the north-west corridor of the Perth metropolitan area. The extension of the Mitchell Freeway through to Romeo Road has been committed with federal funding; complementary to this is the completion of the dual carriageway along Marmion Avenue between Butler and Yanchep. The federal government has also funded the Yanchep rail extension, which is to be constructed by the end of 2021. This rail extension is crucial to the attraction of investment and employment to the corridor. Private sector involvement is essential, with the Yanchep Beach Joint Venture working cooperatively with the Public Transport Authority to provide an appropriate transport interchange in Yanchep City Centre. Yanchep is one of the last greenfield strategic metropolitan centres to be developed in Perth, carefully designed to be a city of the 21st century including high-speed telecommunications infrastructure and accommodation for electric and autonomous vehicles. As it develops, Yanchep City Centre could be a suitable location for trials of both electric and autonomous vehicles.
Further investment is required in higher-education facilities, with the establishment of a university campus and vocational education and training facilities to promote research and development and the commercialisation of intellectual capital. The Yanchep Beach Joint Venture has invested in the economic development infrastructure in the form of the Y-hub business incubator, which combines an innovation and enterprise hub with a co-working space to support emerging small businesses. Similarly, there is an innovative partnership with the University of Western Australia in establishing a cooperative research centre for research into honey bee products. This federally-funded project is designed to resolve industry problems which limit both the value and the expansion of the Australian honey bee products industry. The CRC will also contribute to disease-prevention measures to address a major global biosecurity threat to our Australian honey bees.
Visionary development with strategic investment will place Perth's northern metropolitan region on the map, with exciting residential and commercial opportunities for decades to come. Residential amenity in a pristine natural environment, located close to local employment opportunities, with access to world-class services and digital connectivity will be the hallmarks of our master-planned region. There is synergy in the coordinated development of Joondalup, Alkimos and Yanchep. (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, as you would be well aware, there is a critical need to upgrade and build new social infrastructure to keep pace with the rapidly-growing population in the outer suburbs, in particular in my constituency of Holt.
Unlike in the inner city of Melbourne, there is not just the same established social and physical infrastructure in the outer south-eastern suburbs. Accordingly, when government grants become available there is a great demand from our community for these infrastructure grant opportunities. Two recent key programs have been put forward by the government which our community has sought funding from—the 2019 Stronger Communities grants program and the 2019 Community Environment Grants Program. In a bipartisan way, I'd like to thank the government for making these funding opportunities available to our constituencies and to constituencies around the country.
Before I speak about these programs, I'd like to thank the selection committee that assisted with the applications for funding. Those people were: Leanne Petrides, Judy Owen, Barry Rogers and Chris Drysdale. These are the members of the selection committee, and they recently met to select six successful grant recipients.
Amongst the successful applicants who are now awaiting departmental approval of these applications, one is the Warneet Motor Yacht Club and public hall, which has applied for funding for new shade sails on the deck outside the yacht club. Mr Speaker, you're looking at me, but that has come into my constituency—there has been a fairly substantial redistribution! I got that from the member for Flinders and I am very grateful to have done so; it's quite a stunning part of the world.
Earlier this month, as the local federal member I was very fortunate to launch the Warneet Sailing Club season. I met some wonderful people who were part of the committee there, and also just looked at it all and enjoyed the weather on the stunning Rutherford Inlet which leads into Westernport Bay. It is a beautiful part of Victoria and it's a part of Victoria that's become part of my constituency. But on a serious note, upgrading the local facilities will be of great value to this local community.
The Cranbourne Bowls Club has applied for funding to purchase equipment, including a brush roller and green-cutting machine. The Cranbourne Bowls Club, as the member for Fremantle would know about his bowling clubs, is significant because it's a community hub. It has a growing membership base, with a lot of people who are shifting into the area and an ageing population. It provides a wonderful facility for people to access, and so they've applied for funding.
The Devon Meadows Football Netball Club has applied for a grant to install lighting for their two netball courts. Netball is a growing sport—again, a lot of young families are shifting into the area. Being able to play games at night through the installation of these lights will be of great value to the club. The Lyndhurst Football and Netball Club has applied for funding to purchase a heating and cooling system, two laptops, fencing for the netball courts and an ice bar for player recovery.
The Cranbourne Public Hall has applied for funding so that the hall can go completely off the grid through installing a solar solution through the roof of the hall. The reduction in energy costs through this transition to renewable energy will make a real difference to the community. The Friends of Cranbourne, Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria are hoping to develop a climate watch community trail. Along the guided trail, participants can learn about and monitor the seasonal changes that affect Australia's plants and animals. The community will also be able to assist research through collecting valuable data.
Successful programs under the Community Environment Grants Program include the Cannons Creek Foreshore Reserve Committee, which has applied for funding for a project to stop the erosion of the sensitive inlet foreshore and to preserve and improve the coastal habitat, which is threatened by climate change. The aim of the committee is to build an 80-metre wall consisting of loosely packed 40-centimetre rocks to protect the embankment from the forces of tide and wave action. The new rock wall will last indefinitely, and will be loosely fitted so that a wide range of species will be able to take shelter within the wall.
The Moonlit Sanctuary Wildlife Park is very famous; a lot of celebrities go there and it gives people from all over the world an opportunity to interface with Australian wildlife, our flora and fauna. It's located in Pearcedale, and it's also applied for a grant. They intend to build a purpose-built aviary to better protect and conserve the critically endangered orange-bellied parrot, which I've actually had the good fortune to hold my hand. It's a very rare bird and a protected species; it's one of only three species of parrot that can and will migrate. If we can work on protecting it, it will be of great value to the community for generations to come. We've also got the Tooradin Foreshore Committee of Management that's applied for a Tooradin mangrove boardwalk and the Healesville to Phillip Island Nature Link has applied for funding as well.
I just wanted to say again: thank you to the government for making this funding available. It is also great to see the incredible community groups that have put in excellent grants that will benefit the community, should they be approved by the department.
During the last parliament, many in this House argued for and successfully achieved policy outcomes of the agreement to get a mandatory dairy code of conduct. Two rounds of consultations were held around the country and lots of input was received from all corners of the dairy industry, particularly from dairy farmers. The processing industry had the ability to contribute as well, and I was very pleased that commitment was given. As you know, the machinery to get that code of conduct is out and rolling, and I'm looking forward to the final code being put out for exposure draft in the very near future.
But there are people out there advocating that this is somehow a regressive step. I just want to correct the record. The reason a mandatory code of conduct is required in the processing and dairy farming contracting space is that the voluntary code hasn't worked. Voluntary codes never seem to work. The ACCC has identified a range of market failures in their very good inquiry. The report and the commissioner highlighted the bargaining power imbalances. There is an imbalance in power between the retailers and processors for obvious reasons—when a couple of retailers control almost 70 per cent or 75 per cent or more of the retail space, they have enormous market power, so huge pressures are brought onto processors to comply with the needs of these retailers. Consequently, the pressures are then applied to the dairy farmer, and there is an imbalance at the next level down in the value chain—that is, the dairy farmer doesn't have the ability to trade with more than one customer once they commit to an agreement.
The exclusivity contracts of current milk-processing agreements between farmers and milk processors almost all require the dairy farmer to not trade with any other processor. There are not many businesses that call that a market. Some of these contracts are locked in for up to three years or even up to five years. During that time, so many variables can change, but all of the risk is ratcheted down onto the producer at the bottom of the value chain. As you know, they can't judge the risks, for example, whether they need to increase their production capability. They need to be able to forward price and they need to be able to be flexible, as processors are. With that power imbalance, farmers sell into a market on a fixed agreement price, but the price in the market changes and, if it goes up favourably, they don't get a chance to benefit from that. If they had more knowledge and there was transparency in the market and there were fair and equitable negotiating terms—which will be codified in the mandatory code of conduct—they would be much better off. There won't be exclusivity clauses. That is a universal agreement in the exposure drafts and the rounds of consultation. So I look forward to that happening. There are a lot of other clauses that are going to codify how these agreements are negotiated, what form of arbitration is possible and the procedures for that, and it will be a much better situation for dairy farmers.
One of the other commitments that we got running into the 2019 election, announced by the former minister for agriculture, was the Australian milk pricing initiative. Once this code of conduct comes through and allows a new fairer way of contracting, addressing the imbalance and the ability for farmers to trade their milk with more than one purchaser, the milk pricing initiative will take flower and everyone will benefit. With the ability to have an open and transparent market price available to everyone in the market, the right sorts of decisions can be made by all processors and all farmers. Trading over flexible time frames will deliver so much more benefit. (Time expired)
House adjourned at 17:00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr McVeigh) took the chair at 10:00.
This statement is to the year 12s of the Perth electorate. I congratulate you on your achievement. Finishing high school is one of the hardest things you will do. That six years might feel like it was an eternity, because it was—the average tenure in a job in Australia today is just three years and four months. Across your working lifetime you will have faced challenges far bigger than anything we know today. You will face automation. Some five million Australian jobs are due to be automated and eliminated from the economy over the next 10 to 15 years. You will face the impacts of climate change. Every year since you were born the average annual temperature in Australia has been above the norm. And as you approach retirement this nation, Australia, will have practically doubled in size, with the ABS projecting that by 2026—by 2066, unless you're planning an early retirement—we will be an island of potentially some 49 million people.
This is a time to be excited. It's a time to be scared. It's also a time to remind yourself that you will have failures and setbacks in your life. That sucks, but sometimes it turns out for the best. Me, I did year 4 twice. So for anyone who had to repeat a year, a shout out to you. It pays off in the end, and it's worth it. I was a December baby, the youngest in my class by a number of months, and I was falling behind. I repeated year 4 and I'm so glad I did, because it enabled me to get the grades to go and study aviation, which was my first passion before politics. For those of us who are thinking about TEE scores, I got 0.5 per cent less then I had set myself as a target, but, I'll tell you what, in a couple of years time no-one will care. No-one in parliament ever asks you what your ATAR was, and if you went around telling people they'd think you were a complete loser. When you find yourself at international conferences and things, people don't care what school you went to. They just care about what is in your heart and what is in your head.
I was also very lucky when I was at high school to have a gentleman named Allan Blagaich as principal. Allan, or Mr Blagaich, is now the head of the education department's standards and, therefore, is in charge of your exams if you're doing your ATAR. You now know who to blame if you think that the test is unfair! Allan is a great guy. He was a brilliant school principal and he is a fantastic educational leader.
Finally, to the students of Aranmore Catholic College, Chisholm Catholic College, Cyril Jackson Senior Campus, Durham Road School, Hampton Senior High School, John Forrest Secondary College, Mercedes College, Morley Senior High School, Mount Lawley Senior High School, Perth College, Sir David Brand School, Trinity College and School of Isolated and Distance Education: good luck!
In the current debate on religious freedom, it is important that we're respectful and tolerant of the religious beliefs of Australians. Religious freedom extends into the realm of cultural freedom, which is important in our multicultural society. Individuals must be free to live their lives according to deeply held values and beliefs which are not only religious but cultural in nature without impinging on the rights of others to exercise their rights and freedoms.
Earlier this week I joined with members and senators to attend the Diwali, Annakut and Hindu festivals exhibition in the Great Hall of parliament. These celebrations are a visible symbol of the Australian Indian and Hindu communities reaching out to the broader Australian community to enhance cultural understanding and increase harmony, integration and social cohesion. The event provided members of parliament with the opportunity to broaden their understanding of important festivals in the Hindu calendar—namely, Diwali, the festival of lights, and Annakut, the festival of gratitude. The cultural exchange also provided government representatives with an opportunity to further understand Indian culture through its festivals and its people. Over time, this annual event in parliament will help encourage more Australians of Indian origin to increase their knowledge of parliament as Australia's key democratic institution and become active participants in Australia's democratic processes.
These events were made possible through the hard work of hundreds of volunteers from all across Australia. The events provide a wonderful example of the great community spirit in our successful Australian multicultural society. I commend the charitable work of BAPS in our community. Last month, a walkathon was held at Neil Hawkins Park in Joondalup with more than 400 participants, and $9,000 was raised to aid the Perth Children's Hospital Foundation. This is in addition to the annual food drive, which collects thousands of cans of tinned food for local charities, such as the Salvation Army and the Spiers Centre. Members also support organisations such as the Red Cross Blood Service through regular donations.
I would like to formally express my thanks to BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha, its trustees, directors and national volunteers for their hard work and contribution to enriching our community and building tolerance through cultural understanding. I make special mention of Yogesh Shah, Hasmukh Wadia, Dylan Wadia—
Like many members of parliament and senators, this week I joined in two very, very significant celebrations. It's also significant that these celebrations were held in this place, Australia's parliament. I refer of course to the 550th anniversary of the birth of the Guru Nanak and the celebration of the beginning of Diwali.
I'm very proud to represent a large and vibrant Sikh community in my electorate and have learned much from my engagement with my friends in that community. I think particularly of Parvinder Singh and Jasvinder Siddhu. But I learned much more also from my participation in a series of events this week marking the 550th anniversary of the birth of the Guru Nanak and from having opportunities to share some reflections on his role as a philosopher, a leader and a very radical thinker who rejected the trappings of caste and set in place a very powerful tradition which has an influence that reaches beyond the Sikh community. So I say thank you to the National Sikh Council of Australia and the Australian Sikh Council for bringing together two celebrations. In particular, I acknowledge in this place that this week we heard the first Prakash ceremony to have ever taken place in this parliament. I am hopeful and very confident that it will not be the last. It was particularly enlightening for me to hear the address given on Tuesday night by Harinder Singh, a guest from the United States, who posed some great challenges in bringing together Sikh thinking and some references to Star Wars. There are some big challenges for those of us who have the privilege of holding representative capacity to do better and to be better.
Many of my colleagues joined me and the Hindu Council of Australia in celebrating Diwali in the Great Hall, and I acknowledge the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Moore, who touched upon how significant that was and the cultural exchange that was at the core of the celebration of Diwali in this place. Again, I acknowledge all those who brought this celebration together and say how significant it is that such a celebration took place in the Great Hall of Australia's parliament. It means a lot to the hundreds of thousands of Australians who follow the Hindu faith, particularly those from India and Sri Lanka, many of whom I'm proud to represent. But Diwali has become something that matters to all Australians, as it should. I'm very much looking forward to celebrating Diwali in South Morang on Saturday in a colourful celebration of a festival that we can all enjoy and appreciate. I think all of us have our own take on Diwali, but celebrating the victory of light over darkness is something that I think causes all of us moments of personal celebration, even in difficult times. So for all of those for whom this is a particularly special time I say: happy Diwali and a very peaceful and happy year ahead.
We frequently talk about community, but what does community actually mean? The boundaries of each of our electorates do not, in and of themselves, create a community. Unless the people within those boundaries have positive relationships with each other and unless they have a sense of belonging or a sense of social connectedness with the place and with others, the area that we live in is really no more than a postcode or an area defined by lines on a map.
My electorate of Curtin is described by the AEC as an inner metropolitan area defined by well-established suburbs. The geography and demography of Curtin and the circumstances of the people living in it are, like the majority of our federal electorates, actually quite diverse. I've spoken in this place before about the physical beauty of Curtin, but today I want to highlight what is really magnificent about Curtin, and that is the people. It is the people of Curtin who, through building connections with each other, through their participation in countless organisations and activities, make Curtin more than just a geographical area on a map. They make it more than just a pretty place to live and a comfortable place to live. It is the people who make it a community.
While I've always known this about Curtin, it was recently sheeted home to me through the responses we received to round 5 of the Morrison government's Stronger Communities Program. This program provides funding for small capital projects that improve local community participation and contribute to vibrant and viable communities. In Curtin, we had an overwhelming response to this particular funding source. We received a total of 34 applications for projects. These applications came from a wide selection of community groups and organisations, such as schools; a parents and friends group; communities and men's sheds; local sporting clubs; including tennis, soccer, cricket, T-ball, lawn bowls and golf; surf life saving clubs; the Sea Scout groups; the Salvos; a local recycling group; and our local councils. And the types of projects they were seeking funding for were also varied: shade structures at local sporting clubs, fit-out of a community shed, resurfacing sporting areas, sporting equipment and safety equipment, ICT infrastructure improvements, community gardens and nature playgrounds, fit-out of a community lounge, upgrades to toilet and bathroom amenities, lighting upgrades, security upgrades and accessibility improvements. The width and breadth of what was being sought and the community groups seeking it was extensive.
All of the community groups which applied for funding are fantastic organisations, promoting cohesion, community and wellbeing across all parts of the electorate. To everybody involved in those groups in Curtin, I say thank you very much from all of us.
It's with great sadness that I note the passing of Barry French, Uncle Charlie, an elder of the Aboriginal community, long-term resident of Muswellbrook, a senior and respected community leader and, of course, a much-loved family man. Barry, of course, was a former Muswellbrook Shire Citizen of the Year. He was awarded that honour in 2015. He was a quiet and respectful man, someone who always did good things in his local community. He lived his life empowering our Aboriginal communities in particular, and took a peaceful and purposeful approach to reconciliation. Barry held many formal roles within the community, serving at times as the chairperson of the Wanaruah Local Aboriginal Land Council and the Hunter Valley Aboriginal Corporation, and was a foundation member of the Aboriginal Land Council.
I had the great pleasure of meeting Barry regularly as he extended the welcome to country at formal events around the Muswellbrook Shire. Barry was a great Australian, and he will be very sadly missed, particularly within our local Indigenous communities. We thank him for his fantastic contribution.
On a lighter note, Les Beveridge has closed his Cessnock retail store for the last time after almost 43 years of trading. Les Beveridge is not just a Cessnock retailer; he's a local institution. Beveridge's Menswear has been the first point of call not for just one generation, not for two generations but for three generations of locals. Few young men haven't visited Les's store at some point to buy themselves a shirt or pair of jeans, or to hire a formal suit, which are not regularly held by young residents of Cessnock, I have to say. During that period of time, Cessnock shoppers enjoyed a level of customer service not typically known by our more modern, larger retailers, and it was always appreciated.
When Les wasn't in the store with his beloved wife, Janice, who, sadly, he lost a few years ago, he was out doing good things on a volunteer basis in our local community. Indeed, Les was also a former citizen of the year, this time in the local government area of Cessnock.
We will miss Les Beveridge—all of us in Cessnock. We will miss his good humour, his great customer service and, of course, the capacity to get things at Les's store that we wouldn't have been able to secure anywhere else in Cessnock. So, on all accounts, he will be sadly missed.
Today I rise to mark the 90th year of one of the most enduring community based cultural institutions in the North Sydney electorate: the Hunters Hill Theatre. In fact, the theatre lays claim to being the oldest continuous community theatre on the Australian mainland, only pipped at the post by one other in Tasmania. As all of us know, the performing arts have been an essential and constant part of almost all human cultures for thousands of years. Drama was enjoyed most famously in our annals by the ancient Greeks thousands of years ago, and to this day it entrances, intrigues and explores the human condition. It is this great tradition which is carried on by the Hunters Hill Theatre, making it an intrinsic part of the Hunters Hill community and the broader region.
I recently had the pleasure of attending the launch of the theatre's 2020 season and I was enormously impressed by the energy, enthusiasm and professionalism of the theatre. I look forward to attending some of their productions next year, which, appropriately for such an anniversary year, starts with the world's longest-running play, The Mousetrap.
I would also like to acknowledge some of the people who have made the continued operation and success of the Hunters Hill Theatre possible. These include current president Christopher Hamilton and past presidents Maggie Scott, Lynn Trainor, Penny Church, Coralie Fraser and Andrew Redfern; public officer Tony Clifford; and life member Gai Shannon.
In the 1920s a small play-reading circle was formed as a result of the inspiration from a Ms Jeanie Ranken, who was well known in Sydney's theatrical circles at the time and who wanted her godchild, Nora Murray Prior, 'to become familiar with the literature she should not otherwise read'. The original group took the form of a drawing room reading circle of a small group of friends who began to meet in each other's homes for the purpose of reading plays. The decision to read plays was the result of the fact that an amateur cast could not, apparently, be expected to learn lines for a schedule of monthly performances. Some of the earliest plays read by the club were excerpts from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, and other plays that were read during this early time included Mr. Pim Passes By, by A A Milne, and writings by Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw, Yeats and Irvine.
Since that time, the club has gone from strength to strength. For a number of years the theatre was based on St John's Parish. Tragically, the theatre lost almost all of its costumes, props and club records when vandals set fire to the parish hall in 1993, forcing the theatre to move to an adjoining church, where it remained until 2016. The club is now settled in Hunters Hill Town Hall. Today the Hunters Hill Theatre is a thriving community based organisation. For the last 36 years, the theatre has staged four productions a year, which is an incredible achievement for an amateur community organisation.
I want to congratulate everyone who has been involved in the Hunters Hill Theatre over the last 90 years. May the theatre entertain, delight and stir a love for drama in future generations of locals for many more years to come.
I rise today to speak on two issues affecting my electorate of Macarthur which by now would be well known to members of the House. They are matters that I've sought to bring before the parliament in both the federal and state Liberal-National governments on a number of occasions. The first matter I wish to speak on is Macarthur's unique koala colony. While rapidly developing and being located on the outskirts of metropolitan Sydney, Macarthur possesses a rural charm. It has unique heritage of both Indigenous people and white settlers and is home to a wide array of flora and fauna. The House would be well aware of Campbelltown's uniquely disease-free koala colony and, since being elected to this place in 2016, my consistent calls for its protection.
Macarthur's koalas are under threat. Urban sprawl and a lack of adequate environmental protections place the very existence of the colony at risk. Quite frequently we see koalas killed or severely injured as they attempt to cross Appin Road, or face an attack from a dog in a backyard when they have had their habitat destroyed. We need adequate protections put in place to ensure that our disease-free koala colony can continue to thrive. That's why I was pleased to have secured a commitment by the opposition during the last election to provide federal funding to establish a wildlife bridge, in conjunction with upgrades to Appin Road, to preserve our wildlife corridor. I've called upon the coalition to match this commitment, and I do so again today.
I'm of the opinion that development must come to a halt in this area until adequate steps are taken to protect and preserve our region's flora, fauna and heritage. If we don't do that—if we continue with the urban sprawl and development that's already occurred—our flora and fauna will be destroyed. That would be a great tragedy. I'm also calling for the creation of a koala national park in the region to protect our unique colony—a policy taken to the state election this year by my New South Wales Labor colleagues. I recently had the New South Wales environment minister, Matt Kean, along to see the area, and he recognises the importance of preserving our unique flora and fauna, and in particular our koalas.
I also wish to touch briefly on the government's lack of provision of infrastructure in Macarthur. We are the most rapidly growing electorate in New South Wales, yet transport infrastructure has been sorely inadequate. People face long commutes in their cars on overly congested roads, without the thought of public transport. The government has just walked away, at both a state and a federal level, from providing transport infrastructure for Macarthur. Our region also has overcrowded hospitals. One of our schools has more than 40 demountable classrooms. In a school that was planned for 600 children we now have 1,800 children. It's a great tragedy. Macarthur needs appropriate infrastructure.
Afterlee Public School has recently celebrated their 100th birthday. Ex-students of all ages came together, including Bob O'Neill, who went to the school between 1945 and 1957. Bob spoke with current students about what school was like back in his day. There were only two cars in the area back then and no buses. He said that if you couldn't walk or ride there, they didn't go to school. Bob's six children also went to Afterlee school; his grandchildren go there and he thinks his great-grandchildren will go to the school too. This is just one example of the spirit that exists within the Afterlee school community.
I'd like to recognise the centenary committee, who began planning this event three years ago: Wendy Carter, Michelle Murphy, Caroline Fisher, Bob and Iris O'Neill, Jenny Kitchener, Deborah Brown, Robert Cullen, Lizzy Gilmore, Sandy Szoko, Ryan Swift, Robin Wheeler, Warren Durrant, Tina Church and Cris Matthews. I'd also like to acknowledge the staff, led by Principal Robin Wheeler: Dave Noonan, Cate Perrin, Sushira Bendall and Greg Nolan. Afterlee also had help from Abby Sawford, David and Ayla Hausen, Fiona Kerr, Evan Kitchener, Kim Gibson, Pauline Haydock and Rebecca Tapscott, as well as many volunteers helping out on the day. To all staff and students, past and present, congratulations to Afterlee Public School.
I am always in awe of the selfless acts of local heroes that come to the aid of people in my community. Lachlan Metcalf, Utah Chilcott and George Daley were enjoying their Sunday boating trip near Snapper Rocks, just south-east of Evans Head, on Father's Day when they noticed a small boat had overturned. The occupants, a father and son, aged 83 and 60, were thrown into the sea and immediately became entangled in fishing line and ropes. Lachlan, Utah and George quickly sped to the accident to offer assistance to the struggling men. Sean Sauers and his sons, Hayden and Luke, were also out and saw the emergency unfold. They, too, raced to offer assistance.
Once—and it was a very difficult operation—the two men were freed from the mess of fishing lines and ropes, including the anchor rope, the rescue party got them into the respective rescue boats and they were transported back to shore. By this time, the emergency services had been notified. The Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service was there ready to treat the two patients, who were then transported to Lismore Base Hospital.
I'd like to thank Lachlan, Utah, George, Sean, Hayden and Luke for their outstanding efforts. I'd also like to thank all the first responders that were involved, the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service and Marine Rescue Evans Head. There were also members of the ambulance service, police and the fire brigade who all came together to offer assistance.
I rise to speak about the great concern felt regarding the issue taking place in Syria, and that is the invasion of the north-eastern part. I take this opportunity today to recognise that the Kurdish forces were a key ally of the West in the defeat of Islamic State; we relied on them for that defeat in Syria and in Iraq. This is also an opportunity to honour the 11,000 Kurdish fighters who were lost in the coalition battle against ISIS.
It is with great concern that we see the withdrawal of Western assistance to the Kurds—it's tantamount to the abandonment of a key ally—which has left those Kurdish people vulnerable to ethnically motivated and targeted violence from the second-largest army in NATO. We recognise there is a ceasefire at the moment, but we want to make sure that any violence against the Kurdish people does not continue. There have been reports of aggression in the first 40 hours of the invasion, constituting a direct breach of the terms negotiated in the ceasefire agreement.
More than 300,000 civilian Kurds and other minorities in the region have been internally displaced as a direct result of the Turkish aggression in that area, and I note with concern that the Turkish military actions include indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas, which has been raised in international circles as well. It is of great concern that the Turkish backed militias are committing crimes against humanity, including, but not limited to, killing many, many Kurdish civilians. We want to make sure that the resurgence of Islamic State does not take place again, and recognise that vital role that these allies to the West have played. It was a vital role that the Kurdish forces played in the defeat and capture of Islamic State terrorists. The Turkish military action in north-eastern Syria has jeopardised that hard-fought for and fragile victory over Islamic State, and there are reports that 12,000 captured Islamic State terrorists and supporters have been freed as a direct consequence—as a direct consequence—of the Turkish invasion.
We have seen this operation take place previously. In 1974 Turkish forces invaded Northern Cyprus for the same reason and, nearly 44 years later, 40,000 troops are still there occupying the northern part. They shifted ethnic minorities out, moved people in and changed the whole ethnic mix. This is no different. We can see it taking place again with this. (Time expired)
The Morrison government is continuing to deliver for all Australians, especially those in my electorate of Petrie. By living within our means and getting the budget back into the black, we're able to deliver on local projects that communities desperately need.
I'm pleased to have been able to advocate for the people of Aspley in the south of my electorate and the Brisbane City Council, and this weekend I'll officially be opening the new federal government funded playground at Aspley East Kindergarten. Marie and the team do such an amazing job at the kindy and support so many local children to learn and play in order to reach their full potential, giving them the best start to life in their early education. When the team at Aspley kindy approached me last year and total me about the desperate need for a new playground, I was able to go down, have a look and ask parents to put together a petition. We were able to get funding for it, which is just fantastic. I secured $100,000 for the Aspley kindergarten, which has now been able to remove the older playground, which was nearly two decades old, and replace it with brand new equipment to suit the play based development of the children at the kindy. It's great for the children and the community of Aspley to have this on offer locally to support the development of children. I'm looking forward to opening that this weekend.
And it's not the only development for the people of Aspley and other suburbs around that area like Castledine, Fitzgibbon and Bridgeman Downs. I'm also pleased that I've been able to secure, with the help of the Aspley Memorial Bowls Club, over half a million dollars to ensure they realise their dream of putting a cover over green 1. The Aspley bowls club have been there for many years. They're not a wealthy club. They don't have poker machines and so forth. They're senior Australians, and younger people as well, who are actively playing bowls every week. We know how important it is to stay active from a young age right through to the senior years. I worked alongside the member for Dickson to ensure a grant of $590,000 went to the Aspley bowls club to build the shade over the green. Next week I'll be visiting the club to officially open it and have a game with the locals. I will look at it firsthand and see how it is helping locals. I invite the community—those people in the streets nearby in Carseldine, even if they don't play bowls—to come along and look at the shade cover and see how this will add to the community as a whole.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
Although it's been a few months now since the federal election, I want to take this terrific opportunity to put on the record my enormous debt of gratitude to my local community, who have placed their faith in me to represent them. Western Sydney is the part of Australia that I grew up in. I take very seriously the obligation I have to make sure that I continually push, hector, badger, struggle and champion local interests in any way I can. I note the presence here of my colleague the member for Werriwa. We believe strongly, as Western Sydney residents, that for too long the voices of the people that we love have been overlooked.
Sydney is a city of two halves, where a lot of the decision-making tends to happen in the eastern part of the Sydney. People can say, 'That sounds like you've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder,' but, for most people in Western Sydney, that's the lived reality. When we get elected to these positions, we recognise the importance of using our time well and making sure that we do things that we believe will make the quality of living better for people. I was elected in a seat named after one of our prime ministers, Ben Chifley, who came from a very modest background and, through the power of education and reinvention, in many respects, made it to the position of Treasurer and then Prime Minister. This is a journey that a lot of people in our part of Western Sydney would aspire to. It was a great honour to be elected to this place in the last election and to have that faith placed in me. It is massively humbling.
I want to recognise a number of people who helped along the way. I'd like to thank them first, because I don't want to risk running out of time as I ramble on about all the other things that I want to use this opportunity to speak about. I'd rather put them first and foremost and extend to them my gratitude for everything that they've done. There are a whole stack of people: Kathie Collins, Ian and Shirley Watt, Bill Archer, Jon Roseworn, Sophie Young, Joelina Kane, Erlinda Sepp, Erlinda Armstrong, Balraj Sangha, Lucas Cayanan, Mapasua Aupa'au, Geoff and Cherie Harrison, Derek Margerison, Richard Amery, Jim Kelly, Lyn Muir, Warren Bunting, Sandra Carter, Colleen Rasack and Steve Sagud, just to name a few. I know there's always a danger, when you start naming people, that you miss people. If you didn't hear your name on that list but you helped out, just know how hugely grateful and indebted I am for your assistance.
I want to reflect on the contributions of the people who've worked with me within the electorate office: Brad and Norma Bunting, Mel Ibric, Emma Jovanovski and Ryan Mahon. Helping me with my shadow ministerial responsibilities was Natasha Bolsin. I thank all of them for what they did during the course of the last term. Also, to those who are with me now into this term: I want them to know that I was massively impressed with what they do to assist, what they do to help constituents and what they do in terms of championing policy and helping me craft messages and policy on issues that we all care about. Thank you so much for that. And I say to people who through the course of last term moved on to bigger and better things: Rosanna Maccarone and Elisha Pearce, I don't forget your contributions. Thank you very much for what you did in particular.
When I look at the types of things that I'm focussed on, not just in the last few terms but also in this term, the biggest thing in my part of Western Sydney in the seat of Chifley is making sure that the people in our area have accessible and affordable health care. It means the world to them across Western Sydney, but especially in our part. One stat that stands out, for example, is that 60 per cent of the general population take out private health insurance. In some suburbs that I represent—they could be Bidwill, Shalvey or Dharruk—that figure might be under 30 per cent, so half that. That means that access to a public healthcare system is a big deal. Being able to get help at the time you need it is huge.
It's very important that I put some of these stats on the record, because they demonstrate that the investment in healthcare infrastructure and the quality of local health networks are absolute priorities for people living in Chifley. Residents in Chifley have amongst the lowest life expectancies in the country. This is nuts! This should not happen. In this day and age, that's just incredible—ranking 138 out of 151 seats in terms of life expectancy. Part of that is that we smoke too much—too many ciggies! I understand that people don't mind having a puff, but the reality of the rates of lung cancer and the take-up of smoking in our part of the world mean that that puff takes you on a pathway to poorer health outcomes. These are things we have to tackle. And at eight per cent, our diabetes rate is more than 50 per cent higher than the national average. I already mentioned the ciggies: we have the highest rate of smoking in the country at just over 30 per cent.
The reliance on supporting our local area through a GP who bulk-bills is crucial. Basically, we have 99 per cent more GP visits in Chifley bulk-billed, which means a strong Medicare system which strongly delivers for people in need in our neck of the woods. Out-of-pocket healthcare expenses, for example, are a big issue, because they're rising under this government. In just the 2017-18 financial year there was a 17 per cent leap in the costs of out-of-pocket hospital expenses for people whose wages aren't increasing and who might not be getting the hours they need. Or they might be pensioners or someone with limited income, and that lifting of out-of-pocket expenses is massive. It has a huge impact on people. I don't ever want to have the situation where people feel they are taking shortcuts with their health because they think they can't afford it out of their household budget.
Since the Liberals took office, those out-of-pocket costs for specialist appointments, for instance, have jumped by nearly 40 per cent—40 per cent! These are the types of pressures that people are put under and that it's important to raise and tackle. They're certainly things I'll be focused on in the coming term. In Chifley, on average, it costs someone maybe $33 out of their pocket to see a doctor and roughly $88 to see a specialist. For some people, particularly in some of those areas where the median weekly wage is well below the national number, this is a big deal.
The government is delaying the addition onto the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme of more than 80 drugs that have been recommended to them. This also has an impact in terms of out-of-pocket expenses for health care. As I said a few moments ago, these are the types of things that I definitely want to focus on longer term through the course of this parliamentary term.
Public patients waiting for joint replacements in central Sydney wait for three months—so three months in one part of the city. In Western Sydney they're waiting for 14 months, over a year for joint replacements. Breast surgical services are expected to be cut from Mount Druitt Hospital, and in the last week we've had suggestions that Blacktown and Mount Druitt Hospital would see a cut in elective surgery because of a broader ambition by the New South Wales Department of Health to cut $250 million out of its budget. If the federal government are not doing the right thing by funding health care, and are not honouring commitments that were made to state and territory governments in years passed, that puts pressure on state governments. Then state governments cut, and that has an impact on communities like the ones that we live in. Again, this has a big impact on people's quality of life. Elective surgery, in many instances, is not just something frivolous or something that people pursue for the heck of it—it does have an impact on the way that people enjoy living. And, if we're not getting the funding levels right, it impacts that way. People are living a lower quality of life and enduring pain in a situation that can be easily fixed. I give full credit to the state member for Mount Druitt, Edmond Atalla, my colleague, for pursuing this matter in the last few weeks about elective surgery cuts, because it has put pressure on the New South Wales government. While not absolving the New South Wales government—they've got to take their share of responsibility—I am very focused on the level of healthcare funding coming out of the federal government, which contributes to this type of situation. Because, again, patients waiting for hip and knee replacements and surgeries concerning gall bladder, liver, stomach, appendix and breasts would bear a huge burden from those cuts. As I said, the stuff that was being planned would have seen a further 400 surgery sessions over the next 12 months cut at Mount Druitt Hospital alone, and that's only been reversed because of local community outrage.
The other thing that I certainly will be focused on through the course of this term are issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the Chifley electorate, which has one of the biggest urban populations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the country. Seeing what we can do to ensure that we improve life expectancy and the quality of life for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community is also certainly a big priority.
The other issue in our area is infrastructure. If you look, for example, at a recent survey by the Australian Automobile Association, they reckon that road and traffic congestion is a problem for nearly 80 per cent of Chifley residents, in my part of Western Sydney. So getting somewhere on the roads is difficult, and 80 per cent say they experience congestion. If you try to drive from Mount Druitt to Parramatta, it's one of the biggest traffic bottlenecks in the country, and we're seeing very little work between federal and state governments to actually fix that. Then you might think: 'I'm not getting in the car in Western Sydney. I'm not going to risk going on the M4 and being stuck in traffic, and I'm certainly not going to pay 9,000 bucks a year in tolls going from Chifley into the city using the M7 and M2 everyday'. That's what they've estimated it costs—based on toll costs—if you were to use tollways from our part of Western Sydney to the city and back, just for your working week. If you don't want to do that, you could go and catch a train. If you catch the train, three out of five days you'll be late home, because the T1 Western Line is one of the worst performing rail lines in New South Wales. We often hear the coalition say, 'We want people to be able to get home in time to enjoy their families,' but they've got this sitting right at their feet.
The New South Wales state government is doing very little to fix this. They harp on about the Sydney Metro West—yes, okay, I absolutely get that that will help people living between Parramatta and the CBD—but they're packed like sardines on those trains from Parramatta through to Blacktown through to Seven Hills, where the member for Greenway, who's here in the chamber, is. We've seen it ourselves, standing on those rail lines. I understand the South West Rail Link doesn't fare much better, member for Werriwa. They're packed like sardines into that. It doesn't matter what happens on Sydney Metro West, because people are still going to be having those long trips where they're uncomfortable and where they're running late as a result of the privilege of being on those trains.
Previous Labor governments at the state level have championed things like the western expressway, which were designed to de-congest those rail lines. That is stuff that we should be seeing. I'm sick of seeing the urban infrastructure minister get up in the parliament and say that their idea of congestion-busting is to fund another roundabout. The job of federal governments, working with state governments, should be to make sure that they use the power of their greater funding levels to work in with state governments on things that matter.
Another thing that gets talked about a lot is the New South Wales government's plan to connect Badgerys Creek airport and St Marys railway station. While a lot of people understand that you want to have public transport links to airports, if you haven't fixed the congestion on the Western Sydney rail line by the time you put that metro in, you'll be forcing people to cop an intolerable travel situation. You've already got trains on the Western Line running late, and then you'll be feeding more people up from the airport onto that rail line. Something has got to give, and I am certainly committed to championing that matter and making sure that we get better public transport options and good quality transport infrastructure. When you get to a railway station you should not have to walk ages to get there. As the member for Greenway said, you shouldn't have to pay for an Uber to get from where you parked your car to a railway station. You should be able to park close to the railway station and that station should be modern and should have, for example, things that don't prevent older Australians or people with a disability from using that station. For instance, in Doonside I had to go to the extent of lodging a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, using disability discrimination law at the federal level, against the New South Wales state government, because for more than 10 years they've ignored the needs of Doonside residents in getting their own railway station. We'll be lodging that action in the coming weeks. That's the type of stuff where you can make a difference with federal funding. We're just not seeing it happen, however.
There are 150,000 people moving into north-west Sydney. You can see what's happening now on Richmond and Windsor roads, as they are starting to get congested—after they have been expanded. We need to see investment in a road network parallel to the M7—and that is the M9, the orbital. The New South Wales Liberal government have just played politics. They have said that they won't build that roadway, because they don't want to upset their own constituencies. But the reality is that if we don't build the M9 roadway we are going to have massive congestion in north-western Sydney. North-western Sydney is continually overlooked on infrastructure investment, I might add. We do need to see a greater focus on that. For example, both sides of politics at the state level have committed to the building of a new hospital in north-west Sydney, around Rouse Hill. Without sounding ungrateful, we're going to need more than just a hospital to make people's lives more comfortable in that part of Western Sydney.
We've heard the government go on about Badgerys Creek airport and that investment. They say it in the context of congestion busting. I'm sure a lot of people in south-west Sydney would love to catch a plane from Badgerys Creek airport to the CBD. That is not congestion busting. The money that they've put to upgrade the roads around that airport should not be labelled as a Western Sydney infrastructure project, because it's basically the stuff that needs to happen if you're putting that airport in. There are a lot of other roads in Western Sydney where congestion is an issue—for example, between Mt Druitt and Parramatta on the M4. They need to find ways to fix that up. Mind you, when they do go on about WestConnex at the federal level, they conveniently overlook the fact that when Labor was in office last time we said we would extend funding for the construction of WestConnex provided that it actually linked up to Sydney airport and that a toll did not go on it, that a toll not be reintroduced on the M4. The New South Wales Libs have reimposed a toll on the M4—after the people had paid for that roadway—to help fund WestConnex. So it's no surprise that, as a result, we've got congestion now as people try to get off the newly tolled parts of the M4 and do the rat run through Parramatta using Parramatta Road. We've got to do better.
On education, another big thing, we have 63 schools in the Chifley electorate. We took to the election a commitment to provide an additional $24 million to Chifley schools on the basis of schools in need, looking at the makeup of those schools and considering what local students required. We wanted to see better, targeted funding in there. As I've said previously, I've seen an improvement in results in our neck of the woods. For example, I have remarked about how at Crawford Public School they have said that the maths results of students who were falling behind improved when additional teachers were put in place to help those students catch up to the rest of the pack, as it were. We should definitely see more and targeted support for schools in need.
We need also to ensure, longer term, that young people in our neck of the woods have got the skills that will hold them in good stead in the years to come. That's why I've supported in my area the establishment of a tech skills hub based at Doonside Technology High School with the Colebee Learning Community. There are about 5,000 students and, through the work of Google, Australian Schools Plus and me, we'll will ensure that kids get to see and learn about AI, robotics and the types of things that will become more commonplace in workplaces in the future.
The other week we had an Amazon Web Services team up with Eagle RAPS at Doonside to make sure that young people in Doonside get that level of support as well. This is critical in the longer term and certainly another area where I'll continually focus to make sure that kids in western Sydney aren't left behind. We need to see more investment in skills, not because they necessarily want to go into tech but, as most of us know, you have to be able to navigate your way around the sorts of equipment that you're using—your mobile phone, your iPad, your desktop, your laptop or whatever—to get the most in your workplace. We should be thinking longer term about what will put young people in the best position to get ahead in years to come.
While these are just a few issues, I always take the opportunity in parliament to speak up for our local communities on various issues. These are not the sum total of the issues I'll fight for, but I hope that people do realise that when I commit to something as a local MP I'll see it through and make sure I stand up for the people I care about. (Time expired)
While the member for Chifley is here, may I make some gracious comments congratulating him on his address-in-reply. It's no coincidence that much of what the member for Chifley focused on I actually said in this chamber yesterday, and today, when I speak, I will focus on infrastructure and echo many of his sentiments. We share a common border, but also a number of common life experiences, representing people in Western Sydney and in north-west Sydney who are undergoing a time of great change not only in terms of population growth but also in the diversity of the areas we represent. We represent some people who are doing it very tough, and they have done it tough intergenerationally, just as the member for Werriwa would know. It is certainly the mission of Labor to ensure that those people in our community are given every chance to succeed.
When you look at it on paper, both the member for Chifley and I probably shouldn't have succeeded. We are first-generation Australians and the first in our families to go to university. To make it here to represent the local area that we grew up in is an absolute privilege, which is why I think I can safely say, on his behalf as well, we are both so committed to doing everything we can to improve those three words 'quality of life' for the people whom we represent. I congratulate the member for Chifley on his re-election, and my very good friend the member for Werriwa on her re-election as well.
I've had the privilege of serving my community in this place since 2010, and I'm very lucky to belong to a community of kind, decent, hardworking people who just want the very best for themselves and their families and, as I said, their quality of life to be sustained. They don't often ask for much. Sometimes they ask for nothing at all, other than acknowledgement. I spoke here the other day about the sandwich generation, those people around my age, many of whom are women, who are looking after elderly parents often with degenerative diseases, and raising their own children. Their issues are complex. As I said, they're not often asking for much, but they are asking for recognition. At a macro level, the question, 'What can government do to help them?' should be the same on everyone's lips in this place.
I want to thank everyone who supported me and reassure the people of Greenway that I will fight my very best each and every day that I'm a member here to represent their interests and to often stand up for them and take positions that might be unpopular with others but would be the right decisions to make. I want to particularly thank all those community groups, all those people from very diverse backgrounds. I was so lucky on election night when I thanked the people in that room at the Blacktown RSL. I looked around and I saw a microcosm of Australia, people from all walks of life, so many different nationalities, and people whom I knew from sporting groups to mothers' groups. I want to thank each and every one of them for helping me not only during the election campaign but over the previous three years. I do want to single out, because I don't get to do it very often, my family. As the member for Werriwa would know, it is impossible to do this job without the support of your family. In my case, having daughters aged seven and two, I am so lucky to have a husband who has supported me in everything that I've done. They say sometimes it's a great lottery to see what kind of family you get. Well, I hit the jackpot. I married into a family who have supported me in everything I've done. I want to particular thank my in-laws Sue and Sam Chaaya; my brothers-in-law, Charlie and George; my sisters-in-law, Myrna and Sandra; my beautiful daughters, Octavia and Aurelia, who have to cope with me being away in Canberra—and for my shadow ministerial duties—and who didn't get to see very much of me over the election campaign. For both of them the only life they've ever known is their mum being a member of parliament. I lastly want to single out my husband, Michael, who is a partner in a national law firm, and holds the fort day in, day out. He does it without a single word of complaint. So, thank you, Michael, for everything that you've done to support me in my chosen profession.
I look forward to spending the rest of this term standing up for the people of Greenway and fighting for their interests. And it's in this vein that I turn my attention to the issues of infrastructure, both what we commonly call hard and soft infrastructure. That is probably the number one issue, as I'm sure it is also for the member for Werriwa, when you represent a growth area of—south-west Sydney in her case. Those of us in this place who represent outer metro electorates are very familiar with the exponential growth occurring in our capital cities. In my own electorate of Greenway the paddocks around Riverstone and Schofields, and a relatively new suburb like The Ponds—I remember from as recently as 2010—have been replaced with thousands upon thousands of brand new homes. Areas where on the map it was simply paddocks. And now with the new streets that have gone in it is completely unrecognisable, and that's a great thing. It's a great thing that people can move into these beautiful new areas. It's an even better thing, however, when that is accompanied by world-class infrastructure. Be it the case of communications services, we hear a lot about the need for mobile services in rural and regional areas to be improved, which is indeed very valid. Even in outer metropolitan Sydney, I have constituents who are continually are telling me, 'I can't even get mobile coverage in my own home.' So it is a tremendous challenge to keep up with that—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:58 to 11:11
Local infrastructure links communities. It provides the conditions for people to connect and grow. But in two areas of my electorate it is failing. Riverstone is one such example of failing local infrastructure. Riverstone is located at the very heart of the north-west Sydney growth centre. Over the past decade the rate of development in this region has far outstripped investment in local infrastructure. Roads designed to cater for light residential traffic are now inadequately servicing a growing population. During business hours, Riverstone often grinds to a halt. Heavy industrial vehicles are forced to roll through the main street, and streets are regularly banked up around it when the level crossing on the Richmond line is closed. Ask any Riverstone local and they'll tell you that, as the population increases, it is only going to get worse. Congestion comes with serious damage to local roads, pollution and a decrease in the quality of life of local residents as they struggle to navigate their own suburb.
Addressing this issue has been a long-time focus of the Riverstone, Schofields and Districts Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I want to congratulate the chamber on the excellent job it is doing in lobbying to unlock Riverstone's full potential. That is the key word here: 'potential'. Riverstone is so well located. It has such a high degree of entrepreneurialism. In the main street, so many new enterprises have opened—everything from fantastic cafes to local cake shops and bread shops. There is also the quality of service that you enjoy in that suburb. I'm so pleased to see that the IGA has been revamped in the Riverstone Village shopping centre. I will happily go there from my home in Riverstone. If I'm up in that end of the electorate, I'll particularly go there because it has some of the cheapest petrol in the area, and I'll also use the opportunity to do my shopping. But I can understand why residents are so concerned about this, when the main street grinds to a halt when the train goes past because they still have a level crossing with boom gates, which stops the street and all the traffic around it.
I want to acknowledge the chamber president, in particular, Sue Lawrence, and vice-president, Warren Kirby, for their continued advocacy, but also all the members and all the businesses who have got on board, particularly in the last couple of years, as they have really looked at change management and at the way in which they are lobbying to get effective outcomes for not only businesses but residents as a whole. They do that with great sincerity and enthusiasm.
Throughout their consultation process, the chamber has helped to identify a potential congestion solution which would not only reduce industrial traffic through Riverstone's town centre but do so at minimal cost. The Riverstone West precinct is the perfect location for a spine road linking Bandon Road in the north and Garfield Road West in the south. It would allow industrial traffic from the business centre in Riverstone's north to bypass the Garfield Road level crossing, which I just mentioned, and flow smoothly out to Windsor Road and the rest of metro Sydney.
This is an extraordinary opportunity for the federal government to engage in community and business renewal in one of Sydney's fastest-growing areas, an area where the housing completion rate has increased from 15 per cent per year in 2011 to 40 dwellings per week. The unemployment rate in Riverstone is approximately 7.2 per cent, significantly higher than the 3.9 per cent statewide figure reported in January this year. Taking advantage of its prime location as the gateway to the Hawkesbury and neighbour to growing housing estates, Riverstone could become a business hub in north-west Sydney, a vision that can only be realised by creating the local conditions for businesses to thrive.
I recently wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as the minister for infrastructure, to highlight the need for such investment in Riverstone. Whilst there remains a traffic solution for Garfield Road by 2036, the concept is not yet defined and there is no funding for delivery. In contrast, this alternative road that I mentioned could be delivered by 2021. We have a great opportunity here and now to engage in proactive community building to improve the quality of life for these residents, so I call on the federal Liberal government to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to infrastructure spending and prioritise upgrading roads in high-growth areas across west and north-west Sydney.
I also want to speak about other infrastructure concerns with public transport, and I would note the opening of the Metro Northwest. The member for Chifley, who spoke before me, mentioned some other state projects that are making a difference in some areas, but in other areas the government are still failing. That's not to say that the Metro Northwest project has been without criticism, or that the New South Wales Liberals haven't assumed a self-styled level of infallibility despite growing community concerns about how the project is affecting different parts of our society.
Since my first term in this place I have helped to coordinate a sustained community campaign to increase parking supply at local train stations in the north-west, especially at Schofields and Quakers Hill. Countless doors have been knocked on, petitions sent and letters written demanding that the New South Wales Liberal government take meaningful action to address the situation. And it is a dangerous situation at that. I have spoken many times about Schofields station in this place. If a commuter arrives at Schofields station after 7 am then in some cases they are forced to park several kilometres away and trek on unsteady terrain, often with no footpath, just to catch the train to get to work. It's even more dangerous at night given the lack of lighting along this area. This highlights that building transport networks isn't enough in itself. People actually have to be able to access public transport, which is why commuter parking is so important.
Scores of local residents continue to be rightly frustrated at the sheer lack of parking available, not only at Schofields and Quakers Hill stations but now at Metro Northwest stations. I've been contacted by scores of residents who, when trying to use the metro service, have been forced to pay the daily rate for parking at the nearby shopping centres. Others have told me they have simply given up and are opting to drive instead, which defeats the whole purpose of having public transport.
How the New South Wales Liberals, having seen the impact that exponential population growth can have on existing parking infrastructure at places like Schofields, can deliver a transport project without sufficient parking solutions is utterly astounding. To add insult to injury—wait for this one, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas—the New South Wales Liberals have also cut local bus services in my electorate on the basis that the metro line is now open. Not only is this despite the fact there was insufficient public transport in the first place, but it was barely keeping up with demand.
Following the opening of the Metro Northwest, a number of existing bus routes were changed or cut altogether. Where local residents could previously catch a single bus from places like Rouse Hill and Kellyville Ridge into the Sydney CBD, commuters are now being told to instead board the metro, change at Chatswood for a heavy line train and then, in some instances, catch a bus when they finally reach the CBD. There has been widespread outrage about the changes, but unsurprisingly it is falling on deaf ears. Local Liberal state members have batted away criticism, with one describing the issue as 'relatively contained to a couple of routes'. The same Liberal member also maintained that the number of constituents who had complained about the bus changes were 'in the teens'. In response to that member, I would refer to some of the 10,400 north-west Sydney residents who have signed the change.org petition to reverse the bus cuts, many of which come from the shared parts of our electorates.
I recently wrote to the New South Wales Minister for Transport to raise my concerns about these changes. Unsurprisingly, the buck was passed to his parliamentary secretary. Well, she might as well change her title to 'parliamentary secretary for condescending travel advice' because all she offered by way of resolution was as follows: 'I am advised that customers north of Bella Vista have several options for travel to the CBD. They can access Sydney metro services from Rouse Hill or Kellyville stations and transfer to a Sydney train service at Chatswood or Epping. And, further, those who access route 607 express can now access bus routes 665 and 735 to Kellyville metro station.' I hate to break this to the parliamentary secretary, but Greenway residents already know they can get the metro and change multiple times. That's not the point. These bus services were convenient and they were working, and that is why these people are angry. New public transport options are supposed to improve the liveability of the local area, not mark it harder for local commuters. And the coalition in this place and Macquarie Street like to talk a lot about congestion-busting. I can confidently say that a great way to bust congestion is to have public transport that people can actually use.
The final point on the north-west metro relates to its safety. When the New South Wales Minister for Transport and Roads announced that services on the metro would be driverless, there was a genuine concern for commuter safety, and that concern was rightly articulated by the rail, tram and bus union, but the concern was ignored by the New South Wales government simply because it was made by another party. And those concerns were right. There has been widespread reporting of metro doors closing on unsuspecting commuters. There have been reports of parents being separated from their prams as the doors close, and their children are taken without their parents to the next station. I can speak from personal experience. I recently caught the metro with my elderly father, who is 88 years old and has a walking stick; a companion; and my 2-year-old in her pram. And we decided, because he had a specialist's appointment coming up in Chatswood, we would see if he could use public transport to get to this appointment. So I told him, 'Park at my place. Park at Glenwood in the morning, and we'll go in my car to the nearest and park there.' We went to the nearest station, Bella Vista, at 9.00 am. There was not a single park. We went to Kellyville station further down the line. There was not a single park. So I said, 'Well, we'll go to Tallawong station.' We drove out to Tallawong station near Schofields. There was not a single parking spot. By this time, I could have driven to Chatswood, but I said, 'I will not be defeated.' So we parked at Rouse Hill Town Centre, paid for parking and caught the metro in. On our way home, in the time given—I can't go through all the details—we were getting on board. We weren't dallying and weren't being delayed or anything. We got on board and, unsuspectingly, just as I boarded the train with the pram and was helping Dad, who had his walking stick, the doors literally closed on us. I was there, having to force the doors open while my elderly father tried to steady himself while another commuter pulled my child's pram off me. Somehow we managed to be okay, but you can see a situation here where there are clearly safety issues that need to be addressed.
I call on the New South Wales Liberal government to look soberly at this model that they have adopted and also to understand those very important issues of accessibility. Infrastructure shouldn't just be an abstract buzzword thrown around in this place. It's important for communities like mine, which are growing so rapidly, and it needs serious investment to improve the quality of life for local residents. Without meaningful and decisive action, this situation is only going to get worse, and that is one of the key things that I will be fighting for over this term in this parliament.
In my contribution on the address-in-reply, I'd like to initially focus on the election and say how honoured I am to have been re-elected as the federal member for Richmond. I'd like to start by thanking the people of Richmond for the incredible privilege of representing them, advocating for them and being their voice in this parliament. The electorate of Richmond is made up of remarkable individuals and vibrant communities, from Tweed Heads right through to Ballina. I'm a proud member of the Australian Labor Party and I want to thank all our local members and supporters for their continued faith in me. Also, to my wonderful, loyal staff—Reece, Inge, Kylie, Jurgen, Marie, David, Rani, Jack, Peter and Max—thank you.
In my election campaign locally, I promised to keep working hard to make the North Coast an even better place to live, and I'm determined to keep doing just that. Every day, I continue to fight for our local community, and I remain committed to fighting for better services and outcomes right across the North Coast and for the people of regional Australia, who have been forgotten by the government. I'll detail some of the election commitments later in my contribution—ones that I want the government to fund in my region.
My focus is very much on job creation in our area. We need further investment in infrastructure, we need greater training and education avenues and we need to keep our regional economy strong and viable so that there are increasing employment opportunities. In terms of the election, I've said this many times to the people of the North Coast: my door is always open, and my assistance is always there. In terms of the parliament and the broader community, Labor will continue to hold the government to account, and we'll also continue to define what we stand for and our values.
Since the election, amongst my community on the North Coast there has been a prevailing feeling that the only agenda the government have is a harsh and cruel one. The government are defined by the people they're against and the Australians whom they impact detrimentally by their actions. This will be the legacy of the government, as well as their lack of action on important matters. They're not fixing the NDIS. They're not fixing the NBN. They're not reversing their cuts to pensions. They're not reversing their cuts to the ABC and SBS. They're not properly investing in our schools, TAFEs and universities. They're not properly investing in our health and hospital services. They have no plan to effectively act on climate change. They have no plan for regional jobs and no plan to sustain and grow regional economies. Yet what we do have from the government is a continued attack on workers by pushing for cuts to penalty rates and workers' conditions.
As large parts of Australia suffer the worst drought on record, the Morrison government's inaction has caused distress in so many communities who are facing severe water crisis. We're so concerned by the reports of towns locally and nationally facing the possibility of running out of water and the loss and suffering they are experiencing now. After six years of inaction on water security, the Morrison Liberal-National government continues to waste time, when communities are desperate; they are running out of water. When it comes to rural and regional towns and their water, the government are so out of touch. We urgently need a practical plan to cope with the drought crisis, because our regional communities are hurting. The government need to act now. It is that urgent.
Also, the Morrison government have a very shameful economic record. The fact is: the economy has floundered for years under the Liberals and Nationals, and the government have no plan to fix it. Their record is defined by slow growth, stagnant wages, weaker productivity, higher unemployment and underemployment, surging net debt and higher household debt. Australians are very worried about their wages, their job security and their cost of living. Again, the government are doing nothing. They have no plan to meet the economic challenges facing our nation and no agenda to build a bigger and stronger Australia.
There are many people in my community who experience so many issues with so many services, particularly Centrelink. The stories from families and pensioners are becoming far too common. The ongoing erosion of Centrelink resources has put enormous pressure on its ability to meet and address the issues of many of my constituents who find themselves in critical need. This is particularly evident for those locals who have to apply for either age pensions or disability support pensions, with massive, unacceptable delays occurring. Of course, the same is said for the NDIS, where there are unnecessary and huge, unacceptable delays, which are often putting people's lives and wellbeing at risk. Under the government, we've seen a lack of funding for the NDIS and a lack of planning. We've seen the staffing caps. What they need to be doing is fixing that and delivering for the people who desperately need the NDIS to work properly.
Also one of the issues of greatest concern on the New South Wales North Coast is the lack of home care, particularly with the ageing population that we have. There are a distressing number of older Australians waiting for the care they need, and the list in my region just grows longer each year. Of course, as a nation we should judge ourselves by how we treat our elderly, yet the Liberals and Nationals have done nothing but cut aged-care funding, and there is no plan to reverse those cuts. The fact is that as of June 2019 there were still 120,000 older Australians languishing, waiting for a home care package, and this included more than the 72,000 older Australians on the waiting list with no home care package at all. Shamefully, many people are dying, waiting for their home care package. This is truly unacceptable.
We also have the Morrison government ignoring the calls from many people to increase Newstart. Again I call on them to act. There is an urgent need to raise the rate of Newstart. The fact is that in my region we have a massive housing affordability and homelessness crisis, and people receiving Centrelink benefits are the hardest hit. Families and individuals without secure full-time employment who rely on some sort of Centrelink allowance to survive are really doing it tough; they are struggling. With a quarter of Newstart recipients aged 55 or over, many locals who've worked all their lives are now living in poverty and struggling to find affordable accommodation. The government needs to act and urgently look at raising the rate of Newstart.
The government has also failed to deliver on the NBN for Australians. In particular, those Australians living in regional areas have been hit really hard. Constituents tell me constantly that they're frustrated because they can't get any decent internet access. There are very slow speeds and there's lots of buffering. The NBN is critical infrastructure for Australia's future for so many different reasons. One particular area in my electorate, Cabarita Beach and Hastings Point, can't even get connected to the NBN, and delays have been ongoing. Time and time again residents have been told the service will be rolled out, only to be told of another delay, another excuse. One particular constituent has been in contact with my office since 2015. He was told his NBN connection was due in mid-2018. Then it was early 2019, then mid-2019, then late 2019. Now, after more delays, we find that residents and businesses of Cabarita Beach and Hastings Point have been told to expect connection in March 2020. That is clearly unacceptable. For this constituent, who is a small business operator, these delays will have serious financial impacts and will put at real risk his ability to keep trading. This is an unacceptable situation and I've made representations to the minister. This situation must be fixed. The mismanagement of the Liberals and Nationals continues to impede the rollout of this very vital service. Put simply, locals in my area are suffering due to the faults, the slow speeds, the down time and the poor service. It is that bad that in 2017 alone complaints about the NBN increased by over 200 per cent.
I remain staunchly committed to advocating for better regional services, and I believe that the North Coast deserves its fair share from Canberra. That's why I'll continue to fight for the commitments I campaign for, especially for important infrastructure projects. In fact, major infrastructure projects are important enablers of regional economies, and they also deliver many jobs during the construction phase. Indeed, we all know the Reserve Bank governor has called on the government to invest in infrastructure to lift employment and wages and to drive economic growth, and that applies especially to our regional areas. The government must start investing very quickly in infrastructure projects.
In terms of the Labor election commitments in Richmond, first and foremost, the Kirkwood Road and Kennedy Drive interchanges are two of the most strategically important infrastructure projects which would ease congestion, reduce travel times and meet the growing needs of our region. They are, in fact, game changers. These two road projects will not only create jobs and economic activity; they will, of course, lift productivity over the longer term. They have so many benefits. We made a commitment that a Labor government would invest $52.2 million to progress work on the Kirkwood Road interchange and the Kennedy Drive interchange. Our region has, indeed, benefited from a number of major projects that were funded by the former Labor government, yet at the recent federal election only Labor committed to fund these two projects in full. They were completely ignored by the National Party. I call on the government to invest in these important projects. They are vitally important for our future growth.
I also remain committed to fighting for funding for the regional Ballina-Byron Gateway Airport and its much-needed runway upgrade. I was very proud that during the election campaign Labor committed to investing $10 million in this important project. Funding of the project will enable the widening and strengthening of the runway, which is a crucial part of the Ballina-Byron Gateway Airport's capacity to accommodate future, larger domestic aircraft. We have a growing region; we have to have this runway upgraded. It is very vital and critical to our region's thriving tourism industry. The airport is ranked in the top 10 regional airports nationally. It is owned and operated by the Ballina Shire Council. There is ample scope for greater investment now, particularly across rural and regional Australia. I urge the government to invest in economies and in projects like the ones I've mentioned: Kirkwood Road and Kennedy Drive, and the vital upgrade to the Ballina Byron regional airport.
In terms of the other election commitments that Labor made, I will also continue to fight for funding for Wedgetail Retreat, which specialises in palliative care in a purpose-built facility and for the MurwillumbahCommunity Centre's food HUB at the Red Cross centre. Again, I call on the government to match those investments and invest in these important projects
I'd also like to take this opportunity to hold this government to account on the promise they made during the election campaign, namely a new cancer treatment centre in Tweed Heads. Regional communities deserve access of the very best cancer care, and I shall continue to call on them to honour their promise to invest in this very important facility. This is very important, because we do know that the Nationals have a history of saying one thing and then doing something after the election. I'll continue to hold this government to account on this very important election commitment. It's vital that we all do all that we can to address the difficulties that patients face in regional communities, because we know that in the regions they experience poorer health outcomes than in the cities, and patients often have to travel greater distances to access the vital treatment they need. A new facility, a radiation facility in Tweed Heads, would assist in bridging the gap when it comes to cancer care and the outcomes of patients. I urge the government to honour that commitment. I will keep holding them to account, because we do need to have that cancer facility in our region.
We see, right across the board, when it comes to health services some really startling and remarkable moves by this government in their continuing to undermine Medicare, which is devastating for the regions as well. There are currently record high out-of-pocket costs and record high waiting lists to access health care. Under this Prime Minister out-of-pocket GP costs have increased from $36.45 to a record high of $39.55. Out-of-pocket specialist costs have increased from $80.20 to a record high of $91.50. Under this Prime Minister private hospital out-of-pocket costs have increased from $308.75 to a record high of $314.50. Under this government private health insurance premiums have risen around 2.8 per cent. And, again under this government, waiting times have increased to mean one in four people have not been seen on time in emergency departments or are waiting for elective surgeries. This is not good enough. We need to see much more investment in our health and hospital services.
Another big issue that many people in my community have, which they've raised with me many times, is about the government's dangerous plans to develop a nuclear power industry within this country. We are seeing intensifying pressure from the Liberals and Nationals, at all levels of government, pushing this very toxic agenda. It's one that I have raised in the past and will continue to raise. It's so important for my community. I stand firmly with the community in firm opposition to nuclear power. We, all of us in the New South Wales North Coast, have major objections to nuclear energy, particularly because the impact on coastal communities would be devastating. Nuclear power is dangerous, expensive and consumes vast amounts of precious water, which is why we're concerned about the government expanding on it when we have coastal communities like mine. Here we have a time when Australia faces increased water security threats, and yet we have this government pushing hard with its agenda for nuclear power. Again, we see it at all levels of government in New South Wales. We see it at federal, state and local. They need to stop. Our community will fight them against this every day. Nuclear power is just too toxic.
I'd also like to mention, of course, some of the harsh impacts of our state Liberal-National government as well, which really impacts our region. One of those is the need for more police. Under this state Liberal-National government we've seen massive cuts to our police numbers. In my community they blame the Nationals and the state member for Tweed, who's cut those numbers. We're just not keeping pace in terms of the fact we're one of the fastest growing regions. We need to give our police the resources and numbers so they can do their job effectively. But the fact is, under the Nationals locals are hurting and they're putting police officers unnecessarily in harm's way because we don't have enough police on the ground. As a former police officer myself, I understand the importance of having appropriate numbers of police on the beat in our communities to ensure that locals remain safe. I've launched a community petition for more police because locals tell me their neighbourhoods and streets are being targeted by criminals who see New South Wales as a soft touch and are even coming over the border from Queensland to commit their crimes in New South Wales. But I've seen firsthand the pressure our police are under, and crime is out of control in our region. Our police are combating ongoing violence, break-and-enters and increasing ice use across the North Coast, and we consistently see in our local media reports of crime being out of control. And so I will continue to stand up for our community and continue to advocate for more police across our region. It is vitally important.
I again want to take this opportunity to commend our local police for the remarkable work they do. I know how hard they work. They're under very difficult circumstances with the lack of resources that they do have there. I'd like to thank the Labor leader, Jodi McKay, and also the New South Wales shadow minister for the North Coast, who recently came to Tweed to launch this very important community police petition. It's an issue that we will keep talking about.
Another big issue that has recently been raised in my community is a betrayal by the Tweed Nationals MP Geoff Provest, who has backflipped on an election commitment he made about having free parking at the new Tweed Valley Hospital. In the election campaign he promised locals free parking with no time limits for patients, visitors and staff. We have read in the past few weeks that that was just an absolute lie and he's now backflipped on that. We now know there will be paid parking there. It really is a complete betrayal of locals, and many people are deeply concerned about it. Of course, many patients and their families and also staff feel totally betrayed. They were told there would be free parking there, and, of course, we now find out that it's going to be paid parking. That will also have a massive impact on the surrounding areas in Cudgen and Kingscliff, which, of course, will just be inundated with cars. So again I call on Geoff Provest and the Liberal-National government to honour their election commitment for free parking at that hospital. It's vitally important and distressing so many people within our region.
I'll always hold Liberal-National governments to account, whether it be at federal or state levels. We do have so many concerns locally, so many broken promises, so many cuts to services. It is right across the board and deeply distressing our community. And, speaking of our community, I would like to add, as I'm summing up, what an incredible, remarkable and diverse region we have on the New South Wales North Coast. We're very fortunate to have such active, committed and diverse community groups, sporting clubs, and organisations right across the region. I'd like to mention the Richmond Community Grants Hub in my electorate, which was established—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:42 to 11:53
In closing, what I would like to say is what a wonderful community we have on the far north coast of New South Wales. It is a remarkable and diverse area, and we're very fortunate to have such wonderful, committed, active and diverse community groups, individuals, sporting clubs and organisations. They are truly remarkable, and they all have a very deep commitment to our area and to improving it.
I'd really like to mention a program in my electorate which I recently established. The Richmond Community Grants Hub was established in response to the very growing demand from the community for more information about available funding opportunities. I'm pleased to say that so many groups have signed up so far, and they're able to receive information about different funding opportunities that may be available to them. It's just wonderful working with these community groups and helping them to potentially secure some of that funding as well. It has been a huge success, and I encourage any other groups that might like to get involved to please sign up to my Richmond Community Grants Hub so that we can keep you informed of any potential grant opportunities that do arise. I really look forward to working with those groups to secure future grant funding so that together we can make the area an even better place to live. The New South Wales North Coast is truly the best place in Australia to live.
It is an absolute honour to represent your community here in our federal parliament, and I again thank the people of Richmond for re-electing me as their member. It is indeed a privilege and an honour that I take very seriously. My door is always open to them and I'm always available here to help them. I will keep being their strong voice in Canberra.
I've spoken before in this chamber about how proud I am to have the Australian Islamic Centre in Newport in my electorate. It's an architectural landmark, a place of worship and a community hub for thousands of people in Melbourne's west. It was in a similar place of worship in Christchurch in a country so much like our own that 51 men, women and children were massacred by an Australian terrorist earlier this year. The member for Maribyrnong and I visited the Newport mosque immediately after this atrocity and spent hours with community members, united in mourning and in fear.
The fact that one of our own could commit such an act has been a cause for much reflection. His vile acts do not reflect our values as Australians. In particular, they do not reflect the values of Melbourne's west, my community. Despite that, this atrocity should be a wake-up call that forces us to confront some hard truths. Firstly, we must confront the reality that radical right-wing extremism is growing around the world. White nationalist extremists were responsible for at least 50 murders in the US in 2018, a 26 per cent increase on the previous year. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the situation may be even worse in Europe, where attacks by right-wing groups increased by 43 per cent between 2016 and 2017.
I've previously spoken in this chamber about the fact that white nationalists have murdered politicians in recent times in the United Kingdom, Germany and Poland. If the Christchurch attacker weren't evidence enough, ASIO recognised in its 2019 annual report that the threat from extreme right-wing terrorism in Australia has increased in recent years and will remain 'an enduring threat'. We must also confront the fact that these attacks are connected by a global ideology. They aren't random, unconnected tragedies. These right-wing terrorists are part of an online community that uses the internet to spread their ideology and to radicalise the marginalised and vulnerable. Atrocities like Christchurch turbocharge the power of their message in these networks. That's why the Christchurch terrorist posted his manifesto online before the attack and it's why it was suffused with symbolic call-backs to the atrocities of previous white nationalist terrorists. It's also why a series of subsequent terrorists, inspired by the Christchurch atrocity, have used similar codes and symbols in the online content that they have produced before and after their attacks.
The growing nature of the threat of right-wing extremist terrorism and the way that this ideology and these attacks perpetuate themselves online mean that we need to take action if we want to ensure that an atrocity like Christchurch never happens again. We need to act to stop an Australian from ever again committing an atrocity like the Christchurch attack. The best way of doing this is through the Christchurch Call to Action. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's Christchurch Call was a compact between governments and technology companies that included commitments for action by both groups to break the online radicalisation engine that led to the Christchurch terrorist attack.
I'm pleased to say that, since the signing of the Christchurch Call, online service providers have finally begun to act and implement their commitments. The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, a consortium of tech companies that includes Facebook, YouTube and Google, released a nine-point plan that members will implement to address the abuse of technology to spread terrorist content. Facebook banned white nationalist content from its platforms, imposed new restrictions on the use of Facebook Live and expanded the use of automated techniques to identify and remove terrorist content. And the web-hosting company Cloudflare finally ceased providing hosting services to the 8chan website that had become ground zero for white nationalist radicalisation and the celebration of these terrorist attacks.
These are welcome developments, but there's still more work to do. For example, recent reporting from VICE News has shown how these white nationalists have moved their activities to more tolerant social media platforms. Analysis of 150 public-facing far-right channels on the Telegram Messenger service found that more than two-thirds of these channels were created in the first eight months of 2019. Not only do white nationalists have a much more robust presence on smaller online platforms like Telegram than they did two years ago, their channels have grown more sophisticated, violent and terroristic over time. These smaller platforms should follow the lead of the GIFCT and take responsibility for breaking the radicalisation engine and shutting down channels like this.
Governments, too, need to act to implement the Christchurch Call. Shamefully, despite our special responsibility as the nation that produced the Christchurch terrorist, the Australian government's implementation of the Christchurch Call has been piecemeal and slow. The Morrison government has loudly trumpeted its new laws to establish a content-blocking framework for crisis events, and this is welcome. Seeking to stop the sharing of footage of terrorist attacks is certainly welcome. This is absolutely a part of the online radicalisation process that we've seen playing out in recent times, but it's just one part of the problem. Indeed, the very first commitment in the Christchurch Call commits governments to:
Counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality.
This is a much broader task than stopping the sharing of footage of the terrorist attacks themselves. But since the Christchurch attack, the Morrison government has not provided any additional funding to community based, countering violent extremism programs. Indeed, it's not clear whether any of the very small amount of Commonwealth funding that is currently being spent on CVE in Australia is tailored to the threat of right-wing radicalisation, is tailored towards the vulnerable and marginalised individuals in our community who may be beguiled by the messages of these white nationalists. Where is the Commonwealth funding for programs like that developed by the NGO All Together Now, the community action for preventing extremism project, formerly known as Exit White Power, which aims to break the radicalisation engine by planting seeds of doubt in the minds of young people who may be attracted to white nationalism and white supremacy. Where are the new nationwide anti-racism and anti-religious bigotry programs in response to the increased threat we see in the wake of the Christchurch attacks?
The second commitment of the Christchurch call commits government to:
Ensure effective enforcement of applicable laws that prohibit the production or dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with the rule of law and international human rights law, including freedom of expression.
This commitment isn't about searching for a technology silver bullet to break the radicalisation engine. It's about providing extra law enforcement resources for the old-fashioned policing necessary to infiltrate white nationalist terrorist networks, who are increasingly using encrypted communications like Telegram, and breaking them up from the inside. We saw a very good example of this just this month with the FBI's arrest of Jarrett Smith, a far-right extremist who was allegedly using the Telegram platform to discuss the bombing of a US news outlet. Again, this doesn't just seem to be a resourcing priority for the Morrison government. We haven't seen the additional funds being allocated to Australian law enforcement agencies in order to tackle what we know is a proliferation of these extremist views online.
There's a stark contrast with Australia's approach and other nation's response to the growing threat of white nationalism after the Christchurch attacks. The US Department of Homeland Security has formally recognised white nationalism as a serious national security threat and unveiled a new counterterrorism strategy to combat it. The US Congress has held seven hearings on radical right-wing extremism since April. In the UK, extreme right-wing terrorist threats are being included in official threat-level warnings alongside the Islamist threat. Canada has funded research into far Right extremism, to better understand the threat and to learn how to combat it in the context of that country. In New Zealand, the government has invested in its Department of Internal Affairs, to double not only its investigative work but also its preventative programs. Further reforms are yet to come from the New Zealand royal commission into the attack. I believe that there will be lessons for Australia—about the activities of the murderer in Australia on the online white supremacist forums in this country—coming from the evidence heard by the royal commission in New Zealand.
In Australia, though, not only have we failed to follow through on our commitments under the Christchurch Call; the Department of Home Affairs doesn't seem to even officially recognise white nationalism as a serious national security threat. As my colleague the member for Chifley has noted, in its annual report ASIO discusses the international threats of Islamist terrorism from Europe, Asia and the Middle East, but there's no mention of the threat of US or European based far Right extremists and the attacks that they could pursue in Australia.
Last month, former FBI agent Ali Soufan gave evidence to the US Congress that 17,000 people, including US white nationalists, had travelled to Ukraine in recent years to gain paramilitary skills in the conflict there before returning home. Are Australians doing the same? How many? How do we know? Who's monitoring them? There is much more that we need to be doing in this space to address this threat.
I welcome the first steps taken by the Morrison government to tackle online radical right-wing extremism, and the content-blocking regime for terrorist acts that has been implemented, but, if we want to prevent another Christchurch, another terrorist atrocity committed in the name of white nationalism by an Australian, we need to do better. We need to start taking the need for a holistic response to the threat of networked white nationalism seriously.
Earlier this month, hospitals in Victoria were subjected to a targeted ransomware attack by cybercriminals. A ransomware attack is a kind of cyberattack in which hackers hold a target's IT systems hostage until a specific demand—typically the transfer of money in the form of bitcoin—is met. The costs of these attacks, measured in the costs of remediating compromised IT systems and the costs of having these IT systems offline, is enormous and growing. In 2017, the WannaCry ransomware worm had worldwide costs of between $4 billion and $8 billion. Since then, the aggregate dollar value of ransoms paid as a result of these attacks has more than doubled, from around $5 billion in payments in 2017 to around $11.5 billion in 2019. This is no small risk.
Luckily the Victorian hospitals ransomware attack seen this month was relatively low impact, shutting down booking systems across multiple hospitals and delaying dozens of surgeries across the state. Unfortunately for Australia, though, this is very likely just the beginning. The United States has been subject to a tidal wave of targeted ransomware attacks this year, targeting, in the first instance, hospitals and then quickly moving on to schools and local governments. At least 170 local and state governments in the United States have been subject to ransomware attacks, including 45 law enforcement offices. This year alone, over 500 schools in the US have been subject to ransomware attacks.
These attacks are enormously disruptive and costly. Louisiana was forced to declare a statewide emergency in response to ransomware attacks on its school districts. In Baltimore city, a ransomware attack cost the city $10 million in lost revenue and in remediation costs for its IT systems. It's only a matter of time before Australian schools and local governments join our hospitals on the ransomware radar of these international crime syndicates. The Victorian hospitals attack is an early warning that government needs to fundamentally rethink its approach to helping these organisations to protect their systems and our citizens' information.
The Morrison government's approach to cybersecurity to date has been too top-heavy in this respect. It's reasonably good at sharing details of cybersecurity threats with large, sophisticated private sector entities who are already focused on the importance of cybersecurity, but the mechanisms that it uses to reach the disengaged are less effective. The Morrison government currently lacks a mechanism for communicating an imminent widespread threat like that posed by the current wave of targeted ransomware attacks.
To meaningfully communicate the current targeted ransomware threat, we need to start thinking about cybersecurity as though it were a public health issue. This means identifying at-risk communities and developing tailored harm-minimisation interventions. During the height of the HIV epidemic, public health practitioners in Australia identified at-risk communities—communities like intravenous drug users, sex workers and gay men—and provided tailored interventions to these groups. These interventions were designed to minimise the potential for harm in these groups—for example, by setting up needle exchanges and creating targeted, culturally appropriate sexual health awareness programs and by distributing free condoms. Australia's response to the HIV epidemic is widely considered to be a textbook example of responding to a public health crisis. We need to do the equivalent today in cybersecurity.
We need to recognise that Australia's 9,500 schools, 700 public hospitals and 537 local governments are at-risk groups during the current wave of targeted ransomware attacks and we need to design tailored risk minimisation interventions in order to get the message out to them and to help them to protect themselves—interventions like lifting awareness and implementation of basic security postures, like the Australian Signals Directorate's Essential Eight risk mitigation measures. In the specific instance of these ransomware attacks, it also means ensuring that these groups have back-up systems in place that are effectively partitioned from a ransomware attack on an organisation's core IT systems. It means ensuring that these at-risk communities, these at-risk organisations, have war-gamed out what their response would be if they were to be subject to a ransomware attack, that they've thought this through, that they know how to respond to an incident and get back on their feet quickly. This takes preparation. The time to act is now.
We know that this threat is imminent. We've seen it playing out in the United States over the preceding months. If the Morrison government fails to act to get the word out on this issue now, then the consequences of these attacks in Australia for our nation will be on its head.
Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, I'd like to start by acknowledging the extreme gratitude and honour I feel to once again be elected to this place and to once again represent the people of Oxley in the community that I proudly call home. I'm grateful to the 95,043 people who voted at either prepoll, by post or on election day and the further 30,000 people who live in our community, be they new arrivals to our great country or permanent residents.
Today I recommit my pledge to serve the people of Oxley, to be your representative in the federal parliament and to do my very best to represent you and your families to the best of my ability. But whether you voted for me or not doesn't matter. It's what is great about our democracy. As soon as the hard campaigning was over and the people had their say back on 18 May, all 151 members and all 76 senators got on with the job of making Australia the best it can be for its people and our future.
But, whilst it is indeed the voters who decide who represents them, it is the team behind each of the election candidates who deserve a great deal of thanks, and I'm lucky to have one of the best teams anywhere in Australia, who have been with me through thick and thin, some for more than a decade, when I was first elected as a representative of the Richlands Ward in the Brisbane City Council, now proudly represented by local councillor Charles Strunk.
I want to make special mention of some of the amazing people who have helped me and supported me on this journey. Thanks go to my FEC chairman and former councillor Les Bryant, my magnificent campaign director Mrs Margie Nightingale and some of the hardest working volunteers you will ever meet: Cathy Bidgood, Nayda Hernandez, Phuong Nguyen, Tuan Le, Mai Linh Do, Penelope Webster, Daniel Robinson, Rachel Hoppe, Nino Lilac, Lucy Bordin, Barry MacIntosh, Don Fraser, Bruce Leslie, Tony Cook, Neil and Judy Bennett, Fran Bell, Rose Newell, and our amazing local state MPs in the division of Oxley. I proudly serve alongside five state MPs, magnificent members of the Palaszczuk government Jess Pugh, the member for Mount Ommaney; Mrs Charis Mullen, the hardworking and capable member for Jordan; Minister Leeanne Enoch, the member for Algester; Jo-Ann Miller, the member for Bundamba; and, of course, my great friend and supporter the Premier of Queensland, Anastacia Palaszczuk, the state member for Inala. To all of our local branches, my staff in my electorate office—Karen Bell, Jen, Ros, Michele, Brent, Riley, Coen and Michael—they all played crucial roles in supporting me not just during the election campaign but of course with the work that I do in serving the people of Oxley. I'm very privileged to be supported by a number of unions in the state of Queensland. In particular, I want to acknowledge my own union, the Australian Workers Union, led by state secretary Steve Baker; the SDA; Gary O'Halloran from the Plumbers Union; Peter Biagini from the TWU; Neil Henderson from the ASU; and local resident and supporter Bill Marklew from the CPSU.
Everyone who comes to this place relies on a team, through their family, through their support networks and, of course, through the communities that they represent. I thank each and every one of those members of my community who have supported me to enable the work that I do for the people of Oxley.
The work that they do in enabling me to serve here is of course worth fighting for. The Australian Labor Party is Australia's oldest political party. Our passion for fairness at work, health care for everyone and access to quality education, no matter a person's circumstances, add up to a firm belief that we should all have the same opportunities in life. These are the values that underpin everything we do. In the Labor Party we believe that government has a responsibility to keep the nation safe, to invest in all our people's potential, to reverse disadvantage and to care for the most vulnerable among us. Our greatest achievements have always come from helping this great country to fulfil its potential whilst at the same time ensuring we leave no-one behind.
Once upon a time in this country when you got sick you almost went broke, until Labor, and one of my predecessors as member for Oxley, the great Bill Hayden, created Medicare. There was a time when people worked hard all their lives only to retire poor, until Labor created universal superannuation, which was opposed by those opposite. Not so long ago, there was a time when hundreds of thousands of Australians with disability and their carers had to scrape to get by, until Labor built the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We stand for workers finding secure jobs in safe workplaces for decent pay. On that note I'd like to acknowledge in particular the Australian mining and resources industry. For more than 100 years, the mining and resources sector has been the backbone of the Australian economy and workforce, powering our nation into the 21st century and, with it, one of the best standards of living of anywhere in the world. Whilst there have been many scaremongering calls to see the end of mining coming from some corners in our community, I for one remain buoyed and optimistic about the role mining and resources have played in the story of Australia, particularly in Queensland, to date and will play into the future.
Over 300,000 Queensland jobs are supported by resources. In 2017-18 alone, mining and resources contributed $5.2 billion in wages for Queensland workers, $4.3 billion in royalties to pay for our schools, hospitals and roads and a total of $69.9 billion to the Queensland economy. That's $1 in every $5 of the Queensland economy and one in eight jobs provided thanks to mining and resources. It's not hard to see why mining is so important to Queensland. On top of this, the mining and resources sector has a supply chain of over 14,000 Queensland businesses and assists with more than 1,200 community organisations.
Last year Australian resource exports set a new record of $248 billion, which also included a record $66 billion in exports of coal, making it Australia's most valuable single export. Australia has also recently become the world's single largest gas exporter, ahead of Qatar, with earnings expected to increase by more than 60 per cent, from $31 billion in 2017-18 to $50 billion in 2018-19.
Because the demand for the critical commodities of the future is booming, Australian mining is well placed to take advantage. We are in the top five holders of 14 out of the 35 of these critical commodities that will power the economies of the future. We produce 10 of the 16 commodities needed for the manufacture of solar panels. We hold the largest reserves of lithium, and we mine every commodity required to build smartphones and the battery and storage technology of the future. These numbers prove the worth that mining and resources have to the Australian economy and to the Australian people. Without them, we would not be able to build the roads and bridges we drive on. We would not be able to make the important investments in health and education and would not be able to employ the 1.1 million Australians who have a job in the mining, equipment, technological and services sectors.
But we must not take these figures for granted. We must ensure that Canberra and governments of all persuasions back our resources sector and regional communities to support the economy, support jobs and support our councils that are doing it tough.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12:20 to 12 : 32
It being past 12.30, the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Oxley was in continuation before we left.
It has not been the best week for the National Party. We had a drought announcement, which was trumped by the Prime Minister last week. We've got their deputy leader under siege from within. On Monday we had Senate estimates confirming that the Drought Communities Program has been excluding thousands of regional Australians, based on an arbitrary threshold around employment. We heard that only 14 per cent of their fake $7 billion drought package is actually for the immediate assistance of farmers. We've had a backflip on the eligibility criteria for the Drought Communities Program, with a review dropped to one journalist. But, then, only yesterday it appeared that the review wasn't actually happening and that they in fact look like they're cancelling the program altogether and coming up with something else, and we see this leak that there's now going to be some future drought stimulus package to communities. All the while, as this chaos has been happening and the government has been failing, over its now seven years in office, to actually have a proper plan for the drought and a proper drought strategy, we've seen communities across the country suffering.
In contrast, Labor has spent the fortnight trying to work with the government on drought. We are urging the government not to give up on our farming communities and our food systems and to release the drought coordinator's report. This is an important report that will enable government to start to have a national drought strategy and to convene a drought cabinet. Our proposals are a genuine attempt to work with the government in any way we can to support rural communities doing it tough. Our offers fell on deaf ears, meaning that we see the government now scrambling around and trying to find a solution to what has been a very long-term problem.
Looking specifically again at the Drought Communities Program, which is administered by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: this program provides relatively small amounts of money, a few million dollars, directly to local governments, allegedly to stimulate the local economy. If done well, it can be a sensible and good approach. But under this government's watch we've seen this program bungled. I received an email today from a South Australian—in fact, from the member for Barker's electorate—who was concerned that contractors working on a Drought Communities Program project in his home town of Morgan were in fact not from the local town but from well over an hour away. What is the point of local stimulus if you don't actually employ locals?
Projects have included toilet blocks at cemeteries, fences in areas where they've not necessarily had any economic impact, music festivals, a sailing club upgrade, new town signs and, of course, cemetery upgrades. The government needs to do a much better job explaining how some of these projects are actually improving lives in drought-affected communities. I note that to be deemed eligible, councils need to satisfy rainfall and primary industry employment criteria set by the minister after analysis by the department. But the announcements of eligibility appear to be made to suit the political needs of the minister and not the economic needs of rural and regional Australians.
The first round was announced in 2015-16 and the second round in September last year. Further councils were added to the second round three times over 2019, including 14 councils added during the election campaign. Because this was during caretaker, no analysis was undertaken by the department. The last batch, in late September, included the Moyne Shire Council, which, as we know, has refused the money and urged the government to reallocate it to other communities. As we know from estimates, that money has not been reallocated. In fact, there is actually no process for councils to apply for this program. We've seen communities under stress excluded from the program because of the arbitrary decisions of the program and the minister. Rural communities across Labor-held seats in New South Wales—Singleton, Yass, Eurobodalla, Kiama and Shoalhaven—are experiencing the effects of drought but they have missed out on this money.
On Tuesday, I welcomed the soft announcement of a review of this program, but it does now appear that that review is off the table. The leaked announcement overnight that we have seen on the media today would be all well and good if we could in fact trust the Nationals to administer these funds fairly throughout regional Australia and treat drought affected communities all across the country equally. (Time expired)
The great state of Tasmania's combined agricultural, forestry and fishing sector employers almost 13,000 Tasmanians and this year saw a 3.7 per cent increase in our agricultural exports. In 2016-17, Tasmania's agrifood production had an estimated gross value of around $2.4 billion. Our beef, lamb, seafood, potatoes, fresh vegetables, fruit and flower products have been responsible for some truly remarkable export numbers. Tasmania is triple the national average in export growth and double the international rates.
Tasmania's primary producers are leading the nation when it comes to agricultural exports, and I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate everyone involved in our sector. In particular, I'd like to recognise and congratulate Karin Luttmer. Karin recently won the 2019 Women in Export Award at the 2019 Tasmanian Export Awards. She owns Hill Farm Preserves in Sisters Creek on the north-west coast of Tasmania, and has been exporting her condiments and preserves to Japan since the early 2000s. She expanded this into South Korea in 2017 and into Hong Kong, Singapore and Sri Lanka in 2018. Hill Farm Preserves is a great example of the success of Tasmania's agricultural growth. It's little wonder that Tasmania is being hailed as the turnaround state and is the envy of the nation.
But our pristine environment, clean water, fertile soils, isolation and clean atmosphere are not things which our state takes for granted. Lurking around every corner are threats to our ongoing prosperity, threats that come in the form of pests and diseases. Tasmania's biosecurity posture is paramount to our ongoing fortunes and underpins our agricultural sector. As an island state, our unique biodiversity, our relatively pest-free status and our reputation as a producer of clean, green produce must be maintained at all costs. However, the challenge of keeping the Tasmanian mainland and its many smaller islands pest-free is continually increasing in complexity. Globalisation of trade, online commerce and the sheer number of people moving around the world all contribute to the challenge.
The work of the federal government to protect our nation's pest-free and disease-free status underpins our international reputation in the export trade. In particular, I welcome the strengthening of our Biosecurity Act and its recent application that resulted in the visa of an overseas visitor being cancelled for attempting to bring pork and other items into Tasmania and Australia. This delivers a loud, clear message that we will not tolerate anybody—whether you're an overseas visitor or a returning resident—putting our environment, our industries, our economy and our way of life at risk. I also congratulate the Tasmanian Liberal government, particularly their agriculture minister, Guy Barnett, for the work that he's undertaken at state level to strengthen our biosecurity posture. They've consulted widely, and they recently updated legislation to ensure that the Tasmanian economy continues to address modern risks and that our state, our produce and our freight remain pest and disease free.
Finally, I take this opportunity to highlight one of the north-west coast's innovative and proactive agribusinesses that's taking a leadership role in biosecurity. Recently I met with Andrew and Pam Langmaid and the great people at Cherry Hill Coolstores at La Trobe. This state-of-the-business is developing and implementing world's-best-practice techniques when it comes to combatting biosecurity threats. They have developed a testing and monitoring system to combat potato disease, which is rife on the mainland. Thanks to the hard work they do each day, they play an important part in eradicating this disease from Tasmania. Effective biosecurity legislation and enforcement as well as our communities, all levels of government, industry and individuals working together will ensure that our magnificent environment and our envied way of life are preserved for future generations to come.
I would like to acknowledge that on 18 October the first all-female spacewalk was conducted by American NASA astronauts Christina Koch and Jessica Meir. This historic, seven-hour mission was to replace defective battery equipment on the International Space Station to ensure power capabilities for future missions to the moon and perhaps even Mars.
Understandably, this is a cause of significant celebration for all those who pursue gender equality in the world. But, the thing is, it should have happened six months earlier. In March this year, NASA abruptly cancelled the first all-female spacewalk. It would hardly come as a surprise to any women who visit or work in traditionally male dominated workplaces that NASA failed to pack and send into orbit a second medium-sized spacesuit, which would have enabled the first all-female crewed spacewalk in March. I'm pleased to see that this seemingly remarkable problem has now been rectified by NASA officials, but the slight remains.
Any woman working in mining and resources will tell you that the struggle is real to find appropriate workwear that actually fits the standard female form—whatever that might be—let alone the many varieties of that form. I know I'm not the only one to don a set of beautiful orange overalls, look down and see that the trouser legs are fully one foot longer than the legs they seek to cover. That's fine. We'll just roll them up, and maybe the shirt sleeves too. Then there are the boots. It doesn't matter how many times I seek to clarify whether the site I'm visiting is asking for women's or men's sizing in the safety boots they need me to wear, because the difference between the two seems to have occurred to absolutely no-one. Well, no-one except the women in the visiting delegation standing around in their rolled-up overalls and socks waiting for someone to rustle up some old boots that might fit. To be honest, it's not so important for me, because I only have to shuffle around on a work site in ill-fitting safety boots for an hour or so. I can only imagine how difficult it is for the female workforce to get the workwear they work in all day sorted out to fit them properly. And there are things you wouldn't even think of—things you don't know until you ask. On a visit earlier this year to a major and very important manufacturing site in Western Australia, in Henderson, I spoke with a group of apprentices, all of whom were women. I asked them how they enjoyed their work, and they were all loving it and relishing the challenges and the opportunities. 'But if only I could find gloves that fit my small hands properly,' one of them said to me. 'It makes it harder to do the welding when you can't feel your fingers.' Of course it does, kind of like it makes it impossible to do a spacewalk if you don't have the right sized spacesuit.
This young apprentice is adapting and getting on with it, but surely it can't be that hard for the massive workwear industry and those massive industries that buy from them to produce smaller gloves or, heaven forbid, more than two choices of leg length in overalls. Gloves and overalls and inclusion are surely not as challenging as NASA's spacesuit challenge—and it took them six months to get to that. Some say it's merely oversight, but it feels like wilful blindness to encourage women into non-traditional workplaces yet fail to provide them with the safety clothing that fits so they can do their job properly. This is just the clothes.
At production facility openings, sod-turnings and strategy announcements from Darwin to Kwinana to Kemerton, there'll be many women in attendance, but rarely are they included in the official party or in the set shots for the corporate promotions for the media. The women going to such events will be local mayors, local councillors, senior members of the diplomatic corps or government departments, members of parliament or senators as well as senior people of the workforce. There are many entirely capable women in positions where protocol shouldn't prevent their participation in these high-profile events celebrating the success and bright future of the minerals and resources industry that is at the heart of the success of the Australian economy. Yet women remain in the background, barely seen and rarely heard.
In my former position as the shadow minister assisting for resources, I went to many such occasions, and this predictable pattern is so tiresome. Don't even get me started on the curse of the 'manel', the all-male panel, which permeates conferences right around this country—around the globe, in fact. It's worth checking out the hashtag #manel. There is no excuse for conference organisers who spend a lot of money, and get paid a lot of money, to seek out speakers to not look to the women experts in all sorts of areas, whether it be international relations, engineering, science, or mining and resources. I see all the time that they continuously engage all-male panels, 'manels'. They might give a bit of a sop to the females in the room by having a female moderator. Well, it's just not the same thing. You need to go and find the women experts, because they are there and they deserve to be heard.
In conclusion, I just want to note that the gloves don't fit, the overalls don't fit, the spacesuits don't fit and the women don't fit, but it's about time that we did.
Stand Like Stone is a not-for-profit organisation working to benefit communities across the Limestone Coast in the south-east of South Australia. It's the largest community foundation of its type in South Australia, and all donations to the organisation are pooled and invested. The income generated is used over time to support charitable projects and organisations across the Limestone Coast as well as to provide educational scholarships within the region. Since its inception in 2004, Stand Like Stone has distributed a whopping $1.4 million to communities across the Limestone Coast, through grants, projects and scholarships. Like many community foundations across the country, Stand Like Stone can respond quickly to critical community issues, address community needs in specific locations and enable collaborative philanthropic activity by making powerful connections between donors and community organisations for the long-term benefit of the community.
From the Migrant Resource Centre's vegie patch to the Foodbank warehouse and the Steven Noble Memorial Community Bus, just to name a few, there are so many community projects Stand Like Stone has benefited. In short, the model is grassroots local philanthropy benefiting local communities. But Stand Like Stone is one of many community foundations across the country that is hampered by red tape. The current deductible gift recipient framework is making access to philanthropy much harder than it needs to be. Under the current regulatory framework, a public ancillary fund cannot receive distribution from another ancillary fund, be it private or public. As 'item 2' deductible gift recipients, ancillary funds can only make a distribution to 'item 1' DGRs. This restriction is a common source of frustration, and the red tape it imposes is regarded as a barrier to giving. The lack of appropriate DGR status causes significant issues and costs for many community foundations, particularly those in rural and regional communities. For the sector as a whole the administrative costs involved in working around these issues is estimated at $1.5 million a year. That's $1.5 million that could be going to the many good causes that foundations like Stand Like Stone support. Community foundations like Stand Like Stone play a huge part in giving and supporting community action but this barrier is a handbrake on grassroots giving. Community foundations need to be granted DGR item 1 status, thereby reducing the red tape and administrative burdens of workarounds, enabling a more collaborative environment for private ancillary funds. I'm working with my colleagues, including Senator Seselja, on this issue. I'm hopeful that a solution can be found, so that this handbrake can be taken off the sector and off great organisations like Stand Like Stone that are doing so much good in the Limestone Coast community.
Last year the Morrison government announced an additional 30 Medicare subsidised MRI services across the country. The expansion of Medicare eligible MRIs for 30 additional sites is estimated to provide access to important diagnostic scans for up to approximately 132,000 extra patients a year. I wanted residents of the Riverland to be direct beneficiaries of this initiative, so over a five-week period I ran a petition, collecting signatures across the Riverland, calling on an MRI licence for the Riverland—saving residents a two to three hour drive to the nearest service. I presented the petition to the Minister for Health. There were 4,000 signatures. Later in the year, in March, he gave me a call with the good news: my lobbying had paid off. The Riverland General Hospital was successful in their application for one of the 30 additional Medicare licences. Having had a great win at a federal level, it was now over to the state government to obtain the MRI machine. This week, I'm very pleased, the state government announced $4 million for the installation of a new $1.5 million state-of-the-art MRI machine and completion of $2.5 million of surrounding capital works to house the machine.
The Riverland General Hospital will undergo building works to accommodate the new unit, which is expected to be up and running by the end of 2020, as per the agreement with our government. This is a fantastic outcome for the people of the Riverland and a wonderful example of state and federal governments working collaboratively for the benefit of their communities. I've got to give a big shout-out to the local health advisory council, the many businesses and community organisations, and, indeed, the volunteers who helped me collect those valuable signatures on that petition. It's truly a brilliant result for the people of the Riverland.
For 15 years I have been a Facebook user. I was an early adopter, having studied at the university where Facebook was originally founded. Like many Australians I find Facebook a terrific way of staying in touch with friends and with constituents. But Facebook has also been involved in more than its fair share of scandals. The Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed huge amounts of personal data leaked to third parties. In Myanmar Facebook played a troubling role in the genocide of Rohingya Muslims. We've seen the use of Facebook by Russian troll accounts attempting to influence the United States election. We've seen, even post Cambridge Analytica, reports that data had been leaked to third parties from Facebook. And in the most recent Australian election, Facebook was used as a platform to disseminate misinformation, by not only political parties, but also actors associated with them.
The Joint Standing Committee into Electoral Matters is currently examining these issues, and Facebook has made a recent submission to them about the actions that it has taken to curtail false information being advertised on its platform. But what Facebook has not yet done is to extend the same level of transparency for Australian political advertisements as it does for advertisements in other countries. Facebook's Ad Library, launched last year in the United States, provides a great deal of detail about political advertisements. A user can see whether they're active or inactive, when they started running and whether it's currently running, if they've been approved or disapproved, the number of impressions, the amount spent, the demographics of the targeting by age and gender, and the locations where the advertisement was shown. The Facebook Ad Library also produces reports showing the estimated amount spent by each advertiser, the total amount of ads the advertiser has in the library, the total amount spent in a particular week, weekly top search terms and the top advertiser spend in a region or country. The Ad Library archives advertisements for a period of seven years. In Britain, individuals posting a political ad need some form of official identification, such as a driving licence, and a valid UK address before being allowed to post a paid ad.
These provisions in the Ad Library apply to Brazil, Canada, the European Union, India, Israel, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States. But that level of detail is not available in the Ad Library covering Australia. I call on Facebook to create an Ad Library for Australia providing the same level of granular detail as currently exists for the United States. As a Guardian report prior to the election noted:
While the ad library currently contains Australian content, only current ads are viewable, and to find them you need to know which page is running the ad. In the UK or US the archive shows political ads even after they are no longer active, and it is possible to search political ads by topic or keyword, which is not possible for Australian content.
Lest it be thought that I'm picking on Facebook, I believe that such transparency should also apply to other platforms—major platforms such as Google, its affiliate YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and the like. Australians should be able to see what political advertisements are being run on these platforms. Australians have a right to know what misinformation is being propagated. Facebook should not allow itself to become a platform for propagating mistruths.
Facebook has announced that in the upcoming US census it will not allow posts to be shown that contain clear misinformation that aims to deter Americans from participating in the census. This is the right thing to do and, in so doing, Facebook has acknowledged that there is a line between true and false; it's not all just relative. If they can do that with the US census, they should be able to do that with false advertisements in the Australian political context. Politics should be a contest of ideas, not a war of falsehoods. I call on Facebook and other social media platforms to do the right thing.
The Queensland government is planning to close down Callide B power station in 2028, 10 years early—not on the Morrison or the Queensland LNP watch! Our government will not be closing down any coal-fired power stations until we have a suitable replacement. We can't take 700 megs out of the base-load power of the grid with no plan to replace it. That is ludicrous. It could affect not only Queensland; it could affect all Australia, as we do supply the southern states with extra power from coal and gas via the grid. With the Queensland government's target of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030, the government should just put aside their lattes and look at the real needs of people—the people whom they represent.
To keep the lights on and the wheels of industry turning, we must continue to invest in the tens of thousands of jobs that rely on coal-fired power stations. We will achieve this by upgrading existing stations. We have eight coal-fired power stations in Queensland. Developing plans and modelling to assess the viability of new HELE power plants is the way to go. I've seen the effect in South Australia of pulling down coal-fired power stations and not replacing them or replacing them with renewable energy. This simply doesn't work without base-load power. I'm certainly convinced that this is not the direction in which we should be heading.
That brings me to nuclear energy. Small modular reactors offer the prospect of safe, affordable and zero-emissions power that is capable of meeting the needs of Australian households and industries. Australia has one-third of the world's uranium. This is critical in a power-hungry world. Our world and our nation is seeking to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions. The electricity produced by Australian uranium is equal to 96 per cent of Australia's total annual electricity generation, and all with zero emissions. Last year, 2.2 billion tonnes of CO2 were not released into the atmosphere because of nuclear energy. Nuclear is safe, nuclear is reliable and nuclear is affordable. It is a clear choice for Australia. We should consider the role that nuclear energy could play in a future world.
If one thinks how much uranium one would need to supply one person's energy needs for a lifetime, the answer is: it is the size of one golf ball. The size of one golf ball equals a lifetime amount of energy for one person. It's hard to fathom, but it's true. One single pellet of uranium is a one-centimetre cylinder in size. This is equal to 560 litres of oil, 1,000 kilograms of coal or 480 cubic metres of gas. That's the power of nuclear energy. Nuclear produces more power with such a small footprint. Three small modular reactors would supply 108 million households.
I've recently copped a lot of flak in my electorate for putting up a proposal that nuclear power should be considered, and I'm pleased that there is a Senate inquiry going on into the future use of nuclear power. I consider that this is my obligation to my constituents and business operators. With the price of power affecting not just the hip pockets of families and small businesses but also the likes of Rio Tinto, who have three major plants in Gladstone, there is already talk about closing down aluminium plants in New Zealand and in Portland in Victoria. This will affect many jobs in my electorate and in electorates in the areas I've just mentioned. It'll affect jobs in Weipa, where the bauxite for the aluminium comes from, which is in your electorate, Member for Leichhardt.
This is an important issue for us, for Queensland and for Australia. We should consider the benefits of base-load power, whether it be from coal-fired HELE plants or whether we look at the possibility of nuclear energy.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:02