I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Melbourne from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Prime Minister told parliament on 3 December 2020 that Australia would be participating at the Climate Ambition Summit on 12 December 2020 and that 'it will be a great opportunity to correct the mistruths that are often presented';
(b) the Climate Ambition Summit co-host and COP26 President Alok Sharma has stated that 'announcements must show genuine progress from existing policies and Paris targets' and that 'there will be no space for general statements'; and
(c) reports today in the media that Australia does not have a confirmed speaking role at the summit; and
(2) calls on the Prime Minister to attend the House by 2 pm Tuesday 8 December to make a statement to advise the House whether Australia is speaking at the Climate Ambition Summit and table any correspondence with the summit organisers relating to whether Australia is speaking at the summit.
The Prime Minister may have misled parliament, and we need to find out the truth—
The Leader of the Greens will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Leader of the Greens be no further heard.
Is the motion moved by the Leader of the Greens seconded?
I second the motion moved by the member for Melbourne and I reserve my right to speak.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Greens be agreed to. The division is deferred under standing order 133 until after the discussion on the matter of public importance.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, I move:
That the resolution of appointment of the House Select Committee on Regional Australia be amended to replace 'final report no later than 31 March 2021' in paragraph 2 with 'final report no later than 30 December 2021'.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I rise to support the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. 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 funding allocated for the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) scheme to support Australian small and medium enterprises (SMEs) is less in actual dollar terms in 2020 than it was 24 years ago under the Keating Government;
(b) Australian SMEs are hampered by a lack of information about Australia's network of free trade agreements;
(c) SMEs account for only 14 per cent of Australia's exports compared to the G7 average of 25 per cent;
(d) the focus of the Government's trade priorities in the short, medium, and long term should be to genuinely diversify Australia's trading relationships in order to balance against further external economic shocks;
(e) the Government has so far failed to implement 19 of the 20 priority recommendations of the India Economic Strategy released in 2018; and
(f) after seven years the Government does not appear to have a plan to repair the mutually beneficial yet deteriorating trade relationship with China, Australia's most significant trading partner; and
(2) calls on the Government to implement the remaining India Economic Strategy recommendations as a matter of priority".
Labor supports this legislation because we understand the enormous benefits that the Export Market Development Grants scheme has brought to Australia and to Australian businesses. The EMDG Act was first instituted by the Whitlam Labor government in 1974 to encourage Australian businesses to seek out new export markets for Australian goods and services. The EMDG Act establishes a grant program, administered by Austrade, providing Australian SME exporters reimbursements of up to 50 per cent of the export related marketing expenses.
In 1996, in response to EMDG reforms then proposed by the Howard government, my friend Stephen Smith, then shadow minister for trade, referred to the original introduction of the scheme by the then minister for overseas trade, who had said the emphasis in a new export incentives scheme should be:
… on market development rather than on perpetuating payments on exports. Under the previous arrangements—the Export Incentive Grants Scheme and the Export Market Development Allowance Scheme—the bulk of the benefits went to a few large companies. Moreover, because the benefits under the schemes took the form of rebates on income tax and payroll tax liability, many small exporting firms and other bodies engaged in export, such as statutory marketing authorities and cooperatives, were disadvantaged.
Stephen Smith and Labor believed then that the EMDG scheme should not involve rebates of taxes and benefits but should be in the form, rather, of grants, with particular encouragement given to small- and medium-sized firms to become involved in exporting. This position remains unchanged. Labor has led the way in creating the Export Market Developments Grants system and in continuing to develop it for the benefit of our exporters.
A report from the independent Review of Financial Assistance to SME Exporters, chaired by Anna Fisher, was released earlier this year, in September. It found that while the policy intent of the act remains relevant, the EMDG scheme would benefit from a streamlined and simplified administrative process as well as mechanisms to better target the Australian SMEs who need the most help. Many businesses were overwhelmingly positive about the scheme, and they value government financial assistance to help them with export promotion.
At the same time, the review found that some recipients were too inexperienced to make the most of the money or too large for the payments to act as an incentive. The review found that the lack of certainty surrounding the reimbursement was a disincentive; that legislation and the application and assessment processes are overly complex and technical; and that promotion of the scheme needs improvement to reach more SMEs. The previous scheme's two-tranche payment system meant that recipients received up to the initial ceiling amount of $40,000 but that the second payment, subject to a cap, was almost impossible to predict, with the 2018-19 figure sitting at just under 25c in the dollar for entitlements over $40,000.
This bill implements a suite of reforms recommended in the review—namely, changing the EMDG scheme from a reimbursement scheme to an up-front grants program to provide funding certainty for exporters. The bill removes previous export performance tests and the requirement that recipients have a prospect of success. Instead, it includes eligibility requirements, such as recipients must be Australian, the products must be of substantially Australian origin and recipients must be either ready to export or already exporting eligible products and seeking to expand their export promotion activity. Further, this bill caps turnover for eligible export-ready ventures at less than $20 million per annum, down from the previous $50 million figure.
The grants will be administered at two tiers, with tier 1 focused on SMEs that are new to export and tier 2 targeted at expanding exporters, targeting SMEs that are moving along the stages of their export journey. Very importantly, the bill also supports the scheme continuing to provide funding to industry bodies and alliances. That will enable their grant funding to extend trading for members in marketing and promotion. The bill maintains the current evaluation mechanism, requiring independent review of the scheme every five years, and that's an entirely sensible thing.
As the government drafts the very important rules around this very important reform, it has to ensure that all kinds of Australian exports are considered, such as intellectual property and tech startups. For example, Cross Lawyers have pointed out to me and some of my Labor colleagues that global startup company Atlassian credited export grant support as being vital to its early international success. Notably, Atlassian applied at a time when the level of rebate was known—which is not the case now—before these reforms come into place. The Fisher review of the scheme found that the lion's share of recipients applied by using consultants and that consultants had a slightly higher success rate than exporters who made their own applications.
One of the specific concerns raised by the Export Consultants Association, which is a peak body for these consultants, relates to the lowered cap for payments. While previously exporters could apply for $1.2 million in total, that figure is now capped at $770,000. The association has said that there may be decreased access for Australian exporters and a reduction in the number of years exporters will be able to derive benefits from the scheme. They were also concerned that Austrade may struggle to process a flood of new EMDG funding applications as well as maintain the existing claims that are in process. They were concerned that there was a lack of proposals from the government's response to the COVID-19 crisis and a lack of support for consultants in the proposed legislation.
To allow consultants and other stakeholders an opportunity to raise these concerns further, Labor last month recommended that the bill go to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. That committee has now tabled its report and also stresses the need for consultation and stakeholder input in the drafting of rules and administrative guidelines alongside the framework legislation. With this important point in mind, Labor supports the bill through the parliament.
I will note that the minister has reassured my office that the government will consult extensively with industry, including with consultants, as the rules attached to this legislation are drafted. I again urge this government, in this place and on the record, to follow through with this promise. Essential and transparent consultation with exporters on the rules of the scheme will be essential to the ongoing success of the EMDG. As I understand it, the draft rules are live on Austrade's website right now, and I implore all interested parties to have a look and engage with that consultation process in the coming months.
Labor supports strengthening the EMDG, because Labor supports building capacity among Australia's small and medium enterprises in order to boost exports and create more trade related jobs for Australians. Why is it important for the government to support businesses to export? It is because, by exporting overseas, Australian businesses compete with companies around the world and are driven to be innovative and to use modern technology practices and structures. It's important because international studies suggest that exporters are about 40 per cent more productive than non-internationalised businesses and have an increased chance of survival. It's important to support businesses that are exporting because exporting Aussie businesses are better performers than businesses that do not export. Exporters, on average, employ more people, pay higher wages and achieve higher Labor productivity than their non-exporting counterparts.
So growing export capacity for SMEs means more jobs and higher wages for more Australians. However, SMEs account for only 14 per cent of Australian exports, whereas in G7 countries they account for 25 per cent, and the European average is over 35 per cent. Further, according to the ABS, around two per cent of the 2.2 million businesses in Australia are goods exporters. In comparison, the equivalent share for UK and US companies is higher, at 4.8 and 4.9 per cent, respectively. Australia can do better. Australia should do more to help SMEs export and to export more things, because they are the job creators in this country. Lifting SME exports to 25 per cent of Australia's exports would in turn increase our GDP by an estimated $36 billion. It's a very important objective. That is why Labor has publicly called on the government to address Australia's lack of export complexity.
The recent Harvard Growth Lab Atlas of Economic Complexity ranked Australia 93rd in the world for complexity of its exports; we lagged behind Kazakhstan, Uganda and Senegal. This narrowly concentrated industrial export base and dependence on a small number of trade and investment markets increases Australia's risk exposure in this deteriorating economic environment. This bill, by seeking to encourage more businesses in Australia to export, makes a positive contribution to diversifying Australia's export products, but there is no doubt that more must be done.
For an open trading nation like Australia, the COVID-19 pandemic is an unparalleled crisis. The nation is facing its worst downturn since the Great Depression, along with recessions in key trading partners, severe disruptions to global supply chains and a rising tide of protectionism around the world, which is why growing Australia's export opportunities in terms of markets in products is more important than ever. But you have to admit it's much harder to grow the relationships that permit genuine diversification in the midst of a global pandemic that restricts where we travel to.
Today we are behind Hong Kong as the most China dependent major economy in the world. China bought about five per cent of Australia's goods exports 20 years ago. That's now almost 50 per cent, despite the deteriorating political relationship. Our trading relationship with China is entirely welcome. China continues to buy iron ore, LNG and other products in record volumes, and this has cushioned the pandemic related shock to our economy, which was in severe trouble under this government even before the COVID-19 pandemic, with record wage stagnation and low productivity. Aside from any current tensions, Chinese demand for our commodities is forecast to plateau in coming decades. And, for some China exposed sectors, including meat exporters, winemakers and barley growers, it's become painfully apparent China is willing to limit imports from us for reasons that can be unclear. The benefits of this trading relationship over many years should be celebrated, but Australia should also seek to avoid exposure to economic shocks that can result from an over-reliance on any single market. Australia cannot snap its fingers and find a replacement for a huge market such as China. Our economies are uniquely complementary, and that is something we should all note.
Unfortunately, this government seems to think that it's the responsibility of Australian companies to open up new markets. It's evident from our history little will happen unless the Commonwealth takes the lead. Political will is a prerequisite for trade prosperity. Diversification is hard and will take decades to realise, and nothing will happen unless the Commonwealth makes it a priority. Australian exporters need a government that delivers. This government loves making announcements but never delivers. They're always there for the photo op, never there for the follow-up. The Liberal-National coalition government loves the signing ceremonies that come along with the photo ops for free trade agreements, but then they scurry away to their offices and put their feet up—job done! Well, it takes more than a signing ceremony to truly open up a market. For established trade relationships, it should be a priority of each minister in government to seek to maintain relationships. But this government fails to work at these critical international relationships.
Take the Minister for Education, Dan Tehan, for example. Last week, Minister Tehan declared in a radio interview that he had not had a conversation with his Chinese counterpart since he became the Minister for Education. And when did he take up that job? That was on 28 August 2018, more than two years ago. Did the minister think to speak to his counterpart in China when he first got the job? That's not clear. If he did not, he should have. It's staggering that an Australian Minister for Education appears not to have contacted his counterpart in the nation that entrusts hundreds of thousands of young students to our care and which is the backbone of this nation's highest services export industry: higher education. This is a $30 billion industry. The question to be asked is: has Minister Tehan contacted his counterparts in other nations that send their young students to Australia—his Indian counterpart, his Malaysian counterpart, his Vietnamese counterpart, his Singaporean counterpart? Perhaps he has. It would be staggering if the current Minister for Education had not spoken to his counterparts in these nations that send their young people to Australia, especially if he is to become the minister for trade. The lobbying for that job must be the worst kept secret in this building! And now it's been reported in the Australian Financial Review. Well, it's taken them a bit of time to get onto that.
It would be interesting to know what Minister Tehan thinks of his government abandoning the 2018 Varghese report on the India Economic Strategy, which clearly sets education as a flagship industry for developing that relationship. As Peter Varghese said in that report, of Australia and India's trade relationship, 'The opportunities will not fall into our lap.' But I want to test the comprehension skills on the other side, because I don't think they're very good. This was a warning to the government. It wasn't a recommendation to sit back, look at the report and then wait for the opportunities to fall into your lap. It was a warning: if you don't do the work, there will be no increased trade and no increased relationship with India. Given the Prime Minister has known since July that a cabinet reshuffle was required, it is astounding that Australian exporters still do not know who their minister will be. They only know that it will not be Senator Birmingham. We know Minister Birmingham, as the minister for everything, has done a stunning job, and they rely on him a lot over there, but it's time for him to have a rest and for them to decide who their trade minister is going to be—and we look forward to the further lobbying that we'll see in question time from the Minister for Education.
As I say, we cannot snap our fingers and find a replacement for a huge market such as China, but we really must make the effort. Every minister who holds a relevant portfolio, whether it be in resources, industry, manufacturing policy, science, agriculture or education, should ask themselves every single day, 'What am I doing to help our economy and our trade diversity?' This is exactly the approach and the effort that was taken in the sixties, when Sir Charles Court and other Australian leaders sought tirelessly to build a resources industry to export to Japan, Korea and later China. Think of leaders like Sir David Brand, after whom my seat in Western Australia is named. He had to work very hard to convince the federal Liberal government of the day, under Robert Menzies, to lift the embargo on the sale of iron ore—something, I might add, that the agrarian socialists on the other side are seeking to raise again, and I note Senator Canavan's recent implications that an embargo on iron ore is something the government should look at. Well, I dare you. Iron ore exports have undoubtedly saved this nation and will continue to do so through the rest of this COVID pandemic.
This is a government with no plan to diversify Australia's export opportunities. I return again to our trade and investment relationship with India. Two years ago, Peter Varghese delivered that landmark report, and he said that no single market over the next 20 years would offer Australia more growth opportunities. So far, the government has done next to nothing in response to the report's 90 recommendations. In fact, at Senate estimates in October the government confirmed that it had failed to implement 19 of the 20 priority recommendations. And, when the Prime Minister held a virtual summit with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in June, little attention was given to the trade and economic relationship. It's not surprising, therefore, that trade figures this month showed that India's share of Australian exports had dropped to below two per cent, the lowest level in 17 years.
While the Prime Minister announced in-principle support for Varghese's recommendations, two years later here we are in a trade crisis and we know the government has delivered next to nothing. It has failed the industry Varghese identified as the cornerstone of the future India-Australia economic relationship: higher education. Again, it would be good to know what the prospective Minister for Trade and the current Minister for Education thinks about how this government has abandoned the Varghese report into diversifying our export relationship with India. The government has gone out of its way to cut down the higher education industry that could underpin a game-changing relationship with India and other emerging economies in the region. Blocking Australian workers at universities from accessing JobKeeper and failing to help international students trapped in Australia during the pandemic will reverberate for years to come in the markets where we seek to encourage their students to come to this country. While experts were advocating for a competitive Australian higher education export industry as the key driver of growth, the Prime Minister was telling international students to go home. It's an absolute shame. What a lost opportunity.
But this is a government that is happy to just set and forget—with the Varghese report, with free trade agreements. They will get the report, put it on a shelf, maybe have a squiz at the recommendations and then put their feet up. In fact, their own Fisher review has found that only five per cent of respondents said free trade agreements were factors motivating them to export. This may reflect SMEs not appreciating the potential of FTAs and how to take advantage of them. Well, there is some work to be done there, isn't there? Stop doing nothing once you sign the free trade agreements and start actually working on how to implement them.
To conclude—noting that there are a number of people who want to speak on this bill in the other chamber—Labor is supporting this bill and will continue to engage with stakeholders to ensure that all interested parties, especially Australian small- and medium-size enterprise exporters, get to have their say on the rules which will govern the scheme. On this side, Labor also very much looks forward to hearing from the government about its strategic plan—or any kind of plan, actually—to diversify its markets and to diversify the things that we produce that the rest of the world does or might want. So far there's no plan, and I urge the government to get a plan.
Is the amendment seconded?
The amendment is seconded and I reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
I declare the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
When I left off in this debate on the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020, I was talking about the number of insolvency events that occur in the construction sector. As someone who represents an electorate with a large number of trades men and women who are sole traders, subcontractors and family businesses, I was very proud of the policy that Labor took to the last election about a tradie pay guarantee. It's really about security of payments, ensuring that those subcontracting tradespeople in the construction industry get paid.
We know that there have been a number of collapses of larger businesses which operate in the construction industry that have left those down the supply chain out of pocket. Labor's tradie-pay-guarantee framework which we took to the last election would implement the best-practice recommendations of the Murray review of security-of-payment laws, accepting three key policy considerations: we need to preserve the cash flow of the party that has carried out construction work or provided related goods and services by enshrining their right to receive prompt payment of progress claims; we need to provide an adjudication process that ensures that disputed payment claims are quickly and efficiently determined so that prompt payments can be made; and we need to protect payments made in respect of progress claims so that parties who receive the payment hold the payment for those to whom it is rightfully due, through a cascading statutory trust.
Labor proposed a federal security-of-payments framework which would be achieved either by harmonisation across the states or by states referring their constitutional powers to the Commonwealth to implement a national security-of-payments framework. A federal government can start that process by putting in place statutory trusts for construction projects which have significant Commonwealth funding. I urge the current government to go back to the Murray review, to look at those policy considerations and to implement those sorts of policies. That would go a very long way towards giving security to trades men and women who need it, particularly now, to pay their rent, to pay their mortgages and to look after their families.
I want to return briefly to the substance of this bill. I note, as my colleagues have, that this bill was presented to this House with a lack of consultation with small business groups and with a lack of consultation with insolvency experts and accounting bodies. There was a release of legislation and regulations for consultation: four days—four working days—and a weekend to absorb and critique complex and very important reforms. That's not sufficient. This is an important reform, as the Treasurer has said. It is a reform that Labor would like to support, but there are concerns that need to be addressed: How is a cash strapped small business is going to pay for restructuring? What protections do suppliers have? How are stakeholders going to know about a company being in a restructuring plan when the company doesn't have to disclose it and the ASIC registers aren't being updated properly? What impacts will this have on credit availability for small businesses? And, with a new class of liquidator created but lesser education and experience requirements, how will creditors and stakeholders be protected?
These measures may well help struggling businesses in the short term—and that's why my colleagues and I won't stand against them—but we do need to remind this government that it will be held to account, and we do need to make sure that any adverse effects of these reforms are addressed. We know that even legislation put into place with the best intention can have unintended adverse consequences, either in the design or in the implementation.
One example, which is being experienced by a small business called Sk8house, in my electorate, is to do with the JobSeeker wage subsidy program. Sk8house applied for JobSeeker in April and were successful. They received a necessary and very important $60,000 worth of JobSeeker payments, only to then be told by the Australian tax office in September that they were reconsidered as not eligible and now owe a debt of $60,000. It's not hard to imagine what that has done on an emotional and psychological—let alone financial—level to a relatively new small business and to the people that run it and their four employees, who have been struggling to keep that business going during the global pandemic. They've been able to open, now that restrictions have been lifted. Roller derby has started up again. It's part of the state program of This Girl Can, to support girls and women to get involved in exercise—not necessarily mainstream exercise. Bernadine and her partner and the people who work at Sk8house are still so anxious about whether their application to the ATO to review that decision, which they say is based on an erroneous assessment of whether they employed staff, will be successful.
When we bring in these measures that are intended to help small businesses, it's really important that they don't have unintended consequences which can make life even worse. This legislation will start on 1 January—provided a couple of safeguards are put in place to stop any unforeseen consequences, because it has been rushed. Labor has moved amendments seeking a review of the operation of the reforms in practice to identify adverse consequences on small businesses and to propose legislative solutions. We want a sunset clause, so if solutions developed by the review are not implemented the measures will expire after two years. I say to the chamber: these are simple, sensible safeguards which would ensure these changes by the government do what they are supposed to do: help small business. Because we know, now more than ever, that our local small businesses need our help.
I want to finish my contribution by reminding everyone to shop local. Over these summer holidays, when many people can't travel for their holidays, as they usually do, take the choice to holiday at home—particularly in my magnificent electorate of Dunkley. We encourage people to visit us. Holiday on the beach. Experience our little sliver of Australian paradise. Support our local boutiques, cafes and restaurants, the new beer hall on Playne Street, Dainton Brewery and That Spirited Lot—I can personally attest to the quality of their gin. Go to Mount Eliza Village—experience the whole world in a small village, with all of the different goods that are on sale. Make sure you go to Langwarrin and go through the flora and fauna park and see just what a magnificent place Dunkley is. Shop local, support our local businesses, and come and visit Dunkley.
It's my pleasure to rise in support of the second reading of the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020. It is, in many ways, an important piece of deregulation for the business sector. I hope to see us undertaking a lot more similar types of reform through this chamber, moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach to putting burdens on businesses and, equally, in this case, the pressures of the rigidity of insolvency laws that apply to all businesses in our economy, regardless of their size. This is something that strikes me as an opportunity to look at other ways in which we regulate the corporate sector, absolutely keeping important measures, metrics and laws in place for big business, but looking for ways to reduce burdens on the smaller businesses where, frankly, the burdens lead to pressures that can ultimately end up, ironically, with the business having to confront the challenge that this legislation is seeking to deal with, which is facing insolvency.
We all know that about one-third of small businesses fail in their first year and 70 per cent in their first three years. Frankly, 'failure' isn't a fair term. I think if anyone had established a tourism business about six months ago and at this stage found themselves in difficult times, it wouldn't be because they failed; it would be because something outside their control came along this year, through the COVID pandemic. You can reasonably expect, with many of the businesses that fail earlier on, that it is not because the person hasn't put in the effort, hasn't had a good idea, hasn't put their heart and soul into establishing that business or hasn't had an excellent business plan. But, of course, when you put your own money on the line or put your own capital out there, you take a risk. You move away from being an employee, with the job security that entails, to put it on the line to start a business. There is enormous risk, and a lot of people can find themselves in distressed circumstances and difficult circumstances.
This bill creates an opportunity for smaller businesses not to have to immediately be thrown into the rigidity, the expense and the pressure of the existing insolvency framework in our economy which is designed to cover everyone from small businesses—those for which this legislation will alleviate that pressure—right up to enormous listed companies. This is not about the Enrons; this is about the small businesses who are having a go and are in some difficult financial times and, under the current prescriptions of our insolvency framework, are required to do certain things which are, frankly, disproportionately expensive and may prematurely end a business that had a chance of succeeding without giving them the chance to trade their way out of a difficult period of time.
In my career, I've been involved with a lot of start-up businesses and a lot of business plans. When someone is planning their business and doing their business plan, cash flow and budgets et cetera so that they know how much money they can invest in their business, they do a stress test early on of all of their assumptions about what their expenses are going to be and about what is a very conservative, likely revenue and cash flow. It has struck me that then, when they ultimately decide to go to their bank and borrow money for their businesses, they always try and make that number as small as possible. Understandably, a lot of start-up businesses and even existing businesses have, in their culture and nature, a desire to borrow the least amount of money possible, particularly from a bank. We could have another debate at another time about banks and their relationship with small businesses and their preparedness to cut small business some slack and cut them a break at times. Certainly, most people, when they're establishing a business, want to borrow as little money as possible. That usually means that it doesn't take much of a challenge to come along which you didn't plan for or expect for you to find yourself in financially distressing times. That doesn't mean that the business is doomed to fail, that your idea wasn't a good one or that the business should be immediately wound up—quite the opposite. You've had a challenge come along. You can trade through it. You can get your way out of it, but you need protection from a framework that keeps your creditors in a position where you have the power, for a short period of time in that equation, to try to trade yourself out of the situation that you've gotten yourself into, that's probably in no way your own fault. And it's exactly because of the COVID challenges we've had this year that this type of legislative reform has seen the light of day. We see it has merit, because we do need to be remembering that businesses certainly confront challenges that are normal. They also have challenges that are abnormal. So surely our first principle needs to be: we want to do everything we can to help businesses have the best chance possible to succeed. The measures in this legislation do exactly that.
It has been mentioned in some of the contributions that we've reflected on the chapter 11 bankruptcy laws in the United States. This is not introducing that specific framework here, but it's certainly the basis of some of the measures in this bill. It obviously gives small businesses a differentiated way in which they can restructure themselves, compared to the big corporates. The big winners in insolvency are always the lawyers and the accountants and the services firms; they never lose money in these processes. It's a bit like divorce lawyers: they're the only ones you can absolutely guarantee are going to make a profit out of the process. This legislation and this reform ensures that small businesses—those where their debts are under a million dollars, which is a comparatively low figure; those that are employing fewer than 20 people—get the best chance of keeping their heads above water through a short-term difficult period of time so that they, in turn, can trade their way out of that short-term financial distress. It gives them the best chance for their business succeeding and thriving into the future.
My hope is that there will be a very large cohort of businesses, and their commensurate workforces, that ordinarily, under the old regime that we're seeking to replace with this legislation, would go into the insolvency and liquidation process much sooner can, by giving them that extra leeway, avoid that and go on to thrive and contribute significantly to the Australian economy. That's the hope. I've got a lot of confidence, based on the changes we are making, that a lot of good will come from this. I commend the Treasurer and the government for putting it forward, and I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak to the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020, and support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Whitlam. The intention of the bill is to help small businesses that are in some financial trouble or under stress, and I would like to talk to that in the bill.
Of course, this government, which likes to boast its support for small business, has not always covered itself in glory when it comes to supporting small business in reality. It was this government and this Treasurer that forgot about sole traders when introducing support in our economy in the name of JobKeeper. It was this government and this Treasurer who failed to support small businesses sufficiently when they reduced JobKeeper too early in a recession, where recovering businesses needed the support of this government. And yet the decision of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of this government to cut JobKeeper, and to abolish it by March, will indeed precipitate the collapse of many small businesses. That's why Labor has been resolute in its view that Australians need more support at this time, because of the economic situation we find ourselves in. We are in no way content with the situation, but, unfortunately, I do anticipate that there will be many small businesses that won't survive next year, won't even survive this financial year, because of the premature withdrawal of a wage subsidy.
What is really essential to understand, and I don't think the government initially did understand this, is that JobKeeper is there to support the businesses and the workforce. We know that they didn't understand that, because in March this year they were not going to have a wage subsidy. In fact, when asked by the Labor opposition whether or not they would be introducing a wage subsidy, the Prime Minister, in this place, at that dispatch box, said: 'There is no need for a wage subsidy. There is no need for JobKeeper.' So, effectively, we closed the parliament—and it was to be closed for five months—without having a wage subsidy. Of course, they had to return to parliament within two weeks and introduce that subsidy. We welcome that. We welcome the change of heart and mind of the Prime Minister, but we do think that the government is again failing to support small businesses sufficiently by prematurely cutting the subsidy. The JobMaker policy that is to take over from JobKeeper won't be sufficient, because you can only get support under JobMaker if you're adding to your headcount, and these businesses that rely on JobKeeper will not be able to add to their headcount and, therefore, will not get one cent of support from the government when they lose JobKeeper in March.
With respect to the substance of this bill, just over two months ago the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer announced what they called the US chapter 11 style insolvency reforms. While, at face value, the reforms in the bill before us have some elements in common with the chapter 11 debtor-in-possession model of insolvency, closer inspection has shown that this was another example of a government that is always there for the photo-op but not the follow-up. The government is framing this as a small business measure, but I think there are very valid reasons to question the extent of the claim, which I will detail shortly.
Of particular concern about how the government has approached these reforms is that the preliminary work done on this legislation was purely for that photo-op announcement and, of course, the media blitz that followed. Prior to the announcement, no small business group was consulted, and no insolvency experts or accounting bodies were consulted or engaged with by this government. And when the legislation regulations were released for consultation, as the member for Dunkley has just said, stakeholders were given just four working days and a weekend to absorb and critique the complex reforms in this intricate area of law. The only reason you would rush something like this is that you view transparency as optional and constructive criticism or stakeholder engagement as non-essential. It's the behaviour of a government that does not respect due process and wants to ram through permanent reforms under the guise of a once-in-a-century pandemic. It's the lack of transparency and lack of consideration of stakeholder feedback as well as the rushed nature of these reforms and the government's refusal to consider what unintended consequences may arise from making these permanent and complex changes on the run that Labor is concerned about.
In fact, Labor supports the overall policy objectives of the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill. We support the intent of this bill, and I want to put on the record our support for measures that, as the government claims, 'support small business' and 'reduce the costs of external administration for small businesses and the compliance burden for insolvency practitioners, helping more businesses remain viable and improving the returns to creditors and employees when the business is unviable'. And it is a reasonable proposition to put forward measures that 'create a debt restructuring process for eligible small companies, provide temporary relief for eligible companies seeking to enter the formal debt restructuring process and create a simplified liquidation process for a creditors' voluntary winding up of an insolvent company'. But let's look a bit more closely at the details.
First of all, a majority of small businesses are not eligible for these reforms. The measures in this bill are only for incorporated businesses; they are not for sole traders—the group in our economy that is often forgotten by this government—and not for partnerships, and they are not for family businesses structured in other non-incorporated ways. Let me say that again. The majority of small businesses cannot and therefore will not access these reforms. So, for the florist who is a sole trader, the tradie who works for themselves as a subcontractor and the food truck vendor who has seen their business obliterated due to the COVID-19 crisis, their best scenario is the status quo. They are not going to access these initiatives, if enacted.
For those people who are still owed money from the start of the process of accessing these insolvency measures, that isn't necessarily a problem in and of itself, but, at a time when your cash flow is weak or non-existent and you have to chase, by yourself, everything owed to you, this may push the insolvency issue further down the supply chain to these sole traders. Remember, when we're dealing with people who are under financial stress, we have to think of that company but also its creditors. And, when we are looking to put together these reforms, we have to consider: Are there unforeseen, unintended victims of these reforms? Will creditors be worse off? Will other small businesses—other unincorporated businesses—be worse off if we don't get these laws right?
I would suggest that, if we don't get them right, the answer is absolutely, 'Yes, there will be adverse consequences for others.' You have to wonder whether the government has fully considered the ramifications of these reforms and the impact on the cash flow of other non-incorporated, small businesses. How many more sole traders, partnerships and family business will be left with increasingly late or unpaid invoices? Will credible insolvency practitioners vacate the field and new less experienced advisers come in and provide less adequate advice? What flow-on effects from the reforms could result in an uptick of illegal phoenixing activities, and, as some experts have warned, what impacts will this have on the credit availability for small businesses? We already know that small business credit is extremely tight and that the government's failed SME loan guarantee program, which only saw five per cent of the promised $40 billion taken up, was rejected by the banks.
Labor has been inundated by concerned stakeholders highlighting the lack of clarity in the powers, duties and obligations of different parties in the restructuring process, concerns about inappropriate individuals potentially being qualified as restructuring practitioners and concerns about the scale of businesses potentially captured by the eligibility criteria. One of the more perplexing things that has arisen is that many of the issues related to this bill could have easily been considered in a methodical fashion pre COVID if the Assistant Treasurer had actually done his job. Specifically, I mean that, as part of the insolvency 'safe harbour' provisions that were passed three years ago, the minister was required to establish an independent review within two years of that legislation. The requirement exists under section 588HA of the Corporations Act. It was due to happen in September last year, and it has not happened. We have not seen any public evidence that this review has begun.
Among a litany of scandals that cloud the actions of this government, the commissioning of statutory review may not be as explosive as sports rorts, exports rorts or the Leppington Triangle land deal, but it does remind us that some people in this government think they are a law unto themselves. He hasn't done the review required of him under the Corporations Act. If you were to really characterise this government, one of the words that comes to my mind is 'lazy'. It is a very lazy government and doesn't even do what's required of it under law.
It isn't the intention of Labor to stop these measures that will help struggling businesses. We want the government to be held to account, to do its job and to do what is reasonable to address any adverse effects these reforms create. Labor will seek to amend the bill in a sensible way. First, we think there needs to be a sunset clause in the legislation—ideally, at the two-year mark of 31 December 2022. That's enough time for the measures to have been used and for any adverse consequences to be identified and any solutions to be developed, especially if the intention is to extend or make these reforms permanent. To assist in putting forward the evidence on these effects, a statutory review should be commissioned. Noting that the minister responsible for the last statutory review—the Assistant Treasurer—believes himself to be above the law, we need to urge their compliance. We need to demand their compliance. So, should the minister not fulfil his legal responsibility to start a statutory review by 31 December 2021—that is, after one year of operation—the sunset clause should kick in. That is the most feasible way for small businesses to have their voices heard. We need accountability and transparency and we need to ensure that the government is doing its job.
So, whilst we support the intentions of this bill, we know there are many small businesses under financial stress, much of which has been precipitated by government decisions to withdraw support at a time of a recession. You will know, Deputy Speaker Mr Mitchell, in your electorate when JobKeeper goes unfortunately so too will jobs and many small businesses. It doesn't have to happen. It's a wilful decision of the government to abandon small businesses across Australia by the premature withdrawal of JobKeeper.
Whilst these reforms may well do what they're intended to do, there's been little consultation and very little engagement. We have a minister who is derelict in his duties not to comply with statutory reviews in other legislation and, therefore, we need to compel him and the government to do the right thing here. We ask the House to support the amendment, which I think will provide greater encouragement, and demand the government do its job properly.
Many Australian small businesses in particular have had the year from hell. We entered the year on the back of a devastating summer associated with bushfires across the country. Many of those fires destroyed many small businesses throughout Australia and left a lot of them in a very precarious financial position. Then, just as many of those small businesses were starting to get back on their feet, we were, of course, hit with COVID-19, which unfortunately resulted in the closure of many small businesses but also in many Australians losing their jobs in these small businesses.
There's been very, very little support that this government has instituted as a result of the recent budget that directly assists small businesses. Many of the programs that the government put in place in the budget simply miss the mark. I'm talking about some of the wage subsidies, particularly those that offer nothing for older workers, which is the group of Australians who really do need support at this point in time.
The Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020 is an attempt by the government to liberalise insolvency laws and implement some significant changes to the Australian insolvency framework, aimed at reducing the cost of external administration for small businesses and allowing more small businesses to remain viable. While Labor supports the intent of this bill, and we certainly will see it pass through this place, there is more that could be done. This really is a missed opportunity, particularly given the fact that the government didn't really consult with industry, particularly the small business industry, about the effects of these reforms before they were brought to parliament.
The key features of the bill are the implementation of a new debt restructuring process for small incorporated companies and a new streamlined liquidation pathway for small incorporated companies. The new debt restructuring process provides a debtor-in-possession model, which will allow small business owners to remain in control of their businesses while implementing a restructuring plan that's been agreed by their creditors. The plans will be developed in conjunction with a new category of independent small business restructuring practitioners.
Many have described these reforms and these changes as similar to the United States' system of chapter 11 bankruptcy. Although there are some similarities, I think that there's a fundamental difference between the operation of those two systems.
The government also says that it's introduced safeguards to prevent the process from being used for corporate phoenixing. We all know what phoenixing is. It's an insidious process of particular companies, that owe money to creditors or people they employ, sending the company broke so that the company dissolves. The owners of that company then simply go, because we have limited liability through our corporate structure, and establish another company under another name and begin trading once again, leaving the creditors and many of their employees in the lurch. There is nothing they can do, because our corporate laws don't allow that piercing of the corporate veil to get at the individual who is running the organisation—or, where they do, they make it very difficult for organisations to chase that process.
The practice of phoenixing costs the Australian economy about $5 billion a year. It has been a big problem for the Australian economy. The government has listened to what Labor proposed at previous elections around director identification numbers so we can chase directors who owe creditors and leave employees with unpaid entitlements into the future. It's pleasing that the government adopted that reform put forward by Labor in the parliament.
This bill also introduces a new simplified liquidation pathway for small businesses designed to reduce the cost of winding up businesses that will not survive. But the fact is that the legislation won't assist many small businesses that need help. The reason this legislation doesn't assist many of those small businesses—and it is remarkable that the government doesn't know and understand this—is that most small businesses in Australia are not incorporated entities. They are not bodies that come under the remit of the Corporations Act. They are sole traders and partnerships. They are the Australians who really do put it all on the line when they establish a small business and risk many of their personal assets to establish those businesses. They are given no relief and no support by these changes, because they are not corporate entities, to which this reform applies. So most Australian small businesses, sole traders and partnerships won't benefit from these amendments to the Corporations Act to make restructuring of their debts easier.
Coupled with that, the problem that many of these sole traders have, particularly those who are operating as tradies in the construction industry—I have spoken to a lot of them in the electorate I represent and they often talk about issues associated with phoenixing and not being able to chase people who owe them money—is late payment of the bills they have with organisations that have done work for them or creditors or organisations that they have done work for. This is a huge issue, particularly in the construction industry and particularly in private enterprise. Sole traders, the many Australians who put their personal assets on the line, are really doing it tough, particularly on the back of the bushfires and COVID. They are basically being ignored by the government through the changes here to this particular element of the Corporations Act. They won't benefit from these changes that make the restructuring of debt easier.
Changes to bankruptcy processes are complex and require extensive consultation. So it's concerning that industry leaders have already declared that the Morrison government's consultation around this was dramatically inadequate. Many of those concerns were raised by stakeholders in the consultations that Labor did with them in determining our position on this bill, including the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association, the major accounting peak bodies, the banks and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The consultation process for this legislation has been extremely truncated considering the scale of the changes proposed. Stakeholders had only five days to make submissions on the exposure draft of the bill, and those submissions are yet to be published. And much of the detail of the bill, like a lot of the things that are being done by the government at the moment, will be contained in regulations rather than in the substance of the bill.
So the consultation process has basically been messed up, as usual. It has been extremely brief, particularly considering the scale of what's proposed here. Labor wants to see sensible reform to insolvency laws, but we want to make sure that they hit the mark, that they do the right thing by small businesses throughout this country and provide them with the support and the structure they need to succeed into the future. We've seen time and time again with this government, particularly the Treasurer, rushed-through, ill-considered legislation without adequate consultation or consideration in the drafting of the legislation. We've even seen instances where the government's had to come back and correct some of those inconsistencies and mistakes they've made in that legislation because they've had those problems with rushing through that legislation.
That's also why Labor will be moving amendments to the bill, to ensure that a rigorous review process and a sunset clause is in place for this legislation. That's not because we disagree with the idea of a streamlined insolvency and restructuring process but because we know the stakes are so high if we get this wrong. If we get this legislation wrong and it doesn't act as intended, the stakes are extremely high for many Australians who put their savings and their personal assets on the line to establish small businesses, particularly when they get into those difficult circumstances. A number of economic commentators—the RBA, Treasury—are forecasting that there will be an uptick in insolvencies and the closure of small businesses in particular on the back of the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the country, particularly when a lot of the government support is scheduled to be withdrawn at the end of March next year. We all know that the economy won't be recovered by then. Unemployment is forecast to continue rising throughout 2021, so we know the economy won't have recovered. Yet much of the support will be withdrawn, and unfortunately we're probably going to see an uptick in the number of insolvencies and we're going to see small businesses doing it tough throughout the country.
That's why Labor wants to make sure we get this process right and that it's not rushed. Our amendments will ensure that these very significant changes to the Corporations Act are appropriately reviewed and considered before being made permanent. It's crucial that distressed businesses have access to the right processes and structures necessary to reboot their businesses or wind them up in an operation that is orderly and fair. Indeed, many of those who have the most to lose—as we've seen so many times when restructuring or insolvency goes wrong, it's small businesses and subcontractors who are most affected—end up holding those unpaid invoices. It's not fair to many of those smaller businesses who don't have the financial resources of many big businesses to be able to chase up some of those unpaid invoices as creditors. For an ordinary Australian tradie who works as a subcontractor for a larger business, a poorly run insolvency process can lead to disaster for them personally, particularly if it's a tradie who is doing the principal amount of work for a larger contractor and is employing apprentices, trainees and other employees. For them, there's a lot at stake, particularly if 80 to 90 per cent of their work is with the one larger business.
So, it's important that we get these reforms right. If things go wrong, sole traders may be left struggling to meet payments on their house or to put food on the table for their family. Too many small businesses won't survive as a result of the Morrison government's 'snapback'. Streamlining the process for small businesses is something Labor supports, but we want to see that it's done properly. That's why we're insisting on this review process taking place, and on the sunset provision.
This government has a very poor record when it comes to delivering for small businesses and delivering support for sole traders and partnerships in particular, with only $1.8 billion of the $40 billion in small to medium enterprise loan guarantees having been delivered and the repeated failures to fix the payment times for SMEs throughout this country. I mentioned earlier how important that particular issue is to many small to medium businesses, particularly those operating as independent contractors and as sole traders.
It's clear that the Morrison government still hasn't done enough to support small businesses. It's clear that it hasn't done enough to consult with small businesses and ask them about what would assist them in the running of their businesses and a proper process to ensure they get the support that they need around insolvency to either continue to try to trade out of it or wind up in an orderly manner. Australians deserve a plan from the Morrison government that promotes growth and protects jobs. Support for small business is going to be crucial in that promotion of growth and in that protection of jobs. That's why Labor are insisting that we can make improvements to this bill to ensure that small businesses get the support that they deserve and that employees maintain their jobs.
It's a pleasure to follow my friend and colleague the member for Kingsford Smith, who articulated the concerns that Labor has over the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020. It is a fact in Australia that illegal phoenixing is a scourge on the community. One story that struck me particularly was from a constituent by the name of Megan, who told me the tale of when she was seven years old and her dad lost his job. The factory where he was working closed, his full-time job vanished and he got no pay-out. Megan said she really liked it at the time. He was home a lot. He helped her organise her toys and they would walk to school every day. It was only afterwards that she realised that he'd been the victim of a phoenix director who had shut down the firm and stolen the employees' entitlements and that the reason he was walking Megan to school every day was that the family couldn't afford the petrol.
Daniel O'Connell took on a contract to do some plumbing work in a caravan park in regional Victoria. He was commissioned to do the work by a firm called Global Contracting. Eventually, Global Contracting admitted it wasn't going to pay him. He was left $200,000 out of pocket and just one of 300 creditors left behind when Global Contracting collapsed with $8 million of debt.
A phoenix is a magical thing. It's a bird reborn from ashes. But there's nothing magical about dodgy phoenix activity. According to a PwC report, it costs the economy some $5 billion a year. That $5 billion breaks down to $3.2 billion in unpaid bills, $300 million in unpaid employee entitlements and $1.7 billion in unpaid taxes and compliance costs. Tradies on the Gold Coast and in Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Western Australia have talked with me about the problems that illegal, dodgy phoenix activity has caused for them.
At the start of the year, the government finally, after many years of Labor and business groups calling on them to act, put through a bill which ensured that we had a director identification number. That dealt with the problem that previously it had been easier to become a company director in Australia than to open a bank account. The 100-point ID wasn't required to become a director. The problem was illustrated by the fact that one Liberal backbencher—I won't name him—was on the director register three different times. Let's put that down to inadvertence rather than malice. It illustrates the problem. If you can be on the director registry three times, then you don't have a system that is dealing directly with the problem. It was a variety of organisations—the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, the Productivity Commission, the Tax Justice Network, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Master Builders Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association and the Phoenix Project at Monash and Melbourne universities—who were calling for a director identification number to be put in place.
The government finally passed that bill, but it did so in a classically ham-fisted way. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken about the problem that this government has—all announcements and no delivery. This was just another illustration of that problem. Rather than implement the director identification number, supported by groups across the political spectrum and fairly straightforward in its implementation, and do it swiftly, the government chose instead to attach it to a much more complicated project: the rationalisation of some 30 different government business registers. The result is that the director identification number is going to take years rather than months, and the Australian economy will suffer the cost, suffer the $5 billion a year cost that illegal phoenixing activity imposes.
There are other ways of cracking down on dodgy phoenix directors, many of them outlined in that important Monash and Melbourne universities' report that I mentioned before. One is the implementation of cascading contracts for large construction projects. At the last election, Labor said that we would, were we elected, establish a requirement for large Commonwealth construction projects to have project bank accounts that use cascading statutory trusts, ensuring that if you do the work you get paid, that it wouldn't matter how far down the supply chain you were.
Again, this is not an ideological matter; it's a recommendation of former builder John Murray and his Murray inquiry of 2016. It's a recommendation of a Senate inquiry chaired by Senator Doug Cameron—probably not an ideological bedfellow of John Murray's, but somebody who understood the value of statutory trusts. Labor had said at the last election that we would not only put that system in place for large Commonwealth contracts but we would work with states and territories to look at how to do it with their contracts and, then, look at the potential to do that with large commercial contracts. The aim is simple: if you do the work you should get paid.
We said we'd create a $7 million tradie litigation fund to make sure that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission had the ability to run difficult court cases without draining their resources, to go after dodgy directors and make sure that they were held to account for activity that is hurting honest businesses. This is not just a matter of employers versus workers; this is also a matter of bad employers causing problems for high-quality employers right across the sector, eroding the bedrock of trust that is so critical to commercial relationships.
In this bill before the House today, Labor is concerned about the issue of phoenixing and that an inept approach to phoenixing could well see more problems than it solves. We're concerned that bad insolvency legislation could lead to more illegal phoenixing, higher credit costs for small-business creditors left with unpaid invoices and reduced credit availability for small businesses and smaller small-business tax returns. There's a lack of clarity in the powers, duties and obligations of different parties in the restructuring process in the bill before the House. We have concerns about inappropriate individuals potentially being qualified as restructuring practitioners and about the scale of businesses potentially captured by the eligibility criteria. These concerns have been raised by thoughtful stakeholders, including the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association, major accountancy peak bodies, banks and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The consultation process was a mere five days, and the exposure draft and those submissions are yet to be published.
Much of the detail of the bill isn't before the House and is said to be contained in regulations. So there's a real concern on this side of the House that many of those technical issues raised by stakeholders won't be adequately addressed by the government. We're foreshadowing a move to create a sunset clause for the legislation and require a statutory review to be completed before the legislation is automatically repealed. That's a position that's supported by stakeholders and the major accountancy peak bodies. It recognises the importance of ensuring that we have the balance right when it comes to insolvency, and that care is taken—that people like Megan's dad and people such as Daniel O'Connell aren't hurt by an increased prevalence of dodgy phoenixing. Labor foreshadows those amendments, and we intend to pursue the issue of dodgy phoenixing in the interests of all Australians.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking.
I rise in this place to share the stories of our Lalor Heroes for 2020. We're extending the nomination process for our Lalor Heroes this year beyond our sports, community organisations and schools into retail, banking, aged care and child care to ensure that we capture the heroes we've had during COVID.
Those who have already been named this year include Gurmeet Rajpal, who is a frontline banking worker from the ANZ branch at the plaza. We've had the emergency department from the Werribee Mercy Hospital; the CFA Hoppers Crossing brigade, where we celebrated Mark, Melissa, Steph and Ian; the Werribee Hockey Club board; local Nurul Khan for his work on the International Mother Language Day; and Frances Fraser, who is the nursing director at the Manor Court Werribee Aged Care centre. We celebrated her last night, and there were many, many tears as she recounted the work across this year.
There will be many celebrated in our community, as there should be this year—such a tough year—and so many have gone above and beyond, either in their volunteer capacity or in fact in their workplaces. They've been working long hours and meeting new demands, finding new and collaborative ways to go about their work, to keep our community safe and to ensure that people could get about their daily lives. Thank you.
In June I visited an amazing not-for-profit in Perth which was delivering 70 tonnes of food a week to thousands of people. Many were already food recipients, but many more became needy because of COVID. I learned that this organisation had applied for a grant, specifically intended to support COVID-19 relief efforts under the WA government's Lotterywest program. Immediately, I offered to write a letter of support for that application because I knew they would be unsuccessful. That's not because of the scale of desperate community need which they were meeting but because of the religious views of the charity's founder—and I was right.
Margaret Court's Victory Life Centre was unsuccessful in their grant application for a freezer truck. A whistleblower at Lotterywest, who has since left the organisation in protest, has pointed out that the application was rejected because of the religious views of its Christian founder. If true, this ethically disgraceful behaviour shreds community trust in our state government and, worse, it disadvantages those additional people to whom this successful charity should now be delivering food. Mrs Court has said: 'We help people of all different faiths, races, beliefs and sexual orientations. We would never turn away anyone who needed our help.'
I call upon the WA Labor government to uphold its own equal opportunity legislation and to hold the Lotterywest board to account. I asked Premier McGowan to adopt Margaret's position of helping those in need, regardless of their religious views.
Last week, Tesco announced that it will repay half a billion pounds of taxpayer support. The British retailer had been under fire since paying shareholders a 315 million pound dividend in October. Last week, Tesco's chairman said:
We're financially strong enough to be able to return this to the public and we are conscious of our responsibilities to society.
We firmly believe now that this is the right thing to do …
I've spoken with Australian firms that were eligible for JobKeeper but which chose not to claim it because they didn't think they needed taxpayer support. Modestly, they asked me that I not use their names. But a few firms took JobKeeper, despite enjoying a profit bonanza. Three billionaires—James Packer, Solomon Lew and Harvey Norman—have received dividends propped up by JobKeeper. The Business Council says that firms shouldn't use JobKeeper to pay bonuses, but dozens of firms, including Lendlease, Collins Foods, Carsales and Star Farmer, paid out millions of dollars to millionaire CEOs. Enough! If your profits are up 29 per cent then paying back the taxpayer should come before boosting the CEO's salary! As Tesco's slogan puts it, 'Every little helps'. With a million people unemployed and a trillion dollars of government debt, we can't afford to be lining the pockets of billionaires.
I am constantly amazed by the volunteers and organisations in my electorate. One of those is the Coffs Harbour Men's Resource Centre run by Bridging the Gap Community Services, which is operated entirely by volunteers and community donations. The men they see are socially or financially disadvantaged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and men suffering from relationship breakdowns, and they receive absolutely no government funding, which I hope to change in the future. The CEO is Jean Clayton, who started the service 15 years ago. Jean, you are doing a wonderful job, a fantastic job, and I can't thank you enough. The service is run out of a beautiful home in Coffs Harbour CBD, through the generosity of local business owners Bruce Hibbard and his partner, Bronwyn Stephens. Bruce has been a builder in Coffs Harbour for over 40 years. Through their generosity, they allow Bridging the Gap Community Services to operate from a house that they've donated because they believe it will benefit not only the men but also the community. The afternoon that I was there they put on a beautiful lunch. We sat in the backyard and looked at the veggies that they were growing. It was a relaxing home and provided dignity for the men who went there. I can't thank them enough and I will continue to support them in the future.
I've been surfing at Maroubra and along the Sydney coast since I was about eight years old, and I'm passionate about marine conservation and preserving the magnificent coastline and its complex ecosystem. That's why I'm opposed to the Morrison government renewing the Petroleum Export Permit 11, or PEP 11. PEP 11 is an exploratory drilling process primarily located in Commonwealth waters off the coast between Newcastle and Wollongong. The company Advent Energy have been undertaking exploratory drilling. Their last drilling occurred in 2010. Advent Energy announced back then that the exploratory well had failed to find gas, but now they want to drill more wells and they want the licence to be renewed. Members of the community that I represent call on the Morrison government to reject the application to renew PEP 11. Sydney's coastline and waterways are the best in the world. They're vital ecosystems that make a huge contribution to tourism and investment. It's our duty to protect and preserve these precious marine environments and coastlines for future generations. Yesterday I was fortunate to meet with members of the Surfrider Foundation and the Save Our Coast coalition. They're concerned about the destructive environmental impacts of gas exploration, including on whale migration paths in the licence area. The message from our community is clear, Mr Morrison: we do not want PEP 11. Reject this application for renewal. (Time expired)
There are many things that I enjoy doing in my role as a local member of parliament but none more than my annual Christmas lunch with the residents of the Star of the Sea Elders Village on Thursday Island. It's that one event that, rain, hail or shine, I never miss. Star of the Sea Elders Village is very close to my heart, and I'm very proud to say that I had a role in ensuring that it is what it is today. Its residents are some of the most amazing, inspirational and beautiful people that I've had the pleasure of meeting. The Star of the Sea Elders Village lunch is always a joyous and memorable event, and, boy, do we have some fun when the soft drinks start to flow! I cannot confirm or deny the scurrilous rumours claiming that I get dressed up as Santa or one of his elves for the occasion! But, jokes aside, these events have been made possible each year due to the generosity of Chris and Leigh Lemke from the Grand Hotel on Thursday Island. Chris and Leigh have been real heroes in ensuring that this event, now in its sixth year, is possible and that Christmas cheer is extended to some of the community's most vulnerable. Unfortunately this year, the year of COVID, it will be held in the elders village itself, but they will continue to host this as a regular event at their hotel and ensure that the chefs cook up a good mean Christmas lunch with all the trimmings that the residents can enjoy. I want to take the opportunity to publicly thank Chris and Leigh for their amazing generosity. I'm certainly looking forward to a great Christmas lunch with the Star of the Sea residents later next week.
With deep apologies to Tim Minchin: I really like Christmas! It's sentimental, I know, but I just really like it. And I've heard the prime ministerial promises, but I don't believe that every stranded Australian will be home by Christmas—to be honest. And I've heard all the usual excuses and redefinitions of waiting-list places, while Australians wait for spaces in quarantine places and beg the PM to be the leader that he's meant to be. But there are still thousands of Aussies who can't get a flight, and they're losing their jobs and their homes while they fight, just to come back to the country that they call home. And I know that they really don't like it.
There's just 17 days remaining, and with a fortnight of quarantine between them and their families they have just three days to get home or they won't be seeing their dad, their brother and their sisters, their gran and their mum. They won't be drinking white wine in the sun. The Prime Minister promised to get stranded Australians home by Christmas but he's now out of time. There'll be thousands of empty seats on verandas around Australia this Christmas; thousands of Christmas dinners where the gravy won't taste the same; and thousands of Australian families betrayed by a Prime Minister who didn't keep his promise to them at the most important time of the year.
So many Australians are looking forward to Christmas this year like never before. As we come together as families and friends, we will be celebrating the importance of those bonds that are the most special in our lives. They have never been more important than during this crazy and difficult year. There will be hope across the country that as we put this year behind us we will be able to look forward to a much better 2021. With the evidence of the economic recovery underway and such promising signs for COVID vaccines there is cause for optimism. As MPs, we have all seen the magnitude of the impact of the pandemic in our own communities. It has been a year of uncertainty and, in some cases, great hardship, of separation and anxiety. But through all of this our communities have come together; from the individual acts of kindness to the work of so many organisations, this has been inspiring.
I want to thank my own community in North Sydney. So many have rallied to assist others in need, from individuals, to community groups to our religious organisations and, of course, there is the incredible work of professionals, like those in health and those in teaching in our schools. They have all been so magnificent. As we leave this horrible year behind, I know that through the actions of our citizens, communities and governments we can be so proud to call ourselves Australians, because if there is one thing this pandemic must surely have confirmed it is there is no better nation than our own. To all the residents in my own electorate I say, 'Merry Christmas and may the new year be a much happier one than 2020.'
Today I rise to highlight the Nexus program offered by La Trobe University as part of the federal government's High Achieving Teachers Program. Nexus offers a revolutionary new pathway into secondary teaching. Participants in the program must have completed an undergraduate degree in a discipline other than teaching and then study a Master of Teaching (Secondary) while gaining practical skills working as education support workers in a school. The program addresses a major challenge in regional and rural areas: that of attracting, preparing and retaining high-quality teachers in often hard-to-staff schools—a challenge well known across my electorate of Indi.
I recently met with the principal of Wodonga Senior Secondary College, Mr Vern Hilditch; Nexus academic coordinator at La Trobe University Albury-Wodonga Campus, Dr Stephanie Garoni; and two Nexus students, who are loving their placement at Wodonga Senior Secondary College. One student had moved to our region so he could join the program, and is planning to stay. The other student is a mother of young children, and Nexus allowed her to fulfil her dream of becoming a secondary teacher without having to leave the local area. I am proud that in Indi we have 31 students in the first year of this three-year Nexus program and recruitment is underway for next year. And we have six nexus students are working in local secondary schools. I applaud La Trobe University for creating a practical solution to a longstanding issue of rural teacher recruitment and retainment. It will benefit many, but especially the young people in my electorate.
My electorate of Boothby contains a wonderful range of local state and national parks, native flora and fauna and significant heritage buildings. These features are some of the main reasons so many choose to live in our community. During my time as the member for Boothby, I've worked hard to secure funding to protect and preserve our natural environment, and our built heritage as well. Federal funding has supported significant projects led by local community groups and volunteers to protect and preserve flora, fauna and buildings in key heritage areas, like Brownhill Creek, Carrick Hill, Old Government House in Belair National Park and Wittunga Botanic Garden.
Federal funding has also supported important local road upgrades. The Fullarton Road-Cross Road intersection is one such upgrade that will solve a serious traffic bottleneck for our local community. However, in doing so, we must also preserve the historic 130-year-old gatehouse and as many significant trees as possible. The engineering advice is that the gatehouse can be moved, so there is no reason why the state government should not try to do so. The gatehouse, the adjacent historic Urrbrae House and the Waite Arboretum are important cultural assets that tell our unique story, and they must be preserved. Like my local community and like the member for Waite, Sam Duluk, I am calling on the state government, who are responsible for this upgrade and its design, to follow their engineering and move the gatehouse. It is possible and it should be done.
Over recent weeks, my office and I have been working with many Australian citizens and Fraser residents who, through no fault of their own, have been stranded overseas. They've engaged in good faith with this government, only to have their hopes dashed time and time again. It should not be beyond the capacity of the national government to use its resources to get Australians home and to communicate with them clearly and to treat them with respect. Instead, we've got the unedifying spectacle of a glass jaw Prime Minister misrepresenting Kevin Rudd and misleading this House, rather than getting the job done. It's just another instance of marketing and spin over delivery.
This government has palmed off so much of its responsibility for Australia's borders onto state governments. It's a bizarre approach given that it has been the Commonwealth government's role since 1901. The national cabinet seems to have been established so that this government can deflect blame whenever something goes wrong in its own area of responsibility. It's been less eager to heed the advice of the Halton report to establish federally run surge capacities and to safely expand quarantine or to work more closely with airlines to run a coordinated system. Instead, we have well over 30,000 stranded Australians still overseas left to deal with airlines cancelling flights, bumping passengers off flights and charging exorbitant fares. Hundreds of these people are Fraser residents. The Prime Minister is running out of time to deliver on his promise that he will get all Australians home for Christmas.
I rise to say thank you to the Wingham BlazeAid team, who, last week, closed camp. I need to give special mention to the camp coordinators, John and Christine Male and Ian Hoy, who've been there since the beginning, on 18 November 2019. The camp remained open for 378 days and saw 965 volunteers give their time to mend fences and carry out associated works across 522 properties. Across the Manning Valley, 262 kilometres of fencing was installed. Surprisingly, the average age of the volunteers at the Wingham camp was 44 years, in contrast with previous fires and BlazeAid camps when it was 20 years older, and that was a result of changes that the government made to backpacker conditions. John, Chris and Ian experienced a major influx of keen and eager young backpackers who left the city to come and help in the bush. They were provided with shelter, breakfast and a two-course dinner each day.
The team was inspired by the resilience of our primary producers, pretty much all of whom are pastoralists. Fencing is important and much of it was damaged by the bushfires, which left a huge scar through the Manning and Hastings valleys in late November 2019. So BlazeAid were really amazing. Christine has asked that I give special mention to the Wingham business community, who welcomed them to their area.
Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created, both in the scale of devastation they cause and in their uniquely persistent spreading of genetically damaging radioactive fallout. They are unlike any other weapons. The mere mention of the words 'nuclear weapons' is universally understood as holding grave danger. Last week, we saw the 85th state ratification of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. On 22 January next year, the treaty will enter into force and, at that point, nuclear weapons, like chemical and biological weapons, the other weapons of mass destruction, will become illegal under international law. The treaty prohibits nations from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using—or threatening to use—nuclear weapons or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. It also prohibits them from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone to engage in any of these activities.
According to at least one poll, around 79 per cent of Australians support a prohibition on nuclear weapons and we've made tremendous progress towards eliminating other indiscriminate and inhumane weapons. We can no longer be a proxy to the devastation and threat that nuclear weapons pose. It's time for the Australian government to reflect the moral position of the Australian people and sign the UN treaty. Our children deserve this.
As a very challenging year draws to a close, I would like to acknowledge the work of our essential frontline workers, emergency services personnel and community volunteers who make our community a safer place in which to live. The global COVID-19 pandemic disrupted lives, caused losses and delayed many of our planned local projects. However, we are resilient and ready to play our part in Australia's economic recovery.
Despite the turmoil this year, we saw the completion of major federally funded infrastructure for the Moore electorate in the form of traffic bridges, unlocking the intersections of Joondalup Drive and Ocean Reef Road with Wanneroo Road. Looking forward to 2021, our community can expect construction to commence on long-awaited projects including Joondalup Health Campus, Ocean Reef Marina and the widening of the Mitchell Freeway from Hepburn Avenue to Hodges Drive. The Joondalup city centre is set to be transformed with a series of multistorey residential and office buildings built by the private sector—bringing more jobs and vibrancy to our region.
May I take this opportunity to wish all my constituents and their families, members, senators and parliamentary staff all the best for Christmas. I look forward to seeing you in the new year.
A short time ago, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern released the findings of the royal commission into terrorist attacks on Christchurch's mosques. Prime Minister Ardern delivered an apology to all those affected and recognised that an apology isn't enough by committing to implement all 44 recommendations. Australia too must do more than offer condolences. We must recognise that an Australian terrorist committed these atrocities—an Australian radicalised here on our soil. In this place, we are charged with keeping Australians safe and it pains me to read in the report that Muslim New Zealanders felt unsafe prior to the murders. We must recognise that Australia is not immune to terrorist attacks from homegrown right-wing extremists and this must be a call to action to say, 'No' to hate and to recognise the grave threat posed by right-wing extremism. The report also finds:
Efforts to build social cohesion, inclusion and diversity can contribute to preventing or countering extremism. In addition, having a society that is cohesive, inclusive and embraces diversity is a good in itself.
These are powerful words that we in Australia must also reflect on and in this place we must commit to.
Through this very challenging year, dedicated community leaders in Moncrieff have been serving our Gold Coast community to address its immediate and future needs. Thank you to the members of the City Heart Taskforce and the Moncrieff community cabinet for your leadership in Moncrieff in the community through this difficult year. I'd also like to acknowledge the Gold Coast business leaders for the resilience that you have displayed in the face of the pandemic's economic impact. Not only have you shown the fortitude to deal with the immediate impacts but also to plan for a bright future. That determination was on show when we gathered at the Reimagine forum back in August as you began the recovery.
To my coalition colleagues, I acknowledge your professionalism, your friendship and highly effective response to the pandemic. To everyone in this place, we don't always agree—nor do I–on the how of serving the Australian people but there is no doubt that we share a commitment to wanting the best for all of our nation's people. To all of the community groups that serve Moncrieff—there are too many to mention—your volunteer work has eased the burden and brightened the world for so many Gold Coasters—well done to you. To the good people of Moncrieff, I commend you for your determination, discipline, hard work, good humour and for your care for your families and communities. I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and let's all look forward to a much brighter 2021.
All that almost 40,000 Australians want for Christmas is to be able to come back home. All that hundreds of thousands of Australians want for Christmas is for their loved ones to be able to come back home. Katherine just wants to be able to come back to Frankston. She's stuck in London as COVID cases surge. She is 63 years old, in poor health and in rental accommodation that the local council want her to vacate. Katherine has had three cancelled flights since August. The help she's received from this government is a call from DFAT asking her if she still wants to come back home—yes, she does. The Prime Minister promised her he would make sure that by Christmas she could experience her own comeback to family, to safety, to home, but he has failed to deliver. Rathina just wants her husband, Ranjith, to be able to come back to Carrum Downs to her and their 14-week-old baby, to come back home from India after having to go to his father's funeral.
This government thinks nothing of giving Mathias Cormann a $4,000 an hour RAAF jet to fly around the world trying to get a job. The Prime Minister sees nothing wrong with paying Liberal mates more than a million dollars for research to come up with a $15 million 'our comeback' marketing campaign. Well, Prime Minister, it's time to make our comeback something more than a slogan. Give those stranded Australians and their families a Christmas present and help them come back home.
In January 2016 my community in WA was devastated by the Yarloop and Waroona bushfires. Across the region over 60,000 hectares of land was burnt, over 160 homes were destroyed and two lives tragically were lost. The township of Yarloop was devastated. In Preston Beach some residents were evacuated from the beach by boat. The disaster was compounded by the destruction and failure of telecommunications infrastructure. This left many residents without means of communication. Much of Canning, and indeed Forrest, is bushfire prone. Residents prepare for it and our volunteer firefighters work and train throughout the year so they are ready for the next season.
The Morrison government is also stepping up. Recognising that most reception losses were caused by power outages during emergencies, the government has announced the $18 million Mobile Network Hardening Program. Under this program 467 mobile base stations around the country will be upgraded with battery backup power. I'm pleased to say that two of these towers will be in Canning, situated near Waroona and Dwellingup. The Waroona tower will service areas directly impacted by those fires in 2016. Dwellingup, the historic timbre town nestled in the heart of the dense Jarrah Forest, is also a worthy recipient. This investment will allow mobile phone towers to keep operating for at least 12 hours after the power goes out. The upgrades will make a significant difference for these communities, particularly in the critical early stages of future fires.
This Sunday marks two years since the Prime Minister and his Attorney-General belatedly, grudgingly announced to Australians they would establish a National Integrity Commission. But, two years on, that national anti-corruption commission that the Prime Minister promised Australians is still nowhere in sight. Like so many actions by this government, it is now clear the announcement two years ago was not a policy initiative but a marketing stunt. Indeed, in the two years since that marketing stunt, this Prime Minister has made it clear by his inaction that he's okay with the unlawful use of over $100 million of sports grants money as a Liberal Party re-election slush fund. This Prime Minister is okay with conduct by the Acting Minister for Immigration, Mr Tudge, that Federal Court judges described as both 'disgraceful' and 'criminal'. He's okay with paying more than $30 million for land that's worth a tenth of that. He's okay with the minister for energy sending forged documents to journalists. The ever-growing list of scandals surrounding the Morrison government shows why Australia needs a powerful, independent and transparent National Integrity Commission and why Mr Morrison and his Attorney-General will do everything in their power to prevent one from being established.
I would say that the portents for 2021 in the global political synoptic chart do not tend well. There are so many things on the horizon that could make next year one of the most dangerous years of our political lives—on the back of massive global debts that are now amounting around the world beyond the comprehension of people to even picture, let alone repay. We've seen the first instances of what might be coming our way with a downgrade in both Victoria's and New South Wales's credit ratings. This also, I believe, at a certain stage will put real pressures on our federal credit rating—not that the Labor Party have anything to boast about, because they wanted even more debt.
What it does show though is that we need to make sure that we're completely and utterly adult in how we go forward in delivering an economy that can deal with the challenges that are before us. Shutting down four coal-fired power plants in New South Wales is a very bad way to start. Believing that our greatest challenge is carbon abatement is missing the real game. The real game is going to be making sure that our nation is able to ride through the troubles and traverse the River Styx of economic and political intrigue that will be coming upon us in the next year. I hope that what we see in New South Wales is just one example of something that, like the greyhound issue, can be returned, can be brought back to the same footing.
The member's time has concluded. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister try to deflect attention from the thousands of Australians stranded overseas by misleading this House when he wrongly asserted former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had travelled in and out of Australia while the borders were closed? Why is this Prime Minister playing politics while 39,000 Australians—
Government members interjecting—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will pause. Members on my right will cease interjecting.
Mr Tehan interjecting—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Minister for Education and the member for Maribyrnong! I'm going to ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to repeat the second half of his question—I know he hadn't got through it—just so I can hear it.
Why is this Prime Minister playing politics while 39,000 Australians are stranded overseas and won't be home for Christmas?
I thank the member for his question. Last night I wrote to you, Mr Speaker—I would table the letter; it's a matter of Hansard anyway, and it's there for all to see—to correct the record of what I said in this House yesterday.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The interjection that has come from the Leader of the Opposition is why didn't I come in here? Because I was chairing the National Security Committee of Cabinet.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Rudd is a very important previous prime minister, but I'm afraid he's not more important—
Honourable members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
I've asked you to resume your seat. The level of interjections is unacceptable. The Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
I take that interjection. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to have an each-way bet on national security, he can, but this Prime Minister never will, and Australians know all about that!
Mr Speaker, I am happy to apologise to Mr Rudd. I wasn't aware of that on the occasion. I had been otherwise informed, and I happily correct the record. I very happily correct the record about Mr Rudd. I'm always happy to treat former prime ministers with the utmost respect, and they deserve that respect. I was making no reflection on Mr Rudd yesterday at all; I was making a reflection on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who sought to come into this place and attack another former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, who, it turns out, was one of more than 95,000 people who received independent exemptions to leave the country. Indeed, if Mr Rudd wished to leave the country and he sought to make such an application for an exemption, I have no doubt he would be treated with the same independence that former Prime Minister Abbott was treated with by the Border Force commissioner—indeed, as was the former, and longest-serving, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer.
I'm happy to apologise to Mr Rudd. But, I tell you what, when it comes to the great things said in the offence of Mr Rudd, the Liberal Party cannot compete with those opposite. The member for Watson accused him of chaos, lacking temperament and an inability to make decisions. The member for Gorton accused him of treachery. If anyone owes Kevin Rudd an apology—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right!
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
The Minister for Agriculture! The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Mr Speaker, while I'd be quite happy to have a debate with the Prime Minister about loyalty to people when in office as Prime Minister, this is not relevant. This is about as relevant as when he stabbed Malcolm Turnbull!
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on both sides! I'm going to give the Prime Minister the call now. He certainly was drifting from the question. I'd invite him to come back to the question or wrap up his answer.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point is obvious: if Mr Rudd were to seek an exemption to leave the country, it would seem that those on that side of the House would be the first to seek to approve it in the way they spoke about Mr Rudd when he was even in this chamber, standing at this dispatch box, as Prime Minister. But I understand the Leader of the Opposition's affection for Mr Rudd. He has the Rudd force field around him in the protections that were put in place to keep this Leader of the Opposition in his job. Lucky Albo!
An opposition member interjecting—
The Prime Minister needs to withdraw that.
Mr Speaker, I withdraw that last element.
Thank you.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison government's economic recovery plan focuses on getting more Australians into jobs and keeping them in work as a part of our comeback from the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for Herbert for his question. I thank him, along with all members of the defence forces and those in this place who have served in our defence forces. I thank them for their service. Consumer confidence, it is revealed today, has risen to its highest level on the ANZ survey in 2020—higher than the pre-pandemic levels. Business confidence has risen to the highest level in 2½ years, according to the National Australia Bank survey, and business conditions have risen to the highest level, at an above-average level, since March 2019. Confidence is key to the recovery of our economy. Confidence is key to the comeback of Australia's economy from COVID-19—
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Rankin and the Treasurer!
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin is warned!
That confidence is supported by the diligent, quick and effective action of this government—backing in the Australian people in their plans, in their actions, in their resilience, to ensure that they can get their businesses, their families and their communities through one of the most difficult times this country has seen. Of course, that was most manifest in the programs of JobKeeper and JobSeeker, which we know have been a lifeline to Australians to ensure they can come through the COVID-19 recession and the global pandemic.
My attention was drawn to an article in The Sydney Morning Herald today. It tells two stories. One is that of Melbourne fitness instructor Donna Sparx. She said:
JobKeeper gave me the security to pivot the business into an online world, it set me up to keep it going in a different way. I'm now in a much better position.
The second story is that of Sydney photographer Valent Lau. It states:
Lau, with two children and a mortgage, had no idea how he'd keep his family going when the work stopped coming in. JobKeeper was their lifeline, he says, calming fears the family would lose their house and allowing him time to work out how to get his business going again. He's now back to 60 per cent of his pre-COVID work levels …
Mr Lau said:
We know it can't go on forever, we're grateful for what it's done so far.
The Australian people know that, in their time of great need, when they needed to rely on the government, they could under this government. This government understood the need and it has responded to that need. We have cushioned the blow as much as could be done during the course of this great crisis. We have embarked on the comeback that is underway and that is recovering what was lost. As we go into 2021, we'll build for the future off the recovery plan that the Treasurer announced in October. We have Australians' back and they know it. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. How can Australians trust this government's claim that his industrial relations changes will boost wages when this government, in its eighth year, has only presided over flatlining wages?
The shadow Trevor—shadow Treasurer—seems to be—
Opposition members interjecting—
I'm terribly sorry; I mispronounced the shadow Treasurer's name! That must be such an offence to him! He is so precious. This is the same shadow Treasurer who cried in Kevin Rudd's office when he was a member. We know how sensitive he is.
Coming back to this serious issue—not the ego of the member for Rankin, which has its own reputation—our industrial relations reforms are about getting Australians back into jobs. Our industrial relations reforms are about ensuring the businesses that employ eight out of 10 Australians have the confidence and ability to go forward and keep employing Australians. These businesses are the ones that have stood by their employees through the course of this great recession of 2020 that was caused as a result of COVID-19, which still remains a mystery to the shadow Treasurer. These industrial relations reforms are supported by the many other changes that were made in the budget and prior to that, whether it was the JobTrainer program—
Dr Freelander interjecting—
The member for Macarthur will cease interjecting.
or the expanded infrastructure works that the Deputy Prime Minister has overseen to ensure we're supporting the Australian economy and getting Australians back into work. All of these things go together to support jobs and the wages that Australians rely on.
It may be a mystery to those opposite that there has been a COVID-19 pandemic this year, but it has never been lost on this government as we've worked together with all of those who were prepared to join with the government in good faith to ensure that we could support Australian jobs. That's what it's about this day and age in response to COVID-19. The Labor Party may want to return to the old fights of the past, but we didn't come here to fight. That's the great ambition of the Leader of the Opposition, not to run a government but to come here and fight. I've come here to fix. One of the biggest things we've been fixing is the absolute mess we inherited from those opposite.
The other thing we've been seeking to fix is the terrible damage that has been done to the Australian economy as a result of COVID-19. That comeback is on, the recovery is underway and we are building for the future. I know as I move around this country, as so many of my colleagues do, that Australians know that in May of last year they made the right call. They know if they'd made the alternative call what this last year would have looked like under the economic management of the Labor Party. We thank them for that trust. (Time expired)
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 delivery of regional infrastructure is securing our comeback from COVID-19?
I thank the member for Cowper for his question and acknowledge his tireless advocacy for road safety in his electorate and more broadly. By delivering infrastructure, we are delivering safer, more efficient networks for our regions, whether that's roads or any connectivity. The member for Cowper knows it.
Final works as part of the $5.64 billion upgrade of the Pacific Highway will be completed next week—657 kilometres. This project has delivered more than 14,000 direct and indirect jobs. The member for Cowper knows it. He has been fighting tirelessly for road safety and for better connectivity. The completed upgrade will deliver a time saving of 2½ hours from Hexham to the Queensland border. Whether you're a truck driver, whether you're a tourist, whether you're just somebody who is driving on that road for the first time, that is a considerable saving for your time. This is an incredible achievement. The completed upgrade is going to be celebrated by all who use that road, and, importantly, the delivery of the Pacific Highway will save lives. Already, fatal crashes have more than halved.
Ms Swanson interjecting—
The member for Paterson is now warned. The Deputy Prime Minister can continue.
Any life lost on the road is one too many, and we all know that. I know that that view is shared right across the chamber. We are delivering direct stimulus through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. The 2,544 projects just approved under that mean 537 councils across the nation—
Mr Burke interjecting—
including yours, Member for Watson, are going to benefit from that program. In the member for Cowper's electorate, this funding has enabled the delivery of more than $15.4 million in local projects. In the Kempsey Shire there are currently four underway, one of which is the $400,000 central business district Crescent Head improvement project. The local mayor—a fantastic mayor, the mayor of Kempsey Shire, Liz Campbell—has welcomed the funding. She had this to say:
Council has invested a great deal of time to identify a range of projects that could be fast-tracked or implemented immediately to boost our local economy and provide real, tangible improvements for our community. … Paths, picnic and barbecue areas, bridges and carparks are some physical benefits this program will bring to our much-loved public spaces.
… … …
The fact that local jobs are being supported and work is going to local contractors is the icing on the cake.
This is building on our $100,000—100,000 jobs, sorry—supported by projects under construction as part of our $110 billion—I make no apologies for that—pipeline of investment in infrastructure. And whether it's local communities, no matter what state it is, right across the nation, that's what we're delivering. (Time expired)
My question is for the Prime Minister. This government has cut penalty rates, presided over record low wages growth and is now coming after Australians' superannuation. Why is the Prime Minister planning to cut the retirement income of Australians?
The Leader of the Opposition has a problematic relationship with telling things as they are in this place. In response to the earlier question, I'm very happy to correct the record, as I demonstrated. The Leader of the Opposition is a serial offender on this but doesn't have the same honesty to correct himself when things are blatantly untrue. Under our government's policies, the Australian economy is coming back and Australians are getting themselves back into work. Around 80 per cent of the jobs that have been lost during the course of the COVID-19 recession are now coming back.
JobKeeper has enabled that to happen, and the ongoing plans in our budget ensure that more Australians are coming back into work, and the industrial relations changes that we'll be seeking to introduce are about removing those impracticalities that stop Australians getting into jobs. Right now, we need to get people into work. Our places we are designing and supporting to be places of cooperation and not conflict. We don't want the conflict; we want the cooperation and employers and employees working together, as we brought them together as a government, for the first time in a very long time, to ensure that we can fashion a package of changes that can get more Australians back into work.
When it comes to superannuation during the course of this crisis, we gave Australians a choice that they needed and a choice that they chose to exercise. In this country, what the Labor Party doesn't understand is that the earnings and savings of Australians belong to them. They do not belong to the industry fund managers. They do not respond and they do not answer to the bank fund managers. It's their money, and if they needed it during the crisis we were happy to give them that opportunity. Those opposite, the Labor Party, think that your savings are their money, just as they think that your earnings are their money, and that's why they always want to tax you more. At the last election, the Australian people said no to Labor's higher taxes. They said no to the large bill that would have been put on them that they could not afford, and the bill under this Leader of the Opposition would be just as great if he ever got the opportunity to lead this country.
Honourable members interjecting—
I've said a number of times, and it's obvious, that the level of interjections is unacceptable. I was about to warn the member for Kingston and the member for Brand, both of whom were constantly interjecting. I've already warned the member for Paterson and I was about to warn the member for Lyons, but I've decided, as I did yesterday, that it's just easier to be very straightforward with you and issue a general warning. That applies to all members. I'm making it very clear. I know it's the last week of the sittings, but, if you force me to set a record, I'm happy to set it.
I think both sides will cheer on this one, Mr Speaker! Attorney-General, surely the two Cs—COVID and China's bullying, intimidation and degradation—now make self-reliance a national imperative. Consequently, would you overrule Mr Joyce and Qantas's sacking of 2,000 baggage handlers and the offshoring of this high-security work to a Chinese corporation? With most of our mining reserves, sugar mills, major farms and 55 per cent of our electricity already gone, doesn't government need urgently to demonstrate a slowdown in the sell-off of Australia?
I thank the member for his question. It has two components, I guess, one with respect to the foreign ownership of assets and the first component with respect to the workplace relations issue of the outsourcing decision that Qantas has made. Perhaps I will deal with the second of those issues first. Obviously the government shares community concerns around the way in which Australian assets are owned or not owned by foreign governments. I think it's fair to say that, with the government having recognised those community concerns about the foreign ownership of certain Australian assets like mines, sugar mills and other matters that you raised, there has never been a stronger foreign investment review framework, in the history of this country, than the one instituted and operated by this government. So we recognise those issues, but I think it is fair to say that this side of the House, this government, has instituted the strongest possible framework around those very difficult decisions.
Dealing with your first issue, and touching on difficult decisions, it's obviously the case that every single member of this House is extremely sympathetic not merely to people who have lost their jobs or have fewer hours but to those people who have been the subject of commercial decisions like the one that you've raised, which must be intensely difficult also for the people who are making them. I know that the issue of Qantas's outsourcing has been the subject of questions from the opposition and, obviously, from you, Member. I think it was Richard Branson who said that the simplest way to become a millionaire is to start with $1 billion and buy an airline. The history of airlines continentally and transcontinentally, in America, Australia and Europe, is that they are intensely difficult organisations to run. Dare I say, there is probably a good reason, Member, that you're not running one or I'm not running one or the Leader of the Opposition isn't running one: we wouldn't do it very well. Qantas has made an intensely difficult decision—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The Attorney-General will pause for a second. The member for Lyons will leave, under 94(a).
The member for Lyons then left the chamber.
Qantas has made an intensely difficult decision, but, if airlines are hard to run in the best of times, can we pause and imagine how difficult it has been to run an airline during the period of COVID? The government has invested $2.7 billion in saving thousands and thousands of jobs and keeping our airline industry afloat and reconnected. Obviously, the more that border restrictions can be relaxed, the better that industry will do, which is an absolute imperative. But there is not an ability of the minister to overturn that decision, and I think some caution should also attach to being either defensive of those decisions or overly critical of them. I have enormous sympathy for people who are finding their terms and conditions and their employment changed because of very difficult decisions like that, but I have to be clear: I have no power to overrule a decision like that of Qantas. One of the things that we can't slip to easily in this House is Monday morning quarterbacking and the idea that people here have better acumen, interest or ability to run businesses that are as complicated as those that were the subject of your question.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the Morrison government's decisive economic management is ensuring that the Australian economy's comeback from the COVID-19 recession continues to gain strength?
I thank the member for Longman for his question. Like many on this side of the House, he has a background in small business. He's not just a good guy; he owned a Good Guys franchise before getting into golf clubs!
He, like others on this side of the House, understands the seriousness of the economic shock that Australia has faced—indeed, that the world has faced. To put it in perspective, during the GFC the global economy shrank by 0.1 per cent. It is the IMF's expectation that this calendar year the global economy will shrink by 4.4 per cent. Early on in this pandemic, we saw 1.3 million Australians either lose their jobs or see their working hours reduced to zero. But the good news for the Australian economy—indeed, for the Australian community—is that the comeback is on. The comeback is on and, today, consumer confidence was up again—1.7 per cent. For 13 out of the last 14 weeks we have seen consumer confidence up.
And business confidence was up by nine points. Both consumer confidence and business confidence are now to pre-pandemic levels, and 80 per cent of the 1.3 million Australians who either lost their jobs or saw their working hours reduced to zero are now back at work. Last month, 178,000 jobs were created and today there are two million fewer Australians on JobKeeper and 450,000 fewer Australian businesses on JobKeeper than in the month of September. And the effective unemployment rate has come down from 14.9 per cent to 7.4 per cent.
These statistics tell a story right across the country of people getting back to work. Businesses right across the country are coming off—graduating off—JobKeeper and getting their employees back to work. Our intention is to see more jobs created across the economy. That's what we outlined in the budget: tax cuts for more than 11½ million people; the JobMaker hiring credit, which will enable younger people to get off the unemployment queues and to get into work; a 50 per cent subsidy for apprentices, so we could see 100,000 new apprenticeships across the country; infrastructure projects brought forward as well as new infrastructure projects supported; and an investment allowance that will help support billions of dollars in new investment by businesses across the economy, which will be good news for small businesses. Small businesses will buy, will sell, will install and will maintain that new equipment and machinery.
The Morrison government is focused on creating more jobs; that is what we're seeing across the country today.
My question is to the Treasurer. Did average wages growth get better or worse in the six years since the Liberal government last froze the superannuation guarantee?
Mr Speaker, I can inform him that under the coalition we have seen the real minimum wage increase, whereas under the Labor Party we saw the real minimum wage decrease in three out of the last six years. What we have seen with wages growth is around the 20-year average of 0.7 per cent.
But if the member for Rankin is referring to wages growth and also superannuation, he should look at the comments by the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who pointed out very clearly that when it comes to increases in superannuation it is a trade-off with wages. We are looking to get more Australians into work and that's how we'll increase their wages.
My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. Would the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is working to ensure our industrial relations system works to drive jobs growth, particularly through the creation of more avenues for permanent employment opportunities?
I thank the member for her question and her interest in this area. The COVID-19 recession has created these two related employment challenges. The first is obviously unemployment, and there's this need to drive job growth. But the second, which we also have to focus on, is underemployment, and the need to create more hours for people who have stayed in employment and are moving into employment. When you look at employees who kept their jobs during COVID, there was a loss in hours at 9.7 per cent—a decrease in hours, across the economy, of 9.7 per cent. Underemployment, in February and May this year, peaked at 13.8 per cent. This is a real part of the challenge of growing our way out of the COVID recession.
Part of the process of fixing known problems in the industrial relations system is how you institute this central idea that relates directly to work structures: that there should be a reasonable, flexible way—by agreement and with protections—that permanent part-time workers can work more hours on reasonable terms and conditions at their usual rates of pay. That, of course, should be done with protections, by agreement and sensibly. But this has been a very particular problem in the retail sector, which is one of the sectors hardest hit by the COVID recession.
In some sectors, part-time permanent workers can work more hours at ordinary rates. That can happen in the telecommunication industry award, but, in retail, where you probably need this ability the most and where the effects of COVID have been their greatest, there's no real, simple, flexible way to let this happen by agreement. The result is both that fewer part-time permanent positions exist and that, where they do exist, there's more underemployment. So, when we announced yesterday a commitment to fix this problem, this is what the National Retail Association said:
For nearly a decade, retailers have been crying out for a simple way to provide more hours to their permanent staff, instead of having to rely on hiring additional casual employees to fill gaps in the roster …
They said that the government reforms:
… are an important first step to simply Australia's complex and often counterintuitive industrial relations system, which will help create more permanent jobs.
Woolworths is a good example of the way this works. They have this flexibility—to offer more hours to part-time permanents at their usual rates of pay—built into their enterprise agreement, so people get more hours of work. But that business also has an increased proportion of permanent part-time jobs as a result. They have about 75 per cent of their workplace team on an ongoing, non-casual basis, which is in excess of 10 per cent higher than the usual average.
Small businesses in retail tend not to have that sort of enterprise agreement, and it's not built into the retail award. Imagine if we could give them the flexibility as part of these reforms. That would mean that, based on the experience of operations like Woolworths, they'd be able to have more permanent part-time staff employed—rather than needing to achieve that flexibility with the employment of casuals—and give more hours to those permanent part-time staff. This is a 10-year problem that we are endeavouring to fix with legislation that will be introduced tomorrow.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Thirty thousand Australians have died while waiting for a home-care package for which they have been approved. How many letters has the government sent to dead people telling them they've moved up in the queue and should get a package in the next three months?
The need to provide additional in-home aged-care places is something that this government has acted on in every single update and budget statement since 2018-19. We have more than doubled the number. In fact, it's more than that. There were some 60,000 in-home aged-care places when we came to government, and we will hit 190,000 or thereabouts—just shy of that. That's what we've been doing year in, year out, to increase the number of in-home aged-care places. The reason we're doing that is that we know that the nature of aged care is changing in this country. That is why we commissioned the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and we await their recommendations next year.
In the meantime, we have continued to add additional places: 10,000 in last year's MYEFO; 25,000, I think, in this year's budget. We'll be considering that again as we move towards the MYEFO statement at the end of this year. In-home aged care is an essential part of providing dignified care to Australians all around this country as they age. They want to stay in their homes. They want to stay with their families.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.
It's on direct relevance. While the Prime Minister is referring to home-care packages in general, this question is quite specific to that part of it of people dying while waiting and letters being received after the person has died, telling them they have been moved up in the queue.
I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that his point would be stronger if just the last part of the question had been asked, because, as I have said repeatedly, the Prime Minister is entitled to give some context. Certainly I think he's been in order up until now. He obviously needs to address the question, but he can't be compelled to address every single aspect of it when there's more than one question and an introductory statement, if you will. The Prime Minister is in order.
Our government will continue to address the needs of in-home aged-care places in this country as the demand continues to increase. As I said, in recent years we have taken every single opportunity to increase the number of places. I would hope those opposite would be aware that when you increase the number of in-home aged-care places you need to ensure that you have the workforce to support those in-home aged-care places. That has been a constant matter raised through the course of the royal commission, and the royal commission has identified those very serious workforce needs to support the additional supply of places into the system. It is no different, in fact, as the Minister for the NDIS will know, to ensuring supply of those additional places in the NDIS; we need the workforce to support that. The government is addressing both of these issues.
This is a terribly serious issue. We have sought to address it with each and every opportunity we have, and we will continue to do that in the interest of providing the best possible aged care to Australians in their homes where they seek to have that support.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. I'm very pleased indeed to ask her to inform the House how the Morrison government is growing the Australian space sector to create jobs for our comeback from the COVID-19 virus.
I thank the member for his question. I note his use of the term 'comeback'. Of course, there was a massive comeback to his electorate on the weekend, when the Hayabusa2 sample return capsule came back to earth in the Woomera protected area in the member for Grey's electorate. That was six years after that capsule had been sent into space to collect samples from an asteroid that is about 4.6 billion years old. These samples potentially are going to be able to give us significant insight into a range of things, including the origin and evolution of our solar system. It's potentially going to help us understand our oceans. Quite frankly, there are a number of things we hope to be able to determine from these samples.
The Japanese space agency, JAXA, chose to work with Australia because we have long been able to demonstrate that we are a trusted and safe partner. We have an outstanding reputation in the space sector, and that reputation has only been growing since the coalition government established the Australian Space Agency. Space is one of our six national manufacturing priorities. We know that we need to chart our comeback from the COVID recession, and space is going to be critical to that comeback.
Importantly, space supports a number of industries. Farmers use the space capability to monitor the health of their crops, marine pilots guide cruise liners, emergency workers track the progress of bushfires and scientists study the effects of drought. Space is increasingly important, not only to the Australian community but to our business community as well. That's why we have already committed $700 million to the growth of Australia's space industry and why our Modern Manufacturing Strategy will be supporting this sector.
There is a tremendous opportunity for Australia to increase its role in the space race, because that industry is expected to globally be worth about $1 trillion by 2040. The coalition government is absolutely determined that Australia is going to do all that it can to make sure that a significant slice of that comes to businesses here in Australia. We are well on track to being able to triple the size of the space sector here in Australia, increasing the benefits to the economy and, most importantly, creating the jobs that we need now and the jobs for the future. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. This year, 685 aged-care residents have, tragically, died from COVID. We've heard reports of ants crawling out of wounds and residents being left, literally, without food or water. It is a national tragedy. Does the Prime Minister accept responsibility, and the finding of the aged care royal commission, that this government had no plan for COVID and aged care?
I will ask the Minister for Health to add further to my answer. I addressed this issue earlier in relation to the government's plans that were place to support our preparedness and our response to the aged-care impacts of COVID-19. As we look around the world today and see the COVID-19 pandemic impact once again on countries in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly across Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States, we reflect back on when the second wave of COVID-19 in Victoria hit that state so hard. We saw the number of cases that arose from the outbreak in the community mirrored in what happened in aged care. And, as the cases in the community receded, we also saw the number of cases in aged-care facilities recede. The two things were completely connected. That's why we worked closely together with the Victorian government through the Aged Care Response Centre, which we led, to ensure that we were providing the support necessary in those facilities.
Some eight per cent of facilities in this country were affected by COVID-19 during the course of this pandemic. Fifty-six per cent of facilities were impacted in the United Kingdom, a factor of seven times what occurred in this country. The individual impacts on those we've lost as a result of COVID-19 are a terrible and awful tragedy. All Australians accept that, and the Australian government accepts that and the responsibilities that we have in relation to the aged-care system in providing that support. We have never walked away from that. We have worked each and every day to ensure we have sought to mitigate and to lessen the impact of COVID-19 in this country.
When we look around the world, I know Australians see what has happened in this country and what has happened overseas, and they've seen in this country that our response not only was world-class but also set the standard around the world. I know that Australians are grateful, as I am, that in this country the impacts have been far less than in so many other places around the world, but that does not diminish the impact, the injury and the hurt to every family that has been affected by this crisis. Of course it doesn't.
All governments have had a role to play in providing that support. Where there have been failures and deficiencies, our government has owned those. We've dealt with those and we've learned from those, as have state governments and territory governments around the country. In so doing, we have continued to manage one of the most effective responses to COVID-19 anywhere in the world today. And we will continue that, because the COVID-19 pandemic is not over. There's still a long way to go. Whether it's on the health road or on the economic road, Australians have seen our government respond, and respond effectively, saving lives and saving livelihoods.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a).
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
I seek leave to table, from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety report of 30 September, page 4, which says there was not a COVID-19 plan devoted solely to aged care, and page 11, which says, 'There is a clear need for a defined consolidated national aged-care COVID-19 plan.'
The Leader of the Opposition can seek leave to table it—and I will ask whether there's leave—but he's not to read large sections into the record.
It was so they know what they're getting.
Leave is not granted.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's approach to diversifying Australia's trade is supporting our economic comeback—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for Wentworth will pause for a second. The member for McMahon will leave under 94(a).
The member for McMahon then left the chamber.
The member for Wentworth can begin his question again.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's approach to diversifying Australia's trade is supporting our economic comeback from the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for Wentworth for his question, and I commend him for the job he did as our ambassador in Israel for the trade and investment relationship between Israel and Australia. He did an outstanding job in strengthening that.
We are building a stronger, more secure Australia by diversifying market opportunities for Australian businesses. Just this year we've finalised FTAs with Indonesia, Hong Kong and Peru, which will eliminate barriers or provide better market access for 99 per cent of Australian goods. Our Digital Economy Agreement with Singapore was signed on 6 August, and our trade agreements under PACER Plus will enter into force on 13 December 2020, building on our record of delivering trade agreements with Korea, with Japan and with China and with the TPP-11 countries. We have finalised eight FTAs since coming to office. We have signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and the government is pursuing greater trade agreements with the European Union, the United Kingdom and the Pacific Alliance. We've already lifted the share of our trade that is covered by trade agreements from just 26 per cent to 70 per cent, and we are working to grow it even further. In the budget we announced $6.6 million to pursue more new FTAs around the world and to boost digital trade within the region.
Trade is vital for our comeback. One in five jobs in this country is trade related, and when it comes to regional Australia it is one in four jobs. That is why we are focused on delivering more opportunities for our exporters, right across the world. On average, Australian businesses that export hire 23 per cent more staff, pay 11 per cent higher wages and have labour productivity that is 13 per cent higher than that of nonexporters. Our trade agenda has already resulted in more Australian businesses exporting. Over 56,700 businesses, including 49,700 SMEs, are goods-exporting businesses. This is up seven per cent on the figure for the previous financial year and up 27 per cent since 2014. Since we have come to power, there are now more than 10,800 additional SMEs in this country who are exporting. That's creating jobs right around this nation and is powering our economic comeback from COVID-19.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Deanna Amato from Melbourne was issued with a robodebt and penalties of $3,215.18. The Federal Court declared that the robodebt notice was not lawfully issued. Does the Prime Minister still seriously maintain, despite a $1.2 billion landmark settlement, that the government did nothing wrong?
I may ask the minister to add, if necessary to answer this question. The government took the decision that the process of income averaging was not something that should continue to be followed by the government. That is the practice that was employed by those opposite when they were in government, before 2013.
Opposition members interjecting—
There seems to be confusion amongst the members of the opposition on this issue. The action that the government has taken, and the decision that has been made, relates only to the issue of income averaging being used for the purpose of raising a debt. There has been no advice, none whatsoever, relating to the use of technology to determine the creation of a debt. This was something that was also pursued by the member for McMahon when he was the minister, and he hailed it. Many others opposite used the exact same processes.
The government have also used technology to ensure that we meet our responsibilities that our welfare system—as I noted in the House earlier this week, some $200 billion of taxpayers money is rightly provided to support Australians who need it, particularly in a year like this, but we want to ensure, as taxpayers would expect, that that important support gets to those who need it in accordance with the rules that are set. So there is no issue, as those opposite seem to suggest, regarding the use of technology for the purpose of managing the issues of debts owed to the Commonwealth. That is a falsehood. It's not true.
The only issue that is relevant here is the issue of income averaging as the sole or primary basis for which to raise a debt. It is the same practice followed by the Labor Party. It was a practice followed by this government. We have ceased doing that. The Labor Party happily kept doing it for years and years and years and years. We put an end to that practice.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs will leave under 94(a).
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the work the Morrison government is doing to safeguard Australia's economic growth and comeback from the COVID-19 recession, particularly by strengthening critical infrastructure and combatting cyberthreats?
I thank the honourable member for her question. Obviously, as we've pointed out on many occasions, the Morrison government is dedicated to keeping Australians safe. It doesn't matter whether it's in the real world or online, we want to make sure that our laws are designed to protect young families, designed to protect small businesses, designed to protect senior Australians. We want people to be able to operate online in a safe way. Sadly, during the course of COVID, we've seen a dramatic ramp up in the number of cyberattacks on Australians, not just by criminal syndicates, but by state based actors as well. This government won't stand for it. We have put in place additional support—$1.67 billion through the Cyber Security Strategy 2020—to provide a greater awareness.
As we know there would be many small businesses across the country at the moment that, without their online presence, would have gone into bankruptcy. People would have been out of work. Those people would have lost their homes, and there would have been devastation for all of those people involved in that outcome. We want businesses to be able to operate online. We want them to do it in a safe way.
There is a lot of work that we're doing through the Cyber Security Strategy, including employing 100 additional dedicated cyberinvestigators. The work of the Federal Police with its national and international counterparts is very important here, particularly to counter the work of malicious state actors. We've seen, during the course of COVID, attacks on the providers of water networks to regional areas. We have seen attacks on logistics and transport companies. We've seen attacks on health and aged-care companies, and a myriad of small businesses. If there is a successful attack, for example on an electricity network, obviously the consequences are very significant—it can mean that people cannot tap and go when they turn up to their local supermarket or to the service station; it can mean that the accounting records of a small business are held by the criminal syndicate until a ransom is paid—and so we are working day and night to make sure that we can keep Australians safe online. We have introduced legislation and we have further legislation to come before this House which will provide those protections and will see us working even more closely with those businesses, because we want to keep Australians safe in the real society and we want to keep people safe online. Our agencies are dedicated to making sure that outcome is achievable.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will he confirm as a matter of record that his government has agreed in court to the following about his 2015 robodebt scheme: (1) raising robodebt solely by averaging of tax office data was not legal; (2) adding a 10 per cent penalty to robodebt based on this information was not legal; and (3) seizing tax refunds relying upon robodebt was not legal?
This is what the Commonwealth and Labor's lawyers, Gordon Legal, agreed in court. We agreed and acknowledged that the settlement is not an admission of liability, does not reflect any acceptance of these allegations and does not reflect—
The member for Maribyrnong on a point of order?
It's on relevance. The minister is talking about the wrong court case. I'm talking about the Amato court case of last year.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order, members on both sides! I'll just remind members on my left who comprehended my earlier statement for about half an hour that it still applies.
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
The member for Deakin will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Deakin then left the chamber.
The Leader of the House on a point of order?
The surname of a person was used in the previous question but I'm not recalling that there was any specification of the actual case or resolution of that case in the second question, in which case it would be entirely open for the minister to speak about more than one case.
You can speak to the point of order, Member for Maribyrnong.
On the relevance, it's very clear that the Commonwealth should know what it agreed to in a court action. If the minister is not aware of what the Commonwealth has agreed to, I can offer them the document where it is.
We can't draft the questions for the member, but when he read the question there was no specific mention of a specific case. If he wants an answer about a specific case he needs to raise which case it is that he wants an answer on.
The Leader of the House makes a very valid point. We have question time and you have the opportunity to ask a very specific question. If it's not specific, we really can't have a situation where bits are added to it afterwards by way of points of order. Of course, there's an opportunity to ask a very specific question along the lines made in the point of order, but the minister is only compelled to answer what was actually asked.
To help the member, the Amato orders were confined solely to that case. But, when it comes to the class of participants, the Commonwealth and Gordon Legal have acknowledged that this settlement is not an admission of liability, does not reflect any acceptance of these allegations by the Commonwealth and does not reflect any knowledge of unlawfulness. That was agreed by both the Commonwealth and Labor's lawyers.
My question is to the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's recovery plan will support the comeback of events in the arts and entertainment sector and capture opportunities for Australia's screen industry?
I thank the member for Higgins, who has had a strong interest in the arts, entertainment and screen sectors. She is absolutely right: there is nothing the showbiz world likes better than a good comeback story. And we've got one. The Morrison government is ensuring that our comeback has the arts, entertainment and screen sectors centre stage where they belong—our performers and creatives coming back, along with the backstage crew, front of house, ushers, box office and all the people employed in this sector. This year we've announced almost $800 million in extra funding for the arts, entertainment and screen sectors. On top of the $750 million of business-as-usual funding from the Commonwealth for the arts sector there is $558 million through JobKeeper and $110 million in cashflow support for the 40,000 people in the performing and creative arts subsector, who of course are just a part of the more than 600,000 people who work in the cultural and creative sector.
We are putting that money to work. We are getting people in the arts, entertainment and screen sectors back to work. In the screen sector we've announced a $400 million location incentive, and productions from around the world are coming to Australia. Already announced are Young Rock, Joe Exotic and Irreverent in Queensland; Blacklight in Melbourne; Escape From Spiderhead in Queensland; Pieces of Her in Homebush in New South Wales; 13 Lives in the Gold Coast hinterland; and The Tourist in South Australia, which was announced over the weekend. In total there are 2,900 jobs for cast and crew, 8,000 jobs for extras and $440 million of expenditure.
There is $50 million in the Temporary Interruption Fund to support local film and television production. Almost all of that has been allocated and put to work, with 23 productions supported to resume production. There is the $75 million RISE Fund—the Restart Investment to Sustain and Expand Fund. We have announced and allocated the first round of that—$60 million, very consciously front-end loaded, to get people back to work. There are 115 projects, 1,000 locations and 44,000 jobs. In all states and territories, 11 million Australians collectively will form the audience for these events. Adelaide Fringe gets $1.5 million. Darlinghurst Theatre Company gets $600,000. Bluey's Big Play gets $1.8 million. The Islamic Museum of Australia gets $600,000. Byron Bay Bluesfest gets $1 million. It goes on.
Arts and entertainment events occurring around the country means jobs in arts and in adjacent sectors like tourism and hospitality. And it means lifting Australian spirits, with our creatives and performers getting out there. We need our spirits lifted after 2020, and our arts and entertainment sector is going to do it.
My question is to the Prime Minister. When will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility for the robodebt disaster and admit he was the social services minister who announced the illegal robodebt scheme in 2015, he was the Treasurer who announced $2 billion in savings from the illegal robodebt scheme in 2016 and he was the Prime Minister who agreed to pay $1.2 billion to the victims of his illegal robodebt scheme?
I have had many ministerial responsibilities in this place, including as Minister for Social Services and, before that, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Of course, I was the Treasurer and now I have the great privilege to serve the country as Prime Minister. In all of those areas, you manage the affairs of your portfolio to the best of your ability. I'm pleased that I have had the opportunity to do that over many years. It is true that, as Minister for Social Services and in other portfolios, we continued the practice of income averaging that was for many years an important part of ensuring the government met its responsibilities to ensure that debts that were owed to the Commonwealth were properly raised and then sought to be collected. That is the practice that was provided by previous ministers who had responsibilities there and particular treasurers and prime ministers. All of that is true. It has come to light that the process of income averaging for the sole purpose of raising that debt, or primarily for raising that debt, is not a practice the government should continue. So we've changed it. We have already refunded over $700 million in debts that had been raised out of a total amount of $1.2 billion. When there is a problem you fix it, you solve it, you make it right—and that's what the government has done.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline for the House how the Morrison government's investment in defence industry is creating more Australian jobs as part of our comeback from the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for Stirling for his question and also acknowledge and thank him for his service to our Defence Force. I also acknowledge and thank the thousands of Australian men and women who, like him, have worn the Australian uniform to keep us safe.
The Morrison government's $270 billion investment in defence capability is contributing significantly to our comeback from the COVID-19 recession. As we all know, due to COVID-19 our airline industry has struggled this year, with many Australians losing their jobs. The Deputy Prime Minister has outlined to the House on many occasions recently how we have committed more than $2.7 billion in support of the aviation sector. Because of our growing investment in defence industry, companies are recruiting those who have lost their jobs in the airline industry. What that means is that these people are able to gain new skills in the defence industry but they also bring their existing skills with them when transitioning to a new industry. More than 150 Qantas and Virgin technical staff have already been offered employment with Australian defence industry companies. I want to give a shout-out to a couple of companies who are reaching out to and taking advantage of those very highly skilled airline employees: Northrop Grumman Australia, BAE Systems Australia, Airbus Australia Pacific and CAE. We know that there are many other airline staff who are transitioning to our growing defence industry. One of those is former Qantas worker Clarence Ong. Clarence was a customs service manager with Qantas, who has now secured a job as a documents control administrator with Luerssen Australia. Clarence will very proudly help to deliver those 12 offshore patrol vessels for our Navy down in Henderson in Western Australia. Clarence is one of the many Aussies who are playing a very critical role in our defence industry.
Melbourne based DefendTex is a growing defence SME trialling drone technology with our ADF and forces abroad. DefendTex has achieved global success with its technology called Drone-40, which will be used on operations abroad by our allied forces later this year and into next year. This has been possible through the millions of dollars of investment by the Morrison government in DefendTex. A couple of days ago, I was contacted by the CEO of DefendTex, Travis Reddy, who shared his views about the Morrison government's support to defence industry. He said, 'It is very reassuring to see the Australian government supporting initiatives which build our sovereign capability, creating jobs and career prospects for the next generation of university graduates and tradies'. Our comeback from the COVID-19 recession is creating a stronger defence industry, creating businesses, creating jobs— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the member for Monash right to say the Prime Minister's plan for the NDIS would see participants subject to the whim of:
… an unelected, unaccountable, for profit organisation? Whose sole purpose is to return a profit to shareholders …
What is the Prime Minister's answer to the member for Monash's question:
Have we not learned from the aged care debacle?
I thank the member for her question and I thank the member for Monash for his distinguished service to this House. I have known the member for Monash for many years now in serving in this place. I have always appreciated the candid way in which he has raised issues in our government and in our party room. We haven't always agreed on quite a number of issues, but I greatly respect and appreciate his service as a member of not only the government that I lead today but the many governments that he has been a part of. The challenge we have, whether it's in the National Disability Insurance Scheme or in the delivery of in-home aged-care places, is to ensure that we bring as many hands to this task as we possibly can, to ensure that we can enlist the workforce and the capacities of our country to deliver the care and the supports that are needed, whether they're in the National Disability Insurance Scheme or any other parts.
This is not an ideological discussion about the private sector or the public sector or, indeed, the not-for-profit sector. As we have seen, whether it has been in disability care or aged care, there have been failings that have occurred across all levels. Indeed, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety followed revelations about the Oakden aged-care facility in South Australia, which was a public run facility. I only make reference to that because I understand there are issues in relation to all the providers. The role we have to play is to ensure that we get the best standards, the best quality and the best services for Australians who need that care. That's what our focus is on. I'll ask the Minister for the NDIS to speak about the progress we have made in that regard.
When it comes to independent assessments, as those opposite know, these were recommended by the Productivity Commission in 2011. Those opposite appointed a great Australian, John Walsh, to that commission in 2009. Mr Walsh has served with enormous distinction, and it was a magnificent appointment. Mr Walsh, who is considered the godfather of the NDIS for all the work he has done, said five days ago on the ABC News that independent assessments were a 'fundamental building block' of the original scheme, and:
These changes … will provide people with much greater opportunity to explore a whole range of innovative services and supports that are not currently available.
This is about people with disability—not about governments, not about service providers—so we need to give the control back to people with disabilities.
I think he's right. Independent assessments should be paid for by the Commonwealth. This will save participants up to $170 million from having to get their own reports. It ensures complete equity between the barrister on Brisbane River and the young lady out the back of Burke to ensure they can get the same access to the scheme and we should support Mr Walsh and independent assessments. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister update the House on the progress of Western Sydney international airport, including its positive impact on job creation and driving our economic comeback from the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for Lindsay for her question and for her tireless advocacy for Western Sydney. She is an absolutely incredible advocate in that regard. Anybody who has been out to Western Sydney recently—and, of course, the member for Sydney, who lives there—knows that the landscape in Western Sydney is being transformed as the Western Sydney international airport is coming to fruition. The largest earthmoving exercise is underway as we speak, out there in Western Sydney, in a year—
Ms Templeman interjecting—
The minister will pause for a second. The member for Macquarie will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Macquarie then left the chamber.
By early 2022, we'll start the terminal construction, thereafter the runway and, by 2026, that airport—which we agreed to when we first came to government—will be completed. That will make an enormous difference for all those residents—
Dr Freelander interjecting—
The minister will pause. The member for Macarthur can join the member for Macquarie.
The member for Mac arthur then left the chamber.
That will make an enormous difference to all those residents out there in Western Sydney. They will be able to go to a local airport and it will be a domestic carrier, an international carrier, full service, discounted services, right from day one—what a service that will provide.
But what's more, as the member for Lindsay knows, this project is all about jobs: jobs now and jobs in the future. Right now, over 11,000 jobs are being created during the construction period alone. Once it's in the operational phase, 28,000 jobs will be created. So many of those jobs will be in Western Sydney itself. We set ourselves a target of 30 per cent of jobs being in Western Sydney and we're already above 50 per cent—we're tracking at 54 per cent of those jobs being in Western Sydney, as the member might know. That percentage means individuals working locally, being able to feed their families, supporting local cafes and the like.
But it's not just this airport that is creating the jobs in the development of it there, it's also the infrastructure which we're putting around it. As the member would know, just recently we announced further funding to go towards the development of the rail line to connect the airport to the Sydney Metro from the day that it's open. That's a massive $11 billion project. The sod will be turned later this month and it will create 14,000 jobs as well over the next few years.
So we have 11,000 jobs from the Western Sydney Airport; 14,000 jobs in that rail; 4,000 jobs in the other infrastructure which we're doing around the Western Sydney Airport; and 28,000 jobs coming during the operational phase. This is an absolute jobs bonanza—this project and the infrastructure which we're building around it. That is good news for families, good news for Western Sydney and good news for the government's comeback from the coronavirus crisis.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said in answer to an earlier question that the government stopped the robodebt scheme when it was found not to be 'sufficiently legal', I think he said—or words to that effect. Prime Minister, when did the government know that robodebt was defective? Was it after the 76 Administrative Appeals Tribunal cases in 2017? Or was it after the threats of self harm on 14 occasions in 2017? Or was it the legal action by those people who the government was ripping off which forced it to stop the scheme?
I wouldn't be the first person who the member who asked the question has verballed before, so I don't accept how he characterised my statements. I'll ask the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to respond.
As soon as government reached the conclusion that the use of averaged income was not sufficient, government moved quickly through its normal processes. That led to my giving a media statement on 19 November last year, saying that the government would no longer continue the use of averaged income to determine debts.
It's important when we consider time lines—and the question asked about time lines—that the start of the use of averaged income data was 26 years ago. Last week, I tabled the automatic letter that was in the ISIS computing system. It showed that it was being used for all correspondence back then. I tabled both that letter and an individual letter. In that, on the second page, it goes through about how a debt has been determined. The letter, from 26 years ago, in 1994, says, 'If you do not reply we will use the tax office's information about your income and we will write to you about how much money you need to pay back'. Let's unpack this: 'We'll use the tax office's information'. Welfare is generated fortnight by fortnight, which is why this government, which did not invent the use of averaged income, stopped it. The only way you can use tax office information is when it's annualised, so 26 years ago the then Department of Social Services, under the Keating government, was using annualised data about your income and said, 'We'll write to you about how much money you need to pay back'.
It is quite clear that 26 years ago, from that day until 19 November last year—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a).
The member for Griffith then left the chamber.
governments for over 26 years have used, as this letter says, tax office information about your income and then have written to people about how much money they owe. That was the established process which was used. The member for McMahon, in his 2010 press release, referenced what Labor had done in 2008 and 2009, with over three million assessments. How many of those assessments were done using this standardised process? The bottom line is this—and it may be inconvenient for those in the House—but these are the facts: for 26 years the use of averaged income from the tax office has been used to determine and crystallise debts.
This side didn't invent it. Indeed, there's no-one in this House that invented it. It was invented 26 years ago, but it's this government which has put a stop to it.
My question is to the Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison-McCormack government is delivering on its commitment to create jobs, to boost economic productivity and to improve digital connectivity in regional areas as part of its comeback plan for the future?
I'd like to thank the member for Dawson for his question. No-one in this House is a greater champion for the growth of regions, the importance of jobs in the regions and the importance of connectivity. Due to the member for Dawson's lobbying over the years, we've seen numerous mobile base stations constructed in his electorate.
Regional Australia post COVID is having a renaissance; regional Australia is having growth we've never seen before. In the June quarter, 10,000 people relocated from capital cities to regional Australia. And why are they doing that? They're doing that because they found out during the pandemic that you can operate from regional Australia because we have connectivity. I myself worked as a minister for the Australian government on a satellite connection for ten weeks in isolation at my home at Warialda. Right across the regions children were being educated and young entrepreneurs, like Buy From The Bush, were selling products all over the world thanks to their connectivity.
But there is more to do. We've just closed applications for the Regional Connectivity Program. The applications were so numerous that in the budget we increased that amount by $30 million, so we actually have $83 million now. That is being assessed by the department. They're looking at bespoke ways of connectivity—connectivity to industrial areas, connectivity to education zones, connectivity to health precincts to improve that level of connectivity right across the regions. In the member for Dawson's electorate, in Mackay and the suburbs of Townsville that he cares for, now businesses will be able to get business-grade NBN connections, gigabyte connections, at the same price as metropolitan Australia. So we are going to see more and more individuals making that choice to move to regional Australia but also businesses making the choice to relocate. And we're tying that in with other pieces of infrastructure and investment, like Inland Rail, the connectivity in western New South Wales in my electorate, for instance.
As we speak here today, unemployment in the City of Dubbo is under two per cent. That is because the businesses in Dubbo are not only servicing western New South Wales but servicing right across the world. We've got businesses in Dubbo exporting to the world because they are connected to the world.
Today we launched, with the president of the NFF, Fiona Simson, the Regional Digital Tech Hub. With the boost in connectivity and the options we have, there are still some people that are struggling to understand what's available to them. So, through the digital tech hub, they'll be able to speak to a real person—
The minister's time has concluded. The Prime Minister.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
To add further to the answer in relation to home care packages, they will increase from 60,308 under Labor in 2012-13 to an estimated 185,597 at 30 June 2021. All those waiting for a higher level aged-care place are either receiving Commonwealth Home Support or another home care package—some 99 per cent of those who are waiting for those other places. In relation to when I was making reference to the additional places that were made available, there were 14,000 additional places made available in the May 2018 budget; 10,000 in the December 2018 MYEFO; 10,000 in the February 2019 budget; 10,000 in the December 2019 MYEFO; in the recent JEFU statement, 6,105 places; and in the most recent budget, 23,000 places. We look forward to making further announcements in this year's MYEFO.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Whitlam proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's attack on the superannuation balances and retirement incomes of ordinary Australians.
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—
The Morrison government is declaring war on retirees. They've frozen pensions—
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
they've trashed the aged-care system and now they're coming after your superannuation.
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
The member for Goldstein will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Goldstein then left the chamber.
What does he expect me to do? I just said a minute ago that standing order 94(a) applies beyond question time.
The Morrison government has declared war on retirees. This den of thieves opposite are coming after your superannuation. They promised they wouldn't, but that's exactly what they plan to do. They've not only frozen your pension, they've not only trashed the aged-care system, but they're also coming after your house. That's how the Liberals think of the generation that has worked so hard to build this great country—robbing them of a decent retirement income and throwing them out of a house they've spent a lifetime paying off.
Shame on them for presiding over an aged-care system which is an utter disgrace—homes where the meal budget is a meagre $7 a day, where insects crawl out of open wounds, and where there just aren't enough staff to properly care for the frightened and the vulnerable. Shame on them for presiding over a healthcare system where out-of-pocket hospital expenses have gone through the roof, where two million Australians say they haven't been able to afford the prescriptions that their doctor said are essential for their healthcare, and where out-of-pocket healthcare costs, such as a joint replacement, can send you into a spiral of poverty.
I say to the retirees of Australia that this is what the Morrison government thinks you're worth—health care that you can't afford and nursing homes that put profits first and resident care a distant second. And what's their solution? Where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for the mounting medical bills and the half-decent aged care? They're cutting your super, they've frozen the pension and they're telling people, 'If you can't make ends meet, then the answer is to sell your house.' What an insult to the retirees of Australia, who were told at the last election that there was a death tax coming around—the same election where the mob opposite ran around telling Australians that they were going to stick up for retirees. Instead of sticking up for retirees, they're sticking it to them. We know that the real plan hidden in the 650 pages of a retirement income review, covered in darkness, is to tell people that they're currently getting too much and that they do not see the house as a home. They see it as something that you can sell off in retirement to pay for your medical bills and an aged-care system which is insufficiently funded by this mob.
They promised before the last election that they were going to look after super. They promised before the last election that they wouldn't cut your super, but that is exactly what they are going to do. Our superannuation system is already delivering for Australians. Today, it's ensuring that Australians retire with more money than they ever have in our nation's history. Superannuation is already contributing more to retirement incomes than the government does through the pension. Eighty billion dollars a year is contributed through the superannuation system to retirement income, in contrast with the $44 billion that the government contributes annually to the pension system. It's providing ballast to our economy during the global crisis—the economic crisis brought on by the COVID health epidemic. It's ensuring, through a feted scheme, the $35 billion that has been withdrawn out of retirement savings because the government was not providing enough support early enough and soon enough to people who lost their job—without superannuation, that money would not have been there. It's providing recapitalisation to businesses to ensure that they could get through the economic crisis as well.
When we put in place universal superannuation, the purpose was not to replace a meagre government funded pension with an equally meagre privately funded pension; it was to ensure that every Australian had the right to retire with dignity—and it is working. But these guys want to pull it apart. What sticks in the craw of ordinary Australians is that they know that, at the very same time as this mob opposite are campaigning against superannuation and saying 9.5 per cent is enough for the people who clean our offices—enough for ordinary Australians—they are taking home 15.4 per cent themselves. So the Prime Minister has left question time today and gone back to relax, patting himself on the back for what a great job he's done. He's put his feet on the desk, and in his office somebody's scurrying around, cleaning up after him. That person gets 9.5 per cent, whilst the Prime Minister, with his feet on the desk, takes home 15.4 per cent. It's not fair, it's not right, and the people of Australia know it.
This government has presided over a crisis for older Australian workers. If you look at the recently published Retirement income review, it's there in black and white. They like to think of people who are on unemployment benefits as 'dole bludgers', as 'leaners, not lifters'. What they won't tell you about is the absolute and abject failure of their management of the economy which means that one in five Australians between the ages of 55 and 65 is unemployed. We call them the forgotten Australians; they call them bludgers and they call them 'leaners, not lifters'. They won't tell you that nearly 37 per cent of those people were made redundant at some stage before they retired. These are the people to whom the government say: 'You can just deal with your 9.5 per cent. That's enough for you. I'll take my 15.4 per cent, but 9½ per cent is enough for you.' In the government's own report, the majority of these people run out of retirement savings before they hit the age of 80. But these are the people to whom the government is saying, 'You're too greedy; 9½ per cent is enough for you'—the very people they looked in the eye and promised they were going to leave superannuation as it was.
And, as if it's not enough that the government is saying to older workers, 'We're going to freeze your pension, we're going to make it tough for you on unemployment benefits and you can sell your house if you run out of money in retirement,' they're actually discriminating against them in the labour market. Policies that were put in place by this government at the height of the pandemic are making it harder for those older workers—wage assistance programs that discriminate against older workers and the undermining of the industrial relations system, which makes it easier to sack those older workers. They consider them 'leaners, not lifters'. We don't think these people should be the forgotten Australians; we think they deserve a better deal out of this government.
Since the election, we've seen members of the government's backbench running around on an authorised campaign to undermine the superannuation system and on an authorised campaign to try to build up hype. But we're going to call them out on it. If the government thinks we are going to let them get away with breaking a solemn promise that they made to the Australian people to leave superannuation alone, they've got another thing coming. They are in for a bare-knuckle fight. We will not let them get away with it. We will not let them cut superannuation. This government has visited enough upon older Australians—freezing the pension, making a mess of the aged-care system, making a mess of the healthcare system and now, to visit more indignity upon them, cutting their superannuation. We won't let them get away it, and we won't let the workers of Australia forget, either.
It's great to talk about superannuation. It was really interesting, listening to the member for Whitlam—this coming from a member opposite, along with every other member over there, who voted or wanted to vote at the last election but went out and told the people in their electorates why the retiree tax and getting rid of franking credits was a great idea. For every senior Australian right around the country who's got some income in shares, who saved for their retirement, who earned some kind of dividend on it, these guys wanted to take it away. These senior Australians are thankful that the Morrison government was re-elected in May last year, because we made sure that that wouldn't happen. We made sure that the investments they'd had in place wouldn't be taxed further like the Labor Party wanted to do. In relation to superannuation, I support it. The Morrison government supports superannuation. I think it's a good investment for all Australians' future. I think it's a great investment. I think home ownership is very important as well.
I put up a Facebook post just a couple of hours ago, and I said to people on my page, in my own electorate, 'I'm about to talk on superannuation. Have you got any questions you'd like to ask?' and so forth. To my surprise—a lot of those posts get good engagement, with a couple of hundred 'likes' or 100 'likes' or whatever. This post, I think, got one 'like' and two shares. It is unfortunate that many Australians see superannuation as compulsory, and they're also disengaged from their super. They're very disengaged from their super. But superannuation is a good thing.
I was very fortunate that my father taught me when I was 18 years of age to put a little bit additional money away on top of what is a compulsory superannuation system. Whilst in Australia we have a compulsory and universal system that was put in place under the Keating government, it's not perfect. Those opposite, in the Labor Party, I think, are sometimes blinded by that fact. What I was taught was to put a small amount of superannuation away. I think it was $50 a month and $600 a year when I was 18. I said, 'Wow, that's a lot of money,' when you're earning a small amount, back then. But it is really important.
I'd say to people in my electorate and right around the country that, where you can—particularly if you're living at home and you've got your first job and you might be earning over $45,000 a year—it's really worth putting a little amount of additional superannuation on top: salary sacrificing, particularly if you earn over $45,000 when you're being taxed at 32½c in the dollar, because everyone who earns under $250,000 is taxed at 15 per cent and that adds up over time. So, for people right around the country, consider doing that. If you're able to do it while you're living at home and paying a small amount of rent each week to your parents, or you might be DINKs—double income, no kids—and you're able to put a little bit of additional funds, salary sacrifice, into your super, I'd encourage you to do it, or you might be a family with children that's earning above average income, or you might have two people working. Try to put a little bit of money into your super.
The rates, at the moment, on housing loans too are very cheap. On this side of the House we also care about home ownership. Home ownership's very important, particularly a first home. We want to encourage, as all members in this parliament do, more people to buy their first home. It isn't lost on me that the member for Hotham and others on that side of the House don't support the government's First Home Super Saver Scheme. They went to the last election and said they'd scrap that. That's what they said. They didn't like the policy of the First Home Super Saver Scheme, where it was putting money into super, saving money on tax, and people then being able to withdraw it to get their own home. I'd say to those opposite: that's unacceptable. We do have, as I said before, a compulsory and universal system that the Keating government put in place. But don't be blinded by it. Look at all options.
The Morrison government supports all Australians and their choices when it comes to their retirement. As a result of the difficulty in 2020 because of COVID-19, the government decided to extend the application date for early release of super as well. Mind you, those opposite voted for that. They voted to give Aussies who need that lifeline the helping hand they deserve. We know that making that decision doesn't come easy and needs a lot of consideration. However, for those who have taken advantage of the availability of this scheme, it's a better option than other options available to them, As I said, the parliament voted on that, so it is ironic that the member for Whitlam has put forward this MPI today, given some of his comments in the past criticising that policy that he voted for. The Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology called out the comments made by the member for Whitlam recently in The West Australian. I remind those opposite that the Morrison government's policy on superannuation is important policy and that we do support super. We want Australians to have super. We also want Australians to get into their first home and be able to own their own home. The member opposite also said that we were somehow taking away super. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know that as super increases from nine per cent or 10 per cent at times, there are organisations out there that have said that it is a balancing act. Organisations like ACOSS, the Grattan Institute and the Reserve Bank have all said that. We are getting on with helping all Australians when it comes to superannuation.
The Morrison government remains focused on having a superannuation system which is competitive and transparent and which puts Australians in control of their own super. There are a couple of things that I'd just like to mention for the benefit of those people in the House. First of all, when it comes to young people under the age of 25, the Morrison government is going to help them by ensuring that their nest egg is not eroded. For young men and women—young adults who might have a part-time job and are at university—who previously had superannuation going into a fund, that money could have been, and often was, eroded through life insurance and death benefits. We've now ensured that you need to opt into that system, so that you're not automatically in that system. So, in a case where a person of 19 years of age with no home loan, no dependants and no children had a small amount of super going in each month, it was ludicrous that they were losing their super because they were being opted in by their super scheme to pay death benefits. We've now made it so that they opt out and then, after the age of 25, they go back in. That's an important point for young people that those opposite and the parliament might not know.
We've also given choice to young people. We know that some 800,000 Australian retail workers had no choice when it came to superannuation. Only three funds were available to them, and one of them was Rest. My understanding is that those opposite, including the member for Whitlam, voted against this policy change. They didn't want to give those 800,000 people choice. Those 800,000 Australians should be able to go into any industry super fund they want. They should be able to have a self-managed fund, if they like, or a retail fund.
Honourable members interjecting—
It just shows the ignorance of those opposite, given that this government has also allowed more family members to go into a self-managed fund. I had a self-managed fund before I came into this place. I had to fight those opposite tooth and nail to be able to actually put my super into that.
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The member for Whitlam laughs. I've got an 18-year-old son. My 18-year-old son might want to contribute to the family self-managed super fund. So don't laugh about it, right? I'm just saying to the member opposite that there are plenty of people out there who want to have choice, and I would encourage all Australians to contribute more to super and to be interested in it, because we want to make sure that, in retirement, you're not dependent on government. We don't want you to be dependent on government. That's exactly what our plan is. We have strong safety nets in place. But we don't want Australians to be dependent on government. When they're over 67, they will have their superannuation. We support it. Those opposite want to keep Australians down. That's what it is.
Opposition members interjecting—
Yes, it is. You want to keep Australians down. You don't want to give them choice. You don't want to see Australians get ahead. With everything that you bring into this place, this is what you vote for time and time again. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves, the whole lot of you.
I was going to open by saying something quite complimentary about some of the comments that were made there, but, really, coming into this House and accusing members of the opposition of trying to hold Australians down and saying we're a disgrace—can we just elevate the standard a little bit in here? We're trying to debate something that's actually quite serious. What I wanted to say about the member opposite's speech was that you could have blown me over with a feather there because he actually had something good and something positive to say about our retirement savings system. I think he missed the memo that went to the member for Mackellar and that went to Senator Andrew Bragg in the other place and that goes frequently to the member for Goldstein, who do nothing other than try to tear this system down.
It's time to add a bit of perspective and a few facts to the discussion about our superannuation system. The truth is that this system works. It is, in fact, one of the systems around the world that is performing incredibly well when we compare ourselves to other countries. Millions of Australians have retired into more comfort because of this system, and there are millions more who are working today who will live a better retirement because of this system.
The government initiated the Retirement income review and, of course, we always knew that part of this would be some kind of battering ram to try to get some reform going. That's been very much idolised by people on the other side—knocking off the super guarantee and other types of changes that they want to see which will inevitably leave people worse off in their retirement. But what did the Retirement income review actually tell us about the system? It told us that the system works. This is the first line of the review:
… the Australian retirement income system is effective, sound and its costs are broadly sustainable.
How this government is using that review as an opportunity to try to trash the system and to stop the increases that are due to Australians is just totally, clearly and obviously ideological.
The member opposite talked about his great support for the system. I have to say that, if members opposite truly believe that, they have a very odd way of showing their support for a system. This is a system that has been undermined from every direction in the last almost eight years that the government has been in office. The clearest example here is this continuous deferral of the increase to the superannuation guarantee. The member for Whitlam next to me here gave a really eloquent description of the unfairness of this system. Why should members of parliament who sit in this House get paid 15 per cent superannuation and that's good enough for us and yet ordinary Australians get 9½ per cent? It is just completely wrong.
We know that this is important to Australians. If it weren't, then the government wouldn't have promised that they would increase the superannuation guarantee—a promise that it very much looks like they are going to break. We saw exactly the same thing in 2014, when Tony Abbott promised. He promised us a lot of things, but one of those promises was that the increase to the superannuation guarantee would go ahead. And—lo and behold!—come 2014, he changed his mind and dudded Australians out of the billions of dollars they would have earned for their superannuation retirement accounts during that period of time.
We get told by the government that this is going to lead to some huge wage rise because Australians are not going to get the superannuation guarantee that they deserve. That is absolute hogwash. We have a real-life example of this, because that's what Tony Abbott promised us in 2014—that it would be a great period for wages. What happened when the superannuation guarantee was deferred was that it led to the lowest wages growth that we've ever seen in Australian history—so much so that, in the almost eight-year life of this government, the average Australian has seen their living standards go down because wages have been so low. That's the consequence we've seen.
It's incredibly unfair. What we know is that, in the last decade, labour productivity has actually increased 10 percentage points. Yet workers have not seen any benefit from that. The truth is that we are going into a period where the labour market is going to be in quite a difficult position. We're going to have high unemployment for a long time. We're going to have high underemployment for a long time. The honest truth is that Australian workers are going to struggle in this environment to get any type of real wage increase. For many of them, an increase to their super guarantee is the best chance they've got of seeing their standard of living improve in some way throughout this difficult period.
I've talked a little bit about the deferral of the increase to the super guarantee, but it's just one of the many creative ways the government has come up with over this last period to try to undermine the system. It's very frustrating because there are issues with this system, and the one I point to is women retiring with about half as much superannuation as men. Instead of the government trying to fix these real problems, it's a constant ideological battle that surely doesn't befit a parliament as good as this one. (Time expired)
I thank the members for Petrie, Hotham and Whitlam for their contributions to this debate. I want to start off by saying that the superannuation system that we have in Australia is an incredibly important innovation. Paul Keating, Bill Keelty and Ian Ross deserve credit where credit is due. As the report into retirement income makes the point, we have a system that is sustainable, is manageable and has capped Australia's ongoing unfunded liabilities at between two and four per cent of GDP. Most other nations, like the United States, the UK and Japan, have unfunded liabilities in the hundreds of per cents. The UK's unfunded liability prior to COVID-19 was 900 per cent.
But we also have to be honest in this chamber and in this parliament about what the superannuation system in Australia has done. It was the policy purpose of this system, as set out by Paul Keating and Bill Keelty, to reduce or suppress Australian wages. They wanted to do this for the specific and express purpose of reducing inflation in the Australian economy. It was the grand bargain. They said it: Keating said it; Keelty said it; Ian Ross said it. And Callaghan, in the retirement income review process, has proved it. Those opposite are very keen to recite what is on page 1 of that report. I encourage all of them to read past page 1, maybe get as far as page 10, if they feel so inclined, and look at the tables and the economic modelling that Callaghan did that emphatically showed the superannuation system that we have in Australia makes workers worse off over their lifetime. It is not an accident. It is the specific policy design of this system.
As Callaghan had to come out the day after and say, 'Look, if I am wrong in the way that I have modelled this, in the way that I have approached this, if the model is wrong, if the data is wrong, tell me where.' The multi-trillion-dollar industry superannuation system—and I would say to the member for Whitlam, my criticisms are not of industry super. Too often, to the member for Hotham's point, this has become a political argument between Labor's largest donors—that is, industry super—and the Liberal Party. And they are right to make the point—
An opposition member interjecting—
Order!
that it is inappropriate. You called order, Mr Deputy Speaker?
No, I was calling order for the members on my left.
It's about time! They need to be called to order! The point is this: it was the design of the system. And retail super is just as guilty of this as any of the superannuation systems.
And it's not just me saying this. It's not just me or the member for Goldstein or Senator Paterson or Senator Bragg saying this. When they know no-one's watching, many members on the other side say that the super guarantee makes people worse off. The Governor of the Reserve Bank says it. The Council of Financial Regulators says it. The head of ACOSS says it. I did not believe that I would ever be standing here quoting ACOSS, but ACOSS says increasing the super guarantee makes the least paid in our society worse off. And the Grattan Institute says it. Even the Labor funded, Labor backed, oft-quoted Grattan Institute is telling them that an increase in the super guarantee makes those least paid amongst us worse off. Even Martin Fahy said it. When the Callaghan report was released, Martin Fahy, the head of ASFA, said that it makes the arguments around increasing the super guarantee more difficult to make.
Basically, anyone with a calculator knows that our super system makes workers worse off. If the objective of the superannuation system is financial security in retirement then the Callaghan report makes it clear that owning or substantially owning the house in which you live is the best, fastest, most secure path to financial security in retirement. And why wouldn't it be? We've created a system that is gobbling up $30 billion in fees and charges. And, frankly, the Hayne royal commission should hang its head in shame for not investigating that.
It is an opportune moment to follow the member for Mackellar and his litany of untruths and verballing of many, many people. Let me set the record straight: industry super does not donate to the Labor Party. But the fact that they believe that, the fact that they repeat it, goes to the truth of what this debate really is. This debate isn't about advancing the interests of the workers, on behalf of the Liberal Party. This debate, from their point of view, is about weakening industry super, rewarding their mates in the banks who can't compete with industry super because industry super outperforms them every day of the week. This debate—their jihad to attack industry super—is all about rewarding their donors, their donors in the big four banks and all the other financial providers.
They talk about choice. But who do they hamstring every time there's a debate? Who do they put more restrictions on? It's industry super. It's not-for-profit super. The banks escape the legislation all the time. It's not a surprise, because this comes from a party that opposed superannuation from day one. During question time I had a bit of time on my hands so I went through the Hansard debate from the original superannuation guarantee charge debate in 1992. Here are some random quotes I pulled out from one day of debate. Liberal members called it a tax on jobs, another one called it 'stupid and dishonest' and another one called it 'a fraud'. It's clear that the attitude of the Liberal Party has not changed from that time. It has not changed from that time. The litany of untruths from the member for Mackellar just reinforce that.
And don't get me started on Senator Andrew Bragg, a man who's morally owned by the banks. The truth is that this has a huge impact on individual workers. Their choice to freeze super six years ago, the superannuation guarantee charge, and their clear motivation to freeze it again hurts workers every day. The temporary freeze has hurt a 25-year-old who will now be $35,000 worse off over their lifetime because of the so-called temporary freeze. That is the truth. They say that there's a trade-off between wages and increases in the SGC. In the six years before the super freeze wages grew by 3.30 per cent. Guess what they grew by in the six years after the freeze? Maybe four per cent or maybe five per cent. Maybe we had a wage explosion under the Liberal Party when the SGC was frozen. Sadly, wages growth averaged a paltry 2.08 per cent. That is the real, empirical evidence of what occurred: super was frozen and wage growth went down.
The truth is that wages are an outcome of the normal institutional and bargaining processes. Wages aren't determined through some abstract, free-market, perfect competition. It is through the normal institutional pressures in the economy. Lifting the SGC will not impact on wages growth. It just will not. That is what history has shown us. There is no visible correlation between increasing the superannuation guarantee and slower wage growth. In fact, if you look at the years when the SGC increased there tended to be a slightly stronger wages growth in those years compared to years where the SGC was not increased. The truth is that this is an ideological attack by a party that is devoted to hurting workers. It's a party that is devoted to reducing the wage share of national income. It's a party that is obsessed with industry super. They're obsessed because they're convinced they donate to the Labor Party. They're obsessed because they threaten the cosy closed shops that their mates in the banking industry have—those banks that do donate to them. That is the truth behind this. What is the impact of this? The impact of this is that workers so far have been much worse off because of the freeze to the SGC. A 25-year-old will be worse off by $35,000 over their lifetime. This debate is really important, but the ideology, the obsession, the untruths, the ownership of those opposite by the four big banks morally is really what this debate is all about.
I thank my colleagues for their previous submissions. The Morrison-McCormack government is focused on ensuring that we have a superannuation system that is competitive, transparent and efficient. I'm particularly engaged with my electorate of Cowper and the more than 41,000 people of retirement age. Indeed, this is the third-largest population of this size in Australia, and it's growing. It's growing because, obviously, it's an ideal climate. It's a drawcard for retirees; it's on the coast. On a side note, I would like to acknowledge the 'We Are Here' campaign. That was started by a member of the Nambucca RSL sub branch, Mick Birtles. This campaign showcases our region to Australian Defence Force personnel leaving the service. Mick and his team wanted to show veterans and their families that the Nambucca Valley was a welcoming location for those leaving the ADF. I acknowledge the work that he does now and that he has done in the past as a serviceman. I acknowledge all the ex-service men and women.
The fact is that Labor has been talking tough on superannuation during the current health pandemic, yet the assistant minister for superannuation has said, 'Every time our government has put forward a piece of legislation to improve superannuation for the consumer, the opposition has opposed it.' It's a simple fact. Those opposite have talked tough and opposed our government's move to help people in financial stress caused by the coronavirus pandemic by allowing them access to $20,000 of their own super. It's their own money. I've had plenty of people in my electorate come and see and say: 'Pat, thank you for that. Thank you for allowing us access to that. And, by the way, we didn't buy booze. We didn't buy drugs. We didn't waste it. We actually used it for the things we needed to get through the pandemic.'
I don't often quote the Grattan Institute, but modelling by the Grattan Institute found that the impact of the early release to Australians of superannuation at retirement age was minimal. It was something in the order of $900 a year—that's all. Yet at this end, it was a godsend. It saved them. It helped them to get through the coronavirus pandemic.
Labor failed to mention any of the positives that flowed from Australians looking at their superannuation balances. I'm probably guilty of this as well. There was a silver lining in that many young people actually looked at their super profile for the very first time. They thought about their super and they realised that they had multiple accounts and were paying multiple fees. There were significant actions to consolidate superannuation—a benefit which will help young people reduce fees and keep more of their own money.
The Morrison-McCormack government has been working hard to ensure that we have a superannuation system that is competitive, transparent and efficient. That is why we passed legislation to improve the efficiency of the superannuation system by strengthening the powers of the regulator to deal with underperforming funds, by capping fees on low-balance accounts and by banning exit fees on all superannuation accounts. For the first time ever, we provided the Australian Taxation Office with the power to proactively reunite low-balance inactive accounts with active accounts, again, giving people back their own money. This measure has really helped Australians to get on top of their superannuation savings, something that has never been done before.
I want the 41,000 residents of retirement age in my electorate to have a good life, as we all do. I want them to be able to retire comfortably and to make the most of their superannuation savings, the age pension and their assets. I also want young people to have opportunities and to know that if they work hard they will get ahead. So our government, through the Treasurer and the assistant minister for superannuation, will continue to carefully consider the observations made in the independent Retirement income review. We will consider these findings alongside other important bodies of work, including the aged-care royal commission and the Productivity Commission report into superannuation.
We've got to a pretty bad place in this country when a government can move so shamelessly from one broken promise to another. Really, as the member for Whitlam said at the outset of this debate, this government was elected on a promise not to touch people's super and that really should be the end of it. So we've got to a very, very bad place in politics and in public debate if people become inured to seeing their government just go blithely from one broken promise to the next.
And with this government, it's not just the broken promises but it's who they affect, who they hurt and how it's done. Unfortunately, the broken promises are usually perpetrated by a con and they almost always hurt the people who can bear it least. We've seen that over and over again, and we may well see that in relation to superannuation. The member for Mackellar would have people believe that, by having less super, they'll somehow find it easier to own their own home. We have a government which has done nothing for housing affordability and nothing to help people in all the many ways that that problem might be addressed. We've been told multiple times that, by chopping people's super and by preventing the payment of the super guarantee, or the increase to the super guarantee, that's going to magically improve people's wages.
This is from a government that is literally the master of wage stagnation. We've got to the point where wages as a part of national income are at a 50-year low. We've seen a fall in real wages and we've seen wages become completely disconnected from profit and from productivity, and yet the government would have the Australian public buy the con that, somehow, by now denying them the scheduled super guarantee—which the government promised it wouldn't interfere with—this will magically turn into increased wages which the government has not yet delivered after seven years.
Then we turn to who it's going to hurt. It hurts everyone. It hurts all of us; superannuation is good for each of us and it's good for all of us. It gives people a dignified and secure retirement and it's the basis of our national savings and our capacity to invest in important national infrastructure. It is good for each of us and it is good for all of us. The impact of the changes that this government made the first time they broke this promise in 2014—this is a promise which they're going to break many times, if they get the chance—and the failure to deliver an increase in the super guarantee have echoed to where we are now after the six years from 2014 to 2020. And it will echo more seriously into the future. An average 30-year-old worker who was denied the increase in 2014 is going to be $70,000 worse off at retirement, and it has prevented $38 billion flowing into our national savings and into our capacity to invest in infrastructure. That's the change from this one harmful, blithe broken promise—this tossing of the rock into the pond. The ripples spread out for years and years; they affect individuals, they affect families and they affect our nation and economy as a whole.
When we think about the people this affects, who does it affect most? Right now, it affects young people, but it also affects women who, on average, retire with less than half the superannuation savings of their male counterparts. And, particularly, it affects single women. Single women often don't accumulate much super during the period in which they're looking after children and then they have a limited period of time in which they can accumulate super. What are we seeing for single women in this country at the moment? In a survey which tracked the proportion of single-parent households—which are, in the majority, single-woman households—in poverty between 2016 and 2018, they went from 15 per cent in 2016 to 25 per cent in 2018. One in four single-parent households, which are generally single-mum households, were in poverty. This is the kind of change which pulls the rug out from under their ability to live securely in retirement. And that's what this government is about; it's always punching down. Every time we talk about fairness, every time we focus on addressing disadvantage, they start to bleat about class warfare, they start rolling out the smokescreen slogans of 'class 'warfare and 'politics of envy'. Let me give you a tip. Every time you hear those senseless slogans from the government, look out because they are coming for you; they are going to make another change to the social compact in this country that will make life harder for those who have the least. That is the form of this government. They will do that every chance they get.
I would like to join with my colleagues to talk about the Morrison government's ongoing commitment to ensuring all Australians get the most out of their super. Throughout this term the Morrison government has successfully passed a great deal of legislation which has had real and positive effects on the wallets of the hardworking Australians around the country. While Labor may never understand that putting money back into the pockets of Australians is a good thing, the Morrison government certainly does. This is why we capped the fees on low-balance accounts, helping around seven million Australians to save around $570 million in fees in the first year alone. We strengthened the powers of regulators, giving them the scope and capacity to deal with underperforming funds. We banned exit fees on all superannuation accounts and, for the first time ever, we provided the ATO with the power to proactively reunite low balance inactive accounts with active accounts, putting a stop to inactive accounts being eaten up by ongoing fees.
Those opposite don't have any interest in hearing about what we have done to increase the retirement income of Australians. The Labor Party has never had any interest in making the superannuation system more effective or efficient. They are only interested in supporting vested interests. They have attempted to stop each and every piece of superannuation legislation we've put forward. The Labor Party vote against the superannuation amnesty, which has uncovered nearly $900 million in unpaid super in the last month alone. They voted against getting rid of duplicate accounts. They voted against legislation to stop the erosion of low balances through fees and unnecessary insurance. Every time the Labor Party has voted against our superannuation reform, they have voted against the retirement of Australians.
The Morrison government will always fight for the best outcome for the Australian people. Labor may try and slow us down, but we will continue to reform the superannuation sector to reflect the needs of the Australian people. We have gained traction on these goals. The Morrison government had the Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Superannuation, Your Choice) Bill in August, giving more Australians employed under federal enterprise agreements freedom in their choice of fund, allowing them to shift away from any underperforming funds they are stuck with. We commissioned an independent review of the retirement income system, which observed that there is room for improvement in our superannuation sector. We also announced in this year's budget the government's Your Future, Your Super package, which will improve the superannuation system for members by ensuring your superannuation follows you when you change jobs. We are holding funds to account for underperformance by introducing an annual objective performance test and increasing transparency and accountability by ensuring trustees act in the best financial interests of members to maximise their retirement savings.
The Labor Party went to the election last year with an agenda that would have left those in retirement completely and utterly in the lurch. Now it seems like they are trying to leave those who haven't even retired yet in the lurch by ensuring that their superannuation accounts are left depleted by a bloated and inefficient superannuation sector. While Labor squabbles over how to ensure Australians are worse off in retirement, the Morrison government will always ensure that Australians are better off.
I thank the member for Whitlam for putting this very important matter of public importance on superannuation and retirement incomes before the chamber. I acknowledge the previous speaker, the member for Chisholm, has indicated that she believes her government will always put improving the retirement income of Australians first. I look forward to her crossing the floor when the government attempts to freeze the superannuation increase that's coming up—an increase that will clearly improve the retirement incomes of Australians. I was pleased to hear her make that commitment, and I look forward to her following through on that.
The reality for ordinary Australians is that this is a critically important issue. For older Australians, the great Australian dream of having a retirement that is one of dignity and a pleasurable life—enjoying the simple things like an annual holiday, being able to buy presents for the grandkids, going out for dinner, joining social and sporting clubs—is something they aspire to. It is a great part of the Australian story.
The superannuation system put in place under the Keating government was particularly important in creating quality retirement lifestyles in Australia, and it is something people feel very strongly about securing for themselves in the future. This matter of public importance is important to older Australians, to those who are retired, to those of working age and approaching retirement, to working age people with parents and grandparents living in retirement. This matter is fundamentally important to just about everybody, including, let's be honest, the grandkids, who look forward to a holiday with the grandparents or a nice present for birthdays and Christmases. This is a matter of public importance to all Australians.
The member for Whitlam has put this forward because the government is breaking a promise it made to the electorate at the last election. It made a promise that it would not interfere in the superannuation scheme, and now it is trying to freeze the increase that is due to flow through to people to a higher level of superannuation as we move towards the 12 per cent. The member for Whitlam quite rightly made the point that, while average Australians are on a 9.5 per cent compulsory super guarantee, members of parliament—those who sit on the front bench, putting forward these proposals, and those who sit on the government backbench, consistently railing against anything that's public or not-for-profit or, heaven forbid, has a union connection in some way—are getting 15.4 per cent. That is the reality for all of us. We are going to fight to ensure that all Australians see their superannuation guarantee continues to increase as it should so that they can achieve that great Australian dream of a retirement of dignity and quality.
It's already tough enough for older Australians. We already know the problems in the aged-care sector. We all have families coming to us all the time, worried about putting their parents into residential care. Just today I received an email from a family who were frustrated about the fact that their father needed a home-care package 11 months ago. He's been in and out of hospital since, but he still can't get the home-care package. Older Australians are frustrated by the fact that the health system doesn't always meet their needs, they're frustrated by the fact that the cost of living is going up and they're frustrated by the fact that the deeming rates have not been adjusted in a way that reflects the reality of the market. There are so many things that older Australians are constantly contacting their local members about, and I can only assume they're also contacting those opposite.
We know that an important part of creating a retirement that has both dignity and quality is the superannuation system. The superannuation guarantee increases that are legislated and that are part of building that for future generations are important. When those opposite say, 'It's your own money,' what they really mean is that the government is not going to give you anything—you have to draw on your savings—and that's not good enough. (Time expired)
I'm pleased to speak on this MPI on superannuation today. I remember when compulsory super was first introduced. I think I was in one of my first jobs. I did change jobs, and it took me a good decade and a half to relocate that original super that had been put away somewhere for me. Fortunately, I did. I'm also glad we're moving to a single-fund super system.
The Retirement income review has found that the Australian retirement income system is effective, that it's sound and that its costs are broadly sustainable. It also noted that there's room for improvement. Nobody on this side disagrees with the statement that superannuation is important. As the member for Hotham said—and I share her concerns—it's particularly concerning that women end up with about half the amount of super as men at their retirement. This is a concerning fact, but there are also many reasons for this. While I'm not wedded to any increase and while I haven't put a stake in the ground to say we shouldn't increase super, I do know that simply increasing super across the board is not going to address the difference between what men retire on and what women retire on. If we increase it across the board, everybody's super will increase, so that doesn't address the difference. What we should be more concerned with is making sure that women are retiring with an adequate amount of super, as opposed to necessarily comparing it to men's super.
I know that there are members on this side of this chamber who have expressed very publicly that they don't think the super guarantee should increase. I have not put my name to that, but I do have concerns when I hear arguments that increasing the rate of the super guarantee is not going to impact upon jobs or upon wages. I have been an employer. I have an been employer who actually increased superannuation for their employees in one year. There is a finite amount of income that a business or a not-for-profit earns. When you increase super, as we did one year by three per cent, it impacts the amount of money that you've got left to spend on other things. So a three per cent increase in super is of course going to impact upon any salary increases you can give or on additional jobs you might be able to offer. And, at this point in time, when we are all about creating jobs, it is important that we keep this dialogue going and keep looking at the superannuation guarantee. We want employers to be employing people. We want to get that unemployment rate, which has gone to a revolting level, to come down. If we need to look at the superannuation guarantee to do that—even if it's just in the short term or for a certain period of time—then that's what we should be doing. We want people to have jobs; we want people to be earning income now.
One thing related to this topic that I've become aware of as a result of my membership of the Standing Committee on Economics is the increasing power of industry super funds. My own super is with an industry super fund. But what we've seen through the House Economics Committee is that the trillion dollars these industry super funds now have is giving them an enormous amount of power and an enormous amount of control in the marketplace.
Our industry super funds boast—and I'm not saying 'boast' in a critical way. They advertise that they hold up to 10 per cent of shares in ASX 200 listed companies. To me, that gives rise to a problem, potentially, of common ownership. When you have the same bodies owning shares in all of our ASX 200 listed companies, there is a danger that we're impinging on that notion of common ownership, that the level of control and power they have over decisions being made in companies and in corporate boards all across Australia is excessive. I'm not saying this to signal out industry super funds as demonic bodies but rather to point out that this is something we need to watch—we need to watch as a government, we need to watch as an economy and we need to watch for the sake of our country.
The discussion is now concluded.
In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Melbourne on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.
The matter before the House is the question earlier today on a motion by the member for Melbourne which has been deferred in accordance with standing order 133. The question is that the motion moved by the member for Melbourne be disagreed to.
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. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. I call the honourable minister.
I take this opportunity to thank everybody who's contributed to this debate thus far. As we outlined, this bill implements the most significant reforms to Australia's insolvency framework in almost 30 years and is part of the government's economic recovery plan to keep businesses in business and Australians in jobs. These changes will give Australian small businesses the opportunity to quickly restructure and to survive the economic impact of the coronavirus. Where restructure is not possible, businesses will then be able to wind up faster, enabling greater returns for creditors and employees. These reforms form part of the JobMaker plan to ensure Australia emerges from the pandemic with a stronger, more resilient and more competitive economy. The need to give businesses and their creditors certainty is crucial to kickstarting confidence and activity as the economy transitions to the recovery phase.
The bill introduces a new formal debt restructuring process for small businesses, to provide a faster and less complex mechanism for financially distressed but viable firms to restructure their existing debt, increasing the chance of them surviving and contributing to economic and jobs growth. During this process, the business owner will remain in control of their business while a debt restructuring plan is developed and voted on by creditors. For small businesses that unfortunately can't survive due to the impacts of coronavirus, this bill introduces a simplified liquidation pathway for them to allow faster and lower cost liquidation, increasing returns for creditors and employees alike. Together these measures will re-position our insolvency system to reduce access costs for small business, reduce the time they spend during insolvency processes, ensure greater economic dynamism and, ultimately, help more small businesses to survive. I therefore 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 words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. I put the question.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Page 104 (after line 16), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 5—Review of provisions and sunsetting
1 Review of Act
(1) The Minister must cause a review to be undertaken of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.
(2) Without limiting subitem (1), the review must consider the following:
(a) the efficacy of the amendments;
(b) the appropriateness of the amendments as a permanent features of the insolvency regime;
(c) any further amendments recommended to be made to the insolvency regime if the amendments made by this Act operated for a longer period of time or permanently;
(d) the effect of the amendments made by this Act on unincorporated small business creditors such as sole traders and partnerships, including any increase in individual bankruptcies that are correlated with, or attributable to, the amendments.
(3) The review must commence no later than 31 December 2021.
(4) The person or persons undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review by 31 March 2022.
(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after it is given to the Minister.
2 Sunsetting of amendments
An Act that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is taken, on and after the following day, to have effect as if the amendments made by this Act to that Act had not been made:
(a) if paragraph (b) does not apply—31 December 2022; or
(b) if the review has not commenced by 31 December 2021 in accordance with subitem 1(3)—31 December 2021.
In speaking to the amendments, briefly making some comments in relation to the amendment, as I said in the second reading debate, we support the objectives that have caused the government to bring these measures before the House. We note that these measures have been bought forward in great haste and with minimal consultation. We note that many stakeholders have raised some issues in relation to the measures that have been brought before the House. We note that the measures alter the relationship between, on one hand, those who owe money and, on the other hand, those to whom money is owed. Whenever we alter those relationships, there are consequences, some of them seen, some of them unseen. We also note that we are establishing an entirely new classification or category of profession in relation to insolvency practitioner. We understand the motivation that the government has in bringing this forward and we support the motivation.
We have reservations about unforeseen consequences, which is why the amendments that we bring before the House today don't cause delay to the passage of these bills before the House. But they do do two things. Firstly, they impose a requirement for a statutory review, which I understand to be something that the government will support. Secondly, they impose a requirement that the new provisions be sunsetted. I understand that the government does not support that proposition. I just want to make clear that the sunset provision gives ample time for us to get through the crisis, for us to get through the stock of anticipated insolvencies, for a review to occur and for the emergency provisions to be sunsetted, unless they are altered by new provisions that may enjoy the agreement of both houses of this place. With those brief observations, I commend the amendments to the House.
The question is that amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, be disagreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
As with most Treasury laws amendment bills, Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020 contains a number of unrelated schedules. I'll confine my brief remarks today to schedules 1 and 3.
Schedule 1 expands the eligibility of the government's temporary full expensing-of-depreciating-assets measure, which brings in Australian businesses which breach the $5 billion income test because of foreign activities. While Labor supports this, it is important to note that any expensing measure must be judged primarily in terms of its impact on employment. As I mentioned in my remarks relating to the principal bill that came before the House, it is critical that firms be encouraged to make investments in capital which are complementary to their workforce, rather than supplementary.
I am somewhat concerned by a recent report by MIT entitled The work of the future: building better jobs in an age of intelligent machines, co-authored by David Autor, David Mindell and Elisabeth Reynolds. That report notes of the United States:
A series of tax law changes enacted over the last four decades has increasingly skewed the U.S. tax code toward subsidizing machinery purchases rather than investing in labor. Tax policy offers firms an incentive to automate tasks that, absent the distortions of the tax code, they would accomplish with workers. The U.S. should bring its tax code back into balance to align incentives for innovation in skills development, capital formation, and R&D investment.
The report recommends that the US:
The point that the report makes is that accelerated depreciation measures work best when you're investing in education at the same time as encouraging automation—when you're encouraging upskilling of the workforce in order for workers to become more productive with the additional machinery.
What concerns this side of the House is that the government has dropped the ball on skills, failing to invest in schools and failing to invest in vocational training, and that it has engaged in an old-fashioned Liberal culture war with the universities. Universities have been left out of JobKeeper—the rules for JobKeeper were changed three times to leave universities out—and, at a time when we should be expanding resources to universities, the government is cutting per student funding and making it more expensive for many students to attend university. We've just seen the Australian National University announcing 100 job cuts in science. These are just some of the more than 10,000 job cuts which have occurred across the sector.
We should be expanding higher education, not just for the people who work in that sector but for the value that higher education brings during an economic downturn. When the labour market is bad we should be encouraging people to spend that time out of the labour market improving their skills. In the early nineties recession, this meant an increase in the school-leaving age. Now it should mean ensuring there is a university place available for every student with the smarts to get there. The government simply isn't doing that, and that means I'm doubly concerned about the potential unforeseen impact of the temporary expensing measures.
Schedule 3 removes charitable status from the small number of recalcitrant charities which have failed to sign up to the National Redress Scheme flowing on from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. In speaking about that, let me draw on the report itself, which said of the institutional dimension of abuse:
While the impacts of child sexual abuse in institutional contexts are similar to those of child sexual abuse in other settings, we learned that there are often particular effects when a child is sexually abused in an institution. These include impacts on spirituality and religious involvement, such as a loss of faith or a loss of trust in a religious institution, for those victims sexually abused in such settings. We also heard that distrust and fear of institutions and authority are particular features of the effects of child sexual abuse in an institutional context.
That report told us about the responses of institutions to child sexual abuse and reminded us of the strength of survivors but also of the terrible impacts on those survivors—the re-traumatisation, the ostracism from institutions, the long healing process.
These amendments are part of a move Labor has called for, and the government has supported, on the basis that any charity that puts its own interests ahead of the debt they owe to survivors should not be receiving deductible gift recipient status. Charities that are not signing up to the national redress scheme cannot tough it out. They cannot outlast the survivors. They cannot stick their heads in the sand. If they do not sign up to the national redress scheme, they will not get the tax-deductible status that a charity gets.
The slow pace of redress is weighing on the survivors, and I will move a second reading amendment on these particular issues. But let me conclude my remarks by drawing on a few accounts from residents of the ACT in the context of the royal commission. The first of them are Lars and his brother Willem, and I quote from the report of the royal commission:
Lars migrated from the Netherlands with his family in the 1950s, and they settled in the Australian Capital Territory, where they were befriended by a local Catholic priest.
'Back in those days, obviously the clergy had a lot of influence, and a lot of respect', so when Father Dylan began sexually abusing Lars and several of his siblings, they felt that they couldn’t tell their parents.
Lars and his brother Willem came to the royal commission to tell their stories. Willem was particularly affected by the harm that was done to him.
Another victim was Imelda. The report of the royal commission states:
When Imelda was 10, her father took her to stay with a local priest he knew, Father Callaghan. She can’t remember exactly, but thinks she was there for several weeks. Imelda remembers being in bed the first night, when Callaghan got into bed with her. She still remembers what he was wearing and to this day, she does not like blue-striped pyjamas.
When Imelda wrote a letter in the mid-1990s outlining her abuse by the priest and gave it to a high-ranking member of the Catholic Church, she was under the impression that nothing was done. Thereport of the royal commission states:
Imelda came to the Royal Commission because 'I don’t like the fact that it's a secret and that it hasn't come out and that he got away with it … I read what you guys are doing, why you're doing this. It’s to help … It's to prevent things from happening in the future and so the government can work out new ways of being, you know, wary about these kinds of things.
She just wanted to 'let the world know that this is not okay, and it's not going to happen anymore'.
To Imelda, Lars and Willem, we recognise the importance of acting upon the report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. In that vein, I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that survivors of institutional child sexual abuse have been waiting too long and are receiving inadequate support while going through the process of seeking redress;
(2) further notes the context of the amendments in the bill to incentivise charities to join the National Redress Scheme or face deregistration; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) put in place an early payment scheme for child sexual abuse survivors who are ill or elderly;
(b) stop indexing prior payment;
(c) increase the maximum payment to $200,000 as recommended by the Royal Commission; and
(d) fix the assessment matrix so it properly recognises the impact of abuse".
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and I reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Whitlam.
I was going to give a long speech—and I know that's why the member for McMahon has come down to the chamber to hear it—
I wouldn't miss it!
But there is an understanding between both sides that we're attempting to deal with non-controversial legislation in an expeditious way, so I'll just address my comments very briefly to schedule 2. Before doing that, I thank the member for Fenner for his contribution, and I'd like the House to note that I'm speaking in favour of his amendment.
Schedule 2 to the bill moves the responsibility for making rules about the consumer data right from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to the Treasurer, through the Treasury. Labor strongly supports the consumer data right—the capacity for consumers to have more control over their data and to use that data and have that data facilitate the transfer of their business between one institution and another. The rollout of open data, as it is known in other countries and in this country, has started with banking and in the finance sector. I probably would have started with telecommunications, as they're much more advanced in this area than banking and finance. Be that as it may, it's an objective and a scheme that we support.
We won't be opposing the bill and we won't be opposing this measure contained within a bill that overall is very worthy. But I do have deep concerns—Labor has deep concerns—about this particular measure and deep concerns that this continues a practice under this government of moving more and more of the details outside of substantive legislation and into delegated legislation and, in this case, taking that one step further by removing it from the parliament, which has previously delegated it to an independent authority that is expert in the issues of competition and consumer issues—actually, expert in issues concerning consumer data rights, having conducted a thorough review of digital platforms and digital industries. It seems to us passing strange that, against this background, the government would remove responsibility for rule-making in relation to the consumer data right from an agency that has expertise in consumer affairs and an agency that has expertise in data, data rights and data issues and into the Treasurer's department.
There's only one conclusion you can draw from that, and that is that they are unhappy with the advice and the rule-making practices that were going on within the ACCC. We have concerns about this. We'll be watching it very closely indeed—not enough to make us hold up or amend the bill, but it is something that warrants the close scrutiny of this parliament and its organs over the months ahead. With those comments, I commend the amendment moved by the member for Fenner to the House.
I rise to make a few remarks about schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020, and I'm confining my remarks to that schedule. This bill exemplifies schedule 1, exemplifies the government's approach to the recovery, which is to give money to business, and everyone else gets their support cut. As a result, as we've just heard in the last week or so, 60 per cent of the share of Australia's total income—the share of the pie in Australia—is now going to profit, which is a 60-year high, and only 40 per cent is going to wages. In other words, we are now at record low levels of having the national pie being shared with workers and record highs of having it go to profits.
When you want to understand why, you need to look at the measures and the approach being taken by the government in this bill. The budget that the government has put forward this year has $99 billion a year in subsidies and handouts to big corporations. Now in this bill we're talking about increasing the ability of some subsidiaries of some of the world's biggest multinationals to get even more from the public purse. The government is handing over billions and billions of dollars to big corporations and subsidiaries of multinationals in the hope that some of it might trickle down to everyone else. As we're heading towards the end of the year, the government brings forward a bill that says, 'Let's give billions of dollars more to big corporations', at the same time as people on JobSeeker and JobKeeper are getting their payments cut.
There's a different way of doing things, which is to say you get out of a recession by building from the bottom up, by using public money to invest in nation-building, planet-saving projects that will create jobs, and that means that in this country no-one needs to live in poverty. In other words, you use the money to lift people out of poverty by lifting JobSeeker, not cutting it. You provide people with guaranteed jobs on these big nation-building projects and the country gets something out of it. That was the approach that the US took to get themselves out of the Great Depression. But instead, what's this government doing? Instead of taking billions of dollars of public money and investing it in publicly owned infrastructure and expanding things like aged care and health care, the government is taking billions of dollars of public money and giving it to big corporations and hoping for the best. That is what schedule 1 does. It continues the government's trickle-down approach to recovery.
Instead, we need to go to the end of the year with a commitment that no-one in this wealthy country of ours will live in poverty. We need to go to the end of the year with a commitment that everyone who wants a job is able to get one. The government should be in a position to guarantee a job to everyone who wants one. If, instead of spending $99 billion a year on handouts to big corporations and the super wealthy, we invested the money in things like building half a million new public housing homes, expanding our aged-care and education sectors and building 100 per cent renewable energy, then we would get towards full employment in this country and we would lift people out of poverty. The big corporations might make a bit less. But in the middle of a recession, or our exiting out of a recession, with a million people unemployed and with millions of people in, or being plunged into, poverty as the government cuts their support, we should be saying there are better ways of spending money. There are better ways of spending billions of dollars than giving big corporations a handout and hoping for the best. The government will say: 'Well, it's okay. If we give billions of dollars in handouts to big corporations they're going to employ people.' But the thing is, in this bill there are no strings attached that say, 'If we give you billions of dollars of public money, will you use the money to employ people, or will you use it to buy local, or will you use it to grow the renewal energy sector?' No. The government just gives the money to corporations that might be so profitable that they can already be paying dividends. They're getting government handouts under this bill as well.
It is time for a different approach. It's time for the Green new deal approach to recovery: a government led plan of investment and action to grow jobs by investing in the industries that will tackle the climate crisis. It will make Australia more equal. That is what we should be doing with billions of dollars, not giving it to big corporations.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020. This bill, amongst other things, amends the temporary full expensing and backing business investment provisions in the income tax law to provide greater flexibility for entities to access concessions. The temporary full expensing measures were a cornerstone of the budget in getting businesses investment going again, and were very much welcome. They were the biggest single measure in the budget, worth an estimated $26.7 billion. Its focus on encouraging businesses to invest freely through full asset write-offs is a positive step to get the money flowing.
The tax incentives for businesses are an opportunity for businesses to drive real change towards their net zero targets. The temporary full expensing measures enabled by this bill combined with other measures, such as the instant asset write-off and the extension of the research and development tax incentive, allowed businesses to invest in their green recovery. These incentives total an investment opportunity of nearly $30 billion according to Treasury estimates. Businesses can invest in green energy through installing solar, batteries and smart meters. They can invest in their transport through electrifying their vehicle fleet to bring down their operating and maintenance costs. They can install electric vehicle charges to attract more customers to their business. They can reduce waste through investing in new and more precise technologies, such as laser cutting tools or deploying in-office paper recycling systems. These initiatives, and many more like them, will make so many businesses more competitive. Businesses have a time-limited opportunity now, over the next two years, to write them off.
I recently participated in a webinar, hosted by the Smart Energy Council, which reinforced the value of the green recovery and how the incentives can be used to help local businesses improve their efficiency and reduce long-term costs. The webinar was also attended by the CEO of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia and by local businesses in Warringah, such as Colourmaker, who are making the most of these opportunities and spreading the word about the value it has created for them.
I encourage all businesses to look at the opportunities presented by these temporary full expensing measures. This legislation adds additional means for businesses to qualify for the temporary full expensing measure, so I urge the government to consider also making changes to the criteria for the cashflow boost payment that was rolled out to support small businesses through the pandemic. I've written to the Treasurer regarding this, in particular on the eligibility for the cashflow boost. Many businesses in my electorate have written to me, expressing their disappointment because they've been deemed ineligible for the cashflow boost due to the timing of their BAS lodgement forms. The two companies in particular that have written to me fell through the cracks of the eligibility for the program because of complications with mergers and acquisitions, causing a delay in the lodgement of their BAS. So I urge the Treasurer to consider the case of WOTSO, who operate a flexible business office space and, due to a de-merger, were not eligible for the cashflow boost, despite meeting all other criteria. Similarly for Elite Woodhams Relocation, who were formed as a merger between Woodhams International and Elite Executive Services—both of which had been in operation for over 20 years, with 13 staff between them. But their merger occurred on 1 March 2020, hence Elite Woodhams Relocation was not able to lodge on or before 12 March 2020. Accordingly, the merger of EWR would be eligible for a maximum payment of $100,000, should an exception be granted from the 12 March 2020 lodgement date. Clearly, these are just the cases where the technicalities of timing are making very legitimate businesses that would otherwise be eligible fall through the cracks. These businesses do require the support of the government to make it through the pandemic. Their operations have been severely curtailed by the government-imposed restrictions. Deeming businesses 'ineligible' goes against the stated purpose of the measure, which was to support businesses through the pandemic by providing cashflow boosts. I urge the Treasurer to consider amending this eligibility criteria to extend that cashflow boost to these businesses.
There are also some amendments in the bill to consumer data rights. Consumer data rights provide consumers, both individuals and businesses, with a right to effectively and efficiently access specified data, in relation to them, held by the business. The bill changes the administration of this right from the independent Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to bring the primary responsibility closer to the government in the Treasury department. There's no explanation in the explanatory memorandum for why this change is being made. However, to change the governance of the data right rules framework after just a year of its operation deserves, I would say, more explanation than is currently provided by the bill.
In conclusion, I thank the government and I support these measures, but I do urge businesses to look closely at the opportunities that they present, in particular for a green recovery through the temporary full expensing measure. I urge the government to review the eligibility of businesses for the cashflow boost to businesses, with a focus on those who have been through a merger or acquisition and, as such, the timing provisions make them fall through the crack. Again, an explanation in respect of the logic of the transfer of responsibility for the CDR rules from the ACCC to the Treasury would be welcome.
I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill. I'll be focusing on one particular part of this bill today, and that is schedule 3, which amends the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commissions Act to encourage recalcitrant organisations that still haven't signed up to the National Redress Scheme to do so. In speaking to this, I will be supporting Labor's second reading amendment, moved by the member for Fenner. In short, schedule 3 of this bill changes the definition of a basic religious charity so that it excludes charities that have claims against them under the National Redress Scheme but still have not signed up.
This is one of the ways in which the government is fulfilling an important recommendation of the first National Redress Scheme Committee, which I deputy chaired in 2018 and 2019. Its recommendations were tabled in this parliament on 2 April 2019, more than two years ago now. This recommendation was again reiterated in a consensus report from the second redress committee, which I also deputy chair in this current parliament. While I recognise that not all abusing organisations will be caught by this legislation because some are simply not charities, these changes are important and terribly long overdue.
The National Redress Scheme started in 2018, so organisations have had well over two years to sign up now. There is absolutely no excuse, no reason and no possible justification for not having done so by now. Tax concessions are given in recognition of the positive contribution that organisations make to our communities and our nation. But those organisations that fail to sign up for redress are fundamentally failing. Indeed, they are actively refusing to deliver on their side of the social contract. For those organisations that have demonstrated such reckless disrespect and failed so terribly to take responsibility for the grievous trauma they have inflicted, there can be no reason that the taxpayer would continue to pay generous tax concessions.
Sadly, a number of survivors have already died without their abusing organisations ever signing up to the scheme. This is appalling, it is unacceptable and it cannot go on. Today, I am calling out those recalcitrant organisations, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Kenja Communication, Lakes Entrance Pony Club and Fairbridge Restored Ltd, which is now in administration. These institutions were named in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, so they know well that they have active claims against them. Despite this, they have failed to join the scheme. Not only that; they have failed to even signify their intent to join, as they were requested to do in the first half of this year.
There is another group of around 80 institutions who also haven't joined the scheme, but they have at least signified their intent to do so. They will now have until 31 December to sign up, and they have been put on notice about the financial consequences if they don't. To these organisations I say: for the sake of the survivors you have so deeply hurt, I urge you to please do the right thing and sign up for the redress.
Of course today's measures are an important step, which Labor heartily endorses. However, this doesn't change the fact that there are still many issues with the National Redress Scheme—not least of which is the fact that nowhere near the number of expected payments are being made. The royal commission estimated that there were 60,000 survivors who would be eligible under this scheme, but by 6 November this year only 4,117 payments had been made. Indeed, the economic and fiscal update shows that payments under the scheme will decrease by $610 million in 2021 as a result of the slower uptake. Thousands of people who deserve justice simply aren't coming forward. The government needs to work out why and to fix it.
The scheme has other shortcomings that Labor has long called on the Morrison government to address. That's why I'm very pleased to endorse the amendments that have been moved by the member for Fenner. The government needs to put in place an early payment scheme for child sexual abuse survivors who are elderly or ill. This has been done by the Scottish parliament recently, so there is some good practice that we could turn to to help inform some legislation here. The government also needs to ensure that we stop indexing prior payments. It needs to increase the maximum payment back to $200,000, as was the recommendation by the royal commission, and the government must urgently fix the assessment matrix so that it recognises the impact of abuse, which, again, is what the royal commission intended.
To this end, I'd like to reiterate Labor's offer to work in good faith with the government to make the National Redress Scheme the best it can be for survivors. That should be in the interests of everyone in this parliament—indeed, it is in the national interest. Whilst this is a long overdue step in the right direction, there is still much work to be done.
Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate.
Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020 makes technical changes to the temporary full expensing and backing business investment regimes to provide more flexibility for entities and to clarify their operation. The schedule introduces an alternative test for the full expensing measure. Businesses with less than $5 billion in total statutory and ordinary income, excluding non-accessible and non-exempt income, in the 2018-19 or 2019-20 income year will be able to benefit from the full expensing measure when they also have a minimum $100 million in certain depreciating assets first held, used or installed in the period 2016-17 to 2018-19. This change is targeted at Australian businesses that have a track record of investment but were not initially eligible for the temporary full expensing measures, as their income was aggregated with that of their overseas parents or affiliates under the original test. Schedule 1 also allows businesses to opt out of full expensing and the backing business investment incentive on an asset-by-asset basis. This provides businesses with more flexibility and means they can choose to apply the capital allowance rules that they consider most appropriate to their circumstances. The changes are designed to support Australian businesses to withstand the impacts of COVID-19 on their business and to invest, to grow and to create jobs.
Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to better enable the consumer data right to continue in a way that is coordinated, accessible and secure. By allowing increased coordination in policy setting and increasing the accessibility of the consumer data right to interested digital businesses, these amendments will allow the range of benefits already being provided by the consumer data right to grow and to be shared with more businesses and consumers.
Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 to encourage charities that may have been responsible for past institutional child sexual abuse to participate in the National Redress Scheme. This measure will amend the definition of a 'basic religious charity', or BRC, to remove a religious institution's eligibility to be classified as a BRC if it has a claim against it under the Redress Scheme and does not join the scheme. A BRC that fails to take reasonable steps to participate in the Redress Scheme would be subject to a suite of the ACNC's existing compliance powers, including deregistration. Deregistration would result in the entity losing access to a suite of Commonwealth benefits and concessions, including tax concessions.
Schedule 4 to the bill makes minor and technical amendments to the Treasury portfolio legislation. This includes amendments that clarify the law to ensure that it operates in accordance with the policy intent, make minor policy amendments to improve administrative outcomes, or remedy unintended consequences and correct technical or drafting defects. 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 Fenner 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 words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
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.
In rising to speak on the Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020 and the Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020, I signal that the opposition are supporting them, but we will be moving a second reading amendment, which I'll talk about briefly. This package of legislation follows an extensive inquiry from the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee between 2016 and 2018. The committee made a number of recommendations, and Labor is pleased that the government has finally gotten around to actually acting on some of them.
We all know that the future of aviation will include a role for unmanned aircraft, colloquially known as drones. By 2026 it is predicted that drones will be an $11 billion industry globally, and right now there are thousands of drone operators in Australia plying their trade and carrying out essential work in a range of industries. Surveyors use drones to plan infrastructure. Photographers use them to find new angles. Filmmakers and news crews take advantage of their versatility. Farmers use them to check on crops and soil moisture levels. Emergency services personnel use them for a range of operations. In Canberra you can even have your morning coffee delivered by drone. Beyond operations, Australia is a growing hub for innovation and for technological advances, with operators taking advantage of our regulatory environment and wide open spaces to develop beyond-line-of-sight technologies and capabilities.
Drones have a great future, and it is essential that regulations keep up with this fast-moving industry. Drones are aircraft, albeit relatively small ones. Their operations must adhere to standards that uphold the safety of Australians. But it is equally important that this regulatory scheme, including the registration of remotely piloted aircraft, is simple and cost-effective and doesn't stifle this growing industry. We can't allow excessive and costly regulation and registration to strangle an industry that could provide jobs and greater services across the community. If the government were to impose excessive conditions, we would see fewer players getting involved in the industry, less innovation from Australian operators and even industry leaders moving away from Australia to more supportive and accepting jurisdictions overseas.
While registration and regulation is needed, there are risks inherent in that process. Labor wants to work with the government and with the industry to ensure that we get this right and that we both uphold the highest safety standards and maintain an innovative and exciting industry. It is clear that the industry is yet to be fully brought on board with these changes, and more engagement will be needed before the legislation itself comes into effect. For instance, the industry raises the fact that this bill allows registration costs of up to $300, when similar fees cost $16 in the UK, $7 in the US and $5 in Canada. If fees are so high in Australia, we will see fewer farmers, photographers and surveyors registering their aircraft, and research and development sent offshore. These problems are clearly not insurmountable; they can be easily fixed, and that is something Labor will be seeking to do in the Senate.
Just as further consultation will be needed to ensure that this legislation preserves a strong future for the unmanned sector of our aviation industry, the government also needs to listen to the traditional aviation sector to maintain their future. Of the many things that I expected and hoped to see us talking about in aviation in this chamber, drones probably wouldn't have been my first priority for the government to bring forward from a legislative mechanism, but that is what the government has decided to do. We know in this country, when it comes to the future of aviation—and particularly of Australian airlines and the jobs that they support—the government has done nowhere near enough. Since March the government has allowed Virgin to fall into administration, costing 3,000 jobs. It's denied JobKeeper to 5,000 Dnata workers and workers at council owned airports. It sat back while Qantas sacked 8½ thousand workers. We know that the CEOs of our two major airlines were here in Canberra this week and last week calling on the government to extend JobKeeper beyond March and, equally as important, to extend beyond December, just a short three weeks from now, the assistance that the government has got for some of the aviation sector, because they know that it is going to be a very, very bumpy return. Again I say to the government: you need to come and explain to the aviation sector and explain to all of those thousands of workers whether you're going to continue that support or whether you're going to pull that out come December.
What more will it take, frankly, for this government to finally come up with a plan for aviation? We can't wait for five years from now. We can't wait for a year from now. The government actually needs to articulate what it wants the industry to look like, what it thinks are in the best interests of Australians now and actually do something about that to make sure that that's the sector and the industry that we have. Aviation workers can't wait. The future of aviation in Australia will include drones, but it must also include our airlines, our airports and our aviation workers. I encourage the Morrison government to finally come to the table and to give the industry the help that it needs. I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that unmanned aircraft are an important part of the aviation sector, offering exciting new business and service opportunities into the future;
(2) further notes that Australia's existing aviation sector has been significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic;
(3) criticises the Government's failure to take a sector-wide approach to supporting the aviation sector during the pandemic, putting the livelihoods of thousands of aviation workers at risk; and
(4) calls on the Government to develop a sector-wide aviation recovery plan to support the industry to recover from the impacts of COVID-19".
Is the amendment seconded?
It is, and I will be speaking shortly.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form, 'That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.'
I will endeavour to be brief. I rise to speak in support of the government's move to better regulate and reinforce standards for the drone industry. This substantive legislation, the Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020 and the related bill, is crucial for retaining confidence in what is a very quickly growing industry. Given the rate at which unmanned aerial vehicles are being used, it is time measures were put in place to ensure safety and compliance so that stakeholders who utilise drones directly and those who are indirectly affected, like other pilots, can be assured that best practice is being observed. We know that unmanned aerial vehicles are being further utilised in commercial settings and things like search and rescue, environmental management and agriculture, to name just a few, but there are many and varied uses. In addition to those who own drones for recreational purposes, commercial drone traffic in our skies will only increase, which, if left unchecked, will add increasing potential for harm to the public and to infrastructure.
In conjunction with these regulations is a funding and registration proposal to help CASA keep up with the increasingly large drone sector created as a result of their popularity commercially and recreationally. As the regulatory body responsible, CASA has seen an increased number of aviation accidents, interference around airports and a blatant disregard for aviation rules by some drone operators, although of course we know that the majority are doing the right thing and will seek to do the right thing when this training and registration process is in place. Many of these incidents come down to what is basically a lack of education and training by those in control of drones, and this measure will help remedy that.
The funding agreement between CASA and the Commonwealth will facilitate this expanded role in managing the new requirements that will be put in place. The cost will be attributed to the consumer, ranging from zero to $300, depending on the drone and the circumstances. This registration will enforce training requirements that will facilitate best practice and procedure for the operators. This should in turn see the number of aviation incidents decrease as operators will be made aware of their responsibilities while operating drones. These responsibilities of course already exist; it's just a matter of education and training for those who are operating drones. I acknowledge the burdens that this new requirement will be for businesses and operators who utilise drones for their commercial functions. But we must mitigate the risk of incidents such as we saw at Gatwick Airport, which shut down in 2018, occurring at Australian airports.
All of that being said, there is a qualification that I want to offer. I unreservedly support this substantive legislation, but I do have reservations about our once-great recreational and general aviation sectors in Australia. I'm a passionate pilot, as no doubt you know, and I could talk flying all day, every day. I track planes from my back deck on the app, as many Australians do. I go to Brisbane Airport with my young son and watch, through the fence, the planes take off and land. And when I fly by myself in a Cessna 172 around Moreton Bay, I reckon that is just about the closest to peace that you can find on earth and in this life. So, put aside COVID for just a second. Australia has the stable weather of sun and blue skies, we have vast tracts of flat land suitable for take-off and landing, and we have vast distances. Australia should be a recreational or general aviation pilot's dream location in this world.
But as we discuss yet another piece of regulation in the sector—and don't get me wrong; again, I support the legislation we are discussing today and acknowledge its merits—I want to reflect on how recreational and general aviation are in danger of being lost like a needle in a haystack under a burden of ever-growing regulation. I know it isn't all CASA's fault. I get that; I get that there are a lot of factors at play. The world has changed since the glory years of flight, and pining for the good old days of aviation won't make it come about, won't make it so. But I know that young Australians are still passionate about aviation. They have that passion in them. It is just a matter of having the circumstances that allow that to be fostered.
I reflect on my own journey in learning to fly, and it leads me to have a lot of sympathy for those who say that CASA is quick to regulate and slow to consult. I have a lot of sympathy for those who say that CASA is bureaucratic when you seek advice, and that when you ask a question three times they're likely to give you three different answers. Of course, they have an important job to do and safety should be paramount, but a regulator also has to have some care and responsibility for fostering the success of the industry that it regulates. A balance must be achieved. Flight cannot be risk-free; it isn't inherently risk-free. All pilots accept this and all pilots—good pilots, as the vast, vast majority are—bear a personal responsibility for the safety of themselves, their passengers and the planes. Of course, they should have the tools, the training and the regulations in place to achieve safety, but it sometimes feels like CASA thinks it must mandate enough regulation that even an inattentive monkey could fly safely. I don't think that's actually their job. The reality of that approach is that flight schools, the general aviation sector and recreational pilots spend more time and money on fulfilling regulation than can ever be justified in the pursuit of flying as a passion, as opposed to commercial purposes.
I note also that the arrangements in this new legislation will start with a $0 fee in recognition of COVID. Prohibitive costs borne from complying with the ever-growing regulations are a real problem for the industry, particularly for recreational pilots. I think this no-cost approach, or low-cost approach, should not only be continued going forward but should be expanded to other aspects of CASA regulation.
I could go on, but I've been told to keep it brief and I will. I'll simply conclude with this: I love flying. I absolutely love it, as you can tell, but even for someone as passionate as I am, and with the means that I have at my disposal—which are not inconsiderable to the average Australian—it was amazingly bureaucratic, time consuming and enormously costly to become a recreational pilot. I want Australians of any age to find it easier and cheaper to embrace their love of flying. That's how recreational aviation and general aviation will survive, when we get Australians who are passionate about flying and we give them the ability to get involved in it. This legislation is good as far as regulation goes, and I am pleased to support it. But, more importantly, my sincere hope is that going forward we will find a way to reform CASA, to reduce regulation and costs, and to get Australia and Australians flying again.
Deputy Speaker Vasta, I just wanted to alert you to something that's thrown me off a bit; it's not often that I agree with the member for Ryan, but I do! I never thought I'd say that in this chamber but there are elements of what he said that I completely agree with, with respect to CASA.
I do appreciate that in relation to this legislation, and generally, CASA are trying to do the best they can to maintain safety, given what's involved, and they've done a great job. Through a combination of their regulation plus the industry itself, fatalities in this sector are low. But in this space, particularly with respect to the legislation that's before us regarding drone technology, there have been some limitations. There have been some concerns about the pace of regulatory reform and there have also been some concerns that a result of the reforms is cost impacts on individual operators. I have been approached by some in this space who are using drone technology and who have been concerned about the approach that CASA has taken.
While this bill will advance a few things and, notably, will not necessarily put a cost impost on people utilising drones, there are some people who have been quite vocal and who have raised their concerns with me, particularly some who run microbusinesses. It's important to note that not every drone operator is a large operator. Small operators will invest in this technology and try to further a business idea that they have, but they also have to be mindful of the rules surrounding the use of drones. They've said to me they have found the rules surrounding them 'understandably complicated', but operators have criticised CASA for the 'difficulty in interpreting the regulations'. A Canberra based firm that, as I said, runs a microbusiness sent me an email saying: 'As someone who's worked in regulatory policy at both state and federal levels, I've taken the view that CASA are probably the most opaque regulator I've come across. We aren't all massive companies like Qantas, with lawyers to interpret and trawl through instruments. Use plain English and help us stay within the rules, as we clearly are trying to do.' So they have been saying that that is something that they are concerned about.
It has taken a bit of time to get to the point where we have a complete regulatory framework. In fact, I remember the member for Dawson bringing down a report in this space calling for a proper regulatory framework around drones back in 2014. Six years later, we are debating this legislation. It is, unfortunately, a very painful repetition of behaviour by this government, where it seems to take an incredible amount of time to get from issues being raised, particularly when it comes to technology, to then getting things done. Sure, when we're moving into new arenas it's difficult sometimes to bring that into place. But others seem to move way quicker. It is holding up innovation in this space.
The reason why I'm speaking in this debate is that I recognise the impact of technology, especially in the agriculture sector. More and more people in the agriculture sector—and this is a sector that has embraced technology over many years, with some of the greatest advances in automation occurring in the 1950s and 1960s—are looking to find smarter, more efficient ways to get things done. They will embrace technology that delivers that. Drone technology, for example, is an important part of being able to cover a large land mass quickly. Farmers can use drone technology to undertake the observation required, be it of cattle or other aspects of their farm businesses operating across a large land space or footprint. Drone technology's going to be important to them.
I suspect a lot of them would be concerned at the prospect of regulatory fees being put in place. Sure, they will understand why. Sure, they'll understand it'll be designed to recoup the costs of putting in some of these regulations. But they'll also want to make sure that it's not too imposing on their businesses, particularly given the pressures they've had to face in recent years, especially with respect to drought and what they're going through at the moment in relation to trade. Drone technology and ag tech generally, and the application of technology in this arena, will be very important. Any regulations with respect to drones are very critical.
It has been impressed upon us to keep our remarks brief, but I cannot talk in the House on the issue of drones without referring to the work of some terrific Australians in this space. I'll just use my time in the House to very quickly recognise the contribution of Dr Catherine Ball. Dr Ball is a much-sought-after voice in our tech sector here in Australia. She has worked a lot on the application of drone technology across remote communities, schools, industry and citizen science, and she's certainly led the cause around the ethics of spatial data and commercial drone operations. She also looks at the application of technology with a particular view of humanitarian elements, ranging from the use of drones for emergency response to recording cultural heritage and agricultural assessments, and she has travelled extensively here and overseas to give her support and assistance on technology and projects that combine science, entrepreneurship, empowerment, education and training. Dr Ball has also run the World of Drones conferences here in Australia. She's been a fantastic contributor to the sector, particularly to tech in Australia.
I think it is important on the floor of the House of Representatives to recognise talented Australians who are thinking creatively and laterally on the application of technology and championing its use across a wide range of other sectors. I want to salute Catherine for her work and thank her enormously for what she is doing and, importantly, for her belief in our fellow Australians coming up with new ways of using technology—not just from an economic perspective but also from a social one—to advance the way that we work. Thank you very much to her. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the bill.
I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate on the Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020 and the Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020. The systems of remotely piloted aircraft—or RPAs, also known as drones—are rapidly developing and highly technical sectors of aviation. More and more RPAs are being flown across our skies, and RPAs are being used in a wide and growing range of applications, such as: delivering commercial packages, monitoring bushfires, search and rescue, infrastructure inspections and even the application of pesticides. Every day we are finding more and more users and opportunities to capitalise on the opportunities offered by this emerging technology.
These opportunities, however, also bring a range of challenges to the broader aviation industry. Australia's safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority—or CASA—who continues to provide regulatory functions to RPA users, faces more pressure to ensure the safe integration of drones into the Australian aviation system. Together, these bills enable CASA to continue delivering safe administration and regulation of RPAs into the future. This ensures that CASA has sufficient funding to continue providing safety regulatory functions for RPAs that are supported by users of the functions instead of by the general public. It will also support the introduction of RPA registration schemes which are set to begin from 30 September 2020 onwards. Given the impacts of COVID-19 on the aviation sector and the relative infancy of the RPA sector, I understand that introducing a cost-recovery scheme during this period could potentially stifle innovation and growth and negatively impact the opportunity for this sector to get back on its feet.
While the registration scheme will begin in September 2020, there'll be no cost on any users for the current financial year. Any consideration of costs imposed from the cost-recovery scheme will only be imposed from mid-2021 onwards. This will be considered as part of the overall funding arrangements for CASA and—once the government has developed a whole-of-government approach to regulation and service provision for the RPA sector—this levy will only apply to commercial RPA operators at this point and not to recreational RPA users. I would like to thank the honourable members for their constructive contributions to this debate and I commend the bills to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Ballarat 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 words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
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 Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report 192: Military Training—Singapore; Digital Economy Agreement—Singapore.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—This report covers two proposed treaty actions with Singapore—the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the Republic of Singapore concerning military training and training area development in Australia, and the Australia-Singapore Digital Economy Agreement. The military training agreement will provide Singapore with training facilities larger than those available in Singapore, and it will also provide significant investment in regions of Queensland that rely heavily on tourism and have consequently suffered during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The proposed Australia-Singapore Digital Economy Agreement will amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement signed in 2003 by replacing SAFTA's current chapter 14, on electronic commerce, with a new chapter. The committee recommends that binding treaty action be taken on both agreements. I commend the report to the House.
The Speaker has received advice from the Opposition Whip that she has nominated Mr Burns to be a member of the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts in the place of Mr Husic.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Husic be discharged from the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts and that, in his place, Mr Burns be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
I'll make a short contribution on the three schedules of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 5) Bill 2020 and foreshadow that I'll be moving an amendment at this second reading stage. I understand the honourable member for Cunningham has indicated she will be so kind as to second that amendment.
Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to introduce a new legislative instrument-making power into the income tax laws to make an eligible state or territory coronavirus business grant free from income tax. We expect that this tax treatment will be extended to some very worthy programs that are being implemented by various state and territory governments to support small businesses, including the Victorian government's coronavirus business grant scheme and schemes that have been rolled out by the Barr government here in the ACT, the Palaszczuk government in Queensland, the McGowan government in Western Australia—in fact, state governments around the country. We obviously support the measure, but it is worth noting how much heavy lifting the state governments are doing, and how much this government's economic comeback, as I understand the branding dictates we refer to it, is reliant on state government investments. They paid a lot of money for that slogan; they could have given me a call—for 50c I'd have given them some good advice on that!
It's state and territory governments who overwhelmingly are responsible for investing in infrastructure. Indeed, Labor state and territory governments across the country are investing in record amounts, and I want to acknowledge that. It is the state and territory governments who have been left holding the bill for the health and public order costs of this pandemic, something that is often glossed over in this place. I want to acknowledge that contribution by the state and territory governments here today. And it's state and territory governments, like the Victorian government, under the leadership of Premier Dan Andrews, who are delivering necessary support for Australian businesses, as are other state premiers around the country—McGowan; Palaszczuk; Chief Minister Barr here in the ACT, who I've already mentioned; and Gunner in the Northern Territory. The government are letting state and territory governments pick up the bill while they leave too many Australian unemployed or underemployed for too long.
I want to address schedule 2 of the bill. This improves the trans-Tasman retirement savings portability arrangements put in place by the Labor and the New Zealand governments back in 2009. Earlier this year I had the pleasure of meeting with the New Zealand high commissioner, Dame Annette King, to discuss this very issue. I advised Dame King at the time that Labor would give full support to regularising and improving these transfer arrangements. Dame King has been a great advocate for New Zealanders here in Australia, on this issue and on many other issues as well. I thank her for her continuing interest—in fact, her long tradition of cooperating and consulting between our two great nations. It is worth noting that in a past life Dame King worked to improve trans-Tasman relations as the New Zealand Minister of Transport, and Minister of Justice and Police under the prime ministership of that great New Zealander and great friend of this country, Helen Clark.
Schedule 3 of the bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include Neighbourhood Watch Australasia Ltd on the list of deductible gift recipients. We support this, and we'd encourage the government to look at many other applicants for DGR status. Sometimes it appears that some organisations that are equally worthy as those that are approved in bills such as this before the House are overlooked by this government. We encourage them to take a much more equitable approach to this issue.
I'll move to the second reading amendment that I intend to move. 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 the Government’s economic support for small businesses and ordinary Australians during the coronavirus pandemic has been insufficient;
(2) further notes the Government has been happy to take credit for the measures put in place by the States and Territories to protect the health, livelihood, and businesses of ordinary Australians; and
(3) calls on the Government to commit to implementing its election promise to deliver the legislated increases to superannuation".
Before the election, the Prime Minister promised the Australian people that money would be paid to them through their superannuation arrangements. He now wants to change the law so that the money will not be paid. This is unconscionable. When the Prime Minister himself receives 15.4 per cent in superannuation contributions, he's saying to the rest of the country that 9½ per cent is enough for them.
This occurs at a time when retirees are very nervous indeed. There are constant changes to superannuation laws and arrangements at the time when they're trying to sort out their retirement savings, and it comes at a time when the government has frozen the pension. They know that the government has cut health spending. They know that the government has made an absolute mess in aged care. And it appears to them that the government is now saying, 'If you run out of money in retirement, what you must do is sell your house.' This is not good enough. Retirees in this country deserve better, and we'll be keeping the government to account. There'll be a bare-knuckle fight on this if the government moves ahead with its plan to slash the retirement savings of hardworking Australians.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. I call the honourable Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Firstly, I'd like to thank those members who've contributed to this debate. Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to introduce new legislative instrument-making power into the income tax laws, to make eligible state and territory coronavirus business grants free from income tax. As announced by the Prime Minister on 18 September 2020, this tax treatment will be extended to the Victorian government's coronavirus business grants announced on 13 September 2020. Other states and territories will be able to apply for the same tax treatment where they have eligible grants programs focused on supporting small and medium businesses facing exceptional circumstances similar to those currently impacting on Victorian businesses.
Schedule 2 will allow the Australian Taxation Office to directly transfer the unclaimed superannuation of New Zealand citizens directly to their KiwiSaver retirement saving funds in New Zealand. This will make it easier for New Zealanders to access any unclaimed superannuation they may have in Australia.
Schedule 3 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1987 to include Neighbourhood Watch Australasia Ltd on the list of deductible gift recipients. The deductible gift recipient status allow members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the donations that they make to this organisation. By granting deductible gift recipient status for this organisation, the government is supporting them in providing valuable services to the community. I commend this bill to the House.
I thank the assistant minister. 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 words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020 and to indicate the Labor Party's support for this bill. This bill would amend the Immigration Education Act 1971 in four ways: to remove the current 510-hour limit on an eligible person's entitlement to English tuition; to amend the upper limit for eligibility to access English tuition from functional English to vocational English; to remove the time limits on the registration, commencement and completion of English tuition for certain visa holders; and, finally, to provide English tuition to certain visa holders or visa applicants who are outside of Australia.
These are changes that Labor supports because they will allow more migrants to access free English tuition for longer and until they reach a higher level of English proficiency. Federal Labor has been advocating for changes along these lines for quite some time now, so it is pleasing to see a response from the government in that regard. But the provisions in this bill need to be seen in the context of a government that failed to properly administer this vital program, failed to properly integrate the program with settlement outcomes and, as evidenced by the explanatory memorandum to the bill that is presently before the House, has failed to appropriately allocate resources to meet the grand aspirations it has set out in the bill. While we on this side of the House and many stakeholders welcome these changes, we know that the Morrison government has not had a change of heart towards migration and settlement, and this step forward is matched by several steps back, including the cruel partner visa English language test and the capping of the humanitarian intake, stripping nearly a billion dollars from the budget, damaging the critical mass of service provision and hurting Australia's capacity to restart our migration system. For these reasons, I foreshadow that I'll be moving a second reading amendment to the bill before the House.
I also want to touch on the process which has brought the bill to the House. I will be very brief, noting the time of year and the amount of legislation that the House has to deal with. On this side of the House, we agreed to a very rushed Senate inquiry because, while this bill is agreed, it is significant. It relates to a billion dollars worth of appropriation and it relates to the chance that many, many Australians will have to build their English proficiency and, with that, their capacity to make a full economic, social and, hopefully, political contribution to this nation. The Senate inquiry that was undertaken didn't allow many issues that relate to these objectives to be properly canvassed, and these are of concern. I note in particular—beyond the process point of stakeholders not having the opportunity to present their case to the senators in the other place—three issues which needed, in my view, to be explored in detail and which we will continue to see explored in detail. In particular, there is the increased threshold for eligibility for vocational English and whether or not this will have a meaningful impact in increasing participation and retention in language learning. Another issue is the merits of the partnership of the department with the Behavioural Economics Team in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to increase participation and retention in language learning. Again, a bold assertion has been made that appears to be unsupported by evidence. This is something which needs to be explored. Also, there are a number of issues with the existing deed of standing offer, which is in place until 2022-23.
A number of service providers have expressed a range of concerns. I might just mention a couple of these very briefly. I am thinking of Navitas, who expressed concerns that clients may require at least 2,000 hours of English language learning to reach social proficiency—that is, functional English—and went to the structural issues and incentives, in making full use of incentives. These are issues which are important but which have not been canvassed in the bill nor adequately explained more broadly by the government. AMES Australia have similarly acknowledged—and they put it this bluntly—that 'the current attrition from the AMEP may not be solved by providing additional hours of tuition'. This bill exists in a context, not in a vacuum. There are deeper structural issues that need to be addressed.
The wider issues go to the core of Labor's concern, and I know my colleagues will expand on this. What stakeholders would like to see and what Labor would like to see is greater transparency and more detail when it comes to evaluation and testing. This is a point well made by FECCA in their submission—that there needs to be greater transparency and more detail when it comes to the evaluation and testing of people's English needs, particularly in relation to this cruel proposal relating to partner visas. In referring to this context, one point that I want to put very clearly before the parliament is that the government revealed its true intentions when a department official recently admitted in the estimates hearings:
If an applicant couldn't demonstrate that they had made reasonable efforts to learn English, then, yes, that could be a reason why we would deny a visa. The bar for demonstrating that is completing the AMEP course …
This goes to show that the issues here cannot be considered in isolation. They relate to a number of other policy decisions, many of which have a huge impact on people's lives and on how we as a country see ourselves. 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 the failure of the Government to properly administer the Adult Migrant English Program and that the program's strategic, structural and operational challenges are yet to be addressed;
(2) further notes reduced funding for the Adult Migrant English Program in the forward estimates, despite the Government's claims that enrolments will return to pre-COVID levels by 2021-22; and
(3) calls on the Government to abandon its planned English language requirements for Partner visa applicants".
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I'm not going to speak for too long on the Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020, primarily because we do support an increase to the 510-hour limit. It is appropriate, and it's particularly appropriate when new migrants come to Australia with an ASLPR, Australian Second Language Proficiency Rating, of zero or one, with limited or no literacy. Tuition of 510 hours is simply not enough to get them up to functional English, which is currently assessed at ASLPR2 across all four macro skills.
But there are a number of issues with the bill as it stands, as the member for Scullin, the shadow minister, has outlined. Some of those issues are around eligibility for the AMEP in the first place. Currently, if someone arrives in Australia and tests at or above ASLPR level 2, they are not eligible for the AMEP. Does this mean that the eligibility criteria will change?
The bigger issue, from my experience—and I speak as somebody who was an AMEP teacher and who has a Master of Education, with a thesis in this very area—is that, even at ASLPR2, even with functional English, those who graduate from the AMEP, having achieved that level of English across all four macro skills, go into higher education and are unlikely to successfully complete, whether it's a certificate III or a certificate IV or even a bachelor's degree. There is a gap between an ASLPR2—a functional level of English—and the level of English necessary to complete a degree or acquire a skill of some sort.
One consideration may be to allow people who have reached an ASLPR2 to utilise the rest of their English-language provisions for scaffold learning in a mainstream higher education course—to utilise some of that increase in the 510 hours to enable people who have ASLPR2 to continue to access English-language tuition while, at the same time, also accessing a certificate in, for example, aged care or child care.
I urge the government to listen to the providers. They know what they're doing. AMEP teachers are very well versed in how to assess people in the English language but also in the English-language level that is required not just to function in Australian society but to flourish in Australian society. I take it at face value that the government's purpose in introducing this bill and increasing the 510-hour limit is to enable the full economic and social participation of all new migrants to Australia. I hope that is the case. If that is the case, I reiterate my call for the government to talk to service providers, to talk to English-language teachers, to talk to people from the sector about how effectively we could utilise this increase in the 510-hour provisions and deliver the best possible outcome for people who will have those provisions available to them.
That said, I will conclude on my support for the amendment moved by the shadow minister. I also lend my support to the issues raised by the shadow minister, particularly the point that the increase to the 510 hours of English language needs to be taken in the context that the AMEP has been neglected by this government over a number of years. While it's good to see that this is now getting some attention, I hope that that attention results in better outcomes for new arrivals and new migrants, who in my experience—having taught in the AMEP—all want to make a contribution to the country that they chose to come to, Australia. They all want to make an economic contribution; they want to get jobs; they want to work; they want to be a part of our society. The best that we can do is facilitate that for them and help them to do that. We all recognise in this place that having a good grasp of English language, not just a functional grasp, is essential to that. We have within our power the tools to ensure that the AMEP is an effective part of the settlement process. I urge the government to listen to the service providers and the experts in this field.
The Adult Migrant English Program has existed since 1948. Over that 72-year period, two million migrants have benefited from the AMEP. Learning English is an important part of nation-building. When Australians are surveyed as to what they believe it is that makes an Australian, most don't say it's being born here, but many do say it's speaking English. Speaking English is an important part of being an Australian and being able to contribute politically or in business circles and to engage with your neighbours.
Australia, in the main, does settlement well. We have differences in this House over asylum seeker policy, but, when people are accepted to come to Australia, the settlement services are as good as in any other country. In 2009 the then United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, said that Australia had 'one of the best refugee resettlement programs in the world'. But, as an important report written by James Button for the Scanlon Foundation has noted, Australia's record of helping migrants learn English is threatened today. That report notes that the groups most at risk of not speaking English well are sections of the Chinese community, refugees and some women. It points out that the AMEP, which has been a world leader in language learning, suffers from a lack of clarity in balancing its employment and settlement objectives. It recommends additional government funding for independent research on the AMEP and a diversity of ways to deliver AMEP, notably in online and distance formats. It recommends the uncapping of the AMEP Extend subprogram—and those additional hours in the bill are welcomed. It also recommends extending the time in which migrants can enrol in and complete the AMEP, recognising that, for some, 300 hours would be enough to enjoy good English proficiency and, for others, it might be closer to 3,000 hours.
As Labor senators have noted in their report on the Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020, there are concerns that have been raised by stakeholders. One is whether the increased threshold for eligibility to 'vocational English' will have a meaningful impact to increase participation and retention in language learning. There have been concerns about the movement of AMEP from the Department of Education and Training to Home Affairs. This is fundamentally an education program, and many stakeholders were uncomfortable about that shift.
Among the submissions that were made to that inquiry, FECCA said:
'FECCA would welcome greater transparency and more detail when it comes to evaluation and testing of people's English levels, especially related to partner visa.'
RACS said:
'RACS wishes to make clear that our support for this Bill does not extend in any way to support for future measures restricting access to permanent visa pathways for migrants.'
ASRC said:
'ASRC's support of the bill does not extend to support any possible future measures restricting access to permanent visa pathways for migrants.'
Helen Moore, the vice-president of the Australian Council of TESOL Associations and ACTA spokesperson on English language provision for adult migrants, has expressed concerns to me about a range of aspects of AMEP. She noted in particular that a strong focus on competition may prevent providers from collaborating on, for example, student referrals. Others have expressed a concern to me that the department's desire to write contracts at a higher level takes away the ability for fine-grained local provision of AMEP education, and that may prevent, for example, a provider who specialises in teaching English in the Chinese community.
Labor takes multiculturalism very seriously. I was pleased to join with my colleagues the members for Werriwa and Wills in a meeting of Labor's multicultural task force with representatives in the ACT community. I thank Mainul Haque, Naresh Gunasekere, Sandra Elhelw Wright, Hong Sar Channaibanya, Shobha Varkey and Cong Le for their thoughtful contributions to our conversation on multiculturalism. AMEP has played a vital part in Australia's multicultural story and it is vital that it is strengthened and continues to play an important role into the future.
I speak on the Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020. The Adult Migrant English Program assists migrants coming to Australia to learn English. The Morrison government is now in its eighth year and has so far, sadly, all but neglected AMEP. This deficit must be fixed. It is essential that new migrants can access programs to develop essential English language skills. I know how important this program is in my electorate. In the Moreton community, 40 per cent of the population—two people in five—were born overseas and 36 per cent speak a language other than English at home. Moreton is a wonderful, vibrant multicultural community in the most multicultural country in the world. Moreton is successful because migrants participate in the local community. Migrants are over-enrolled when it comes to community groups. Moreton is successful because migrants can communicate with their community and with their neighbours.
The Commonwealth currently provides 510 hours of English course tuition to permanent visa holders and holders of certain temporary visa classes. This bill removes the cap of 510 hours and extends language eligibility. It removes time limits for registration and allows for the provision of tuition overseas. These amendments will allow free access to English tuition for longer so migrants can reach a higher level of English proficiency. The bill will also enable access to English language courses to be provided to persons outside Australia in preparation for migration.
When introducing this bill, the minister said: 'Without adequate English language skills, migrants will find it harder to get a job, harder to integrate into their local community and harder to participate in Australia's democracy.' I agree with the minister. Labor, along with other stakeholders, has been campaigning for changes to the Adult Migrant English Program for some time. It's essential that migrants can fully participate in Australian life. That will occur only if effective settlement services are in place, including English language proficiency. The Morrison government has failed to support effective settlement services, has failed to listen to stakeholders and has failed to take responsibility for this critical program.
The government's 2017 changes to the structure, funding and curriculum of the Adult Migrant English Program were, sadly, a complete failure. The Scanlon Foundation reported in June last year 'intense discontent' on the part of providers and teachers following the 2017 changes, and many of us remember the Liberal government's discriminatory plan to impose a citizenship language test. That was absolutely the wrong message to send to the community. Labor supports this bill and will work constructively with the government and multicultural communities to ensure that the Adult Migrant English Program meets the needs of new migrants, and supports and promotes social cohesion. It's important for new migrants, it's important for our communities and it's important for our nation. Multiculturalism is what makes this country great, and multiculturalism is what will make it even greater in a changing world.
I too wish to speak on the Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020. The longstanding Adult Migrant English Program has been one of this country's most successful settlement support programs, and we welcome any moves to enhance and extend it. Being able to speak, listen, respond, read and write in English is fundamental to successful settlement in Australia. It enables the opportunity to work, to undertake further training or education, to function in daily life and to establish meaningful relationships with neighbours and others in the broader community. It's important, however, to emphasise that while learning English is very important we should not penalise those who have difficulty in learning the language to an arbitrary standard. Many of us who make the laws of this land have never had to learn a second, third or subsequent language, especially in adulthood, and cannot begin to presume the difficulties that such a task involves.
In relation to the AMEP, this program is not only a vital service for its role in language education; it's also a key gateway to broader settlement. Adult English language classes provide a valuable place to learn about how Australian society works, what other services and supports are available, where to start when trying to get financial advice or medical advice, where to look for a job or how to look for a job, and how to meet people within the broader community. None of this advice is provided in an official capacity, of course, but the regular contact with English teachers, and even with fellow students, provides an important informal support and advice network. We need to be mindful that successful settlement involves much more than just sentence structure and a few key phrases of English.
I think that we're all in agreement that the Adult Migrant English Program is a vital and an invaluable program. It's therefore of the utmost importance that it's properly funded and supported to deliver the best possible service. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have been the case in recent years. Changes made in 2017 to the structure, funding and curriculum of the AMEP have to date proved to be unhelpful and in urgent need of re-evaluation. Both the Social Compass evaluation for the Department of Home Affairs of August 2019 and a critique by the Scanlon Foundation in June 2019 found a great deal of dissatisfaction and perceived inefficiencies brought about by the changes to the AMEP.
The amendments in the bill before us will ostensibly provide greater flexibility and extend access to English language classes, including the removal of the 510-hour entitlement cap, extended eligibility, removal of time limits for registration and allowing for the provision of tuition offshore. These changes will allow for greater access to free English tuition for students for longer periods, and until they reach a higher level of English proficiency. These changes are welcome, and ones that stakeholders have themselves been arguing for. There is some cause for concern, however, in the potential lack of funding to make these improvements achievable without further affecting the quality of the service. If there is no new money attached, are these changes just a fine-sounding announcement with no policy substance?
My electorate of Calwell is home to one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Australia, which now includes one of the largest communities of recently arrived Syrian and Iraqi refugees and migrants. Many of these people come to us with extensive education, professional training and a strong desire to work hard and establish their families in their new home. A strong and good-quality adult migrant English program is not only the key to enabling these community members to build the secure and flourishing lives they yearn for; it is also the key to enhancing the broader Australian society, making it more inclusive and ensuring our nation gets maximum benefit from its more recently arrived members, who have so much to offer.
In closing, I'd like to give a shout-out to my main three providers of the AMEP program in Calwell—the Melbourne Polytechnic based in Broadmeadows and its subcontractor the Kangan Institute, the Hume Global Learning Centre in Craigieburn and the Newbury community centre, and the Meadow Heights Education Centre, which offers AMEP classes at seven different locations across Meadow Heights and Craigieburn. Altogether, these services teach hundreds of newly arrived adults, ranging in age from their 20s to their late 60s. The vast majority of these students hail from Syria and Iraq, but there are also Vietnamese, Chinese, Indonesian, Hmong, Indian, Sri Lankan and Egyptian students.
So, whilst service providers welcome the proposed amendments in the bill, there are some concerns about whether the changes will actually result in a genuine extension of services given the lack of clarity around budgetary support. I look forward to keeping a close eye on how this bill delivers to my local community.
I thank all members who contributed to this debate. The Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020 expands access to free English tuition for migrants delivered through the Adult Migrant English Program. The bill removes limits on tuition hours and raises the upper limit for AMEP eligibility to allow people to remain in the program until they reach vocational English. It removes various time limits that would otherwise restrict the ability of certain migrants to access English tuition.
The bill also expands the scope of the discretion to deliver English courses outside Australia. Currently, this discretion only applies to permanent visa applicants. The bill will be extended to permanent visa holders as well as people who have applied for or hold a specified temporary visa. This amendment lays the foundation for tuition options to be developed in the future to deliver English courses to people who are overseas to help them prepare for migration to Australia.
English language skills are critical to every aspect of life in Australia. If you can't communicate, you can't integrate. Without English, it is harder to get a job, harder to be an active member of the community and harder to participate in our rich democracy. This bill will support migrants to achieve the English language skills needed to participate effectively in Australia. It will also allow certain visa holders with low levels of English proficiency who are already in Australia to re-engage in language learning.
I would like to thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its work on this bill through its inquiry and for its recommendation that the bill be passed. The government will continue working with English course providers and other stakeholders, many of whom made submissions to the inquiry, throughout the implementation of the reforms to ensure the program effectively achieves English language outcomes for eligible migrants.
The changes made by the bill reflect the government's commitment to supporting migrants to learn Australia's national language. It will send a strong message about the importance of English proficiency for social cohesion and national unity. Increased English language skills will also boost the future employment and education prospects for migrants. This is particularly important in light of the economic challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. The government is committed to the successful integration and participation of migrants in Australian society. By expanding access to English tuition, the bill will contribute to enhanced social cohesion within the Australian community. I believe that this bill deserves support. 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 Scullin has moved as an amendment that all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has agreed to the resolution:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia on its inquiry into the destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia be extended to 18 October 2021.
I want to say, at the outset, that Labor will be supporting this bill. As outlined by the minister in the explanatory memorandum, this bill enables a new procedure to do a shadow classification of recipients of residential aged care and some kinds of flexible care in Australia. This has been necessary, of course, because we know that the current funding model is broken—the Aged Care Funding Instrument. Indeed, we have known that for some time, and we have been calling on the government to do more about that. In fact, we have had the University of Wollongong commission a report about the funding model. This has been going on for some time. Indeed, the government has had this report since August 2017, so it has taken a very long time to get to this point.
I want to put on record that the Department of Health has estimated that there will be around 250 independent assessors that will do the shadow classification, and that they are required to hold a qualification of a registered nurse, an occupational therapist or a physiotherapist. I've also been reassured by the government that these assessors will not replace the current ACATs and, indeed, the current ACATs could actually do this work.
I'm also advised by the government that there will be no change to the funding currently allocated to the Aged Care Funding Instrument to providers without any further legislation coming to this place. Indeed, this legislation will only enable the shadow classification ready for any reform that may be recommended by the royal commission into aged care for this new classification system to be introduced, so we want to make sure that the government does the right thing here by current aged-care recipients. We understand that the government wants the 220,000 current recipients of residential aged care and some flexible care to be reclassified in the first year of operation with the shadow classification and that the government wants to start doing that from April.
But we do have some concerns about this bill, and I want to take time to put them on the record. We are concerned that the 250 full-time assessors will not be regulated by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. We understand that the regulation of the assessors will be the responsibility of the Department of Health. We would like to see that fixed. We also understand that the government is seeking to move a substantive amendment to this legislation in relation to improved privacy so that people's personal information is not published. Obviously we want to support the bill, but, as I said at the outset, we are concerned that the government has been very slow to do the reform that is necessary in aged care.
We know that aged care in Australia is in crisis. We also know that the current government and the current Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer, cut funding from the Aged Care Funding Instrument. Indeed, $1.7 billion was cut. And we know that this has had an impact on the care being provided. We know from providers, we know from families and we know from workers in the aged-care facilities around Australia that the current Prime Minister's cut when he was Treasurer to residential aged-care funding has had a substantial impact, particularly on those residents with very high needs. Everybody has seen that the cuts that were made by the current Prime Minister when he was Treasurer have had a significant impact on the delivery and quality of care in facilities right around the country. It got to the point where it was so bad that this government had to call a royal commission, essentially into itself and its management of aged-care reform in Australia. It has been very, very slow. To that end, 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 the Government's slow approach to reforming aged care'.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Franklin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I'll state the question in the form: 'That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.'
I rise to speak on the amendment to the Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020, as moved by my good colleague the member for Franklin. As she has pointed out, the bill enables a new procedure to classify recipients of residential aged care. The member for Franklin has very thoroughly outlined our concerns and everything about this particular bill, notwithstanding the fact that we will ultimately support it.
Everybody agrees, as the member said, that the Aged Care Funding Instrument is no longer fit for purpose. When residents enter an aged-care facility, they are assessed using the ACFI—the Aged Care Funding Instrument. This assessment is usually undertaken by a nurse employed by the provider, and many nurses tell us that that is their sole duty—they spend pretty much their entire job doing the figures so that they can maximise the income from the ACFI—instead of using their nursing expertise where it should be used: actually being out on the floor looking after the aged-care residents. Many residential aged-care facilities have admitted that this is necessary because the instrument is very, very time consuming and complex, and they need to maximise the outcome.
It's interesting that we are moving to a new instrument, which has been trialled—the RUCS trial. I'm old enough to remember the old CAM-SAM funding, which was around a long time ago! I see that my colleagues here are also old enough to remember that! But the CAM-SAM funding gave a specific amount for standard care, which everybody got, and then there was an amount added to that for care, depending on the needs of the resident. It's with some amusement that I see, following the RUCS trial, that there is actually broad support returning to a model that is quite similar to the CAM-SAM funding model. It's almost gone the full circle—what goes around comes around. As I said, we will support this bill because this is all about quality, and we are supporting anything that will improve quality for our aged-care residents. As the member for Franklin noted, we on this side are incredibly frustrated with the lack of commitment to reforming our aged-care system and returning quality of care to the residents. I can't tell you how tired I am to stand in this place and keep saying the same things over and over. We keep repeating the words of the advocates, the unions, the workers, the residents, their families—all the things that they've been telling us for years about how broken the system is.
I just want to acknowledge the great work that the member for Franklin has done for all of those stakeholders and all of the people in the aged-care system. I repeat—ad nauseam—the aged-care system is broken. It was broken before COVID, but the pandemic has, of course, shone a light through the cracks. The royal commission detailed the shocking failures in individual aged-care homes. It outlined the structural weaknesses in our system and, to quote the commission itself:
… the aged care system fails to meet the needs of our older, often very vulnerable, citizens. It does not deliver uniformly safe and quality care for older people. It is unkind and uncaring towards them.
Imagine that—to have to give up your loved one into a system that is unkind and uncaring. The royal commission says, 'In too many instances, it simply neglects them.'
I don't know how members of the government can sit there and listen to those words from the royal commission over and over again like we have and not hang their heads in shame. The commission says there was:
…serious substandard care and unsafe practice, an underpaid, undervalued and insufficiently trained workforce—
And that was before the pandemic hit. When we get to COVID, we know that the Prime Minister's plan was nothing more than guidelines offered up by an incompetent minister who never acts with the urgency the sector needs. The plan failed. It's a nonsense to say otherwise; it's an insult to say otherwise.
As a former nurse and head of the nurses' union, I spent a large part of my career actually fighting for a better aged-care system. We've been saying for decades that we need regulated staffing levels, a good skill mix of professionals, better pay and training, and we need to make aged-care providers accountable for the government funding they receive so we know it's spent on quality care. That is why it's so frustrating that amendments put by Senator Griff were defeated by the government—teaming up with One Nation—who voted against transparency in aged-care funding so that aged-care providers can spend or pocket the money they get from the government for their residents.
It's hard to understand how anyone could oppose Australians having more information about the new $20 billion that is actually spent in the aged-care system. We're saying, 'Enough is enough'. We have actually announced what we think is a plan that is necessary to fix aged care—which includes minimum staffing levels, reducing the Home Care Package list, and ensuring transparency and accountability of funding—because we know that Australians are angry. We know that Australians care very deeply about this and that we can no longer neglect the older generations of this country. We can't let them down, we can't let their carers down and we can't let their families down. In their final years of life, when they're sick and vulnerable, they should not be left in beds hungry. They should not be left in beds with maggots crawling through their wounds and without the care they need. It's a great shame. The Morrison government should hang its head in shame.
Just like the rest of the developed world, the Australian population is steadily getting older. In 1977, nine per cent of our population was over 65 years. In 2017, that proportion grew to 15 per cent. In another 40 years, it's predicted to be 22 per cent. That is something that I learnt about in medical school and it is something that we've been preparing for as a community and as a society. The demographic of those people entering residential care has substantially changed and, as a result, so too has the aged-care sector. Advances in medicine, high-quality diets and lifestyles, and the success of the home-care packages introduced by our government, the Morrison government, has meant, paradoxically, that the aged-care residential population is getting older and frailer so it is more difficult to care for those people in these situations. In fact, half of those entering care will only be there for two years. The Morrison government recognises the complexities associated with the changing profile of those in residential aged care and we are committed to delivering quality care for our senior Australians.
This bill is an important additional step towards the delivery of an improved residential aged-care sector now and into the future. The existing model for funding aged-care residential services using the Aged Care Funding Instrument, ACFI, has been in place for over a decade. Substantial changes in the demographic of those in residential aged care, as I've explained in this time, has meant that the Department of Health and care providers have experienced funding uncertainty and inequity in recent years. Studies have concluded that the ACFI no longer satisfactorily discriminates between residents in terms of what drives the cost of delivering care. We, therefore, need to improve our system to be better tailored to the needs and wellbeing of our ageing population, and this bill does just that.
I know firsthand the journey many Australians and their families have through the aged-care sector. My father—a doctor himself—suffered a heartbreaking deterioration in his later years at the hands of Alzheimer's. He started off with in-home care, then aged care, then a high-care residential facility and, finally, high-acuity care in a residential setting. It was a long and torturous journey but one that was supported by the system. In line with my father's condition, each of these stages involved varying degrees of care, medical attention and personnel, and, ultimately, costs.
This bill establishes a more efficient, stable and contemporary procedure to classify residents of residential aged care. The bill empowers the secretary of the Department of Health to assess care recipients using a new assessment tool called the Australian National Aged Care Classification and to process assessment results to assign new classification levels. This will allow the option to independently assess the relative care needs of individuals in residential aged care.
This bill follows the successful assessment tool trial, which was conducted in 2019 and early 2020, involving over 150 aged-care homes around the country. This is a very important component of the development of this bill. It's about engaging with the sector and ensuring that, as a trial, this has worked.
This assessment tool was developed by the University of Wollongong as part of the resource utilisation and classification study. The overall aims of this study were to identify the clinical needs and characteristics of aged-care residents that influenced the cost of care; identify the proportion of care costs that on average are shared across residents, relative to the costs associated with the individual needs; develop, importantly, a case mix classification based on identified cost drivers that underpin a funding model that recognises both shared and individual costs; and test the feasibility of implementing the recommended classification and funding model across the Australian residential aged-care sector.
The RUCS reported that the ANACC is designed to capture the core attributes that drive the care costs in residential aged care, so we're hearing from the sector on this. The ANACC comprises of 13 classes and explains 50 per cent of the variance in costs of individual residential care. There's a fivefold variation in cost between the least and the most expensive ANACC classes. This change to this bill will better inform funding arrangements and ultimately care for our senior Australians.
The clinical assessment tool that underpins this ANACC can be readily understood and administered by an external clinical assessor. These assessors will have to meet strict professional qualification and additional training criteria. Funding for the assessors was announced by the Treasurer in the Morrison government's budget earlier this year.
This bill now actively responds to criticisms from care providers, statutory authorities and academic researchers of how care recipients are currently classified, which is now considered outdated. It is also an essential step in preparing to respond to the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank our important aged-care sector workers. They've had a tough year on the front line, and particularly in my home state of Victoria, with the COVID pandemic. Within my own electorate of Higgins there are 21 aged-care facilities, and I'm very proud of the hard work and dedication from employees and the teams, administrators and CEOs of these facilities, with which I've been in regular contact throughout the COVID pandemic. Their work does not go unnoticed, and it is very important to acknowledge that many dedicated individuals have made an enormous difference to loved ones in their twilight years through their comfort and care.
I'm thoroughly looking forward to visiting these facilities in person again. I've got a whole lot of visits lined up next week, now that we're finally lifting our restrictions. Last year I took shortbreads around to my local residents in aged-care facilities, and I've been asked whether I will be doing the same thing again. Yes, I am—but with a COVID-safe approach. It lights up their eyes to have a visit with some shortbread and some Christmas cheer. A big shout-out to the residents of the aged-care facilities in Higgins.
In closing: the Morrison government has delivered, throughout a very difficult COVID pandemic. As a doctor myself, I am very passionate about delivering the best health care and outcomes for all Australians but, more importantly, for our ageing citizens, who've done so much to build this great country. I'd like to thank them for the work they have done through the years and tell them that we are continuing to support them in their twilight years. This is an incredibly important bill to support.
The Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020 amends the Aged Care Act 1997 to enable a new procedure to classify recipients of residential aged care and some kinds of flexible care from 1 March 2021. The bill introduces the option to independently assess the relative care needs of individuals in residential aged care by empowering the secretary of the Department of Health—a very good fellow—to assess care recipients by using a new assessment tool and to process assessment results to assign new classification levels. The bill responds to sustained criticism from care providers, statutory authorities and academic researchers about how care recipients are currently classified, with residential aged-care providers being required to regularly assess residents by using the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument.
Since the 2016 budget the government has committed to developing and testing a lasting alternative to the Aged Care Funding Instrument. Resulting from previous measures realised under this commitment, a potential replacement for the Aged Care Funding Instrument now exists, called the Australian National Aged Care Classification. This bill builds on the successful Australian National Aged Care Classification trial, conducted in 2019 and early 2020, and will allow a new classification using the Australian National Aged Care Classification tool to be determined for the entire residential aged-care population without affecting how the subsidy for providers is calculated. This is an essential step in preparing to respond to the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Classification data obtained from these assessments will ensure that individuals, care workers, providers and the government all have the information they need to fully understand the new funding model. During the information-gathering period that the bill allows, providers will continue to use the existing Aged Care Funding Instrument to assess their residents, in parallel with the new procedure established by this bill.
I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. This bill enables the next phase of residential aged-care funding reform, a phase of preparation that will enable the government, in the context of a response to the finding of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, to quickly and seamlessly transition funding from the outdated ACFI. It sets the stage for a more contemporary, efficient, effective and stable funding approach—one that will promote investment in residential aged-care refurbishment and expansion and will support providers to better deliver the individualised care that residents need. I table an amended explanatory memorandum to the bill in response to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. 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 Franklin 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 words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together:
(1) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 12), after item 6, insert:
6A Section 86-4
Before "A person", insert "(1)".
(2) Schedule 1, page 11, item 9 (after line 23), after paragraph (d), insert:
(2) However, the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (1) (c) and (d) do not include publication (whether in writing or otherwise) of *personal information.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
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.
Labor will be supporting the Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. I note the presence of the minister in the chamber, and I'd like to thank her and her office for their engagement and consultation on this legislation, as well as for all the important work that the government and this parliament do in relation to external territories.
This legislation we're dealing with here comes in two parts, two bills that we're dealing with and debating cognately. The first is the Territories Legislation Amendment Bill, which amends acts relating to bankruptcy, company registration, copyright, broadcasting and protections for overseas students. The second, a separate bill, is the Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill, which extends the application of the Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Act 1997 to Norfolk Island. This bill will ensure that insolvencies administered on Norfolk Island are treated consistently with, and attract the same estate charges as, all other insolvencies administered under the Commonwealth Bankruptcy Act. Together the two bills will aim to ensure that the communities of the external territories have access to the same Commonwealth support as the rest of Australia and are treated consistently when it comes to the implementation of Australian law.
The amendments to the Norfolk Island Act, the Christmas Island Act and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act address the risk of delegation instruments becoming outdated when applied laws in force in the territories are amended or new laws are made by the relevant state or territory government. The Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories is vested with all of the powers, functions and duties applied under state laws. This includes the powers and functions of a local government under the state-based local government acts. The minister has in turn delegated a number of these local government powers and functions to each local government area and its officials through delegation instruments. These amendments will enhance the effectiveness of these delegation arrangements with respect to the functions of local government bodies and others who exercise powers under applied laws in the external territories.
The residents of Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands have shown their resilience during the pandemic. The challenges that come from living in remote and isolated external territories are extraordinary. This parliament has a duty to ensure that we do what we can to improve access to Commonwealth support and ensure that there's a consistency in the implementation of Australian law to these islands, and these bills are an important step towards ensuring that this happens. I've consulted with the Law Council of Australia and they've indicated their support for this legislation. However, they have noted that it's very important—in fact, essential—that proper consultation occur with the courts, and with the legal profession more broadly, in the implementation of this legislation. Likewise, Labor wants to ensure that these changes are implemented properly and that proper consultation occurs. For that reason, I move the following second reading amendment:
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 urges the Government to conduct proper consultation on the implementation of the bill with community stakeholders and members of the legal profession, including the Law Association of Norfolk Island and the Law Council of Australia".
I think this is a fairly straightforward second reading amendment. It doesn't criticise the government; it simply says that the government should do what it should do with all legislation, and that is make sure that it's properly implemented. As I emphasised in my introductory comments, we support the legislation and hope the second reading amendment has the support of the government.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the member opposite for participating in this debate on the Territories Legislation Amendment Bill and the Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill. The main bill amends a range of Commonwealth legislation to more closely align the legislative frameworks in Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Jervis Bay Territory with the rest of Australia. As was explained to the House upon introduction of the bill, this bill will also improve the governance frameworks in these very important Australian territories. This will make it easier for local government and other officials working in these territories to do their jobs. It will also improve protections for territory residents, improving their privacy rights and giving them more opportunities to seek review of official decisions.
For Norfolk Island, the bill will bring the regulation of companies, bankruptcy, broadcasting and education services for overseas students into line with the rest of Australia. Once the bill is passed, regulatory agencies will engage directly with affected people and businesses to assist them to transition to the new arrangements. The bill will also make provision for the delivery of state-type services, such as health and education, by a state or territory government partner. In this regard, should there be a decision in the future to transfer the jurisdiction of the Norfolk Island court to the courts of a state or territory, then a comprehensive transition plan would be developed which would include engagement at that time with all relevant stakeholders. Bringing Norfolk Island under the national companies and bankruptcy frameworks is especially important—particularly as we face the challenges of rebuilding the economy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill will also ensure Norfolk Island residents and business owners have easier access to future support packages provided by the government.
I would like to thank the honourable members on the other side for their contribution, including on a proposed second reading amendment. I can assure members that there will be active engagement on the implementation of the bill as that work progresses, including with businesses that will transition to new corporate arrangements. Engagement with the Norfolk Island community will be in accordance with the community engagement framework, which was co-designed with the community in 2019. I would also like to thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for their comments on the main bill.
The Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2020 will extend the application of the Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Act 1997 to Norfolk Island. The bill is consequential to amendments in the main bill which extend the Commonwealth bankruptcy system to Norfolk Island. Together, the bills will improve provisions for people experiencing bankruptcy and increase protections for creditors. This will ensure people declared bankrupt on Norfolk Island are treated the same way as they would be in the rest of Australia. I also table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum, in response to the comments raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on the main bill. The changes in the bills represent the government's ongoing commitment to improving services and supporting economic development and sustainability in Australia's territories. I commend the bills to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Blaxland 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 words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I'll be exceedingly brief, and indeed the House may well facilitate this through before the adjournment. I speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance Administration) Bill 2020 and say the Labor Party will support it. It would be very difficult to find anything to oppose in it because it is very straightforward. It replaces the word 'statement' with 'information'. That's a fair enough change. These days, claims for Medicare benefits have moved from predominantly paper based reports to predominantly electronic information and so, therefore, the word 'information' is more relevant. So I will not be opposing the bill and the Labor Party will facilitate the bill. I will say that I don't regard this as first-order health reform. I'm not sure, when we're recasting Medicare and thinking about Medicare for the next decade, in the post-COVID environment, that replacing the word 'statement' with 'information' would be the first thing I'd think of doing, but I'm not going to object.
I will say, very briefly, on the matter of compliance that I have expressed concern about the government's so-called nudge letters to GPs. Compliance is important; of course GPs need to comply. But while only a tiny fraction of providers bill inappropriately, these letters have been sent to hundreds or even thousands of GPs. As I've said publicly, I do regard them as a blunt instrument that creates needless anxiety in GPs who have done so much for Australians this year, and it undermines clinical decision-making. I agree with the president of the College of General Practitioners who described these letters as an 'intimidating and heavy-handed tactic designed to pick on a small group to affect the whole group'. That's what the late president of the College of GPs said. I do take this opportunity to express my concern. Apart from that, I'm happy to facilitate the passage of the bill through the House, and I think we'll get it done before 7.30.
I thank the member for his brevity.
This bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to make minor changes to the Australian government administrative processes related to Medicare. These changes do not affect the existing arrangements for patients or health professionals. The bill removes the annual sunset period for the regulations that prescribe the table of medical diagnostic imaging and pathology services covered by the Medicare Benefits Schedule. This removes a requirement for the Medicare regulations to be remade each year so patients can continue to be eligible to receive benefits through Medicare. This change will reduce unnecessary administrative work and mitigate the risk that an error during the remake process could affect patient entitlements to benefits under Medicare. The bill also removes a number of provisions in the Health Insurance Act 1973 that are no longer required, as they do not reflect current administrative practices. This includes removing references to the establishment and operation of the inactive Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee, removing calculations relating to Medicare benefits that are no longer used and removing references to historic requirements for optometrists to reflect modern administrative requirements. I thank members for their contributions to the debate on 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.
I present the revised explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia's transport sector is one the safest and most secure in the world. However, the sector remains an enduring target for terrorists, and we need to do all we can to ensure that security arrangements are robust and responsive to this threat.
The Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2020 amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to improve the effectiveness of screening at Australia's security controlled airports and security regulated ports.
The bill does this in two ways. Firstly, it improves the capacity of aviation security inspectors to perform their important work in testing aviation industry participants' security systems. Secondly, it will establish the framework needed to introduce a national standard of competency of aviation and maritime screening personnel.
Aviation security inspectors play a pivotal role in ensuring Australia's aviation security systems remain resilient against terrorist attacks. Inspectors test airport security systems to ensure that security obligations are being met by aviation industry participants. These tests probe for potential weak points in aviation security arrangements, and in doing so ensure that gaps can be addressed. This bill introduces measures to clarify the ability of aviation security inspectors to carry out this important work. In particular, inspectors will be able to conduct system tests with test pieces at locations beyond screening points in an airport terminal, without the risk of committing an offence against other laws.
This means that the department will be able to expand system tests to cover a wider range of locations, security measures and aviation industry participants. For example, following passage of the bill aviation security inspectors will expand their testing regime to include air cargo examination and catering facilities.
In addition to strengthening the ability of aviation security inspectors to fulfil their important role, we must also ensure that we have in place sound education and training requirements for security screeners.
Security screeners perform a vital role in securing our airports and seaports. They prevent weapons, such as firearms or explosives, from making it onto an aircraft or cruise ships, ensuring we can all travel safely and securely—when we can.
The Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill will ensure that the education, training and testing requirements for screeners remain effective and flexible in an increasingly complex security environment. It will establish the necessary framework so that screeners are well-equipped to respond to threats now and into the future.
This bill introduces measures allowing the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to prescribe the requirements associated with screeners' training, qualification and accreditation. This will allow screener requirements to be adapted efficiently in response to rapid changes in the security environment, creating a more flexible and agile workforce.
This measure responds to a 2016 Inspector of Transport Security inquiry into aviation and maritime transport security. The inquiry highlighted a need for a specialised qualification, the introduction of national accreditation tests, on-the-job training, and continuing professional development for screening of equipment operators. The bill also introduces measures explicitly requiring screeners to complete relevant training or accreditation before exercising certain powers. Currently, certain screening powers are automatically granted to screeners. This change will support industry by developing an environment where individuals can screen in some tasks when competent, while still completing training in more challenging functions.
Collectively, the amendments in this bill will further strengthen security at Australia's airports and seaports. The bill will assist in ensuring the safety of the thousands of Australians and international travellers who transit our ports of entry and departure daily.
This bill has been reviewed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Government amendments have been incorporated into the bill in the Senate to adopt the committee's recommendations.
I thank the opposition for its collegiate approach to the bill and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate interrupted.
For 2,000 aviation workers, 2020 just got a whole lot harder. Less than a month out from Christmas, these workers were told by recorded message that they were being made redundant. The decision by Qantas to outsource all of its ground crew operations at our major airports and to sack 2,000 of its workers last week is, frankly, symptomatic of everything that is wrong with the Morrison government's approach to economic recovery. As we get back into the air, we are still going to need baggage handlers, ground crew and aircraft cleaners. Some of the workers who lost their jobs this week might even be able to pick up a job at the companies taking over the work—although older workers, of course, will struggle to compete with those who can attract the Morrison government's youth wage subsidy. But those lucky enough to get work in any new company will be working for lower wages, with fewer conditions and with less job security.
For families, this has been absolutely devastating. Many of these workers have been loyal employees for years, some working at the same company for over three decades. Now, as the toughest year of many of our lives comes to an end, they are left wondering how they will pay energy or electricity bills, keep a roof over their heads and put presents under the Christmas tree. Still, despite the personal toll, when I meet with these workers, they spend less time talking about themselves and more time worrying about others. They realise that, if this can happen to them, it can happen to anyone. When these workers came to Parliament House last week, one of them stood in front of the assembled media and asked: 'How do I explain to my three girls that it's not whether you do a good job or not; it's just that they can bring someone else in and do it cheaper than you? How do you teach your kids that?' It's a question none of us can answer. We tell our kids to work hard, to do their best and to believe that they'll be rewarded with stable jobs and a good income. These workers now know that that is simply not true.
These aren't the only aviation workers who were forced this year to realise that the truths that they took for granted were not truths at all. Dnata workers used to work for Qantas until a previous outsourcing decision saw their operations sold to a foreign company. These workers work in the same airports, they are paid in the same currency and they contribute to Australian taxes. All that changed was the nationality of the owner they will never meet. But when it came to the government's JobKeeper program the nationality of that owner was enough to see them denied $1,500 a fortnight in government support and laid off without pay. That was because of this government's decision. Thousands have lost their jobs as a result. They joined a third of Virgin's workforce who also lost their jobs this year, not to mention the many aviation workers at our regional airports across the country who were left out of government support.
These workers know that it isn't only the aviation sector where people are hurting. There is no workplace secure from the threat of casualisation and insecurity under this government. Aviation workers worry about themselves, but they worry more about what this will mean for their children. They don't want to see their kids risking their lives in the gig economy, juggling multiple jobs or working irregular hours without access to paid sick leave. They want to see their kids work hard and be rewarded with a good life.
If we've learned anything from this pandemic, it is that too many Australians are in insecure work. Entering this pandemic, around 37 per cent of workers had no sick leave entitlements. It was this insecure work which helped spread the virus as people were forced to choose between going to work sick or losing a roof over their heads. And some worked in hotel quarantine across more than one worksite because they had no choice, leaving us all vulnerable to the pandemic's spread. As we emerge from this crisis, the lesson we must learn is that secure work is the key to our community and our prosperity.
Instead this government stood by as 2,000 workers at Qantas were last week told not that their jobs didn't exist anymore but that Qantas management had decided they were going to outsource their work. This race to the bottom that we are seeing in sector after sector is an endemic problem in this community, and it is endemic because of the policies of this government which allow these things to happen. It can't continue. If Australia is to have a comeback worthy of the name then we need to do much, much better than this.
On 3 December we recognised International Day of People with Disability. This is a day dedicated to promoting and acknowledging the achievements and contributions of those living with a disability not only in Australia but across the world. Around 4.4 million Australians live with a disability. Globally the number is around one billion, or 15 per cent of the world's population. It is an unenviable statistic but, sadly, my state of Tasmania has the highest rate of disability in the nation, at 26 per cent. The national average is 18 per cent. Around one-third of these people have a profound or severe disability. It doesn't matter whether you live in the city or the bush: most households would have a significant connection with somebody with a disability. International Day of People with Disability is a day to celebrate how far we have come in what we have accomplished together.
July this year marked the completion of the staged rollout of the NDIS. Since the implementation of the program, more than 364,000 people have benefited from the scheme, with 154,000 of those receiving disability related supports for the first time. That is, the NDIS has reached its full rollout milestone. No matter where you live across the north west, the west coast and King Island in Tasmania, the program is available to you to support your needs and the choices that you make in your life. Across the electorate of Braddon, more than 2,200 participants have accessed the NDIS. I encourage anyone with a disability who is eligible to access support but has not done so—or their carers—to consider applying forthwith.
International Day of People with Disability is also a time to look forward, a time to celebrate diversity and a time to acknowledge that we must never cease our campaign to move towards an inclusive society that values and respects all people as equal and contributing members of our community. Until everyone in our society is equally defined by what they can do, rather than what they can't do, that job is not done. That job is not done until people living with a disability can pursue their goals free from discrimination, are included in a community that is welcoming and accessible, and know that day in, day out their needs will be met—a time when their independence is recognised, they are free to make their own choices and they can actively participate in the development of policy and legislation that affects them. I'm proud to be part of the Morrison government, which understands that we must continually be better and ensure that we prioritise the needs of those with a disability.
I want to take this opportunity to thank our carers, health professionals and service providers for their service, care and support for the disability sector throughout the entire year. Over the last month or so, I've visited many organisations that are making sure that those who live with a disability will become the very best they can be. I visited North West Support School in Burnie recently to have a look at their new all-weather cover for their play equipment, a federally funded project. I want to congratulate them for the great work they're doing at that school; you could feel it as soon as you walked in. The principal, Sarah-Jane Murphy, and the teachers, carers and interdisciplinary team at the campus, as well as at Devonport campus—everyone is doing an amazing job to ensure every student at the school can do their best. And I want to thank those kids that I met that day—beautiful kids. If you guys are in our future then we have a very bright future and a happy one indeed. I also visited Devonport Gymnastics Club's new facilities in Spreyton. Again, this project was funded by the federal government. I met Leanne Lillico, the club's head coach, and her team. Now that they have their new facilities, they can continue to expand the reach of gymnastics. It is envisaged that programs for those living with disabilities will be introduced in partnership with the School of Special Education. I think that's an exciting and positive thing.
To all those who have gone above and beyond their call this year, ensuring that our vulnerable receive the quality of care they need to live the best lives they can, I recognise you and say thank you.
For my last speech of 2020, I will highlight the outstanding work of my constituents on what matters to them in this most difficult year. Not for one second have I forgotten the honour of advancing their interests in this place or taken for granted the trust they've placed in me.
This year started with the bushfires in Towong and Alpine. Those bushfires incinerated 580,000 hectares of land, decimated our summer trade and smothered us in smoke for months. In each relief centre I witnessed the compassion and solidarity of rural communities. I thank and admire our CFA volunteers, our community groups, our police and our ADF. In the aftermath, I've fought for the government to back in this support. As a result, our electorate has received over $34.4 million in bushfire relief grant payments, and more than 6,370 payments have been made to individuals and to local businesses. Working with tourism, small business, the softwood forestry sector and wine grape growers, I have advocated for them with ministers and the National Bushfire Recovery Coordinator. The road to recovery is long, and I will continue to walk beside these communities.
Hot on the heels of the bushfire crisis came the sports rorts saga. It engulfed two sporting clubs from my electorate. The frustration and disappointment in the status quo drove 200 people to the launch of the Beechworth Principles in the same historic courthouse where Ned Kelly faced the law. Over 1,800 people—many of them my constituents—went on to sign a petition calling for a robust integrity commission. Last month, I was proud to present my first private member's bill to establish it. Integrity is what people stop me in the street to talk about. In the last fortnight, 13 full-page ads signed by 417 of my constituents ran in newspapers across the country supporting my integrity commission model. To those constituents I say, 'I hear you and I'll keep fighting to bring back trust in politics.'
Regional development affects every aspect of our lives in Indi, and this year the Albury-Wodonga regional deal was signed, an historic moment for our two cities and one border community. After many years of sustained advocacy, the North East Rail Line Upgrade is proceeding ahead of schedule. Maintenance funding still needs a commitment from government, which I'll continue to pursue. And the Inland Rail offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for transformation of our rail precincts in Euroa, Glenrowan, Wangaratta and Benalla. I'll work with these communities to secure a legacy they can be proud of.
Grant funding helps us to innovate, care, educate and celebrate. Since June, over $10 million in grant funding to small groups has flowed into our electorate. Over 880 people attended my online grants workshop to increase their success in securing grant funding. This was an extraordinary turnout and shows the level of interest in strengthening our community. Local councils know what their communities need best, and I worked closely with them to identify priority projects. I've shared in their delight that many have been funded. There was a regional tourism fund, the Prosecco Road development, more home-care packages, the Mount Buffalo Chalet and the implementation of some of the NDIS Tune review and the Napthine review recommendations. We'll keep working together to tick more of these things off our list.
Working with small business in one of the most difficult years in living memory has been a highlight for me. Six thousand and sixteen Indi businesses have applied for JobKeeper, and I was proud to support this and the government's other coronavirus stimulus measures because I've seen how they've worked to keep the sector afloat. They've shown great resilience and innovation this year in adapting to this new world order. And, throughout, the frontline workers in our hospitals, our GP practices and community health workers have kept us safe while our teachers, our truckies, our cleaners and our supermarket workers have kept us going.
My electorate has led the country on community-driven renewable energy for the last decade, and, with extensive input from local renewable energy groups, this year we launched the Local Power Plan, a blueprint for our region to capitalise on the coming boom in renewable energy. Now a $13 million ARENA investment to Indi will develop the region's first marketplace for locally generated renewables. It is a huge step forward. This year will go down in history as a year to forget, but, away from the global pandemonium, on a local level, the spring rains have provided the best crops in a generation, and the electorate of Indi has continued to grow and strengthen, aspire and achieve. I am proud to represent this electorate and I can't wait to see what we do together in 2021.
In August 1998 the Nantawarrina Indigenous Protected Area was declared. It was the first one in Australia. It's in the Gammon Ranges, or near that, in the northern Flinders Ranges, near Nepabunna. I went there two years ago for a celebration of the 20th anniversary. In 2015 another Indigenous protected area was declared in South Australia. It was Wardang Island, just off the west coast of Yorke Peninsula, off Port Victoria, very near the Point Pearce Aboriginal homeland there. In 2017, after it was declared, the Commonwealth invested half a million dollars there in revegetation, not only for the island but for the coastal strip that is also part of that protected area. It's a beautiful place. It is coastal saltmarsh bordered by tidal flats with shallow seagrass, providing a number of important spawning areas for fish species. And the island is home to Yindala, a little penguin colony, and several migratory bird species.
I had the opportunity to visit Wardang Island last Friday with the Premier, Steven Marshall, who is a regular visitor to Grey, and it was very good to have him on our patch again, with Fraser Ellis, the state member for Narungga. His seat is of course named after the Narungga nation, who are the responsible people for the Indigenous protected area that I'm talking about, Wardang Island. We also had the South Australian Indigenous commissioner, Roger Thomas, on board and a number of other people. We were welcomed to the island by Eddie Newchurch, who is the chairman of the Point Pearce community, and his deputy, Lyle Sansbury. We travelled over to the island on a magnificent new barge which has been funded by the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. That's capable of taking a vehicle over there.
The Commonwealth has just invested $2.6 million in removing old asbestos dwellings that were on the island. They were built by a mining company back in the forties, or perhaps even earlier than that, who was mining flux for the BHP steelmaking smelters in Whyalla. They'd fallen into very poor repair. The Indigenous rangers had been using them. They were full of asbestos. We've had McMahon contractors over on the island for the five months it has taken to clean all that up. Jobs have been provided to those Indigenous rangers through that program. In fact, David McMahon told us that 59 per cent of the people employed on the project were Indigenous. It's a very exciting time, because now we're moving ahead and building some new accommodation on the island for the rangers. It is hoped that in future they can build the tourism potential of Wardang Island, which previously, I might point out to the chamber, probably came to Australian attention because it was where the calicivirus escaped from. Wardang Island was quite topical here around 10 or a dozen years ago, when calicivirus escaped. What a great thing that has been for the environment of Australia.
Putting that to one side, already an existing building there has been renovated in very fine order to provide meeting rooms and an office for the rangers while they're on the island. They are looking to develop new economic outcomes. It was a beautiful day when we went out there, I have to say. The beaches around that part of Yorke Peninsula are magnificent, as they are pretty much right across the coastline of Grey and on Wardang Island itself. It is the hope of the local people that they can build some accommodation there so that they will be able to invite the tourism sector in. There's a lot of work to be done out there yet. The place has got a fairly heavy infestation of boxthorn, and the Indigenous rangers will be working on getting rid of those weed pests and also the mammal pests which exist on the island—the associated cats, foxes and whatever else might be out there at the moment. I don't know that there are too many rabbits left because the calicivirus did, at least, take care of them at the time.
One way or another, it's an exciting time for the Narungga people to be able to utilise this asset that is now in their care as an Indigenous protected area. It has become part of the national park line around Australia, but it is managed by the Indigenous rangers. I wish them very well, I thank them for their welcome and I really enjoyed the visit.
From the disastrous bushfires to the outbreak of COVID-19, 2020 has been a hell of a year. In the lockdowns we have endured, we've all been pushed to our absolute limits. This really has been beyond anything we have ever experienced. It has changed the nature of our lives. It changed where we could go and who we could see. We closed our shops and schools, and we isolated ourselves from the people we love, all for the greater good. It was very hard. Some of us lost family and friends. Many of us were left without a job. We had to adapt. Parents had to get organised for the kids to learn from home. We figured out how to use Zoom. We struggled with our mental health. I'm not sure if those two are actually connected. But we all shared the loss and we all shared the hardships. We missed the little things that turned out to be not so little after all: visiting a loved one at home, sitting in a cafe with a friend, going to the footy, a walk on the beach, and hugs and human contact with loved ones. We missed the big things. Grandparents waited months to meet a new grandchild born during Melbourne's lockdown.
Birthdays, anniversaries, retirements, religious celebrations, weddings and funerals all moved online. Life's biggest moments this year were online on a screen. As much as technology helped us get through and stay connected, these moments passed before us on our screens. As they did, we knew deep down that this was a diminished version of life. It has taken a lot of perseverance and strength to get through all of this and simply get by. Despite all the adversity we have faced, it was our strength of spirit that pushed us through. Instead of cowering and giving up, Australians—particularly Victorians—rose to the challenge. We emerged into the light after a hard lockdown, knowing that, through our efforts—particularly in Victoria—we went from a peak of 700 cases per day to zero cases per day for the last 39 days. No other place in the world has tamed a second wave this large. This says a lot about the Australian spirit. It says a lot about the Australian character and our tenacity. We've proved that, with collective effort and great sacrifice, we can do what many of us thought was impossible.
We should take these lessons and this strength and apply them to the other big challenges that we face as a nation. As we look to recover from COVID-19, we should, with the same spirit, the same resilience and the same strength, tackle the big issues like climate change, homelessness, immigration, inequality and many more. We need to ask ourselves: What do we want our future to look like? How can we create it? We know that Australians, if asked, will work for each other and with each other, even if it means sacrificing a lot. With the resilience and strength we have earned, I think we can be stepping up now. With all of our great and most innovative thinkers, we have an opportunity to strengthen Australia as a compassionate country that looks after every other Australian and where every person has the opportunity to thrive, to succeed and to fulfil their potential.
In this country—not just in my state of Victoria but throughout Australia—we've done something together that no other country has done. It's been a remarkable story. I know how difficult 2020 has been for all of us, and I know many of us have grouched about the challenges and the pain and suffering that we've gone through. But, in some respects, this year has not been a write-off—not in the slightest. It has actually forced us to be stronger, more resilient and more capable than we have been for a generation or two—probably since the generation that lived through the Second World War. I think that strength of character that has been forged over the past year, that resilience, means that we are ready and capable of building a better future for this country. I want to give thanks to the wonderful people I represent, who work so hard, sacrifice so much and make such an effort. I want to give thanks that I'm an Australian. I want to give thanks that we can look to this Christmas with joy and to the new year, 2021, with renewed hope.
I rise to commend the Human Rights Subcommittee's recent report into the Magnitsky Act, entitled Criminality, corruption and impunity: should Australia join the global Magnitsky movement?, which recommends the implementation of Magnitsky-style legislation in Australia. I particularly wanted to commend the work of the chair, the member for Menzies, and the other committee members in putting forward such a thoughtful and comprehensive report.
The world is, undoubtedly, a nasty place. Although it's slowly getting better—I think the quality of governance is slowly getting better around the world, with people's freedom, people's liberty and people's right to live under a regime in which they have a say in how that regime is selected and how the government is appointed is slowly improving—still far too many people around the world are living under governments which show their citizens significantly less respect than we would consider acceptable. They subject their citizens to things like arbitrary imprisonment and torture that deprive them of their rights and liberties, and they generally treat them in a poor way.
Australia has always taken, in my opinion, a pragmatic but idealistic approach to these sorts of issues. We've done what we can to address these issues right at the start of the creation of the UN system at the end of the Second World War. We were instrumental in some of the principal UN human rights documents which continue to guide the world today, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Of course, since that time, we've been involved in most of the major multilateral human rights initiatives that have been taken forward, be it the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Even quite recently we were one of the leading lights behind what's known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which established universal jurisdiction for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. And, of course, in our own part of the world in the South West Pacific, but also more broadly in the Indo-Pacific, we have sought, through our diplomatic channels, through our Development Assistance Program and through our political context, to improve, address and strengthen things such as the system of justice, the quality of police forces and the quality of governance overall in those countries to improve their human rights situations.
All that said, as a country—and this is where we're firmly of the pragmatic tradition—we cannot control how other countries are governed. We can seek to have an influence and we can express an opinion, but, ultimately, the system of the world we live in is one of sovereign and equal states, where Australia doesn't get a say in the type of governance that exists in other countries. But, whilst we can't control whether bad people are brought to justice within their own countries, we can make Australia off limits for such people and their immediate families and make our bank accounts, our schools, our homes, our hospitals, our real estate market and our tourist and holiday destinations off limits. This is really the intention behind Magnitsky-style legislation, which is covered in this report from the Human Rights Subcommittee. It's why I support the recommendations.
If we choose to take it forward—and I urge the government to give it positive consideration—this legislation would capture people who are serious human rights abusers or guilty of serious corruption—that is, both the perpetrators and their immediate family—and subject them to limitations on what they can do and how they can interact with Australia. There would be a system by which people are nominated to this list. It's obviously a list of infamy rather than a list of honour. The names of people who are suspected of being guilty of serious human rights abuses or serious corruption would be put forward. There would be an independent advisory body that would consider such nominations and, ultimately, as is proper, the decision-maker would be the foreign minister, in consultation with the Attorney-General. There would be important rights protected, such as the right to due process and natural justice. The accused would have an opportunity to rebut the charges against them, and the evidentiary standard that would be required here is the balance of probabilities.
I think this would put out an important statement of Australia's support for human rights and would add an important arrow to our own bow in addressing such issues. It would add to the current system we have, which implements UN sanctions and which also allows us to implement autonomous sanctions and our own visa system and character test, which can allow us to prohibit certain people from entering and doing business in Australia. I commend the report of the Human Rights Subcommittee, and I urge the government to give it positive consideration.
House adjourned at 20 : 00
I had a Zoom on weekend with my wonderful Labor Party branch members in my electorate. They're good people who share common values and they come together month after month, year after year—a few of them even campaigned for Gough!
I suspect I'll get howled down if I post this on social media, but I want to record a call-out to all Australians who care about our democracy, who share a set of common values, to join and get involved in a political party. I'd say Labor, but maybe those opposite if they're your values. The reality is at most elections most MPs in this place are here because they're voted in by the community because they're chosen by their political party. It's party members who remain largely invisible, but they do critical work. They recruit, train and select candidates and members of parliament and government. They do the hard work of putting together a platform and policies so people have a choice at an election and campaign for new ideas. If political parties don't work well, people don't have the choice. It's party members who hold MPs directly to account.
Every month I'm grilled and challenged by local members and get feedback, ideas and free character assessments. I know that flying the flag for political parties is not popular, but well-run parties of government play such a critical role in our democracy. Citizens benefit when they work well, yet are all the poorer when they don't.
I know Independents are sexy this decade, but I make the point: politics is not a team sport but government has to be. We can't have a ragtag government of Independents. That's the sort of rubbish these people push to go and get votes, frankly. Unlike with Independents, people know when they vote Labor what kind of values I sign up to. People know that I'm part of a democratic party and subject to the discipline of people who share my values. People know I'll be part of a government or opposition, doing the hard work of holding the government to account.
I don't think that's the same with the fake personality cult parties that we've seen spring up—the ones without real members: Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, Clive Palmer's United Australia Party, Fred Nile's Christian Democratic Party or even the populist Greens political party. I don't think they're serious choices if you want to change the country for the better. The Greens, Palmer, Hanson and Nile actually all share the same populist business model—a protest model. They all harvest votes by pretending that there's no difference between Labor or the Liberals. There is a difference. The Greens, Palmer, Hanson and Nile can promise whatever they like in their imaginary governments and their fantasy budgets; however, it's the serious political parties of government that actually do the critical difficult work, yet fewer Australians join political parties these days.
There's lot of talk of the threat to democracy in the West from authoritarian and liberal models, be it China, Russia or others. I say to Australians: democracy is fragile. So, if you value our democracy, if you're frustrated with the parties, if you're frustrated with us, then come along, listen, share your ideas and join a party. It's surprisingly cheap and easy. You might even enjoy it, and it certainly does our democracy a good turn. Thank you.
Earlier this year I was given the incredible, unique and unexpected opportunity when the Queensland state Labor government rejected the $195 million allocated for stage 2 of the Haughton pipeline. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer both agreed the funding would stay exactly where it should: with the wonderful people of Townsville. I thank them both for their support.
As the chamber may recall, I formed an expert panel of independent Townsville business leaders, the Community Projects Advisory Committee, or CPAC, to advise the government on projects which could be funded by the $195 million. As our city looked to economic recovery following COVID shutdowns and the 2019 flood event, it was vital to invest in projects and infrastructure that would support and grow the region for generations to come. Between August and November this year, CPAC undertook a very deliberate and transparent assessment of materials provided to it by the community. They received briefings from civic, community and business leaders and pored over business cases for many projects. I would like to personally thank every person and organisation that submitted a proposal. Your passion, dedication and commitment to Townsville and North Queensland will keep our region in good stead for many decades to come.
Narrowing down a short list was difficult, to say the least. The committee considered the projects against the Townsville City Deal framework, together with an assessment as to where the projects were, whether they were supported by a sound business case, whether they were achievable and deliverable in a timely manner, and whether they were capable of leverage and catalytic in attracting private investment, jobs and growth. These criteria have allowed the nomination of a short list of seven projects, which have now been sent to the minister for consideration. In the interest of not pre-empting or undermining the minister's decision-making process, I will not name the projects here today, but what I will say is that I'm incredibly excited at the thought of each project which has been shortlisted and its potential long-term benefit to the people of Townsville. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the volunteer members of the CPAC: the chair, Stephen Motti, who is the owner of Brazier Motti and has been instrumental in the drafting of the city deal; Ross McClennan, business owner and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce; Debbie Rains, a long-term business owner and immediate past President of the Chamber of Commerce; Michael Brennan, business owner and chair of the Townsville Business Development Centre and councillor on the Queensland Law Society; and Carl Valentine of PVW Partners, who is a Townsville Economic Development Strategic Advisory Committee member. I sincerely thank these community leaders for their love and passion of Townsville. That's always been at the forefront of all they do. Now it's over to you, Minister. No pressure.
For the past 40 years, Professor Alan Powell recorded the Northern Territory's history in a series of books, articles, biographical entries and reviews. Professor Powell was one of the Northern Territory's most prolific historians. In 1982, Professor Powell, who, sadly, passed away last month, published the classic short story of the Northern Territory, Far Country. In the revised fifth edition of Far Country, he wrote:
The Territory is still overshadowed by the legacy of its past; a land of miners and cattlemen scattered thinly over vast areas of desert and savannah, of a single city clinging to the northern littoral and another 1,500 kilometres away in the middle of Australia; of scattered settlements and the overarching, brooding presence of the people whose ancestors imbued the land with their spirit 40,000 years before Western civilisations began, for here alone, at more than 30 per cent of the Territory population, do they form a major political, social and economic force. The Northern Territory is still a far country.
Professor Powell was born in New Zealand, growing up on a sheep farm near Rotorua, where he developed a strong distaste for eating lamb and mutton. After attending Rotorua high school, he spent much of the following two decades holding a variety of jobs in both New Zealand and Australia. These included timber felling, bush surveying, truck driving, factory work, small business and school teaching. In 1974, he applied for and was appointed to a lectureship at the newly established Darwin Community College.
Like so many Territorians, he came for a couple of years, fell in love with the place and never left. In 2005, Alan recalled that, when he applied for the Darwin Community College job, he expected to be in the NT for just a year or two before returning to Melbourne. 'Darwin,' he observed, 'would have been about my last residential choice within Australia. Old story—I’m still here 30 years later!' He went on to say that he had found in Darwin good friends, a great research field and satisfying professional opportunities. The Territory is very lucky that he stayed. Over the next quarter of a century, Professor Powell also worked at the Darwin Institute of Technology, the University College of the Northern Territory, and Northern Territory University, which is now Charles Darwin University. He wrote many books and held many positions across the community, and, like most academics, he held a secret passion, but, unlike most academics, his was motorcycling. As a young man, he rode and raced motorbikes in New Zealand. He loved racing and his kids took up that passion too.
Professor Powell is survived by his wife, Jan Moore, his three children, his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren. He made a fantastic contribution to the NT, and I'll personally miss his conversations. Vale. (Time expired)
Today I attended a briefing from the Australian Federal Police, the AFP, kindly organised by a colleague, the member for Ryan. That briefing was disturbing and confronting. Candidly, it was bloody awful—it really was. It was on the issue of online child sexual exploitation—a tough, tough topic. How some of our AFP work in this space, day in, day out, I just do not know, especially those who spend hours looking at images of children. But they do, and thank God they do. At the end of the briefing, I asked a very simple question: how can we best help; what can we do as federal MPs? Their short answer was, 'You need to speak about it.' This is the first opportunity that I've had to get on my feet, so let's talk about online sexual exploitation, starting with the importance of mums, dads and carers being aware and understanding.
I will talk about some of the stats that they shared today. Only 16 per cent of parents and carers seek information on the topic of online child sexual exploitation and only three per cent of parents and carers list online grooming as a concern—only three per cent. They also said that in 2019-20 the AFP triaged 21,668 reports of child sexual exploitation and laid charges on 1,214. We have to be aware that kids have access. Four out of five children aged four are using the internet; one in two children under 12 have their own personal device; and 70 per cent of parents and carers allow their children to use the internet anywhere in the house, 22 per cent with no oversight whatsoever.
If there's one thing that I think we can all do, particularly those of us who are mums or dads, is make sure that we are speaking to our children about their online activity. A tool that the AFP mentioned to me today was ThinkUKnow. If you Google or search ThinkUKnow that will assist.
For me, a Buddhist, today, 8 December, is Bodhi Day. Bodhi Day marks the day that Siddhartha Gautama became the Buddha. It's a special time when more than half a million Buddhist Australians reflect on the Buddha's universal teachings of peace, service and recognition of common humanity. These are values that we saw in practice this year during the pandemic, when Australians cared for each other and looked after the most vulnerable members of our community. They are the values that saw volunteers from the Quang Minh Buddhist Temple provide more than 900 vegan meals to people struggling in Footscray and Braybrook during the second wave of the virus. They are the values that we saw in response to the devastating Black Summer bushfires, where Buddhist communities generously donated to relief efforts and where Buddhist monks gave free massages to weary Rural Fire Service volunteers and professional firefighters to show their appreciation. They are the values that saw monks evacuated because of the threat of fire at Sunnataram Forest Monastery in New South Wales leaving behind water and food for distressed wildlife.
Bodhi Day also provides us with an opportunity and, indeed, an obligation to acknowledge the many contributions of Buddhist Australians to our country. No doubt, we are richer for them as a nation. So, on behalf of federal Labor, I wish Buddhist Australians a peaceful Bodhi Day.
It has often been observed that Australia is a multicultural nation with monocultural institutions. This is something that I reflect on often as the member for Scullin and as Labor's shadow minister for multicultural affairs. Reflecting on it has led me to be part of producing federal Labor's multicultural statement last week, which I was proud to present together with many caucus colleagues, including the Leader of the Labor Party, the member for Grayndler, and, in particular, the member for Cowan and Senator Raff Ciccone. This statement attempts to advance the argument to ensure that our institutions and all of our work in this place reflects the nation that we are today, not the nation that we once were. It reflects on the budget just delivered by the Morrison government and highlights the many areas where we could do better to support multicultural communities. Unfortunately, there are too many areas in that regard for me to effectively outline in this place, but the statement is intended to do more than reflect on what is going on; it is to provide a basis for us to engage, in this place and the community, in a way that advances the interests of every Australian, to ensure that our policy-making and our public debate appropriately reflect our diversity. I'm so proud that federal Labor has committed to this first multicultural statement. I look forward to working with multicultural communities and my colleagues, including colleagues from other parties, in ensuring that this becomes a regular feature of debate and policy-making in this place.
I rise to speak again about some more incredible young achievers in the electorate of Ryan. Each year, I run a young leadership award where local schools put forward students who have gone above and beyond and excelled themselves. This year, more than ever, we have needed their leadership, and these students who were nominated for the award have shown leadership amongst their peers at a very, very difficult time. It has been an absolute pleasure to recognise them all.
I'll start with Dylan Bryant, in year 9 at The Gap State High School. Dylan has demonstrated exemplary leadership, both formally and informally, at his school. He served as junior arts prefect and was able to be a reliable and energetic team player, always attending every meeting with a strong sense of purpose and intent. He played a key role in mentoring year 8 leaders, hosting junior school assemblies and writing in the year 9 family newsletter during lockdown. He's also got a very special talent. He's showing impressive initiative by advocating for a new school song, and, in advocating for it, he is writing the lyrics and music himself. We all look forward to seeing that project come to fruition, Dylan.
There's Emma MacDonald, a year 4 student at Brookfield State School. It was my great pleasure to meet Emma. She is a very special young lady. She is going to go on to do very big things, I know. Each year in term 4, Emma organises and coordinates a contribution to the Salvation Army food drive, and last year, with the help of Brookfield State School and the Brookfield community, she managed to collect over 1,000 food items to give to those in need over Christmas. This year, due to COVID, Emma felt that there were many people who were finding it hard to provide for their families, and she promoted this cause at the junior and senior assemblies and provided a decorated box and sign at the office for donations and collected donations throughout the school community. Well done, Emma.
Rachel Telfer and Mahjabeen Ashraf are year 6 students at Ironside State School. Unfortunately, I could not attend the year 6 graduation ceremony at Ironside State School as I was down here representing you in Canberra, but I'm so pleased to be able to recognise you with this Young Community Leader Award. Their teachers have told me that they are well respected amongst their peers and they go above and beyond to serve their school community, but, most importantly, to look out for their fellow students.
Finally, there's Eloise McGregor, of year 6 at Chapel Hill State Primary School. Eloise has an excellent attitude towards her learning, is a diligent worker at all times and has achieved some outstanding results in all of her subject areas. She is the AV captain this year and has displayed leadership skills in this role, particularly when editing the assembly. She has been part of the school's IGNITE program since year 3 and has participated in the Australian Mathematics Competition over the past two years, using her own time to prepare, and was awarded a high distinction this year. So well done, Eloise.
Well done to all those students. We have so many clever and skilled students in the Ryan electorate. It's a pleasure to recognise them this year again.
I rise to acknowledge and bring to the House the issue of the dire financial situation facing our travel agents and the tourism industry in general, as a result of Australia's health and economic crisis at this point. Travel agents play a significant role in our tourism industry, sustaining businesses and employing thousands of people across Australia. We know that tourism was one of the hardest-hit industries and will be likely to be one of the last to recover. For many of our approximately 40,000 travel agents around the country, the cost of staying open in order to reimburse people and to rearrange flights that have been cancelled is an enormous cost to them—work that they're doing without a profit.
International travel ceased overnight, basically. We know that, without the commissions from international travel, travel agents are earning very little—in fact, nothing. We need the government to provide an urgent lifeline for travel agents, who are on the brink of collapse, instead of the inadequate loss carry-back scheme, for which the vast majority of travel agents appear to be ineligible. In April, overseas arrivals and departures virtually ceased. They plunged by 99.7 per cent. You can imagine being a travel agent in a business that relies solely on commissions from tickets and having 99.7 per cent of your business cease overnight. As a result, cash dried up for travel agents. Some in the sector are saying that it could take until mid-2025 for the sector to get back to prepandemic levels, if it does get back.
I've spoken to many travel agents in my electorate. They are extremely worried about the future and the future of this sector. Our economy cannot afford to lose so many small businesses and business people from our community. Let's not forget that 70 per cent of international travel in Australia is done and booked through travel agents, which keeps money here in Australia, here in our communities and here in our own states. JobKeeper has certainly assisted and has been of some assistance, but now it's tapering off and the government has no plan to extend it beyond March 2021. That's just too soon for many businesses, especially travel agents, whose businesses are unlikely to pick up anytime soon.
The question remains: what will happen to these businesses after the payments cease? I recently tabled a motion in the House calling on the government to develop a comprehensive industry-specific support package for the travel industry which acknowledges the important contribution the sector makes to the economy. We must provide better support— (Time expired)
Among the many events cancelled in 2020 because of COVID-19, my Fisher Community Awards were, sadly, another late scratching. All the finalists had been nominated by my community, the winners had been chosen by our judges and the invitations were just going out when the pandemic shut us down. However, I am delighted to say that those nominees and winners have not been forgotten and their work will not go unrecognised, because in 2021 the Fisher Community Awards will be back with a special bumper double edition. This year I am more determined than ever to recognise the fantastic individuals and organisations in Fisher who are making a difference to our community. At a time when their contribution is even more important, I want to celebrate the people who, during a global pandemic, have changed lives among our students, our businesses, our communities groups, our healthcare providers and our aged-care residences. I'll be opening nominations for the 2021 round of the Fisher Community Awards in mid-January via my website. In March 2021, I'll recognise both the 2020 and the 2021 winners, with presentations for both years' awards. Like many things in 2021, I'm sure this coming year's Fisher Community Awards will be the biggest and best ever.
I'm working hard in my community and here in this place to advocate to the federal government for funding for upgrades to the Sunshine Coast Stadium. Most recently, just last week, to help make our case, I facilitated a meeting between the Sunshine Coast mayor, Mark Jamieson, local philanthropists, who agreed to contribute $11 million to this project, and the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister gave us a very fair hearing, and I'll continue to work closely with him to see whether we can secure funding at the next federal budget. However, because of the underhand tactics of the Palaszczuk Labor state government, the Sunshine Coast Council has been placed under unnecessary pressure to get this project underway.
Before the last election, Labor promised $20 million towards this upgrade. These are funds that will be needed for the project to go ahead. Of that money, $5 million is allocated in this financial year, but it comes with a condition that Labor chose to hide during the election campaign: Sunshine Coast Council can only access the money if it is matched by the federal government before the end of this financial year. For everyone who has worked so hard on this project, this is a bitter disappointment. But is anyone really surprised? This goes to prove you have to check the small print with the Palaszczuk Labor government. Their election commitments might look great before the polls close, but when it comes time to deliver there is always a catch for Labor.
I want to take this opportunity to wish all the Macarthur residents a very Merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year. As the year draws to a close, it's obvious that we've had a tough time—2020 has not been a great year. We started off with horrific bushfires then floods and now the pandemic and the economic recession that followed. Families and local businesses have been doing it tough and as a nation we have, for the most part, fared pretty well in the pandemic. We must continue to keep this under control and look to our economic recovery. Throughout the entire crisis, I have been inspired by the resolve of individuals, organisations and businesses within my community. Throughout this crisis, we have seen great demonstrations of comradery and mateship in Macarthur with people working harder than ever to support their neighbours, their loved ones and their friends. There are countless individuals and organisations I could list but specifically I would like to call out a single, wonderful local organisation, Life Beyond Barriers. I have partnered with Edward Feuerstein and Life Beyond Barriers for my annual Christmas toy drive, with the organisation distributing donated gifts to children in Macarthur who would otherwise go without.
I hear bells. It must be Christmas! I've been overwhelmed by the support of local organisations and my local community. A massive thanks to all.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 16 : 26 to 16 : 37
We arrive once more at the end of another year. It's been a tumultuous year, obviously. We had the bushfires at the start. We seem to have got through to the end of the drought, which is good. At the start of the year, we had a bushfire at the bottom end of my family's place and the other day we had the start of a fire at the top end, so we seem to be back where we started! Nonetheless, it's a much better outcome than where we were, because we do have feed and things are looking up.
One of the things that should always happen at this time of the year is the obligatory thank you speech. Sometimes it's nauseating—you can hear one of these speeches, press rewind, press play—they're all the same, But there's a group that always goes through without proper mention—of course, they're your branch members. The people who actually run your political operation for nothing, for free, whilst we are down here doing our job that they send us to do. I want to say a special thank you to number of them. One is Russell Webb, who is the FEC chair of New England, and his ever-patient wife, Gail, who has recently fallen over and broken her hand and had to go back to Newcastle to get it reset. Another is the local branch chair, which is and Ian Coxhead, and his ever patient wife, Liz, who does most of the work. I want to thank people right throughout my electorate, right up to the north with Josh Moylan, branch members right down to Aberdeen, people such Duncan McKenzie, Sonia O'Keefe out at Walcha, Gay Hammond up at Nundle and on and on it goes. All these people do all this work so that we can participate in the democracy that we have. And I just want to say a huge Happy Christmas, Merry Christmas, and a big thank you to them, because if it wasn't for them, I wouldn't be here. And I think of that all the time: what is the job that I'm doing for them today and how much more can we possibly get done?
I'd also like to thank my staff, the ever-patient Leigh. Hello, Leigh! He's down there in the room, watching this. Hi, Leigh! He'll put this on Facebook later on. Then we've got my media adviser Sam, who I yell at a lot. We've got Karen and we've got James and we've got Ryan, Who's coming back to work with us again up at Tenterfield. In the office, we've got the very Dutch Miranda Broekman, making sure that everything happens on time and precisely. We've also got Andra and we've also got Michelle—a great team!
We are very, very lucky. We are very, very blessed. It's a great team. For those in my office and for those in my branch and all those who are part of the Nationals team in New England, I want to say a very, very big thank you and have a very happy Christmas. We might go down to the Cockburn River and have a barbecue and a few sausages and a beer later on.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members constituency statements has concluded.
Australia produces three times the food it needs. This fact alone demonstrates how important it is that we export our produce to international markets, and that's without mentioning other key exports like iron ore and coal. The Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 demonstrates the Morrison-McCormack government's commitment to supporting our vital export industry. There are now a record number of Australian businesses exporting goods. There were over 56,700 goods exporting businesses in 2018-19. This is up seven per cent on the previous financial year and 27 per cent since 2013-14. One in five jobs in this country depend on trade. Australian exporters, on average, hire 23 per cent more staff, pay 11 per cent higher wages and have labour productivity 13 per cent higher than non-exporters.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 16:42 to 16 : 52
Export businesses are highly productive because they compete in a global market and need to be efficient to be competitive. Therefore, cutting red tape, increasing access to international markets and providing financial support to these businesses is hugely important. Our comeback after COVID depends on jobs and increased productivity. Doing so will mean more jobs and more productivity as our economy recovers from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Through the measures outlined in this bill and several other initiatives, we are opening an ambitious export growth agenda and supporting our vital export industry. This in turn supports highly productive Australian jobs and enterprises.
Local exporters in Robinvale Fred Tassone and Donny Gareffa have talked with me many times over the last 12 months about export difficulties, whether its market access or trade arrangements and agreements. This year they have a bumper table grape harvest, and the big issue for them is the export market. This legislation is one key to assisting our farmers to do what they do best: grow and sell. Packages developed by the government to assist producers, including the Busting Congestion for Agricultural Exporters package and the International Freight Assistance Mechanism, are part of the solution. The Morrison-McCormack government continues to pursue and adopt several important trade deals and open up new markets when diversification is needed.
Other businesses in my electorate of Mallee are benefiting from our export agenda. I recently met with Robert and Vanessa Woodward of Woodward Foods in Swan Hill, who have an ambitious export agenda of their own. Their exceptional business stems in part from its longevity. It was established in 1888, and the business now has over 600 employees. Robert and Vanessa, along with their CEO, Brett Buktenica, pride themselves on their vertically integrated paddock-to-plate business model. While they maintain a focus on their valued domestic customers, the business has expanded its reach globally, accessing several of the world's biggest markets, including China, Japan, India and Indonesia. Australia has fostered free trade agreements that have delivered higher incomes, more job opportunities and higher growth for businesses such as Woodward Foods and many more around the nation.
The bill currently before the House drives on the Morrison-McCormack government's export agenda through further supports for our nation's exporters. The bill currently before the House implements several changes to the Export Market Development Grants scheme, or the EMDG scheme. This is a key government financial assistance program, supporting exporters to increase their marketing and promotional activity in international markets. Since it started in 1975, the EMDG scheme has supported over 50,000 small and medium exporters to enter and grow their export markets, whether they are products, services or intellectual property.
The bill enacts the recommendations of the review of financial assistance to SME exporters. Extensive consultation was undertaken by the reviewer, with a direct email sent to over 5,000 interested parties, including past and current EMDG recipients, EMDG consultants and peak bodies, informing them of the review and alerting them to the opportunities to have their say and provide input. The review then found that the government should continue to provide financial assistance to SMEs to encourage them to enter and grow export markets but noted that the way this financial assistance is provided should be simplified by removing complexity, by streamlining and by providing more certainty.
As it stands currently, the EMDG scheme reimburses costs to exporters. This process sees exporters waiting up to two years for payments, with no guarantee of full reimbursement. With the proposed changes, the scheme will be transformed to an eligibility based grants program to encourage export-ready businesses to increase their exports and diversify their markets. Grants will target eligible export-ready SMEs with an annual turnover of less than $20 million. This will provide eligible businesses with certainty through up-front funding agreements across multiple years for marketing and promotional activities, enabling them to plan their activities with confidence. The operation of the program will be simplified and streamlined, cutting red tape and making the scheme easier for exporters to access. The eligibility threshold will also be lowered from $50 million to under $20 million in order to ensure this funding is targeted to where it will have the greatest impact and achieve the best outcomes.
The coalition has progressively restored funding to the Export Market Development Grants scheme, delivering over $200 million in additional funding to the scheme since 2013. This government's investment in the scheme fully restores and provides additional funding on top of Labor's $100 million worth of cuts to the scheme from when they were last in government. As part of the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Fund, the Morrison-McCormack government provided nearly $50 million in additional funding for the 2019-20 financial year, bringing the annual appropriation for the EMDG scheme to $207.7 million—it's highest level in more than 20 years. This government has demonstrated its commitment to supporting exporters through this scheme and will continue to do so with these changes by making it easier to access and more effective in its delivery.
Since I stepped into my office in May 2019 I have walked alongside my exporters through an incredibly difficult 18 months, particularly for those in the agriculture and horticulture sectors, who have faced drought, high water and energy costs, workforce challenges and COVID-19. I'm absolutely focused on supporting our exporters now more than ever, so I welcome this bill. I know that this government's measures to support exporters and increase access to trade markets will be welcomed by growers in my electorate, particularly those in the table grape and citrus industries. Recently I was contacted by several table grape growers, who've expressed concern about ongoing issues with one of their major markets in China. Growers, including Maria Iudica, Mark Zappia, John and Tereena Marlais, Adrian Cordoma, Michael Snadden, Zoe Dichiera, and Guiseppe Romeo, came to me with their concerns. I've heard their concerns and I've taken them on board and communicated them.
I want to reassure growers that the government is monitoring the situation closely and is working through diplomatic channels to ensure our produce keeps moving. I've been working closely with both Minister Littleproud and Minister Birmingham to ensure they understand the unique challenges facing our region from a farmgate perspective. The ministers are well aware of the issues facing producers in Mallee and are working tirelessly through each commodity, one by one, to make sure these issues are resolved, noting that these challenges are best resolved through open and respectful dialogue.
The Australian government faces a dilemma of balancing Australia's trade interests against issues of foreign interference and protecting our nation's sovereignty and strategic interests. The government will continue to work collaboratively with industry and our trade partners to ensure we strike the right balance. Notwithstanding the government's desire to resolve these issues, diversification and expanding into new markets will continue to be important to industry. I understand this is easier said than done. Relationships with importers are often built up over years of doing business and accessing new markets doesn't happen overnight.
Diversification may lead to short-term pain for producers, but we need to have a long-term view. We need to consider what the next five, 10 and 15 years looks like. This is why the government is working to support industry by opening up new market access and negotiating new free trade agreements, having brought into force trade deals with Indonesia, Hong Kong and Peru; pursuing trade agreements with the European Union and the United Kingdom; and building on our relationships with Japan and Korea.
I'm particularly excited by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which brings together 15 Indo-Pacific countries into a single framework. The agreement includes nine of Australia's top 15 trading partners and delivers a range of improvements over our existing agreements with these nations. We've also signed a bilateral agreement with Indonesia known as the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. Under this agreement, over 99 per cent of Australia's goods exports will enter Indonesia duty-free or under preferential agreements. I hope this will lead to more favourable trading conditions for exporters of red globe table grapes who encountered issues with the Indonesian market at the start of the year before the agreement was ratified.
Continued growth in exports to premium markets is vital to Australian agricultural industries and regional economies, and maintaining strong relationships with our trading partners is critical to ensuring success especially now in a post-COVID world. That's why the government is introducing a package of reforms to slash unnecessary red tape to get products to export markets faster and support jobs in regional Australia. The Busting Congestion for Agricultural Exporters package will work to maintain and strengthen existing access to premium overseas markets and provide an immediate freeze on fees and charges to assist exporters with the impacts of COVID-19.
The centrepiece of the reform package is the Digital Services to Take Farmers to Markets measure, which will modernise Australia's agricultural export systems by slashing red tape and improving regulation and service delivery for our producers and exporters. This measure will transition our systems online and provide a single portal for transactions between exporters and government, streamlining processes for exporters and helping them experience faster and more cost-effective services.
The most recent ABARES Agricultural Commodities Report has shown that the gross value of Australian agricultural production is forecast to increase to $65.1 billion in 2021. This is in spite of the fact that Australian agricultural exports are expected to take a seven per cent hit on what has been an exceptionally difficult and unprecedented year. The government's ambitious export agenda and the suite of measures designed to support our nation's exporters, including the improvements to the Export Market Developments Grant scheme, will pave the way for future growth, job creation and prosperity, including in my electorate of Mallee.
I rise to support the honourable member for Brand's very-well-worded and intelligent amendment to the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. We are not opposing the bill, because we understand the enormous benefits the Export Market Development Grants scheme has brought to Australian small and medium enterprises over many years. The EMDG Act establishes a grant program for Australian small and medium enterprises for reimbursements of up to 50 per cent of their export related marketing expenses. This, on the surface, is a great policy and, like most policy initiatives over the last few decades, it was introduced by the Whitlam government, in 1974. Its purpose was to encourage small businesses to expand their export markets and for Australia to diversify its economic reliance. Over time, however, the EDMG Act has not functioned in the best way it could for our exporters.
The Howard government slapped a spending cap of $150 million on the EMDG in 1997, and since then the funding has not really increased in real terms. Because of the confusing administration, the level of reimbursement each SME receives is uncertain and varies from year to year, dependent on the demand on the scheme and the size of the appropriation. Currently, some exporters are being forced to wait up to two years to receive reimbursements, with the level of funding unknown until after the completion of their promotional activities. We want our exporter-operators operating with as much certainty as possible, not hedging their bets based on what they think they might or might not get from this government.
The bill implements the recommendations of the Fisher review to streamline the act and to cut down bureaucracy. It will change the reimbursement scheme to an upfront grants scheme, which will provide certainty for exporters. The grants will also be capped for export-ready SMEs with an annual turnover of less than $20 million, down from the previous $50 million. That's because the review found that to many big exporters these grants were seen as nice to have rather than actually acting as an incentive to diversify their exports.
So Labor will be supporting the bill, but we urge the government to actively enter discussions with the Export Consultants Association and take on their advice about any amendments to the act. While we will be supporting the bill, we are horrified by this government's indifference to any export market that doesn't involve digging things out of the ground. That accounts for the vast majority of SMEs, who are trying to make a go of it in complex exports—exports like manufacturing, which has all but died under this government's watch and has contributed to our decline in our world rankings.
Diversifying our exports means higher wages and more jobs for Australians, and in the midst of the Morrison recession, the worst this country has seen since the Great Depression, you would think it would be a top priority for a government, yet small and medium enterprises account for just 14 per cent of Australia's exports. If we look at that in comparison with G7 countries, we see they account for 25 per cent of exports and the European Union average is around 35 per cent. By lifting our SME exports to 25 per cent of our overall exports, Australia would increase its GDP by an estimated $36 billion. At a time when this government is slashing JobKeeper and saying there isn't enough money in the budget to help young families with child care, you'd think that $36 billion would be an enticing number. Then again, this is the government which has squandered billions of dollars on waste, rorts and favours for Liberal mates, so it isn't surprising that the PM is more interested in bringing a lump of coal into parliament than he is in supporting industries that can save the Australian economy.
Because of the government's inaction over the last eight years, our exports have been become unusually dependent on China, so this government should be doing all it can to promote diverse export markets, but it's not. Take, for example, Australia's languishing trade and investment relationship with India. Two years ago a landmark report on India found that no single market over the next 20 years would offer Australia more growth opportunity, but so far this government has done next to nothing in its response to the report's 90 recommendations. Instead the PM held a virtual summit with Prime Minister Modi with practically no attention given to the trade and economic relationship. It's hardly shocking, then, that India's share of Australia's export has dropped below two per cent, the lowest since 2003. In a growing market Australia is getting less and less of a share because this government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to supporting small and medium enterprises and exports.
Our SME exporters have learnt the hard way that the government really cares more about short-term bucks they can get from mining rather than the long-term stability we can achieve by diversifying exports. That's why Labor has publicly called on the government to address Australia's lack of export complexity. A recent Harvard study of economic complexity ranked Australia 93rd in the world for complexity of its exports, lagging behind great and powerful nations such as Kazakhstan, Uganda and Senegal. Such a narrow export base means Australia is uniquely dependent on a small number of trade investment markets, which obviously increases Australia's risk in a deteriorating global economic environment. The government claims to care about national security above all else, but if this were really the case Australian businesses would not currently be feeling the pain of geopolitical tensions. That they are is due to the mismanagement of the current Prime Minister.
Despite these warnings, Australia, under Prime Minister Scott Morrison, is more dependent than ever on China for its exports and jobs. In fact, we depend on the Chinese market more than any other country in the world. A British research institute recently determined that among the Five Eyes countries, comprising Australia, the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand, Australia is the most dependent on the import of Chinese goods, particularly strategic goods, ranging from medical equipment and pharmaceutical goods to processed aluminium and steel. These are things that can and should be made here. We're a country that should be able to invent things, make things, sell things and export things. We have the know-how. We have the intelligence. We just don't have a government that's actually committed to driving and building this.
The government has had over seven years to figure it out, yet it still hasn't delivered a plan to support our exporters, to save Australian jobs or to diversify our economy. Australian exporters are suffering and Australian jobs are on the line because our exports are forced to be too reliant on a single market. I find this particularly worrying, because Chinese demand for our commodities is forecast to plateau in coming decades, and we've seen recently the issues in relation to exports. Whether it be live fresh rock lobster—our wild catch lobster, which is the best in the world—or other commodities such as barley, they are all at pains, while this government walks around, puffs its chest up and says how good it is. In the meantime, our exporters, our farmers and Australian workers are suffering.
With all these exposed sectors, such as our meat exporters and winemakers, it becomes painfully clear that China, for reasons which are vague and unclear, is willing to limit imports from us. But what is definitely clear is that the government has been asleep at the wheel and is failing Australian workers and businesses badly. We cannot change our reliance on China overnight, but the government seems to believe it is up to the Australian companies to go and open new markets. It's obvious from our history that nothing will happen unless the government takes the lead, but it will take a little more follow-through than a couple of press conferences called by the Prime Minister. We have a vast network of trade embassies right around the world that can deliver work and help bring in extra markets, more job opportunities for Australian workers and more opportunity for Australian exporters, but we've got to have the government driving these things. There's no point sitting on your hands and saying, 'It's not our fault. It's all their fault.' No, it's not. It's actually the government's fault, and the government should be held to account for doing this and causing the issues that we're seeing today for our small and medium enterprises.
It's not just China that we're dependent on. Australia currently holds 28 days worth of fuel imports. Now, this is well below the 90-day minimum requirement under international agreements. Even though the hapless Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction signed an agreement with the US to hold fuel reserves, let's be clear: we're going to get fuel reserves, but we're going to leave them in the US rather than onshore. So, if anything happens and we have any incidents that stop fuel from being transported, we'll be left with nothing. This is the joy that we have when we listen to Minister Taylor. Seriously, he turns anything he touches into absolute problems, each and every time. Whether it's false emails with the City of Sydney or his energy policy, you can be sure that whatever happens with Minister Taylor is going to end up being a mess.
We need to ensure that this fuel is delivered onshore. It should be sitting here. We should have our refineries working. We should have jobs in this country. We should have the fuel supply that our people rely on here onshore, because we don't actually have the capacity to refine it. We saw the member for Brand talking very strong about the refinery in her electorate that's being shut down. Where's the government on that? It's nowhere to be seen. That is an absolute failure. Really, the core business of the Australian government is firstly to protect our citizens.
The government has abandoned self-sufficiency in favour of foreign reliance. As I said, we used to be a country that invented things, built things and sold things. But, under this government's watch, the manufacturing sector has collapsed. Through past jobs, I know the importance of access to Australia's high-quality exports. The rock lobster fishery in Victoria and South Australia is the cleanest and greatest in the world, yet it's being held up and those products are not getting overseas. Sure, it's good for Australian consumers because it means a price drop, but it's not good for those who have invested millions of dollars in an industry and the many jobs that it brings.
Industries like that have been abandoned by this government, because this Prime Minister is all about a photo op but never a follow-up. If it was up to Labor we would be working hard with exporters to be build relationships and secure the markets that Australian jobs depend on. Diversifying export markets is more than a photo op and a free trade signing ceremony. We've seen with the free trade agreement with China just how well that's working at the moment! Labor would work with other allied and aligned countries who also face the challenge of a more assertive China, not alienating ourselves from our Pacific neighbours like this government is doing.
While we will support the passage of this bill, we say to the government that more must be done to improve SME exports. We are lagging on the world stage when we should be out in front. I say to the Prime Minister if he ever took the time to listen to anyone but himself that if he expects the support of exporting businesses then he has to do more to protect them from the geopolitical tensions, which they are now exposed to courtesy of the failure of this government.
I rise to support the current Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. This longstanding reimbursement scheme provides financial assistance to Australia's small and medium enterprises, SMEs, and encourages them to create, develop and expand export markets for Australian goods, services and intellectual property. I sit on the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth and we've heard from a variety of exporters how important this grant is to their survival and also to their sense of innovation and how it provides them with assistance in the early stages of trying to get off the ground. We know how important being an exporting country is to our future. We understand that we need to increase diversification of our trading assets and diversification of our trading partners. That is what the two inquiries the Committee on Trade and Investment Growth has been looking at during the course of this year and the last part of last year.
This bill establishes an entitlement for eligible exporters which reimburses recipients up to 50 per cent of eligible export promotion expenses above $5,000, provided the total expenses are at least $15,000. It also provides a wide range of expenditure that is eligible under the new scheme, reflecting the different ways that different businesses approach different markets. The Committee on Trade and Investment Growth heard from a diverse group of exporters. I am a medical researcher and I know how difficult it can be to predict the future when you are trying to develop something for a commercial market. It's important that we have a flexible approach to ensure that companies can deal with developing their business in a way that suits their needs. Importantly, this bill also provides SMEs access to multi-year entitlements, reflecting the time to build a presence in the market, and it provides funding certainty and confidence. Again, I reflect on my time in medical research and how important having those multi-year agreements can be with regard to long-term certainty and planning. This funding certainty has never been more important for our SMEs who rely so heavily on this grant for the innovation, particularly in this post-COVID environment we are finding ourselves in.
I recently met with local constituents, Tom and Belinda, who together own an export business which has been growing for 13 years. Tom and Belinda took over from Tom's father three years ago and they have watched their company, Sandilands Export, go from strength to strength. They have also been pivotal in helping other Australian businesses take their products and services to the world stage. They achieve this by helping businesses obtain and maximise the export market development grants. Tom and Belinda, like many exporters, want less red tape, as additional paperwork is an added expense to their business and is far more onerous to the applicant.
Our government has conducted a review of the financial assistance to SME exporters. It was conducted by Anna Fisher of Zonte's Footstep, a wine exporter and former recipient of this funding scheme. Anna knows exactly what is required when it comes to using these sorts of reimbursements to help grow business. This review examined the effectiveness of the scheme and the efficiency model for delivering financial assistance for Australia's SME exporters, to encourage additional export development and promotional activities.
I always love a review, because it is about engaging with those people who are in the scheme rather than just applying what we think is going to work. The review involved extensive stakeholder consultation with over 5,000 participants, including peak body engagement. This provided invaluable feedback about the EMDG. The review received 158 submissions and found that, while the EMDG is valued by SME exporters, its administration was too complex and needed simplification—exactly what my constituents have been calling for. Again, I have been involved in the grants process, and you can spend a lot of time filling out paperwork when actually what you want to do is get on with the business of doing business.
The government has responded by changing the EMDG from a reimbursement scheme to an eligibility based grants program, to encourage export ready businesses, like the one in my electorate who will now be able to access new markets, increase their exports and expand. This is what we need to grow as an economy going forward in the post-COVID world.
The review also found, not surprisingly, that each SME's export journey is entirely unique, meaning that financial assistance needs to be tailored along the way to accommodate their changing needs. We know that, as businesses change, their needs change. The review recommended that the EMDG be re-targeted towards exporters with a turnover of less than $20 million at three stage of their export journey, and that the EMDG targets those exporters who are ready to take their business overseas for the first time, those that are growing and those that are undertaking a strategic shift. We know that this is so important. We don't want flatlining businesses; we want businesses that are looking for opportunity and growth. We want to take businesses from good to great, rather than just investing in businesses that are not necessarily going places.
The review presented a persuasive case for the need to better target EMDG funding towards those SMEs who can make the best use of public money. Additionally, the review also found that businesses don't always require government funding to help them through the export journey and that in fact large exporting businesses saw EMDG funding as nice to have but not essential and that it was not an incentive to invest in more export promotion activity. It was found that, for exporters with a turnover of $20 million and over, the EMDG payment was equivalent to less than 0.15 per cent of their total revenue. Hence, our recommendation is that SMEs with a turnover of under $20 million receive the assistance in order to ensure that this taxpayer funding is best targeted where it will have the greatest impact. Importantly, this will also provide industry associations the assistance they need to help support their members who haven't been export ready to become so.
The Morrison government has accepted in principle each of the review's recommendations, and this bill implements those recommendations. Under this bill, the current EMDG design features and principles have been preserved, including assistance being focused on export market development and promotion; the establishment of an entitlement for eligible exporters; providing for a wide range of expenditure to be eligible, reflecting the different ways that businesses are approaching their markets; and importantly, the multi-year entitlements. But the principle that SMEs must have skin in the game is intact and fundamental—again, we know that if you want to teach someone to fish you give them a fishing line but it's important that they also place the bait on the hook. This will help them receive their proportion of their eligible expenditure. We will also continue to subject the EMDG to continual evaluation—something I think is very, very important—so that we make sure that people are complying with the required processes.
In conclusion, the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 makes sure that support and assistance to SMEs is targeted and stream lined; that we cut down on red tape; and that we help these businesses which are open, flexible and, most importantly, growing in the export market. As we go forward in a post-COVID world, we want to make sure that these businesses help us to grow our economy for a better future for all Australians.
The Export Market Development Grants program is a great initiative of a Labor government. It was introduced in 1974 by the Whitlam government as a means of supporting Australian exporters to sell their goods and services in international markets. Labor support this legislation because we understand the enormous benefits of exporting into foreign markets for Australia's GDP and the benefits that this scheme has played in opening up new opportunities, particularly for SMEs, to expand their horizons and their markets and ultimately their incomes to support jobs. Funding for the program has steadily increased under successive governments to a peak of $270 million in the 1996-97 years and was forecast to increase to $300 million in 1997-98 under the Keating government. However, the Howard government were elected and they imposed a spending cap of $150 million in 1997, putting downward pressure on the scheme. The current funding, which includes a COVID-19 top-up of $47 million, is $277.7 million. This means that funding in real terms hasn't increased under this scheme since the Keating government.
The scheme helps aspiring and current exporters to increase their marketing activities overseas by reimbursing them up to 50 per cent of their eligible promotion expenses. In 2019, more than 4,000 small to medium enterprises in Australia accessed the scheme, generating exports worth $3.7 billion. In October last year, the government commissioned an independent review of the administration of the EMDG scheme and the review recommended that the program be retargeted to businesses with a turnover of less than $20 million, because many large exporters saw the grants as nice to have but not an incentive to invest in promotional activity. It was also recommended that the scheme's administration be simplified. One of the recommendations related to when the payments were made. In the past, payments were made by government to exporters after the expenditure had been undertaken, and in some cases it was years after the expenditure for promotional activities associated with selling their goods and services in international markets had been undertaken. That was inefficient and it was a deterrent to many businesses participating in the scheme.
There were 10 recommendations in total that were accepted by the government, and this bill makes a number of key changes to the scheme in light of those recommendations in that report. The changes include that the scheme will be changed from a reimbursement scheme to an up-front grants scheme to provide funding certainty for exporters dealing with the issue that I just raised. Grants will be capped for export-ready SMEs with an annual turnover of less than $20 million, down from the previous $50 million. Grants will be administered in two tiers, with tier 1 focused on SMEs new to export and tier 2 targeted at expanding exporters. It would be good to see the focus on businesses that are new to export—those that are dipping their toe in the water, if you like, or are looking to expand into international markets when they previously might not have thought of looking overseas. Labor supports building capacity amongst SMEs to boost exports and create more jobs for Australians. We all hope that this particular change to the program will achieve that.
SMEs account for only 14 per cent of Australia's exporters, whereas in G7 countries they account for 25 per cent and in the European Union, on average, they account for 35 per cent. However, exporters contribute more than nonexporters to jobs and productivity. On average, they employ more staff, pay higher wages and achieve higher labour productivity compared to nonexporters. It's a fact that exporters tend to have enterprise bargaining agreements with their staff to a higher degree than nonexporters, which tends to imply that they're interested in collectively bargaining with their employees around better wages and conditions on a regular basis and on the basis of a productivity trade-off which ensures that the efficiency of their business is improving and they are in a position to look to international markets to expand. Lifting SME exports to 25 per cent of Australia's exports would increase our GDP by an estimated $36 billion
The COVID pandemic has presented many fresh obstacles for Australian exporters, including the disruption to supply chains and loss of markets. Now more than ever it's important that Australian exporters have the most efficient support mechanisms in place to help them to access markets around the world. The Morrison government must develop a clear strategy to genuinely diversify our export markets. Our exporters need a government that does more than simply point to free trade agreements and hope that this will lead to increased trade. They need a government that actually delivers on access to markets, particularly around non-tariff barriers and particularly in Asian markets. We are signatories to close to 16—I think it is now—free trade agreements, and many of them do break down barriers around market access associated with tariffs. But it's the key area of non-tariff barriers, particularly investment controls in many of these nations, that have been a barrier to many Australian businesses opening up, locating premises, manufacturing and selling into Asian markets in particular but international markets more broadly. That's an area where I think the government could be doing more to assist businesses to break down some of those barriers.
The most glaring example is their decision to implement just one of the 20 priority recommendations contained in the 500-page report released in 2018 that contained a blueprint for closer economic management and closer economic cooperation with India. We believe that that's been a great failure of and a missed opportunity by this government. It was of course a report that was prepared by Peter Varghese. Since the publication and launch of the report, it has basically sat on the shelf in the minister's office, gathering dust. India's share of Australian merchandise exports was falling by more than 30 per cent as that report was being released. The Morrison government seem to believe that it's the responsibility of Australian SMEs themselves to open up these new markets, without any assistance from government. But we all know that governments that are interested in supporting SMEs to expand into international markets do have programs such as this—and others as well—to break down some of those barriers and support trade diversification.
It's evident from our history, including from the actions of both Liberal and Labor governments, that little will happen unless the Commonwealth government takes the lead in this area. For the sake of Australian jobs and SME exports, the Morrison government must act in the national interest to devise an urgent strategy to support Australian SMEs. That includes looking at some of those issues I mentioned around investment and the newer markets in the Asia-Pacific region.
I know the Export Market Development Grants scheme very well, because in my previous career I was quite involved with it across a number of businesses in the textile industry. Thinking back, 2008 might have been the first year that I was involved in a business in the yarn industry that used the scheme, and then equally, further up the supply chain, in fabrics and also garments in my time in the merino wool industry in this country. We used the scheme to great effect to help promote our offer overseas and build a business that was basically 100 per cent export.
The wool industry is obviously very famous for the economic contribution that it has made and continues to make to this country and our economy. But, perhaps unfortunately, most of the sector from greasy wool onwards is now very much offshore. In that time, I was involved with a business that had a scouring and carbonising mill in South Australia, in Adelaide. But the yarn combing and spinning happened in Malaysia. Then we would have our knitting done in China, in Suzhou, just out of Shanghai. Then, often, the cut and sew would happen in a variety of locations in South-East Asia, the Pacific and Eastern Europe.
That yarn business, which was the first in the supply chain and had an export focus, was the first company where I engaged with the EMDG process. Back then, as I recall, you were eligible for up to about $150,000 a year if you incurred the same amount. I think you had to incur your own amount first for about $15,000 and then after that you'd get dollar for dollar. As has been fleshed out in other contributions already, in those times you didn't have certainty over what you would get back. You hoped that the scheme would fully finance your maximum cap, which, as I said, from memory was about $150,000, but that wouldn't occur until you finished that financial year. You'd obviously deal with your acquittals with the department, put in your application and they would assess it, and then, if you were lucky, you'd get the full amount that you applied for. I was certainly lucky to be in a larger parent company that was able to make business decisions about pursuing export markets with the certainty that, if we weren't successful through the EMDG process, it wouldn't have an enormous impact on the investors.
Of course, there are a lot of smaller businesses that really count on the EMDG. It's very important for them that they're successful in this scheme, because their business planning involves that return on the marketing expenditure that they undertake. It can leave a big hole in the budgets of smaller businesses that are looking to access markets. Accessing overseas markets is really expensive. We do it very well in this country. We get great government support. There are great industry groups. In the wool industry, AWI, Australian Wool Innovation, is very involved with our businesses in a lot of the key markets. Sometimes you can be lucky, and you'll have other Australian businesses that are exporters that don't see you as a competitor; they see you as complementary to them. They might be successful in overseas markets already and they might give you a hand in market entry. But, if you're doing it cold and you don't have great support structures around you, or the market you're seeking to enter is not so mature and not so experienced by other Australian businesses and some of the significant Australian industry groups, you're taking a big risk.
The great thing about this scheme is that the government is saying, 'If you're going to take a risk to go and find an export market and to find a location for Australian exports—to hopefully grow, succeed and expand your business in this country and employ more people—we as a government want to share that risk, if you like, by sharing an element of the expenditure profile you've got in making the risky decision to go and seek to enter an overseas market.' Certainly in my time this covered branding expenditure, tradeshows, sampling, sending samples overseas and producing marketing collateral. I know some businesses that use it for developing websites. In the wine industry in South Australia it has been fundamental to so many wineries, particularly family wineries, that want to go from selling domestically and being successful—good on people who have the ambition to grow their business well beyond Australian shores and go and find new markets overseas. Those types of businesses have benefited for such a long, long time from this program.
As much as I praise the EMDG, I welcome the changes we are making to it in this legislation. The review commissioned by the government and handed to Minister Birmingham did raise some important opportunities for reform in this scheme, particularly to better target what we're doing to smaller businesses, with a slight contraction in the size of a business that's eligible for the scheme, but also to give businesses that certainty. They'll know before they incur expenditure whether they have been accepted into the program. They still have to meet the rules; the expenditure still has to meet the rules of the scheme, but, rather than hoping that you'll be eligible, you'll now find out beforehand. If you go ahead and incur expenditure to access a market or to try and expand into other markets, you will be able to count on the fact that, as long as you follow the rules of the scheme, you are going to be funded. That will make an enormous difference.
One of the key findings of the review was that there are undoubtedly businesses that in recent years have been expecting success in the scheme to the full amount and not receiving it, because it's been oversubscribed. What invariably happens is that there's a budgeted amount of money for the scheme, but, if a whole lot more people than were predicted are successful in meeting the rules of that scheme then the amount of money has to be shared amongst a larger pool of people. Although you might have done everything right, with all your expenditure exactly within the rules of the scheme, and although you might have been eligible for $150,000 return on expenditure, if twice the number of people applied successfully, like you did, you would only get half the money back that you were anticipating or hoping for.
This will have a significant impact on smaller businesses like the winery example I just used—a small operation in the Barossa Valley or McLaren Vale in South Australia or in one of the other great wine regions around this country. By accessing an overseas market, they were potentially putting themselves in a position to double, triple or quadruple their turnover. But, equally, being a small business, due to the cost of entering market—and it can cost hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get that foothold—where they were counting on the EMDG to support them in that and share the cost, to find out after that event that they won't get that money back could well mean the difference between success and failure.
I know what it's like to do a budget on a new venture, particularly when you're looking to enter new markets. I mentioned earlier my background in the textile industry. In the garment industry, particularly when you've got a niche product and you know that you have to spread your risk amongst a number of markets around the world, the cost of entering a new market, versus the return you're going to get in the first few years, is very significant. The EMDG component of the money you get back when you're successful in the scheme in many cases makes the difference in a business deciding to go ahead and incur that expenditure, make that decision, commit to it and go into market. You still have risk. This scheme merely supports your expenditure and offsets up to half of it, depending on what you spend. It doesn't mean you'll be successful in the market. You're still bearing an enormous amount of risk that you might not succeed. For example, you think a particular distributor will be perfect for your product. You incur the cost of branding and translating all of your materials. You're going to go into market. You'll probably incur cost at a trade show. You meet the network you thought would be suitable for you, and you might find out they're not suitable at all. You might find out that the whole exercise, which has cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars, has all been for nothing. This happens in business all the time. Sure, it's part of the risk of doing business, but the EMDG helps cushion the impact of that and helps give you the confidence factor in taking that risk.
We have great support for our exporters, through Austrade, the Commonwealth government agency, through our network of embassies and high commissions and through the trade offices around the world. I mentioned earlier some of the significant industry bodies that do an excellent job of supporting our more mature industry sectors to engage and grow in existing markets and new markets. We've also got people with very niche businesses who have to do it alone. That's the category where EMDG really comes into its own in supporting those types of businesses to get the confidence and a feeling that they're in it with their government, that their government is supporting them and wants them to succeed in growing their business.
If we're growing businesses, we're employing more people. Bigger businesses pay more tax to the Commonwealth government. This is exactly the kind of investment that we should be making: supporting businesses to grow and pay that dividend back to the Australian economy, the Australian people, through employing more people and of course earning more money; and a higher turnover that results in more tax revenue for the Commonwealth government.
We are a nation of 25 million people. We're very prosperous. We're very lucky with some of our natural attributes. I've got a 100 per cent confidence that our future prosperity is always going to come from our ability to continue to grow our exports. When you're 25 million people, you're not going to be a thriving economy by selling lattes to each other. You've got to produce more than the 25 million of this country want or need, and sell that surplus around the world. That's how we're going to secure and safeguard our standard of living that we've come to expect and that we deserve in this country of great attribute. But, as a government, we've got to be doing things exactly like this legislation does, which is enhance a scheme that is supporting Australian businesses to grow into new overseas export markets and thrive.
Not everyone's going to be successful—that's obvious. A third of small businesses fail in their first year and the stats are similar with accessing export markets. Lots of businesses try and fail, but we need to encourage them. It's not a failure at all to have a go and seek to expand your business and access a new market. In success, there's an enormous return for your business; there's an enormous return for this country. We've seen unbelievable trade statistics in recent months—in fact, over the past two years—having a current account surplus and an enormous net trade surplus. We're doing very well as a nation in the successful pursuit of growing our exports and access to export markets.
This legislation is only going to improve and enhance the ability of particularly small businesses to continue to grow and help our broader economy expand. Every dollar we earn from overseas, rather than from within our economy, is a massive positive in so many ways, bringing that net trade surplus up, and ensuring our cost of living and our sustainability as a country and a continent. We are 25 million people. We can continue to be a very, very wealthy nation with a very high standard of living, strong productivity growth, wages growth and the dividend of that economic success. It's thanks to programs like the EMDG that we're going to be able to safeguard that into the future. I commend the bill to the House.
I will say at the outset that I support the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. It makes a series of sensible administrative changes to an important longstanding scheme, the Export Market Development Grant scheme, which is actually a Whitlam government scheme from 1974. I'm only one year older than this scheme, and it's certainly stood the test of time.
The independent review, I might stress, is not the government's ideas; they haven't come up with these ideas. They quite sensibly had an independent review, spoke to hundreds of businesses and took that expert advice. The review found that the policy intent of the scheme has stood the test of time. For over 40 years this scheme that the Whitlam Labor government introduced is still a sound piece of policy. But, as you'd expect, there's a range of changes as the economy changes—as the nature of our markets and exporters change, so must the scheme change in an administrative sense. The idea of having upfront payments to provide greater certainty to businesses is a sensible one. In a past life I used to work in the Victorian government in trade and investment. I've run trade missions around the world. I've spoken to businesses and tried to help them in the Victorian context, and there was a lot of frustration with this scheme that people couldn't actually run a cash flow or bank on it. They had no idea what they were going to get. It was like a little lottery that they might win or they might lose. They've lowered the threshold, which is a controversial recommendation in some senses, but it does, so the government says and so the review says, better target the available dollars to SMEs by lowering the cap from $50 million to $20 million and creating two streams: businesses new to export and those wanting to expand export.
That's all sensible as far as it goes, but I do want to return my remarks to the second reading amendment. I listened to the previous speaker. He said we're doing well as a nation in trade. It is self-congratulatory prattle from the government. He's obviously content rich, but I can see why Christopher Pyne sent him here: it's so we'd miss Christopher! It was certainly an antidote to my insomnia. I was thinking of getting a podcast! But there's a serious and growing crisis with this government. The self-congratulatory prattle—oh, everything's fine in trade; there's nothing to worry about. It's almost like there's not a trade crisis. It's almost like there are not 80 ships sitting off the cost of China with over $1 billion of our export just sitting there, going nowhere. We could apply the Prime Minister's comeback slogan, couldn't we? 'Come back, ships. They don't want you. We've stuffed up the relationship so badly. Come back. We'll do something else.'
It's ridiculous. Mogadon speaker after government muppet gets up and says: 'Oh, we're doing really well on trade. It's all going swimmingly. It's all tickety-boo.' Well, it's not. Have a look at the facts under this government in its eighth year. Here are three key metrics. SMEs are 14 per cent of our nation's trade exports. Compare that to the G7 nations: 25 per cent. The European Union average is 35 per cent. The government's fiddling with a Whitlam government scheme. The amount of funding, though, matters in the scheme. You haven't put enough funding into it. This is your eighth year in government. You put, I think, another $37 million in as a COVID boost—panic, panic. 'Let's put some money in the scheme. All of a sudden we can spend money.' The funding was $240 million. When Paul Keating left office it was $270 million. Twenty-three years ago there was vastly more money in real terms in this scheme, and the government's fiddling with the rules, saying, 'Oh, haven't we done a good job?'
This is the spin versus the reality from this government. It's a marketing department masquerading as a government. There's nothing serious happening over there, just another announcement. 'Oh, look: we've announced. We changed the rules in the scheme the Whitlam government introduced,' but have a look at the outcomes. Fourteen per cent of our trade exports are from SMEs. It's not good enough. Have a look at our export complexity. Under this government we have a serious problem with our export complexity. Our exports, our trade, are far too narrowly focused and concentrated on a very few things that we export. So of course the headline figure for trade has gone up: people are buying this year a whole lot more of our iron ore. But, if you take that out of it, we're not doing well. That comes and goes. The headline figures that the government is trumpeting disguise a serious underlying problem with our trade and export profile. They haven't done anything about it; they just love making announcements. We are too dependent on a small number of exports.
This is not a new problem. It's not an easy problem to fix. But we don't value-add enough. We're now 93rd in the world for trade export complexity, behind Kazakhstan, Uganda and Senegal. That's not good enough. We're an advanced OECD economy, the 13th largest economy in the world, and we are far too dependent on a very narrow slice. There's no single solution, but there is a role for government—a much more creative, thoughtful role for government in industry and trade policy than we've seen over there. All they want to do is cut things.
Have a look at market diversification. That's the big one at the moment, isn't it? In their eighth year in government all of a sudden they're running around, going: 'Oh, we need to diversify away from China. This is a new thing. Look what we discovered.' It's not a new thing. People have been talking about this age of disruption between our biggest security partner and our biggest economic partner for years. If you talk to the experts, if you talk to business, if you talk to the academics or if you listen to your own bureaucrats for the government, they'd be saying, 'Amber light flashing; we have a market concentration problem here.' But you need to do more than just say 'diversify'. You actually need to do something.
So how is all the talk about diversification working out? Not very well. Like I said, we've got 80 Australian ships—well, they're not Australian; we got rid of the shipping industry. But there are 80 ships with Australian coal sitting off the coast of China with over $1 billion of our product not welcome, not let in. As I said, there is the comeback slogan. 'Come back, ships. Come back to shore. Come back to Australia. We've stuffed the relationship. They won't let you in.' The Prime Minister has got that little thing. Remember what we saw after he stopped the boats when he was the immigration. He stopped the boats. He has that little ship sitting on his desk, 'I stopped the boats.' Xi Jinping will need a whole new palace to put all the boats of Australian exports in that he's stopped! This is a serious matter. This is a serious relationship. The threats to our trade relationships are deadly serious. Of course, our sovereignty and our values must come first. But it has been crystal clear for years under this do-nothing government that we may face this situation and now the government just looks confused. It's as if we didn't have the former Prime Minister running around gratuitously insulting our biggest trading partner with, 'Shanghai Sam.' It's domestic politics at every turn for the Liberal Party, particularly this Prime Minister who is very, very good at politics. You have to hand him that. His very, very good at politics. But it's as if every time it matters in the national interest domestic politics doesn't trump the national interest.
We found out, shockingly, the announcement by the foreign minister about the World Health Organization, which was widely panned by the national security establishment. We didn't have to go and poke our biggest trading partner in the eye. We could have been more diplomatic and said, as Kevin Rudd observed, 'How about we do a study.' How you frame stuff matters. How you talk to people matters.
An opposition member interjecting—
Absolutely. We could have got the same outcome. Look at the smug, little whippet over there. What did you do to the previous member? We know about your loyalty and what happened. Unbelievable.
Order. I ask the member to withdraw that comment.
I withdraw that comment. It's a serious business and it's been clear for four years that there is no strategy. There is no trade minister. The previous finance minister announced in July that he was going. The Prime Minister has known for five months that he is going to have to get a cabinet reshuffle underway. He has downgraded the trade portfolio in the middle of a trade crisis. He has downgraded it and put it under the finance minister and under the Senate leader. I wonder when Australian exporters are going to get a trade minister who might actually focus on this growing crisis. We have backbenchers running foreign policy. The foreign minister is so weak. As I was saying before, she went on Insiders and announced the World Health Organization investigation because she needed an announcement. They couldn't actually just go on television for the morning and talk about their agenda or manage the foreign policy debate or talk about what the government is doing or achieving. They needed to make up an announcement. How well has that gone for us!
Not one single minister in this government in the last two years has been able to pick up the phone and call any of their counterparts in our biggest trading partner. What a stunning success that has been! Well done, government. There is no relationship at all. The foreign minister is so weak she has outsourced foreign policy to a bunch of the extreme backbenchers. They are the ones popping up on TV and trotting out the messages, mucking up the relationship. We've had private briefings—I won't say from whom but former heads at the very top of the government—from people who have served Labor and Liberal governments from the national security establishment who were scathing about the way the government has managed this. They observed that the World Health Organization announcement—a chest-beating call from the front, no diplomacy—was not in our national interest and undermined our national security. One thing they said to us very clearly which I've tried to take to heart when I talk on TV is that this relationship should be managed by adults—by the Prime Minister, by the foreign minister, by the opposition leader and by the shadow foreign minister—and just about everyone else should shut up. If only the foreign minister and the government had the strength to call these nutters in the government into line and stop trotting out their lines ,this country would be in a much better place.
As I said, diversification isn't easy but the government had the best opportunity, a serious opportunity, to look at diversification, which was the Varghese report from 2018 on India. The former head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade did a serious piece of work, a $1.5 million study, into how we could diversify our trade relations with India. What did that say? It said, 'There is no single market over the next 20 years that offers more growth opportunities for Australia than India'—not one. In 2018, the Prime Minister said, 'The government endorses the report and provides in principle support to its 20 priority recommendations.' What a great announcement. 'We are going to diversify trade with India. It's a great opportunity. That's what we're going to do.' What has happened two years on? Nothing. The government has implemented one recommendation out of 20 and they have wandered away from the rest. They have opened a new consul-general in Calcutta. That's it. That's all they have done. There is all this opportunity out there and all this need to diversify our trade relations. The government had the report and they loved the announcement, but they never delivered. It's yet another example of this government being addicted to the announcement—addicted to the marketing. The Prime Minister loves taking photos of himself. You know, he could've taken a trade adviser into his two weeks of quarantine in the Lodge, or his chief economics adviser or the Chief Scientist, and maybe learnt something, but no—he took his personal photographer, and subjected us all to photos of himself wandering around in shorts. It's a joke! This is not a serious government. It's a marketing department: spin; delivery; no outcome.
As I said, the government has no plan to diversify trade, no plan for jobs and no serious structural reform in the budget. They managed to spend $98 billion of new spending and run up over a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt. There's nothing to show for it—not one serious piece of structural economic reform. What we get, in the middle of a trade crisis, is a bill from the government to change the rules in a scheme the Whitlam government introduced 46 years ago. Unbelievable!
In question time today we heard the education minister; he wandered up, and he was doing his audition, wasn't he? He wants to be the next trade minister—we read that in the Fin Review; we'll see what happens on Friday. He was doing his audition; he regaled us with figures and statistics, and he said: 'We're working on more free trade agreements.' Well, whoop-de-do! Anyone who knows anything about trade policy knows that we want global agreements, then we want regional agreements, and bilateral agreements can sometimes achieve something, and often they make things more confusing. There's been no honest auditing of all these free trade agreements they love to announce. No-one knows whether the outcomes are achieved. They just jump on to the next one and make another announcement. What about the hard work of the behind-the-border barriers, of the non-tariff barriers? If the government were to actually go and talk to exporters, instead of reading out their little talking points, they would understand that the biggest barriers for most exporters are not the tariffs anymore, in most of our markets. Those are not the barriers. It's the non-tariff barriers: the customs regulations; the extra checks; the standards; the cultural barriers. They're the things the government needs to focus on, instead of trying to think up their next announcement to get another free trade agreement.
Finally, I'll just share a word, in the last minute, for international education—our fourth biggest export sector, and, indeed, my state of Victoria's single largest export sector. Can you imagine the Prime Minister talking about any other export sector the way he has about international education?
An honourable member: 'Go home.'
'Go home.' He said to students: 'If you don't like it, go home.' He said that to a sector worth $40 billion to our country—$40 billion! It's a sector which relies on word-of-mouth marketing; we know that from the research. This is a sector with a 12-month/six-month pipeline. If students who are here feel welcome and have a good experience, they put it on social media and tell their family and friends, and more come. How do you think the students felt, being told by the national leader to go home? I spoke to the CEO of one of the accommodation providers who said that, the morning after, he had students at his front desk saying: 'I need to leave—where are the forms to leave?—because the Prime Minister told us to go home.' They heard that literally. How do you think they felt?
The government has taken no responsibility for helping our fourth-biggest export sector. Indeed, I know the Minister for Education. He tried. He hasn't called his counterpart in China for two years. He has taken some things to cabinet, but he gets rolled every time by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.
I genuinely don't understand why the Prime Minister is hostile to international education. I remember a couple of years ago he said: 'If you can't get a seat on the bus or a lane to drive your car in, it's because of all the international students.' Unbelievable!
The government has no credibility on trade. They cannot say they're serious on trade, and if this is the extent of reform, in the middle of a trade crisis, then God help us!
I thank the member for that contribution. 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 the words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
I rise to speak on the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 and, in doing so, I say upfront that Labor supports this bill. Labor supports the Export Market Development Grants because of the enormous benefit they've brought to Australian small and medium enterprises over many years. In fact, it was the Whitlam Labor government that introduced the Export Market Development Grants Act in 1974, only 46 years ago. The objective was for Australian businesses to seek out new export markets for Australian goods and services. This isn't a case of governments picking winners but a case of an astute government recognising the institutional disadvantage that can come with geography and other world factors. The scheme has received bipartisan support since 1974, albeit with different funding commitments from successive governments, and we heard from the member for Bruce about the lack of commitment from those opposite.
Over 50,000 small and medium enterprises have been supported under this scheme. The EMDG Act established a grant program administered by Austrade. The grants provide Australian small and medium enterprises with reimbursements of up to 50 per cent of their export related marketing expenses. Currently, the level of reimbursement to an SME is uncertain and can vary from year to year, depending on the demand for the scheme and the size of the appropriation. Sadly, there can be delays of up to two years for SMEs to receive reimbursement, and the level of reimbursement is unknown until after promotional activities have been completed. As anyone who has spoken to SMEs knows, this can be when money is most crucial.
The government commissioned an independent review into the administration of the Export Market Development Grants scheme in October last year, the Fisher review. It recommended that government continue to provide financial assistance to SMEs to encourage them enter and grow export markets. The Fisher review was made public in September this year and made 10 recommendations to simplify and streamline the scheme to deliver financial assistance to SME exporters in the most effective and efficient way. This bill implements those recommendations.
In essence, the EMDGs will change from a reimbursement scheme to an upfront grants program, to provide certainty to exporters. The Export Council of Australia told the Senate committee that conducted the inquiry:
This will be particularly helpful under current global trading conditions. SME exporters will not have to wait for as long as two years under present arrangements, especially for activities that go for multiple years. This will provide some element of certainty in SME exporters' planning in the future.
The Fisher review recommended that grant recipients be export ready. The bill removes the export performance test and the requirement that recipients have a prospect of success, replacing them with the requirement that recipients either are ready to export or have already exported their products.
The Fisher review also recognised that SME exporters have changing needs that reflect their export journey. The report said:
There are stages in an SME’s export journey where financial assistance is most likely to encourage additional export promotion activity. At other times, SMEs benefit more from information and education or tailored support, equity funding or export loans.
Encouraging diversity in trade relations has never been more important than it is right now, with our No. 1 trading partner effectively putting the Australian government in the freezer.
The year 2020 has thrown us many curve balls—COVID-19 being the most obvious—but adapting to our new reality has required some creativity. Austrade told the Senate inquiry:
COVID-19 has fundamentally changed the global business operating environment and made life very challenging for Australian exporters of goods and services. The COVID-19 pandemic has continued to cause major economic disruption and uncertainty worldwide, which is likely to remain for some time.
Austrade will continue to support exporters through these disruptions. A modern, streamlined EMDG program providing upfront funding certainty, allowing businesses to plan with confidence, is key to assisting SME exporters to recover from the effects of COVID-19 – and grow the number of SME exporters.
International travel restrictions have impacted on many SMEs and it may be some time before the world is free from these restrictions. For the tourism sector, ensuring that the scheme is flexible and that the detail of the scheme is developed through the rules and administrative guidance will be crucial. We know that this is an industry that has been hammered particularly hard.
Planning for anything in 2020 has been challenging for exporters; planning a marketing program a couple of years in advance is almost impossible in the current circumstances. It is a weird world where, as we've heard from other speakers, the trusted has become the estranged and where FTAs trumpeted only a decade ago, such as the China free trade agreement, are now, some might say, not worth the paper they're written on. It is proposed that exporters will identify their broad plans. Details will only be relevant for milestone payments rather than the initial grant application.
Technology startups are obviously already operating in a very fast-moving world. One of the submitters to the Senate inquiry pointed out that some SMEs who work in the online world are born global right from the word go and that for them new markets is a very old concept. Austrade clarified in the Senate inquiry that, for born globals, the parameters of an export-ready business will be applied flexibly. They said:
Establishing export-readiness will not preclude 'born global' businesses from being eligible for the EMDG program. Export-readiness does not mean that applicants will need to have established customers in Australia.
That's good news for a lot of those tech startups, particularly in the valley and around Brisbane. We need to encourage SMEs to create, develop and expand export markets for Australian goods, particularly coming from agriculture and mining. But could I stress that even in agriculture and mining we should value-add to the goods. I'm the son of a butcher. I'd much rather export processed meat than live cattle. My fundamental position is that we should always be value-adding and creating jobs in Australia. We should value-add to the services of the future, the intellectual property, the know-how and all of those things much more carefully.
Obviously exports are important for Australia. In 2018-19, exports represented 22 per cent of Australia's GDP, contributing $419 billion of Australia's nearly $2 trillion economy. Exports have grown over the past five years at 5.4 per cent per annum. That's double the rate of the Australian economy. Companies that export, by their very nature, are competing with companies around the world. They need to use the most modern technology and the best business practices. Exporters are 40 per cent more productive than non-internationalised businesses, according to international studies. The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science said that on average Australian exporters employ more staff, pay higher wages and achieve higher labour productivity compared to non-exporters—three things to take note of. Whether an SME makes a conscious decision to export or is an accidental exporter, there are benefits for the SME, benefits for the workers and benefits for Australia.
I particularly want to make this point in praise of the member for Fairfax. I worked with Ted O'Brien on the report From little things big things grow: supporting Australian SMEs go global, a report handed down in February 2019. We toured all around the country talking to SMEs about the opportunities to export more. It certainly came up for me that one of the greatest assets Australia has is the fact that we are the most multicultural country on earth. We came to my electorate of Moreton and had part of the hearing in my electorate office at Sunnybank. Recommendation 10 in this report says:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government commissions an audit into the untapped human capacity of Australian nationals living and working overseas and Australia's multi-ethnic diasporas living and working in Australia and their related chambers and associations with a view to formulating a strategy to unlock that capacity to advance Australia's interests, including opportunities for Australian small and medium enterprises.
I segue from that to the fact that Chinese people have been arriving in Australia for 202 years. We have almost a million people in the Chinese diaspora, some with connections going back a couple of fortnights; some with connections going back 202 years. There are all sorts of people with connections to Australia, who love Australia, who have roots that extend back to the Middle Kingdom. For the government to make this trading situation worse is something that is hard to forgive. Before coming up to speak, I saw that the ABC is reporting that honey producers, fruit producers, vitamin producers and dairy producers are on high alert in terms of being put in the freezer with China. We know that we need to get this relationship right. The reality is that the Liberal-National coalition are in their eighth year in government. They've been dealing with one Chinese leader, President Xi, for that entire time. They've seen our trade connections become much stronger but also much more dependent on China.
This government needs to make sure we have the best possible settings. We know that they should be calm and strategic and focus on our national interests. Part of that is surely jobs. We know that our wine makers, our barley farmers, our crayfishers, our coalminers—the Australian coal sitting in the 80-odd ships off the ports of China—our meatworkers and all the people who work hard for the good of this country, who create jobs and create wealth for this nation by sending products overseas, deserve the government to be calm and strategic.
We've seen too much focus on announcements rather than on what's best for this nation. I know that the government think that they have our national interests at heart at all times—and we obviously are proud Australians—but we need to be strategic. I hope that the Prime Minister is getting the best possible advice, rather than just going for a quick photo opportunity, a quick presser, a quick grab, a quick headline, and that he's taking a longer-term view of dealing with the Chinese. There's a saying that politics is 'the slow boring of hard boards', and good diplomacy makes that possible. It means that we listen to our diplomats around the world. They make sure that they understand the longer game and the more complicated aspects of our relations.
China understands this. China knows how to play a long game. It's been playing a political game for 5,000 years or so. We need to make sure that we put our trade relationships and our relationship with China on the best possible footing. I know that that can be difficult. It was 49½ years ago that the then Leader of the Opposition, Gough Whitlam, went off to China on a Labor Party delegation with Tom Burns, the president of the party, and Mick Young. It wasn't a trade delegation because they weren't a part of government. They went off to make a connection with Beijing. That was risky, and they were pilloried and attacked by the government of the day for doing that. But from those connections we set up a great trading relationship that has flowed for 49½ years—all because of the adventurous task that was undertaken by the Labor leader at the time, Gough Whitlam.
I was at events on the weekend with the Chinese diaspora. I assured them that calmer heads would prevail. There is much trepidation. A lot of people from that diaspora have had their businesses hammered—people dealing with international students, trading businesses. They are worried, and I assured them that calmer heads would prevail. I hope that this is a time when the government will step up and, rather than go for that quick presser, will press on with what is in the nation's interests.
I rise to speak on the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. The value of Australian goods and services exports reached a record $470 billion, up from $403 billion in 2018. With over 53,000 goods exporter, we are now the second-largest exporter of beef, the third-largest of lentils, the fourth-largest of sugar and wine and the largest global exporter of iron ore. We continue to punch above our weight on the world stage. The Export Market Development Grants scheme is a significant federal government financial assistance and incentive program for small to medium exporters and aspiring exporters. However, it's important to periodically revisit policy settings and parameters so as to ensure that they remain relevant and effective given changes in the trading context.
This bill will make important amendments to the Export Market Development Grants Act passed in 1997, which made changes to the Export Market Development Grants scheme administered by the Australian Trade and Investment Commission. The scheme provides a 50 per cent reimbursement to the costs of small and medium enterprises with turnovers less than $50 million for their export related marketing expenses above $5,000. Under the proposed changes there will be a retargeting of the threshold to export businesses with a turnover of less than $20 million a year, although the majority of SME exporters will still fall under this threshold.
The grant aims to encourage SMEs to create, develop and expand export markets for Australian goods, services and IP, and it's very much welcomed. SMEs are the lifeblood of our economy and it's important that we support them in their international endeavours and to become export-ready. I very much support this scheme.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, only two per cent of businesses in Australia are good exporters. This is partly because many Australian SMEs face considerable challenges when they wish to export. The challenges include a lack of overseas contacts, high start-up costs in exporting and still higher costs of compliance with regulations. The scheme provides financial assistance to Australian SMEs to tackle some of those challenges. The scheme is also facilitating growth in our two-way trade driven by our SMEs. It has generated over $3.8 billion in export earnings, it's helped support the employment of over 69,000 people and it has facilitated exports to 138 countries. So this scheme is functioning well, but in 2020 the independent review of financial assistance to SME exporters found several ways the government could, in fact, improve it. We must improve the functioning of this scheme as we continue to open up to new markets and emerge from COVID-19 in post-trade restrictions.
The review found that it's time to simplify, streamline, give certainly and make more timely payments to recipients of the grants. This bill will enact several recommendations that do this, including making funding more certain and less varied by providing an up-front grant, which will be especially helpful given current global trading conditions and the difficult conditions coming out of COVID for many of our SMEs. Further, education and training will be included as an eligible expense for the grant. The bill will also create a new legislative structure that allows the government to respond quickly to changes in market conditions and business practices. Business groups, such as the Export Council of Australia, have expressed support for the bill. The bill will help more SME exporters access the scheme and get much needed funds sooner.
Warringah is an internationally-facing electorate. We have many global travellers and many businesses who embrace global opportunities. Businesses in my electorate are grasping the opportunities of those export markets. There are some of the perhaps cheeky businesses as well—maybe unusual ones for ironmen, swimmers and beachgoers, and probably the previous member for Warringah! Every Australian should know about the iconic Budgy Smuggler Swimwear. Budgy Smuggler began in Manly. It has a factory just up the road. It's 100 per cent Australian owned and manufactured. When presented with a pair of Budgy Smugglers, Prince Harry, at the Sydney Invictus Games, said:
It doesn’t get better than that ... Only in Australia would you ever find something like this. It’s so wrong, but it’s wonderful.
The UK is now their biggest export market, followed by a rapidly growing French market. It's only right that the rest of the world should experience that touch of magnificent Australian beachwear. They were a beneficiary of the scheme as they attempted to tap into the export markets, but, prior to these amendments, they had issues with how the scheme reimbursed the up-front costs. Assistance was only given after the marketing expenses had been incurred and paid. As a growing SME, that was a hit to their cashflow and at times it was difficult. When learning about the changes to the arrangements under the bill, they said it would be a massive help to a business like them to be awarded 50 per cent of the grant prior to expenses being incurred.
Other exporters in my electorate who will benefit from the scheme include manuka honey exporters who are focused on growing the global market to $1.27 billion by 2027. Microbreweries are popping up all over Brookvale and Manly and export development is high on their list of priorities. The new arrangements in the bill are prudent and appropriate. It's my hope that businesses in Warringah will continue to heed the call of international export opportunities and use the scheme to broaden their horizons. I commend the bill to the House.
Exports make an important contribution to the Australian economy, but we know that the challenges and risks associated with exporting are significant particularly for SMEs at the start of their journey. There is no doubt that EMDG, which helps exporters overcome those challenges, is well loved. Over the last 45 years it has provided valuable assistance to over 50,000 SME exporters to grow export markets for their goods, services, intellectual property and know-how. Last year alone over 4,000 SMEs benefited, employing almost 69,000 Australians and generating exports worth $3.7 billion.
However, time doesn't stand still and, while the EMDG principles still hold true, the way we provide EMDG assistance needs to be modernised and simplified to meet the needs of a rapidly changing economy and global environment. These are unprecedented times, and the world economy that emerges from COVID-19 won't be the same as before. In this time of uncertainty, by changing EMDG from a reimbursement scheme to a more traditional grant program, we can provide Australian SME exporters with more certainty.
Unlike the current reimbursement scheme, these amendments mean SME exporters will know straightaway that they are eligible for EMDG funding and they'll know upfront how much money they will receive if they hold up their end of the bargain. That means they can plan with confidence whether they are exporting for the first time or growing and expanding to reach more customers or move into new markets.
This bill recognises each exporter faces their own challenges and takes their own export path. Together with the EMDG rules, which have been released for public consultation, and the administration guidelines, which are being developed with industry, the new program will take a flexible approach to determining eligibility and what will be required to receive milestone payments while maintaining accountability for spending the Australian taxpayer money.
We will continue to work with industry to shape the processes for the EMDG program before it becomes operational. We want to make the processes as smooth and user-friendly as possible. I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum in response to comments raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
.
It being 6.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Throughout the world and here in Australia, 2020 has been an extraordinary year. Notwithstanding the struggles and heartaches encountered everywhere there are few, if any, other countries in the world that any of us would rather be living in. That is in no way meant to diminish or trivialise the deep hardship that so many Australians have faced and continue to face, with their lives in turmoil through events completely outside of their control—including fires, floods, drought, export bans and COVID-19. Lives have been lost, dreams and aspirations have been shattered, and life savings have vanished. So many Australians are now trying to rebuild their lives, often having no ability to access government assistance. They have become the neglected Australians, whom the Morrison government prefers to deflect from whilst talking up the good news stories that distract from the harsh realities faced by so many others. We saw it in question time today.
Amongst the neglected Australians are so many young people, who are trying to plan their lives and pursue their aspirations. Their ability to do that is very much dependent on decisions made by governments today, and in particular, decisions about the issues that will directly matter to young people. These are issues such as climate change, because it not only directly impacts on the world we live in, including the environment and weather patterns, but also and importantly on the burden left to future generations. Climate change is real, and the latest CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology State of the climate 2020 report makes that absolutely clear. Air and sea temperatures are rising, with air temperatures being about one degree hotter since reliable records began in 1850. Ice sheets are melting and sea levels are rising, with sea levels having risen by some 25 centimetres since 1880. Greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, with CO2 levels now at around 400 parts per million compared with 280 parts per million on average over the past 2,000 years. Rainfall patterns are changing across the country, affecting the livelihood of so many of our farmers. Flora and fauna are being lost in ever increasing amounts. Droughts, fires and floods are also becoming more severe, and the direct cost to the economy of climate change issues is rising annually and now running into tens of billions of dollars. I don't think we have to look much further than last summer to see the effects of the fires then, and we already have fires raging in the country right now. They all come at a real cost to society.
These are no longer debatable claims but are supported by extensive worldwide scientific research and data recording over many years. Yet the Morrison government's response to climate change is tokenistic. It is a government content with adopting minimal standards and pushing the problems onto other nations or onto future generations. Of course, the Prime Minister will not be around to be held to account when the climate change impacts hit even harder in years to come.
Even other conservative governments and industry leaders are singling out Australia for its woeful commitment in reducing emissions. The Morrison government is only concerned with the next election. Young people understand that, and they also understand that climate change is real and that it affects their lives and that they will wear the consequences of the comforts of today's society.
The second matter that I refer to is how young people have been left behind by the Morrison government during the COVID pandemic year. According to a report released only yesterday by the Brotherhood of St. Laurence, youth unemployment reached a 23-year high in 2020 and youth underemployment is now also at record levels, with one in three young people unable to get enough work. I will quote directly from the press release put out by the Brotherhood of St. Laurence:
Youth unemployment, which reached a 23-year high of 16.4% in June, remained disturbingly high at 15.6% in October, with 337,224 young people unable to find work.
Marginal jobs growth since lockdowns ended in most states has largely been in part-time work, leading young people into an increasingly part-time, casual and insecure workforce.
Youth underemployment, which was already emerging as a major challenge before the pandemic, reached a record high of 23.6% in April 2020, and stood at 17.9% in October's seasonally adjusted employment figures.
COVID will impact on young people for years to come. The press release goes on to say:
The report also found that young women suffered higher initial job losses from the sudden closures of largely female-dominated industries such as hospitality, accommodation and retail, while men were more likely to be have their hours drastically cut.
That press release was only issued yesterday and is possibly the latest of the statistics that are available on this subject. It paints a very grim picture for young people in this country and it makes clear that it is young people, more than any other group, who are carrying the burden of the pandemic. We have seen that not only in respect of employment directly; the Morrison government has responded to all of those concerns in the following way. Firstly, at a time when young people are finding it difficult enough to get jobs and, if they do, those jobs are insecure at best, the government it wants to make all work even less secure. Secondly, the government cut billions of dollars from skills training across the country, so, again, if young people are trying to create a future for themselves with a skill and a vocational in a particular area, it has just been made even harder for them. Thirdly, as a result of the changes made by the Morrison government through legislation in this place only this year, we saw how university education will become even less accessible to more young people.
Now, it's pretty clear to young people that this is a government that doesn't particularly care about the future of young people, because the changes that this government makes, whether they're on industrial relations, on the matter of university education or on its response to climate change, will directly impact on young people into the future. In particular, the changes will impact on young people's ability not only to create the future they want but to even own their own homes, which has always been an Australian dream. Australian homeownership rates are already falling and rank well behind dozens of other countries, including the USA, the UK and Canada. For 25- to 29-year-olds, the homeownership rate in Australia in 1970 was around 50 per cent. In 2016, the last year for which figures are available, it was down to 37 per cent. It has dropped from 50 per cent to 37 per cent. For 30- to 34-year-olds, the homeownership rate was 64 per cent in 1971. In 2016, it was down to 50 per cent. It dropped 14 per cent over that period. That proves the point that it is the younger people, more than any other age group, who are being left out of the homeownership market in this country.
I would've thought that any responsible government would be trying to reverse those trends and give young people an opportunity to live the life that perhaps some of us who are a bit older have been able to. The Morrison government simply doesn't have a vision or a plan for Australia's future, and it will be young people who will pay the biggest price for that. In closing, I say that the future belongs to young people and it shouldn't be up to any of us here today, or any government of today, to steal that future from the young people of this country.
It's an understatement to say that, with COVID-19, this year may not have been the year we'd hoped for. But in Wide Bay we've achieved a great deal, and there's a lot to look forward to in the year to come. Firstly, construction is finally underway on the $1 billion Bruce Highway Cooroy to Curra section D project. The construction will create almost 600 jobs and enable faster and safer travel between Cooroy and Maryborough and ease congestion through Gympie. Most importantly, it’s going to save lives. This is a project that the Gympie community and I worked very hard for, and I can't wait to see it completed in 2024.
In Maryborough, construction of the Rheinmetall NIOA Munitions plant has remained on schedule. The main structure is nearly finished, with the final fit-outs to start soon. The coalition government contributed $28.5 million to this $60 project. Dozens of local workers and businesses have contributed to this state-of-the-art production plant, and it's going to create 100 local jobs when it's operational in March 2021. Also in Maryborough, DTM Timbers will officially open its $3.5 million laminated timber value-added production line. A $1.75 million commitment from the Morrison government secured this upgrade and will help boost the hardwood timber industry in Maryborough.
In Gympie, the expansion of Nolan Meats is nearing completion. Nolan Meats is now looking to fill 100 new positions in addition to the 100 jobs that were created during 2019-20. The coalition government contributed $4.98 million to double the capacity of Nolan Meat's production line facility, boosting local jobs and supporting the domestic and export markets for high-quality Australian beef. It's a solid investment that will create long-term jobs for the region—at the plant, for truck drivers, for cattle farmers and everyone in the supply chain. Also in Gympie, this year’s budget included $80,000 of our $100,000 commitment for Sun Coast Macadamias in Gympie towards its $200,000 project to improve operational efficiency, which will help develop the expanding macadamia industry in the Gympie area.
In Noosa, the beautifully upgraded Sunshine Beach Surf Life Saving Club is ready to help the tourism industry and economy bounce back from COVID-19. Its $7.5 million renovation received a $2.5 million contribution from the coalition government under the Building Better Regions Fund. This investment supported jobs for 30 workers during construction and six ongoing jobs. So it is a long-term investment in the economic future of Sunshine Beach. The upgrade was officially opened in February and, with support from the JobKeeper program during the pandemic, the venue and staff are ready and raring to go for 2021.
The Peregian Beach Digital Hub, which is being expanded with the help of a $2.5 million grant from the coalition government, will be a hive of activity and innovation throughout 2021 and beyond, through our funding programs to develop world-class firefighting technology. This includes $100,000 through an Entrepreneur's Program grant to help fund FireTech Connect, a program designed to assist technology start-ups developing solutions to prevent, detect, fight and recover from bushfire emergencies. New innovations will help with bushfire prediction, early detection, firefighting, communication and forensics, and FireTech Connect is bringing together mentors and experts to help fast-track solutions like these into commercial deployment. A further $100,000 grant, through the Regional Tourism Bushfire Recovery Grants program, will help the start-ups put their technology on the world stage, with a FireTech International Conference. Also at the Digital Hub, Fireball International will receive $500,000 through the Entrepreneurs Program for an innovative new system that could detect bushfires in as little as three minutes, significantly reducing both the human and financial cost of wildfires.
Noosa-based company Helitak will be able to roll out its state-of-the-art firefighting technology during 2021, with a $497,500 Accelerating Commercialisation grant to help expand its capacity. Helitak is taking strides towards bushfire control by adapting an expandable underbelly water tank on Super Puma helicopters, assisting with aerial water bombing to protect lives and properties during bushfires. With bushfires currently burning on Fraser Island as well as the ones we experienced at Peregian Beach last year and throughout Australia, it is great to see Noosa emerging as a centre of excellence for technologies that help tackle these wildfires. The Pomona Showground will also have a brighter future, with an $85,000 grant to reinvigorate the main arena under the Regional Agricultural Show Development Grants Program, while the Building Better Regions Fund has delivered $20,000 to upgrade the 30-year-old toilets and showers at the Cooroy Badminton Club hall and $60,000 to assist with the program for the NOOSA Alive! 2021 festival.
Disability support organisation Sunshine Butterflies will continue to make a huge difference in the lives of many families next year. It received $20,000 through round 5 of the Stronger Communities Program to provide air conditioning in its activity shed and $20,000 in Communities Environment Program funding to rejuvenate a dam at the Our Backyard facility, improving habitat for 3,000-plus native species in the Cooroibah area.
Still in Noosa, Noosa and District Landcare is using $49,000 from the Smart Farms Small Grants program to reduce sediment volumes in Lake Cootharaba and boost the catchment's soil health and farm productivity with its Keeping It In Kin Kin project. Lake Cootharaba is one of Queensland's most popular natural spots as well as being an important recreational drawcard and water resource. This is a win-win for the environment, farmers and the whole community.
At Murgon there are two significant developments under way. The new RSL drop-in centre is nearly completed and is expected to open early next year. This project was funded through a $450,000 election commitment. It created 40 jobs through construction and will create several ongoing jobs. Most importantly, it's a place where our veterans can get the support they so richly deserve. There's also headway being made with Murgon's new $1.6 million Creative Country Association cultural centre and fossil museum, funded by the coalition government, which will create ongoing tourism and economic benefits for the South Burnett. Next week in Maryborough a new headspace service will open, providing mental health and support services for young people aged between 12 and 25. And on the local roads, work is finally starting on the Tinana overtaking lanes, which was announced back in 2018. This is a $14 million investment by the Commonwealth government.
In wrapping up, before I finish I want to say a very special thank you to my staff for their work through 2020. This has been an extraordinarily difficult year for so many people. We come to this place in parliament and take all the accolades and good wishes, but behind us is a dedicated team of people who really do make us look good and look after our communities.
At the beginning of the pandemic, when there was so much uncertainty in the office, I asked my team if they wanted to close the office or keep it open. They said, 'Llew, if Centrelink is open we need to be open too.' I was really proud of them showing such dedication to their community. To Simon, my chief of staff, to Ray, Barb, Clementine, Dean, and Vicki, thank you so much for all you do for the people of Wide Bay.
Over the weekend I was proud and honoured to join with local members of my community and the Vietnamese Community in Australia Queensland Chapter to celebrate their 45th anniversary of settlement. You can see the badge I'm wearing, which I proudly wear in the parliament of Australia today. It was a presentation from the community for this significant event. For many Vietnamese who have arrived in Australia over the past decades this occasion is really one of deep reflection and, for many, a period of mourning. The Vietnamese Australians that I represent—and I note that the member for Fraser, who is a strong advocate for Vietnamese Victorians, is in the chamber today—left behind the country they love and the families that were torn apart, and this country welcomed them with open arms. After thousands of South Vietnamese were forced to flee encroaching communist forces in 1975, many arrived and settled in Australia. The suburbs of Inala and Darra in the electorate of Oxley were especially welcoming to these new arrivals, and I'm proud to say today that many of those families still call those suburbs home.
The words loyalty, perseverance, caring and kindness are the words that I choose to describe Vietnamese Australians. They are a proud group of Aussies who love this country but have never forgotten the country that they left behind—the country they were forced to leave by the communists, who still today are torturing and holding people in detention without trial and without justice. I want to extend my thanks to Vietnamese Australians for the extremely warm welcome that they've given me, first as the councillor and now as the federal member for Oxley, but also for the extraordinary contribution that they've made to our cultural life and to our economy through a whole range of endeavours. Vietnamese Australians are a wonderful success story.
I want to extend my sincere congratulations to my great friend, the president of the Vietnamese Community in Australia Queensland Chapter, Dr Cuong Bui OAM. Dr Bui and his wife, Dr Kim Bui, are remarkable Australians. Dr Bui suffered his own health issues recently and was injured, but he was standing there proudly representing the community on Sunday at the event that I attended. He has given hours of effort and advocacy to represent Vietnamese Australians in Queensland and right across the country to make sure that their voices are being heard in this chamber and in other parliaments across Australia. While celebrations may have been a little smaller due to restrictions to safeguard the community from COVID-19 it was critical that we continued to commemorate the sacrifice made by so many Vietnamese in coming to Australia and the hard work and dedication that have made them such a valued part of our community.
The Vietnamese community will never give in to the oppression of the communist regime and will never stop fighting against those who continue to deny human rights to the Vietnamese people. Human rights violations are continuing to happen every single day, with the Vietnamese government regularly convicting and imprisoning journalists and activists for the 'crime' of speaking out for truth and justice. Just last week I joined many members of parliament as I participated in the world's largest human rights event right here in Parliament House with Amnesty International. Chau Van Kham, who I've been advocating for years, is an Australian detained in Vietnam for his political beliefs. I met again with his wife and expressed my concern and calls for the Australian government to put maximum pressure on the Vietnamese government to have him released. I'm proud to stop and remember the courage and resilience of the Vietnamese community in Australia and to remember the ongoing fight for a free, fair and democratic Vietnam.
Last week I was honoured to attend the Riverlife Baptist community church, who put together a Christmas dinner for international students who are not only away from home this Christmas but have been struggling to afford to pay their rent and their university fees because they've been out of jobs. This government has left many international students behind. There has been no support from JobKeeper or JobSeeker. There has been no income support for many students that are studying in this country and who through fault of their own are unable to return home. But thanks to organisations like Riverlife in my electorate—that wonderful church with Pastor Robyn Robertson, who has been such a champion in standing up for the rights of people who don't have a voice—we were able to gather on Friday evening to give them an Aussie Christmas, a Christmas they are unable to spend at home with some of their families. I'll continue to speak out for many of these international students. Not only is it the right thing to do; it's also the right economic decision to make. The international student market is Queensland's third-largest export, and as we move safely towards a vaccine we need to restart our foreign and international student market and ensure that those students are warmly welcomed into this country—not tossed aside, not left behind, but included in our community. So thank you to Riverlife for all the work that you've done.
I also want to thank all of our emergency service personnel, all of our volunteers and all of the wonderful members of the Oxley community who have pulled together during this year. The year 2020 has been like no other, as we've heard time and time again. But I'm proud to see that my community has really pulled together to make sure that people have looked after one another.
Thanks to the Queensland government—led by the Premier of Queensland and one of my state members, Annastacia Palaszczuk—Queensland has led the way, despite fierce opposition from members of the Morrison government and from Premier Gladys Berejiklian. She stared them down. She made sure that Queenslanders' health was put front and centre. We had a litany of those from the Prime Minister down to ministers in the cabinet of Australia, bullying and demanding that the Queensland Premier open her state's borders. Well, she defied them, and she listened to what Queenslanders wanted and ensured that their health and economic safety was put forward.
The impact on small businesses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Oxley electorate has been tragic for some 13,000 businesses. We've seen many local businesses suffer. I want to acknowledge all of my state members: Jess Pugh, the Member for Mount Ommaney; Charis Mullen, the member for Jordan; Lance McCallum, the member for Bundamba; and Leeanne Enoch, the member for Algester. All of them have worked incredibly hard, with their offices and staff, to look after our community by visiting business owners, supporting their families and giving the utmost support and respect to all of the community workers who have delivered support during this unprecedented time. I've never been prouder to represent the south-west suburbs of Brisbane and Ipswich than when I have seen my local community rise to the challenge of the COVID-19 outbreak over the past few months. It has been simply remarkable. We've had so many community groups, businesses and organisations contact my office, looking for innovative ways to help those in need. By working together, we've seen many vulnerable Australians, who would have otherwise fallen through the cracks, being heard and supported and cared for during this difficult time. On behalf of everyone who has received your support and care during this time, I thank you and salute you.
I want to mention the incredible dedication of the community groups, churches and emergency relief centres who have stepped up to the mark and supported our community. To all of our churches and volunteers, particularly as we head towards the Christmas season, when the demands are strong and the demands are high: I know our churches and our faith leaders will continue to offer the support of friendship and the hand of generosity. So thank you to all of our community for looking after each other.
That level of care and dedication is exactly what Australia needs. We need initiatives that look after all Australians—and do not forget the 40,000 Australians who are still stranded overseas but were promised by the Prime Minister that they would return by Christmas. As Labor MPs, on this side of the chamber we will always prioritise to make sure that Australians are getting back into jobs, students are getting back into schools and the economy is getting back on track and families are in a better place than they were before.
It's been an honour to be the federal member for Oxley this year, to see firsthand how generous our community is. Some in my community do it tough, and they are battlers. But I know that it is due to the generosity and care of so many that they have got through this pandemic so well. We're not out of the woods yet. We've still got a long way to go. But I know that, by working together and supporting each other, we'll continue to make our community a stronger, safer and more inclusive place to live.
The federal government's decision to invest into the Environment Restoration Fund demonstrates an understanding of how significant and time-sensitive the protection of our threatened species is. Over the course of the next few years, significant resources will be poured into worthwhile environmental initiatives, including those which are focused on protecting threatened Australian species. A new grants round, which includes a $6.78 million expansion to Australia's network of environmental safe havens, will further protect those species in need.
Safe havens are fenced areas and islands, free from predators and pests, which enable threatened species to prosper and, hopefully, to progress to coming off the threatened species list. They are vital in the fight against extinction and in ensuring balance is restored and maintained in our ecosystem. In addition, they prove valuable to scientific research and to the collection of scientific data. From safe havens, we can better understand the needs of our threatened species, prevent species from becoming threatened and potentially reintroduce locally extinct populations into their native environments.
The area of the Environment Restoration Fund that specifically concerns Australia's native mammals is the Threatened Species Strategy, which has already established 10 fence projects, free from feral wildlife and predators. However, under the expansion of the Environment Restoration Fund, many more will be established. At this point, there have been five islands identified as worthy of environmental intervention and in need of feral cat eradication. Feral cats have been successfully eradicated from many other islands, including Dirk Hartog Island in Western Australia, which has since seen the reintroduction of once locally extinct native fauna. The reason for the eradication of the feral cats is that they pose the greatest threat to our endangered mammals. They have contributed to the extinction of more than 20 mammals since their introduction to Australia and can be found in 99.8 per cent of Australia. It is necessary that, in addition to establishing further save havens, we develop and advance our technologies aimed at culling their populations.
Island safe havens, as opposed to those on mainland Australia, are significantly easier to establish and prove an efficient means of protecting endangered Australian mammals, due to it being far more achievable. However, it will be required that safe havens are established on mainland Australia and better systems of population management and safe haven maintenance will need to be devised. The federal government has this year announced Flinders Island in South Australia and French Island in Victoria as further key safe havens within the network of Australian wildlife safe havens. The more safe havens that can be successfully established the greater chance we have of restoring populations of native fauna, balancing and maintaining ecosystems, and ultimately caring for and taking responsibility for our environment.
The rolling out of the $6.78 million grants round will operate under a system of triage and will filter down to the species that aren't considered under high threat. The time-sensitive nature of assisting and enabling threatened species an opportunity to recover means the focus must be directed to the species in greater need. The overall objective of this program is to reduce the risk of extinction and to repair the damage done to native wildlife populations through the spread of urbanisation, deforestation and an array of other environmentally damaging consequences. The available funding of $6.78 million will go to a number of environmental initiatives, with the minimum grant being $300,000 and the maximum available being $1.8 million. This portion of the Environment Restoration Fund will focus solely on safe havens and protecting threatened mammals species in Australia. Other portions of the funds will be announced in coming years.
Other initiatives that the Environment Restoration Fund will focus on include protecting Australia's coast, oceans and waterways through improving water quality, with clean-up, recovery and recycling of waste. It is not only important to establish these safe havens and to work towards rebuilding native Australian wildlife population but it is necessary to mend natural habitats across Australia and ensure the gradual reintroduction of Australian species back into the wild. The result of the Environment Restoration Fund initiative will benefit not only local communities but also regional and local economies.
The tackling of feral cat populations is one of the main priorities for protecting Australian wildlife, not to mention the flow-on effects it has on agriculture and tourism. Too many species have entered the threatened species list and it is important that all these creatures be saved from that list and that they reach a point beyond extinction which is why money allocated towards this initiative is so important to both Australian wildlife and the environment in general.
As we continue to advance technologically, greater emphasis will need to be placed on cybersafety and security online. That being said, it isn't only through online mediums that people will fall victim to scams and fraud. Scam calls are a serious problem—the consequences of which affect all Australians, young and old. Major Australian telecommunication companies have made significant efforts and attempts to limit the number of scam calls that are received, but these people are very, very clever and they know how to get around some of our smartest telecommunications workers.
This year alone Australians lost almost $36 million to scam callers, which is far too much and a figure that would ideally be reduced to zero dollars—that's what we're after. The federal government in light of the severity of the issue has unveiled the reducing scam calls code, which will require the major telecommunication companies to make not just a normal effort but a concerted effort in dealing with scammers. The new industry code will require all telcos—not some of them, all of them—to detect, trace and block evil scam calls as a means of prevention rather than cure. Because, if we're looking to cure something, we'll have to create a list.
Over 30 million scam calls were blocked this year alone prior to the introduction of the new industry code. However, improvements could still be made and it is hoped that these new requirements placed upon telcos will return a greater number of blocked scam calls and save the Australian people millions of dollars over the next few years.
The new industry code, in addition to outlining what is required, once identifying a scam also outlines what constitutes a scam. We all know what a scam might be, but it's important that we outline it in a code and how best to detect it. The reducing scam calls code is designed to protect Australians and suppress the number of scam calls that get through every day to Australians. To those that fall victim, the financial consequences can be devastating. And, as many people know, there is little that can be done once you have fallen victim to a scam. This is why it is so important to aid in the prevention measures implemented under the new reducing scam calls code. There is no silver bullet; indeed, there isn't a golden bullet. There is no bullet or blanket solution to reducing scam calls, and scammers will undoubtedly continue to find ways around anti-scam efforts.
That's an interesting act to follow! Tonight I want to make some remarks regarding Australia's relationship with the government of the People's Republic of China. I would start my address by noting the words of President Xi Jinping, President of the People's Republic of China, when he addressed our nation's parliament on 17 November 2014. He said:
Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, while China and Australia are oceans apart, friendly contacts between our two countries have a long history. Starting from the early 19th century, many Chinese began to arrive in Australia by ship. They gradually integrated themselves into the local community and they made an important contribution to Australia's development—
which they did.
In the first half of the 20th century, Chinese and Australians fought together in two world wars and jointly upheld world peace and human justice. In 1972, China and Australia entered into diplomatic ties, which opened a new chapter of friendship and cooperation in the relations between our two countries.
This was in November 2014. I was actually there, and I'm sure you were too, Deputy Speaker. He went on further to say:
Our national legislatures maintain regular exchanges, which serve as an important platform for exchanging views and experiences of governance.
President Xi also stated:
As an old Chinese saying goes, the ocean is vast because it admits numerous rivers. It is the steady streams of mutual understanding and friendship between our two peoples that have created the vast ocean of goodwill between China and Australia. I am greatly heartened by the immense support for China-Australia relations in both countries.
Those encouraging words were made six years ago. They spoke of a relationship that was deep and growing, a relationship built on trust and mutual benefit, a relationship that would have been—could have been—enduring and strong.
Let's talk briefly about Australia. Australia is one of the most multicultural countries in the world. We have a rich history of Chinese migration to Australia, of which you would know, Deputy Speaker, from the time when you were immigration minister. According to the Chinese Museum in Melbourne, the first Chinese person to migrate to Australia did so in 1818. Many more Chinese began coming to the Australian colonies in large numbers during the 1850s Victorian gold rushes. Chinese Australians serves as Anzacs during World War I. Chinese and Australian soldiers served side by side during World War II. And, as has been widely noted, Australia, in 1972, was one of the first nations to establish diplomatic relations with China.
As an example of our trade relations, Australia has a growing diplomatic network in China that includes the embassy in Beijing and consulates in Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu, Shenyang and Hong Kong. There are also 11 Austrade offices across greater China assisting Australia businesses to enter markets and to promote Australia as an investment, tourism and education destination. Most Australian state governments are represented in China's leading commercial centres. Australia and China share about 100 sister city, state and province relationships. Moreover, according to DFAT, in 2018-19—obviously, pre-COVID—there were over 1.4 million visits to Australia by Chinese nationals, which contributed not only to the Australian economy but also to increased understanding about Australia in China.
Australians, I would say, have admired the fact that nearly 800 million Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty to join what is called the global middle class, because it provides enormous opportunities for both nations. We have noted the establishment of the Zhongguancun centre in Beijing, which is home to 10 science parks from which have sprung a lot of innovation companies like Lenovo, Baidu and a hundred other high-tech giants. This is an intellectual hub, home to three university campuses: Tsinghua, Peking and the people's university, Renmin. However, as two mature countries, one a great power and one a middle power, which we are, together we must acknowledge the challenges in our relationship. How do we discuss the list of what is interestingly called the 14 grievances, which was given to our free press? How can we possibly accept an outrageous tweet by a diplomat of the Chinese Communist Party that disparages our service men and women? How do we ignore disruptions to the supply of an ever-growing list of goods that we export to China: wine, barley, beef, lobsters et cetera.
I note that it is said by those who seek to find division in this relationship that we imposed our foreign interference laws to arbitrarily punish China. That falsehood cannot stand. From a Labor perspective, I would say that I, as deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in 2018, played a fairly significant role in the passage of this legislation. These laws were prepared to offer us protection from threats by any nation or party that threatened our national security and our national sovereignty. Those in the Chinese Communist Party would know that we are a sovereign nation like China and that we have a right to protect our interests. A national act of self-protection is not an attack on any particular country; it is us taking what actions are necessary to defend our democracy.
There are a number of other what one would call interesting discussion points that are made in these 14 grievances, relating to banning Huawei technology, ZTE from the 5G network, and what are called unfounded national security concerns. But the key issue is this: we have been an important, reliable, dependable and trustworthy trading partner with China—and we continue to be so. It is not we, as in Australia, that have sought to create division in this relationship. I think what I would say to those that are listening to this is, as I said: Australia has a right to defend its national sovereignty. It has a right to embark upon, as the Chinese government does, legislation and measures that protect its nation from foreign interference, foreign espionage, cyber intrusions and anything like that—an attack on our national integrity and our structures, if you want to use that term. Making that an excuse to damage the relationship between our two countries is a falsehood.
But the key point to make to those that are listening is that this parliament, this united parliament, will continue to pass laws that protect Australia's national sovereignty. Those that might be on the outside commentating about what we will do and what we must do to protect our national sovereignty are false prophets. They should not be listened to. If people are watching and trying to predict what Australia will do in terms of its national posture on foreign relations, on national security, they should pay attention to what happens here in this place. The bipartisanship that continues to exist on national security, on foreign relations, on our place in the world, and our future together.
So I say to those that might be listening from that great neighbour up north: we will continue to protect our national sovereignty. That is an unambiguous point. That's not for debate. But we do offer, obviously, a continuing effort to offer our trades, goods and services. To conflate one issue of protecting our nation with trade is false. What I see is China damaging itself. I think that nation 10 years ago had great goodwill amongst the world's people, amongst the G20. Its treatment of Australia is being watched very carefully. Its mistreatment of Australia is building and contributing to alliances against China in the world. I would urge those within the government to cease this. There is an opportunity here for people of goodwill to pull back and to think about what they want to do next. You know where we stand. The ball is in your court.
In contributing to this grievance debate, I wish to draw the attention to the parliament to three priorities projects within the Moore electorate which would benefit from federal funding in conjunction with commitments from state and local governments. Unfortunately, the current coronavirus pandemic has delayed many local projects. However, we must work hard to get them back on track.
Firstly, the planned connection of Whitfords Avenue with a realigned Gnangara Road has been delayed for several years, hampering local economic development and holding back the creation of jobs. The commitment of $2 million was made ahead of the 2017 state election; however, the design and construction of works are yet to commence.
The project will improve access to employment and services in the Wangara industrial and commercial area for local commuters. This critical east-west route through the heartland of the Moore electorate will complement the recently completed traffic bridges, linking the Joondalup and Wanneroo communities at the intersections of Joondalup Drive and Ocean Reef Road with Wanneroo Road. Local residents will be able to commute to work much more easily.
The project contains two elements: firstly, the realignment of Gnangara Road to meet Whitfords Avenue; and, secondly, the construction of a roundabout on Wanneroo Road at the new intersection with both the aforementioned major roads. It is a project which requires joint cooperation of the City of Wanneroo and Main Roads Western Australia. The project has bipartisan support from local, state and federal members of parliament.
Brett Raponi, Liberal for Landsdale, has been working hard to generate local support to advance this project with the Liberal state opposition, committing $10 million towards the project, if elected. Local landowners have plans to invest in the construction of new commercial buildings along the realigned Gnangara Road frontage with national tenants ready to establish stores, creating local jobs.
In the current economic climate we cannot afford to have this project delayed any longer. I call upon Main Roads Western Australia and the City of Wanneroo to cooperate more closely in delivering this infrastructure without further delay. There is significant merit in a federal funding contribution in the budget towards this critical piece of infrastructure.
Founded in 1958, the Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club has a membership of 1,768 financial members, including a junior base of 640 Nippers. The current clubhouse facilities are close to 40 years old and require significant redevelopment in order to provide modern facilities for the lifesavers who patrol our popular beaches, keeping our communities safe. In order to meet the needs of the current and forecast membership base, support the development of junior and youth members, and provide necessary training and community services, a redevelopment concept plan has been proposed by the committee to increase the internal building floor area of the clubhouse, and storage and operational areas, including an external courtyard, deck and wash-down areas.
The surf club redevelopment has been in process for several years. However, it has been frustratingly slow to advance the design and secure funding. It will be desirable for the project to be expedited with key milestones and deadlines agreed upon to achieve timely delivery of the redevelopment in line with community expectations. It is essential for all three levels of government—local, state and federal—to work cooperatively together with the private sector to secure the necessary funding and corporate sponsorship to upgrade our local surf club.
Hodge Collard Preston Architects have been engaged by the City of Joondalup to prepare a concept design for the redevelopment and, as the local government authority, will take the lead role in project management. It is estimated that the renovations will cost approximately $8 million and, as patron of the Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club, I'm actively working to bring all parties together to cooperatively support this essential and very worthy redevelopment.
I strongly make the case for federal funding contributions in future budgets towards the development of the Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club. Surf lifesaving is a community service which literally saves lives on our beaches. Our lifesavers are operating from cramped facilities which are close to 40 years old. A federal contribution towards the new clubhouse facilities in conjunction with local and state government support is warranted.
Several surf clubs in the eastern states, such as the North Cronulla Life Saving Club, received building grants of up to $2.9 million. Point Lonsdale SLSC received $650,000 while Long Reef surf club received $1.9 million, so the precedent for federal funding has been established.
The redevelopment of the Heathridge Park precinct in my electorate is an exciting priority project which also requires funding from all three levels of government. The popular venue is used by thousands of local residents for sporting and community purposes. A number of local clubs utilise the grounds with ageing club room facilities, including the Ocean Ridge Junior and Amateur Football Clubs, the Ocean Ridge Junior and Senior Cricket Clubs and the Ocean Ridge Tennis Club. The current clubhouse buildings are more than 30 years old and inadequate to meet the needs of our growing population. Larger and more modern change rooms, toilets and club room and kitchen facilities are required in order to meet the needs of a growing number of junior and female participants in sport such as women's AFL.
In 2019, the City of Joondalup commenced a needs analysis and feasibility study for Heathridge Park. The study highlighted inadequacies with the ageing infrastructure and the outdated design, and the fragmented location of existing buildings causes operational issues. The study demonstrated that the redevelopment of Heathridge Park will assist with meeting the needs of existing and future users. A draft master plan has been prepared of the redevelopment for community consultation. The estimated construction costs associated with the redevelopment are approximately $15.7 million. The City of Joondalup, as the local government authority, will take a lead role in the project management. A federal funding contribution in the budget towards the redevelopment of Heathridge Park, in conjunction with local and state government funding, will benefit a number of sporting clubs which use the facilities, including the Ocean Ridge Junior and Amateur Football Clubs, the Ocean Ridge Junior and Senior Cricket Clubs and the Ocean Ridge Tennis Club. Strong community support has been registered through a petition, in cooperation with Sheldon Ingham, the Liberal candidate for Joondalup, who is also actively working to support the redevelopment. The current clubhouse buildings are more than 30 years old and inadequate to meet the needs of our growing population. The City of Joondalup has released a master plan of the redevelopment for public consultation and, as the local government authority, will take a lead role.
In concluding my contribution to this grievance debate, I make a strong case in this parliament for a federal funding contribution towards these three priority projects in the Moore electorate—namely, the connection of Whitfords Avenue with the realigned Gnangara Road, the redevelopment of Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club and the redevelopment of Heathridge Park. These represent projects which are long overdue to meet the needs of our community.
The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:28